Love as Redemption

8/13/2019 Love as Redemption

1/17

222

Love as Redemption

The American Dream Myth

and the Celebrity Biopic

Glenn D. Smith Jr.Mississippi State University

This research documents the American Dream in two popular biopics:Ray(2004) and

Walk the Line(2005). In both films, the American Dream, framed by the ideology ofindividuality, follows a particular trajectory: Struggle, individual effort, responsibility,

and talent lead to material wealth, but the protagonists' immoral behaviors overwhelm

them, thus creating a host of professional and personal problems. The relevance of rac-

ism and class struggle, long identified as significant barriers to upward mobility, is

minimized for a more personal issue, psychological trauma, to explain their moral

declines. Both films resolve the natural tensions between the material (individualism)

and the moral (brotherhood) by introducing the Hollywood love story as an acceptable

narrative for the lead character's redemption. The mythology allows for a more femi-

nine narrative (heterosexual romantic love) as moral resolution, one that avoids the

more complicated notions of brotherhood (racial and class equality) as part of the

ideological equation.

Keywords: myth; American Dream; film; race; class

By one account, no society has worshiped the celebrity figurethat person who isknown for his [or her] well-knownnessas intently as Americans have (Fishman,2003, p. 203). The roots of modern American celebrity may be traced to the Industrial

Revolution, as the telegraph and the steam-power printing press increased the produc-

tion and consumption of information. As a result, celebrity, once tied to acts of heroism,

achieved exclusively on the field of battle or by divine right, became the property of the

masses (Braudy, 1986; Gamson, 1994).P. T. Barnum, chief among the publicity archi-

tects, understood that fame was not just the result of individual recognition but also the

invention and manipulation of image. In using the press to publicize his various enter-

prises, Barnum drew a fine line between truth and exaggerationand defined modern

show business techniques of promotion along the way (Gamson, 1994).

Journal of

Communication Inquiry

Volume 33 Number 3

July 2009 222-238

2009 The Author(s)

10.1177/0196859909333696

http://jci.sagepub.com

Authors Note:I thank Megan Foley and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and helpful sug-

gestions on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed

to Glenn D. Smith Jr., Department of Communication, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box PF, Mississippi

State, MS 39762; e-mail: [email protected].


2/17

Smith / American Dream Myth 223

The Hollywood star system that evolved during the early part of the 20th century,

for example, was an illusion, an integral part of the business of producing, distributing,

and exhibiting the moving image. Struggling actors and newcomers were blank slates,their otherwise ordinary names, appearances, and lives reinvented by studio publicists

for mass consumption and profit. The potential stars climb to fame was an important

selling point in this process, and accordingly, framed in a variety of gossip columns

and fan magazines as a rags to riches narrative, with the polished final image pre-

sented to fans as an embodiment of the American values of individual struggle, respon-

sibility, and financial success (Gamson, 1994, pp. 25-27). Thus, the celebrity became,

and has since remained, a marketable symbol of the American Dream, a mythology

that promotes the ideals of individuality and brotherhood (equality and compassion for

all) as key to successful upward social mobility. The American Dream is the goldstandard by which we measure individual success and failure. As one of the most

pervasive of cultural myths, it continues to be communicated through variety of popu-

lar media, including mainstream film texts (Cavalcanti & Schleef, 2001; Pileggi,

Grabe, Holderman, & de Montigny, 2000; Roberts, 2006; Winn, 2000, 2003, 2007).

Given the American Dreams consistent representation in film, and the obvious

connection between the myth and celebrity culture, an examination of the celebrity

biopic (a genre that promotes the rise, fall, and eventual redemption of the extraordinary

individual) is warranted. Doyle (2006) suggested the biopic draws upon and rein-

forces cultural narratives, so how, then, is the American Dream communicated in thecelebrity biopic?

This research addresses that question by documenting Hollywoods use of the

American Dream myth inRay (Hackford et al., 2004) and Walk the Line(Cash et al.,

2005), both critically acclaimed and commercially successful biographical films about

the celebrity musician (see Arnold, 2005; Jones, 2004; Morgenstern, 2004; Puig &

Clark, 2005; Scott, 2004; Segal, 2006). Both films document the lives of two music

pioneers whose careers came of age during the rock-n-roll era of the mid-20th century,

who found longevity playing to baby-boom audiences, and, near the end of their lives,

recorded albums for the next generation. Both films, too, offer the opportunity to exam-ine a cultural myth that speaks to economic and racial equality but favors only those

individuals who successfully transcend those boundaries without societys help (Pileggi

et al., 2000).

As communicated in the celebrity biopic, the American Dream, framed by the

ideology of individuality, follows a particular trajectory: personal struggle, individ-

ual effort, responsibility, and unique talent lead to great material wealth for both

protagonists, but their immoral behavior eventually overwhelms them, creating a host

of professional and personal problems along the way. The films in question downplay

the relevance of racism and class struggle, which have long been identified as sig-nificant barriers to upward mobility (see Chamberlain, 1997; DeSantis, 1998;

Haggins, 1999; Winn, 2007), and introduce a more personal issue, psychological

trauma (framed as childhood tragedy and familial loss and estrangement), to explain

the moral downfall and professional and personal failure of each protagonist.


3/17

224 Journal of Communication Inquiry

This analysis argues that both films resolve the natural tensions between the mate-

rial (individualism) and the moral (brotherhood) by introducing the classic Hollywood

love storycharacterized by the heterosexual romantic relationship and the traditionalhappy endingas the proper context for the lead characters redemption. In this case,

redemption for each lead character comes in the form of his psychological and moral

repair and continued professional success.1 Indeed, only through the devotion and

example of a romantic partner, one who fully understands and has incorporated the

material and moral ideologies of the American Dream, does the protagonist eventually

take responsibility for his actions and experience continued happiness and success.

In the final analysis, then, this work examines the American Dream through a lens

that highlights the effacement of class and race in favor of individualism as a means

of material success. The mythology allows for a more feminine narrative (hetero-sexual romantic love) as moral resolution. This narrative stresses the importance of

family, compassion, and lifelong companionship, and it avoids the more incompat-

ible and complicated notions of brotherhood (racial and class equality) as part of the

ideological equation.

Literature Review

Film, Myth, and the American Dream

Quite simply, myths are a reflection of who we are as a society (Pileggi et al.,

2000). According to DeSantis (1998), they supply answers to a cultures most fun-

damental questions, and provide meaning, identification, and mutual understanding

(p. 479). As a society, then, we tend not to challenge myths for fear of upsetting the

status quo. To do so would mean to challenge our most fundamental and longstand-

ing beliefs regarding race, gender, and class.

The American Dream, by example, exemplifies the most valued of cultural

beliefsthat in America, the land of opportunity, anyone, regardless of back-ground, can achieve his or her goals. This mythology lured immigrants to American

shores, fueled the move Westward, and reinforced the importance of individual

effort and achievementall under the guise of equality and fairness for all (Pileggi

et al., 2000). As noted by Fisher (1973), the myth is actually two competing ideolo-

gies. One favors individual success (persistence, hard work, and self-reliance), and

the other favors moral values such as brotherhood. Together, these two competing

ideologies reinforce the idea that Americans can improve their lives, moving from

poor to middle class or from working to professional class without depending on

social action to promote change (Winn, 2007).Scholarship examining the American Dream as communicated in film brought

attention to the imbalance between the competing material and moral components of

the myth. For example, Winn (2007), in an analysis of Working Girl, found the


4/17


egalitarian spirit of brotherhood, the improvement of ones class position through

social action, is minimized in favor of a narrative that focuses on individual merit,

character, and autonomy as a path to success.McMullen (1996) argued the tension between the two ideologies change along

gender lines (p. 31). As communicated in the filmKramer vs. Kramer, mans inte-

gration of the material (masculine) aspects of the American Dream (competition and

independence) with its moral (feminine) counterpart (self-identity based on coopera-

tion and interdependence, and moral action that will foster and strengthen

relationships) allows him to enjoy a richer, fuller life. By contrast, womans attempt

to synthesize her career aspirations and familial obligations are met with familial

loss, personal pain, and an unfulfilled life.

This research, in its examination of the celebrity biopic, adds to the body ofknowledge by recording a shift in the American Dream narrative, in which psycho-

logical trauma is the catalyst for both change and failure, and heterosexual romantic

lovea feminine model of morality based on companionship, family, and, at times,

maternal supportis introduced as a more stable counterpart to the material inter-

ests present in the myth. However, given that both fame and individualism are often

perceived as direct paths to the American Dream, the research tracing the connection

between celebrity, individualism, and mobility must be reviewed.

Celebrity Culture and Upward Mobility

Our founding fathers, among the first American celebrities, found personal dis-

tinction in their political careers, but their efforts in securing this nations indepen-

dence epitomized, too, the egalitarian spirit of brotherhood. The emerging public

discourse reinforced the celebration of self as hero, one whose achievements

were unique, but still connected to the public at large (Gamson, 1994). This most

democratic of ideologies, individualisma combination of talent, public image, and

private history (childhood secrets and adult breakdowns)continues to inform our

connection to the rich and famous (Celeste, 2005; Tolson, 2001).Kitch (2007) summarized the contemporary celebrity as

[drawing on a] remarkably uniform narrative that draws moral lessons from a stars life

difficulties but in the end forgives or celebrates him or her. This plot includes an

unhappy or difficult childhood, exceptional talent or beauty . . . surrender to temptation

followed by public disfavor and midlife crisis, recovery and comeback. (pp. 37-38)

In this case, redemption takes on a secular toneguilt or insecurity for having trans-

gressed against the natural order of things (Williamson, 2002). Redemption, then, is

a right of passage for celebrities seeking to reinvent themselves, and their careers, in

the wake of public disfavor.

Given its role in the course of the celebrity narrative, redemption, as well as

the other elements of the narrative in which Kitch addressed, lends itself well to the


5/17


biopic (e.g.,Raging Bull, Schindlers List, Coal Miners Daughter, Whats Love Got

to DoWith It,Ali). In these films, and others, the redemption story arc rests on the

convention that characters are encouraged and celebrated for their talents and indi-vidual accomplishments before buckling to personal or public pressure and the

private and/or public resentments that follow (see Doyle, 2006).

By various accounts, sin and redemption were constant themes in the construc-

tion of Charless and Cashs individual stage personas. Persona, as defined by Ware

and Linkugel (1982), is the mythical maskworn by an individual who assumes a

character that exists separately from his or her real self. According to Hayward (2006),

the construction of ones persona is a product of self-participation, media and indus-

try reinforcement, and audience acknowledgment (p. 377). When a persona, such as

Cashs Man in Black, is constructed so as to be closely identified with a societysshared values or experiences, like the theme of redemption, it may be impossible to

separate the two. At that point, the persona transcends reality, becoming an arche-

type for human experiences, ideas, and even myths (Ware & Linkugel, 1982).

The role of the film industry in the construction, and reinforcement, of archetypal

images to reinforce specific ideals has been noted, and in that vein,Rayand Walk the

Line offer the uniform opportunity to analyze the position redemption occupies in

the thematic convergence between the celebrity narrative and persona, the American

Dream myth, and the biopic. As portrayed in each film, the characters of Ray

Charles and Johnny Cash, despite their professional accomplishments, battle a hostof moral temptations, all the result of childhood insecurities and traumas. However,

with the assistance of their romantic partners, they eventually resolve their psycho-

logical issues and cease their immoral behavior. Thus, redemption in both Rayand

Walk the Linecomes by way of romantic intervention, culminating with the tradi-

tional Hollywood happy ending for each protagonist.

The Hollywood Love Story and Happy Endings

Defined by the male-female dyad, the pursuit of romance in the face of numerousobstacles, and a resolution in which all misunderstandings are clarified, the

Hollywood love story is as old as the film industry itself. Hall (2006) stated, The

classical film has at least two lines of actions, both casually linking the same group

of charactersand, almost invariably, one of these lines of actions involves hetero-

sexual romantic love (p. 155).

Crme (1998) described the power of cinematic love to repair emotional pain in

both its audiences and film characters. The happy ending is an inherent part of the

romantic love story, but it is, at the same time, a contradictory narrative. According

to Fuchs (2003), it reinforces the importance of individual morality and choice whileavoiding complex explanations into the nature of human behavior. In bothRayand

Walk the Line, heterosexual romantic love, an idealistic narrative, symbolically

replaces the more controversial moral issues of brotherhood (in this case, racial and

class equality), and, at the same time, reconciles the psychological trauma and


6/17


immoral behavior of each protagonist. The happy ending that results reinforces the

idea that individualism and a sense of morality driven by romance, rather than racial

and class equality, is essential for continued upward mobility.

Analysis

Class, Race, and Unhappy Beginnings

From its inception, Hollywood has been in the business of construction and reivention,

fabricating or reshaping a stars past to fit an ideal image. The Hollywood public-

ity machine worked overtime to create its stars, burying the most painful, brutal, and

damaging parts of an actors life, while exaggerating, or recreating, more uplifting

experiences. This ritual defined the archetypal celebritya glamorous, wealthy figure

who magically transcended social boundaries on the road to fame and fortune.

At first glance, the narratives ofRayand Walk the Lineread much like the tradi-

tional celebrity rags-to-riches narrative. In each film, the characters of Ray Charles

and Johnny Cash follow a similar upward trajectory: Personal struggle and talent

leads to great material wealth, and the trappings of the celebrity lifestyle are framed

as the epitome of success. Closer inspection, however, reveals that racial and class

tensions are undercut in favor of a narrative that focuses on individual childhood

trauma as the primary source of dramatic conflict. Romantic love is absolute, a cure

all for a lifetime of hurt and pain.

To be sure, Ray introduces various racial and class signifiers in its opening

sequences. We see a home that is little more than a wooden shack, clothes that are

threadbare and dirty, and a mother, Aretha, played by Sharon Warren, who makes her

living washing other peoples dirty laundry. Early scenes from Walk the Line, too,

reveal the desperate circumstances in which the Cash family lives. Within a small,

three-room wood frame house, surrounded by miles of cotton fields and dirt roads, the

family exists on the edge of life, living hand to mouth, making its way picking cotton

on someone elses land.

Different movies, yet similar visual markers that serve to introduce the lead char-

acters class identities, and thus signify their low positions within the American

social structure. However, these visual images also induce audience sympathy for

both protagonists by introducing characters so seemingly deprived and disadvan-

taged that the audience cannot help but applaud as they move far beyond their mea-

ger beginnings. That said, the filmmakers ofRayand Walk the Line, while introducing

their lead characters within a context that suggests they were born to bleak social

circumstances, downplay the connection of these social factors to the protagonists

attempts at upward mobility. Instead, the producers establish a more melodramatic

and personal narrative, psychological trauma, as the central obstacle to achievement.


7/17


For example,Rays central conflict involves Charless (C. J. Sanders and Jamie

Fox) reaction to the death of a younger brother to accidental drowning. Indeed, early

scenes from the film, while giving indication as to Robinson familys low socialposition, are constructed more so to establish Charless close bond with his baby

brother, George (Terrone Bell). These scenes also allow the audience to experience

the films most pivotal turning point: as young George drowns in his mothers wash-

tub, young Charles stands frozen, unable, or unwilling, to help. Thus, the center

point of the films narrative is established in its first moments. The protagonist will

spend his time fighting to cope with the guilt of watching his brother die. Every

other struggle in his lifes journey, including his climb from poverty to stardom, and

any racism he faces along the way, will pale in comparison.

In Walk the Line, the Cash familys desperate economic circumstances are appar-ent, these circumstances seem to have little impact on young J. R. Cashs (Ridge

Canipe) desire for a better life. Instead, it is the grief over the death of his brother

and role model, as well as the verbal abuse heaped upon J. R. by his father, Ray

(Robert Patrick), that provides the films primary source of dramatic conflict and

motivation for the protagonist.

Young J. R.s saving grace is his older brother, Jack, (Lucas Till), a calming influ-

ence in an otherwise chaotic home. The closeness between brothers is evident in many

early scenes from the film, and this bond magnifies the first acts most dramatic

moment: Jacks death to a freak saw accident. Thus, several minutes into the filmsfirst act, the lead characters dilemma is firmly established. J. R. will spend the

reminder of the film struggling not against the desperate economic circumstances in

which he was raised, but with what happened to his older brother, while trying to

impress a father who insists God, as one line in the film goes, took the wrong son.

The relationship between these brothers, George and Ray, and Jack and J. R.,

represent many of the fundamental ideals of brotherhood (companionship, mutual

concern and respect, and compassion) and watching their interactions, one sees

amid a life of strife, tension, and povertywhat is possible. By contrast, the deaths

of George and Jack represent the killing of brotherhood in two distinct ways. First,it represents for each protagonist a loss of family, companionship, and brotherly

love. In Ray, Aretha, after Georges death, begins to distance herself from her

remaining son (a coping mechanism to shield her from the thought of losing another

child), and Charles, now blind from glaucoma, leaves home to navigate the world on

his own terms, and rediscover the sense of brotherhood he had before Georges

death. In Walk the Line, J. R., after his brothers death, cannot wait for the day when

he can finally leave home. Indeed, in the scene immediately following Jacks death,

J. R., now a young adult, does leave his family in search of his own ambitions, and

the love he lost when Jack died.Secondly, the deaths of George and Jack, one Black character and the other

White, both living in the bottom of societys economic system, serve as a symbolic

killing of brotherhood in its most contentious and complicated formracial and


8/17


class equalityand the deaths of these young boys underscore the lack of depth paid

to this debate in both films. Thus, the American Dream, while framed by the ideol-

ogy of individualism (the singular efforts, talents, and accomplishments of bothcharacters) is couched in both films between familial loss on one end and by a quest

for love as moral repair and replacement on the other.

Morality, Romantic Individualism, and Upward Mobility

Struggle is inevitable in life, but according to Winn (2007), most Americans

believe that upward mobility is possible without the burden of unfair limitations

(p. 1). In that regard,Ray andWalk the Linereinforce the idea that success or failure

is the result of individual drive and effort, and taking responsibility for lifes conse-quences without blaming others. In other words, both films place the burden of

change on what Winn (2007) called romantic individualismthe idea that achieve-

ment is predicated on character, virtue, romantic allure, and other bodily, psycho-

logical, and emotional states of self [that] are a remedy for an imbalanced social

structure (p. 42). This concept of personal responsibility, of finding ones own way,

is communicated early on in both films by specific family members of each protago-

nist. The family members pass along important moral and material lessons regarding

individual action, responsibility, and upward mobility to their sons and brothers.

For instance, Aretha Robinson represents a woman who refuses to blame anyonefor her station in life. Aretha never deals the race card, so to speak, in conversa-

tions with her son, Charles. Indeed, race never enters into their discussions, despite

the obvious visual markers inRaythat reveal the realities of economic poverty and

racial segregation around them. As indicated in several scenes (as when we see her

stand against another laundress whom she suspects is stealing from her, or when she

reminds Charles to never let no one or nothin turn you into no cripple. Stand on

your own two feet), Aretha frames individual effort, personal responsibility, and

integrity as the basis for upward mobility. In doing so, she communicates an impor-

tant lesson to her remaining son (and the audience watching): Good, hard-working,honest people find a way to be successful, regardless of their class or race, and do

not blame others when they fail to do so.

In Walk the Line, Jack Cash leads by example, advising his younger brother (who

hangs on his every word) about the importance of a strong work ethic, and how to bal-

ance such efforts with a sense of humility and compassion. These conversations between

brothers, from how much cotton each brother can pick, to their future dreams and aspira-

tions (Jack wants to be a minister, J. R. a singer), bring attention to the importance of

individual effort, of taking responsibility for ones actions, and choosing a profession and

working hard to be the best at it. As inRay, these early background scenes in Walk theLineoffer an affirmative, encouraging view of the American Dream in which the burden

of change falls to the individual, who, with moral clarity and a strong effort, will succeed.

Class and economic status are irrelevant (or ignored) in these frames, for these young

boys are determined to succeed regardless of their circumstances.


9/17


Thus, both films, in these early scenes, present a vision of the American Dream

that focuses on individual effort, and describes, through the protagonists interactions

between various characters, the moral and material characteristics needed to be suc-cessful: integrity, hard work, honesty, and personal responsibility, to name a few. Indeed,

as the films progress deeper into their narratives, the unique individual achievements

of each protagonist, and the material wealth they accumulate along the way, further

emphasizes the ideology of individuality.

The Unique Self, Material Culture, and Upward Mobility

As noted by Pileggi et al. (2000), individual talent, part of the politics of self, is

the key to upward mobility. Accordingly, the filmmakers ofRayand Walk the Linefavor this concept by constructing each protagonist as an innovator, creating unique

ideas, sounds, and images to quickly emerge beyond his humble beginnings. For

instance, Charles is presented as a pioneer of a controversial, yet bold genre of music

forged from the realities of segregation and his African American, southern roots.

Like his cinematic counterpart, Cash is portrayed as an innovator in his own right;

inWalk the Line, his sound is best described by his friend, the singer June Carter

(Reese Witherspoon), as steady like a train, sharp like a razor, the result of natural,

God-given talent, and a gritty, determined spirit.

As each film progresses, we witness Charles and Cash use their gifts to emergefrom obscurity to playing in small concert venues, and then eventually working their

way to packed houses. We then watch autograph seekers chase them, observe both

sign multimillion-dollar deals with major record companies, and look on as they

barnstorm through large stadiums and concert halls. In this collection of images,

both men relish in the fact that they have escaped their destitute circumstances and

enjoy wealth and fame beyond their wildest imaginations. Thus, the unique self

ones creative energy and method of personal expressionis interpreted as the

means by which ones humble beginnings can be left behind and by accumulating

large amounts of wealth, secure a position at the next level of society. Both films,then, perpetuate the idea that success is determined by individual effort and talent,

and defined by purely materialistic standards. By extension, the films reinforce the

notion that in a free market society, anyone (with an innovative idea or talent, of

course), regardless of his or her class or racial background, can achieve upward

mobility.

As Dyer (2004) noted, capitalism is, in part, a celebration of the individual. It is

the freedom of anyone to make money, sell their labour how they will, to be able

to express their opinions and get them heard (p. 9). Both films celebrate this posi-

tive vision of the American Dreamone that romanticizes the labor, talent, andcontrol of the individual with an equal amount of capital given for his or her efforts

and contributionswhile sidestepping the more somber side of the myth (the greed

and racial and class divisions, for instance). The films ignore the fact that the real


10/17


Charles and Cash were, in fact, part of an economic and political system that placed

them into a strict division of labor in which celebrities were constructed and were

controlled, a cog in the wheel, a commodity to be at one time celebrated and theneventually discarded when their capital value was spent.

Instead,Rayand Walk the Line, in the tradition of P. T. Barnum and the traditional

Hollywood star system, present Ray Charles and Johnny Cash as extraordinary

figures[objects] of our speculation and impossible [objects] of our desire

(Hayward, 2006, p. 381). In other words, the films, especially in the scenes previously

described, place added value to the iconic status of both Charles and Cash. As con-

structed in both films, they are images to be worshiped and followed, ideal representa-

tions of what we want to be and long to have. At the same time, however,Rayand Walk

the Line, in weaving a narrative of personal and psychological struggle, work to pres-ent images with which we can identify, ordinary characters that in their problems,

struggles, and desires for a better life are just like us (Hayward, 2006, p. 381).

The protagonists do not receive their financial rewards without personal struggle.

However, in each film, again, social issues such as racism and class struggle are

downplayed in favor of emphasizing obstacles of a more individual and familial

(psychological and romantic) nature. Indeed, with the exception of one scene in

Walk the Line, in which Cash and his first wife, Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), argue

over the possibility that they will be evicted from their home, the lead characters

economic struggles as a working class musician go unmentioned. This scene is con-structed not so much to bring attention to Cashs class position, or the economic

struggles he faces on his upward climb, but to give indication as to the sorry state of

his marriage and thus foreshadow the films romantic line of action (which is dis-

cussed in a later section).

InRay, particular scenes, such as those portraying Charless travels on the chit-

lin circuit early in his career, offer a faint glimpse of what life might have been like

for a young African American musician playing in a segregated society. However,

these visual and verbal markers (the rundown juke joints, the segregated hotels and

restaurants the characters/musicians frequent, the conversations between thembemoaning their situations), while useful in identifying time (the 1940s), place (the

American South), and circumstance (unequal treatment), dissolve into the back-

ground. The protagonists struggles with drugs and alcohol, and his extramarital affairs

(all of which stem from his inability to come to terms with his brothers death) become

central to the films conflict.

Psychological Trauma and Moral Decline

As previously noted, psychological trauma is the driving force behind the pro-tagonists decisions to seek a life based on the ideals of individualism and material

success and wealth. However, the accidental deaths of George and Jack, and thus,

the symbolic killing of brotherhood, become the catalyst for Charless and Cashs


11/17


moral declines as well. Both success and failure, then, comes not from the stress and

strain of class or racial tensionthe push and pull of years of financial hardship and

social discriminationbut are found at the more intimate level, as the moral applica-tions revealed to each protagonist as young children crumble under the weight of the

guilt and insecurity of childhood pain and trauma.

Both protagonists, for example, remain traumatized by the deaths of their

brothers deep into each films narrative; through a series of grainy flashback

sequences, the audience watching Ray is constantly reminded of Ray Charless

tortureof a younger brother who he failed to save, and a mother who screams

for help as her son lay dead. We then witness Charless attempts to reconcile his

brothers death through a series of immoral actions that leave the lead character

addicted to heroin, and with a string of extramarital affairs that bring him littlejoy, comfort, or love.

Similarly, in Walk the Line, Cash continues to struggle with the death of his

brother; he is constantly comparing himself to a ghost, the perfect son, and battling

to contain his rage against a verbally abusive father. Cashs fall from grace plays out

in several scenes in which the character displays overindulgent and reckless behav-

ior, acts that culminate with his family and colleagues, including his troubled wife,

Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), deserting him after his life-threatening drug binges

become too much, and his longtime extramarital affair with June Carter is exposed.

Subsequent scenes from Walk the Line portray Cash as broke, drug addicted, andlonely.

Although both characters demonstrate a desire to change their ways (Im a

sinner who needs saving, Charles admits in one scene from Ray), the pain of the

past, and the addictions that result, bear down hard. So, by the final act ofRayand

Walk the Line, Charles and Cash have yet to find peace, and the contradictions

between their individual accomplishments and immoral actions have yet to be

resolved. With each protagonists psychological instability standing between ideo-

logical and narrative resolution, how is the conflict put to rest? Redemption, essen-

tial to the survival of each protagonist, is predicated on the arousal of guilt for whatwe are in respect for what we should be . . . in order to be moved by moralistic

appeals, one must condemn himself in some way or other (Fisher, 1973, p. 162). In

other words, Charless and Cashs psychological scars, and immoral actions that

result, bring them to a point in their life where redemption is the only hope for peace

and continued success.

Love, Redemption, and the American Dream

As revealed in the celebrity biopic, redemption takes on more of a romantic thanreligious tone, as the protagonists relationship with a female moral role model pro-

vides the emotional assistance they need, helps him heal psychologically and bring

closure to the past, and allows for moral clarity and continued material success.


12/17


Thus, the central tensions mediated within both filmsmaterial success defined by

individualism, and moral failure, predicated by a loss of brotherhood and childhood

psychological traumaare resolved.InRay, Della (Bea) Charles, played by Kerry Washington, is the antithesis of

the hard-living, hard-driving women Charles meets on the roadcharacters that

seem to struggle with their own moral decisions, personal demons, and pursuit of the

American Dream. By contrast, Bea is constructed as a middle-class woman of mate-

rial and moral consequence who embodies many of the lessons taught to Charles by

his mother. Indeed, from the dialogue between Washingtons character and Foxxs

Ray Charles, we learn that Bea is a successful performer in her own right (as a mem-

ber of a popular gospel group in the Houston, Texas, area), and a courteous and

compassionate soul who understands that professional success takes hard work,sacrifice, and a great deal of talent. Although she is not nearly as well known as her

future husband would be, it is clear from how she is constructed in Raythat she is

meant to reaffirm the idea that race is not a viable restriction to upward mobility.

Charles, on the other hand, is portrayed as a man who lets his past jeopardize his

professional career and personal life. He becomes a heroin addict for the same rea-

son he enters show businessthe drug, like his music, offers an escape from a child-

hood of loss and regret. However, in a pivotal scene fromRay, in which the protagonist

faces federal drug charges, and is at his lowest point professionally, spiritually, and

emotionally, Beawhose moral decisions and individual achievements Charlesadmires and respectsreminds him of what he must do: If you dont stop using that

needle, theyre going to take away your music and put you in jail. Is that poison

worth losing everything? In this confrontation, Bea forces Charles to look beyond

his addiction, talk about his fears (his brothers death, for instance), and think about

the consequences of his actions (a life without his family and music). In other words,

Bea helps her husband realize that his moral integrity, and, by extension, credibility

as a husband, father, and musician, cannot be restored unless he stops his immoral

behavior and regains his psychological composure.

Beas intervention harkens back to several flashback scenes between Charles andhis mother in which she pressed upon him the value of individual responsibility to

ones survival and success. In that regard, she not only takes the role of the support-

ive wife, but that of a surrogate mother, a mother-substitute if you will, for her

husband. Knowing Aretha would be disappointed, and in the face of being alone

again, of losing everything, Charles enters drug rehabilitation and psychological

therapy; once there, the audience watches as he slowly puts to rest the guilt and

shame he has over his brothers death, and, as his mother first taught him, as Bea

reminds him, takes responsibility for his past actions.

AsRaysuggests, it seems impossible that Charles would have been able to defeathis psychological demons without Beas devotion and persistence. Thus, Bea is con-

structed as her husbands mythical savior, for she provides her husband with the love


13/17


and familial support he has missed since Georges death. The sense of brotherhood he

lost is replaced by the love of a supportive wife/mother figure.

A quick montage celebrating Charless professional accomplishments appearsshortly before the films closing credits, complete with a list of the number of

albums he recorded and awards he won, thus providing evidence of his commitment

to individuality. Although meant to pay tribute to the life and career of a pioneering

musician, this montage is more of a self-serving attempt to further position the show

business industry, and the celebrity lifestyle, as the epitome of progress and suc-

cessagain, the means by which the American Dream is often measured. These

images, including one showing Bea standing by his side during an awards ceremony,

serve, too, to romanticize a specific persona of Ray Charles, and thus suggests the

American Dream can be achieved with a dual commitment to self and family, andwith little or no regard to the influence of race on upward mobility.

As withRay, Walk the Line uses a romantic narrative to reconcile the psychologi-

cal implications of upward mobility. Indeed, Walk the Lineis not as much a biopic as

it is a cathartic love storya romantic narrative based on honesty, trust, and com-

fort between two characters (Stanley, 2006, p. 239). In that regard, June Carter is set

up as the one character who can help resolve her leading mans psychological and

moral dilemmas. As noted in the film, she comes from the most prominent and suc-

cessful of country music families. The Carters are portrayed in the film as salt of the

Earth folk, a good-natured, sensible, and practical people. Indeed, the Carter fami-lys place in the film suggests that June is as hardworking and persistent, good

natured, and cooperative as the rest of her family. June may be a celebrity, but like

Bea Charles, she appears to live a relatively meager, middle-class lifestyle (as evident

by her rather modest home, and her otherwise unremarkable style of dress). As such,

she is constructed as the embodiment of the moral and material values of the

American Dream, a role model and the ideal romantic partner for the psychologically

battered Johnny Cash.

As indicated on the films DVD case, Walk the Lineis not just about Cashs mate-

rial achievements but of his pursuit of the greatest love of his life. That phrase isindicative of Junes prominent place in the films narrative, a position that comes at

the expense of another female character, Vivian, Cashs first wife. Indeed, Cashs

divorce from Vivian is a foregone conclusion, but rather than provide a more

nuanced, balanced account of their marital troubles (the notion, for instance, that

their marriage may have deteriorated because both characters are lonely and bone

weary from Cashs long absences and continued drug and alcohol addictions, or that

Vivian, like many women of her era, feels unappreciated for her efforts as a wife and

mother), the filmmakers, in an effort to heighten the dramatic tension (and Junes

place) in the film, position Vivian as a primary threat to the Cash-Carter relationship(and by extension, the films romantic line of action).

In that regard, producers show little respect for Vivians place as the mother

of Cashs three children, or as the wife who weathered, too, her husbands early

struggles and addictions. As June is constructed as the embodiment of romantic


14/17


love, moral stability, and individual success, Vivian, despite her sacrifices as a wife

and mother, is cast in the harshest and most stereotypical of lights. In her conversa-

tions with her husband, for instance, Vivians demands for Cashs time are meant toappear as desperate, obsessive, and unwarranted attempts to keep two star-crossed

lovers apart. However, upon further analysis, her portrayal (especially in comparison

to Junes more positive construction) reveals itself as an obvious and intentional

strategy to advance the films romantic plot.

As the filmmakers would have it, Cashs destructive behavior might have contin-

ued if not for Junes moral guidance and support. She is the first person in Cashs life

since Jack to fully understand that sound moral decisions and psychological stability

are key to ones continued upward mobility, and, as Bea Charles attempts with her

husband, June repeatedly tries to get Cash to incorporate this philosophy into his life(Winn, 2007). In that regard, June is, at once, lover, friend, and mother to Cash, and

through her loyalty and direction, Cash is provided with a sense of family that he

hasnt felt since his brothers death. He stops blaming himself for Jacks death, and

makes amends to those he has hurt and who have hurt him (like his father).

Thus, the pain of his brothers death is repaired, and his sense of brotherhood

restored; through Junes love and maternal commitment, he learns to love and trust

again (which he had not done since his brother died), and, as his brother would have

wanted, as June teaches him, he takes responsibility for his previous mistakes and

wrongdoings. As a result, by films end, Cash appears as a more psychologicallystable individual, and, as indicated by the films closing caption, his personal life and

professional career takes a new, exciting direction with June at his side: John and

June married and settled into the lake house in Hendersonville [Tennessee]. Two

years later they had a son, John Carter Cash. For the next 35 years they raised their

children, recorded music, toured, and played the world together.

Walk the Linechampions a narrative that replaces class struggle with more romantic

notions of individualism and companionship. It does so through its construction of a

rhetorical persona of Johnny Cash, a character that achieves upward mobility through

personal achievement, and is the recipient of a convenient form of romantic love thatserves his moral and psychological needs at the expense of others (like his first wife).

In that regard, the film creates, too, a reality that favors women, like June Carter, who

have pursued the American Dream in their own right, and by extension, allowed for the

continued upward mobility of an otherwise morally deprived and underprivileged man.

Thus, this rhetorical (re)vision suggests, as McMullan (1996) noted, that the American

Dream is still an andocentric myth, one that confines women to traditional feminine sex

roles (e.g., despite her individual material accomplishments, June, like Bea Charles in

Ray, is valued more as a source of moral and familial cooperation, interdependence, and

strength, while Vivians choices are devalued altogether). Accordingly, Walk the Line,likeRay, offers a commercialized version of the American Dream that ignores the impli-

cations of social position in our society, and instead promotes a materialistic mythology

in which individual struggle, effort, responsibility, and talent equal success; romantic

love replaces a lost sense of brotherhood; and the reasons for failure lie within.


15/17


Conclusion

This analysis presents a reconfiguration of the American Dream as communi-cated in the celebrity biopic, an ideological shift in which historical issues of

social inequality are replaced with individual sources of personal expression and

psychological trauma, and the rhetorical transformation of brotherhood (equality

and compassion for all) to heterosexual love (framed by feminine companionship

and maternal support) helps complete a rhetorical vision of a classless society

unbound by social restrictions such as class or race. The depoliticization of social

inequality is carried out in two films, Rayand Walk the Line, through the ideolo-

gies of romantic individualism (personal effort, responsibility, and fortitude) and

the unique self (in this case, personal forms of artistic expression). Both films, atvarious dramatic points, use these ideologies to promote a materialistic version of

the American Dream myth in which wealth, fame, and status, the trappings of the

celebrity lifestyle, are presented as ideal models of professional success (Pileggi,

2000).

In both films, too, inequality is contained in a more personal and dramatic form,

psychological trauma, which serves as both of a source of motivation for the lead

characters, aiding in their quests for upward mobility, and as the catalyst for their

psychological and moral declines. This dramatic tension between professional

achievement and moral failure is resolved through the infusion of the romantic lovestorylinea feminine counterpart to the masculine ideal of material successthat

positions the heterosexual relationship between the protagonist and a female moral

role model (a character situated firmly within the boundaries the American middle

class) as the ideal form of moral and psychological redemption.

In the final analysis,Rayand Walk the Linedisplace brotherhood with patriarchal

notions of heterosexual love, thus offering a reconstructed American Dream that

resolves the tension between individual inequality and equality through brother-

hood. This version of the American Dream, as a result, minimizes, even ignores, the

ongoing political and economic issues of racism and class struggle in Americansociety.

Note

1. As used in the text, the term brotherhoodhas two distinct, yet interconnected meanings. The first

describes the close fraternal relationship between the films lead characters and their male siblings. The

second meaning is used in a broader sense, to explain a sense of community and sympathy toward other

human beings. Brotherhood is used throughout the text in favor of a more gender-neutral concept because

of the thematic connections between each film that this particular term best illuminates. In fact, this

analysis will link, and draw upon, these two meanings to analyze the patriarchal distinctions found in both

films, and how the racial and class implications of the term brotherhood is replaced with a feminine, and

more acceptable, counterpart.


16/17


References

Arnold, T. K. (2005, July 5). Older audiences pass on theaters. USA Today, p. 5D.Braudy, L. (1986). The frenzy of renown: Fame and its history. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cash, J. C., Blomquist, A. C., Konrad, C., Keach, J. (Producers), Mangold, J. (Director), & Dennis,

G., Mangold, J. (Writers). (2005). Walk the line [Motion picture]. United States: Fox 2000

Pictures.

Cavalcanti, H. B., & Schleef, D. (2001). Cultural loss and the American dream: The immigrant experience

in Barry LevinsonsAvalon.Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 24(3-4), 11-22.

Celeste, R. (2005). Screen idols: The tragedy of fallen stars.Journal of Popular Film & Television, 33, 29-38.

Chamberlain, S. (1997). Gender, race, and the underclass: The truth behind the American dream. Gender

& Development, 5(3), 18-25.

Crme, P. (1998). Love transforms: Variations on the theme in film and soap. In L. Pearce & G. Wisker

(Eds.), Fatal attractions: Rescripting romance in contemporary literature and film (pp. 128-140).London: Pluto Press.

DeSantis, A. D. (1998). Selling the American dream myth to Black southerners: The Chicago defender

and the great migration of 1915-1919. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 474-511.

Doyle, K. (2006). Muhammad goes to Hollywood: Michael Manns Alias biopic. Journal of Popular

Culture, 39, 383-406.

Dyer, R. (2004).Heavenly bodies: Film stars and society. London: Routledge.

Fisher, W. R. (1973). Reaffirmation and subversion of the American dream. Quarterly Journal of Speech,

59, 160-167.

Fishman, J. E. (2003). Celebrity as a business and its role in matrimonial cases. American Journal of

Family Law, 7, 203-211.

Fuchs, E. (2003). Gender and holocaust docudramas: Gentile heroines in rescue films. Shofar: AnInterdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 22, 80-94.

Gamson, J. (1994). Claim to fame: Celebrity in contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Hackford, T., Benjamin, S., Baldwin, H., Baldwin, T. (Producers), Hackford, T. (Director), & White, J.

(Writer). (2004).Ray[Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures.

Haggins, B. L. (1999). Translating the mythos: Homefront viewers rethink the American dream.Journal

for the Study of Media and Composite Cultures, 9, 117-129.

Hall, J. (2006). Opposites attract: Politics and romance in the way we were and speechless. Quarterly

Review of Film and Video, 23, 155-169.

Hayward, S. (2006). Cinema studies: Key concepts. New York: Routledge.

Jones, S. (2004, December 23). Movie, music keep Charles influence alive. USA Today, p. 1D.

Kitch, C. (2007). It takes a sinner to appreciate the blinding glare of grace: Rebellion and redemption in

the life story of the dark celebrity.Popular Communication, 5, 37-56.

McMullen, W. J. (1996). Gender and the American dream in Kramer vs. Kramer. Womens Studies in

Communication, 19, 29-54.

Morgenstern, J. (2004, October 29). A performance with south: In a shining ray, Foxx echoes a musi-

cians genius. Wall Street Journal, pp. W1, W9.

Pileggi, M. S., Grabe, M. E., Holderman, L. B., & de Montigny, M. (2000). Business as usual: The

American dream in Hollywood business films.Mass Communication and Society, 3, 209-228.

Puig, C., & Clark, M. (2005, February 25). And the oscar ought to go to . . . USA Today, p. 6E.

Roberts, M. (2006). Scarface, The Great Gatsby, and the American dream.Literature Film Quarterly, 34,

71-78.

Scott, A. O. (2004, October 29). Portrait of genius, painted in music. New York Times, p. 1.

Segal, V. (2006, February 6). Man in black.New Statesman, p. 48.


17/17


Stanley, T. (2006). Punch-drunk masculinity.Journal of Mens Studies, 14, 235-242.

Tolson, A. (2001). Being yourself: The pursuit of authentic celebrity.Discourse Studies, 3, 443-457.

Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1982). The rhetorical persona: Marcus Garvey as Black Moses.

Communication Monographs, 49, 50-62.Williamson, L. A. (2002). Racism, tolerance, and perfected redemption: A rhetorical critique of the drag-

ging trail. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 245-258.

Winn, J. E. (2000). Moralizing upward mobility: Investigating the myth of class mobility in Working Girl.

Southern Communication Journal, 66, 40-52.

Winn, J. E. (2003). Every dream has its price: Personal failure and the American dream in Wall Streetand

The Firm. Southern Communication Journal, 68, 307-318.

Winn, J. E. (2007). The American dream in contemporary Hollywood cinema. New York: Continuum.

Glenn D. (Pete) Smith Jr. (PhD, University of Southern Mississippi, 2004) is an assistant professor

in the Department of Communication at Mississippi State University. He is the author of Something on

My Own: Gertrude Berg and American Broadcasting, 1929-1956, and he is currently at work on a

biography of blacklisted actor and union activist Philip Loeb. His research interests include media history

and film criticism.

For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGEs Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/

journalsPermissions.nav.

Documents

Love as Redemption