FEATURE
 |
Legally Blonde and Spiritually Buber |
|
| Elle Woods, like, totally embodies the best of modern Jewish thought | ||
 by Elisa Albert, May 17, 2007 |
||
TAGS:
The recent screen-to-stage Broadway debut of Legally Blonde: The Musical might pass, to the untrained eye, for just another piece of Times Square popcorn poop. Count a New York Times critic among the naifs; according to Ben Brantley, the musical “approximates the experience of eating a jumbo box of Gummy Bears in one sitting.” And that’s a bad thing?
Its lack of intellectual cachet is just one of several factors at work against my campaign to garner Legally Blonde’s fair heroine, Elle Woods, a footnote in the pantheon of great American Jewish thought. Among the more obvious: Elle Woods isn’t Jewish. Less importantly, the film producer’s daughter was in my bunk for one hellish summer at Camp Ramah, which brings back more crappy memories than Elle’s first week of law school.
Like a bowlful of Gummi Bears: Laura Bell Bundy plays Elle Woods in the musicalWorking in LB’s favor, however, and handily outweighing the above, is the undeniable fact that Ms. Woods is the perfect embodiment of the philosophy of beloved Jewish thinker Martin Buber. Two words, people: I and Thou.
Buber’s concept of the I/thou relationship “stresses mutual, holistic existence without qualification or objectification of the other.” In simplest terms, this means being a really nice person, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and treating people like the complicated, meaningful beings they invariably are. It means being Elle-like.
“If I face a human being as my thou,” Buber said, “he is not a thing among things, and does not consist of things.” Thou is a way of recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. A person becomes more than the sum of his or her parts, and other people become as real to us as we are to ourselves.
In much the same way that Groundhog Day is really a profound meditation on reincarnation, Legally Blonde’s Elle embodies an ideal realization of Buber’s seminal philosophy that the best we, as human beings, can strive for is complete, unfettered interrelation with every single human being we encounter. Yes, even the irredeemable assholes. Buber held that life could be suffused with joy when we sanctified the everyday world via our connections with other human beings. The divine is to be found in the encounter between the unique self (the “I”) and the unique other (the “thou”).
In direct contrast to I/thou is the notion of I/it, which invokes separation: I am complex and infinite and valuable; you are finite and limited and classifiable. When we deal in I/it, we hold other people at arm’s-length and in some degree of contempt, like objects: A waiter exists to serve me food. The cable guy is six hours late and therefore an asshole. Fuck you very much, basically. I/it treats other beings as objects to be used and experienced exclusively in terms of oneself—essentially to serve one’s own individual interests.
Note the I/thou twinkle in his eyes: BuberSuch relations are, arguably, essential to the maintenance of everyday life, but our divine nature comes into being only when a personal “I” meets a personal “thou”—a direct dialogue in which two people accept each other, in like or dislike, as utterly human and unique. (The other day I saw a woman wearing a T-shirt that read: Be kind, for everyone you encounter is facing a difficult struggle. So Buber!)
I/it is an operating system in which others are tools, steppingstones, and pawns in the reality of Me. Reality television, in contrast to Elle-ness, is all about I/it. See: Survivor, The Bachelor, The Apprentice, etc., ad infinitum. It’s a profound, philosophically vertiginous experience to channel-surf back and forth between a not-infrequent Legally Blonde broadcast and, say, Celebrity Fit Club. Try it sometime and see.
We meet Elle as she’s being dumped by her “one true love,” the pompous Warner Huntington III. If he’s going to be a senator by the time he’s thirty, he tells her, he needs to be with “a Jackie, not a Marilyn.” He’s on his way to Harvard Law, and Elle just isn’t the right kind of girl for the life he has in mind. Very I/it of him.
But our plucky heroine, undeterred, simply decides that she, too, will go to Harvard. She’s got a 4.0 in fashion merchandising and a 179 on her LSAT. In her admissions video-essay, she appeals to the stodgy admissions committee from the sunny confines of a hot tub, in a bikini. The I/it reading of this scene is as follows: Elle is a dumb-shit blonde. The I/thou reading of this scene, however, is that Elle is fully herself, reaching out unselfconsciously to the admissions committee, whose relation she seeks as equally full human extensions of herself. Giving people what you think they want (based on your classifications of them) is to reduce them to “it”. Being fully yourself and offering your full self to unclassifiable others: totally “thou.”
This would be totally creepy if it weren't a lesson in sanctifying the world through human connection: A Legally Blonde Halloween costume for childrenAt Harvard, Elle faces the specter of yet more I/it. She’s mocked and reviled at every turn. (“Check out Malibu Barbie!”). Her classmates preen and posture, fulfilling their own odious stereotypes: the high-IQ nerd, the humorless feminist, the preppy bitch. But our Elle guilelessly refuses to reduce her peers to their obvious categorizations (the “it” of them), and relate to them as such. She relates to them firmly in her own self, open to them all, wearing her signature pink and carting around her similarly attired chihuahua, Bruiser, resolutely unaware of the raging “it” to which she herself is constantly being reduced.
“No aim, no lust, and no anticipation intervene between I and thou,” explains Buber. Elle happens upon hunky Emmett Richmond on a bench in the quad, unaware that he’s a TA for an important class she’s taking. She relates to him simply as a friendly acquaintance, baring her troubles honestly and thanking him sincerely for his advice.
She finds dumpy manicurist Paulette Bonafonte much in need of mentoring and friendship, and offers both freely. Let us put aside that their friendship leads to the horrific “bend-and-snap” spectacle halfway through the film. Were Elle to see Paulette as an it—a “high school dropout with…a fat ass,” in Paulette’s own words—sorority rich-girl Elle would surely want nothing to do with her. Luckily for both women, however, Elle judges everyone on the merits (or demerits) of character, and so a true friendship is born. “Relation is mutual,” one can almost hear the sagely Buber commenting on the cinematic kindness passed between these unlikely pals. (One can only conjecture about his take on the bend-and-snap.)
In the 1970s, The Newlywed Show rewarded people for knowing everything they could about their loved ones. The premise: the couple most in love would know the most about each other. Nowadays, though, most relationships we watch require emotional and/or physical combat. Blind Date, The Bachelor, and Beauty and the Geek are each spectacles of humiliation, one-upmanship, and scheming. And without a liberal sprinkling of some nice, all-purpose I/thou, even casual relationships begin to resemble aversion shock therapy.
Is anyone all good? All bad? All loathsome or shallow? Of course not. But we learn, by degrees, to apply such extremes to everyone around us. Walking into a party, waiting for the train, standing in line. We’re supposed to root for this person, condemn this one, pity this one, loathe this one. Reality TV and its producers’ ruthless editing have brought this way of thinking home, big time, on the idiot box.
So much goodwill, they had to make a sequel: Elle takes Buber to WashingtonLike her cinematic cousin Forrest Gump, Elle Woods ultimately triumphs personally and professionally because she never stops looking at the world through her own eyes, with her own humanity intact, so that what’s reflected back at her is yet more actual humanity. Legal intrigue, high-profile court case, lecherous professor, blah, blah: Elle kicks ass, takes names, saves the day, teaches everyone a valuable lesson about reductive, I/it first impressions. Brooke Wyndham, on trial for the murder of her ancient, rich husband, doesn’t get reduced to her most likely definition: cash-mad bimbo. Hayward Wyndham’s frumpy daughter doesn’t get away with it. Warner Huntington III is outed as the shallow nitwit he is. Everyone gets what they deserve, more or less. Idealistic? Maybe. But realism is for another medium entirely.
“Look!” says Buber. “Round about you beings live their life, and to whatever point you turn, you come upon being.” Elle’s instinctive understanding of this allows her to flourish professionally, socially, and as a fictional being who’s decidedly greater than just the sum of her parts. Aspiring reality stars of the world, take note.
Incidentally, Buber believed that an I/thou consciousness was especially necessary in a world threatened by atomic ruin. “I think the main problems existing between great powers should be talked over in a different way,” he wrote. “They should talk to each other as do good merchants who have opposed each other but have begun to see that it’s worthwhile to find out if, perchance, their common interests are more important and have more weight than their opposed interests. At this hour of history, true peace is only possible through some form of cooperation.”
There’s little hope that George W. Bush will ever read any of Buber’s work, but maybe, just maybe, we can get him to see the Legally Blonde: The Musical.
***
Know of any other pop-culture–philosopher pairings? Explain to us why Spinoza totally illuminates Avril Lavigne in the comments section.
 |
Elisa Albert is the author of The Book of Dahlia and the short-story collection |
And on the seventh day, our Jewish guinea pig rested
The Nobel Laureate and the President Remind Us to Learn and Ac...
Teaching My 1/4 Jewish Children About Their Heritage
A Jewcy Catholic comes to grips with Pope Benedict's startling...
A Three-Part Series Examines the Origins of Hatred
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Michael Weiss
He was way more punk than Avril, though.
Monica Osborne
Wow, Elisa, imagine my surprise when I open the Jewcy page and see, literally, two of my favorite "characters" side by side. I have to say that Buber and Elle Woods make the least likeliest of pairs, but super cool idea here -- lots of fun. And I suppose it's never a bad idea to bring some of the greatest thinkers/philosophers into dialogue with some of these pop-culture-ish icons (if we can call Elle a pop culture icon!). I guess the only "problem" is that even talking about the whole I-Thou thing reduces it to an I-It . . . one of those crazy Buber moments, kind of like his "thou must, which take no account of the 'thou can.'" This Buberian concept is also an Elle Woods attribute, wouldn't you say? Buber is rad . . . and so is Elle Woods.
Elisa
the whole pop-culture-meets-serious-philosophical-pondering, you're probably already familiar with bitch magazine, which, for my money, is the absolute shit.
MaxKohanzad
You must be kidding! - you are kidding! say what you like - but to summerize buber's i - thou as "In simplest terms, this means being a really nice person, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and treating people like the complicated, meaningful beings they invariably are. It means being Elle-like." Means you really don't get buber shit!
but i suppose that's the whole point of this thing right? that it's supposed to be a pile of meaningless shite? how funny - know i get get it? i don't - i'm sorry -
Maybe - i'm taking the whole philosophy thing way too seriously - cos it's meant to be just a funny - stupid pink thing? Hey what the hell - you're basically saying buber can suck your (metaphorical) dick -
"i (that's you btw) don't give a shit about what he is saying - isn't it funny i can mention buber and legally blond for like a whole page and interchange quotes - look how clever i am?"
this is dum stupid shite - and oh well! that means - so is Jewcy!
is cynicism fashionable? do you live in NYC or something? if you were a man you'd be sucking your own dick and thinking - wow i'm good at this.
can we at least admit this - you're not actually saying anything - what you are doing is promoting your own paradym - which in my mind is ultimately self-destructive.
please - do us a favour and burn your copy of i and thou - not for your own sake but for bubers.
Anonymous
you're not being too i/thou, dude.
also, it's "paradigm". but if you can suck your own dick, don't worry about your spelling.
MaxKohanzad
"you're not being too i/thou, dude."
that is the most stupid thing i've heard in years!
and yes i can’t spell - neither could Einstein (does that make you clevererererererer?)
MaxKohanzad
"you're not being too i/thou, dude."that's just so legally blonde! - is it a disease of American culture to reduce everything to it's lowest common denominator?is being i/thou being legally blonde? get real!
you are really desecrating the memory of a profoundly important Jewish thinker - mystic
Anonymous
so maybe it is a bit of a stretch - blonde etc and buber - so what? the positive aspect is that buber is being written about in palletable bits and educating those that haven't read the book. and now maybe someone as a result will...
Anonymous
was a brilliant physicist. you're a creepy internet troll.
so, yeah, it's probably more important for you to demonstrate mastery of the language, and we'll give einstein a free pass.
but points for not being an *anonymous* internet troll! that's something!
MaxKohanzad
Anonymous - internet troll
i see, rather than talk in an open and frank way about the cynical and ironic misuse of a relatively minor C20 Jewish philosopher - probably the second most important Jewish philosopher after Rosensweig, (one of the founding fathers of Jewish post-modernism) to promote the authors own sick and twistied worldview and this sites openly self-degridating cynical "paradigm", you would like just to call me a 'troll', very sporting of you.
The Baal Shem Tov once taught that; that which we see in others is merely a reflection of that which we fail to see in ourselves.
Wishing you a lifetime of much reflection.
Anonymous
It's Rosenzweig.
MaxKohanzad
Thnaks! - vrey hlepufl! was his nmae Frank of Franz? Deos aynone wnat to cemmont on waht i've siad rtaher tahn the way i've splet (or misprelt) waht i've siad?
can you pelsae tell me how so spell the wrod P-E-D-A-N-T ? and how mnay piotns taht it mgiht be wtorh in SRCBABLE?!
(oh why deos 'praddaigm' have a G in it - is it just for toshe exrta points? - has aonnye treid to paly byslexic scrabble? - so mcuh mroe fun, d's and b's are inetrhcangbale, you can splel tntigs foneticly and sdrawkcab of cuorse)
and jsut a ntoe on mselyf (in lnie wtit the Besht's taehcnig): ovboisuly i aslo 'don't get buber shit', i can aslo amdit taht i'm 'not actually saying anything - what you are doing is promoting your own paradym' etc... etc... i am aslo agraubly also gluity of and 'desecrating the memory of a profoundly important Jewish thinker - mystic' see www.atzmus.com
(ATZMUS - that's the correct spelling of the word as i almost made it up)
Anonymous May 20 @ 8.53am
Oh please now poor Max is an internet troll because he had some strong opinions. I didn't agree with the severity of his arguement as I noted above, but could certainly appreciate them - including the metaphorical blow job (since I am girl those can be the best kind sometimes).
And please if you have any comments about my spelling or grammar take it up at your next dorks of america meeting.
Hadar
Joey Kurtzman
Contemptuous criticism does not a troll make. I look forward to his future analysis of "this sites openly self-degridating cynical "paradigm"'.
Wikipedia has a "Don't bite the newbies" policy, even when said newbies come in foaming at the mouth. It's probably not a policy that could work on Jewcy, but it works well for them. A lot of people who come in with needlessly acerbic criticism turn out to be sane and insightful critics once they develop an identity within the community (and the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory therefore goes out of play).
SharonG
Anything but Ordinary
A 17th century dutch philosopher, who quietly lived in the Netherlands as a lens grinder, and who died single and childless. A French Canadien young punk pop singer songwriter, who has taken the music world by androgenously-dressed storm. Baruch Spinoza and Avril Lavigne, respectively.
Spinoza believed in Nature. With a capital N. He believed in Nature and g-d, and felt that they were basically two different names for the same thing. He even was issued the writ of cherem for those beliefs. But, Spinoza believed, as g-d is good, wonderful, and powerful, so as it is with Nature.
Lavigne in her hit single 'Anything but Ordinary' sings:
Let down your defenses
Use no common sense
If you look you will see
that this world is a beautiful
accident turbulent succulent
opulent permanent, no way
I wanna taste it
Don't wanna waste it away
Lavigne too believes in the beauty and power of the world, nature and she is saying she wants to be in and enveloped by it.
In the quintessential song for a generation 'Sk8erboi', Avril chastises a former flame of her current boyfriend that had dismissed him originally for his looks, his physicality, without actually getting to know him. She argues that "There is more that meets the eye, I see the soul that is inside." By this she is prescribing to Spinoza's view that body and mind are not two separate substances, but in point of fact are a single identity. She sees her boyfriend as both body and mind.
And last but not least, Spinoza was able to hold rationalism in one hand and additionally emotions in the other - a 'feeling' brain was not so hard for him to imagine. Lavigne too is very rational in the structure of her music, the lyrics, cadence, and tempo. All of it within a set standard 3 to 4 minute verse verse chorus verse chorus bridge verse chorus structure. But she believes everything she sings about, heartfelt heartbreaking and true; rational yet emotional.
Spinoza a greatness not recognised for years to come. As is Lavignes brilliance not currently commonly recognised.
They are both, as Lavigne penned in her hit single, 'Anything but Ordinary'.
Anonymous
Really?
MaxKohanzad
between my ass and my elbow is that indeed they are commpletely One in a absolute and utter oneness, a unity so sublime that at times i find myself siting on my elbow and leaning on my ass, there mutual differences blured beyond recognition by their incorporation within the greater whole of my ontological being, the physicality of my existence, and thus the veryness of the existence of my physicality, as it is located in the location of my bodiliy being. there is indeed no difference, between them, but only an apparent utalitarian function, which is more the result of my cultural conditioning than any real distinction, those that argue for the sepperation of ass from elbow are indeed stuck in a dulistic paradigm where division rules supreme, this is a reflection of the kabbalistic realm of tofu, which distinguishes between, rather than realises it's oneness. Ass and Elbow are fused together so much so that it might be more appropriate to call them 'Aelsbosw' - a distinctly profound expression of that which is beyond and within, that which transcends and that which is apparent. So therefore ass and elbow are merely remnants of an older and less refined system of thinking, left overs of a modernistic worldview which is outdated and not truely reflective of the reality of the ontological oneness of my being, moreover anyone that doesn't agree with these sentiments must by definition be modernistic dualists, with a personal paradigm based on fear and self-loething.
MaxKohanzad
the problem i have with buber - ultimately is that in his diferentiation of i-thou, the i becomes an it. As i walked through the streets of Manchester, i noticed that over time people have become carachatures of themselves, exagerated examples of there thinking, their beliefs, lifestyle, habbits,
that they don't question themselves, the one thing that remains constant is the i, but that ultimately means that becomes an it, a known quantity,
however - and this is prbably one of the most profound lessons you'll ever hear (if you are willing to listen) that you are also a thou, that you can and are truely a thou unto yourself!
Monica Osborne
MaxKohanzad -- you may be right when you say "ultimately is that in his differentiation of I-Thou, the I becomes an It." What I think you are saying is actually something that Buber himself admits -- that any kind of analysis of a text or human being or idea reduces the relationship to an I-It. It's not an I-Thou if you keep talking about it and dissecting the nature of the relationship.
So . . . if you have observed that people have become "carciatures of themselves, exaggerated examples of their thinking, their beliefs, lifestyle, habits," perhaps this is an indication of the same thing. But, again, this is something Buber recognizes -- it's the misfortune of language . . . the paradox that resides in the fact that we need it to articulate important things, and the concurrent fact that language always falls short because it's always merely a facsimile of the real thing. The problem with representation, I guess. My point is that the inevitable reduction to an I-It does not negate the meaningfulness of the idea. An I-Thou moment is something we strive for, even if it is not always sustained indefinitely.
MaxKohanzad
the funny thing is i'm not talking about buber at all -
i'm not sure i could ever talk about buber -
i'm having trouble talking about myself
i am a stranger to myself
an unknown being
strangeness in the being of that which i am
I-thou only works when there are really two
but more importantly that there is an i to begin with
but if the i is a thou to itself
if it realises that i can never know myself
because the thou is everything - me included
MaxKohanzad
just to clarify
when i talk about being a stranger to myself
i mean being in touch with yourself completely
but that the nature of self is ultimately unknown and unknowable
Elisa
No, no, no...
Chill out,
What you yellin' for?
Lay back, it's all been done before
And if you could let it be
You will see
Somebody else
'Round everyone else
You're watchin' your back
Like you can't relax
You're tryin' to be cool
You look like a fool
To me, to me
Why do you have to go and make things so complicated?
I see the way you're
Acting like you're somebody else gets me frustrated
Life's like this, you
And you fall and you crawl
And you break and you take
What you get and you turn it into
Honesty Promise me I'm never gonna find you fake it
RebeccaD
not to be the only one seriously quoting avril levine.
ahem, lavigne.
xo Rebecca
David Strauss
I'd say the closest analogue at Wikipedia is "Assume Good Faith." Unless you have proof that the other person is acting with bad intentions, assume they are not. Their motives and thoughts could be more complicated than you think. They could also know something you do not. In any case, much respect is afforded by assuming they're not trying to undermine you.
Rabbi Dennis Ross
As the author of God in Our Relationships: Spirituality between People from the Teachings of Martin Buber, and as a father of a teen with whom I have seen the movie Legally Blonde quite a few times, I thought this was a lovely review that made good, creative use of Buber’s writing!
Pjay
You know what, MaxKohanzad? You're not Einstein, and spelling does count. You can argue all you want about Einstein's spelling, or about his failing math, just as you can make an argument that since some of richest guys in the world don't have college degrees, (like Gates, Allen, Dell, yada, yada...) you don't need a degree to succeed. Your income is far more likely (statistically) to be closer to the median, and there, a degree is worth a great deal to your net worth. People who can't, or don't bother to, spell correctly look less intelligent and will be taken less seriously. You see, Buber and Elle aside, the world is I-it.
MaxKohanzad
Pjay - correction: you meant "my world is I-it."
I have several degrees (4 actually)
I was once asked by a friend what I do as a 'Life Coach'.
I replied that 'I help people be more successful'
He said: 'But how can you do that if you are not successful yourself?'
I said: 'If you're only counter of success is having millions of pounds, then you need a life coach!'
---
I can tell you that from experience of the many hundreds of people i've trained and coached, some of whom were multi -millionaires - that success, confidence, happiness, love, balance, contentment, honesty, relationships, meaning purpose, being taken seriously, has little to do with money and little to do with if you can or can not spell.
read Erich Fromm's 'To have or to be.'
Pjay - maybe one day my contribution to the world will be greater than Einsteins?
Pjay - maybe if you could fully realise your own potential you could be even greater?
"We live by the limitations of our own mind and often leave the greatest wealth buried within our selves." - Me 2007
Avigail
Well, when you say, "Contribute your meshugaas," you're not kidding.
Anonymous
I think it was very enlightening...i mean it helps you understand what i-thou is about, for those of us that are not philo majors its very educational
invisible_hand
as someone teaching buber's philosophy this semester, i don't think your reduction of the idea of i/thou to "being a really nice person" really gets to its core at all.
Recursive Prophet
I've never been much into cinema-short attention span-but I discovered way back when that some of the best writing in mainline mags such as Newsweek was by the movie critics. This thread-which I've ignored until now-was a flashback to those days.
Great post Elisa! I haven't seen the movie, but loved your analysis.