  |
The Bad Hair
Cut
Dmitry
Shlapentokh
Legally Blonde 2
evoked a variety of responses from critics from
positive to negative. All of them, while focusing on
the artistic qualities of the movie, or lack of them,
usually ignored the serious issue raised by the film,
despite the fact that the movie had a direct reference
to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a work with a
great social/political message.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
was conceived in the 1930s, at the time of the Great
Depression and a rising critical Left agenda. It
lambasted the corrupt elite and encouraged an attack
on the elite from below. This streak can be implicitly
detected in Legally Blonde 2, a venture to
Washington to defend the rights of animals. The only
difference is that, besides being corrupt, the elite
are also trivialized. One of the Congresswomen is
congratulated for passing an important bill but also
finishing the remodeling of her house. It is not just
the Washington elite that is absolutely foreign to
their consistency – one of the Congresswomen openly
proclaims that the masses should be manipulated. The
bureaucratic rank and file are absolutely foreign to
the electorate as well, as emphasized by their almost
army-style uniformity in clothing, in sharp contrast
to the attire of Elle Woods, the heroine and, to some
degree, the embodiment of the masses.
This attack on the establishment is a rather trivial
cliché whose origin can be traced back to Mr. Smith.
It would also fit well into the agenda of the Left.
Still, the movie hardly presents the Left as a viable
alternative to Conservatism, and the major premise of
the Left's ideology is clearly denied.
Concern for minority issues is one of the major
shibboleths of Leftist ideology. In the context of
this philosophy, the script should have at least one
positive protagonist of minority origin. In fact, it
has none. The black female, who works for
Congresswoman Woods's major rival and hints of
Condoleezza Rice, is apparently quite shrewd, but she
is also apparently cynical and scornful of young
idealists who move along the corridors of power to
acquire nothing but “blisters on their feet.” She
finally comes to act in the right way, but one could
still question her intentions if one remembers that
she feels herself absolutely isolated in the end.
While a few shrewd minorities are incorporated into
the establishment, the vast majority either fall out
of political life completely or are engaged in
meaningless activities such as the Million Man March,
which was transformed in the movie to the "Million
Dogs March."
The gender issue is another important shibboleth of
the Left, especially of radical feminists. In their
view, whether a woman looks attractive should be of no
importance to her--she should concentrate on her
career. Indeed, most females in the movie who are
successfully incorporated into Washington's political
elite not only evoked no attraction from the opposite
sex but--like the chair of one committee--they evoked
fear instead. Still, as the movie implies, they all
crave to be attractive and, upon receiving a frivolous
haircut which supposedly transforms them into
beauties, they start to behave like crazy teenage
girls who want to attract the attention of the
opposite sex. One of the protagonists, a young,
asexual female, upon receiving this haircut, starts to
behave exactly as the radical feminists would suggest
a man behaves. She attacks one of her male coworkers,
pushes him to the ground, and then, upon actually
raping him, proposes that he marry her.
The basic irrelevance and sheer absurdity of both Left
and Right agendas, which acquire meaning only when the
vested interests of any of the groups are at stake,
can be seen in the story of one senator and his dog.
He discovers that the dog is homosexual, and this
issue seems to preoccupy him more than anything else.
Originally he cannot stand this. This is apparently a
hint to conservatives who frown upon homosexuality.
Finally, however, he changes his attitude and became
closer to the liberal Left. He feels that his
conversion to the proponents of gay dogs living
together is important enough to announce his views in
Congress, which, in turn, regards this speech and the
entire issue important enough to be seriously
considered.
The movie's attack on the establishment, both Left and
Right, as corrupted, trivial or plainly idiotic in
their agendas, is an important aspect of the movie,
but does not make it unique in its political message.
The blasting of the elite, mostly those on the Right,
can be found in other recent films. Yet these films
usually point to an alternative to the elite--the
American people, who are presented as the political
and moral anchor of American democracy. It is also
assumed in these cases that the ultimate victory of
the people in taking back the power usurped by the
elite is a source of optimism and vitality for
American democracy. It is this element that is
conspicuously absent in Legally Blonde 2.
In order to understand the role of the people, the
average American, in the movie, we need to turn to the
heroine, Elle Woods, who goes to Washington to save
animals from being used in experiments to enrich a
cosmetics company. Externally, Woods looks very much
the same as in Legally Blonde. But she actually
has a much more complicated, multidimensional image.
Woods undoubtedly represents the people. She comes
from a small provincial city that seems to epitomize
the places where most Americans live. Despite her
Harvard degree, she speaks in the unsophisticated
language of the average American girl, with references
to her haircut as a point of departure. And, most
importantly, she relies on grass-roots initiatives to
bring thousands of her supporters to Washington.
Her closeness to the people is also demonstrated by
her strong convictions concerning democratic values.
Indeed, despite her frivolity and cheerful simplicity,
she is presented as one of the most serious characters
in the movie, which raises the crucial issue of the
very validity of American democracy. The episode of
Woods's confession in front of Lincoln's statue is
full of important symbolism. Lincoln, perhaps more
than any other American president, is seen as the
embodiment of American democracy. It was he who
promulgated the famous phrase "government of the
people, by the people and for the people." Woods's
approach to Lincoln is not a burlesque; there is
nothing ironical or comical in it. It is the utmost
serious soul search--does democracy indeed work, and
does the power indeed belong to the people? And it
seems that Woods receives an affirmative answer--she
finally wins. But her victory is pyrrhic, for it
reveals the problems of the American populace.
Woods, and implicitly most of the populace, illustrates
the noble intention to elevate the misery of the
downtrodden. But her preoccupation is almost cynical in
the triviality of her agenda, that is, helping the
dogs. She absolutely ignores the burning questions
which the nation faces and which affect the lives of
millions of Americans. This comical display of national
"common will" is not the result of the brainwashing of
the masses by the elite, as Woods's rival, the
Congresswoman, asserts. As a matter of fact, Woods and
her fellow citizens actually brainwashed themselves, and
their penchant for trivial and
unrelated-to-the-life-of-the-nation subjects is parallel
to the same penchant in the elite. Indeed, Woods's
preoccupation with dogs' rights parallels the concern of
the elite senator with the problems of gay dogs. No one
bamboozles the nation; in fact, the nation is
self-bamboozled. All this transforms the involvement of
most Americans in politics into a charade.
Still, one could argue that, despite all its problems,
life in the nation is full of merriment: Woods has
enough money and time to spend in expensive Washington.
The supporters of minority/women's/animals' rights have
enough money and time to engage in Million Dogs
Marches. The elite of all political persuasions can
enjoy the good life and even spare a few dollars to tip
the poor doorman on the bottom of the social pyramid.
Will all these blissful conditions continue in the
future in a nation which faces increasing pressure of
foreign competition and serious geopolitical
challenges? Indeed, Bush's recent assessment about the
years of blood and toil the United States is facing in
Iraq hardly fits the life models Legally Blonde 2
displays to the viewers.
Dmitry V. Shlapentokh is a professor of history at
Indiana
University
South Bend.
|
 |