Is American Beauty anti-military or pro-homosexuality?

Who can say? I don't mind a message movie. Maybe some people consider having a message a negative in a movie. I don't mind it, as long as it comes with stuff I like. There was a lot of stuff I liked in American Beauty, and I like the message too. It's that simple.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

To me, American Beauty is about living your life and enjoying every minute of it. The plastic bag is a metaphor of how you can find the beauty in everything. In terms of Lester, it seems like he's trying to live his life as if he were still a teenager.

Every character is sad at the end of the film. Caroline is going to murder her husband, Frank is murderous also and banished his son from his house. Angela is insecure, Jane and Ricky are running away together. Everyone is sad. Except Lester. Because he went back to his teenage years.

Think about it. He hasn't been happy since he got his job and married. So, he throws it all away to become a teenager. He quits his job and basically lets his wife roam free. He smokes pot, buys his dream car, and gets a job at a fast food restaurant, all things he did as a teen. His wooing of Angela is another way he is traveling back to his adolescence, since she is a teenager herself. It's as if he's become a teen again.

Thus, he is very happy at the end of the film. He then reminisces about his childhood years once more. Lester's longing for his adolescence is a metaphor of why we should enjoy our "stupid, little lives" and not worry about jobs, money, or material goods, the latter of which Caroline is obsessed with (the couch incident.) But I digress. The main message: live your life to the fullest. That's the lesson. God, what a film.

i know im not the only mofo that thought of this movie when i read Yodas post.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

LIVE, DAMN YOU, LIVE!!

The majority of people view movies as something you kill two hours with - it's entertainment for them, nothing else.

I can appreciate good entertaining movies without any particular "message" just as I enjoy riding a roller coaster. But I rather see a bad artsy film than a bad no-message-film. An example: I saw Lars von Trier's Melancholia last night. I can't say that von Trier is my favorite director, but still I see all of his films because they're always interesting to me on some level. His last two films has also been amazing on a visual level. Melancholia didn't change my life or anything, but it was quite an experience and I thought afterwards that there is really no one else like Lars von Trier.

On the other hand, I can't see the point in watching a mediocre film, the average romantic comedy or action movie, just because "you know what you're getting".

American Beauty to me, is the kind of movie that Hollywood producers aiming for the Oscars are always trying to make. To some it might be a daring movie with some kind of message, but to me it's a well written, well directed and well played Hollywood drama with a rather safe, liberal, politically correct "message" delivered in a nice package. I don't have anything against it, I found it very entertaining. Actually, I think it's Hollywood filmmaking at its best probably. But I really do believe that you have to steer out of the mainstream a little bit to find the really challenging "message-movies". But that is my subjective opinion, of course.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I both agree and disagree. To us, who've seen lots of films by now, they are pretty trite and common. Still, they're feel-good movies. They're supposed to remind you about things that might be important. How you perceive a film depends on many things; how old you are the first time you see it, what mood you were in, where in life you were at the time....

Many films that I saw in the 80's I found to be exciting at the time. Then when I got older I found them hopelessly dated and quite shallow and ridiculous. But now I've discovered that I experience some 80's films, like the John Huges stuff for instance, to be capturing the coming-of-age years EXACTLY the way I experienced it. When you're young all you think about is having fun, looking good and being cool in the eyes of others. And at the same time there's something very painful with this age (because you're not having fun, you're not looking good and you're not very cool). And in these 80's films (the good ones) there's always a melancholic element embedding all the gloss, weird hairdos and all the hysterical, cocaine induced dancing.

What was the subject again?

American Beauty isn't all about smoking weed then?

My bad.

__________________
The Freedom Roads

Actually, that's exactly what it boils down to in the end.

Ehm, well, If you mean what the weed represents then I get it.

I am curious to know which you find those to be.

I should watch more Lars von Trier.

It's been over a year since I've watched the film and going from memory I really don't even remember Allison Janney's character. Chris Cooper is an actor I can like or dislike, but he's nothing of a draw for me. The reason I dislike the character and his performance is because that whole character's existance and sense of self resolved around his hate for homosexuality and hate for himself. Outside of that context there was really nothing for the character to do. I did think there were hints at some good stuff about the anxiety and misunderstanding between a father and son who have completely different viewpoints on life. I thought that could have been handled better, but instead the movie takes the cliche' easy direction in the writing.

Wes Bentley's character is of course a conglomeration of the quintessential pothead, video-making, "whatever people sucks, but there's beauty in the world" archetype. I thought it was too easy and convienent to make him selling pot. I get what the script was going for - high school in suburbia has as much drugs as any other school - I get it and I agree with the message, but I just didn't like his performance. Pretentious is really the best word I can think of it. It was too self important. I felt like the character felt like he was the greatest person on Earth because he's the only one who can see beauty in a floating sack and that makes him more enlightened than the rest of the population... In a sense he wasn't seeing beauty necessarily as much as he was falling in love with himself that he was different and special where everyone else was blind. This part of the film just fails completely with me.


Both Spacey and Bening made that movie because they are playing up the satire, whether it was written that way or not. Wes Bently and Chris Cooper almost take the material too seriously and lack the humor of Bening and Spacey. Yes the characters are different, but not so different that we should get what we do on screen. Notice the differences between the performances. I think Thora Birch hit the right note on sub-duing the satire but not going overboard with "this is the most important ground breaking role in the world" stuff. For me the humor is what makes the film work.

First of all Spacey's character IS NOT a sexual predator... at all. He's representative of the middle age male who thinks about younger women because his wife is no longer young and attractive. Of course the girl he has a crush on is in high school, but that's because she is what is available and he's physically attracted to her... physically. And physically young women are developed by 16 or 17, so I don't put him in a class with being a sexual predator. Up until recently in our own culture it was very common for 16 year old girls to be married. It's a social tabboo now of course. Also he does refuse to sleep with her toward the end. Again, it's just breaking a tabboo. Just look at the pop-culture references to sex with school girls... "jail-bait", etc. Hell you could even say there's a sub-culture of porn with teachers making it with their students. Sure most men wouldn't sleep with a 16/17 year old, but I'll bet money a lot have found them cute/attractive/f-able, whatever. Yet if given the chance they certainly would not, because honestly how in the Hell does a 40 year old man connect, emotionally, intellectually, and experiencially with a 17 year old? So I don't read that message at all into the film that Spacey's character is a sexual predator and even less so that the film is grouping gays and sexual predators in the same category.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Yes and if I see another teenager or college kid with a Carpe Diem tattoo, I'm going to shoot myself..


Well not really shoot myself.

this.

Dear iluv2viddyfilms,

I have read your post. You know what I'd like to discuss with you sometime? My Own Private Idaho. I see it's your 6th favorite film. I recently watched it and reviewed it here -- but I only gave it 2 and a half popcorn boxes because I just couldn't like all of it, yet it's lingered in my mind ever since I saw it, hauntingly. I have a copy of it and I just need to watch it again. I'm curious about your thoughts on the movie, but of course they shouldn't go here -- maybe there should be a thread someday about it, hmm?

Anyways, I don't know if there's an Off switch for my feelings about American Beauty, but I see your points. I really should rewatch the film again -- would be interesting to keep new perspectives and thoughts on the subject as I did. My problem is that I tend to like pretentiousness in films sometimes, so if Wes Bentley is making himself the most important person in the world, go right ahead -- I'm okay with being fascinated by an amusing character who takes himself and his views very seriously, as long as they are views I can agree with. Now, if there was an anti-Ricky Fitts character somewhere -- someone who hated the world and thought nothing was beauty, etc. -- I might like that character, too. But someone who's taking the world and saying it's beautiful and giving it meaning and life -- ordinary, everyday things like a plastic bag -- I say, hey, rock on, because I'd rather relook at life and things and be amused and happy. This is all we've got. We live in a dark universe where everything dies and goes away with time. Why not enjoy the moment? It's all we've got. Ricky doesn't have much himself so if he's taking himself too seriously, I think it fits him. He would be fine if he didn't sell pot -- perhaps even better -- but I think pot is important to the message of American Beauty. As I said earlier, I think it's a bit of a stoner film. It's an extremely liberal pro-homosexuality, pro-marijuana, pro-happiness kind of tale. It's radical, but it's also kind of a dated radicalism. It would have been a shocking 1960's movie. I think it kinda feels like it's set in the 1960's or 1950's. In a way, American Beauty, being released in 1999, is a sign of the end of an era. Nowadays, most everything goes and homosexuals are everywhere. I see your point about Frank Fitts -- I would blame Alan Ball for this. I have a hunch that he's just putting in this closeted character to say to the world, as a homosexual, "you all better start stepping out of the closet and showing yourselves." Now, I personally do not agree with that kind of mantra. I would rather understand people who choose to stay closeted -- I didn't always think that way, but now that I've got older and seen too many people get bitchy about closeted homosexuals, I just don't wanna be that way. I say be happy however you can. But I do like Chris Cooper's character. I like the way Chris Cooper plays him. I like the way Wes Bentley plays Ricky. I think they are memorable performances. Maybe Allison Janney's not too memorable, but her character was basically a bacon cooking skeleton.

I don't think of Lester Burnham as a sexual predator either, but I made that statement because in the eyes of society, he would be. I don't know how old Mena Suvari's character is supposed to be -- I don't think she was 18 yet, though -- so he would still go to jail for having sex with her. He would still get that sexual predator label. Perhaps this is the more radical thing about American Beauty than the homosexual issues because they could have changed the story around so that Lester Burham was gay and that could have been the main story, whereas the gay story for Frank Fitts was, while important, still smaller. American Beauty does group these issues together -- they may not come out and call Lester Burnham a sexual predator, but that's kind of what he is. They spent a huge amount of time showing him doing everything to buff up for Angela, calling her on the phone, flirting with her, and they almost did have sex -- he still saw her naked. Lester still could have gone to jail for this. Had his wife, Carolyn, found out, she probably would have put him there, or at least threatened to. The film isn't saying that gays and sexual predators are the same thing, but the story has certainly put them in the same class, saying they can be found on the same street and to some people that might be a message that these kinds of things can only be found among middle class white Americans. I don't personally believe in messages like that -- just like I wouldn't believe that all gays are murderers just because Frank killed Lester -- so I am okay with enjoying the movie for what it is.

Don't get me wrong. It's nothing wrong with the message in American Beauty - I just think it's pretty safe and uncontroversial. But, again, that's just me - and just because it's safe doesn't mean it's bad. But on an Oscar level, to me Boys Don't Cry, Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica or A Single Man are films comparable to American Beauty (if we're on the pro-gay subject) that I experienced as more interesting than AB. Other than that, I would say that some of Gus van Sant's films deal with the subject in a much more intelligent and interesting way. Then we have Xavier Dolan, who is a really, really interesting new young Canadian director/actor who - in my view - depicts gay people as real people and not just "the gay guy". Then, of course, there was Shortbus, which contains hardcore sex scenes but at the same time is a really good film. That film would never, ever in a million years win an oscar - but I would regard it as a better film than American Beauty.

About von Trier: one of the reasons to why I don't appreciate him as much as others, even though I think he's a true artist, is that the themes in his films are not very universal (for lack of a better word). All his films seem to deal with his own psyche or his own view of women or his view of America or other pretty personal themes. They're all basically pretty psychologically charged even though I think von Trier's trying hard to be philosophical about "the state of the world". His films are interesting to me from a psychological point of view but pretty shallow "message-wise", if you ask me. I could probably discuss them for hours but except for Breaking the Waves I don't think I've ever been really moved by a von Trier-film. And I don't think he's making films that are changing the world, so to speak. And he's just so Bergman.

Well said.

I recently saw A Single Man (thanks to ash_is_the_gal), and I've got a review up for it, too -- I didn't think it was better/more interesting than American Beauty at all. I would say American Beauty is better than Transamerica and Brokeback Mountain, too -- although, Transamerica is one hell of an entertaining movie, if you ask me. Never saw Boys Don't Cry (eh, lesbians, big deal -- although I liked Julie Johnson with Courtney Love and Lili Taylor -- and no, I don't hate lesbians, I joke, I joke)... I saw Shortbus... I saw it because of all the hardcore gay sex scenes. I was not impressed with the movie besides that, though. John Cameron Mitchell did alright with Hedwig and the Angry Inch (although it took me awhile to appreciate it, I had different expectations the first time I saw it -- someone told me it was as good as Rocky Horror Picture Show when I first saw it and I literally left the theatre in a huff because "that was no Rocky Horror Picture Show!" -- that was a decade ago exactly, I believe, summer '01, lord I'm old now) .... but what bugs me about John Cameron Mitchell now - and Shortbus - is he promotes polyamory and though I may know people who do that, I'm still personally... unsure... though it's intriguing and worthy of movies being made about it.

I've never heard of Xavier Dolan. I think I like Gus Van Sant and I also like Gregg Araki.

Wow, after reading a little bit around this site and especially this thread I now have so many films to watch. I just finished Trier's Breaking the Waves and WOW! It was very good. Glad to have finally found out about these forums, cheers!

this may be a dumb question, but what is meant " pro-homosexual" ?

Are there really still people in this day and age believen its a lifestyle choice for real?

I don't think Chris Cooper's character really hated homosexuals specifically. I think he was just a very repressed person in general and needed to tyrannically control other people and his environment in order to feel like his life had meaning and substance. When that was threatened, he became violent, and finally he murdered the person he thought was most to blame for his little world falling apart. Maybe the homosexuality angle made it easier for him to justify to himself the act of murder, but it wasn't the real reason. He was really all about control.