Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Resolve this New Year to visit Billy Wilder’s The Apartment
Resolve this New Year to visit Billy Wilder’s The Apartment
Jul 1, 2025 6:20 PM

The Big City can be a great place to lose yourself among a crowd, and too often lose your soul. Only love of another can help you find yourself again.

Read More…

Christmas movies tend to be sentimental, to emphasize the struggles that define our society and our souls, but ultimately they are hopeful and even joyful. Humanity triumphs at the end of the story—for evidence, read my series of essays on The Bishop’s Wife, The Shop Around the Corner, Christmas in Connecticut, and Miracle on 34th Street. New Year’s movies paratively depressing; they break our hearts by insisting on our failures—they are wistful. However festive New Year’s Eve, with “Auld Lang Syne” playing, we’re haunted by our mortality.

This is especially true of the best New Year’s movie, The Apartment (1960). It was nominated for 10 Oscars and won five—three of them went to Billy Wilder: Best Screenplay, Director, and Picture—the culmination of two astonishing decades in Hollywood. He made one more great movie, One Two Three (1961), but a career was ending whose highlights we still love: Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Double Indemnity (1944), Some Like It Hot (1959) and Sabrina (1954), and Witness for the Prosecution (1957).

Wilder was a Jewish immigrant, and his success in Hollywood shows how interested in America he was and how perceptive—after all, he was a writer, he had things to say, and for a generation, the audience agreed with him. edies were somewhat more immoral than was usual in Hollywood at that time and his dramas somewhat more revealing of ugliness—that’s the European touch.

Wilder was wonderfully witty, and there was such joy in edies, but also quite a lot of cynicism, which also endeared him to American audiences. His movies admitted life ain’t great, even at the postwar peak of American confidence. The Apartment especially shows that, for the regular guy, national greatness might be a burden—the ambition to succeed in this brave new world can lead to debasement. The size of the new America dwarfs mere humans.

Jack Lemmon, the sorriest, most hangdog-looking actor ever to have achieved celebrity, plays said regular guy—C.C. Baxter, a corporate accountant who moved to New York City to work for a life insurance corporation he says is larger than the regular American city. He says there are 8,042,783 people in New York; you can imagine how lonely it gets among so many strangers. Our America, where individualism reaches extremes, is presaged in this story.

Baxter is torn between his ambition to succeed in corporate America and his love for an elevator girl at his workplace—either way, he’s trying to go up in the American hierarchy, symbolized by the skyscraper. To get a promotion, he lends his apartment to four different men above him in the corporation so they can indulge in their somewhat childish adulteries after work. So he spends his evenings alone in parks, waiting for his apartment to be available again, while his neighbors think him a playboy. He fears for his reputation, so he cannot admit he’s merely a kind of Airbnb for others’ vices. American respectability is strange, a mix of piety and vice that traps his bosses, too: America has not turned adultery into an art, unlike in Europe, where mistresses are famous.

Meanwhile, Baxter dreams of Fran Kubelik, played by Shirley MacLaine, the actress who best embodied the moral irresponsibility of the ’60s—not vice, but weakness. America was ing prosperous, mobile, and full of all sorts of freedom, one more confusing than the next. Fran is both idealistic and cynical, beautiful and depressive. Like Baxter, she’s a victim of city glamour, and of the powerful men behind it. Today she’d be a #metoo story.

Fran’s an elevator girl, which means she always sees people passing her by and takes them where they want to go. They have real jobs, something to do with their lives; she’s pany for the ride there. The helplessness of her situation enables her to see the dark side of American mobility—there’s niceness but little real virtue among strangers. This crushes idealists and romantics because they’re hardly capable of pursuing self-interest in the first place.

Enter Sheldrake, the corporate boss, played by Fred MacMurray, the champion of an immoral version of self-interest. Baxter’s promotion depends on servility to Sheldrake, as does Fran’s future. Sheldrake has seduced Fran, although he’s married. Baxter can enjoy his promotion by giving his apartment over to Sheldrake, but he’s unwittingly helping damn the woman he loves. Fran’s too weak to break up with an adulterous man, and her weakness has also robbed her of hope.

The love of an older, powerful man is attractive—power is reassuring in itself, as is paternal authority, but it also testifies to beauty’s power. Thirty thousand employees depend on Sheldrake—Fran gets to call him Jeff. He orders everyone around, but has to plead for her time. They may serve him—but he serves her, when the wife and kids are vacationing. This works because marriage law, though perhaps sacred, goes unenforced.

Fran’s not evil, merely narrow-minded, sentimental. Since she’s never seen Sheldrake’s wife and kids, she doesn’t think of them. Since she’s young, she finds it difficult to believe actions have consequences—much less catastrophic consequences. Even law-breaking means nothing to her, because she didn’t mean to, and after all, men do it, too. e to modernity, where we replace innocence with irresponsibility.

Sheldrake is not too different, only more powerful. He begs Fran to love him, but he cares about respectability more. This makes him cruel—he disgraces women, then bribes or intimidates them into silence. It’s no accident that the clueless and the astute are trapped in the same sordid mess. They playact morality and lack principles. The job doesn’t require them. A future is aborning where people are debased with their consent. He would be a #metoo story, too.

Wilder, like most masters, liked to cast stars against type. As in Double Indemnity, he has perpetual nice guy MacMurray play the cad. Indeed, both movies are about life insurance, the business that shows how we deal with our fear of death and our moral uncertainties. We bet on our lives and hope to make money. Much es of this—peace of mind, but not virtue.

Everyone in the story is admittedly a coward, which is unusual for edy. Billy Wilder, however, was a humanist. He extends a certain hope, that Baxter and Fran can learn to love each other. They have suffered similar wounds and can understand each other, including their weaknesses. Moreover, they understand what it means to lose much, to even lose hope, to be tempted by death. It takes strength e back from that.

But they are Americans, too. As Tocqueville says, even if reason fails, the will does not fail in America, and so they pick themselves, and each other, up again. The entire drama is supposed to teach them self-reliance, inasmuch as they can learn it together. They do for each other things they wouldn’t have the confidence and perseverance to do for themselves. Self-interest means little to them, but love proves lifesaving.

Our nature loves nobility and beauty, yet our society systematically denies us. Wilder understood this would e everyone’s problem, hence his Everyman protagonists. Indeed, the drama of young men and women who seem perpetual adolescents, whose weakness leads them to misery, has e our American crisis. Wilder proved a prophet—nowadays, most young people are just like Baxter and Fran, unable to get married, stuck in apartments rather than homes, and exposed to a shame so deep that it corrupts the soul.

ic, sentimental look at Baxter and Fran is supposed to teach us that moralism is not going to fix our problems. We cannot change our society by snapping fingers. The young go to cities chasing after dreams and often find sordid things instead. Wilder isn’t a reformer, political or religious, but he hopes to show us how to understand this weakness and how it might be dealt with gently, even with love.

Between Christmas and New Year, these two failures discover love. I won’t spoil their ups and downs, because the charm of the movie is in showing how two people could deal with the entire social problem I’ve articulated in this essay. That is by itself an important lesson—in a way, we’re all helpless in the face of a vast continent-spanning nation—but in another way, we each can do well enough.

This is a edy, but it has high aspirations—for love is a matter of life and death. Come New Year’s, as I said, we’re haunted by our mortality. Our defense is love, which puts the beautiful and the good together, and reconciles us to our limits by offering us pleteness greater than ourselves, which depends not on our own will but on another person. The Apartment’s a New Year movie intended to get us through the new year.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Literature, Empathy and American Prosperity
From devastating racially-motivated murders in Charleston, South Carolina, to a contentious SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage, to heightened partisan rhetoric from presidential contenders, the constant discord at all levels of society has never been more apparent. Even the a superficial analysis of the news demonstrates that much of this controversy is born out of people’s unwillingness – or alarming inability – to step into another’s shoes, understand his unique perspective, motivations and challenges, and then work together to formulate a...
Five fundamental First Amendment freedoms in five minutes
Thirty-three percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. That’s a startling finding in the 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, a project sponsored by the Newseum Institute. Since the question was first asked in 2000, the percentage of citizens who can’t name a single right protected by First Amendment has ranged from 27 to 40 percent. Many of us might be tempted to shake our head in despair at the ignorance of...
Hard Hearted Lutherans Behind Greece’s Problems?
Martin Luther: Inventor of Austerity?On the The Economist’s religion and public policy blog, the writer Erasmus pokes holes in a theory put forth by Giles Fraser, a left wing Anglican priest, who sees conflicting theories of the atonement of Christ as one of the causes of so much misunderstanding in the European Union. Erasmus explains: … traditional Protestant and Catholic teaching has presented the self-sacrifice of Christ as the payment of a debt to God the Father. In this view,...
The Economy of Order: Justice Requires Love
Jean Valjean in “Ep. 4: The Economy of Order” “Seeking justice isn’t a matter of designing the right programs or delivery systems… Seeking order means acting in accord with a true vision of our brothers and sisters.” –Evan Koons American society and public discourse seem to be stuck in a state of feverish discord, rightly concerned with severe acts and systems of injustice, even as we continue to dig deeper cultural divides over everything from healthcare to sexual ethics, race...
Stonestreet on FLOW: A ‘Terrific Series’ For Times of ‘Increasing Cultural Pressure’
As the Acton Institute’s latest film series continues to reach churches, colleges, munities, the positive reviews continue to pour in. Andy Crouch calls it “the best treatment of faith & culture ever put on a screen.” Byron Borger calls it “artfully expressed” and “thoughtfully inspiring.” The Gospel Coalition ranks it in the top 10 best resources of 2014. Today on BreakPoint radio, John Stonestreet of the Colson Center calls For the Life of the World “quirky and pelling,” “entertaining and...
Profile of an Acton University Attendee
Acton University 2015 Participants After working in the DC area for nearly twenty years, Judi Niedercorn recently moved to the Northern Appalachian area of New York where she founded the Northern Appalachian Socio-Economic Collaborative (NASEC) and is in the midst of transferring pany, SysTactics. pany, SysTactics provides technical and managerial consulting services mercial and government clients. NASEC is a non-profit enabling munities of Cattaraugus and Allegany Counties in New York to improve the economy and fight poverty. NASEC is a...
Does ‘Laudato Si’ Lead Inevitably to Fossil Fuel Divestment?
The unfortunate fallout of Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si continues apace. One wishes the pontiff would’ve released it in four separate installments to avoid misinterpretation and seeming – to this reader, at least – contradictions throughout a somewhat unwieldy 180-some pages in which he alternately praises and disparages human technological improvements over the past two centuries. On one hand, he admires mankind’s ingenuity as an example of God’s blessing, but, on the other hand, he doth protest too much methinks...
Greece: By The Numbers
Greece’s economic problems are so prehension is difficult. Over at NPR, Greg Myre breaks it down for us. 25: The unemployment rate, and that’s probably low-balling. For those under the age of 25, the unemployment rate hovers around 50 percent. 92: The average e earned by a typical citizen is under-reported by 92 percent, on average, to the government. Tax evasion is endemic in Greece and a major contributor to the government’s budget shortfalls. Creditors are demanding this be addressed...
Does Buying Fair Trade Goods Help Poor Workers?
Over the past decade, fair trade products, such as coffee, chocolate, and fruit, have e an increasingly popular option for helping the global poor. But while the intentions are noble, does buying fair trade have the intended effect? Does it actually help the poorest workers? Economist Donald Boudreaux explains why it usually doesn’t, and why there are better ways to improve living standards in developing countries. ...
Living The Hamster Or The Hobbit Life
When es to urban planning, nobody beats the Soviets. First, they wanted to plan: no mish-mosh, haphazard cities, towns and burgs sprouting up like in the decadent West. Of course, structures had to address equality. No fancy neighborhoods in one area, and low-rent housing in another. And then there was functionality. Workers needed to be close to work. This eliminated the need for unnecessary and costly transportation. Soviet academic Alexei Gutnov described the planning this way: Ideal conditions for rest...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved