Home > Film > Multiplicity – Quad-polar mania is good for the soul

Multiplicity – Quad-polar mania is good for the soul

Multiplicity is an odd comedy from the last half of the 1990s which actually surprised me in several ways. I assumed it would just be a zany comedy about a guy’s life spinning out of control when his clones run amok, but it is actually much more complex than that. It digs into numerous gender issues in interesting ways.

One thing which is important to note is that Multiplicity hails from the hay day of feminism. The female lead, Laura, is a classic 90s woman: a mother of two, she is now desperate to return to the workforce and so wants her husband, Doug, to work less so he can share the brunt of childcare.

What I find most intriguing is that, near the end of the film, they actually question the independent-working-mom mentality a bit by saying how confusing it is to “want to be independent and be taken care of.”

But, even more fascinating is the movie’s interpretation of the correlation between male gender roles and personality traits. Doug’s clones embody different sides of him, manifesting themselves in isolation to show what they are like alone.

The first two clones effectively represent Doug’s Yang and Yin.

Two is the Yang, the masculine. He is gruff, brash, work-obsessed and less-than-sensitive. He is every male stereotype.

Three is the Yin, the feminine. He is polite, neat, detail-obsessed and almost-overly-sensitive. He is every female stereotype.

Now, as you might guess, Two is the clone who takes on work as a construction contractor, while Three is the ‘domestic’ clone, tending to the home and children. This, I think, shows a distinct view on gender roles.

The message is thus: the Realm of Work belongs to the Masculine. The Realm of the Home belongs to the Feminine.

However, I don’t think the movie is trying to reinforce traditional gender roles. As I wrote above, it shows the different ‘realms’ as belonging to the masculine and feminine, not to men and women themselves. Basically it’s saying that masculine people work and feminine people tend house, but that men aren’t necessarily the masculine ones and women the feminine.

It shows men and women breaking out of traditional roles and taking on traits associated with the other gender. Really, the movie challenges traditional gender roles by not only showing a working mother, but exploring what it is like for a man to become homemaker (at least to some degree). It questions the very definition of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and weather their qualities are exclusive to men and women.

The overall implication seems to be that a yin-yang balance does exist within men, that they are capable of working and parenting, if they can find that equilibrium. At its core, the move is about understanding yourself and balancing all the different parts of you life.

One other thing I find potentially ironically humorous is how the movie portrays the ‘house-husband’ clone as overtly feminine. Really, this could be seen as a bit of a warning to working wives: leave him at home, and your husband will act like more of a woman than you do.

This isn’t necessarily a good thing. Recent data (such as here and here ) has shown that, despite all of the progress women have made into the workforce, often with the support of men, those same women still haven’t adapted to the idea of being the sole breadwinner. Both those articles discuss how working women tend to resent stay-at-home-dads, either for a lack of respect for an unemployed husband or because the women see themselves as under-performing as women by not running the home.

Women might actually have some catching-up compared to men when it comes to doing away with old gender roles.

They say they want to be liberated from the home, but are they ready to surrender it?

Categories: Film Tags: , ,
  1. mm
    July 15, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Intrigued, will order this from netflix next. thanks for the review.

  2. kristina
    August 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    I hardly want to be taken care of as a feminist… I don’t demand chivalrous behavior or pout when it’s not given…why should I be put on a pedestal? I was pregnant at a theme park in the glaring hot sun with all the men sitting on a bench, some of whom had just practically knocked me over in route to the bench I was going to sit on…so what??? I didn’t pout, I didn’t even find it all that rude…it was plain that whoever got there first was getting to sit down. One of the men had gotten up to ask if I would like to sit, I politely refused and he seemed thankful that he didn’t have to be the one to stand and sat back down…I was happy to concede…yet I have radical views…

    • August 2, 2010 at 3:15 pm

      I applaud you for moving beyond a state of mind which wants chivalrous behavior.

      I would be curious to know what radical views you have that sit beside your view on chivalry.

  3. mm
    September 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Watched it … BTW chivalry, in its original time, was apparently about an idealized worship of the Feminine – not about the woman herself. Not very gratifying for the flesh-and-blood woman, to be adored as a projection of a man’s anima, not for your true self. Modern use of the word is also complex. In many ways the Muslim culture is chivalrous in ways the western mind finds hard to aprpeciate. Cloak us up to the eyes? Because you revere us? Hard sell …

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: