Clueless as the Epitome of 90s Popular Culture
Amy Heckerling’s 1995 high school rom-com Clueless has become one of the most popular movies of its time, and today enjoys cult classic status among today’s teens. The movie’s charming, attractive, savvy – albeit occasionally shallow – protagonist Cher Horowitz has captured the heart of generations of viewers. What these scores of fans may not know, however, is that Cher, along with the plot of Clueless, is largely based on Jane Austen’s 1815 novel Emma. Clueless is therefore a fantastic example of a crossover media artifact that has transformed a classic ‘high culture’ story into popular culture.
John Storey, an emeritus professor of Cultural Studies from the University of Sunderland, offers several definitions for pop culture in his 1993 book Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, one of which touches on the phenomenon of ‘high’ versus popular culture: “[pop culture] is the culture we have left over after we decide what is high culture. Popular culture, in this definition, is a residual category, there to accommodate cultural texts and practices which fails to meet the required standards to qualify as high culture. In other words, it is a definition of popular culture as inferior culture” (Storey, 1993). Over time, Emma, as well as the rest of Austen’s oeuvre, has made it into the traditional literary canon and earned its spot in high culture. Indeed, Jane Austen is recognized as a literary giant of her time. Heckerling’s candy-colored hit film, on the other hand, does not qualify as high culture, but is a product of its time, riddled with 90s’ slang and fashion, even going on to inspire some of its own. It certainly fits another of Storey’s numerous definitions of pop culture, namely culture which is “widely favored or well-liked by many people” (Storey 1993). Clueless did remarkably well, both upon its release and decades after, thereby earning its title as an artifact of pop culture.
Those who have consumed both Clueless and Emma will find several parallels between the two stories, their plots, and their characters. Both touch on themes of love, relationships, female friendship, and social status. Both feature strong-willed, spoiled, yet loveable protagonists who use their status in their respective societies to engineer romantic matches in an effort to exert influence over their social circles. They manage all these similarities though one is set in the regency-era English county of Surrey and the other in a 1995 SoCal high school. Both are quintessential products of their time – using the most popular storytelling medium of the day –, and both were popular among their target audiences, namely the media-consuming youth.
Clueless takes the baseline story that Emma provides and abridges it, packing it into an easily consumed movie that was easy to acquire and consume. It is important to note that Austen’s Emma certainly qualified as pop culture in the years following its publishing, but over the centuries since has become part of the classical literary canon that is still revered in literary circles but is more likely to be read by the highly educated than your average modern consumer.
Clueless brought the story of Emma Woodhouse to a whole new generation, even century, and proved just how timeless Austen’s classic story is. But what can explain this phenomenon? Why did the same story resonate with those living in Georgian England as well as those in the late twentieth century cultural West? Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno of the Frankfurt School may argue that this is a prime example of the mass deception of the culture industry, i.e. industrialized media production. They may say that standardization results in the culture industry pumping out the same product over and over again, all while repackaging it as new. Indeed, they did say “what is new about mass culture is the exclusion of the new” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1944). They may also point out the retelling of the same story in different contexts as an example of consumer differentiation, essentially repackaging the same content to different viewers so that it feels like it’s more in tune with their individual preferences and identities while actually being all the same.
I, however, offer a less cynical view. I believe that Austen’s story is timeless because people enjoy rooting for a well-intentioned and beautiful heroine who tries to bring joy to those around her, even if she’s not perfect. I think people like to examine the social structures of the society in which they live through the lens of a well-told story with a happy ending. Yet the true value of Emma’s immortal story is that it shows us just how universal culture can be, “high” or not.
Works Cited
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. pp. 1-12
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
The 2024 election results disappointed Harris supporters and Donald Trump opponents. What surprised me most was the shift in Latine voters. I didn’t need the news to dramatize this; my TikTok was flooded with videos of Latines expressing their disappointment. An example on the left reads: “Apparently, most of our generation 3 forgot everything our parents had to go through,” showing what many Latines would feel connected to. As a daughter of immigrants, this broke my heart. Sharing it with my Latina roommate, whose feed mirrored mine, we felt embarrassed by our generation's political shift. Over time, the videos became vengeful memes against the Latine Trump supporters, portraying the community as disconnected from its roots. But as I scrolled, I realized this couldn’t be the whole story—Latines for Harris existed too. Yes, as a Latina who doesn’t see Trump as an ally to the Latine or the immigrant community (valuable to the United States), it was disappointing to see 45% of Hispan...
Response by: Gabrielle Caine
ReplyDeleteThis was really interesting to read! Clueless is such an iconic movie and I personally had no idea that it was inspired by a Jane Austen novel. This reminded me of Andi Zeisler’s writing on feminism and pop culture. While Clueless is not an overtly feminist film, the movie provides a strong female lead in which young girls can identify with. Cher’s characterization, while very obviously feminine, shows the power which women can identify with. This is achieved through her iconic catchphrases like “as if” and the autonomy over her choices that she shows. This connects to the ideas of postfeminism that we have studied as the film pushes past baseline equality for women, and describes a more intricate form of feminism in which there is strength in femininity and vulnerability. I also agree that this film serves as a great example of Adorno and Horkheimer’s ideas as you mention. As we discussed in class, in their view nothing is unique under capitalism, and even counterculture is used to make a profit. While Clueless began as a nod to Jane Austen’s empowering writing, this film has been co-opted back into the culture industry in a way that almost completely loses its original intentions. The movie has made huge profits, creating a cult following as you mention. In this process, I believe much of the effect of the movie and Cher’s character has been lost, as today she is often seen as an empty-headed, boy obsessed blonde. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your response and appreciated your thoughtful analysis of such a great film!
ReplyDeleteHi Sophie! I think your uncynical take on these two classics (as they’re known in the modern day) is refreshing and you connect it to the readings, especially through Adorno and Horkheimer’s ideals, very well. I think your emphasis on how they are both products of their time is important to note, as they both reflect the ideals and politics of their respective societies, both in problematic ways and not. I also like your point about standardization as introduced by Adorno and Horkheimer, and I would add that this “repackaging it as new” and lack of original content is a recurring issue that has only increased into the 21st century. Additionally, I think the ideas of popular feminism and popular misogyny as discussed by Sarah Banet-Weiser apply to these two films, especially Clueless, as the “high culture” piece transitioned into a pop culture piece. I also have an optimistic view of Clueless in particular, viewing the film as a work of unapologetic femininity, portraying feminine friendship and relationships in a nonjudgmental light. However, Banet-Weiser’s term popular misogyny, especially in the aspect of the definition where misogynistic or sexist phrases are thrown out there by high school boys are brushed off or ignored with a “boys will be boys” comment. For example, Murray calls Dionne “woman” multiple times after she’s expressed her problem with the term as a black woman. He then goes on to say a performative comment about feminism, and the scene has been praised by some feminist analyses. However, he still disrespected her desires (not to mention the stereotypical comments he makes towards the LGBTQ+ community), yet the comment is brushed off like others in the film by reducing its credibility, although it can cause actual harm. I think this was an interesting analysis of these two classic films with good connections to Storey and Adorno and Horkheimer, but also I like how you recognize the need for new stories and content as the industry moves forward.