Pandora's Box: A Movie that Resonates Strongly with Me - The tragedy of beauty's scarcity
Actually written JUNE 22, 2007 -
I rented the 1929 silent film Pandora’s Box. I rented it because it starred Louise Brooks, an attractive female actress who wore one of my favorite haircuts (the flapper bob). But I fell in love with the movie because it resonated deeply with my world-view.
I have what Ayn Rand would disparagingly call a “tragic sense of life”, and yes, this movie portrays a tragedy. But this particular tragedy is special to me.
The lead character, played by Mrs. Brooks, is the seductively beautiful Lulu, who comes to a miserable end because, in my view, she tries to enjoy a life of erotic abundance in a world where the vast majority experiences erotic scarcity. The opening scene alone establishes this dynamic well enough. Lulu flirts with one man, who obviously eats it up with great relish because he likely doesn’t receive such attention from women quite so beautiful. But within a minute she has grabbed yet another man with great exuberance and abandoned the first man without even acknowledging him. The first man’s excitement turns to the pain of abandonment. As he leaves, his pain begins to convert to ego-preserving anger – at least partially.
The key here is that Lulu means no harm at all. She’s naively innocent, completely unaware of the pain she causes others when she withdraws and denies them her attention. It does not occur to her that the men she excites have nothing to fall back on when she abruptly leaves them for another, or otherwise rejects them. Apparently, she takes for granted that everyone enjoys the same abundant opportunities for erotic gratification that she herself does, or that those who don’t, don’t care. She doesn’t realize the world is full of desperate people craving the attentions of the beautiful elite, such as herself. She has no idea how she teases them and hurts them.
But her ignorance on this issue only adds to her appeal. She’s living a largely carefree life, unencumbered by any awareness of human miseries. She’s living the way we all wish to live, as if everyone had (sufficiently) abundant access to the things that make us most happy, like love and sex. To be with her, to be truly with her, is to forget the reality of scarcity and be in a kind of paradise of universal abundance. While her naiveté hurts others, it is also as much craved by others.
Thus, Lulu’s tragic flaw is her innocence. But the men she accidentally hurts also have the tragic flaw of craving that very innocence, and are thus drawn like moths to her flame. She, and the men she hurts, all go down together.
[Cue: Khruangbin - White Gloves]
But it is interesting to speculate whose tragic flaw is more fundamental, that is, which, if any, causes the other. As I myself try to parse this issue, I conclude that I don’t really want to parse this issue at all. I prefer to think of the whole mess as being caused by the greater tragedy of erotic scarcity in general. If we could magically transport Lulu to some sci-fi future where everyone has all the access to physical beauty they desire, her innocence would be of no harmful consequence to anyone.
But all such fantasies aside, the movie speaks to me of the scarcity that is. And it shows me the tragic consequences in a way I truly appreciate. And I cry.
Comments
Post a Comment