Message?
-
dustypistol — 11 years ago(January 15, 2015 01:36 AM)
Here's my take on Tracy's (sorely misunderstood) character. People seem so convinced she's the movie's 'villain', but think how many terrible things did she actually do?
(People: Oh no, look! a woman aspiring to a position of power and working hard to get there! what a b****, am I right?!) Lol.
If you have some shred of compassion,
her character is actually relatable - a lonely winner is still a lonely person.
Tracy's tragedy is that she's way too mature for her age. The point of just how lonely in the immature, emotional, intellectually void high school atmosphere is made very clear throughout. This is where the complexity of her character becomes clear: although she puts up a front of being invincible, she is vulnerable to the first adult in her life to act like he respects her: ironically, he tells her he respects her because he wants to get into her pants (the most immature reason there is).
This is the reason people have a hard time understanding this movie - - it SHOWS one thing, while the characters, all of whom are in denial about something, SAY the opposite.
The point is that EVERYONE uses others to feel better about themselves. Tracy's just the one who does it in an obvious way.
This is the movie's genius. It's all about p o w e r - teacher needs to feel young to feel powerful, she needs to feel older to feel powerful. They both use sex for power - both step on each other to move up. That's what the movie's about.
In fact, the argument about who had the power is miss the entire point of the movie - they both felt powerless, and they both grasped at the chance to feel powerful.
At the end of the movie, it looks like Tracy's risen in the ranks to the place of power she always wanted to be in, it looks like she's healthy and happy and wealthy and doing great while Matthew Broderick's life obviously sucks, but he says "oh wow, her life sucks, I wouldn't want to be her" and "look at me, my life is so great, I live in New York, I teach again, I got a great new girlfriend" while the camera shows his tiny apartment and super-high rent, etc. as she rides off smiling, well-dressed in a shiny black limousine.
This is the movie's real message, and I just realized it while writing: it's about people who feel the need to use others (by tearing them down, either through words or actions) to move up in the world although Tracy is the only one who DOES move up in the world and get what she wants. The other characters just use others to deny to themselves how unhappy they are they trash-talk others when they could be working to improve things for themselves.
Tracy didn't spend the whole movie s***-talking about everyone else, while Matthew Broderick's character spent the whole movie blaming her for his problems.
Even Tammy used others to feel powerful, even though she was the one in the movie who claimed not to give a sht about power. She used Tracy's actions of ripping the posters down to get disqualified from the race so that her brother would definitely lose to Tracy and maybe other reasons too.
Another genius theme in this film is the way sex/love/etc. can mean opposite things to people - the sex is an initiation into the adult world for Tracy, it's also made clear that for him it's a way to feel young again and "relive his high school days". The difference is hammered in by the way they each deal with getting caught - he acts like an immature teenager, sobbing "but we're in love!!" Tracy is the mature one, not getting emotional - she's not even in the scene, showing how blubbering he is and how detached she is. As he leads her into the bedroom she willingly follows, but at the same time her voice-over says "what I miss most were our talks" and she laments missing their "talks" throughout the movie. The point is, he wanted her for sex but she was vulnerable to him because she lacked a father figure, or more importantly any males, or any friends at all - someone to TALK to. The sex wasn't important - she had finally found an adult who treated her like an adult. Other kids didn't see that (mentally and ambition-wise), Tracy was an adult in a teenager's body, feeling isolated in the halls and classrooms, and at home (her mother is another her - nice but tiresomely focused on winning). nobody saw her - he did and thus she was swayed by him and willing to trade her body/sexuality for a relationship with an adult male, any kind of relationship with one. She never had a father, remember? 0:)
How terrible and "ruthless" was she really over the course of the movie? Her life is spent waking up butt-a** early every day to work for what she wants - she doesn't let herself have fun, enjoy life, relax - her life is sad and other kids make fun of her and yell sht at her. Her mother never stopped pushing her to achieve - even when Tracy's sobbing, she's listing off ways she might have won if she'd just worked a little harder. She tore down the posters, yes, but it wasn't premeditated act of s -
fwsauerteig — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 12:27 PM)
I kept hoping you write "what I just wrote is all bullchit." I cannot take the time to refute each and every one of your ridiculous contentions, but two stand out as especially egregious:
Tracy didn't spend the whole movie s***-talking about everyone else, while Matthew Broderick's character spent the whole movie blaming her for his problems.
Yes actually she did talk the whole movie talking behind other peoples' backs, whether its calling students she looks down on as "burnouts," her disparaging Paul Metzler as a rich popular kid, or what she said about Tammy. Mr. McAllister did not blame her for her problems either, he saw her for what she was, and tried to foil. And he never did anything that could get him into hot water until he saw her jumping up and down. It was a spur of the moment decision, as indicated by his oversight in not destroying the two ballots he threw away.
Everyone uses and abuses power. Tracy's the only one who was honest about being dishonest, and in that way, she's kind of the awesome anti-hero of the movie.
No she was incredibly dishonest about it, never fessing up to the posters she tore down, or the affair with Novotny that, if found out, would destroy her.
And your ridiculous screed about her wanting companionship from Novotny was completely belied by her callous disregard for his fate. She cooly, coldly delete all images of him in editing the yearbook.
What you wrote is some of the most appalling dribble I have ever read on imdbthat is saying something. -
Listenupfives — 17 years ago(February 01, 2009 06:07 AM)
I think the message of the film was more about personal choice and impact and how they affect a state of being. The characters move in cycles and they try to change those around them, but ultimately it is their own actions that are responsible for their private well-beings. To me, the film takes this notion and applies it to the high school election scenario.
-
Rachel_J — 17 years ago(March 05, 2009 02:18 PM)
And then there's yet another Tracy Flick in his museum group hehe. I just remembered that. It's like he's changed the scenery but not the situation - and is denying he's got serious issues.
Exactly! Jim is seriously flawed in that he doesn't "look inward" to see what he could've done better to make his life turn out differently. It's not just about putting himself in a different setting, he needed to think real hard about why he made the decisions that he did. Of course he dealt with a lot of people who were self-satisfied, dishonest jerks, but he lied and cheated, too. A mature person who respected himself would've worked to improve his own character so that he could become a person who acted with dignity and liked himself (no matter the "status" of his job).
But
no
he CHOSE to remain mediocre. He's just kind of a shallow, resentful, smug little person. This pettiness is perfectly illustrated in the final scene of the movie, when he's speaking to the group of students touring the museum he works at. It's in his face as he struggles to appear oblivious to the overly-eager little girl desperate to be called on - that "type" is his worst enemy.
That's
why he will never get anywhere in life.
Keith Olbermann my hero: -
ultimatelotrcrossover — 16 years ago(May 11, 2009 01:50 PM)
But nohe CHOSE to remain mediocre. He's just kind of a shallow, resentful, smug little person. This pettiness is perfectly illustrated in the final scene of the movie, when he's speaking to the group of students touring the museum he works at. It's in his face as he struggles to appear oblivious to the overly-eager little girl desperate to be called on - that "type" is his worst enemy. That's why he will never get anywhere in life.
That's a great description of Jim. He was a petty little man who was resentful of anyone who had more ambition than he did. He built Tracy up in his mind as a monster so he could blame her for all his character flaws and failures. In fact, Tracy was an unhappy, lonely girl who was victimized by a sexual predator and pushed to the breaking point by her mother.
I'll never understand the people who think that Tracy is a villain and that McAllister is a hero. -
falcon2484 — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 01:28 AM)
In fact, Tracy was an unhappy, lonely girl who was victimized by a sexual predator.
Are you kidding? Tracy was much, much more canny (and mature: the mind of a scheming adult in a teenage girl's body) than you give her credit for. She was no victim. She let herself be seduced by Dave Novotny and willingly engaged in an affair with him because she thought it might help her get ahead. But the minute Dave started to get "mushy," as she put it, she betrayed him and turned him in, rather than saying, "Look, Dave, this is getting more serious than I want it to be." Poor Dave. "We're in love." No, Dave, you were in love. She was in business. And there was a reason Tracy was lonely: she only cared about herself. She would've killed her own mother if she'd thought it would get her even one more vote. She obviously subscribed to the notion: "Winning isn't everything; it's the
only
thing." Sad to say, that attitude is rampant in every corner of the world. And you'd be amazed at how many people (who should know better) believe that evil, selfish philosophy.
By the way, Paul may be a good guy in this movie, but he's completely, blissfully oblivious. I think the real good guy is Tammy, who had her heart stomped on by someone she loved and was only fighting back against betrayal. Plus, she was smart enough to figure out a plan in the end to get what she wanted without really hurting anyone.
The Falcon flies -
thomas-m-webster — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 09:20 AM)
I agree with you Falcon! By no means was Tracy ever (EVER!) a victim of anything, except of her own actions. The movie tells the audience what it's about in several places.
In her opening monolog, Tracy states that you can't change destiny (that's what destiny is), and you'll only suffer for it if you try. (Hear that Forrest? - Lt. Dan had a destiny). Of course, Jim failed to change Tracy's destiny. But he did, unintentially, manage to improve Paul's destiny, Tammy's destiny, and perhaps his own.
In the movie, Mr M. preaches to Tracy about consequences of one's actions. Throughout the movie, we see this in action. Seemingly minor things (like the Chinese food accident, or Paul not voting for himself, or Jim's tossing the two ballots into the trash) wind up having huge consequences later on. Even Jim's non-affair cost him his marriage.
Then we have the "morals vs. ethics" speech, followed by Jim's actions in the climactic scene. He believed that he was taking the "moral high road" in his failed attempt to throw the election and derail Tracy once and for all. To him (and me), tossing those ballots was ethically wrong, but morally right.
And then there's this thing about the garbage -
Gary1967 — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 11:13 AM)
Why was it morally right for him to throw an election because he doesn't like that an ambitious student might win something he doesn't want her to win? Is it his job to overthrow the voice of the voter because he has icky personal vendettas against a teenage girl?
-
thomas-m-webster — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 01:37 PM)
- I wasn't attempting to apply some sort of universal morality on Mr M's actions. I was only saying that Jim believed that he was doing the right thing by denying Tracy the victory. She was certainly undeserving of the presidency after her cheating and lying, and the student body did not know about these actions; or about her previous affair with Dave Novatny.
- I believe that the movie's intent was to portray Tracy as a thoroughly unlikeable character - and not an innocent victim of adult (teacher) abuse. Tracy was the icky one; not Mr M.
-
Gary1967 — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 01:45 PM)
I don't think having an affair with Mr. Novotny should have anything to do with the outcome of an election and the student body shouldn't have been made aware of it. A minor should have a right to privacy, especially when it comes to things like statutory rape. To deny a student an opportunity in school in order to punish her for a teacher's indiscretion seems really wrong. Moreover, to deny a student an opportunity in school for anything to do with her sex life faintly smells like "punish the whore," which seems really wrong to me. She was a kid. He was a grown-up.
And I know that this makes no moral difference, but Mr. M had no real proof that Tracy ripped down the postershe actually had another student who claimed to have done it, who provided proof. Based on that evidence, he shouldn't have interferred with the election. He didn't really know that Tracy lied and cheated, he just thought she did. It was unethical of him to get involved in this instance. He might have been doing what he thought was morally right, but it wasn't his place to do anything. It was also pretty hypocritical of him to take any moral high road after he just unsuccessfully tried to beep his wife's friend, don't you think? Those in glass houses, right?
It was also unethical of him to get involved in the first place. What kind of teacher gets involved with student affairs because he can't stand ambition and because another teacher slept with a student (yuck, they're both gross. Mr. M. is unethical. Dave is immoral). Can you imagine being in school and having teachers get involved like this? I wouldn't want my daughters in that schoolthey wouldn't be safe. God forbid my daughter raises her hand too often or tries to take too many active leadership roles at school. I mean really, thank God for the "Jims" of the world who make it their business to sabotage children when they're not trying to cheat on their wives. Teachers are supposed to put their personal issues aside, teach material, and guide studentsnot have sex with them and try to ruin opportunities for the students they don't like.
Mr. M and Mr. Novotny got less than they actually deserved (which is why the ending is so funny. Mr. M is reduced to throwing a milk shake at a limo. Hilarious! :)). Mr. M might have thought he was morally right, but we, the audience, knew better (or at least, I thought we were meant to know better). It's interesting that this movie can provoke a variety of reactions though. -
thomas-m-webster — 15 years ago(July 22, 2010 06:12 AM)
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
I believe that Jim had all the evidence he needed to remove Tracy from candidacy, and would have done so if Tammy hadn't dropped her bombshell. Even though he "knew" that Tammy wasn't the culprit (and Tracy was), Jim was forced to accept Tammy's confession - and let Tracy go.
At the conclusion of the vote count, Jim was ready to announce that Tracy had won the election, until he spotted her acting like a jerk in the hallway. That childish demonstration put him over the edge, and it was only then that he decided to take action. I believe that the audience was meant to be on board with, or at least understanding of, Jim's decision.
Your posts seem to suggest that Jim was leching after Tracy. I say, quite the contrary. Jim was fearing the prospect of having to deal with Tracy coming on to him, especially if she won the election. Jim had the hots for Linda Navotny, or at least her cupcakes. If I were Jim, I'd be afraid that those teeth of hers would one day "cut off his Johnson." Oh yeah - they did. -
ValeriaMessalina — 11 years ago(August 11, 2014 04:46 PM)
I agree with you, sun_scryer. And Gary's comment implying some kind of misogyny on your part is way out of line in my opinion. It's like if I see a guy doing something morally reprehensible and call him on it, then I'm a misandrist. It doesn't work that way, you call a spade a spade. And Tracy was far from blameless in the situations she wound up in, and Mr. Novotny should've also probably faced harsher penalties, after all he was an adult in position of power, and he should've known better than let himself be seduced by Tracy and/or seduce her.
I had a hard time sympathizing with any character completely, although I could definitely understand where McAllister was coming from when he saw through Tracy's facade and knew what she really was inside: a power-hungry little liar, who would stop at nothing to get what she wants in life, who would trample on other people, blame others for her own misdeeds. And that's just a high school election, you can imagine how far she'd be willing to go when running for public office later in life or something with similarly high stakes. -
Gary1967 — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 11:16 AM)
How was she "in business?" What could she have possibly gained from that affair? There was never a single moment when it was implied that she would ever gain in any way from her affair, other than that it offered her companionship when she couldn't find any among her peer group.
It's amazing how ridiculously overblown people are making this character to be. She would "kill her mother?" Pfftgive me a break. -
ceebeegee — 15 years ago(October 04, 2010 02:38 PM)
WRONG.
It is this sort of attitude that lets sexual predators in teaching positions get away with their sh*t. HE is responsible. THE ADULT is responsible. That is what the law says, that is what common sense says. THE ADULT is always reponsible. It doesn't matter if he loved her; it doesn't matter if she stripped naked and threw herself at him. She is not old enough to consent; by law, she CANNOT consent. He can, he is the one in control and therefore he is the one at fault and should be punished. -
falcon2484 — 15 years ago(October 04, 2010 05:15 PM)
You do realize we're talking about characters in a movie, right? In real life, if Tracy was my daughter or a girl that I knew, I'd probably be on her side. But I don't have any moral obligation to a FICTIONAL character, especially if he or she is presented by the screenwriter and director in an unsympathetic light, as Tracy Flick is in "Election."
Dave Novotny in this film IS responsible for his own actions, but that doesn't negate the fact that Tracy is equally culpable, and is definitely NOT an innocent little lamb, victimized by a viciously predatory sex pervert. If Tracy had rejected Dave's advances, and reported him to school officials from the get-go, I'd've had a lot more respect for her in this movie. But look at what she does. As I said, she WILLINGLY engages in a sexual relationship with him, keeps it secret from everyone (including Linda), and when it gets too heavy for her and she realizes there's no upside to continuing the relationship,
then and only then
does she turn him in.
As the filmmakers have it in "Election," this reaction is expected and programmed. It's how I'm
supposed
to see things. As bad as what Dave did is, he's still presented as a somewhat sympathetic character. I say "somewhat," because he's also presented as a sleaze, but they do show the ruin of
his
life, while Tracy suffers absolutely no consequences as a result of
her
indiscretion. If you want to attack me for how I see the characters, events and issues in "Election," please, save some of that venom for Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor.
The Falcon flies