Ideology

   There is no one definition of the word ‘ideology.’  As evident on the attached document, there are multiple explanations of the term.  It is a way of life, it is a system of beliefs, it is shared by communities large or small and it dictates, in effect, what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in our lives.  It is sometimes influenced by religion, and it could be argued religion itself is an ideology; the ten commandments for example, giving Christians guidance on how to honour God and lead their lives in accordance with his wishes.  Ideology is a democracy, agreed by all how society is run; what is socially acceptable and what is not, as seen in the majority of the Western World; countries such as Great Britain.  Alternatively, ideology is a system of beliefs chosen by a select few and then imposed on the masses, such as in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 40s.  Ideology is constantly shifting and changing, and it varies greatly from community to community, from tiny villages to whole countries.  Ideology affects all aspects of life, and its influences are inescapably clear in almost all forms of popular entertainment; televisions shows, books, films, music, magazines and so on.  In order to take a closer look at ideology in our society today, this essay is going to study one ‘text’ in particular, the film Love Actually (Richard Curtis, 2003).  It will analyze how our culture perceives the various different concepts of ‘love’ depicted in the film, as well as commenting on how our attitudes towards love has changed over the years.  It will first analyze the film’s advertisement poster, then discuss the film as a whole, and finally focus on one storyline in particular.  The essay will then conclude as to whether or not ‘love’ itself is an ideology. 

   In the poster advertising Love Actually that I have chosen to analyze, there are only three colours used; white, black and red.  The red is therefore by far the most prominent and brightest colour, but why use red?  In our society we associate colours with emotions; green alluding to envy and greed, blue to depression and serenity, black with secrecy and mourning, and white meaning purity and innocence (i.e. wedding dresses) or a fresh beginning.  The use of the colour red is highly appropriate here as it makes us think primarily of love, but also passion and anger that accompany it.  It might also suggest blood, running through the heart also depicted.  These are readings that most people in our society would be able to understand and agree on, and they would therefore have a good idea as to what the storyline of the film was going to be.  The image of the heart is a somewhat puzzling one, as the ideology of love tells us that the heart controls our emotions.  This is a fallacy we still refer to constantly, even though it has been centuries since it was proved the brain, not the heart, is in control of all our body’s functions, including emotion.  Therefore, even though we live in a society that has rejected superstition, and also religion to a large extent, in favour of scientific proof of fact, we all still read an image of a ‘love heart’ (quite different to that of an actual heart) as a reference to emotion even though it does not have much logical sense.  Furthermore, this particular heart looks as though it has been cut into bits.  This is also making use of connotations found within our culture’s ideology; that of a ‘broken’ heart to represent trouble with love.  It is interesting that the heart is not diseased or with a damaged artery, but broken into little pieces; again romantic ideology in a scientific era.  The pieces themselves are significant also with regard to ideology.  They are not ripped and jagged as a typical broken heart might look; they appear to have been cut with scissors, giving a smooth modern look to the poster that matches the stylish modern feel of London in the film itself.  It is playing to Western audiences, who in our fast moving pace of life in a culture that, certainly over the last century, has modernised dramatically with technological revolution, believes a great deal of the time that ‘new’ is better. 

   Love Actually tells the stories of approximately ten characters who’s lives all intertwine in the weeks approaching Christmas 2003.  Through the trials and tribulations Christmas always brings with it (another ideology familiar to most in the Western World) we see many different kinds of ‘love’ portrayed and explored.  It is in these very different lives that we see reflected our society’s reaction to various types of love, and to love as a whole ideology.  There is typical, romantic love; boy meets girl, they fall in love and (usually after overcoming some sort of obstacle) live happily ever after.  Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz) are a good example of this.  This has always been a very popular theme in cinema, especially Hollywood cinema, as well as all other kinds of popular entertainment (plays and novels for example.)  It can be a very simple and ideal approach to love, and it seems now our ideology has shifted over the years to become more demanding.  Love in real life is rarely so simplistic, and perhaps once audiences wanted to believe in such fairy tales, nowadays there is need in popular culture for more.  There is also family love seen, such as the relationship between bereaved husband Daniel (Liam Neeson) and his stepson Sam (Thomas Sangster).  Popular opinion (and therefore it could be argued, ideology) would perhaps suggest that this relationship is unlikely due to resentment from the son, however, their relationship is one of the strongest in the film, and therefore goes against the ideology of family.  It is more or less the only part of the film that does this.  Another family relationship is between Sarah (Laura Linney) and her brother Michael (Michael Fitzgerald) who is in a mental institution and therefore dependent on her.  Sarah has the opportunity to get with the man of dreams, Karl (Rodrigo Santoro), but instead makes the choice to commit herself to Michael, who’s needs she deems as greater.  This enforces ideological concepts of loyalty, family and feminism, which are valued as positives in our culture.  There is platonic friendship between Daniel and Karen (Emma Thompson).  There is no implication of anything sexual in this relationship, although it is possible for there to be, and this is treated as perfectly acceptable within today’s culture.  There is an adulterous relationship between Karen’s husband Harry (Alan Rickman) and his much younger secretary Mia (Heike Makatsch) which is treated with utter contempt in the film.  It is clear from the fact that our sympathies are geared towards Karen, a warm hearted full-time mum, and against Harry, a businessman who becomes increasingly dishonest and patronising towards Karen as Mia’s interest in him increases.  This illustrates the ideology of monogamy in our culture which sees having an affair very much as a negative.  However, it is interesting to note that this is not a value held by all cultures.  For example, problems became apparent in the second half of the twentieth century when ex-French colonists in North Africa emigrated to France to work, the men would then send for their wives.  Most men from counties like Tunisia had two or even three wives, something that was perfectly acceptable in their home countries, but against the law in France, meaning many Africans were forced to leave Europe once again rather than face prosecution.  French ideology stated you could only legally ‘love’ one person at a time, but the African ideology disagreed. 

   Throughout all these stories though, there is a common theme that love is important and highly valued within our ideology.  However, our opinions as a society as to what love actually is are constantly changing; to illustrate this issue, this essay is going to analyze one relationships from Love Actually in particular.  The relationship in question is the love triangle between best friends Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Mark (Andrew Lincoln), and Peter’s new wife Juliet (Keira Knightley).  Peter and Juliet’s wedding is in the opening montage of the film, and it is clear from the dialogue that Mark is the Best Man and very close to Peter.  At the reception, Mark is by himself filming the couple dancing.  He has obviously been there some time watching, before Sarah approaches him and asks if he is in love with Peter; when Mark is taken aback, Sarah responds by saying she only asked in case it was true and he had had no one else to talk to.  What is interesting about this scene is that the audience is manipulated into thinking this is the case, that Mark is in love with Peter and is therefore gay, whereas the truth is that he is in love with Juliet, Peter’s wife.  He is hostile towards her not because she is taking Peter way from him, but because it is the only way Mark sees to avoid problems for everyone.  Juliet’s naivety of the subject is highlighted by the fact she is nearly always wearing white, representing innocence as mentioned before.  A decade, or even only five years ago, a male gay character in a romantic comedy would have been treated as a humorous one, whereas here, until the truth is revealed, the plot line is highly credible and just as serious as any of the others.  This reflects a change in our society’s ideology, which recognises gay relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  Ironically, Peter, who is best friends with Mark and married to Juliet, is black, whereas the other two are white.  Only a few decades ago, interracial couples were an extremely controversial topic, and now, certainly in this example, it is not even treated as an issue at all, showing the evolution of our ideology of love. 

   In response to the question stated at the beginning (is love an ideology, or is it free from such constraints?) this essay would argue that yes, love is absolutely an ideology, a very important one that is integral to our ideology in our culture as a whole.  Who and how we love is very closely related to our general freedom as individuals, which in turn is closely linked with ideology as it pertains to how we live our lives in society.  To take a brief look at other texts illustrating love and ideology, we can start with Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, written in 1813, in which there were extremely rigid rules about relationships between the classes, and Lydia Bennet’s elopement almost destroys the entire family, a concept hard to understand now due to the different ideologies working in the two different times periods.  In Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Angel rejects Tess on their wedding night when he finds out she has been raped and is no longer ‘pure’, even though he himself has had several illicit relationships with prostitutes.  Our ideology now would grant Tess sympathy, but Angel more or less up and leaves her on the spot.  Paralleling with the relationship in Love Actually, in the 1960s, the television show Star Trek was the first to ever show a kiss between an interracial couple, an act that caused outrage amongst the public.  Thirty years later, in the 1990s, our ideology evolved, with a multitude of Black, Asian, Latino etc…actors on screen.  However, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine once again shocked audiences who were not perhaps ready for the first gay kiss on television.  Now, in 2004, it is hard to find a television show without a gay character in.  These examples show that society has to change in order for different kinds of love to be accepted into its ideology.  And even then, even if we were free from constraints to love anyone we chose, we each have our own ideology about love due to our own individual circumstances of history and environment that would still influence who we picked and how we went about courting.  In conclusion, Love Actually is a fair representation of how our society thinks about love as an ideology in the modern day. 

Helen J Haslam

17-03-04

Filmography:

·         Love Actually ( Richard Curtis, Universal Pictures, UK, 2003).

Bibliography:

·         Aston, E., and G. Savona, Theatre As A Sign System.  London: Routledge, 1991. 

·         Austen, Jane, Pride and Prejudice.  London: Penguin Classics, 1996.

·         Eagleton, T., Ideology.  London: Verso, 1991, pp1-2.

·         Hardy, Thomas, Tess of the D’Urbervilles.  London: Penguin Popular Classics, 1994. 

Television:

·         Star Trek (Paramount, 1962)

·         Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (Paramount, 1996)

Internet:

·         ‘The Internet Movie Database’.  www.imdb.com