The Erin Brockovich - Movie Review Example

Erin Brockovich Movies, as compared to other art forms, provide a greater potential for capturing and illustrating the minute details of action, conflict, and emotions because of their ability to cater to a wider variety of sensory details. Erin Brockovich (2000) dramatizes the real life story of a woman’s fight against the corporate energy giant PG&E. Directed by Steven Soderbergh, and written by Susannah Grant, it features Julia Roberts in the lead role which won her the Academy Award for Best Actress. Julia Roberts presents a mature, powerful, deeply moving performance of the woman, Erin Brockovich, whose reliance on her sex appeal lands her in a mess until she finds her mission as a legal assistant espousing the cause of a small community ravaged by pollution from PG&E’s plant. The film is considered one of the most progressive movies of recent decades. However, despite much ado about its being a feminist film, it also resorts to the objectification of woman for male viewing pleasure. Erin Brockovich, an unemployed single mother of three, is on a losing streak that leads to a dismissed lawsuit against a rich doctor. She had hoped to cash in on the lawsuit but loses on it because of her brash and indecorous outbursts in court. Playing on her lawyer’s sense of guilt, she succeeds in browbeating him to employ her. The highlight of her past has been a reign as Miss Wichita. She has remained blinded by the easy, cheap triumphs her beauty got her. Married and divorced twice, she struggles to raise her three children. Without a man to lean on or even a job to support her, life has seemed headed for disaster. She wears tight, short, cleavage-enhancing costumes that indicate her crass, low-class taste. Her trashy clothes and earthy manners are abrasive to co-workers, as illustrated by the dialogue between her employer and herself. Ed Masry: “In a law firm you may want to re-think your wardrobe a little”. Erin Brockovich: “Well, as long as I have one ass instead of two Ill wear what I like if thats all right with you. You might want to re-think those ties”. (Soderbergh, 2000). They gradually learn to tolerate her when she begins to investigate a suspicious case involving the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. She discovers that residents in the area are being poisoned by toxic hexavalent chromium that the company is dumping and that the company is trying quietly to buy out the contaminated land. She perseveres, to find herself in the middle of one of the biggest class action lawsuits in American history. Julia Roberts portrays a fiercely independent modern American woman with gusto, pathos and humour. Other characters are secondary, and her constant presence and indomitable spirit relegate even the facts of the real-life case to the background. The film avoids standard courtroom scenes and focuses on interpersonal relationships. It succeeds in avoiding the clichés of crusader scenarios while dwelling on lives and people. Character-driven action takes the place of courtroom theatrics. This emotional film, with its themes of trust and commitment has greater appeal to females more than males, probably also due to the underlying thread of third generation feminism. Since it lacks a sense of the personal danger of a conspiracy film, it does attract negative male reactions. Hollywood films stand out as classic examples that epitomize the extent to which human sensuality as well as sexuality can be taken advantage of through carnal display of the female characters. Men do not simply look at women; rather their gaze transmits power of action and yearning for possession. The ‘sexualization’ and objectification of women is not merely for the purpose of eroticism but is also designed to remove resistance and coax them into submission. "Scopophilia, a drive which has the look as its object of desire, is evidently of crucial importance to the cinema. It is a drive that is dependent upon the maintenance of a distance between subject and object." (Mulvey, 1992). Feminists theorize it as the way men look at women, women look at themselves and other women, and effects of the action on each individual. Many advertisements are replete with explicit sexual imagery that borders on pornography, and exploit sexuality. Mainstream Hollywood films can be analyzed and criticized for being pro-patriarchy, by applying psychoanalytic theory. There are countless examples of objectified women on the screen and paramount among them is Erin Brockovich. An issue central to feminist film analysis is how women are typically objectified in mainstream Hollywood films. According to film theorist Laura Mulvey, popular movies are philocentric; that is, constructed for male viewing pleasure. This means that films are scopophilic in nature, with women as passive objects meant to satisfy the active male desire to gaze at the female form. This is referred to as the male gaze. (Mulvey). All the methods of the male gaze objectify a woman, turning her into a commodity on display, instead of recognizing her as an equal human being. In this way, she loses her basic humanity. The film became popular among women because of Roberts’ unmistakable bright grin, her Southern genuineness and her quick, often witty, retorts. Roberts gained acceptance with her female fans for her identifiable and sympathetic status as a struggling single mother rather than by her sexy looks and provocative neckline. From a male perspective, however, the film owes it success to its marketing Roberts to look like a hooker in revealing outfits. Even at the conclusion of the film, she remains in her revealing attire that is consistent with the real Ms. Brockovich, who never saw reason to dress any way other than how she felt comfortable. (www.CommonWealthClub.org). Thus, even a proclaimed feminist film like ‘Erin Brockovich’ uses female sexuality and profanity to tap the attraction of potential male audiences. Unlike the second wave feminism which distanced itself from sexuality considered to be reductive at best or degrading at worst, Brockovich is post-"third wave" feminist. The female is aware of being both a body and a mind, and utilizes both to their fullest. The film effectively portrays a woman who rises to the challenge uncompromisingly and eventually obtains personal satisfaction, while making a difference to the quality of life of the victimized families. Her character is central to the script, and to the camera, attracting its gaze. However, the difference lies in the fact that the feminist rhetoric here is directed inward to questions of self-realization and empathic connections between women. The empathy is dramatized by her relationship with Marg Helgenberger, one of the victims, and her ability to breach the wall that another victim (Cherry Jones whose front door carries a forbidding no solicitors sign) has erected; rather than about womens role in society. The mother instinct, a need to protect herself and her family, is the motivation that triggers the action. The film traces the evolution of her self respect from a dismal low at the beginning, conditioned by her frustration with her life and with her inability to get a break despite her sexuality. She is able to define herself more meaningfully as the film progresses and she acquires an extended family. She tells boyfriend Aaron Eckhart that people respect her for the first time in her life after she involved herself in the case. The focus of the film remains definitively personal, and she has to pay the price. Eckhart is every womans dream, sensitive, drug free but macho enough to appeal to feminine lust. Eckhart does not provide the much touted, magical male answer to Erin, but he tempts her, demanding more attention. He also insists that Erin leave her legal career to be with him and the kids. He appeals to the deep longing to fall back on the intimacy of a man coming to comfort and take care of her and her brood, soothe her hurt and loneliness, and salve her desperation. This is dramatized in scenes that show her estrangement from her young son and Eckhart. The resolution of this personal dilemma occurs when Eckhart realises that Erins work has been important in helping other people. The tearful encounter between Erin and Helgenberger which Eckhart witnesses is the turning point and it is one of the best scenes in the movie. Painfully, Erin reiterates her will and pulls back to seek her own destiny. The role of the Neglected, Long-Suffering Love Interest is refreshingly shown through a gender reversal. Romance apart, as a struggling, single, working woman, Erin needs to be true to the demands of her children. Erin must love them and still achieve her glory. The film resolves this difficult dilemma through a scene of immense pathos, when Erin’s son, who is resentful of his mother’s lack of attention, comes across a report about a badly afflicted client, a child his age. "She is the same age as me," he says, providing Erin the much needed justification. (Soderbergh, 2000). It is a film more in terms of matters of personal integrity and self-realization, even criticizing the more conventional stereotype of a successful woman. Erin spares none, and is harsh on the well-groomed, educated female lawyers who are shown as emotionally disconnected, almost sub-human, slaves to the system. The following dialogue illustrates her contempt for them: Theresa Dallavale: “Okay, look, I think we got off on the wrong foot here...” Erin Brockovich: “Thats all you got, lady. Two wrong feet and fucking ugly shoes”. (Soderbergh, 2000). Erin Brockovich offers a powerful vision of how an apparently inconsequential woman can achieve personal and professional satisfaction by overcoming constraints that prevent her from fusing together the power of her sexuality, foul language, doggedness, untapped intelligence and her charisma. She just refuses to be mousy and subservient, making the film a mascot of feminists. She manages to stand up to male persuasion, succeeds in helping the community; and uses her sex appeal positively. However, the elegant charms of Ms Roberts, her low cut garments etc have been so cleverly employed to attract and behold the lustful gazes of average male voyeuristic connoisseurs. Nevertheless, the dramatic tension that makes this film so moving is the transformation in Erin, by providing an image of how we might overcome the external, and even more importantly the internal shackles that bind us. Her other source of power comes from her ability to transform her sexual allure from a means of attracting men, into a weapon to cajole and seduce for higher purposes. Flaunting enticing cleavage and a low tan line, she uses them to find the way to important concessions and revelations. She is not averse to talking about it either, being provocatively brazen as in the dialogue with Kurt Potter (Peter Coyote), the arrogant corporate lawyer brought in by Masry. Kurt Potter: “Wha... how did you do this?” Erin Brockovich: “Well, um, seeing as how I have no brains or legal expertise, and Ed here was losing all faith in the system, am I right?” Ed Masry: “Oh, yeah, completely. No faith, no faith...” Erin Brockovich: “I just went out there and performed sexual favors. Six hundred and thirty-four blow jobs in five days... Im really quite tired.” (Soderbergh, 2000). Of the two important male roles in the film, Albert Finney in a fine portrayal of a bemused lawyer Ed Masry is the more effective. His failure to win her case and respect her in the early scenes is a thematic pointer to the unfolding main drama. There is powerful chemistry between Ed and Erin, though not overtly sexual. They have a mutual impact without having to do “it”. They draw the best out of each other, living by their wits and their clashing. The final scene brings out their relationship dramatically. Erin is at work on a new case. Ed takes her bonus check to her, telling her mischievously that the amount is different from what they have discussed previously. She is at her foul best, as Ed expects. She accuses Ed of using "big words [he] doesn’t understand," like "trust," and that as a lawyer all he can do is complicate things that aren’t complicated to begin with. She is outraged at the way her work is undervalued "in this firm”. Once Erin notices the amount of two million dollars, she is speechless, probably for the first time ever. Ed has the last word when he replays the words of her first repartee thrown at him. He asks whether they "teach beauty queens to apologize, “because Erin "suck[s] at it." (Soderbergh, 2000). Erin Brockovich is both entertaining and thought-provoking, a portrait of successful female self-realization. Discreet direction by Soderbergh permits the film’s script and star to dominate. He pushes the films urgent pace, in a story that adapts itself better to slower exposition. Emotions are portrayed emphatically, particularly in the close-ups of Roberts face like the scene where she listens tearfully to Eckhart telling her about her infant daughters first word, which she has missed. The film is noted for showing how sexual power can be integrated with personal power to achieve glory for and by women. A totally different perspective credits the film with being a radically anti-capitalist film. This interpretation has class struggle as defined by Marx as the meaning of this film. But, despite all the qualities that are positive about, it still relies heavily on the intent to exploit the male audience by the objectification of a pretty woman in revealing clothes. Works Cited Soderbergh, Steven, Dir. Erin Brockovich: Universal Pictures, 2000. Mulvey, Laura: Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1992). Homepage: Common Wealth Club. Accessed on 8 December 2006. Read More