American Beauty - A Portrait of American Society

[Monotreme]

I wrote this essay in Microsoft Word where it takes up 6 whole pages, and it refers to pretty much every plot point in the film, so only read it if: A) you have seen American Beauty and B) You have some free time on your hands.



Introduction

The film medium has always been first and foremost a form of entertainment. But every once in a while, there comes a film that dares to question certain taboos or subjects that are particularly hot among society; films such as The Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men, On the Waterfront, Do the Right Thing, Philadelphia, Crash, and others. These films throw into the spotlight certain subjects that society normally tends to avoid. One film that belongs in this category, though, is the one that is the most unlike any of the others I mentioned. That film is American Beauty, and what sets it apart from the other socially relevant films throughout history is that American Beauty is allegorical, and does not force feed its subject matter to its audience.

On the surface, American Beauty is an extremely entertaining and fast-paced comedic drama - hilarious at times, heavy at others; and expertly made quite unlike any other film in recent years. But if one dares to “look closer”, as the film’s tagline on the poster says, one will find an extremely grim, dark and pessimistic portrait of American society. The entertaining, bittersweet film starring Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening is simply sugar-coating for a message far grander and more epic than any of the other socially relevant films mentioned before. But, like an onion, one must peel off this attractive packaging to discover something far more profound. The film can be divided into a few separate layers, all of which labour towards delivering the ultimate message, the bottom line of Alan Ball’s unprecedented, poignant screenplay.

The American Dream

The three primary aspects of the American Dream are: freedom, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the surface - in a way comparable to Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”, American Beauty can be seen as an extremely wayward and unique ode to the American Dream. Lester and Carolyn are living the most classic contemporary fulfillment of the American Dream. They are married with children, have a big house in the suburbs with a large yard, an SUV and a rose garden; both are successful and ambitious hard-working citizens, who live an above-average life and are living the American Dream. Basically, one can see the film as a story about a series of characters, each of which discovers that the version of the American Dream that they are living is actually a false one. Lester happens to be the first character to discover this, but his wife, daughter and some other characters soon follow. But the film focuses on Lester, and so shall I. It becomes very clear to us that Lester is not living the American Dream. He may present a certain façade, but when his hide is peeled away, one can see that he is not free, he is not prosperous, and he is certainly not happy. His entire life is a farce implementation of the American Dream. And so, after making it clear to us that he feels like he’s “dead already”, Lester decides to resurrect himself, his life. He finds it is much easier to prosper if he blackmails his boss, instead of actually working. He finds that he is only free when he releases himself from the chains of his wife, social norms and taboos - hence, he is indifferent to his wife’s infidelity and instead courts his teenage daughter’s friend Angela - who is underage, and 30 years younger than Lester. He finds that he is only happy when he does what he wants, when he wants it - and such becomes Lester’s view on life over the last few days of his life. On the one hand, Lester’s journey of self-discovery and self-fulfillment - his finding and living the TRUE American Dream, TRUE happiness and freedom - is a very positive thing. But social norms are bent. Work is not done. Taboos are broken. And Lester’s crusade of honesty and freedom harms many of the people around him. This leads me to the ending of the film, but I’ll get to that later.

Secrets and Lies

The film’s tagline, “look closer”, does not only apply to the film. It also applies to the characters. On the surface, these characters are all-Americans - patriots, living middle-upper scale lives in suburbia, the definition of the American Dream. But if one looks closer at these characters, one will see that every character in the film has a secret. In addition to this, every character in the film hides behind a certain façade, a shell that keeps their secret… well, a secret. This façade comes in the form of the projection of an image - an image that usually completely negates the character’s true feelings. As the film progresses, the characters’ secrets are revealed; their façade collapses. Some are revealed early on, some are revealed right at the end of the film - and the order of the revealing is crucial. The characters whose secrets are revealed earliest are the ones who most easily break the social norms expected of them. The characters whose secrets are revealed latest are the ones who most adherently confirm to social norms, the part in society it is expected for them to play. Let’s recap, in order of revelation of the secrets.

Lester Burnham emits a façade of happiness and fulfillment of the American Dream - As I mentioned before, Lester lives in a big suburban house with a large car parked in front, a seemingly happy family, and generally projects an “image of success”. But as he explains to the audience during the opening voice-over monologue, he is not happy. He is not prosperous or successful. And he is not free. Lester is the first to break free of the chains of society’s norms. He quits his job and blackmails his boss, goes out and buys the car he always wanted as a child (along with an assortment of other toys), gets a high-school job flipping hamburgers, and starts working out in his attempts to openly woo his teenage daughter’s friend, Angela.

Jane is next in line - the image she projects is that of a gothic rebel, who wears lots of make-up and is indifferent to everything that occurs around her. But fairly early on, we learn that Jane is actually very insecure about herself. She is browsing breast augmentation website - a sign that she is insecure about her body. While Angela manages to remain indifferent to Wesley, Jane, who pretends to be indifferent about him as well, takes note of him from the start. It takes her a while, but eventually, Jane opens up to Wesley and starts seeing him, while at the same time distancing herself from Angela. She also starts to wear less and less make-up as the film progresses, the film’s subtle hint that she is slowly gaining confidence about her life.

Carolyn shares Lester’s façade of a successful and happy suburban American life, but being independently employed means that Carolyn’s image of success that she projects is much stronger and more extreme than that of her husband. She even fools herself with her false confidence, which leads to Annette Bening’s single greatest moment in her acting career - after a day in which she fails to sell a house, she breaks down crying and then literally slaps the sense back into herself. Her secret? Like Lester, she is not at all successful, prosperous or happy, even though she projects an image that she is. Her solution? She starts seeing Buddy Kane, the Real Estate King. And by seeing I mean attains a strong, physical relationship with him while cheating on her husband behind her back. And yet, she finds the experience redeeming - she gains self-confidence, becomes aggressive and powerful, finds happiness in a purely physical relationship, and prosperity by sleeping with the town’s leading Real Estate agent and her business rival.

Ricky Fitts is next. His secret is far more obvious than the previous ones. While projecting an image of a reformed juvenile delinquent, Ricky is actually still an active and very prosperous drug dealer. In connection to the American Dream theme, Ricky finds prosperity in drug dealing, which is certainly not an average day job, especially not for a teenager. In a more subtle fashion, while Ricky projects the image of an honest, wide-open weirdo, he is actually very sensitive to things such as love and beauty.

The last three characters are the ones who most fit their niche, their place in the cogs of society. These are the characters whose secrets are revealed right at the end of the film. Throughout the film, Angela projects an image of extreme happiness which is borderline sluttiness. She makes it clear to everyone that she is a slut and that she has slept with every guy in school, and whomever can’t handle that isn’t good enough to be her friend. She emphasizes her natural beauty by not wearing much make-up, and her confidence is further boosted by the thought that an older man (Lester) longs for her. She jokingly returns his flirtations, but when it becomes clear to her that Lester, who has reformed a long time ago, is actually very much going to do whatever it takes to get Angela, her biggest secret is revealed to us: She is a virgin. As Jane’s self-confidence is boosted by her relationship with Ricky, Angela’s self-confidence takes a nosedive. It’s as if she needed people like Jane to feel good about herself, and is unable to cope with the change that she won’t have that type of supporting character in her life anymore. In another subtle gesture, Angela begins to wear more and more make-up as the film progresses, to emphasize the decrease in her self-confidence. Angela doesn’t know how to deal with the revealing of her secret, and finds herself on the Burnham’s staircase, alone and crying her eyes out.

Col. Fitts, Ricky’s father, is the last to reveal his secret - and it is his secret that is the most well-hidden and contradictory to the image he projects. Fitts projects the image of the patriot all-American - he is a war veteran, disciplines his son with violence, and is an adherent racist and homophobe. He projects an image of alertness and extreme toughness; a hard shell nobody can crack. But the truth is far from it. Fitts is a lonely and extremely sensitive man. Furthermore, he is a closet homosexual, despite projecting extreme homophobia. It is his character that is the most important in terms of how he chooses to deal with the revealing of his secret. While Angela, who also can’t cope with her secret, cries on the stairs; Col. Fitts chooses to take an even more extreme action, and murder in cold blood the man to whom he revealed his secret to - Lester Burnham.

Barbara, Ricky’s mother, also has a secret, although she is the one character whose secret is not revealed to the audience or to any of the other characters. That secret is the reason behind her strange almost mentally damaged behaviour: her blank expression, her almost dazed trance-like state, and her strange, random remarks. This secret is not revealed or explained to us. The reason? I think that Alan Ball is playing the sarcasm card here. Sarcastically, he is implying that Barbara is the character who is most in place in the social cogs, is most firmly in her social niche - and that is her place as the stay-at-home-mother who cooks food for her husband and son; washes and cleans; worries and silently observes as her husband disciplines their son, not intervening on her own. Again, Alan Ball isn’t a chauvinist - quite the contrary, he is criticizing the chauvinistic viewpoint on the woman’s place in society.

Lester’s Murder and the Bottom Line

The movie ends with Lester’s murder. It is essential that Lester is the one who is murdered because he is the one character in the film that is most open about his secret, who has completely stripped himself of his façade and acts exclusively within his new set of rules, of liberties and ways of conduct. I see this as an act of retribution. While Lester’s new liberties are very self-redeeming, he is throwing the entire fabric of American society, all of its rules, limitations, regulations and taboos, completely off balance. By being open about his secret, about the hidden feelings every American has, he is throwing off the delicate balance of society. And for this, society must put him out of commission. Only by quelling the rare cases in which a citizen breaks free of the chains that society’s norms and regulations put on him can the cogs of society continue to turn. It is crucial that the character that murders Lester is the one character whose secret is most well-kept - Col. Fitts. He is the one character who most fears to step out of his place in society, which is why he is the one who puts society back into balance by taking out the rebel. Ricky is also somewhat open about his hidden secret, at least to some characters like Jane and Lester - not open enough about them to throw society off-balance, but certainly enough to create a disturbance, which again brings to the disciplinarian (Col. Fitts) to smack him back into place - as he occasionally beats Ricky, as seen in the film.

The bottom line? I warn you - it’s a depressing one. Basically, every American supposedly “lives the American Dream” - a happy family life which is prosperous and free. But this is only a façade, a shield Americans hide behind. And under this façade, secrets brew. True feelings. These feelings are not universal - every individual has a different problem with the system. Some people are unhappy with the way the government operates, but support every decision it makes. Some people present their family in public as very happy and close, but are constantly and viciously fighting within the confines of their own home. Some people say they are proud of their work, when actually they are miserable. Many teenagers adhere to certain norms their peers adhere to, when in actuality they are completely different people. The list goes on, but the point is clear - the quintessential American lifestyle, the whole “land of endless possibilities”, “leader of the free world”, patriotic mindset is a farce, and there are truly happier, freer and more prosperous ways to live. The depressing part? This is a society that can only function when every individual operates within his place in society. When everyone adheres to social norms, rules, regulations, taboos, etc. Obviously, Lester’s murder is figurative - but the point is that those who break free of these regulations and rebel against the fabric of society will be quelled and shunned to keep the cogs moving. Rebellious culture and mindsets will never be mainstream, because the mainstream, although it secretly harbours such feelings of rebellion itself, has taught itself to shun these feelings.

Unanswered Questions

While I am pretty confident about my analysis of the film’s major points, there is still one loophole, and that is in Lester’s relationship with Angela. If his relationship in Angela was the central symbol of his rebelling against the social system and norms that kept him chained and prevented him from being free and happy, And if he is murdered at the end of the film as retribution for breaking free of said norms, then why does the film not let Lester go all the way with Angela, let him have sex with her as he so desired throughout the entire film? For his attraction to Angela is one of the main drives that kept him going forward with reforming his life. The only logical explanation I can find is that Alan Ball was throwing in a little bit of irony here. Lester actually realized on his own that by rebelling against society he is actually throwing it way off balance and stopping the cogs from turning. And yet, he was murdered in order to keep the cogs turning - even though he had come to the conclusion that what he was doing was wrong on his own. Either that, or I am digging way too deep into this film.

Summary

I always say that 1999 was one of those rare years in which the Academy really hit the nail on the head when it came to giving out the Best Picture award. There have been many other years in which the Academy gave the prize to the film that was actually the best in that certain year, but never before has such an unprecedented masterpiece of film actually been able to WIN the Best Picture award in addition to a whole slew of Oscars, not to mention be nominated for them in the first place. Fact of the matter is, as entertaining and accessible as it is, American Beauty is essentially a symbolic, allegorical, quirky art film. Among the other nominees in that year, it seemed more logical to me that a film such as The Green Mile or The Cider House Rules, both fine but very traditional films, would have taken home the grand prize; but instead, the Academy chose the critical favourite, a post-modern art film with an actual message behind it. And for that, I really have to remove my hat - it ALMOST makes up for the unforgivable and unprecedented win of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan the year before. In any case, American Beauty is truly a modern masterpiece - an intelligent, witty and extremely deep film with a strong message to tell, all tied together in a very glittery bow crafted by masters of the medium - the cast (namely the two stars Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening but also the supporting players), the director Sam Mendes, screenwriter Alan Ball, cinematographer Conrad H. Hall, composer Thomas Newman… everyone worked to create one of the most flawlessly and brilliantly crafted motion pictures of recent years.

While it received quite a bit of flak for being too sentimental, I stand by my opinion that American Beauty is a modern masterpiece right up there with the likes of Pulp Fiction. While I must give the slightest edge to Magnolia in terms of my favourite from 1999, both films are one after the other in my top 100 list, and both are in my top 5.

It is also interesting to note that this film, which is essentially an extremely deep and complex study of the American value system and of American society, was directed by Sam Mendes, who is actually an Englishman from the United Kingdom. Three other recent films who, like American Beauty, serve as very complex studies of American society, were incidentally also directed by foreign directors - The Ice Storm from 1997 was directed by Ang Lee, who is from China; 2004’s Dogville was directed by Lars von Trier, who is from Denmark; and 2005’s A History of Violence was directed by David Cronenberg, a Canadian. Is it possible that their not being American gives them a neutral standpoint when it comes to judging American Society? Or are they just a bunch of pretentious bigots who should keep their nose in their own nation’s society. Personally, I’m rather inclined to the former (except in the case of Lars von Trier, who I think is one of the most painfully pretentious filmmakers working today. The other three are totally ace directors, though. Interestingly enough, Sam Mendes continued his study of American society in his next two films, both of which deal with very strictly American subjects: Road to Perdition - the great depression and gangsters in the 1920’s; and Jarhead - the first Gulf War.)

[chinton]

Wow that was amazing.

The weird thing about AB is that while I agree it fantastic and it deserves the award Im always a bit resentful as I thought Magnolia should have gotten the BP. Still great movie.

[JCPhoenix]

Great essay, I thought I was only going to read a little bit but I ended up reading it all...

I especially liked your points about Barbara (Ricky's mother) and Lester's murder (the person most open about their secret being murdered by the person with the most well-kept secret), those were things I hadn't really thought about that much when watching the film.

[Joshmo]

I really like AB, but its basically writer Alan Ball's (who is outspokenly gay) attempt at painting those who lead or try to lead traditional married hetero lives as stifling themselves and repressing their freedoms, while the gay couple are propaganized (written) to be the only ones in the movie who "have it together" like the tag says - "Look Closer" (including writers of movies) Thats my (condensed) essay

8/10 - Still, as far as having its propagandic agenda, its a damn good movie that does reflect not American Society, but merely a portion of it.

[zombievictim]

Wow, that was extremely well done. I felt inclined to read it since American Beauty is one of my favorite films and I'm glad I did.

[darkface]

Lester didn't go all the way with Angela, because once he realized she was a virign, I think reality came back to him. He was in a different state of mind. "Mid-life crisis" The irony that I find is that he was so normal, that he starting becoming abnormal. Doing things that most wouldn't do. The funny part about that is, everyone experiences something similiar to this during their lifetime. They hit that stage and realize that their life feels meaningless, and they're at the half-way check-point in life till they die. So when lester becomes abnormal, in a way, he's still the normal mid-life crisis type. Guess I got too in depth too.

Anyways, once he realizes she's a virgin, he snapped back out of it. He was brought back down to where he was, and should be. He's finally come back to his normal self and instead of looking at the things he hasn't done in life yet, he's seeing all the accomplishments he's made so far changing his point of view on life. Once he becomes normal, he's murdered. It's sad, but a neat way to end it.

Good essay.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I agree with most of what you said with the exception of what you said about Shakespeare in Love, I used to think that but then I rewatched both of the movies and Shakespeare in Love is just a better movie in my opinion.


Anyway, there are a couple of things in your review that I would have mentioned. One of the central themes of the movie is love and what it really means to "fall" for someone. Ricky and Jane start a serious relationship, but notice how quickly it all happens. Could it be that what they were feeling was love, or just an easy way to relieve themselves from the pain around them?

I also think that the film is a lot more critical of Carolyn that people think. At the beginning of the film, we can see that Carolyn has worn down this former party animal into a tiny knub of a human being. She condescends to him and alienates him constantly. Her behavior towards Lester also has an influence on Jane, who also hates her father. As a result, Lester becomes a cranky jerkoff who smokes lots of pot and tries to impress his daughter's slutty friend.....who might remind him of a Carolyn before their marriage fell apart. To top it all off, she whores herself to a narcissistic real estate dickhole.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I also think that the film is a lot more critical of Carolyn that people think. At the beginning of the film, we can see that Carolyn has worn down this former party animal into a tiny knub of a human being. She condescends to him and alienates him constantly. Her behavior towards Lester also has an influence on Jane, who also hates her father. As a result, Lester becomes a cranky jerkoff who smokes lots of pot and tries to impress his daughter's slutty friend.....who might remind him of a Carolyn before their marriage fell apart. To top it all off, she whores herself to a narcissistic real estate dickhole.

Great point. Let's not forget that she's also a materialistic bitch who cares more about Lester pouring beer over her $400 couch than the intimate moment between them that Lester initiated. Notice also how Lester compliments how great Carolyn looks; from her reaction, it really looks like Carolyn thinks that Lester likes her blue dress, and not her. But as critcial as it is during the duration, even going as far as setting up Carolyn as a monster who is about to murder Lester... in the end, the film has mercy on her, and she sort of reforms in the end and realises that her life is so much better than she makes it out to be. Then again, after Lester is murdered she collapses into the wall of his coats hanging in the closet, which seems to me as if her entire perception of Lester was a materialistic one... that's a very interesting direction I did not think about before. Well spotted, Brando

Anyway, thanks for the compliments. Trying to think of the next movie to write an essay on. I'm leaning towards The Hours, but if I get any better suggestions, I'll take them.

[Kevin Lockard]

I agree except for that couch remark. I mean, I think Lester is the cranky jerkoff in that scenario. It is a high priced couch and no one is gonna just sit there and be intimiate and let beer pour on the couch. That would just be silly. All he had to do was put it down someplace else right fast.

[chinton]

I still say that the film has one of the best closing monologes ever. The last line always give me chills.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
I agree except for that couch remark. I mean, I think Lester is the cranky jerkoff in that scenario. It is a high priced couch and no one is gonna just sit there and be intimiate and let beer pour on the couch. That would just be silly. All he had to do was put it down someplace else right fast.

Technically, I agree. But what I got from that scene was that Lester felt rejected and caught off guard by her seemingly dismissive non/half-response to his affection. Considering how shitty their marriage had been for years ("what happened to that lovely young lady I fell in love with?"), combined with his general unhappiness with his life (which had drained him of all his exuberance/energy...he felt "sedated" and generally depressed), it seems reasonable to me that he'd be a little edgy most of the time. Then comes a rare moment of bliss with his emotionally estranged wife, he's wrapped up in that moment, feeling elated, not expecting it to end so abruptly (or by his interpretation, rudely), and for a brief moment, he's actually happy for a change...........then BAM! His wife interrupts that blissful moment over a damn couch, some superficial material posession, way less important to him than that moment of bliss with the woman he fell in love with. He panics...."but it's just a couch" (while thinking..."C'mon, we were having a moment here. I thought you loved me for a second. Fuck! This can't be happening!"), desperately trying to keep his cool. Then suddenly, she LOSES her cool and starts yelling at him. This negative energy catches him off guard, and hits him pretty hard, and as an emotional reflex, he throws a fit....understandably so, at least from my point of view.

I'm over-elaborating, but you get the point. He not only felt rejected, but stabbed in the gut by her sudden hostility, so he freaked. The couch (to him) was merely an object he cared far less about than his wife.

[biglaughs]

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a film be so well analyzed or extinsively reviewed. Your essay is a very good read, well done, mate.

[deftdelivery]

Good shit here, my man. I like your excellent summaries of motifs and themes throughout the movie. Kept me interested - and a glorious movie indeed.