As I look at the presence of the movie “Pearl” on the internet and the rhetoric surrounding it, I find myself feeling like it almost doesn't take into account the fact that Pearl is a child of immigrants. I wouldn't really call that a "girlhood movie", as I feel like the key component to all the events is class inequality, not gender (although the way Pearl acts is sometimes clearly influenced by gender inequality, which Pearl perfectly realises). Let me explain.
Pearl is a child of German immigrants. it doesn't get mentioned a lot and the movie doesn't really focus on the fact except for the dialogue between Pearl and her mother and German accent or small phrases here and there. But observing Pearl's behaviour, we can conclude that it's quite typical for a person growing up in an immigrant family with low income.
First off, I want to pay attention to Pearl's mother — Ruth. She acts cautious all the time. Ruth counts every last cent, she works hard, she mostly avoids contact with the outside world. She's all about responsibility and self-preservation, while Pearl is all about desires and ambitions.
It's quite obvious why Pearl's mother is this way — immigration is hard. Being in a new country with a foreign language and culture, you mostly focus on survival, on "making the best of what you have". Everything Pearl's family has was achieved by hard labour. Through constant hardships and, perhaps, hostility (German immigrants were discriminated against during World War I, as the public feared they might be disloyal to the US and support the German army), you forget about your dreams and ambitions. Your goal is safety, roof above your head and full stomach.
Pearl is different. She was born in the US, it seems. She doesn't have a thick German accent, she's much more invested in the culture, she's more socialized. And she doesn't have to survive, not really. Her mother has already provided for her. Their living conditions are the same, but Pearl's mentality is drastically different.
Pearl, you may say, is more a product of an American society — an individualistic one. Her mother is always reminding her of the illness that she might spread when she leaves the farm for the big world ("Let alone the illness you may contact and spread. You see what it does to your father? That's what you want for yourself and others?"), she also wants her to sleep in the bunkhouse to isolate her in case she's ill ("Isolate yourself until we know you're not ill. That is what's right."). Pearl just doesn't pay this much attention to such things.
Ruth has endured hardships and suffered losses, that's why her ambitions have all dried out. Pearl is young, she hasn't faced all of that. So she thinks differently.
The conflict, it seems to me, is between individualism and collectivism, between experience, caution and ambition, chasing your dream no matter what. This conflict is based on Ruth's migrant background — she's a product of a more collectivistic society and her bitter experience (taking care of her husband) has shaped her. Pearl, on the other hand, is a product of a completely different society.
The fight between her ambition and responsibility runs like a red thread through the whole movie. I think her dialogue with The Projectionist illustrates it well:
Pearl: I don't like reality. Where I live, I mean. The Projectionist: So, leave. Pearl: It's not that easy. The Projectionist: Well, sure it is. There's a road right out front there.
The Projectionist is an individualist to his core. Pearl is burdened by responsibilities to her family.
The apotheosis of this conflict is murdering her parents. Now she's in a twisted way free from her responsibilities. There is no one to care for. As Pearl's mother said, "Perhaps I shall kill him for you? That way, you won't have to care for him any longer. Would that suit your selfish dreams better? Then we both can go to the dance audition! Your husband is gone, so is mine! Why should we be saddled with caring for them or the work on this farm? What about us getting what we want?"
And of course a bright illustration of class inequality — Howard's family.
Pearl and Mitzy are best friends, but we see that Mitzy has always gotten what she wanted. For her dancing on the stage is nice, but not necessary. To Pearl it's a chance of getting out of a life, consisting only of responsibility. A chance to break free from her family teaching her one thing, while the society she lives in consistently preaches about something opposite.
It's once again about class, about Mitzy being richer and of American descent. She just doesn't have this conflict between two different societies, like Pearl does. Mitzy's been taught just what most people around her believe.
Another thing — the audition. The reasoning for Pearl's rejection is "We’re looking for something different today. You know? More all-American, younger and blonde." It's not about the dance, it's not about her talant and skills — she's rejected on the basis of something she was born with, something she can't change. Something that, honestly, probably has nothing to do with the capability to perform.
The military theme in Pearl's performance can also be connected to her migrant background and is seen by me as a commentary on the treatment of immigrants. To the regular folk Pearl, as a daughter of German immigrants, will always be associated with the war, with caution and suspicion.
It all comes down to migrant background, class inequality, not to womanhood. It's not to say that "Pearl" doesn't raise themes of women's status in the society of that time, it does, I just don't see it as a defining theme.
And yeah, I do realise all of that "Pearl is Patrick Bateman for the girls" and "girlhood" are just jokes, but it really upsets me how the themes of migration in this movie are so often overlooked, even though they're crucial.
