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.
