Advertisement
Kyle Buchanan has a post at Defamer taking Jeff Wells and Anthony Lane to task for questioning the plausibility of race relations in Jonathan Demme’s Rachel Getting Married. His basic point is that critics who are old and white can’t hold back their “thinly veiled discomfort with the shocking idea that white people can marry black people in 2008 without someone giving a speech about it.” But this is actually a common complaint about the film, and it’s definitely not limited to those afflicted with either oldness or whiteness. I saw and sort of fell in love with the film at Toronto where a lot (a LOT) of critics were dismissing Rachel for its allegedly laughable multiculturalism. Not only does the white Rachel take a black husband without comment or incident, but the members of the wedding party wear saris, even though no one involved is visibly of sari-wearing ethnicity. Scandal!
At Toronto, I was still a little bit too in love with the film from first viewing to be able to come up with a finely calibrated, bullshit-free rationalization, but I knew that to make the argument that the film’s melting pot was somehow inauthentic, and/or tacked on by Demme to reflect his own sensibilities rather than those of his characters, was to fundamentally misunderstand the film. I think I thus may have said something stupid in defense of the film whilst under the influence of whiskey and petulant certitude. Whoops.
But a month later, I’ve calmed down and sobered up, and I’ve figured out exactly why Demme’s “cultural appropriation” is not just “obnoxious exoticism“, but is absolutely integral to the film’s story.
First of all, the “why don’t any of the family members freak out over the interracial marriage” is just categorically stupid. For one thing, as Buchanan notes, in “real life” (scare quotes used to acknowledge the inherent silliness of referring to the whole of reality as a solid construct about which we can make objective judgments), “one might think that by the time Rachel and Sidney had gotten married, their families would have gotten used to the idea that they were of separate races.” But the lack of racism amongst the two families plays into a larger issue, one which engulfs those dreaded saris as well. Holed up in their sprawling Connecticut manse, Rachel and family are cut off from the functioning world by virtue of their obvious immense wealth. Rich, sheltered people do “eccentric” things like wearing saris instead of wedding dresses, partially because they can afford to explore stupid whims, and partially because their stupid whims mark them as “unconventional.” From the color blindness of both families, to the (unfortunately sexless) all-night orgy of fractured cultural reference into which the wedding party gloriously devolves, Demme is telling us that this family prides itself on its creativity, its liberalism, its openness, its ostentatious rejection of convention.
But of course, this self-styled nonconformity is not only unsustainable, it’s revealed to be totally false. When filterless addict Kym (Anne Hathaway) is dropped straight from rehab into this happy liberal idyll, nobody can deal with her brand of actual nonconformity, her inability to simmer down to normal. Rachel’s volatile, often unpleasantly frank younger sister is the only thing that could puncture the bubble in which she’s determined to marry. Seen from this angle, the over-the-top multiculturalism is absolutely essential: this is ultimately a film about a family that’s self-consciously molded itself as the most accepting, post-60s construct possible, and then force them to confront the only thing that could possibly make them uncomfortable, the embodiment of the problems they don’t have, the kind of unresolvable personal misery that even money can’t stave off.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Great analysis. I had only seen the multiculturalism of the wedding as more basically a superficial extended family that contrasts with the actual family at the center. This kind of relates to what you are saying. The Buchanans can easily unite all these people together but internally they’re so separated. There’s something more metaphorical in the use of the saris and especially the rehearsal dinner masala than simply upper class liberal eccentricity.
You wrote:
“Demme is telling us that this family prides itself on its creativity, its liberalism, its openness, its ostentatious rejection of convention.
But of course, this self-styled nonconformity is not only unsustainable, it’s revealed to be totally false.”
So I guess we’re all voting for McCain, then.
@Glenn: Your logic escapes me.
You’re saying that the film’s Buchman family aspires to a liberal ideal that is not just unsustainable but false. I’m asking you: if you believe liberal ideals are not just unsustainable but false, why continue to embrace them?
THAT family’s liberalism is unsustainable and false. Not all liberalism. I was talking about a specific case demonstrated in this film.
I don’t know why my personal politics should be an issue here, but I am neither the biggest embracer of liberal ideals, nor a McCain supporter. Sorry.
I wasn’t so much supposing on your personal politics as making a joke. But—while I absolutely agree that Kym’s behavior (AND that thing that’s a spoiler, so I won’t mention it) is just what this family absolutely can’t assimilate, I don’t necessarily believe that Demme’s offering a critique of their liberalism. Or if he is, it’s a—gulp—compassionate one. After all, Sister Carol, Fab Five Freddy, Robyn Hitchcock aren’t all just the “Rachel” family’s friends; they’re his friends, too.
And while it’s true that, as you say, “nobody can deal with [Kym's] brand of actual nonconformity, her inability to simmer down to normal,” it’s hard also to see how they can, and sometimes, even why they ought to. I mean, how would you feel (and I mean the editorial you here, really), if somebody got up at your wedding rehearsal dinner and gave the sort of self-absorbed speech that Hathaway’s Kym does? You might just swallow it for the sake of propriety (I myself had a drunken aunt get up and give a speech about what an obnoxious kid I was at my wedding, and everyone just looked at their glasses; in any case, it wasn’t as if she was wrong…), but you also wouldn’t kindly ascribe it to “nonconformity.” You’d say she was being an inconsiderate pain in the ass.
My own feeling was that the vibe and the cultural mix of the wedding in the film wasn’t terribly different from what I’ve seen at gatherings hosted by affluent people who make their livings in the arts.
And as for me, I’m a socialist.
Eh… having seen the movie, I thought it was pretty clear that the reason why Kym’s family couldn’t deal with her was (SPOILER ALERT) that, as a result of her past drug abuse, she was responsible for her brother Ethan’s death. It wasn’t because Kym was way too ‘unconventional’. It was because Kym’s family were still angry about what Kym did. You’re reaching to say that Demme’s true intent was to make these non-conformists into hypocrites.
And by the way– I thought the multiculturalism in Rachel Getting Married was cloying. No, I didn’t have the problem with the idea of a black man and a white woman marrying to be contrived. From having been to a lot of weddings the past five years, I know that is more and more common these days. This is was got on my nerves during the wedding sequences: the combination Robyn Hitchcock, a folksy string group, a garage band playing ‘Here Come the Bride’, saris, acapella singing, a hip-hop dance throw-down, and a fully loaded Brazilian Drum Band. It was too kitschy. And I probably would have given it all a pass if Demme hadn’t lingered so much on the festivities. Yes, it’s a movie about a wedding, but after awhile, it started to feel like a glorified home-movie about Demme’s eclectic sensibilities.
However, I will admit that the acting in Rachel Getting Married is great, and the cinematography was exceptional.
P.S. Me don’t sometimes write well with no caffeine in my belly.
I know people in serious interracial relationships and it’s a topic that nobody really gives more than a passing thought. People fall in love, the same way that people of the same gender fall in love, and sometimes they get married. I personally don’t see what the issue is, or why it’s being made such a big deal out of?
Wow, I had no idea this was such an issue. The people who are complaining that the multiculturalism in RGM is “implausible” (or, worse yet, “kitschy”) must be the same people who complained about Katherine Heigl not getting an abortion in “Knocked Up.”
Look: it’s more than possible that there are race-related tensions within these families. The movie doesn’t explore them because THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS FILM IS ABOUT. I think people are just having cognitive dissonance about seeing multiculturalism presented in a film that is not principally (or even marginally) about multiculturalism. As for the saris and the multi-ethnic musical performances, I think Karina nailed it: the Buchmans are rich and can simply afford to adorn a wedding with fun, quirky touches (and come on, wouldn’t you like to attend a wedding like this one? everyone was having a great time). This discussion feels a bit like McCain raising a stink about Obama’s pig-lipstick line: focusing on something marginal (and misunderstanding that marginal thing) instead of getting into the meat of the issue.
If film critics aren’t ready to accept a casually interracial wedding ceremony as “plausible,” they might as well join in the chorus of racist voices asking “who is the real Barack Obama?”
The movie does allude to the multiculturalism when the mother-of-the-groom says “this is what heaven is like.” Granted, I might be projecting; she might have been talking about the wine or the pre-wedding jitters, but I doubt it. She’s referring to the beauty of the moment, the crazy quilt of the extended family. That the moment is tainted by Kym’s remarks may speak to the difficulty of establishing utopia on earth, but I don’t think the film intends to mock the sweet woman or expose her ideals as false. They’re true, they’re just hard to achieve except in briefly floating bubbles.
My favorite part of the movie is the rehearsal dinner, and one of my favorite things about it is that after Kym speaks, the scene continues. The moment is gone, but you can tell from their post-Kym laughter that everyone wishes they could bring it back even as they know they can’t. To me this feels exactly like the melancholy that follows every such bubble. I recognize it. The bubble is fragile, but it’s not fake.
Movies are fake, and Charlie Kaufman has nothing on Demme in the synecdoche department, but there’s truth in this fictional construction.
Interesting discussion. I got a sense that they were a progressive family but didn’t get a sense that they were in the arts. I was also wondering (but couldn’t tell) if the Buckmans (was that the family name?) were jews because the wedding service was clearly not religious. It just seemed that the script made a conscious decision to be inclusive of all different types of cultures which made it quite interesting. I’ve also never seen a mother of the bride less involved in planning her daughter’s wedding but maybe that’s just my experience.
Maybe the color issue was muted because Dad (Bill Irwin) married an African American women (Anna Deveare Smith).
As someone who DOES back McCain, I have to say I had largely the same reaction Ms. Longworth did. (Not the kinda support she wants I suspect, but … oh, well.) That the film is taking the mickey out of a certain sort of multiculti display that this family can engage in, which I find wickedly funny.
BTW, I agree that by the time of a wedding, both families will have long gotten used to the inter-racial thing (and any family members who objected would likely not be there). I obviously can’t speak for Ms. Longworth, but what I would say (and I think she would too) is not that plausibility REQUIRES that there be some sort of Big Conversation about it. It’s more that it becomes another signifier of how much this family prizes post-60s “Unconventionality.” In that sense, the very fact that there IS no Big Conversation is exactly right, and everything else Bobo in the movie reinforces that.
[...] the film or hate it (and your lean one way or another could very well be partially ideological), you’d have to be insane to look at numbers like this for limited release film and read [...]
What a joke this movie was. I just sat there at first, shaking my head. Then it came to me that this might REALLY be a joke. Some parody of liberal polliictal correctness. Lesbianism? check. Multi-culturalism? check (to a rediculous and laughable degree). Wealthy liberals/no jobs in sight? check. Lots of addictions, angst, self-loathing, self-centeredness as only non-working/non-thinking liberals experience? check. Gratuitous use of black women in skimpy attire dancing? check. Mercedes/Volvo/Saab? check. Worst movie I ever saw unless I think of it in terms of a parody of the shallowness of east coast elite liberals. Then it becomes one of the best ever for showing how most of America doesn’t live.