The Simulacra-Related Problems Illustrated in and Created by “Pleasantville”

As a writer/director of a major motion picture with a major-league budget ($60 million - this picture held the record for most effects shots until “Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace” was released) Gary Ross was well aware of his responsibility with images; as he should have been. However, as Ross himself states in the DVD’s Director’s Commentary, “If you’re looking for some kind of reason or purpose with this film, you’re not gonna find it.”

It appears that Ross would be heavily in agreement with Jean Baurillard’s ideas regarding the dangers of images taking over and replacing meaning, by the fact that he is lampooning how 1950s sitcoms are still currently on the air. However, in outright acts of directorial indulgence, Ross embodies some of the fears that Baurillard has, some that should be easiest to understand – devaluing a previous film, and taking away its meaning by simply referencing it in a context that is almost trivial in comparison.

As any good sales person will tell you, “perception is reality.” By creating the appearance of a perfect product at a bargain price, you will undoubtedly make a sale. For those of us who did not live in the 1950s or spend time studying the decade historically, our perception (therefore, our reality) is what we see on Nickelodeon’s “Nick-at-Nite,” the occasional nostalgia show on A&E, and even the ‘50s throwback Rock n’ Roll McDonalds on Ohio. It is the images here where we assemble what our reality of the 1950s is.

If you were to ask the typical twenty something today what words or events encapsulate the ‘50s, results will invariably include Elvis, Barbie, poodle-skirts, Hula-hoops, and even “the Fonz;” a 1970s television character portraying the picture of 1950s coolness.

However, if you were to ask a historian or someone who simply lived through the ‘50s, some of their memories could easily include the Brinks robbery, the problems in desegregating Arkansas Central High School, Rosa Parks being arrested, the “Quiz Show” scandal, China taking control of Tibet, Vietnam becoming divided, and the peak and eventual death of McCarthyism. That’s just to name a few.

Is the twenty something right, or is the person who lived through the ‘50s? They are both correct. All of the above-mentioned events took place in the 1950s. However, the twenty something observer had their “reality” of the ‘50s shaped by images they are seeing today (or since the 1980s). The images are chosen by producers today who are undoubtedly interested in selecting things that are more flashy and fun to watch. Thereby, overshadowing, and making the importance of events that did alter history seem less significant.

Americans today have grown used to referring to the 1963 assassination of JFK as “The day America lost its innocence.” Anyone who has any knowledge of the 1955 murder of Emmett Till and the crooked trial that resulted (which ironically ended on the anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights) can attest that America wasn’t all that innocent before Kennedy’s death either.

And it speaks volumes that more people know Fonzie’s last name than know anything at all about Emmett Till.

However, we are led to believe the 1950s was a light-hearted wonderful time, and where can we get a better picture of everyday family life than a sitcom? Even sitcoms today are a heavily muted version of American life, but a number of issues are addressed directly today that weren’t even mentioned in their ‘50s counterparts.

That is where the main character of “Pleasantville,” David, comes in. He uses a 1950s sitcom “Pleasantville” to escape from his difficult late-1990s life, complete with an absentee father. Predictably, once he and his sister (played by Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon, respectively) end up entering the sitcom (and further understanding how altered their reality is) they end up expanding the minds of the “Pleasantville” citizens, which ends up leading to some chaos and civil unrest, some of which is skin color-related (with a very unique twist).

However, where Ross ends up accidentally confirming Baudrillard’s fears is when he begins using noteworthy shots from previous important and emotional films. Unlike the countless times this is done in “The Simpsons” and other satirical films and television shows, in this case Ross isn’t doing it for the sake of doing it. He is likely taking a shortcut, attempting to invoke the same type of emotion felt by the viewer that was first created in the film Ross is homaging.

The film eventually takes a turn where a group of people is being prosecuted for their personal beliefs and Ross has ample material to draw from. For example, David tells of two books in the film that didn’t exist until he told the story. Those books are “Catcher in the Rye” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” Even today those are some of the most commonly banned books in America. Later in the film there is a book burning very reminiscent of “Fahrenheit 451.”

The film also does tend to take after Fritz Lang’s classic “Metropolis,” which centers on a cold, yet efficient city that is sent on a downward spiral when the status quo is challenged. Its main theme stating, “There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator,” can easily be applied to “Pleasantville.”

There is one scene at a bowling alley in which the main town oppressor, J. T. Walsh, rallies some of his followers to take action against this group of people who are causing so much change. One shot in particular, Walsh with a background of projected bowling scores, looks strikingly similar to the shot of Patton in front of the flag in “Patton” and the shot of Charles Foster Kane in front of his own poster in “Citizen Kane.”

By having this shot semi-humorously set at a bowling alley, Ross has far devalued the two previously mentioned films. This same thing happens during a courtroom scene that mirrors the courtroom scene in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

However, probably the most extreme “borrowed shot” come from the Nazi propaganda film “Triumph of the Will.” “Triumph of the Will” is often described as, “a movie for Nazis by Nazis.” Not that disempowering Nazi ideals is exactly the worst thing that could happen, but Ross heavily reduces the significance of such historically important footage by comparing a Nazi rally to a town meeting and likening Hitler to your average town blowhard.

It is this kind of use/abuse of images that Baudrillard can easily find immoral in nature. Once viewing a piece of film from “Triumph of the Will” would instill fear into the viewer that countless people felt when the saw or heard that particular speech. However, now there’s the chance that someone watching the footage might think, “hey, this is like that one movie with Spiderman and the ‘Legally Blonde’ girl.”