I am writing an essay about Paperman, the Walt Disney-Produced Animated short film that preceded Wreck-It Ralph in theaters.
If you haven’t seen it, go ahead and watch it now.
I’m going to describe a few things I like about it before I start extrapolating it’s moral implications and go on my gender-related rant.
First off, it’s beautifully animated. The grey-scale color scheme really accentuates the emotions of the characters. I found that The Girl’s red lipstick mark on his paper, felt unobtrusive and fitting, and of course a good metaphor for how she can bring colour into his life. The single-coloured-object device has been often used in modern black-and-white films since Schindler’s List (and maybe sometime before that) and sometimes comes off as heavy-handed. Not here.
I appreciate the sense of humor. Two cute moments involve a paper plane hitting the wrong person and one of The Guy’s co-workers pulls his paper away. The movie even pokes fun of the magical nature of the paper planes in a whimsical bit when The Guy is pinned onto a train.
Okay, but I’m not writing this to praise Paperman. Recently I’ve been beginning to see how all media, but especially films, has conditioned me to think in really messed up ways. Especially concerning htereosexual gender relationships. Paperman clearly demonstrates one of the problematic morals of many romance tales.
In the beginning, blowing winds (a well-placed metaphor for fate) introduce The Guy to The Girl by throwing one of his papers onto her*. They have a cute exchange, she smiles at him, and then promptly gets on a train. He seems shocked and confused that she left so quickly, and she happens to glance back at him. Then she goes about her day, seemingly to largely ignore the event. Okay, yes, we cannot assume that she places no importance in the exchange–it’s true that she chases the piece of paper when she finds it. The way I interpret her emotions are that it’s more curiosity and play with the paper, rather than a pursuit of the memory of the man. We see none of The Girl’s efforts to consciously reach the man. This leads us to believe that she is not responsible for the pursuit. Truthfully, she has no or little reason to chase The Guy. And neither does The Guy. They had a short, nice exchange. That’s it.
So why does The Guy chase her? Why does The Guy cherish the piece of paper given to him by a stranger he had a few seconds of exchange with? Why does he throw paper plane after paper plane desperate to reach The Girl? He spontaneously takes the day off work to pursue someone he has never spoken to. Does this not all sound creepy or stalkerish? He does it because… well it’s because he’s a guy. As a guy, I am taught by romantic movies that there are small instances of chance encounters who will bring me to a girl in a funny or cute situation. If she is to smile at me, I am to pursue her at all costs. I must fall in love with her and throw my back trying to meet her again.
There is a reason why many of my girl friends believe that guys “stalk” them to some degree. It’s the same reason why guys never thinking their behavior constitutes “stalking.” My friends are nice people who smile at strangers. Unfortunately, coming from a woman to a man, this is a sign of interest, so it’s an invitation for the man to pursue.. I wish it wasn’t so. People have the right to be friendly to each other, with no sexual or romantic undertones. Just today I passed a girl, we smiled at each other and walked on. I held the elevator door for someone else–she said “thanks! But I’m actually waiting for someone.” These are normal, polite interactions. But, the interactions are gendered. Because I am male, I had a nagging thought in that I should turn around, throw my books to the ground and demand we go for coffee.
I’m not against romance. Despite all my best wishes, I am a romantic. I used to fantasize about the following exchange:
I am in my car, with the windows open, playing some semi-obscure or at least not top-40 band I like. A girl pulls up next to me at the stoplight. Her windows are also down. She says, hey I love [INSERT BAND NAME HERE] and I’m like, me too! This is my favorite album of theirs. Maybe she says something else, and I say, hey are you hungry? And she says follow me and she drives me over to some coffee shop I’ve never heard of.
How utterly beautiful would that be? How heart-breaking it is that every time a car passes me and the driver compliments me on the music, I never see them again. What a shame that every smile doesn’t lead to love… There is a girl in Berkeley whom I have never met, but we crossed paths on the way to one of my classes. Several times. One time we held unbroken eye contact for a ridiculously long duration. She vanished for the whole semester, and the last time I saw her I was late to a midterm and I did not get off my bike. My biggest regret of sophomore year is not getting her name. This is an unhealthy obsession. I am not a hunter of hearts. Smiles are not footprints leading Men to the big catch. Romance is a game, and there are two (or more) players.
Romantic situations (like the car one I described) are totally fine. Let’s just make sure that both parties aren’t over-thinking the simple gesture of kindness or shared-interest. Let’s make sure we don’t relentlessly pursue anyone for unjustified reasons. Just because you have a pixie cut, positive attitude, and a band t-shirt doesn’t mean you’re my soul-mate. Though I might assume so.
And that’s exactly what The Guy assumes about The Girl in Paperman. Yes, it’s a cute lovely story. Yes it’s romantic; however, I think it’s about time we start acknowledging these types of romances (relentless pursuit motivated by meaningless encounters) as problematic. How much more fulfilling it is to chase someone that you know, that you can say, Yes, oh yes, THIS is what makes this person special, this particular quality is so unique–not something like kindness or red-lipstick or a hip t-shirt.
I wish that movies would take the time to explore the nuances of romance, specifically the courting process, as a two-way street. To show a woman pursuing a man, or at least show both sides of the story. Or perhaps make fun of the extreme gender roles and point out the obvious problems, like 500 Days of Summer does so well. As for me, well, admitting you have a problem is the first step, right?
At the same time, I always drive with my windows down.
– – – – –
FOOTNOTE
*One of my favorite movies, 500 Days of Summer, actually uses the same tool of wind indicated romantic interest. In the opening credits (at the very end of this clip), a young version of Summer blows out of her frame and into the direction of the Tom’s frame, who is then popping bubbles coming from the same direction. The implication is clear: some byproduct of a woman enters a man’s life and effects him. It’s a gender-biased way of looking at romance (the girl is meant to be attractive and passive; the man is the one to pursue). Of course, 500 Days does a brilliantly job of deconstructing these one-sided romances. It basically becomes a parable for how these gender roles are ineffective and ill-fated ways to deal with love. Romance doesn’t depend on fate, and it shouldn’t be one-sided: it’s Tom’s own actions that lead him to a new situation, and done without panic or over-thinking. I won’t ruin the ending here.
Edit 1: The web show “After Hours” on Cracked.com actually has a really good piece that explains another aspect of why romantic comedies are bad for us.
Ianontheweb 