![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dcist.com\/attachments\/dcist_ian\/2008_07_31_theapartment.jpg\")
The Apartment<\/a><\/em> (Wilder, 1960) is clearly a comedic film, yet it is threaded with serious tones regarding the struggle for American success, the differences between patriarchal masculinity and the new sensitive masculinity, and sexually active single females contrasted by unfaithful businessmen. Moreover, the serious threads of the film criticize America\u2019s capitalist society in the 1960s. Through a reception study consisting of reviews of The Apartment published in June and May of 1960 in Time, The New York Times, Variety, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and Newsweek, it will be seen how the American business world and the typical patriarchal men that goes along with it were criticized and denounced. However, the reviews just skim and are unjustly critical of Shirley MacLaine\u2019s character, Fran, the lower class elevator operator subjected to the harassment of the higher-class flannel suit wearing men. She is considered rash and foolish, and it is only the industry trade publication, Variety, that understands that Fran\u2019s character symbolizes the prey of corrupt businessmen (1). The sensitive Jack Lemmon as C.C. Baxter (Bud)\u2014a man rising in his career by unfair means\u2014 is not so much criticized but rather branded as an innocent, lonely, and good natured man. Although these reviews highlight the corruption and reality of the American business world, they neglect to discuss two very interesting types of sexuality in regards to the protagonists of the film. These are a strong, yet confused female and an effeminate, sensitive male. These two leading characters create a new dynamic for Hollywood lovers, which is a relationship based on companionship rather than sex. <\/p>\nThe majority of reviewers of The Apartment labeled the film as \u201cfunny;\u201d however, it was the more insightful ones who understood the thread of seriousness and sadness that runs through the film. The New York Times explains, \u201cUnder the clever supervision of Billy Wilder\u2026the idea is run into a gleeful, tender and even sentimental film\u201d (37). The Apartment, although having many blatantly humorous moments, also handles dense conflicts that are deeply rooted in American society. This film questions and subtly criticizes America\u2019s core value of success and the patriarchal businessman\u2014a bold statement for the seemingly idealistic 1960s.The majority of reviews for this film pin The Apartment as a comedy; Time stated that it was, \u201cthe funniest movie made in Hollywood since Some Like It Hot.\u201d However, Billy Wilder, the director of both Some Like It Hot and The Apartment would not classify The Apartment as a comedy. Wilder stated, \u201cIt doesn\u2019t fit into any specific category. It is a film that is trying to say a few pertinent things about the society we live in\u2026\u201d (Wood 185). After his comedic success with Some Like It Hot, reviewers tried to absorb this new type of film. Newsweek understood Wilder\u2019s choices, stating, \u201cIt takes deft handling at this point to keep the laughter and the tears from canceling each other out\u2026.They mix them so thoroughly that, as in life itself, it is sometimes hard to tell which is which\u201d (110). The New Republic was not in favor of the comedic tactic used to speak out about American society. Stanley Kauffmann stated, \u201cThe script wanders from near-slapstick to near-tragic; and the story is based on a tasteless gimmick\u2026.This picture is not good enough for [Lemmon] (20-21). Yet, all the reviews concur that it is Jack Lemmon who carries the show. Time explains that it is due to his \u201csensitive and tasteful\u201d acting style that humor and sadness can be blended, while The New York Times articulated that, \u201cThe actor uses comedy as it should be used, to evoke a rainbow of emotions\u201d (\u201cThe New Pictures\u201d 47; Crowther 36). There is no doubt that this film holds more than comedy and that Lemmon\u2019s new sensitive style accentuates it.<\/p>\n
From the start, the film criticizes the new American work force that evolved after Word War II, which stars the patriarchal businessman, and Bud\u2019s character accentuates this critique. The film starts with a pan of New York City then fades out and into a vertical pan of a skyscraper. During these shots Bud explains his job at the insurance company, Consolidated Life of New York, through a voiceover. Next, the skyscraper fades out as a shot of seemingly endless rows of desks fades in; this shot, along with Bud\u2019s voiceover explaining the 31,259 employees at his company, already accentuates the struggle to climb the business ladder of America. It soon \u201cdawns on [Bud] that if his own virtues are not enough, other people\u2019s vices might help\u201d in order to progress in his career (\u201cThe New Pictures\u201d 47). So, Bud begins lending his apartment to his married bosses for their convenient love affairs, and in return gets promotions. The reviews of The Apartment all grasp the harsh look at corporate America, but not all can sympathize. The New Yorker felt it hard to sympathize with a character who turns his apartment into a \u201cbrothel\u201d for his bosses (70). The New Yorker has missed the point that Bud\u2019s character is one of many middle-class workers fighting through corporate America, and therefore should be sympathized with. Although both Bud and his bosses are in the midst of immoral acts, there is a distinct difference separating the patriarchal bosses and Bud. \u201cHis character does not like what he\u2019s doing,\u201d explains The New York Times (36). The film scholar Magill further explains that, \u201cThe protagonist\u2026 is a basically decent young executive with an undeveloped code of morality who finds himself reacting to, rather than shaping, the events around him\u201d (90). It is the patriarchal bosses who show the corruptness of the business world, not Bud. However, The New Yorker does criticize the bosses at the insurance company by saying, \u201cThese are grey-flannel beatniks, all right. If you want them, take them\u201d (71). Time, on the other hand, accepts the sadness of Bud\u2019s situation: \u201cApartment is a comedy of men\u2019s-room humours and water-cooler politics that now and then among the belly laughs says something serious and sad about the struggle for success, about what it often does to a man, and about the horribly small world of big business\u201d (47). Both Variety and Newsweek agreed that Bud is a kind person fighting to hold onto his identity; however, he is lost in the corrupt world of American business.<\/p>\n
Although Bud\u2019s character is used in the film to highlight the corruption of the business world, his personality introduces American filmgoers to a man with a feminine masculinity\u2014one that differs from his adulterous, patriarchal bosses. The reviewers of the film do not touch upon Bud\u2019s femininity but rather just label him as lonely and innocent, and The New Republic even calls him \u201cflaccid\u201d (70). Although they do not criticize his personality, they do not take on the idea of his character being feminine either. They only contrast his personality with the \u201csultans\u201d of his workplace: \u201cHe beautifully maintains the appearance of a lamb among ravening wolves. He has the air of a good-natured hermit\u2026\u201d (Crowther 1). Variety also analyzed his morality but not his femininity: \u201cHe\u2019s a phony Horatio Alger, and knowledge of this fact weighs heavily on his idealistic conscience\u201d (2). By comparing Bud to an author known for his rags to riches stories of the American dream, Variety labels Bud as idealistic, when more accurately he is simply confused in the world of patriarchal masculinity, and later in the film he sacrifices \u201cThe American Dream\u201d by turning in his executive washroom key for moral satisfaction. These reviews show that 1960s America was not yet ready to accept a feminine man, so they just ignored it. <\/p>\n
However, film scholar Alison Hoffman in her essay titled Shame and the Single Girl, not only addresses Bud\u2019s femininity but the admirable qualities of his new masculinity stating, \u201cWilder\u2019s vision, significantly, does not encode any fears of male feminization. In fact, it does quite the opposite\u2026.Wilder\u2026 envisions traditional masculinity as the problem, not the answer\u201d (13-14). Bud\u2019s femininity lingers throughout the entirety of the film, and it is not a characteristic that is criticized. His stature is meek compared to his bosses\u2019, his sex life non-existent, and he willingly puts the needs of his bosses over his own. Once the female interest, Fran, enters the film, there are many scenes in The Apartment in which the roles of female and male are inverted. When Fran attempts suicide in Bud\u2019s Apartment, the result of being in a relationship with a married man, Bud becomes the ultimate caregiver, and embraces this role contently as he nurses Fran back to health (Hoffman 2). In a later scene, Bud is seen in an apron cooking dinner for his crush, and the roles of female and male are once again reversed. Although Bud is feminine, he is more human than either male or female, and Hoffman explains, \u201cBecoming a \u2018human being\u2019\u2026 requires Baxter to first become more feminine and, later, to embrace that femininity\u2014not to be ashamed of it\u201d (14). Through current analysis of the film, Bud\u2019s new sexuality is seen as a positive force, which allows the audience to question the deeply rooted patriarchal man that still exists in American society. <\/p>\n
Fran is a complex and meaningful character in The Apartment that highlights the struggle single women fight in order to achieve acceptance while being sexually free and independent. She is an elevator girl working at Consolidates Life, harassed on a daily basis by flannel suit wearing businessmen, and is in love and involved with a married high executive. Her character shines a light on a sexually free, lower class working girl, and her story plays an important role in this film that criticizes gender inequality created by patriarchal men. However, within the reviews of The Apartment, her character is rarely analyzed as playing a profound and significant role. Fran is either simply mentioned, her acting criticized, or labeled as a rash and \u201cdaffy girl who gets into a lot of trouble\u2026\u201d (Crowther 1). To label Fran as rash, it to belittle the struggle Fran fights against the patriarchal man. However, Variety takes on the harsh significance of her character: \u201cRather than a single human being, Miss MacLaine symbolizes the universal prey of convincing, conniving married men within the glass walls of commerce\u201d (2). Fran\u2019s character, similar to Bud\u2019s, highlights the corruptness of the philandering patriarchal businessmen. It is concerning that some reviews overlook her performance, suggesting that a woman\u2019s plight created by a typical patriarchal man is not of importance. Wilder places no judgments on Fran and her sexuality. Hoffman points out Wilder\u2019s new candid portrayal of a single woman, \u201cWilder\u2019s film\u2026never trivializes its single girl\u2019s excessive desire (and hence, shame), opting instead to take it seriously, and encouraging audiences to (perhaps contagiously) empathize\u201d (9). Fran struggles with her own shame created by a society that is unwilling to accept a sexually active single female, but she is also teaching viewers that there is actually no shame in accepting her mistakes, only strength. Time noted a scene where Fran\u2019s own shame is evident. \u201cThere is a piece of business in which the heroine, when asked how many affairs she has had, admits to three but unconsciously lifts four fingers\u201d (47). After Fran\u2019s attempted suicide, a reaction to her lover \u201cpaying\u201d her for her time, it is clear that Fran\u2019s character symbolizes the ongoing battle women fight in order to survive as a single woman while avoiding becoming objectified by successful men. <\/p>\n
Fran and Bud create a new relationship dynamic that breaks the passive woman and the patriarchal man mode. After Fran\u2019s suicide attempt, she asks not only Bud, but also of herself, \u201cWhy can\u2019t I ever fall in love with somebody nice like you?\u201d By the end of the film, she realizes that she can choose the nice guy and happiness regardless of her sins, and subsequently she teaches the audience that mistakes can be made by women, and happiness can still be found. By Wilder pairing these two characters at the end of the film\u2014 characters who have both sinned and strayed from the acceptable American heterosexual romantic coupling\u2014he expresses that they are \u201cneither innocent nor evil, just human\u201d (90). Magill states, \u201cThe happy ending was met with surprise by some critics who did not feel that protagonists who transgressed sexually deserved to find happiness\u201d (92). Bud and Fran\u2019s relationship also differs from the norm considering it is not based on sex. In fact, they do not even share a final kiss at the end of the film, suggesting that love can be found other ways than through sex. No other patriarchal man at Consolidated Insurance would stand for a relationship based on feelings as Bud does. Bud, a domestic and sensitive guy has found love with a \u201cshamed\u201d sinning girl; however, contemporary reviewers did not even touch on the subject of such a revolutionary couple. The ending of the film does a laudable job of defying the patriarchal ideologies of America. These two characters have defied them, and they are actually happier for it. <\/p>\n
In conclusion, these reviews firmly grasped the criticism of patriarchal America; however, Fran\u2019s significance as a female and Bud as a feminine male was not as thoroughly reviewed. Hoffman\u2019s essay, Shame and the Single Girl, and Magill\u2019s Survey of Cinema show that current analysis understands the significance of these characters and their critique of gender inequality in American society in the 1960s. The 1960s was not quite ready to sympathize with a sexually active single girl, yet they were able to embrace the innocent and lamblike Bud by ignoring that most of his character traits were more feminine than masculine. Bud and Fran find their happy ending outside of the patriarchal ideologies of America, and it allows American viewers to reassess the perfect idea of happiness. In this case, it was definitely not capital success, but a relationship based on companionship and the realization that they are human, as opposed to male or female, and therefore can make forgivable mistakes. The Apartment went on to win five Oscars, including Best Picture, showing appreciation for a film that takes on important social issues that were directly significant when the film was released in 1960. <\/p>\n
Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America on Film. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Paper by Skylar Harrison. The Apartment (Wilder, 1960) is clearly a comedic film, yet it is threaded with serious tones regarding the struggle for American success, the differences between patriarchal masculinity and the new sensitive masculinity, and sexually active single females contrasted by unfaithful businessmen. Moreover, the serious threads of the film criticize America\u2019s capitalist […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":504,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academic-papers","category-films"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/504"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nCrowther, Bosley. \u201cScreen: Busy \u2018Apartment\u2019: Jack Lemmon Scores in Billy Wilder Film.\u201d The New York Times 16 Jun. 1960. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
\nHoffman, Alison R.. \u201cShame and the Single Girl: Reviving Fran and Falling for Baxter in The Apartment.\u201d 2009.
\nMagill, Frank N.. Magill\u2019s Survey of Cinema: Volume 1, A-eas. California: Salem Press, 1980. Print.
\nMcCarten, John. \u201cMerriment to Murder.\u201d The New Yorker 25 Jun. 1960: 70-71. Print.
\nNewsweek Staff. \u201cIt\u2019s Really Rollicking.\u201d Newsweek. 20 Jun. 1960. Print.
\nStanley, Kauffmann. \u201cThree for the Summer.\u201d The New Republic 27 Jun. 1960: 20-21. Print.
\nTime Staff. \u201cThe New Pictures.\u201d Time 6 Jun. 1960: 47. Print.
\nThe Apartment. Dir. Billy Wilder. Perfs. Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 1960. Movie.
\nVariety Staff. \u201cThe Apartment.\u201d Variety 18 May. 1960. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
\nWood, Tom. The Bright Side of Billy Wilder, Primarily. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1970. Print. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"