My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Movie Review

The film My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a romantic comedy that was released in 2002 with a budget of $5,000,000 USD (IMDb Pro, 2019). The film depicts the life of main character Toula Portokalos, who is a single, 30-year-old, Greek American woman working in her parents’ Greek restaurant in Chicago as a seating hostess and server (Goetsman, 2002). Toula’s overtly traditional family is continually disappointed in her, as she has not yet gotten married [specifically to a Greek man] nor had [Greek] children, despite endlessly rerating her other ambitions and life plans. In spite of the gravely traditional views and consistent pressure received from her family, eventually, Toula meets Ian Miller – a non-Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant man – and quickly falls in love. The film goes on to explore the trials and tribulations of Toula and Ian as they navigate their relationship while being pulled in different directions led by the opposing views of their respective families.

The film takes the audience through Toula’s journey of self-discovery, and touches on many important topics such as immigration, family hierarchy, cultural identity and integration, and inter-cultural marriage. Moreover, the film is largely imbued with the concepts of intercultural communication. While veiled as an effortlessly digestible romantic comedy, the film explores numerous elements that are crucial to the topics of communication and development, as well as enculturation and ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is defined as “the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906, quoted in Branner, 2013). The movie provides the audience with an outstanding depiction of ethnocentrism, through the lens of a Greek family living in America and holding an engrained belief that Greek culture is superior and the best culture among other cultures.

Topics explored throughout the film include the idea of individualism as compared to collectivism and family orientation; nature versus nurture; and religion versus individual choice juxtaposed against the wider stereotypes associated with non-Orthodox culture. There are many instances in which the film explores cultural clashes. Toula’s family has been resigned to accept the father’s power and authority – based on his position within the hierarchy – and to respect his right to that power, which is inherent in his position within this hierarchy. On the other hand, Ian’s family does not appear to have any power struggles; rather, the opinions of all within the family are encouraged and respected. The film explores contradictory definitions of authority, where power is primarily (though not exclusively) understood in terms of control and submission (Tavernaro-Haidarian, 2019) and can be understood through Toula’s relationship with her father, and where morals and beliefs are grounded in utilitarian thinking, which is characteristically nonconformist and locates ‘basic moral value in properties intrinsic to a person’ (Metz, 2014: 147). The constant disagreements between Toula and her family result in cultural metaphors that shape many aspects of reality as ‘battles, wars and duels’ (Karlberg, 2004; Tannen, 1998) and give rise to the prevalent idea that human nature is inevitably egotistical rather than being capable of altruistic actions.

Throughout the film, Toula’s father undermines Ian’s beliefs and dreams, and unilaterally believes in Greek values and traditions. Mr. Portokalos strongly believes that Greeks are superior to all others – and is often vexingly vocal about it. He proudly states “there are two kinds of people: Greeks, and everybody else who wishes they were Greek”. This allows the audience to understand how deeply engrained his cultural identity is. Being born in a specific cultural environment is not an exercise of freedom; it becomes affiliated to autonomy only if the person chooses to continue to live within the confines of that culture, and does so having had the opportunity of considering other alternatives. This concept is evidenced though Gus Portokalos – having had the opportunity to integrate and assimilate to American culture, but continually choosing to revert to his Greek culture. The key concern in cultural autonomy is the capability of people to live as they would choose, with adequate opportunity to consider alternatives (Pieterse, 2010: 74). Led by Gus’s charge, the family only interacts with other Greek Americans, and Mr. Portokalos is convinced that the root of every English [American] word is Greek. As advanced by Cheryl McEwan (2019) and reiterated throughout the film, ‘it is cultural traits, rather than racial ones, that are seen to differentiate ‘us’ from ‘them’. The character of Gus Portokalos often makes statements that undermine other cultures and depicts them as inferior when compared to the Greeks. Furthermore, McEwan (2019) notes that ‘imperial Europe’s discourses are unconsciously ethnocentric, rooted in European cultures and reflective of a dominant western worldview’. Postcolonial strategies often call into question the ways in which the world is understood, challenging the unrecognized and unexamined assumptions at the core of European and American disciplines that are fundamentally different to the meanings, values, and practices of other cultures (McEwan, 2019: 34).

Throughout the entirely of the film, Greek collectivism and American individualism is displayed through the two opposing families. There are many instances in which expression and performativity, the freedom to seek self-realization and autonomy, the encouragement and acceptance of creativity, the development of individual thoughts, and the achievement of a situation in which we can explore the lessons of our shared traditions and our individual biases in freedom (Clammer, 2012: 74) are likened. The film does a fine job comparing the differences between Toula and Ian’s individual upbringings, and how they came together, despite said differences. As noted by Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian (2019), in this realm of innovation, strategies are explored that translate into individuals being active in the process of their own upbringing and education, and articulating their individual needs and problems, while drawing on collectivism. Such efforts demonstrate continued phases of planning, action and reflection as individuals and groups ‘explore how to grow and excel in various settings and then share their insights and learnings with others across disciplines and contexts’ (Constandius and Bitzer, 2015: 1). This is demonstrated throughout the film, as the Portokalos family comes together to ultimately support one another through various struggles.

Despite her strong desire for individualism, the Greek traditions and heritage Toula used to shun have helped shape her into the strong, confident person she becomes as the film progresses. However, the contrasting beliefs of Toula’s father allow the audience to understand that only societies willing to renounce their traditional values, institutions and cultural practices, or if they possess characteristics that are favourable to transformation, will flourish in their quest for growth and development (Harrison and Huntington, 2000). Furthermore, cultures often do not evolve in isolation, but always through socialization with other cultures. Cultural interconnections, advanced primarily by migration, conquest, trade, discovery and pilgrimage, go far back into history; in the present age of globalization, the restrictions of people’s lives are more permeable than ever before, influenced by ‘an awareness of other circumstances, experiences, images, and ways of living’ (Shech, 2014). However, as is the case with Mr. Portokalos, staunchly defending traditions can hold back human development, and tradition should ultimately not be confused with freedom of choice and autonomy (Nederveen-Pieterse, 2002).

As suggested through ideas put forth by John Clammer (2002), the film takes on a critical view of culture as something that can hinder ‘human fulfilment, happiness, creativity, satisfaction and a harmonious relationship with nature’. When Toula finally finds her voice and the confidence to stand up for her individual beliefs and goal, she is ultimately participating in her own life for the first time. As further described by Clammer (2012), what is significant is Toula’s mode of incorporation into the possible forms of self-governing decision-making and individual and collective empowerment. As such, the film resonates with audiences and was a huge box office winner because sentimental stories ‘surprise’; they urge audiences to expect certain behaviours and feelings to accord with social norms, then show an individual – such as Toula Portokalos – that exceeds expectations to demonstrate that social divisions can be resolved by the ‘goodness of the individual heart’ (Lewis, Rodgers, Woolcock, 2014). Ultimately, as advanced by Susanne Schech (2014), development itself is a construct, a collection of culturally -embedded traditions and practices that are probed and changed over time – and the film’s goal is ultimately to demonstrate how engrained, patriarchal mindsets and attitudes can be changed over time.