An Essay reviewing the film Tin Man by Barry Levinson
The movie Tin Men (1) by Barry Levinson provided endless opportunities to analyze conflict behavior between disputing parties. I chose the scene at the social security office in which Bill Babowsky (“BB”) is determined to break up Nora after they establish a relationship. BB shows up at her work place intent on ending the affair but concludes on a passionate kiss and a stronger bond between BB and Nora after this difficult conversation (4). I concluded that this scene is the most significant conversation in this movie. The scene is predicated on BB wrestling with his emotions and core values because of a new found attraction to Nora. The petty argument over trite behavior characteristics personifies his emotional and psychological turmoil with this woman who at first was a tool in his scorn, meant only to escalate BB’s conflict with Tilly. As BB develops strong emotions toward Nora, we see BB’s psychological and emotional transition throughout the movie. By acknowledging his passion for Nora, occurring in this scene, the conversation (3,4) becomes the catalyst for his introspection and core value shift (2,3). Nora is no longer an asset as Tilly’s wife, to fight with Tilly. BB’s priority becomes resolution of the conflict with Tilly in order to protect his core value shift and the relevance of Nora in his life. Therefore this scene demonstrates conflict resolution (2) between the two BB’s that struggle to embrace the world and the negotiation with Nora changes BB’s emotional and cognitive commitment to the on-going conflict with Tilly. BB fundamentally pivots around the value he places on Nora. This movie’s (1) central theme is about BB’s internal conflict and the cognitive dissonance (2) created by his past life’s priorities which contrast with his new found emotion for Nora. We see BB transition from a narcissistic, egocentric self-absorbed con-man with a core shift in fundamental interests and needs. The conversation, negotiation and outcome specific to this scene demonstrates Nora’s effective conversational and negotiation skills which enable BB to evolve (2,3,4).
As we apply academics and analyze the actual conversation in this scene we must recognize that BB’s argument with Nora is a manifestation of this personal transformation. The conversation with Nora as conflict brings resolve and definitionally reframes (2,3,4) the entire battle with Tilly. This scene inspires BB to move toward cognitive and emotional resolution (2,3). For BB the conflict is a “value-based conflict that is difficult to resolve and present an either-or choice (2)” and “such transformation is often essential if conflicts are to be effectively addressed and unless disputants understand both their own needs and those of others, a genuine resolution of conflict is not possible”(2). So the conflicted BB must address his underlying issues: values of lifestyle and behavior and values of job and status, all of which are challenged by the concept of a relationship with Nora. Affecting a resolution, evokes a fundamental self-realization – the desire to know love and be accepted for his true self. According to Stone, “If we deny that the emotions are there, then maybe we can avoid the consequences of feeling them”(3). BB acknowledges is identify conflict with the conversation in this scene.
Sequestered behind a faux barrier, the conversation is critiqued on signals and devices, focusing on the communication loop (4,2) between BB and Nora. They have different styles, but engage with “very active and clear messages of connection during a communication, with head nodding, verbal assents, and intense eye contact”(4) In fact, they have a successful communication’s loop and avoid a communication breakdown. Tannen’s book (4) talks specifically about the contrasting styles seen in this scene: BB is raced, hurry and emphatic, whereas Nora is calm, fluid and normal pace without urgency or anxiety in her speech. One must concede her angst, when moments before she spoke with her friend, thrilled that this relationship was joyful. Her ability to field the bad news that BB delivered by her signals, cues and calming demeanor allowed her to shift the power in this conversation and encourage BB’s self-revelation. Nora masterfully uses pitch and intonation signals and devices to direct the conversation from a positional demand to a collaborative relationship plan. Her expressive reaction, asking questions, limiting complaining, and apologizing for any inconvenience she caused BB(4), in concert with her meta-messages (2,4) through her body language, tone of voice and display of engagement, frustration, appreciation, and confusion over BB’s break up message are quite visible. As Tannen points out, “how we speak those words—how loud, how fast, with what intonation and emphasis—communicates what we think”(4) BB’s meta message are obvious by his anxious, fast talking, and pacing, all indicating his struggle with indecision. He believes he knows what he wants, anticipating a break up with Nora, just to regain his balance, but Nora style is so powerful, it shifts the ‘power-over’ her to a ‘power- over’ BB. The change is dramatic and underscores BB’s entire value shift in this movie (1). This conversation is the first instance where BB relinquishes power and is the essence of the pivot that occurs in this movie, transitioning BB’s persona in order to meet the author’s desire to show that materialism and status while narcotic in their effect, are inferior to the value of relationship and family. Nora uses direct eye contact, repose, forgiving and complacent language, a willingness to adapt quickly to BB’s needs, as she leans forward into the conversation, showing intense interest in its outcome. Nora speaks with respect and emotional attachment and therefore directly. She controls the outcome of the conversation by negotiating away her behaviors that irritate BB. She is direct in responding to his specific complaints but indirect in her capitulation knowing that the outcome of this conversation will establish the health of the relationship. Nora’s effective style with BB applies Ury’s techniques as “problem-solving questions enabled her to reframe her opponent’s position in terms of interests, options and standards”(5). She successfully “reframes an attack on you as an attack on the problem” (5) by reframing BB’s intended target of his frustration, Nora, on the petty behaviors themselves. Both parties rely on indirectness as “a self-defense mechanism”(4) as neither would want to acknowledge true behavior and emotion such as BB: “I am an egotist and narcissistic and this relationship is challenging my comfortable identity”; or Nora: “I am desperate to feel love and compassion which I just found and I don’t want to be alone, willing to suffer through a malignant relationship instead of being lonely.”
This conversation did not utilize complementary schismogenesis described by Bateson (4) as the behaviors moved from an extreme positional stance to a collaborative union of common interest. Although the movie (1) is replete with examples of this behavior, this scene actually deescalates the conflict between Nora and BB, just as BB’s internal conflict begins to deescalate (2) and his true desires take control of his actions. According to Mayer, the negotiation in this conversation quickly embraced an interest-based negotiation, where “people discuss their needs and concerns and look for options to address them.”(2). We can analyze the conversation by the “what happened conversation, the feelings conversation and the identity conversation” (3) What happened framed the conflict, but we should not be lulled into simply identifying BB as the angered dilatant demanding to control the relationship, but respect the ‘what happened’ as a difficult conversation (4) where BB was self-actualizing and resisting a shift away from his secure identity port. What truly happened was he re-valued his interests and priorities, and the nuanced irritations of Nora’s behavior were quickly quashed as insignificant as BB came to resolution, accepting and justifying his new emotion, loving another, as profoundly valuable. The feelings conversation and the identity conversation (3) are intermingled in this scene. By listening to BB’s concerns, listening to his trite irritations aloud, Nora allows BB to discover these as irrelevant complaints and embrace his true emotions. This disassociates the meaning behind the conflict and focus on his core interest and need (2), collaborating with her on a solution that answers a fundamental mutual desire; love and compassion for each other. BB has a new essential value and identity which he fights for vigorously throughout the rest of the film. He now protects that core need and interest with a longing to resolve peripheral conflicts that threaten its existence.
Therefore, this conversation in the social security office is the most profound moment of the film, where Nora reframes the values turmoil BB struggles with and allows him to experience and embrace resolution through behavioral and definitional reframing of their issues and his internal conflict (2,4,5). What she accomplishes is a narrative reframing of BB’s view of their entire relationship and its significance changes the trajectory of his embattled stance with Tilly, the home inspection commission and his view on his life. BB’s conversation follows Stones message on difficult conversations: “share the impact on you and inquire about their intentions”(3). Nora artfully and skillfully showed she had no mal-intent in her emotional conversation (3) and preserved her self-identity that was threatened by rejection from BB. Nora’s desire to resolve the conflict and stay with BB is out of fear. As Mayer (2) points out about fear and hope: “We often feel almost desperate to reach an agreement, not necessarily any agreement, but one that seems at least minimally adequate, to avoid what can feel like dangerous territory or uncharted waters” and “hope that an outcome will solve our problems, lead to a brighter future, and allow us to put an unpleasant or painful experience behind us.” Where BB is accepting an identity shift through this conversation, Nora is preserving her identity as a good person that deserves love. BB and Nora care about “what each is saying which is the heart of good communication”. (2)
- Levinson, B. (Director). (1987). Tin men [Motion picture on DVD]. Paramount.
- Mayer, B. (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Guide to Engagement and Intervention (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley and Sons.
- Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. New York, New York: Penguin Publishing Group.
- Tannen, D. (2013). That’s Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships (1st ed.). New York, New York: FIRST HARPER Paperback.
- Ury, W. (1992). Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. London: Century Business.
Renaissance Reflections of a Physician and Surgeon 