That is, the individual has never been and will never be completely at the whim of socio-economic and psychological forces beyond her control. From this end, it seems that the most important thing the filmmakers have to offer us is the notion that in such a materialistic and fragmented society, the individual can evolve in a way that allows them to retain their ability to reclaim and live a life of fulfillment.
Ouisa’s salvation lies in the fact that every face is a new opportunity, that the breakdown of traditional relationships under the pressures is not definite or final because possibilities are now truly endless. The key, I believe, about the film is that it offers this not in refutation or denial of modernity, but also because of it. The ending sequence, despite the difficulties it presents, does suggest that human beings, despite their individual insignificance in such a vast postmodern society, can still retain the ability to chart their own path.
6 degrees of separation play movie#
This will not be effective on every movie watcher, just as only Ouisa responded to Paul, not Flan. The film's refusal of an overfed simple answer and the picturesque ending is refreshing, forcing the audience to internalize what they have seen to understand it. Nor does it point towards big, politically correct answers that shallower films have. This scene does not offer hope that the society these characters find themselves in can be changed. However, I find myself thinking back to the ending scene where Ouisa makes her way into the overwhelming mass of civilization. Ultimately, the film goes into detail about several other aspects of human relationships and their breakdowns under the surface pressures of spectacle and sensation: the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, upper class and lower class. It is both fitting and sad that as Paul sets Ouisa free, he strives to take her place in the surface world of postmodern concerns.
He is the one in a thousand possibilities that opens up a “New World” for Ouisa. Ultimately, Paul’s importance within the film does not come from his aspirations or beliefs but comes from his role as a catalyst in Ouisa’s life. Other aspects of Paul’s behavior and its effect upon Ouisa and Flan’s friends serve to illustrate his place as an outsider. This means that if Paul were to reach his goal, he would be as unfulfilled and empty as Ouisa and Flan. I believe the homosexuality references may have been meant by the playwright to underline the fact that Paul is, in fact, the opposite ideal of the society to which he aspired. This breach is paralleled by Ouisa and Flan’s existence and who they are buried underneath. in order to become the upper class, but by doing so he only makes the breach between himself and that which he seeks more evident. Paul does well to serve this end in the film: he memorizes behavior patterns, speech, cooking recipes, names, places, dates, etc. Paul is an outsider, and the point of view of the outsider has been used in both modern and postmodern art to represent the growing disconnectedness between humans in such a fragmented and materialistic society that seems to place focus on the surface over the interior at every opportunity. The film reinforces this by presenting several aspects of the culture and society in the movie from Paul’s point of view. Paul, as a character, is the manifestation of the postmodern ideal embodied in the painting that is so central to the film.
While Ouisa could not grasp the Kandinsky painting and its insight into her life, she could not help but recognize when another symbol of the balance between chaos and control, good and evil, sane and insane, entered her life: Paul. John Guare not only wrote the play Six Degrees of Separation, but also adapted it to film.