Current Forum: Session 8: Love and Hollywood's Master Narratives	Read 12 times 	
Date: 06-Mar-2001 00:11:00	
Author: SIMMONS, DAVID C. <dcs7316@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Ideology For Everyone! 	
 [Remove]	
		
       In Pretty Woman (Garry Marshall, 1990), we have a situation similar to that which we saw in Trading Places. Here is a story which purports to show class problems, only to end up reinforcing the dominant class and gender ideology. In this post, I will give several examples of these.
       Pretty Woman rehashes the same old capitalist maneuver of telling stories where the upper class are portrayed as being morally empty and the lower class are portrayed as being ignorant. Redemption comes as a boy from one class and a girl from another fall in love. Not only is the lower-class character given financial stability in the end of the film, but the upper-class character is humanized. In essence, we have a new "middle class" (the assumed audience of Hollywood film) that has the best of both worlds (see Mantsios 118). As a side benefit, ideology can continue to put forth that since class problems were solved at the micro level (with the two 
characters) they must also be solved at the macro (as Bush Sr. said, "[Class] isn't for the United States of America" [Mantsios 113] i.e. If I don't see class problems around me, they must not 
exist.) 
       In Pretty Woman, Vivian is the one who rubs her teeth in the mirror and then sits on the counter of the clothing store. Edward is the one who mercilessly purchases companies and sells 
them in pieces. By the end of the film, Vivian has a new demeanor and Edward gives up his corporate piracy. As our street-smart chorus reminds us at the film's end, "This is Hollywood. Always time to dream, so keep dreaming."
       How does film language reinforce these notions? When Edward walks into the hotel lobby to pick up Vivian for their first dinner, a rack focus keeps Vivian out of focus until Edward 
supposedly recognizes her. Then a zoom in on Edward alerts the spectator to his delight at her new-found elegance. Such film language encourages the spectator to root for the "middle-class 
morphing" of the two characters which is sure to follow. 
       If we look at Mark Cooper's article where he describes the Hollywood "look of love" in terms of a shared gaze between lovers (162), we see how this has application in this film. The first two "love scenes" (in the hotel room and then on the piano) are done without the shared gaze. (Vivian in particular, looks away.) But in the third love scene, where she kisses Edward, [the film's diegetic code of "true love"] there is a sustained, longing gaze. This is the love scene where we, as spectators, are allowed to more fully watch. 
       Film language also reinforces the dominant ideology of gender. The first shot we see of Vivian is a closeup of her crotch. We then have a high-angle shot, which places the spectator in an erotic position of power over her black bra. Next we have a leg shot, and an eye shot. Mulvey's notion of fetishism couldn't be more clearly demonstrated. Notice, too, how the passive 
character is Vivian. She waits to be possessed. It's Edward that has to decide to actively choose her in the end of the film.
       As these few examples demonstrate, Pretty Woman actually participates in the ugliness of capitalist ideology by making women into passive objects for the active man to possess, as well as by pulling that old capitalist maneuver of telling stories where the stupid poor and the stuck-up rich exchange wealth and humanity through love. Hollywood loves to tell their middle-class consumer that they can have it both ways, as long as they pay their $7.50.