“I’m big, blonde, and beautiful.” Yes, Tracy Turnblad is all of the above, and refreshingly accepted for this. In a world where women were expected to have the perfect hair, skin, and overall immaculate body in order to be accepted, Tracy defies the odd by winning the crown and getting the guy for being who she is (plus a little blonde hair dye). Her weight was far from an issue unless she was the target of an easy hit by the jealous Amber. While feminism plays a big role in this film, the main issue is segregation. By displacing the issue and condensing it to Baltimore’s teens, John Waters can send messages to the people who can make the biggest change: the teens.
I think that the teen generation of the 60’s took a larger political stance than most other generations, and targeting teens was a good move. Roger Ebert, however, disagrees. In his review he claims that “The movie probably has the most to say to people who were teenagers in the early '60s, but they are, I suppose, the people least likely to see this movie. It also will appeal to today's teenagers, who will find that every generation has its own version of Corny Collins, and its own version of the Council, designed to make you feel like a worthless reject on the trash heap of teenage history.” Ok, so the scene with the spotlight made us both feel bad for the girls subjected to it while making us relive our own high school traumas, but doesn’t that help us relate to the film? And maybe the teens from the 60’s won’t want to see this film, but Ebert can’t deny that it will appeal to the teens of the 80’s (and following decades) which is who I think Waters wants to appeal to.
It doesn’t take research to show that segregation, while on a much smaller level, is still an issue we are dealing with. If one can persuade teens to reject segregation and accept integration, we stand a better chance of sticking with that ruling. If a movie wants to do that, we must relate to the characters that make the decision to integrate. Tracy Turnblad’s character handles this job extremely well. She is not the average lead role but is a more traditional teenage girl. Unlike Amber is not from a rich, well off family, doesn’t have the perfect life or the perfect body, but still manages to be a beloved character we all want to win. While I feel most can identify with Tracy at one point or another, Waters represents a variety of women, giving us the opportunity to identify with at least one. This was a great move on his part because it shows both sides of women and does not always stereotype them.
One of the best examples of this was Edna and Velma. These women could not be further apart, however both demonstrate control. Velma’s control is in a much more obvious sense, but Edna still steps up as Tracy’s agent and leads the fight for her daughter when things go south. By doing this, the film shows that in reality, women have multiple personalities, and one individual woman can change identities depending on the circumstances. The representation continues with Motor mouth Mabel. She takes on a motherly role and the characters almost unanimously love her even though she is black. For her, color is not an issue as she welcomes Penny and Tracy without hesitation. Unlike Penny’s mother, she is ok with her son dating a white girl. Again, this shows the differences in women. One is crazy, the other is logical, and the logical one is in fact black.
The interracial couple is another controversial point. Generally it was frowned upon and avoided in films, but this movie embraces it and suggests that it is far from a bad thing. Their relationship (despite its cheesiness like most in the film) is one of the better ones as they don’t quickly grow tired of each other and swap partners.
Roper may believe this movie lacks any message, but I disagree with that. Don’t let the comedy fool you. I think it uses comedic relief to appeal to the audience and relieve tension on numerous controversial issues. Maybe changing her hair from a ratted out (or feathered) poof to stick straight is a cheesy symbol for change, but it worked, and it is a comedy. I would say that I was disappointed in the representation of men and they generally were left in the background and feminism was in the foreground much more than masculinity. We know very litle about Link and Corny except for the fact that they are for integration, and the husbands seem to simply go along with their wives for the most part. I do still feel that the film deals with numerous issues: weight, feminism, stereotypes, integration, politics, interracial relationships…I think in the wide variety of issues, one can easily find a message.
I completely agree that this film had a deeper message than many of the critics seemed to think. There are many positive messages which can be taken from it, as you mentioned in your last few sentences. One interesting point that you brought up was the idea of the target audience. I had not considered who would have been watching this film at the time it was released, but it certainly would have been a positive message for teenagers in the 80's as well as at any other time since the civil rights movement. The images of women, too, are striking and important, and I agree (although again had not noticed it before reading your post) that it is disappointing that men do not also share prominence in the film.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts about comic relief are really interesting. I agree that the cheesy aspects of this film were to make it more light-hearted and at the same time it has a deeper meaning which goes along with it. I also liked what you said about the change from poofy hair to straight hair as being a symbol of change. I never would have thought about this butI can definitely see what you mean. You bring up a lot of valid points throughout your entire blog.
ReplyDelete