Metropolitan: Deception of the Impending Doom - A Satire
By: James Lepinsky
Metropolitan is the 1990 debut from director Whit Stillman, and this film centers around a group of college freshmen in the "bougie" borough of Manhattan. Each characters' objective, desire, or goal is not clearly stated, but the witty dialogue is the cornerstone of this Whit Stillman film. Right from the beginning, we are introduced to the blatant satire of aristocratic culture, and the esoteric topics that this friend group talks about. The main character, Tom Townsend, is arguably dragged into this aristocratic friend group by his admiration of Audrey Rouget. Together, Tom and the rest of the group discuss socialism and the essays of Charles Fourier, and discuss the dissenting opinions of Marxist socialism and utopian socialism. This philosophical and existential statements set a very interesting tone for the film, because without it, Metropolitan would arguably not be a satire anymore. Charlie Black proclaims "no more ridiculous than life itself!" when he offers his friends to dance the Cha-Cha. However, the comments concerning downward social mobility and the proclaims on how the characters "are all doomed!" also strikes an interesting point in itself.What exactly are these characters referring to? Downward social mobility refers to the significant decline in wealth and/or income due to some circumstance. Does that mean Stillman is making the argument that the New York aristocratic culture is doomed to fail due to the economic structure of the 1980s? Are they implying that they are being "hunted by the poor"? The answers are not really stated, but it is somewhat obvious that the characters are very out of step with the society they lived in at the time of the film, 1980s New York. Charlie, Tom, Nick Smith, and Audrey would probably all unanimously agree that New York is slowly "drowning" as Tom states that the St. Regis Hotel will soon be "torn down" as he looks down from his balcony onto the beautiful New York City.
There are a lot of things that director Stillman does right, and with Metropolitan, he further proves that he is the master of satire. He paints this portrait that creates the deception that the future of the aristocracy and the future of the city life in general is about to crumble, but he also asks "who actually believes that?" So, when Charlie proclaims "it's no more ridiculous than life itself!", it becomes an existentialist version of what everyone is arguing: sooner or later, the aristocracy will be a failure, or a death (which Stillman also alludes that there is a correlation between the two).
In conclusion, Metropolitan is a satire on the fragile culture that mocks the extremely "bougie" side of contemporary New York culture. While viewers may argue that this "philosophy" is problematic, it's good to see that the characters are playing into their own insecurities, and becomes pawn of their own deception; the deception that their lives will one day crumble.
You raise some good points about the film's subject matter here. However, I'm not convinced the film is a satire. If Stillman wanted to skewer young bourgeois because he had a problem with them, what exactly is his problem with them? Doesn't he handle them affectionately? There is philosophical banter in the film but is it all trivial?
ReplyDelete