You've Got Mail (1998) and Capitalism

You've Got Mail and Capitalism

"People are always telling you that change is a good thing. But all they're really saying is that something you didn't want to happen at all... has happened. My store is closing this week. I own a store, did I ever tell you that? It's a lovely store, and in a week it will be something really depressing, like a Baby Gap. Soon, it'll just be a memory. In fact, someone, some foolish person, will probably think it's a tribute to this city, the way it keeps changing on you, the way you can never count on it, or something. I know because that's the sort of thing I'm always saying."

I found myself, along with many others, conflicted about the messaging this movie presents; on surface level, it is a beautifully charming time capsule of life pre-internet saturation culture...but under the microscope, it is a story in which a capitalist takes down a small business and forces it into closure.

Ephron depicts this reality more as a matter of "adapting to change" rather than a dystopian disenfranchisement of the little man, and while this decision can come across as pro-capitalist (does not help that a large part of the movie takes place in and name drops large corporate entity Shartfucks), it is based in reality. 

Many can make the argument against the problematic narrative throughline of having a malicious and greedy conglomerate dissolve independent businesses with seemingly no consequences. 

Take a look at Ephron's treatment of the characters and morals within this film: Unsavoury behaviours aren't met with grand karmic repercussions, and neither are good ones rewarded with celebratory fanfare. People just are; Joe's manipulation of Kathy isn't punished. Instead, it's even shown in a positive light. It's the most optimistic view of the events that have occurred, maybe even to the point of blind foolishness. 

This mirrors the grander macro-scale events taking place: One entity holds a great deal of power over the other (corporation against man vs. joe being aware while kath isn't), and the lesser of the two is expected to submit to the higher power (dissolution of small businesses vs. kath accepting and responding to the reveal favourably).

Perhaps Ephron's intention was to respond to things as they are: corporate consumerism's changes to the status quo are and were inevitable, so we should meet them halfway on the path of least resistance. But do I agree with that? Do I even fully disagree with it? 

26 years from the time period within which the story was set, I think back to my childhood and books. And I recall that none of the bookstores that I remember so fondly were independent ones. 

There's a scene in the movie where Kath enters the Fox bookstore and goes up to the floor where the children's section is. She walks through the aisles, and all she sees are children. At tables, in the aisles, on the floor, reading. The contexts of the spaces we inhabit will forever be changing, but we remain as the constant nevertheless.  

There's a deep-seated tendency within all of us to root for the little guy. Audiences can't help but be drawn to stories where the underdog triumphs over the undisputed champions. Ephron chooses to show us a story where the underdog loses, but in the wake of the loss it chooses love. And I find it hard to disagree with that.

Originally posted on Letterboxd on 29th May, 2024