ITNI Movie
Review
The Bad Hair Cut
February 4, 2004
By Dmitry Shlapenkokh
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. |