You can’t help but
love how hard Hollywood fails to express the idea that “true beauty’s on the
inside,” that we ought to love each other for our character rather then our
wealth and physical capabilities (men) or looks (women).
How do writers create a story that supports a moral premise that they, the writers,
so clearly don’t believe, themselves?
I would like to clarify
that I didn’t write this post in an effort to argue the pros or cons of these (supposed)
superficial attractions, though I could argue:
1) It makes sense that,
after thousands of years of deeply enforced gender role, a woman might
naturally want a husband who can provide financially and protect her
offspring, and
2) That many of the common,
physical features that men seek in women support optimal childbearing.
Hollywood loves to
attempt a story where we learn that beauty exists as skin-deep. We, the
audience, want to hear that. We all
feel self-conscious about our looks. Even those of us with perfect bodies know
that time conspires against us.
However, it seems
that writers and filmmakers don’t honestly believe in inner beauty.
Take the most
obvious example, Beauty and the Beast
(just about any version will work). The beast possesses physical strength and
wealth, as demonstrated by his castle and position as a prince. The beauty
possesses, well, beauty.
“Oh! But Beauty
looks beyond Beast’s hideous appearance,”
I hear you desperately say.
His looks never stand in question, though.
Consider the butt-ugly rich
men who keep multiple, attractive, young girlfriends. Don’t
suggest that women can’t get over a rich guy’s physical unattractiveness.
Sexist? Very.
Don't kill the messenger.
Beast can look hideous,
but that option fails to arise for Beauty.
Slightly-Overweight-with-a-Nice-Personality and the Beast wouldn't sell tickets (or so film producers believe).
Allow me to point
out that if any part of this observation sounds bitter, my resentment rests
vicariously. This theory works wonderfully for me, as a guy. I can always earn
money or hit the gym.
This formula works
poorly for women, whose physical attractiveness faces a shelf life (until
humanity finally locates and deactivates the genes in our DNA that command our
bodies to age after a certain, undesirable point).
You may recall a
movie called She’s All That, which
served as a high school version of Beauty
and the Beast.
She’s All That starred a rich, high
school football player (physically capable) who manages to woo an attractive
girl.
Actually, the
story proves even shallower than that. The guy woos the girl to win a bet that
he can make her into the prom queen. The fact that the girl possesses
intelligence and creativity serves as a strike against this guy’s endeavor.
We all recall that
movie Pretty Woman, where a rich guy who twice beats up another guy (physically capable)
manages to fall in love with an attractive woman—whom he pays for sex. Because
she’s a hooker.
I think the makers
of Shrek might exist as the only ones
who managed to successfully stick the landing for the moral premise of inner beauty.
Name one James Bond film where James doesn’t
drive an expensive car, kill a bunch of people with his bare hands, and get an
attractive woman as his reward.
I can’t blame the
filmmakers. Art reflects life.
True, men
(heterosexual men, in any case) don’t “get the girl” just because they flash
money and muscles, but we believe they
do. We believe it so strongly that, even when we want to tell a story to the
contrary . . . we often can’t.
I publish my blogs as follows:
Mondays and Thursdays:
Short stories at martinwolt.blogspot.com
Tuesdays: A look at the politics of
the entertainment world at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com.
Wednesdays: An inside look at my
novels (such as Daughters of Darkwana, which you can now find on Kindle) at
Darkwana.blogspot.com
Fridays: Tips to improve your fiction
at FictionFormula.blogspot.com
Sundays: Movie reviews at moviesmartinwolt.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment