Michael Parenti’s Interpretation of “Pretty Woman” Essay
In Michael Parenti’s interpretation of “Pretty Woman” I have to say that I agree with his interpretation of how Hollywood usually ignores inequities of class privilege, gender bigotry differences between the characters and his view on the moral of the story. Basically, the story is about a millionaire that is an educated corporate executive who finds himself lonely in Hollywood so to fulfill his needs; he offers to pay a beautiful, low class uneducated, non proper prostitute three thousand dollars a week, to make him “happy” and to attend business dinners for a month.
Then like the typical Hollywood ending they end up falling in love and live happily ever after. But this is not a typical and nothing sort of a unique story because the two classes from different spectrums of the world can be compatible. Usually Hollywood portrays the inequities of classes by having the rich class being portrayed as good people and the ragged, poor people as being portrayed the bad people. For the movie “Treasure Island” is a perfect example of that, they had the rich class supposedly “discovering the treasure” and the poor people supposedly “stealing the treasure”.
But in Michael Parenti’s interpretation of inequity classes of “Pretty Woman” the rich man was obliviously from the rich class, but he was also not really that good of person because he already had a girlfriend and still managed to scoop up a prostitute for his short business trip, and the prostitute was obviously low class and doing her job, whatever prostitutes do, she was portrayed as bad person as well because she was a prostitute and low class. The two were destined to be together because they both had issues, neither was really pointed out as good or neither was portrayed as bad.
The gender bigotry differences between the two of the characters are very apparent. Parenti describes the male as a handsome dreamboat millionaire corporate raider, a bad capitalist transformed into a good capitalist towards the end of the story. He describes the prostitute as beautiful, low-class but still classy, charmingly cheap, but she’s a prostitute that would rather not be a prostitute if the young handsome corporate raider wants her that bad. They are completely different from each other but it seems like the both received what they wanted at the end of the story.
He found somebody who completes him, he couldn’t make any money because all he was thinking about was her. She received a life other then the streets with a big house, marriage, and more importantly a different occupation. I think that Parenti’s moral of the story fits perfectly; he states “A woman can escape from economic and gender exploitation by winning the love and career advantages offered by a rich male. ” This was exactly what happened, a millionaire executive, who was paying three grand a week for the prostitute, ended up falling in love with a completely opposite person of himself.
If a low class prostitute can benefit and live off a rich male, then why shouldn’t the prostitute strive for the love of him so she can live a better life then she ever dreamt about? This unique story was different from most other Hollywood stories. I have to agree with Michael Parenti’s interpretations on the story because he thought what I would have thought if I have seen the movie. It may not be the best moral for girls, and defiantly no girl should be doing that, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do to better yourself.