Let me make one thing clear: I love TV. My earliest research into pop
culture was memorizing the TV Guide Fall Preview issue at age 10,
and my critical faculties were honed while watching the new shows. As a
latchkey kid, I did my homework to afternoon airings of The Andy
Griffith Show, and I grew to love the summer more for syndicated
repeats of M*A*S*H* and The Honeymooners than for
warm-weather cookouts and bike rides.
As a high-school kid, I was therefore shy, socially awkward, and
obsessed with TV trivia--just like David, the teenager Tobey Maguire plays
in Gary Ross' Pleasantville. David's favorite hideout is a 1950s
show called Pleasantville, a family sitcom in the mold of Ozzie
and Harriet and Father Knows Best. Like many TV Land junkies,
David watches Pleasantville not just for nostalgia, but also for
reassurance. His beautiful suburban home has been wracked by divorce and
the cynicism of his bad-girl twin sister--all of which makes the calm,
wooden, familiar rhythms of Pleasantville seem like a cozy blanket
on a chilly night.
On the night of a Pleasantville marathon and trivia contest, an
argument ensues between Maguire and his sister Jennifer (played by Reese
Witherspoon), who wants to watch "the big concert on MTV." In the ensuing
tussle, they accidentally smash the remote control. As luck would have it,
though, a passing TV repairman (Don Knotts, in a cameo that shows he still
has a knack for exasperated line delivery) has a replacement. But when the
siblings try it out, they're zapped onto the set of Pleasantville as
replacements for the clean-cut kids of the show's idyllic middle-class
parents, played by William H. Macy and Joan Allen.
This is your basic high-concept premise, but Gary Ross (making his
directorial debut on the heels of popular screenplays for Big and
Dave) tries for something a little deeper than a laff-happy gimmick
flick. Despite some early pokes at the artificiality of a backlot
world--the entire town consists of two streets, there are no toilets in the
bathroom--Pleasantville is not exactly comic. Indeed, the movie's
first 45 minutes have a sluggish, uncertain vibe, as David and Jennifer
learn the rules of their new reality and begin to toy with the carefully
ordered lives of their friends and neighbors. The humor is draggy and only
intermittently observant, and I found myself wondering: Is Ross going for a
surreal effect, or is he just slow-witted?
The fitfulness mostly stems from Ross' ignorance about TV. The details
of his makeshift '50s sitcom seem phony from the get-go: The scenes from
the actual show are joke-free, charmless, and shot from unlikely cinematic
angles. Once "inside" the TV world, the movie is riddled with little
inconsistencies, such as the absence of conflict--these comedies did have
"situations," after all--and the fact that the TV in Pleasantville tunes in
real '50s shows. Judging from the movie, it's unclear if Ross has even seen
the shows he's parodying; more likely, his idea of late-'50s television was
formed by other satirists' stale jokes about Wally and the Beav.
After the awkward opening, though, Pleasantville takes a
different, much better turn. As David and Jennifer begin to share their
knowledge of sex and literature, the locals' world is gradually
transformed. Parts of the town (and the townspeople) shift from
black-and-white to color; the community sees both fire and rain for the
first time; and R&B appears on the soundtrack. The tone of the movie
becomes fragile and beautiful, and Ross coaxes some wondrous, unforced
moments. Chief among these is a lovely drive to Lovers Lane, which the town
teens have turned into a color-drenched salon full of reading, discussion,
and furtive lust.
There's also an extremely moving moment when an embarrassed Joan Allen,
afraid to show her newly toned face in public, has her son apply white
pancake makeup so that she can be "normal" for her husband. Even the
husband is befuddled by this new world--the disruption of routine leads
William H. Macy to mutter, "Where's my dinner?" to his empty house.
All of these scenes concern the thrills and pains of change, and for an
audience, this mixed world of black-and-white values with random streaks of
wild color is agreeable. At the center of this well-blended reality is the
town's soda-shop proprietor, a latent painter played by Jeff Daniels.
Daniels' presence in the film pretty much constitutes a walking, talking
homage to Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo, which covered the
same thematic ground with jauntier footsteps.
I say "jauntier," because Pleasantville doesn't stay light and
effortless for long. The film takes a terribly wrong turn in its third act,
as the mayor of the town (J.T. Walsh, in his final screen performance)
turns the chamber of commerce into a fascist organization, determined to
shut down art, reading, passion, and anything else "unpleasant." Not only
is this a labored plot device, it's inconsistent with the fantasy world
Ross has created. We've been shown that anger can cause people to gain
"color," but the angry mobs in Pleasantville's streets remain steadfastly
black-and-white. This is obviously a cheat.
And an unnecessary one. There's no reason why Pleasantville
couldn't have remained a seriocomic examination of the pleasures and
dangers of lost innocence. Why not deal with the less melodramatic changes
in this world? And isn't it possible that among the new breed of readers
and art lovers, there might be some dispute as to the relative merits of
their enthusiasms? Rather than fostering totalitarianism, the inevitability
of change would more likely sweep some along and leave others behind.
Wouldn't it have been more poignant to explore that dichotomy?
Instead, Ross extends a painfully obvious metaphor about conformity
that's as witless as the conservative targets he's trying to skewer. He
attempts a Gumped-up version of American history, in which the
radical changes of the '50s can be summed up in the resistance of a TV
town. It's not only facile, it's rather offensive, especially when
townspeople start talking about "coloreds." Can the civil-rights struggle
be so easily bastardized?
After its ridiculous climax, Pleasantville is almost redeemed by
a sublime final shot, which suggests the trickier directions that Ross
could've explored, had he developed the remarkable half-hour stretch in the
center of his picture. Mostly, though, in skewering the white-bread
normalcy of some '50s sitcoms, he forgets the character and, yes,
complexity that make those shows popular even today. Albeit simplistic,
classic TV appeals because home viewers can both relax in the past and
actively search the backgrounds for subtle signs of a changing
society--rock 'n' roll music, black faces, or even women wearing Capri
pants. Ross may think his paean to change is superior to the medium it's
satirizing, but the only real difference is that on television, all crises
can be resolved in 30 minutes. In Pleasantville, it takes 124.