No way! His guidance led her out of the gutter! He was right about everything!
Really, that's how you saw his advice-- as 100% positive? And Lilly whoring her way to the top was completely positive as well?
That certainly was not my interpretation. It seems to me that the audience is meant to feel a mixture of feelings about Lilly's choices. On the one hand, yes, her choices are empowering and we watch her breathtaking rise to material comfort with a kind of grotesque fascination, and I think there is a lot of humor and even positivity in demonstrating the ease with which a woman can manipulate a man, wresting her own control in a patriarchal society. And there is certainly a kind of vicarious thrill most Depression-era audiences would get in watching her transform herself from powerless and broke to powerful and rich.
But I think she is the female version of the 30s gangster: we enjoy watching the rise to power, but we know it isn't really right, and that the protagonist will, must and should be punished in the end. In this film, Lilly realizes with horror that her lifestyle has hardened her to what is most valuable in life, and she desperately tries to rectify it before it's too late, rushing to her husband's side and declaring her love, devotion, and willingness to give up material things (this is made clear in both versions).
So given all of that, I think that the Nietzschean philosophy is meant as a kind of poisoned chalice. Intoxication with this austere outlook is like a deal with the devil.
reply
share