The Rules Don’t Apply–to Howard Hughes . . . or other ugly billionaires

The ugly, eccentric billionaire, his harem of nubile, young beauties, his ability to influence the world by making decisions without input from wise advisors, a tribe of sycophantic assistants whom he treats like slaves, the fantasy of the gorgeous, innocent female sexual aggressor, the slow corruption of moral principles by riches and comfort . . . while it sounds like current politics, it is actually a movie to be released November 23, 2016, Rules Don’t Apply.

Rules Don’t Apply. No joke. At first, we think that the young ingenue, Marla Mabrey played by Lily Collins, is the one to whom the rules don’t apply. She is too good, too religious, not adequately talented and entirely too virginal and righteous to possibly make it as an actress in Hollywood. Nonetheless, she is a part of the large Hughes harem, housed and fed in elegance and style, paid outrageous sums weekly, and waits to be summoned into the billionaire’s mysterious presence so she can get her screen test.

Nonetheless, she is a part of the large Hughes harem, housed and fed in elegance and style, paid outrageous sums weekly, and waits to be summoned into the billionaire’s mysterious presence so she can get her screen test.

Slowly, we see that all the rules apply to her but none to Hughes, extraordinarily well played by director Warren Beatty. He buys and sells companies on a whim, ignores his advisors, and runs his own ship, summarily firing those who do not please him.

When Marla finds herself pregnant after their one and only sexual encounter, portrayed with her as the aggressive seductress and him as the innocent and unwilling recipient of her amorous intent, his response, “After only one time?” He then accuses her of sleeping with others.

Before this genuinely bizarre sex scene, again one that plays on the fantasy of every older, ugly male, Marla and her chauffeur have also gotten romantically involved, although managing, just barely to stay chaste.  Her chauffeur, Frank Forbes, played by Alden Ehrenreich, is a practicing Methodist. We see him attending church, praying before meals, taking his faith seriously. The film chronicles the slow erosion of Frank’s faith, the eating away at his soul, the inevitable diminishment of him as a good and moral human.

Marla is a practicing Baptist, never letting alcohol touch her tongue, vowing virginity until her wedding day. The fact that she portrays the seductive Eve to the blinded Adam highlights her extreme fall from grace. A following scene with her outspoken Baptist mother, powerfully played by Annette Benning, indicates that an abortion will soon take place. The seductress has been cast from the Garden with all force.

Fast forward five years later. Marla shows up again, this time with her son, and plays the redeemer to the increasingly eccentric Hughes. If Hughes doesn’t make a certain phone call within thirty minutes and speak in a way that affirms his sanity, it is likely that his entire organization will crumble because the label “mentally ill” will be indelibly stamped upon his persona.

With Marla’s last second intervention, reinforced by proclamations by her angelic-like preternaturally-wise son, Hughes is able to make the phone call. He speaks with coherence and humor. Salvation has been achieved.

I walked out of the movie disturbed. My husband walked out thinking it was an Academy Award-winning production. These are not necessarily opposite conclusions, but it did seem like we sat side by side and saw different movies.

We did agree on this: there always has been a fine line between genius and mental illness. Hughes lived his life on that line. The usual rules that apply to the more “normal” among us don’t fit well with a Hughes-type personality.

But the juxtaposition of this movie with our recent election left me unsettled. We have elected as President a physically unattractive billionaire who boasts about his sexual prowess, wears a string of beautiful women on his arm, sees himself as the best expert on any topic, and lives by a clear unwillingness to adhere to the normal rules of politeness and kindness in discourse. The rules don’t apply.

I think it is an important movie to see. I don’t call it particularly enjoyable but it is thought-provoking. The nearly two-hour running time spun by, and the subtexts leave room for nuance and later conversation. If one looks hard enough, there is the subtle weaving of the Gospel in there. And the 1950’s Hollywood sets and costumes are truly beautiful.