Movie: Scandal (Michael Caton-Jones, 1989)
Oh, if it wasn't for those damn Jamaican jazz musicians! It's one thing they fall in love with our women, but why do they need to make such a fuss when they are rejected? Is there any need for guns? Don't you long for the good old days when we had such fun passing women around like high class sex objects? As proper Englishmen, we did this in discretion of course and we always ensured they had a good time. Thanks to us they escaped from their miserable lives in the country and mingled with the greatest politicians, artists, actors, diplomats, spies, businessmen and all the other fancy folks of the London upper class. And now here you are, calling us ponces. What have we done to deserve that?!
The above paragraph is a loose interpretation of the film's subtext. In 1963, the British Conservative Secrertary of State for War John Profumo (played here by Ian McKellen) resigned after it came out that he had in improper affair with Christine Keeler (Joanne Whalley), who was one of many women essentially groomed by 'osteopath' Stephen Ward (John Hurt, who is becoming one of my favorite actors and is giving here a pretty fantastic performance as a man whose sincere gentleness and perversity live side by side) to 'entertain' his wealthy clients, giving him even more access to power and wealth. In telling this story the film identifies with the Conservative establishment, and while it doesn't quite endorse its views and use of its 'showgirls' it regrets more that the good times ended than that they happened. Wasn't there a way to ensure that the fun could continue withour breaking moral codes? What if the Jamaicans never fired that gun at Stephen Ward's door? And what if those journalists weren't so snooty?
It's safe to say that a film about the Profumo affair made today would be a lot different than this one. I am not entirely sure this hypothetical film would be as thorny and insightful (or as fun and sexy) as Scandal. Before it turns into a fairly standard courthouse drama, the first half of the film is basically 'Tory Boogie Nights', consisting pretty much entirely of a series of set pieces at different glamourous, and glitzy events (plus an orgy) where beautiful young women, headlined by Joanne Whalley and Bridget Fonda, perform flirtatiously for the pleasure of rich British men who ogle, touch and ocassionally fuck them. Most of these rich British men are (Conservative) politicians in power who seemingly spend the majority of their time figuring out how they can obtain and get away with illicit acts of sexual pleasure. It's more damning of them than almost any didactic editorialising expose would be. Moreover, the relationship between Christine and Stephen is genuinely interesting, as is the film's refusal to present Christine as a straightforward victim.
Still, a contemporary remake of Scandal could be a worthwile endeavour. The film posits that for the most part Christine genuinely had agency over her decisions, that she genuinely loved Stephen (without ever sleeping with him!) and that in some cases she even had power over the men she entertained/slept with. It's probably true that in many progressive circles these days, this would be too easily dismissed as a wish fulfillment fantasy on behalf of the filmmakers; acknowledging that people can overcome and thrive within structures that disadvantage them is no reason to stop the fight against these structures, and also helps people like you more. (Progressive) film writers have rightly been raling against the idea of damsels in distress who can only be saved by more powerful people taking benevolent actions on their behalf, but this idea has not yet reached many progressive politicans it seems. However, this digression aside, these structures do exist, and by wishing them away completely. Scandal tells an incomplete story. You can't pat yourself on the back for giving working class girls access to a better life if your policies contribute to their poverty, you can't bemoan sexual puritanism if you espouse traditional family values in all walks of life, and you can't blame anyone for a scandal if you created the conditions for the scandal in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment