Tips for the McDonald’s Customer, from Behind the Counter
Before I say anything, I should probably state that all of the comments in this blog post are the sole opinion of the blogger and do not reflect the corporation McDonald’s in any way, shape or form. That I know of anyway; I’m just one of the many McDonald’s workers on the front lines.
I’ve been working at McDonald’s going on 6 weeks now, and I have learned a lot of things about human nature that has encouraged me, but more likely than not, discouraged me. In that spirit, I hope to write a brief post with a few numbered tips for the average McDonald’s customer. Many of them are pretty common sense (but we all know how common common sense really is). Others however might have never occurred to most people. There are some tips that may only apply to me as a worker; I can’t say that I speak for other workers. But with those caveats, here I go. Also, they are in no particular order of importance.
1. Please use a polite voice when ordering. You may think that being rude doesn’t affect the workers; but it does. If you have a tone of voice like we’re stupid, we pick up on it and are probably more likely to get your order wrong just because we’re upset with you.
2. If I ask you a question, it’s because it’s important. I’m trying to make sure we make your order as accurate as possible; so it is worth your time to answer my question instead of getting angry that I’m asking it.
3. If you have a big diesel truck or some sort of vehicle that makes a lot of noise, please turn it off while ordering. You might not realize how loud it is for the person taking your order, and so plead ignorance on that case. But if there is any doubt at all, please go ahead and turn it off real quick. If the order taker is repeating your order incorrectly every time you get something, that may be a clue that they can’t hear you, they just might be too polite to tell you.
4. Please do not get angry at the McDonald’s workers for high prices or anything of that nature. It really is out of our control, and we can’t do anything about your complaints. Also, keep in mind, at least for my area, there may be different prices depending on which McDonald’s you go to. For instance, the McDonald’s I work at has fudge sundaes for 1.29, but the McDonald’s a town over has them for a dollar (remember, Oregon doesn’t have tax).
5. If you have a complicated order, please consider going inside. Really, you will probably save time by being able to explain face to face with an employee instead of trying to explain it to a box. There is a person in the box, but depending on how many people are staffed, the drive thru person might be responsible for not only taking your order, but also taking your money. That reminds me of my next point…
6. If we ask you to repeat something, it might not be because we are stupid and didn’t understand English the first time you said your order. A lot of times I go ahead and tell someone to order before taking someone’s money, because I can give change and plug in the order at the same time. But if the person who is giving me money has a question and needs to change their order, or just wants to complain or something, I may have to listen to them and miss your order while you’re rattling off in my ear. Please just have some ounce of understanding that I am doing the best I can to multi-task.
7. If you are going to order your sandwich special, state how you want it at the beginning. Don’t say, “I want 3 hamburgers.” And then wait a few seconds before stating, “Can you take off the pickles on only two of them?” This is a bad example, because that’s pretty easy, but just take my word for it, please state how you want to change them quickly and clearly.
8. But not too quickly either… if you’re rattling off an entire order, and you throw in some specialized sandwiches in the middle, it’s going to take me longer to make sure I get them the way you want them in the computer. Most McDonald’s have a screen that you can follow the order on. You may want to track with what I’m putting in, and pace yourself according to what’s on the screen.
9. Also, I realize this might be hard with big families or a lot of people in a vehicle, but if you can say the total amount of sandwiches you want, that is often helpful. I realize it is usually easier to go by what each person wants. If that’s how it has to be, I definitely understand; however, if it is a case where you have two separate people who want the same sort of special sandwich, say a cheeseburger with no onions or pickles, it is more complicated for me, and if it’s more complicated, it will take me longer to ring it up. Let’s see if I can try and explain the process. So say Jim orders a cheeseburger with no onions or pickles. I hit “GRILL” then “Cheeseburger” then “no pickles, onions.” The end. But then if Jane also orders that same sandwich I would either have to hit “Cheeseburger” then “grill” then do the same thing. Most of the time I get flustered though and I forget that’s how I can do it, so I end up hitting “zero” for cheeseburgers, and then hitting “2 Cheeseburgers” then “Grill 2″ then do the no pickles, onions thing. It’s much easier to start off putting “Grill” “2 Cheeseburger” “No pickles, onions.” I don’t know if any of that make sense; if not, just take my word for it. Some of it might just be habit. I get in a habit, and if you don’t put your sandwiches together, it cramps up my habit for how I ring up the order. Which again, means the more time it takes me, and possibly the more chance i’ll get your order wrong.
10. Changing your mind results in the same problem as above. If you originally wanted a cheeseburger with only ketchup, but then after I plug it in you decide, oh wait, you want pickles too, that’s complicated. Especially if the cheeseburger is the only thing you wanted. I can’t make an order zero, so I just have to plug something random in while I delete the original sandwich order and start over, then I have to go back and delete the sandwich i plugged in that you didn’t want.
11. If there is a big line behind you, please do not take a long time ordering. Or let me rephrase: take as little time as possible. While you’re in line, why don’t you try and figure out what everyone wants? Often times you can see parts of the menu, or you’ve probably seen enough commercials to at least guess. If you come up to the thing and you haven’t considered what you want at all, and there’s a whole line behind you, that makes people impatient, and usually they take it out on me, so please be courteous to them, and by extension, to me.
12. I’ve mostly just talked about ordering food items so far, but what about when you come to the window? These are kind of random preference things, but I’d prefer if you didn’t give me a$100 bill at 7 in the morning. Or $50 for that matter.
13. Also, keep in mind that the money you give me I’m going to have to give to someone else. I guess I understand it’s McDonald’s, we’re not that fancy of a restaurant, so we are the first on your list for getting rid of your raggedy bills. But I always feel bad when I have to give someone beat up money because that’s what I have in my drawer. Not a big deal, but something you might want to be aware of.
14. Oh I forgot to mention, there are those who speak really quiet in the speaker. Please don’t. We can’t hear you. You don’t always have to yell, but if you’re talking as if you’re telling someone a secret in a crowded room– don’t.
15. And in that line of thinking, when I first say, “Hi, Welcome to McDonald’s, can I take your order?” Or something of that nature, please at least acknowledge that you heard me. This is probably just a preference thing, but if you just sit there, maybe because you’re still deciding or whatever, it’s fine that you need more time to decide, but why don’t you tell me that? Otherwise, I get worried that maybe my headset messed up and you didn’t hear me, and then I end up repeating myself and feeling foolish. Also, you might get mad if I repeat myself after I already said I could take your order, but it’s not because I’m trying to rush you, I’m just not sure if you heard me.
16. Cell phones don’t bug me too much, but I know some McDonald’s have signs saying please don’t use them in the drivethru. What really upsets me actually is when people are having domestic disputes in their car as if I’m not there. It doesn’t happen too often, but it is awkward, whether I can hear them through the intercom or outside the drivethru window.
17. Another thing: Cigarettes. I get it if you want to fill your car up with cigarette smoke; that’s your right. But please don’t sit there and smoke while you’re in the drive thru if you can help it. I had one guy I had to take his money from him and give it back to a hand that held a cigarette. That just bothers me. It just seemed a little rude, is all.
18. This one doesn’t happen too often, but if you do want me to break a bill for you, don’t want till I’ve given you your change, tell me right away. That way I can do it while the drawer is still open. If you wait till I give your change back, I have to go get a manager’s code to open the drawer again.
19. Flirting. Easy. Don’t do it. Okay, it might be funny, in a creepy sort of way… but I’d really prefer if you didn’t wink at me, or stare at me funny. Common courtesy and respect apply; just because I’m wearing a uniform doesn’t mean I’m not a person just like you, with thoughts and hopes and feelings. And a boyfriend.
20. Just a common rule of thumb; if it’s a bigger McDonald’s there will be at least two windows, and the first one will be the money and where we originally took your order. I can change your order until I plug in the money you gave me and get the cash register to open, so take advantage of that. If you want things like jam, syrup, ketchup, dipping sauce, etc. just ask at the last window.
Well, 20 seems like a relatively round number. Sorry some of them are kind of long… maybe I’ll go back and condense this at some point, leaving only the most important stuff. But for now, please don’t eat too much McDonald’s… but if you do come thru, and I happen to be working… these are some good rules of thumb.
Words of wisdom… from an adulterer?
I was reading an Op-ed piece about the governor of South Carolina who just ran off with his mistress in a huge scandal. I didn’t realize that’s what it was about; the subheadline declared, “Conservatives used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot,” which caught my attention. A few lines in however I found a link to the emails sent between the governor and his mistress, and I was curious and began reading. I was a bit surprised to find myself feeling sorry for the man, because although his actions are inexcusable, his humanity dropped from every line and I found myself pitying him. “I remember Jenny, or someone close to me, once commenting that while my mom was pleasant and warm it was sad she had never accomplished anything of significance. I replied that they were wrong because she had the ultimate of all gifts — and that was the ability to love unconditionally. The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level — to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are — not what we can get, give or become.”
Words of wisdom from an adulterer. Who would have thought. But perhaps it is not all that surprising that an adulterer ends up hitting the nail on the head when it comes to humanities desire for love.
“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.” ~ Moulin Rouge.
Colleges in Poor Economic Times: Where Does Calvin Fall?
Upon recommendation of one of my teachers to read the New York Times, I get the headlines sent to my email every day. Usually I read the headlines if nothing else. I realize that’s sort of cheating… but that’s not my point. Today I actually read a number of articles, one of which caught my attention because it concerned a college from my home state of Oregon: Reed College. I’ve been to Reed a number of times, often for Latin gatherings, and it is well-known for both its academic rigour and anti-Christianity, despite being “free-spirited.” This article talked about how Reed had to pick students they thought were less qualified to be admitted because they had more money and could pay their way. No longer was the choice about only merit. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10reed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th.
Within that article was a link to another article on the word “climbing walls.” The article was talking about how colleges were in the business of meeting consumer needs, although Reed was trying to resist that, because as Reed’s president put nicely, “The whole point of higher education is we know something you don’t.” It’s not supposed to be about what the consumers have claimed they want so you give it to them. You offer them something that they don’t have and inspire them to want it: education. Maybe that’s too idealistic: maybe nowadays education is not attractive enough for people. People were once concerned with things like duty and honor but now are only interested in fulfilling their wants and their self-seeking: like the Dursleys from Harry Potter. (Thanks to Mr. Plato for making that connection so brilliantly: Voldemort is certainly evil. But so are the Dursleys, and they are the ones that we could easily become if we aren’t careful). Here’s the article I read about consumerism in universities: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/jacuzzi-u-a-battle-of-perks-to-lure-students.html.
So with these two things in mind, where does my own university fall? It has recently made a huge sports complex, undoubtedly for the sake of having a perk that attracts mainly athletes. I think if a vote had been taken with all the Calvin community as to whether that was a good idea or not… well those who weren’t excited about it might be in the minority, but they would at least be well-represented. But, what’s done is done. What’s next for Calvin is renovating the Fine Arts Center. New classrooms, and better facilities for music and other fine arts. That, I certainly approve of for its educational value, perhaps because one of my majors (English) is one of the departments being renovated. And, to be fair, I do appreciate Calvin’s understanding that we are embodied creatures and our bodies are important, unlike the Christian strain that is so platonic and only focused on our soul(er, form) that will one day be freed from our body and will get to go to heaven. Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is here, but not yet- but even when it is fully here, it will be a physical kingdom, not simply spiritual. But forgive me; I’ve run off on a non-related tangent. I just hope Calvin does not fall prey to the patterns and habits of educational institutions in the world, and instead holds to a more Christian understanding of what it means to run an institution. That’s a hard balance, and I wouldn’t suggest that I would do any better. But I do hope that it is at least continually thought about.
Movie Review: Angels and Demons (And my return back to this blog)
I have another blog now at theotherjournal.com. When I agreed to blog for them I was an enthusiastic new college student, ready to take the world by storm. Throughout the year, I discovered that despite my good high school education, I still had more to learn. Much more than I anticipated, really. Along with finding other things made a priority in my life, since blogging during my high school days tended to be a defense against loneliness. Those things made blogging a chore, and something I had to do, and many weeks I just couldn’t think of anything blog-worthy. I hardly read blogs anymore, either, so that didn’t help.
But, this summer, I am no longer living with 40 people. My boyfriend is roughly 2,000 miles away. I have a part time job, but who knows how much that will occupy me (or have any sort of fulfillment in my life). So, I have decided to resurrect this blog (for something other than school projects). This will give me an avenue to blog about whatever. The other blog they said I can write anything, the important thing is that I write, but I can’t just write thoughtless things on that site. I feel like it has to really intertwine the theme of church and culture, and if it doesn’t, I’m at a loss.
I’ve ended up writing about TV shows a lot on my other blog, sort of on accident, but that’s the only thing I’ve been doing for entertainment. I haven’t had time to read much, and so it’s just TV and movies. So here’s a blog about a movie. Maybe I can get the entertainment stuff out on this blog (although most of my seasonal shows are over). Then I can find more academically rigorous and philosophical things to say on the other one. =)
I watched the first Dan Brown novel made into a film after reading the book. I, unlike the predominant church culture at the time, was not scared out of my mind for how people would take the book/film in terms of Christianity. It certainly is not that kind to religion in general, since the plot of the book basically argues that the Catholic church has been harboring all these secrets for so long. That’s not why I enjoyed the story, however. I really liked Brown’s way of piecing together the puzzle pieces in an action-packed novel that I couldn’t put down. The movie couldn’t quite do it justice, but it wasn’t bad.
This time, watching Angels and Demons, it’s been a while since I read the books, I just remembered I enjoyed this one more than the last. And after watching the movie, I remember why. This one has all the puzzle piece mystery thriller aspects that I enjoyed the first time, while being much more sympathetic to the church. Religion is not just a side-plot in this movie as it is so often if it is brought up at all… Roman Catholic practices are integral to the plot. Thousands of extras were used to play devout Catholics who were upset about the Pope’s death, and they were not shown to be just mindless sheep who turned to religion out of fear. Instead, faith was praised. The Harvard Professor, who as an academic, could not understand God because his head told him not to. He was asked what his heart told him, and he said that his heart told him he didn’t need to. (His substitution for “belief” by answering with “understand” is interesting to note). He said faith is a gift, one that he had not been given yet. Weird! The atheist got religion right in a way that many Christians would not be able to articulate. I pity Brown, because that character is probably him. He’s the one who knows church history better than those in the church do, and yet his heart-head battle is too strong, and he is not receptive enough to the gift of faith yet. But there is definitely hope.
In the film, there are also corrupt priests, of course, and Brown certainly does not paint a clear and easy picture of 
right vs. wrong. The character who would be most likely to be called the antagonist saved the lives of thousands of people, and everyone had the impression that he should be made a saint and recognized as a martyr. I remember in the book the struggle between religion and anti-matter in the hearts of individuals was much more pronounced, like the priest who helped research it and discover it. He wanted to create anti-matter as a testimony to God, not as a way to show that science could out-do God. But of course, often the church tries to create something (like watches) for spiritual purposes, but the secular forces are much to strong and use the item for their own purposes. (Watches were meant to keep order for monks who had a set schedule on which they prayed the psalms. Now watches serve the purpose of the god of capitalism).
While I watched the movie, I could not help but wonder how on earth they filmed everything, and how much it cost! So much artwork is included in the movie, just as it was last time, and historically places. It was beautiful, and you’d have to check another site to see how much of it took place in a Hollywood studio and how much didn’t. I did read a source that was remarking how much the Pope disliked this movie… well, or what he thought this movie must be. The Vatican staff said they did not even read the script, just heard the name “Dan Brown” and assumed it was anti-religious. Because of that, they refused that it be filmed in much of Rome and the Vatican. Ewan McGregor, who plays the most controversial and perhaps anti-Catholic character, does not think the movie is anti-Catholic: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7586038&page=1. But regardless of whether it was actually filmed in the Vatican, it was very convincing, and very well filmed, I thought, from the point of view of someone who has never taken a class on the subject.
And with that, I am going to move on again to thoughts of my time in college. Because college really kept me humble. I mean, I thought I had everything all figured out in high school; I felt my education was better than all my friends, and so when I went to school, of course I would still be a step ahead of everyone. And while that was true in some senses, in others it was completely wrong. So many people were smart in their respective fields of interest, whether it was film studies, or even my own major, philosophy. I could hardly keep up with conversations about philosophy in class and out of it, despite being a philosophy major. It worried me. Thankfully I found a home in English… there I could talk about things intelligently, among other intelligent people that I didn’t feel simultaneously threatened by.
I hope to continue writing here throughout the summer, perhaps as a relief from my McDonald’s job. Yes, you heard right, McDonald’s. I have a blog post somewhere about the evils of consumption, and McDonald’s is as good a corporation as any to represent that whole world. But, I am just a minimum wage employee who will work my designated shift, making sure the well-oiled machine that is McDonald’s continues to see another day with happy customers. It has to be better than using marketing ploys to get my friends’ parents to buy knives. The most important difference is: these customers come to McDonald’s. They have already decided they want to buy things. Now maybe my mannerisms and friendliness and efficiency will have an affect on whether they will come back, or if I can get them to add anything to their meal, but I dont feel like I’m constantly trying to trick them into something they didn’t ask for. Perhaps I’ll change my mind, but right now, I have no ethical qualms about working for McDonald’s.
VS. 
Phaedrus Part 5: Rhetoric, Writing, and Friends
The semester is wrapping up, and finals have begun. I just got done with my sociology exam, and one of the questions was how did sociology relate to my major. Plato’s statements about what make a good rhetorician go hand in hand with my answer: he says, “a nature needs to be analysed,” reflecting the infamous phrase, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” It is true though; my sociology textbook explained that sociologists try to examine things in a way that does not take the “natural” for granted as being “natural,” but instead makes the familiar strange. So it is in philosophy, an authentic person is someone who is aware of things and thoughtful, contemplative, and perhaps analytic– not just on autopilot, going through the motions. Because being thoughtful in this way makes people closer to truth, according to Plato, their natural skills as a rhetor are going to be more wholesome if coupled with the mindset of examining life.
Of course, for Plato, the nature that needs to be most examined is the nature of the soul as opposed to the body, but we can forgive him that. He says that it is the soul that must be convicted, and in my rhetoric class we certainly were taught to act with that mindset; we were taught to develop an emotional connection with the audience. But at the same time, the body is important, not just the words: we were graded on tone of voice, volume, the frequency of crutch words, hand motions, and all around physical presence. Socrates speaks about knowing the audience well, too, which is good– recognizing that different people will accept different methods of employing emotion.
Then, the dialogue ends with some criticisms of writing. I came across this before from a secondary soure (I believe it was Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman when he gives a brief history of media in the beginning of the book). Although Theuth, the Egyptian god who invented writing, wanted to improve the wisdom and memory of the people; Socrates’ assessment, however, is that writing in fact decreases the skill of memory and consequently wisdom; by relying on writing they do not rely on their own mind. It makes sense that Plato would have this understanding in terms of his ontology; the immaterial realm (the mind/soul) is the only real, whereas material things are more often than not hindrances to the world of the Forms. Also the recollection theory of education is recognized; the soul already has in it all the knowledge it needs– the best writing can do is remind it of that, but it is more proximate for the soul to be reminded by voice, which is mutable just like life, whereas writing is immutable and “dead.”
The ending of the Phaedrus is beautiful. Socrates offers a prayer, a wonderful prayer that displays the realm of all truth lies at the heart of the philosopher, the lover of wisdom. He asks Phaedrus if anything else needs to be asked for except for inner health, saying he thinks his words seem sufficient. Phaedrus says “Offer it for me too, Socrates; friends should share everything.” How wonderful! Socrates a good friend! Friends share everything, including speeches, which are hopefully not written, but spoken so that they can share in wisdom together. Friends share shade of a tree in a hot day so they can keep one another awake as they contemplate the real world. And friends journey through life together, as Socrates ends the dialogue, “Let us be going.” (Italics mine).
Phaedrus Part 4: Introduction to Rhetoric
Again I am amazed at the imagery that Plato invokes of the surrounding scene. While Plato is setting up for a discussion about rhetoric and writing and what makes it good as opposed to bad, he starts talking about the cicadas, and the heat, and how normal mortals would be prone to sleeping because of mental incompetence; but they are engaged in philosophical dialogue, and as such, they can be “deaf” to the cicadas, get away from their senses, and think upon higher matters. Yet at the same time, I am noticing a more positive treatment of the material world than I usually allow myself to see in Plato; he does not deny the beauty of the world, on one level, I think I now understand; he just says that ultimately it is unfulfilling.
In the beginning of the speech the word “seem” appears; Phaedrus is under the impression that an orator will be classified as good if he knows what will seem true to the people; true knowledge does not necessarily matter. What a platonic word! Things that seem to be one thing, but really are not… that could be described as the philosopher’s goal, to get beyond what seems to what really is. Socrates fascinatingly addresses rhetoric herself, and refers to the arguments against rhetoric as an art as “noble creatures.” Again the notion of dialectic tension arises, but is not seen as a hindrance, but a benefit.
They then follow the correct methodological approach and define what rhetoric is: the art of persuasion, whether it is in a court room or in politics or in any form of conversation. He then turns to the speeches that were read/ given earlier. Socrates starts talking about whether we all have the same notion in mind when a word is uttered; he distinguishes between some words that are “obvious” and everyone would clearly have the same notion, and other words that have more uncertain of a meaning. Other philosophers would disagree, and say that every word is uncertain, and every word needs interpretation. Also interesting is that Socrates criticizes Lysias for the order in which his speech is delivered; that his beginning statement should have been at the end, mostly. I took a rhetoric class in high school my junior year, and we were taught that as well; the structure of the speech was intrinsic to how it was delivered. Oddly enough, he then says that it is better to have begun with a bad definition of love than with no definition at all, even though his point earlier was that rhetoric can only be good if it is concerned with true knowledge. A bad definition of love does not seem like true knowledge to me.
The section on definitions the editors included a note that said this might be the most boring part of the dialogue for modern readers… but it brought back memories of my classical education! I feel like the rhetoric class was Plato reworked… it probably had plenty of quotes from Socrates that I neglected to put to memory in my ignorance. The structure of a speech as follows: Introduction, Statement of Facts, Argument, Proof and Refutation, and Conclusion. So many of my speeches that year had to follow that format, and it was obnoxious… but beneficial I’m sure.
The final installment in this series will be on Rhetoric and Philosophy and the Inferiority of the Written to the Spoken Word.
Phaedrus Part 3: Love and the immortality of the soul
This is the last section in the series until Socrates switches gears and begins discussing rhetoric. Here he argues that love is a good sort of madness, since it is divinely inspired, and in fact it is linked to the immortality of the soul, since it is the “wings” of the soul as they ascend to the heavenly reality.
This is especially interesting for me, since I have looked at the immortality of the soul as argued in other dialogues, but here Socrates is just giving a speech; there is no real “dialogue” for any sort of dialectic discussion. Instead, I’m just supposed to take what Socrates is saying about the gods as true, or else be deemed heretical, undoubtedly. His explanation about the different levels of incarnation that the soul can experience that is more in tune with reality or not is interesting; I had heard it explained, but never from Plato’s own mouth. Before he gets into the incarnation stuff, however, he quickly states his argument for the immortality of the soul that it is that which moves the body, and is not moved by anything other than itself, making it immortal. Apparently, unlike the other arguments given in other places, this one is so self-explanatory that it needs no further discussion.
I found really interesting Socrates’ assessment that people find what they love in people based on which god they follow. If they follow Zeus, they will find wisdom-seekers and leaders attractive, and the same goes for the other gods and their attributes. Although Socrates thinks that all souls are immortal and ultimately will love everything real, I couldn’t help thinking about this in a Christian way.
I watch a television show called Dollhouse in which people give up the right to their personalities… they become just shells of bodies that various personalities and skill sets can be uploaded into, like a computer. There is one guy, a former FBI agent, who is trying to figure out where the dollhouse is, so he can free everyone, since he believes you cannot get rid of a person’s soul; it is going to leave a residual imprint on the body, no matter what. Simarlarly, Christians tend to have the notion that every person, while having a universal vocation as human beings, has a very particular imprint, that often is called their “soul,” that is unique to who they are. So I’m wondering, if as Christians who have unique imprints, if we find love and attraction in other humans based on what we have been uniquely imprinted to love in God.Perhaps that is an obvious conclusion to reach… but interesting nonetheless, and pretty easy to relate to one’s own life. When I find someone attractive, if I contemplated why, would I find that it was because they resembled what I love in God? What does that say about my particular imprint of a soul?
American Beauty: The Film through Platonic Eyes
American Beauty is a film that I first heard about in my Philosophy of Film class, just in passing. One of the older students mentioned it as one of those films that are just “great” and everyone knows is “good” (Calvin professors especially seem to have an appreciation for it), but when pressed to explain why it is good, there usually isn’t a substantial answer. I’d like to do a sort of exegetical study of the film highlighting the platonic themes and the Augustinian themes as well.
The first thing that comes to mind in regards to the platonic nature of the film is the emphasis on the image of appearances throughout the film. Plato’s analogy of the cave is a good example of his ontology: there is the world of the “real,” and then the world of illusions, and in his hierarchy of existence model, all the illusions are just shadows of what is really real (for him, the Forms). Plato thought that earthly things, the world of the senses, are ultimately a shadow of the real, and as such should not be valued in and of themselves. Even though the world of the senses seems as if it is real, it is deceptive. Similarly, the film consistently has a theme of false appearances.
When I was younger, I used to be fascinated by the text on car review mirrors. I would sit in the passenger seat, staring out the window, and see the review mirror on the side of the car. In it, I might see a reflection of a car behind us or something of that nature. But the text over that image said, “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.” I could not understand why the images in the mirror would lie to me like that, then, if the text was to be trusted. Why wouldn’t the mirror present the object exactly as close as it was instead of making it appear farther away? Why wouldn’t it show reality exactly as it was instead of deceiving me? Although of course, the image could have been the truthful one and the text could have been the deceiver; that’s the conclusion I actually came to because of my foundational trust in appearances.
For Plato, a mirror is something that distorts reality because it is in fact a copy. Not only mirrors create a copy of reality, however; sensible things do as well. In American Beauty, these themes are touched upon by showing the distinction between that what seems to be and that which is. The Burnham family has to present an image of themselves to the outside world that they are in fact “real”: that is, really happy. But in fact, they are “phoney” and not real at all, despite the appearance that they are. Just as in my mirror analogy, mirrors in American Beauty are things that have the potential to distort reality. Jane looks at herself in the mirror and sees ugliness; Lester looks at himself in a window and sees ugliness as well. The opposing force to the symbol of mirrors is Ricky’s camera. Unlike the mirror that distorts reality, Ricky’s camera is the way in which one sees the truth underneath things. Ricky comments, “Welcome to America’s Weirdest Home Videos.” He sees how strange the people really are; but simultaneously, he sees true reality that way. His camera tends to either capture the worst reality that appearances have shown to be beautiful, or it captures things that appearances claim are ugly and shows them as beautiful.
The character who can be read in a platonic manner most vividly is Carolyn. She is so focused on money and stuff that she forgets to live, as Lester points out to her numerous times. Her $4,000 couch is just a couch, he says. It is just stuff; life does not exist in the stuff she cares about so deeply—it shows up in Love, which for Plato, is true reality as one of the Forms.
The other platonic thing about this movie is the voice-over. The movie opens and closes with a disembodied voice, floating over the world as if it has escaped from its prison-like body. In the ending monologue, parallel to the Phaedo, Lester is free, even though he is dead: “I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me… but it’s hard to stay mad, when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much, my heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst… And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life.” It is only after Lester has died and can realize that the beauty in the world is a part of this disembodied Form that he has as he floats over the city; and arguably he could not see it while he was still enfleshed. Ultimately, the world is not something he wants to hold on to in his afterlife. It was beautiful only because it pointed him here to this existence. Now, this is a bit of a simplification so that the film can be interpreted as Platonically as possible; really, he could have recognized the beauty while he was still in his flesh, since he was looking at the picture of his family as he got shot. It could be argued that, had he lived, he would have seen much more beauty that was very embodied. Also, the character of Ricky poses a problem to this interpretation, since he saw the beauty in sensible things. But even then, the beauty of the bag only was beautiful in that it was being tossed around by the invisible wind: “that’s the day I knew there was this entire life behind things, and… this incredibly benevolent force, that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid, ever. Video’s a poor excuse, I know. But it helps me remember… and I need to remember… Sometimes there’s so much beauty in the world I feel like I can’t take it, like my heart’s going to cave in.” It is that benevolent force, similar to Plato’s world of the Forms, that is truly beautiful and truly real.
Also, what can be noticed about these two key quotes, the fundamental aspect of the human being is his “heart.” Ricky noted that he felt his heart was going to “cave in” and Lester said that his “heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst.” His body is not what matters, since the true Lester is the one giving the monologue; his heart, or soul, is all that matters at the end of the day, and its recognition of beauty; i.e., the Forms. This movie fits in very nicely with Plato’s ontology, I think.
Phaedrus: Part 2– The Speech of Lysius and the First Speech of Socrates
It is noteworthy, first, to recognize that Socrates will not allow Phaedrus to recite the speech if he can hear the speech read instead. The spoken word for Socrates is closer to the Forms (since it is immaterial) than the immaterial. By copying it into words on a page it is “killing it” in a sense, or making it a copy. To have Phaedrus recite it from memory would be to copy the copy, bringing to mind Plato’s ontology as portrayed in the allegory of the cave.
Socrates, despite Phaedrus’ praises for Lysius’ speech, reacts to it with utmost sarcasm. Phaedrus calls for him to do a speech on the topic then, and to get Socrates to agree, he decides to swear by the tree they are near that he will never let Socrates see or hear another speech he comes in contact with. Oddly enough, the threat works on Socrates, despite his disbelief in the true reality of the tree, and the reader might wonder why he wouldn’t just find his speeches through some other source. Perhaps when his dear friend Phaedrus swears by the tree, which Socrates knows to be a useless oath (in his metaphysics), he decides he must try and enlighten his friend by giving him a speech that is closer to the truth. This theory is reinforced when Socrates begins his first speech by stating that most people do not realize their ignorance about the essential nature of something; in this case, he is setting himself up to define the notion of “love.”
People are characterized by two different types of aims: the rational, which is seen by those who desire excellence or beauty. The other aim is toward pleasure, which is irrational. Socrates interrupts himself to ask Phaedrus if he thinks he is inspired, and when Phaedrus answers in the affirmative, Socrates mentions that the nymphs might take possession of him soon… or perhaps that he may be gripped by irrational desire for lyrical pleasure in his speech. This clarification allows Socrates to argue that a “lover,” or someone enslaved by the desire for pleasure, will only use the object of his desire, which means it is better to have a friend than a lover.
Then, abruptly, Socrates stops. Phaedrus and the reader alike wonder at the unbalanced treatment, since Socrates did not explain the benefits of thwarting a lover. Socrates marvels at the love Phaedrus has for rhetoric, which will undoubtedly appear later in the work, and then is about to leave until he receives his “supernatural sign” that which makes him a gadfly in the lives of the people of Athens. This sign reminds Socrates that Love is a god, and that the two previous speeches were blasphemous. It seems rare to find Socrates in the wrong; usually he exposes the errors and indiscrepancies of others, yet here he is, apparently bewitched by Phaedrus (whom he perhaps loves), falling into a contradiction himself: claiming that lovers are bad while believing that Love is a god, and thus belonging to the immaterial world of the Forms.
Phaedrus: Beginning scene
But when I read the beginning dialogue between Phaedrus and Socrates, I was struck by the same thing. There has been debate over what the Phaedrus is really about, but one of the candidates is the topic of the speeches themselves: love. The descriptions of the setting that begin this dialogue seem to reflect that: love for nature. Which seems strange that it occurs in a platonic dialogue… I mean, isn’t Plato supposed to hate the material world? Yet Socrates remarks about the beauty of the world in which he is. It is notable that he has not often traveled outside the city, if ever. I think for Plato, that means that Socrates is a lover of beauty– and although he recognizes it in the landscape of the country, there is a place in which even more true beauty resides: other people.
The friendship he has for Phaedrus is already evident, and it is no accident that the speech they are to read together is on love. This presentation of their relationship is a foreshadowing of the dialogue that is about to take place: Socrates is going to discuss love as a physical, erotic thing, and then will find that his “divine sign” is telling him he has blasphemed true love. True love is not the “happily ever after” man and woman presentation that Disney has portrayed. Instead, it is a type of homosexual love in that two males are like minded enough (i.e., rational) to be friends.
There are many platonic themes in the Phaedrus, and the next blog post will deal with the speeches themselves.
