Ambiguity, a word defined as encompassing an equivocal, uncertain idea about something. The word in itself represents vagueness; no clear truth can be pin-pointed to define a specific object or ideal. Aside from everyday life, its occurrence in literature and film is extremely common in that the reader has the ability to determine the overall meaning of a given motif, event, or character. In many cases, authors and directors construct their works in a way that the most solid definition of an object may not represent what it is accustomed to. This helps to increase dramatic effect and symbolism, but also it can create a whole new set of questions. A common motif within novels and film is romance; naturally convoluted, romance takes on several shapes and sizes as it fits the mold in a plethora of literature and films. One could say love is one of few languages that are universal no matter one’s coordinates on the globe. Moreover, an individual’s conception of love has transformed as the years have gone by in that love has existed in every moment, but the nature and actions which define it are ambiguous. In relation to romance, a lost generation of sorts is portrayed in generational novels and films, such as The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Rules of Attraction, and American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. These lost generations are driven by capitalism and the desire for objects and human love through materialism. The twenty-first century can be seen in the same light, young and middle-aged people of today are taking a page from Fitzgerald and Ellis’ novels along with several cultural theorists in making the conscious decision to live lives different than their elders and in a sense changing the way romance is defined for future generations.
In order for something to survive, in any discipline and instance in the world, said thing must evolve and revamp its characteristics in order to do so. Although romance and love have changed over time, it cannot be considered dead necessarily, it is has taken on a new shape from the once common definition in order to survive. These changes were in development years ago, and an example of such an alteration can be seen in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. This revolutionary novel exhibits several different themes throughout its course, but one that is difficult not to notice is the way in which Fitzgerald depicts the decline of the American Dream in the 1920s. With the First World War just recently concluding, Fitzgerald showcases the characters of East and West Egg in Rhode Island. With the east coast possessing the principal stranglehold on politics and wealth at the time, the characters within both communities, primarily Jay Gatsby, Nick Carraway, and Daisy Buchanan are young, affluent individuals who have earned their fortune through different means. On the surface these three characters are just as materialistic as any American, but they have a deep rooted desire to feel love and emotion. Through this and the events which take place during the rest of the novel Fitzgerald, once again, paints a picture of the decline of the American Dream, the rise of consumerism and materialistic ideals, and a different form of love. (Fitzgerald)
Commonly defined as the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream does not specifically state what the happiness is that is being pursued, but at one time it was to live comfortably and contently. This being with a stable family and career; love and material needs are represented within this ideal, but it is not obviously stated. The time period in which F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby featured the declination of true romance and this was evident in the way that Jay Gatsby bears the dream of loving Daisy. This aspiration is nothing more than a goal in that his ambition is ruined by their contrasting social statuses. Gatsby is lacking in the area of monetary wealth and he believes that in order to corral Daisy he must resort to crime make enough money to impress her. This sort of corruption became very abundant in the period following World War I in that with easy money so accessible it allowed for individuals from every “different” social status to become equal on a monetary and materialistic level. The fact that Gatsby desired Daisy to such an extent allows a claim to be made that she is nothing more than an object; an object that once attained he believes happiness would be reached, but all that is acquired is a sense of serial conditioning. Jean Baudrillard created a theory of serial conditioning in his piece “The System of Objects” he states, “…intensified competition and created an enormous range of precarious freedom. The latest such freedom is the random selection of objects that will distinguish any individuals from others.”(Baudrillard 409) Gatsby felt that once Daisy is earned he would possess the ability to be distinguishable from others; this connection can be made through his desperation for her love by any means necessary. In a sense, Gatsby had to earn Daisy back from her current husband Tom Buchanan, but this feeling of competition is what drove Gatsby to commit criminal acts for her love. Therefore, proving Baudrillard’s theory and proving another claim he made, “90 percent of the population experiences no other desire than to possess what others possess.”(Baudrillard 408)
The time between the 1920s and the mid 1980s represent a vast amount of social, political and economical change, but it seems that the events following the First World War had completely affected those in the 80s, and those in the present, the 21st century. The luxury of earning easy money and having very relaxed social values were ideals that allowed for the decline of the American Dream. Fitzgerald depicts the characters in The Great Gatsby in this way and through this it can be said that a downward spiral has occurred since spanning to the mid-80s, the time in which The Rules of Attraction is set. Perhaps passed down through each generation, or these materialistic ideals of easy-living were just innate to the 1920s and 1980s, resulting in yet another case of lost generations. No matter the case, there is a direct correlation between the two, there was definitely not a desire for the pursuit of happiness and pure love and romance to be in decline, but with money being the sole light at the end of the metaphoric tunnel there is much temptation to toss aside true happiness and work toward a seemingly empty quest for pleasure. With Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby being a somewhat vulgar and ostentatious individual whom deeply desires love, it can be said that the characters of The Rules of Attraction are nothing more or maybe less evolved forms of Nick, Jay and Daisy. With this, each generation is built upon generation and each takes cues from the past to, ultimately, reach a fully capitalistic and materialistic society possessing no solid notion of self-fulfillment. The trend of desiring lush objects and materials in life can be the lifestyles which were initially displayed prominently through the three main characters in Fitzgerald’s novel. As a result, they left an everlasting footprint for Sean, Paul, and Lauren of The Rules of Attraction and individuals of today to tread upon.
The decay of social and moral values solely, and in relation to love is evident within The Rules of Attraction, but it seems that Nick Carraway’s statement “material without being real” (Fitzgerald) toward Jay Gatsby fits into several key aspects of the lives of the young college students in The Rules of Attraction. Sean, Paul, and Lauren live near empty lives that are contradictorily full of materialistic needs; drugs, alcohol, and sex are the main substances in which they yearn. But, to some extent the characters are aware of their actions but do not a single thing to turn themselves around. This quote also exemplifies the notion that not a single character feels a “real” emotion throughout the course of the story, they each move from sexual partner to partner and party to party. There is no real feel of life, more of a steady zombie-like march toward self-destruction. The characters within Bret Easton Ellis’ The Rules of Attraction have had every potential luxury handed to them; money, “free” education, and a great sense of entitlement to being rich but having no true life to show for it. In a sense the characters of Ellis’ novel could not even be categorized as “characters,” their desires are nearly identical to the person next to them, their thoughts and emotions are centered around materialistic needs making them, “simply not there,” as Patrick Bateman states, from Ellis’ other novel American Psycho which was later adapted into a film. (Ellis)
In addition, Sean, Paul, and Lauren are characters that embrace the relationships and articles in their lives as mere objects; ideals. Baudrillard’s piece “The System of Objects” exemplifies Ellis’ depiction of his main characters in that they all desire these “perfect” ideals of people they really do not know. It can also be said that the consumerist society in which they live preaches this way of thinking as well because as the characters live for purchasing drugs and alcohol, etc; they are only accustomed to doing the same within their personal lives. For example, GARAP, an expression that according to Baudrillard means, “…modern cities are stripped of all their signs with walls bare like a guiltless conscience. And then GARAP appears. This single expression, GARAP, is inscribed on all the walls: pure signifier, without a signified, signifying itself.”(Baudrillard 408) This complex quotation can represent a variety of instances that occur throughout society, but most worthwhile, in Ellis’ novel The Rules of Attraction. GARAP encompasses the root of all consumerism, advertising, and materialistic ideals. Although GARAP possesses no clear image, no signified, all its benefits are preached and it becomes a “characteristic of the (w)hole of society.”(Baudrillard 408) This being said, the characters within The Rules of Attraction fell victim to GARAP and have chosen to believe in it. Alcohol, drugs, and sex are forms of GARAP that Sean, Paul, and Lauren have fallen victim to; the objects represent emptiness, by their means, and the characters are driven into a never-ending cycle of consumption. Obviously drugs and alcohol are literally objects, things possessing no life, but sex involves human beings and therefore, a person they desire becomes nothing more than an object, another meaningless article. The romance that takes place in The Rules of Attraction becomes nothing more than a rapid chase based on instant fulfillment. (Baudrillard)
Together, the generations of both the 1920s and the 1980s are ones with similar appearances on the outside, but a great ambiguity lies within. Cluttered with a race toward wealth and material needs, both of these generations are lost; the lives they live lack morals and good foundation. Also, in terms of romance and love The Great Gatsby and The Rules of Attraction represent the way in which Americans of today have become more inclined to participate in casual sex and search for abstract ways to win the hearts of the desirable. It seems that with the combination of the newfound materialistic values of the 1920s and the active consumption of objects during the 1980s have resulted in a hybrid form of love that Americans feel and see today.
Exceedingly common among college students, casual hookups can be traced to the 1980s generation where university students have found satisfaction from a social status level, “categories or ‘status groups,’ recognizable in a specific collection of objects,” as stated by Baudrillard. Today’s college students and young adults, primarily males, search for a possible partner to add to the list of the ever-growing. As Baudrillard would say, “the hierarchized gamuts of objects and products play exactly the same role as the set of distinguishing values played in previous time: the foundation of group majority.” Individuals find pride and a sort of social rank in the hookup partners, and these actions can hardly be considered love or romance. From members of young upstart rock bands to frat boys and to instrumental band geeks and Yu-gi-oh card players, a sense of hierarchy is created, a social class. These have been found over time, but the classes within each level of the proverbial hierarchy have changed with the years. As Baudrillard stated, the objects these groups consume place them into their respective status and this status allows a said group, i.e. a frat boy, to feel a sense of entitlement in relation to materials and other objects, like supposed acts of romance. “Objects are categories of objects which quite tyrannically induce categories of persons” (Baudrillard 413) and through this Americans have become so accustomed to live with these values, “content to satisfy those needs in their detail, without ever establishing any new structures of collective exchange.”(Baudrillard 413) So at ease to live with a predisposed social status based on the car(s) one may drive, the clothes on their back, and the people they consider friends. It seems that, as Baudrillard claims, the only way to move up this hierarchy is to possess the objects that a desired class holds. As this occurs day in and day out in America it can also be fortified by the events which were discussed in The Great Gatsby and The Rules of Attraction.
The ideal of materialism and a society of consumption can evoke such a grand sphere of influence, and questions may arise where romance and love fit into this equation. But in the twenty-first century, filmmakers and writers focus on creating the next blockbuster that will burst onto the silver screen with such flourish that it will leave a lasting impression on those who viewed it. Simply put, movies exist in a full-fledged circular course of events in which the audience demands entertainment, a chance to experience the unreality of reality all while the directors, producers, picture studios, and a surplus of other positions feed off of this demand and make a substantial living through the audience’s desires. Clearly, the movie industry is run by capitalism and consumerism, it is all based off the dollar. This small facet allows for more reinforcement for the claim that Americans today live in a society of consumption, while love and romance are included within. Aside from riveting dramas and the occasional vampire film, romantic comedies are kings and queens of the box office throughout the course of a given year. Possessing the qualities of a guilty pleasure, the romantic comedy has the capability to influence the way in which Americans seek out love and romance.
According to Jo Berry and Angie Errigo in Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s Romantic Comedy: Boy meets girl meets genre, this guilty pleasure that romantic comedies instill should be below consciousness, “but which satisfy because they provide easy, uncomplicated pleasures.” (McDonald 7) McDonald goes onto state that there is much more to this feeling that an audience member may experience due to a position of “conflicting pulls of realism and fantasy.” (McDonald 8) One knows there is a given formula to a romantic comedy which, in short, nearly always concludes with the boy and girl falling for each other once surpassing their respective trials and tribulations. This confliction between realism and fantasy that McDonald embraces can be described as struggle with a sort of frustration. These easy and uncomplicated pleasures within a romantic comedy turn complicated when the viewers become strapped to the mindset that this happy ending is the only proper way to experience love and romance. In addition, the events that occur prior and during the unsuspecting couples courting also leave facets to be desired by the audience. McDonald suggests the ‘meet cute’; the humorous, unlikely, but most likely cute meeting between the potential couple occurs in many romantic comedies. There are supplementary tropes that have been examined within the popular film genre; the derailed wedding, the masquerade, and the embarrassing gesture. (McDonald 13) These forms of events are far from “perfect,” and in reality this would be extremely evident, but the way in which a given film illustrates these connections and events becomes quite illustrious. It is for these reasons, why, although a number of human beings resent romantic comedies on the surface, but their ability to create a sense of hope and a perfect sense of romance is what draws in the masses. In a sense, as well, this perfection that is painted in regards to romance is lacking in reality and this acknowledgement is difficult to swallow for most, so much that, “films do not just reflect reality, they help create it too,” (McDonald 14) as McDonald states. They help to create this ideal that due to the capitalist society in the west, many objects are blatantly available for the taking, but the “true” and “perfect” love that is depicted in theatres is simply unattainable. Once again, resorting to the capitalistic society ideal that has fostered consumption, McDonald believes, “it may seem cynical to view romantic love as an ideal which supports capitalist consumerism, but the self-dissatisfaction such films breed can create a vulnerable space which advertisers have been too quick to target.” (McDonald 14) This multifaceted statement grasps the concept that true love is difficult to find but the “old fantasies” (McDonald 14) never cease and no matter the level of dissatisfaction that results from the discouragement in romantic comedies consumable items are still being snatched off the shelves(magazines) and at ticket booths. Just as the film industry is operated through a constant cycle of supply and demand, so is the romantic comedy business; no matter the reaction to them, their temptation never ceases.
Baudrillard and McDonald seem to cross paths on several instances through their accounts of consumerism and romantic comedies, respectively. McDonald states on page 15 of Romantic Comedy: Boy meets girl meets genre, “the possibility of gaining romantic love just seems to be the bait that companies dangle before consumers in order to ensure we continue buying their products.” This correlates directly with Baudrillard’s claim in The System of Objects, “advertising tells us, at the same time: ‘buy this, for it is like nothing else!’ but also: ‘buy this because everyone else is using it!’ and this is in no way contradictory.” (Baudrillard 409) These two statements sum up the belief that through advertising, companies are constantly pushing individuals to become something more; something more desirable to the desired. In relation to romance, companies are making the public believe specific products will make anyone more “loveable” according to McDonald. This is reinforced by the fact that big business relies on these urges. A few examples would be make-up, shoes, mood music, and films. (McDonald 15) Gone are the days of being able to feel confident at impressing a possible love interest through pure personality and a nice smile, big business and the film industry have fostered the development of a reliance on material goods to complete the other piece of the romance puzzle.
The commonly overused mantra “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” can be used to depict the relationship between a variety of issues that possess an ambiguous meaning or a meaning that can be defined differently between individuals. Love and romance, not quite the equal binary but both can generate the same image, and the nature of this image is and has been different as the years have clicked by. Prior to the 1920s romance evoked an image of pristine stability that could possibly lie in the future. But within the decade of the 1920s, as The Great Gatsby illustrates, an empty materialistic society is born and with that comes rushed into romance and desire for the unattainable. Further in the future, The Rules of Attraction portrays the not so secret lives of affluent college students who look for love in any form possible, and with anyone possible. Ultimately, these have all been rolled into the romantic comedies that grace the silver screen of today. A never ending pursuit of true love portrayed by the actors that appear perfect, but in reality face the same struggles with romance that the average American does. Although, a clear description of what romance can currently be defined as seems to have been cornered, but it has not, for it is an ever-evolving art form. It will forever be marketed, but by different means for the same individuals that just seek a taste of true happiness.
What Is Love?
nevershoutnever. (new song & video) | MySpace Music Videos
Works Cited
American Psycho. Dir. Mary Herron. Perf. Christian Bale and Justin Theroux. Lions Gate. DVD.
Baudrillard, Jean. "The System of Objects." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 408-19.
Ellis, Bret Easton. Rules of attraction. New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1998. Print.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1995. Print.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre (Short Cuts). New York: Wallflower, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment