This video is a scene from my favorite movie Paris, Je T’Aime. The scene takes place at La Pere Lachaise, the famous French cemetery where Jim Morrison is buried. I wrote a mid-term paper for another Comm class on this scene last semester using social exchange theory; for those of you who need a refresher of Comm 211- it’s the idea that in every relationship we are in we weigh out our costs and benefits without even knowing it.
I have found this scene and theory outrageously interesting. In this exchange, Frances and William are arguing about their relationships and their relational miscommunication. The viewer finds out that William is a work-a-holic, while Frances is looking for “lightness” is her relationship.
This desire for laughter in her relationship seems to be Frances’ god-word or the word that is of utmost importance to her- or in terms of social exchange theory- costs and benefits. In her relationship that’s what she needs. I feel as if we all have something that is of the utmost importance to us. I would personally say that in a relationship god-words and their antithesis, devil-words, are the difference between a happy relationship or not.
To sustain a happy and healthy relationship (in which your benefits outweigh your costs), one’s desires (god-words) must be met. If now, it’s what I have heard to as a deal breaker. When Frances, for example, expresses her desire for ‘appreciation’ and ‘levity’- she is telling her fiancé what she is looking for.
Clearly there is a miscommunication here, because William is looking for stability (financial and physical) from their relationship. This is clear as he yells that she will starve without him. When a significant others’ god and devil-terms don’t line up this can lead to either constant fighting or probably a break up sooner or later.
As I have learned from learning about social exchange theory, the relationship should have more of their god-terms (benefits) met in order for the relationship to be considered fair and worthwhile. How do you feel about this idea of relational god and devil-terms???
Craven, W. (2006). "La Pere Lachaise". Paris, Je T'Aime.
United States & Paris: First Look Studios & Victoires International.
What a great clip! And an intriguing analysis. If we try to combine social exchange theory and Burke's notion of "ultimate" (God/Devil) terms, then desirable relationships are those in which we "get" more of those things represented by our God terms, and not so much of those things represented by our Devil terms...
ReplyDeleteWhat I find delicious about this scene is that the characters seem to blow the whole social exchange paradigm to smithereens! Sure, it seems as though Frances values "seriousness." The irony, though, is that he does not take Frances (and her needs) seriously *enough.* Only when he is shocked into self-awareness (by the ghost of Oscar Wilde!) does he turn from self-centeredness to relationship. And Frances goes through something similar. She claims to value "lightness"--but her blaming and judgment of William is as heavy as a courtroom drama. To her credit, she is able (finally) to laugh at herself (obliquely) in the context of William's passionate, humorous apology.
So where is social exchange theory at this point? This episode seems to suggest that relationships work best when we take the focus off of what others can "give" us, and instead learn to give more of ourselves...
This scene reminds me of the poem:
ReplyDeleteEmotional Idiot by Maggie Estep
I'm an Emotional Idiot
so get away from me.
I mean,
COME HERE.
Wait, no,
that's too close,
give me some space
it's a big country,
there's plenty of room,
don't sit so close to me.
Hey, where are you?
I haven't seen you in days.
Whadya, having an affair?
Who is she?
Come on,
aren't I enough for you?
God,
You're so cold.
I never know what you're thinking.
You're not very affectionate.
I mean,
you're clinging to me,
DON'T TOUCH ME,
what am I, your fucking cat?
Don't rub me like that.
Don't you have anything better to do
than sit there fawning over me?
Don't you have any interests?
Hobbies?
Sailing Fly fishing
Archeology?
There's an archeology expedition leaving tomorrow
why don't you go?
I'll loan you the money,
my money is your money.
my life is your life
my soul is yours
without you I'm nothing.
Move in with me
we'll get a studio apartment together, save on rent,
well, wait, I mean, a one bedroom,
so we don't get in each other's hair or anything
or, well,
maybe a two bedroom
I'll have my own bedroom,
it's nothing personal
I just need to be alone sometimes,
you do understand,
don't you?
Hey, why are you acting distant?
Where you goin',
was it something I said?
What
What did I do?
I'm an emotional idiot
so get away from me
I mean,
MARRY ME.
I feel that this poem is similar to this scene because one second this couple seems extremely happy and in love, and the next second they're yelling at each other and questioning their feelings for each other and if whether they should get married or not. This couple is engaged and on the verge of breaking up at the same time. It's a really strange dynamic. Everything they say towards each other is passionate and manipulative. They're conversations go in between two extremes. They're trying to figure out which opportunity cost is the greatest. Is it better to get married or be apart? Can she sacrifice laughter with her lover for a life of financial stability? Can he be with someone who can lie to his face and he can't tell for love? God and devil terms are involved with all of these decisions: marriage or separation, money or laughter, love and lies? They express their mental and emotional battles with the way they communicate with each other. Through their arguments it seems as though they can't live with each other, nor can they live without each other.