In Pleasantville, the society the inhabitants embrace is one of completely rational thought. In other words, there is a detachment between the rational and animalistic self. This divide results in a false utopian society, which stifles the animalistic half of the human psyche. The coming of David and the subsequent change in color of the town’s citizens can thus be seen as a sort of objective discovery, ala Plato’s cave, in that the “colored” citizens reach a fuller understanding of what’s at stake: the human condition. The catalyst for this discovery is the result of the character’s acknowledgement and, ultimately, experience of their animal tendencies. When taking into context the major functions of the human animal, one realizes that without embracing this newly discovered side of existence the towns people would be forever trapped before the shadows.
- One of the most basic functions of the animal condition is survival of the species – essentially, procreation. What results is the realization of sexual desire, a notion that is a definite motif of the film. Take for example the mother – whose ignorance towards sex results from her completely rational existence. Once she embraces her animal tendencies in the form of sexual gratification, she becomes colorful (the sign of enlightenment). Again, when others engage in sex, such as the teenagers at Lover’s Lane and even Lover’s Lane itself, the evocation of emotion and emersion into animal tendencies is what is considered to be responsible for the change in color.
- Another function of the animal condition is to fight. Fighting is a necessity to survival, and thus an animalistic tendency. This revelation is portrayed in “Bud,” who protects his mother from violent harassment in order to save his kin. It is when Bud punches one of the harassers and engages himself in his animal side that he changes color. This sort of notion is repeated in Don Knots’ character, when he experiences anger in an attempt to fight for the survival of Pleasantville’s previous status quo.
- Yet another major function of the human animal is flight. The urge to escape from an oppressive environment is essentially due to our natural disposition to freedom. When “Mary-Sue” finds herself entranced by the D.H. Lawrence novel, she is escaping the confines of Pleasantville. As she delves deeper into the novel, she embraces her animalistic tendency to escape, and changes color.
Thus, the concept is that the characters that change color are rejecting the merely rational confines of Pleasantville for a more objective realization of humanity, one that is a synthesis of rational and animal tendencies. Once this occurs, the characters change color, a gesture that has philosophical implications, especially in concern to Socratic and Platonic teachings.
4 comments:
That Mary Sue should be participating in a "flight" from oppression, and therefore engaging her animalistic side, is quite an intriguing notion to me. I had not thought of that at all, but it really does fit with her behaviour in the film. Now, let me throw this out there-- I did some research and found that the book she's reading is actually Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover", which is the story of a wealthy married woman who has an affair with an employee on her husband's estate. This book was initially banned upon publication in both Britain and the States because it was deemed nigh pornographic. So, my point is this-- if the book deals with sex, it can't possibly present Jennifer with anything vastly different from what she has known in her own life. In relation to her individual existence, where's the flight? The question arises as to whether she changes color due to the mere action of reading a book, or does she change color because of the content of the book too? I'm inclined to believe the former because the latter is nothing new to her.
-Camila
I would definately consider the former suggestion to be the cause of her changing color. The most definite and obvious reason for the color changing is that each character is experiencing something new, so the exposure to sexual content simply can't be the reason. She turns to color because of her exposure to reading in general, and when this activity becomes taboo, her affinity becomes fully realized to both the audience and herself, and her passion overcomes her. That's a possible theory for why she feels this oppression. Another theory could simply be that she is oppressed by her current experience - think of Harold Bloom's arguement for literature in general, that it is our connection to "otherness." Despite the fact that it's new content, furthermore "banned" content, it's told from something that is completely independent of her own experience. Maybe she is experiencing monotony, maybe the book is engaging her emotions in a more real way than her real experience even is. The idea here is that emotion insteand of the purely rational is experienced. Each one of these theories is, in its own way, connected to some sort of emotional, animalistic passion that fits well with this whole animal hypothesis.
-Johnny
your inital idea of pleasentville being a separation of animalistic and rational actions, I believe is absolutely true. Even though we had discussed this in class multiple time I had not thought of it this way until it was put into writing. although I also wanted to "throw something out there" was Buds changing color due to the fact that he hit someone therefore being animalistic or was it due to the fact that he took a stand for himself and what he believed in which he would have never done perviously.
-MIKE "The Man"
Post a Comment