Skip to main content

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty
(1999)

(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its punches in favour of affirmation over body blows, boasts a breezy zest in its comfort-food philosophy.

For that’s surely the main explanation for its massive success: that, whatever you think of its choices, it conjures a rare alchemy of accessibility in apparently accessing themes many in its social bracket were feeling but were going unexpressed, with enough wit and faux-poignancy to feel as if it was saying something deep. A deep popcorn movie.

It is, of course, a masquerade of depth, and if not for Alan Ball’s subsequent similar exercises, I might have put this down to the different approaches of writer and director: the writer’s vehement satire blunted by the director’s urge towards the palliative. Certainly, elements in Ball’s script were dropped by Sam Mendes – making his debut, and a journeyman “auteur” if ever there was one – most notably the element of the bookending in which Ricky (Wes Bentley) and Jane (Thora Birch) are convicted of the murder of Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey). Ball was of the view that excising these made the picture more optimistic, with a “really romantic heart”. Which entirely makes sense, as Lester is upbeat about his demise, and the fates of everyone else are left open. It’s notable too, that prior to Mendes involvement, Ball was persuaded – against his own judgement that such an attitude was puritanical – that it would be better for Lester and Angela (Mena Suavari) not to have sex, in order that he complete his redemptive journey (and so keep the audience on board with it).

Now that seems like a no-brainer, as you’ll find few not taking issue with Lester’s behaviour anyway, as a manipulative opportunist obsessing over an underage girl; he needed every scrap of redemption he could muster. Particularly when he’s played by Spacey. But such is the writing of the piece, and Mendes’ instinct to ally us with Lester, the picture wants us to empathise with him even as he’s being earmarked – by his daughter, by his wife – for his perversity and irresponsibility. Partly, this is encouraged by his having the biggest wish-fulfilment identification factor possible on his side, that of the worm turning.

So the antiquated idea of the diminished husband comes to his aid, something we can now never trulyget to grips with because Lester is played by Spacey; even at this point, he was associated most famously with psychos and smooth-tongued hucksters. He’s ladled all the best lines, be it reacting against shrewish wife Carolyn (Annette Bening), who practises the kind of positive thinking that would make Noel Edmonds proud, or taking his firm to the cleaners when he is ousted from his job. He gets to act like a kid again – working out to get toned, Angela-attracting pecs, smoking weed, listening to rock music, flipping burgers at Mr Smiley – embracing a life of reaction against the responsibility that has engulfed him. And who wouldn’t want to (react against such responsibility), presented in as unapologetically aspirational and endorsed a fashion as it is here?

Lester’s a gift of a role, and Spacey duly runs with it. It’s a role made for awards, as much as Randall Murphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and if it has a transgressive element, all the better (then, rather than now). The problem is, Ball fails to afford or accord balance elsewhere. Carolyn is perfectly played by Bening, but she entirely doesn’t engender our sympathy, a position Ball continually underlines, whether it’s via Lester repeatedly wondering where the woman he fell in love with went, her worrying about spilling beer rather than enjoying a passionate embrace, or Lester not taking it any more by throwing a plate of food against the wall. Everyone here is a degree of caricature – it’s closer to Heathers in tone (complete with playful score by Thomas Newman, brother of Heathers composer David) except that it lacks the razor-sharp, take-no-prisoners steeliness – but the dice are always loaded in Lester’s favour.

Is it a problem that American Beauty makes Lester likeable? I’d argue only if you come away with the idea that you aren’t supposed to question whether you should find him likeable. American Beauty’s palatable brand of existential angst is afforded to all its characters, but some more equally than others. It’s a sleight of hand that Lester’s option for release appears more valid than Carolyn’s, because Lester’s is more crowd pleasing – it’s funnier, it allows him to do the things he shouldn’t do, dared not do, to cross and transgress societal norms and (legal) boundaries.

But Ball’s sense of this angst is strictly limited; it can only lead to a reframing of rebellion within an essentially materialist (philosophically, that is) framework. So Lester has the options of getting stoned, living in a hovel, or dropping out. What possible other way is there than emotional regression (as has been noted, this is the grammar of societally reactive stablemates Office Space and Fight Club from the same period, trading in a similar dissatisfaction with affluent western culture, but with a reluctance to embrace the purely nihilistic – albeit the latter flirts with it, in a show-offy way – there is a retreat to a place of recontextualising, with the simpler contentment of divesting oneself of unnecessary immediate baggage, usually defined as “stuff”)? Well, Carolyn’s option is sexual reinvigoration with her business revival (Peter Gallagher), which is pretty much the same thing, but in plot terms, she’s positioned as the antagonist.

The other alternative, to give Ball, credit, is to embark on a genuine voyage of spiritual self-discovery. Unfortunately, to retract that credit immediately, his exploration of this idea is via Wes Bentley’s offbeat teenage misfit seer Ricky Fitts, who falls between a number of stools, none of them entirely plausible even in the American Beauty’s cartoonishly heightened milieu. On the one hand, there’s a taut reasoning in his method of dealing compliantly with the demands of his militaristic father (Chris Cooper). On the other, he’s portrayed as a can-do overachiever, the sort who’ll end up a Silicon Valley millionaire, building a small empire as a pot dealer and seemingly having an answer to any conundrum (to everything except the one of his dad).

This entrepreneurial nous is somehow supposed to go in tandem with Ricky’s starry (some might say psychotic)-eyed ability to see the beauty of the title in the most unlikely things, from plastic bags to Thora Birch’s Jane (I hasten to stress the latter is in the movie’s terms, as a contrast to Suvari), to – most tellingly – Lester’s serene corpse, brain matter splattered everywhere. There’s an entirely facile quality to this singular perception, this appreciation of beauty, one that is so literal it invites ridicule (and, with the plastic bag, has duly received it). It’s junk-food philosophy, Little Book of Calm style, designed to give one a brief glimmer of something filling and fulfilling but leaving one wanting again an hour later. And, unless I’m missing something, any sense of the satirical entirely doesn’textend to Ricky’s perspective (it’s notable too that, while he is afforded considerable time, the other teenage – female – characters are, like Carolyn, almost entirely reactive to the male in their age group. And if not to him, to Lester).

I’d stress that, while I’m entirely less than convinced of the acumen of Ball’s explorations of theme, I revisited American Beauty expecting to find it guilty of grossly inflated value, hoisted far beyond its worth. And while it’s true that I don’t think it deserved Best Picture – how many winners truly do – it’s entirely more interesting because of its inappropriate ideas and delivery than less so.

I mentioned Heathers above, and I was struck by how much, in dreamy, mood terms, Newman’s score compares to his brother woozy work for that film. So too, there’s a heightened, lush quality to Conrad L Hall’s cinematography – Mendes, as debut feature director, wisely allowed himself to be guided by the veteran’s instincts – that informs the tone of the picture as much as the screenplay and score; together they create a sense of a presiding whole. It’s only when you gaze into the package that, like plastic bag blowing in the wind, it becomes clear how so much of it is at variance with itself. You could argue it’s style over substance, but that wouldn’t be entirely fair; it’s more that the substance itself is frequently glib in its attachments and reach (in that respect, Ball is pre-empting the assumptive air of much prestige TV drama of the next two decades). Ball was simply the latest, less overtly spiritually-inflected but just as audience-friendly incarnation of the Bruce Joel Rubin brand of Hollywood’s fake-out quest for meaning.

Where I really don’t think American Beauty works, and this is only exaggerated on revisit, is the murder plot. True, Lester’s nonchalant Sunset Boulevard-esque from-beyond-the-grave narration announces that it isn’t all about the guilty party, but that only makes Mendes’ focussing on the same the more intrusive. The opening with Ricky and Jane discussing murdering Lester is one such, but so is Jane’s target practice and the attempt to build up the final act (“the day I died”) with intrigue. There’s so much else going on, it feels consequently the more unnecessary. As do the plot mechanisms that lead Cooper’s closeted colonel to kill Lester.

The unlikely conflation of misunderstandings is the stuff of puerile comedy – indeed, the sequence where he thinks Ricky is going down on Lester only needs a laugh track – that might have been, and probably was, found in actual homophobic movies of the 70s or 80s, and is no more resistant to interrogation for being played straight. It compounds this by requiring entirely unlikely interactions (“Let’s get you out of those wet things”) to push Frank to tipping point. I don’t know, perhaps in Ball’s original envisioning this somehow worked, with a grimly humorous streak, but as directed by Mendes, it’s farce without the laughs. Mendes was right to displace the emphasis from the whodunit element, but he probably needed to go further (although, you can only go so far before unravelling the entire fabric of the picture).

Is American Beauty a good movie? Is it a bad movie? It’s a difficult movie, but I think that’s a good thing. I’d much rather an Oscar winner was problematic and compelling than simply anodyne, and I’d rather rewatch it, for all its flaws, than most of the victors of the subsequent two decades. I think that’s partly because it comes armed with an authorial voice, for better or worse, and so little since has. It’s still the most interesting thing Mendes has done (Revolutionary Road may be more overtly mature and respectable, but it’s less engaging with it), while Ball may have ridden higher with Six Feet Under but lost most of that cred with the subsequent True Blood. Whether, of the other contenders, it was the most deserving, its undoubtedly – if you can ignore the “post-9/11” naysayers – the most identifiably of its era film in the running that year.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.