Authenticity in Cinema: ‘May December’ and Real-World Sensitivity

Iconic Phrase: “Feel Seen“

I want you to feel seen.” This line appears at the beginning of the film ‘May December’ where actress Elizabeth (played by Natalie Portman), known for her roles in TV and movies, visits the home of Grace (played by Julianne Moore), whom she will portray in her next project, during a home party scene. It follows her initial greeting to Grace, a stranger at the time. Translated literally, it means “I want you to feel that you are being seen.” However, the phrase “feel seen” used here is a distinctly American idiom, implying a deep sense of empathy (to the point of feeling understood or empathized with).

In the Japanese subtitles, it is smoothly translated as “I want you to feel at ease,” which might gloss over the original meaning of “feel seen.” Upon closer consideration, this phrase “feel seen” embodies a subtle distance between its literal meaning and its idiomatic sense, reflecting the intriguing ambiguity prevalent in ‘May December.’ Why does feeling “seen” lead to “empathy” or “ease”? When someone perceives our inner selves, do they naturally feel empathy and ease towards us? Moreover, what exactly does it mean to “see through” or to be “seen through”?

This film, ‘May December’ is the latest work by Todd Haynes, a contemporary master filmmaker whose many films, including ‘Carol’ and ‘I’m Not There,’ have been highly acclaimed, and he has teamed up with Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore, two of the most famous actors of our time.

The film features a brilliant performance by Portman, who is meeting for the first time with Moore, a regular member of Haynes’ team since ‘Far from Heaven,’ an outstanding script by Sammy Burch, a newcomer who used to be a casting director, and of course, Haynes’ first-rate aesthetic direction and screen production. Since its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival last year, the film has been highly acclaimed by critics and audiences in many respects.

Here is the synopsis. The two main characters are Elizabeth, an actress, and Gracie, an ordinary woman who is the model for the role she will play in her next film. Gracie once had an affair at the age of 36 with a part-time clerk at the pet store where she worked at the time. No, adultery is probably too mild a word, because Joe, the part-timer, was a very good friend of Gracie’s. He was a very good man. Joe was a friend of her son Georgie, who was only 13 years old when the affair was discovered. Moreover, Gracie was pregnant with Joe’s child, which she gave birth to in prison after being arrested and sentenced for child sexual assault. The incident shocked many people and became a major scandal, involving not only Gracie and Joe themselves, but also their families and acquaintances, and sparking a flurry of speculation and slander. However, in the midst of these headwinds, Gracie officially married Joe after her release from prison, and they started a new family.

A Peculiar Sensation: Proceeding with Mismatched Buttons

Surprisingly, this setting is based on a real-life incident that occurred in 1996, known as the May December incident. The actual event closely follows the outline described above, with minor variations in specific names and details, and it caused significant shock in American society at the time.

In that case, one might think this film sensationalizes the events leading up to the incident and the uproar following its discovery. However, that’s not the case. The aftermath of the incident itself is not depicted; instead, the film is set over 20 years after their marriage.

As mentioned earlier, the story begins with Elizabeth, who is set to portray Grace in her next film, visiting Grace and Joe’s family for research. As Elizabeth attempts to uncover the truth behind Grace’s everyday life, her initial interest in mere research evolves into a profound fascination with Grace and the events in question. Immersed in the pursuit of “truth” and increasingly identifying with Grace, Elizabeth undergoes a transformation. Where exactly is she heading? Through encounters with Joe, his children, Elizabeth’s former family, and acquaintances, she pursues this “truth,” but is it truly the truth she seeks, or something else entirely…

This film, due to the weightiness of its subject matter, appears to have the appearance of a profound mystery film. The plot, laced with suggestive hints, lures the audience into a kind of enigmatic viewing experience. However, in reality, answers are often left behind for the sake of ostentatious appearances, and it’s difficult to claim that it consistently satisfies the desire for entertainment in a conventional sense of “tying up loose ends.” Instead, it sustains a disjointed feeling throughout, as if one has mismatched buttons yet continues walking forward, vaguely aware of the error. This peculiar sensation persists from start to finish, redirecting attention away from expected places as one carefully follows the screen and plot.

Repurposing Music for Alienation Effect

These sensations are crafted through meticulous elements such as shots, editing, actor dialogue and movement, and even certain props. However, the most striking effect is achieved by the presence of music.

From the opening title sequence, overly formal yet mysterious and lyrical piano and string music sets the tone. Many viewers might expect the film that follows to be a deeply emotional mystery. Yet, even if so, this track might sound strangely outdated for a score produced in 2023 (you might notice occasional audio distortion).

In truth, much of the music used in the main feature, including this piece, is reappropriated (after reconstruction) from a previous film, Joseph Losey’s 1971 masterpiece melodrama “Love.” Specifically, what’s used here is the score composed by the masterful Michel Legrand for that film.

Reusing soundtracks from past works for new films isn’t uncommon when delving into film history. However, in such cases, these examples typically symbolically quote the “past” (including the original work itself). Certainly, Losey’s “Love,” like this film, explores the romance and tragedy between an older man and a younger woman. Yet, the reuse of “Love” score here feels somewhat different from merely hinting at thematic connections with similar works. What Haynes and composer Marcelo Zarvos seem to intend is more than just a nod to cinephiles; it aims for a more dramatic effect.

Indeed, this effect seems to guide and sustain the sensation of “mismatched buttons,” as mentioned earlier.

There’s an iconic scene. Amidst the opening home party, as Grace realizes there’s a shortage of hot dogs upon opening the refrigerator, a serious expression overlays her face, accompanied by a portion of this weighty main theme resounding. Yet, the shortage of hot dogs doesn’t directly connect to subsequent developments. This sequence is frankly quite comical. To overlay such a profound, mystery-evoking music over a trivial event can be seen as a deliberate misuse—a knowing appropriation invoking the “estrangement effect” of music.

The use of music in this film, while fully aware of its function to transform everyday scenes into something peculiar and evoke mystery*, deliberately avoids presenting a clear dramatic outcome, thus leaving the mystery itself suspended in uncertainty. At moments of realization, the clear dissonance between the music and the depicted scenes skillfully foreshadows that beyond this unsettling effect, there isn’t necessarily a core mystery or “truth” awaiting revelation.

The deliberate choice to overlay music on a motif like the shortage of hot dogs, which could suggest a psychoanalytical interpretation related to the phallic symbol, is also quite intentional.

The film then seems to veer repeatedly towards an emotionally charged melodramatic direction. In these scenes, it becomes evident that the music continues to play a multifaceted role. Even after the hot dog incident at the beginning, part of us still anticipates a conventional melodramatic or mystery unfolding. Each time the emotionally rich tracks by Legrand (and Zarvos) appear, we find ourselves (perhaps without consciously realizing it) preparing to gently reach for a handkerchief from our pocket. However, simultaneously, we might discover our heightened sensitivity to the possibility of once again being led astray by deliberate misdirection.

The Alluring Clue in the Scene Before the Mirror

The presentation of mystery and suspense. Accumulation of emotions and their unresolved outcomes. Amidst a proliferation of estrangement effects, what exactly is this film trying to convey? Or perhaps, is it choosing not to convey anything at all?

These sensations intensify further as the film progresses, accumulating more metaphors and estrangement effects. However, in a rare instance during a mid-film scene, there is a linguistic clue that prompts a meta-understanding of the film itself. In front of a large mirror, Elizabeth is shown learning from Grace about “becoming Elizabeth,” the makeup techniques.*

*The mirror has long been regarded in film criticism as a significant motif that evokes fundamental relationships of seeing and being seen, involving the camera and the screen.

Here, the two of them take a decisive step from within the structure of “Elizabeth scrutinizing Grace,” which had barely held together until then. In a shot where they both peer into the same mirror — effectively looking into the camera — Elizabeth gains a method to “become” Grace through the symbolic process of makeup. In doing so, they both reveal themselves to each other and are represented equally as beings scrutinized by the audience.

At this moment, the film nullifies the absolute viewpoint of Elizabeth’s eyes, which had been overlaid onto the storyteller’s perspective barely maintained for us as viewers. Instead, it assimilates with Grace’s gaze. Elizabeth, while receiving makeup guidance, discusses her parents, mentioning that they were scholars who initially opposed her becoming an actress. Her mother published a respected book titled “On Epistemological Relativism”…

In this scene, which should be particularly significant, why did Elizabeth suddenly bring up a book with a highly philosophical title (and in such a mysteriously meaningful whisper)? Contrasted with Grace’s following comment, “My mother wrote the best blueberry cobbler recipe,” it straightforwardly illustrates the cultural and class differences between them. However, more importantly, the term “epistemological relativism” mentioned here specifically narrates the exceptional allure of this film as a meta-mystery.

Epistemological Relativism: A Central Theme in the Film

What exactly is epistemological relativism? I don’t have the luxury to delve into advanced philosophical discussions, and moreover, it far exceeds my own capabilities as a writer. If I were to simplify it at the risk of oversimplification, it is the idea that ‘our knowledge about reality always depends on the logic of situations and communities, and is not absolute but relative.’

Yes, if you’ve watched the movie up to this point, you would quickly sense that the movie itself is deeply imbued with an epistemologically relativistic perspective.

At first, Elizabeth believes that there is a “truth” (reality) about the case that is hidden from the tabloid press and various scandalous rumors, and she tries to explore it through all kinds of hands-on interviews. However, what emerges from her conversations with Joe, her interviews with the people around her, and above all, her assimilation of Gracie, is not just one fact, one reality, but a completely different and startling “fluctuation of truth” (but only one).

Elizabeth’s experience of the backsliding or evaporation of “truth” is a practical lesson in epistemological relativism.

The history of cinema can provide various examples of filmmakers who seem to have internalized this kind of epistemological relativism (sometimes without being aware of it), including Alain Robbe-Grillet, David Lynch, and Hong Sang-soo. However, ‘May December’ is unique in the sheer brilliance of its deception, which makes the viewer believe in a seemingly naive and empiricist realism, and expects that the information given on screen will come together to arrive at an unmistakable truth. The film is unique in the sheer brilliance of its deception.

And the technique used to pull off this deception is the use of music that is so convincing that the filmmaker willingly indulges in mystery by appropriating soundtracks from past melodrama films. The fact that the theme by Legrand, a master of film music, is given such a high-context dislocation, and a remarkable dissimilar effect is produced throughout the entire film, is an attitude that combines an attachment to a certain historical design with kitschy humor, in other words, a “camp” (*) attitude in every detail, which can only be achieved by an artist who has made the film his own. In other words, only an artist who has made the “camp” (*) attitude his or her own can pull this off. Only a filmmaker who has made “camp “* his own could have pulled off such a feat, as Todd Haynes has done with “Velvet Goldmine,” “Beyond Eden,” and “I’m Not There” over the course of his long career.

*Ed. note: A style or aesthetic or spirit that is artificial, exaggerated, and out of the norm, as exemplified by the drag queen’s attire.

More than a Tale: This is My Life!

Back to the story. While this film evokes a postmodern critique, it is important to note that it does not fall prey to naive value relativism or common agnosticism. In other words, the film does not attempt to discredit “reality” or “truth” even at a more fundamental level, but rather seems to somehow defend their existence.

What does this mean? In the first place, the “epistemological relativism” mentioned above is an argument for relativism in the dimension of cognition, not against the establishment of, for example, social values or the concept of reality itself (and thus, in principle, would not lead to the nihilism that is friendly to agnosticism or to a fundamental skepticism about “truth”). (and would not, therefore, in principle invite the kind of nihilism that is friendly to agnosticism, or a fundamental skepticism about “truth”). There may be no such thing as absolute awareness of things shared by all, but this does not threaten the reality itself prior to the dimension of awareness, nor does it mean that the event itself does not (or did not) exist just because the perspective of each entity that perceives the event is relative. No matter how much the absoluteness of Elizabeth’s “perception” of the “truth” she seeks is shaken by the contradictory words and actions of Gracie and those around her, of course, the reality of the event will never be shaken.

There is an important scene toward the end of the film that relates to this. One night, Elizabeth has a conversation with Joe about the case. Elizabeth slips up and describes the series of events and the tragic reality that ensues, saying, “These stories are …….” Joe responds, “This is a story. Joe responds angrily, “This is not a story, it’s my life! Joe responds angrily, “This is not a story, it’s my life!

This is a cry from the side of the reality of the incident, which is different from simple skepticism or agnosticism, and it is a cry from the side of the passive observer who has been viewing the film from this side of the screen (just as Elizabeth has been facing the incident) as a story that can be recognized from a bird’s eye viewpoint (just as she has been facing the incident). The case is a subtle rebuke to those of us who are passive observers who have been viewing (seeing through) the story from this side of the screen as a recognizable narrative from a bird’s eye viewpoint. Although the incident may have already faded into social memory and been buried in the accumulation of stories by all kinds of people, as Maurice, the lawyer in charge of the case, said to Elizabeth in the film, “no one was unscathed” by the real incident that came suddenly into their lives.