Metropolitan, a 1990 film directed by Whit Stillman, follows a group of young Manhattan socialites, known as the “rat pack,” who, through frequent dialogue at their elegant gatherings, contrast the traditional norms of their social class, perhaps known as “WASPs” or “the Eastern Establishment,” referred to in the film as the “Urban Haute Bourgeoisie,” oft abbreviated as U.H.B., to the cultural changes brought on by their parents’ generation, the baby boomers, notably in regards to the counterculture of the 1960s and the rise of the yuppie.
Such themes of cultural decline become apparent early in the film as Tom Townsend, a Princeton University student and committed socialist (in particular, a Fourierist), and Audrey Rouget, a student at Miss Porter’s school, which graduated the likes of Jacqueline Kennedy and Gloria Vanderbilt, discuss her favorite author Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, in which a group of young people put on a play deemed inappropriate. While Tom argues that the premise is “ridiculous by modern standards,” Audrey asks Tom, “Has it ever occurred to you that maybe today, looked at from Jane Austen’s perspective, would look even worse?” putting forth the first instance of the film’s critique of counter-cultural and yuppie norms: they disregard the notions of moral obligation and good taste in favor of the pursuit of an authentic self.
Soon after his dialogue with Audrey, Tom engages in dialogue with Nick Smith, a young man with a deep sense of pessimism about the world due to the decline of the U.H.B. and its values about a seemingly mundane subject: detachable collars. Nick reminisces about the decline of the detachable collar, which, even though, according to him, “they look much better,” occurred because “so many things that were better in the past have been abandoned for supposed convenience.” He points out that his parents’ generation, the baby boomers, chose to abandon such standards to be (supposedly) happier. However, Nick considers this to be a form of “barbarism,” in which, in the pursuit of an authentic self, we lose our sense of aesthetic discernment and cease to cherish beautiful things.
However, Tom is not the only member of the Rat Pack with a skepticism of U.H.B. values. Cynthia McLean, a free-spirited young woman, proposes that the group play a party game in which the loser must answer an embarrassing question about themselves. While Cynthia views the game positively because it encourages us to be open and vulnerable, Audrey warns her, “You do not have to think it’s dangerous; other people have, and that’s how it became a convention. People saw the harm that excessive candor can do.” Nevertheless, they all agree to play, and Tom loses the game; he must share the names of every girl he is currently in love with. He states only one: Serena Slocum, a classmate of Audrey’s at Miss Porter’s, which deeply hurts Audrey because she has feelings for Tom. Charlie Black, perhaps the most strident and philosophically-minded believer in the U.H.B. and its values among the group, as she is in tears, tells her, “You were right about that game; it’s terrible.” Their sentiments are in line with the Burkean notion that traditional norms, such as what is not right to share, are formed to ensure social well-being and cohesion among groups as part of an unwritten contract between the dead, the living, and the unborn. If such traditions are proven obsolete, they must be prudently reformed rather than completely disregarded; to do so in the pursuit of an “authentic self” would constitute a “tyranny of the living” over ancestors who developed the tradition and descendants who would benefit from it.
The film also critiques the rise of yuppie culture, a nouveau riche subculture whose attitudes toward business and personal finance differ significantly from those of the U.H.B. Such criticism is first brought on by Nick and Charlie when Tom informs them that his father, a wealthy investment banker, decides not to grant him an inheritance. Although Tom “never really counted on having it,” Nick believes that he is a “tragic case” who “has been robbed.” Likewise, Charlie believes that “sociologically, what is most important is having grown up with the assumption of material security.” The yuppie believes that wealth is to be self-made and belongs to you as an individual, whereas the U.H.B. believes that wealth is something that belongs to your family and is to be stewarded over the course of generations, which, similarly to Audrey’s critique of the party game, is based upon the Burkean ideal of the unwritten contract between the dead, living, and unborn, in which to adopt the yuppie attitude toward wealth and inheritance, often in the pursuit of an authentic self who imprudently indulges in such riches, is to enforce a tyranny of the living over your posterity who may benefit from such wealth.
Due to the rise of Yuppie culture, Charlie considers the U.H.B. to be “doomed.” Discussing the professional life of the current generation of U.H.B. men, Charlie says, “Just as their contemporaries really began to accomplish things, they quit. Rising above office politics, refusing to compete and risk open failure, or not doing the humdrum part of the job, or only doing the humdrum part of the job.” While the Yuppie thrives in a competitive and cutthroat business environment, the U.H.B. is guided by a sense of noblesse oblige, or duty toward the less fortunate, and strict standards of etiquette in personal affairs. The growing cutthroat accumulation of personal wealth (as opposed to family wealth) in the economic sphere, coupled with the rise of counter-cultural values in the social sphere, has ultimately led to the decline of the U.H.B. and its values, leading to, in the eyes of Audrey, Charlie, and Nick, a culture that neglects good taste and celebrates wealth without duty, all in the pursuit of an “authentic self.”
Leave a Reply