Does Nature Abhor a Vacuum of Patriarchy?: Missing Fathers in the Films of Whit Stillman

author's preface: Prior to publication, Mr. Whit Stillman was kind enough to read this essay and offer his comments, all of which were incorporated one way or another into the final draft. Nonetheless, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Mr. Stillman.

Hailed as the "Poet of the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie" and the "Jane Austen of indie film," filmmaker and author Whit Stillman has garnered critical acclaim for works that are "rich, beautiful and surprisingly virtuous."¹ Stillman's first film, the low-budget Metropolitan (1990), was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and also helped to launch the independent film industry as we know it today. Stillman's cinematic comedies of manner are known for their erudite and delightful dialogue, Austenian sensibilities, and gently ironic humor.² But one of the most recognizable features of Stillman's first four movies—Metropolitan (1990), Barcelona (1994), Last Days of Disco (1998), and Damsels in Distress (2011)—is not a quality that they possess but a demographic they lack.³ Each film depicts young persons who are ill-equipped to face the challenges of becoming happy adults because they are bereft of significant adult guidance. This pattern appears to be especially true where fathers are concerned: while the main characters' mothers sometimes make an appearance (albeit briefly), fathers only appear as usually wistful subjects of conversation. The combination of youthful yearners and missing mentors produces, as one observer puts it, "a world reminiscent of the Peanuts cartoon strip," where the adults are practically gone and the young are left on their own.⁴

Stillman's movies may be light-hearted, but they have never been called light-headed. We may therefore rightly suspect a deeper purpose to this paternal lacuna hidden behind the wit and whimsy of his art. To find out what that purpose might be, I will first trace the concept of patriarchy as it was originally understood. Second, I will survey the modern backlash against patriarchy and the more recent backlash against this backlash. Third, I will situate Stillman's earlier films within this historical framework. And fourth, I will speculate about the significance of Stillman's fatherless motif and what it reveals about his work.

Patriarchy Properly Understood

In contemporary usage, "patriarchy" designates any form of male headship over a family, clan, or society.⁵ More specifically, in feminist studies the term has become synonymous with men's systemic oppression of women: this pejorative connotation has also affected the word's meaning outside of academia.⁶

Patriarchy, strictly speaking, however, denotes not male rule or misrule in general but a specific form of male authority found only in the Judeo-Christian tradition.⁷ The word πατριάρχης is itself a biblical neologism, appearing first in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament in reference to: 1) the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel; 2) the heads of families within a tribe of Israel; and 3) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.⁸ In the New Testament, St. Stephen confirms this convention by referring to the sons of Jacob as the "twelve patriarchs," and St. Peter, while preaching during the Church's first Pentecost, develops it further by also calling King David a patriarch.⁹ Later Christian usage expands the patriarchal franchise to include pre-Abrahamic figures such as Adam, Abel, and Noah (the so-called "antediluvian patriarchs") and to postbiblical bishops presiding over the chief sees of the early Church—for example, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Today, a number of prelates in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches continue to bear the ecclesiastical title of patriarch.

Initially, neither the Greek πατριάρχης nor the Latin transliterations patriarcha and patriarches were adopted outside of Jewish and Christian circles. Nonbelievers did not use the term for their male leaders, nor did Jews and Christians in the first centuries after Christ use the term to designate a male leader outside of their sacred history. The only exception to this rule that I was able to find was a sarcastic reference...