First Rule of Fight Club

     As I break the first few rules of Fight Club [by talking about Fight Club] we will see that this David Fincher film, which was adapted for the screen from Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, brings to the forefront many issues including those of social politics, consumerism/capitalism, self-identity and modern American values—or lack there of. 

     The audience is presented with a narrative dealing with a main character, who throughout the film remains nameless, and lives entirely in the symbolic order.  He spends much of his time conforming to the mundane cookie cutter culture filled with Ikea furniture and grande lattes.   This character, to whom I will refer to as Jack [Ed Norton], also expresses his disdain for the white-collar lifestyle he has been a part of for so many years.  As the film progresses the implications of this disdain are made very clear to the audience and to Jack.

     Although Fight Club has an obvious overtone of discourse about corporate/capitalistic culture, in my view this discourse is only a means to an end. I would say the end in this case is the discourse of the human mind and its implications on self-identity and how that identity is perceived in American culture.

     From the start we know that this film is one of internalization.  The opening sequence is a great CGI of a tracking shot coming from the most inner part of the brain where we see nerves and neurons and ends up leaving the head through the nose.  Here Fincher is setting us up for something out of the ordinary.  When the “camera” exits the body the audience is greeted by the barrel of a gun lodged in Jack’s mouth, we then hear the voice over:

JACK (V.O.)

                 People were always asking me, did I

                 know Tyler Durden (Uhls).

 

At this point a hermeneutic code has been established… Who is Tyler Durden?  In this scene we are also introduced, directly and indirectly to the four main characters of the film, these being Jack, Tyler Durden [Brad Pitt]—who we find out is the man holding the gun to Jack’s mouth, Project Mayhem—mysterious plan of violence, and Marla Singer [Helena Bonham Carter]—alluded catalyst to the predicament Jack has found himself in.  The audience is now ready for the cinematic-narrative journey that Fincher has put forth.

     After this scene, we are formally introduced to Jack and the workings of his symbolic life.  Through this we not only get to know about Jack’s bouts of insomnia, but we also get our first glimpse of the films discourse on the corporatization of the American culture, emphasized greatly by another tracking shot, this one pulling out from the depths of a garbage can to reveal packages from different mass consumer products.  The commentary strongly signifies how within our culture identity is endorsed by capitalism and consumerism.

JACK (V.O.)

                 I would flip through catalogs and

                 wonder, “What kind of dining set

                 defines me as a person? (Uhls)“

 

     In this scene we also notice the use of voice over which through verfremdungseffekt or alienation effect (Knapp), we witness the subtle breaking of the fourth wall.  We know Jack is talking to the audience since it is a voice over, but we will never be sure until we are addressed directly and at that point the wall will be completely down.  We see this happen later in the film.  There are also small subliminal aberrations that appear on the screen as Jack speaks of his insomnia in this scene and in the next scene when he speaks with a doctor about, again, his insomnia.  These are just a few allusions to the role Tyler Durden plays in the life of Jack.

     Jack, who is now lost in his insomnia as well as the identity consumerism created for him, begins to crash various support groups. This action, for Jack, is a form of release, somewhere he can be himself by being someone else.  In each group Jack goes by a different name and by taking on the identity of others he tries to solidify his existence.  In so far, Jack’s real name has never been mentioned and this also alludes to his lack of a real identity.  I think this character is set on going against existential thought as to where he wants to be something other than what society or culture has branded him as.  He is looking for a way out of his current role and through these support groups he can try on different personas.

     The first time we see Jack [Cornelius] let go of the symbolic order and dip into the real of raw emotion is when he meets Bob “Big Moosie.”

BOB

                 Go ahead, Cornelius.  You can cry.

 

     They look at each other.  Slowly, Jack’s eyes grow wet.

 

                             JACK (V.O.)

                 Then… something happened.  I was

                 lost in oblivion — dark and silent

                 and complete.

 

     Bob pulls Jack’s head back into his chest.  Jack tightens

     his arms around Bob.

 

                             JACK (V.O.)

                 I found freedom.  Losing all hope was

                 freedom.

 

     Jack pulls away from Bob.  On Bob’s chest, there’s a WET

     MASK of Jack’s face from how he looks weeping.

 

                             JACK (V.O.)

                 Babies don’t sleep this well.

 

     INT. JACK’S BEDROOM – NIGHT

 

     Jack lies sound asleep.

 

                             JACK (V.O.)

                        I became addicted (Uhls).

 

     Eventually, through his frequenting of support groups, the audience is finally introduced to Marla Singer.  Jack notices her as another “tourist” and the identities he has built in these support groups becomes threatened by her.

                          

 

 

JACK (V.O.)

                 Marla — the big tourist.  Her lie

                 reflected my lie. And suddenly, I felt nothing.      

                 I couldn’t cry.  So, once again, I

                 could not sleep (Uhls).

Marla is the first, and only, matriarchal figure in the film—and a sketchy one at that.  Marla is a second step into the real for him, and it is because of her we see an angry side of this naturally conforming personality.  She is dark and reckless, but most importantly she is woman.  She too reaffirms his lack of identity.  In a scene when they exchange phone numbers for the first time since they’ve agreed to split up the support group nights so they don’t run into each other, we see a close up shot of a paper which clearly says Marla Singer, but when the camera cuts to her, she affirms that his paper had no name.

 

MARLA

                 It doesn’t have your name.  Who are

                 you?  Cornelius?  Mr. Taylor?  Dr.

                 Zaius?  Any of the stupid names you

                 give each night? (Uhls)

 

 

Although, she affirms his non-identity, this is a very interesting scene because, we clearly see him hand her a business card that we can assume is his, and if that assumption is correct when she flips that card over she will be the bearer of his true identity. The “mother” as keeper of knowledge is a powerful idea in this context.

     As we learn more about Jack’s work life we get a glimpse of the mundane nature of it and can truly identify with his feelings of wanting it to be over. Fincher does a great job connecting Tyler Durden to Jack for the first time (outside of the opening scene of the movie when the audience doesn’t really know who he is yet) by having Jack and Durden pass each other on the moving sidewalk in opposite directions just as Jack expresses another identity issue.

JACK (V.O.)

                 If you wake up at a different time

                 and in a different place, could you

                 wake up as a different person (Uhls)?

This statement is also very interesting when thought of in context with Jack’s conversation with his doctor about his insomnia and he expresses concerns to the doctor that often he nods off and wakes up in strange places and he doesn’t even know how he ended up there.

     In another swipe at big business, the career that Jack holds as a recall coordinator for a car company provides a great piece of discourse. In a scene where we see Jack at work he provides in great detail the formula used to decide whether an accident caused by faulty vehicle parts warrants a recall on said part.  The answer can either be yes or no—and lets keep our fingers crossed that there are no more casualties. This is an obvious joust at corruption in corporate America and how it is always about the bottom line.

  JACK (V.O.)

                 I’m a recall coordinator.  My job is to apply

                 the formula.  It’s a story problem.

                           TECHNICIAN #1

                 Here’s where the infant went through

                 the windshield.  Three points.

                             JACK (V.O.)

                 A new car built by my company leaves

                 somewhere traveling at 60 miles per

                 hour.  The rear differential locks up.

                             TECHNICIAN #2

                 The teenager’s braces around the

                 backseat ashtray would make a good

                 “anti-smoking” ad.

                                JACK (V.O.)

                 The car crashes and burns with

                 everyone trapped inside.  Now: do we

                 initiate a recall?

                             TECHNICIAN #1

                 The father must’ve been huge.  See

                 how the fat burnt into the driver’s

                 seat with his polyester shirt?  Very

                 “modern art.”

                             JACK (V.O.)

                 Take the number of vehicles in the

                 field, (A), and multiply it by the

                 probable rate of failure, (B), then

                 multiply the result by the average

                 out-of-court settlement, (C).  A

                 times B times C equals X…

     CUT TO:

INT. AIRPLANE CABIN – MOVING DOWN RUNWAY

     Jack is speaking to the BUSINESSWOMAN next to him.

                              JACK

                 If X is less than the cost of a

                 recall, we don’t do one.

                             BUSISNESS WOMAN

                 Are there a lot of these kinds of

                 accidents?

                             JACK

                 Oh, you wouldn’t believe.

                             BUSINESS WOMAN

                 … Which… car company do you work for?

                             JACK

                      A major one (Uhls).

This dilemma he finds himself in can definitely be seen as just one of the social morality issues in the work place that makes him want to take on a different identity.  It comes to the question of death and the role he plays, indirectly in the lives of others, through this questionable career. Jack constantly alludes to this unhappiness by always wishing for death as a way out and through what Stam calls postmodern reflexivity (202) we see this happen throughout most of the film.  In the particular instance of the first conversation between Jack and Tyler, the audience has just witnessed a break in the visual linearity of the film into a very elaborate death fantasy.  To juxtapose this simulacrum of death with the first meeting/conversation between Jack and Tyler was for me just a bonus.  Instead of death, he gets Tyler Durden.

     Tyler Durden is truly the other for Jack.  He is everything Jack wants to be and then some more he never asked for.  Tyler is 100% imaginary [in the Lacanian sense and in the literal sense]. Like Marla, he is the complete opposite of Jack just his profession alone is unconventional compared to his.

Through this conversation there are many allusions to the fact that Durden is Jack is Durden, my favorite one being when Jack points out they have the same briefcase.  As a side note, this scene also brings up great commentary on airplane etiquette and culture.

     I find that this film has a very unconventional liminal space, which clearly is greatly due to the postmodern reflexivity.  The liminal space in this film can be seen here in a progression of non-violent [life without Tyler] à violent [Tyler]à non-violent, in one circular motion.  The non-violent space in this film could be posed on the emotional nature of Jack’s loss of identity and also his connection to Marla.  The violent liminal space in the film is marked by the explosion of Jack’s Ikea furnished apartment, and is obvious cultural discourse on how a person identifies themselves by the things they own or for this commentary’s sake, the things that own them.  Later in the film we also hear Tyler speak similar words to Jack, which support his view on the point that it is the choices that we make that define us.

     This is the first of many events that lead to the imminent rebirth of his identity to that of a split subject, in which Stam defines according to Freud as the split between two levels of being—the conscious life of the ego [Jack] and the repressed desires of the unconscious [Tyler](134).  Jack is now dealing with the desire of two others:  the matriarch Marla, who we equate with the emotional real and the patriarch Tyler, who we equate with the physical/violent real. His desire for the phallic power that Tyler wields is stronger than his desire to be with woman.  Tyler is the imaginary to Jack’s symbolic and brings him closer to the real/raw that Jack thinks he needs.  Tyler is concerned with the here and now, while Jack is concerned about keeping his identity in the symbolic order.  Marla does not fit into this or Jack’s needs just yet.  In order to bring Jack one step closer into the real Tyler provokes a fight with him to which Jack doesn’t know how to respond.

JACK

                 Can I stay at your place?

                             TYLER

                 Yes, you can.

                             JACK

                 Thank you.

                             TYLER

                 You’re welcome.  But, I want you to

                 do me one favor.

                             JACK

                     What’s that?

                             TYLER

                 I want you to hit me as hard as you

                 can.

                             JACK

                           What?

                             TYLER

                 I want you to hit me as hard as you

                 can (Uhls).

 The film language then turns to a more informal approach when Fincher proceeds to officially break the fourth wall when the scene cuts from the potential fight to Jack’s description of Tyler Durden. The audience is being spoken to directly by Jack and Tyler.  We now also see that Jack has given a life to Tyler that is completely different than Jack’s.  Tyler does everything Jack wants and wishes he could do and exists in a way Jack desires.  We can also read his giving Tyler a life of his own as a coping mechanism to keep him separate from his own self.

     In the house in which Jack and Tyler dwell, Fincher, very careful not to give Jack a name places him in a room filled with books, which I’ll call “I am Jack’s____.” Finding these books gives Jack a new way to give him self and identity indirectly.  He now begins to speak in the third person when describing him self or any emotion he may be feeling and by using third person when speaking of himself and first person for the feelings he has keeps the emotion on the foreground but also distances him self more from his true identity.

     We soon begin to witness the birth of fight club. It is therapy through violence, substantiating the male ego.  It is gritty and raw and for Jack it is cathartic and brings him close to the ultimate real and a step close to the imaginary order. As this new form of group therapy takes Jack over, he goes through a more obvious process of individuation as he begins to cast off his 9-5 identity and begins to reaffirm him self in Tyler Durden’s image. As we’ve seen from the beginning, Tyler’s phallic power supersedes that of Jack, which is one of the main reasons I believe Jack conjures him up.  He doesn’t have this, so he will appropriate an image of him self that does. A great mis-en-scene is presented to us as Fincher sets up the reintroduction of Marla to the lives of Jack and Tyler and it is in this reintroduction that we see Jack begin to exude his phallic power in a very subtle way.

TYLER

                 We’re a generation of men raised by women.

                 I’m wondering if another woman is really the

                 answer we need (Uhls).

After Tyler expresses his feeling on the presence of women we cut to a scene showing the growth of fight club, all men bonding through the physical act of violence—the total opposite of his support groups where the phallus is bigger in numbers. After that, we cut to Jack walking home, and as he is walking he catches a glimpse of Marla. This scene for me is very important because not only has she returned to the narrative—only a couple of minutes after Tyler raises his question—but here we see the phallic power of Jack begin to take form.  When he sees her, he holds a gaze on her and we now see just in that split second that he is no longer threatened by her existence.   

 

 

     He has created fight club, possibly as a way to gain phallic power, but it has also given life to others in his same situation.  In fight club identity doesn’t matter. For the few minutes you’re in a fight, the life roles and bourgeoisie rules of society and culture do not apply. This is the only place where they are just a collective of men—later in the film we also see how this collective, in trying to regain their real identity, end up losing all identity.

     I think part of Jack’s acquisition of phallic power drives him to desire Marla, but since Tyler is the bearer of the power, whenever they are intimate it is under Tyler’s guise. The very stylized scene of their first sexual encounter Fincher, quite cleverly, never shows the male characters face.  The suspended animation and blurriness are very reminiscent of a visual womb fantasy.  Since Marla is teetering between the symbolic and the real, it is an interesting choice to have her sexually relationship with Jack be under the guise of Tyler Durden.  This way he keeps her where he wants to be, the real.  Jouissance for him may only be experienced in this way since his symbolic self cannot be anything other than just that.

     We all know, though, that Jack cannot have both Tyler and Marla.  Tyler makes this clear to him as he specifically asks Jack to never speak to Marla about him.  Fincher also never places the three of them in the same room.

 

TYLER

                 Hey, hey, sit down.  Now listen, can’t

                Have you talking to her about me.

 

                             JACK

        Why would I talk to her about…?

                             TYLER

                 You say anything about me or what

                 goes on in this house to her or to         

anybody we’re done (Uhls).

 

     As the film progresses we see that even with the knowledge that he isn’t to speak of Tyler to anyone, he runs the risk and holds on to the mother—Marla.  When Tyler burns Jack with lye, Jack attempts to use a meditation technique he learned in a cancer support group.  Interestingly, Fincher is counteracting the violent nature of the relationship between Jack/Tyler and fight club/project mayhem with the emotional nature of the support group technique.  When Jack finds his power animal in his meditative cave, it is Marla.  This alludes that know all knowledge of the matriarch is the strength that he has left in him to actualize his split self.

     We not only see Jack use the identity of Tyler completely get rid of Jack’s symbolic identity alluding to the loss of his personal property, but we also see him begin to use the alter ego as a means of socio-cultural terrorism.  Together they do things to try to go against the established superstructure of culture and consumerism.  They sell soap to high end department stores, which they made with the fat they stole from a liposuction clinic.  They also—through Project Mayhem—the ultimate act of this terrorism destroy buildings and businesses that represent this capitalistic culture the best.  These acts, have all been commited by the members of fight club, which has transformed into more of an organization.  Through this organization we begin to see another break down in identity.  In this case, though, it isn’t the gain of a new individual identity, but the gain of a collective identity.  He possibly does this so that his identity is the only one that is individual.

 TYLER

You are not your job… You are not how much      

                money you have in the bank.  You are not the

                car you drive, you’re not the contents of

                your wallet. You’re not your fuckin’ khakis.

                You are the all singing, all dancing crap

                Of the world (Uhls).

     Jack’s actualization of his split self only begins to occur when he lets him self get closer to Marla and he begins to speak to her in a confiding, matter of fact manner.  In a very pivotal scene, he asks Marla why she’s always at the house and if she’s happy.  She expresses her impartiality to her situation. 

 

                              JACK

Hey, listen…wh– what are you

getting out of this?

   MARLA

What?

JACK

I mean…all this…why do you keep…is this making you happy?

MARLA

Yeah, sometimes.

JACK

Well,…–I don’t know — I don’t understand, why does a weaker person need to latch on a strong person? What is that?

MARLA

What do you get out of it?

JACK

No…it’s not the same thing at all…

it’s totally different with us, we’re –

MARLA

“Us”? What do you mean by “us” (Uhls)?

 

     The Tyler persona cannot be the object of Marla’s gaze because that will result in his death.  This is why Jack keeps him from Marla, but we see this wall between Jack and her begin to wither away.  It is only when, Jack, with a slip of the toungue, referes to his other self—who asked never to be spoken about—that he begins to gain control of his identity as well as bring Tyler closer to death.  When Jack becomes concious of Tyler’s being a part of him self and not the separate persona he believed him to be there is a self-destructive race to, in essence, kill the law of the father—albeit an alternate personality—in order to possess Marla.  At the end of the film Jack gains control by realizing that although there is a gun in his mouth, Tyler is not a real person and he him self is holding the gun to his own mouth.  Once this realization is made, Jack regains the phallic power and kills Tyler Durden, but shooting him self. 

     Fincher brings Palahniuk’s novel on the screen in a big way.  Highlighting so many different issues, it’s hard to just pin point one down.  The fact reamains that the oedipal is very strong in this triangle narrative and drives the commentary of identity and society to a different level which fits perfectly in a post-modern cinematic world.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            Works Cited                                                           

 

 

Fight Club. By Jim Uhls. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Helena            Bonham Carter, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. 20th Century Fox. 1998.

 

Knapp, Gerhard P. “Estrangement Effect [Verfremdungseffekt] (1934).” Literary Encyclopedia. 18 December 2006.

 

Stam, Robert, Robert Burgoyne and Sandy Flitterman-Lewis. New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics. London: Routledge, 1992.

Short Analysis of Peeping Tom, Pierrot le fou, and Persona

 

                                                                       I.

     As we grasp on to the notion of post-modern cinema, we look for those elements that will challenge us and throw us into a world of the cutting edge.  A film is no longer taken for face value but read into and understood in a polysemic manner thanks to the work of writers and directors who want their audience to be more than just specators, but thinkers as well.  Using various techniques, these artist throw the viewer into the multilingual worlds of signs.  Whether reading a film for its aesthetic, realistic, or symbolic values, we see that a film can offer more to the viewer than just something to do for a couple of hours of escapism.  The films I will examine in this essay to further my point are Peeping Tom, Pierrot le fou, and Persona. 

In the film Peeping Tom, the basic narrative of the film is that of a young photographer with a rather odd hobby.  The hermeneutic code that would over-tone this film in a classical sense is now imposed in a different manner.  Usually as a spectator of a murder mystery film, the code would call for the spectator to want to figure out who is commiting the murders, but through precise direction and character development, this isn’t what concerns the viewer.  The concern becomes not who did it, by why did he [Mark]commit the crimes. 

The cinematic narrative apparatus now becomes a proactive enviroment for the audience.  We learn more about Mark as the narrative unfolds and it begins to introduce the idea of his voyeristic nature.  Mark is not only a cinematographer for a film studio, but also a still photographer who shoots pin-up images. This suggests a duality of Mark’s life, where in one sense he is living in the symbolic as a normal young man, and in the other he is yearning for the real or jouissance and proves this by capturing these “real” situations on film.  This trend is set up from the beginning of the film when we witness the first murder… a woman, who is a prostitute, is the first victim we know about.  The prostitute is the strongest sexual symbol and he photographs her and kills her.  He also kills Vivian, an actress from the film studio, who is another sexual refferent, although less subtle.  Then the murder which gets him caught is that of his pin-up model, yet another symbol of jouissance.  His gaze is fixated on the real and so the real must die because until it does he will never fully live the symbolic or become the name of the father.

We also find that his fixation on seeing fear and killing it stems from numerous “fear experiment” that were conducted on Mark by his father.  These experiments, in essence immasculated Mark and stripped of what would be his potential phallic power. Through murdering these women and seeing their fear he is trying to regain this phallic status and gain control over his existence in the symbolic, but he only gains his closure in the end when he turns his gaze (via his camera which is an extension of him) upon himself in an act of suicide.

In a similar way, Pierrot le fou’s main character Ferdinand, also finds his closure through suicide.  Throughout the film, he avoids becoming the object of the gaze [by Marianne] through his denial of the name she tries to give him throughout the film, Pierrot. Ferdinand’s only contact with the real was through his adventures with Marianne and so perhaps she was a figure of catharsis for him.  I allude to this idea because when the film opens we see Ferdinand in the very opposite situation than he is with Marianne through the rest of the film.  He lives quite a boring bourgeois lifestyle.  I think although, however cathartic Marianne is for him, the reason she doesn’t accept his name, Pierrot, is not only because he doesn’t want to submit to her gaze, but also because it is his only tie to his life in the symbolic. It isn’t until the end of the film, when he paints his face blue, and makes one last phone call to his symbolic life, that he submit to this gaze and blows himself up and like Mark in Peeping Tom, he acheives his closure and acceptance of the real.  The most interesting part about this is that he only accepts this role after Marianne and her lover are dead.

Persona deals with symbolic discourse in a rather different way than the two afore mentioned films.  This discourse offers us a narrative of the self.  Bergman presents Alma, who is a person defined by the roles she takes in life—nurse, wife, etc—she is a person who object of desire is not another but herself and the affirmation of her existence.  I think the power of the symbolic discourse in this film lies in the power of her self-gaze.  Unlike the first two films, the closure doesn’t come in the form of suicide, but in the form of self-reflection and actualization.  It comes in the melding of Alma’s persona  with Elizabet’s.  This is possibly the realization, on Alma’s part, that her roles are not what make her existence true and a subtle questioning of the existentialistic view on being.  Through the film we see Alma do things, such as try to hurt Elizabet, as a form of unacceptance.  Since Elizabet doesn’t speak, Alma existence isn’t being affirmed and she loses herself and thru this loss begins to accept her raw being, no titles and no roles, only soul.

 

II.

Various tools and techniques are used in these films to solidify the symbolic discourse and narrative.  In the case of Peeping Tom, the use of the iconic camera connotes voyerism and brings a feeling of sneakiness upon the audience.  The camera is a main signifier throughout the film and greatest motivatior of symbolism and narrative.  The audience not only sees the frame, but sees though Mark’s eyes and memories as well. 

In Pierrot le fou, techniques stand out much more.  The color palatte of reds and blues are very evident as a signifier.  In this film, the characters are aware of their audience and as their story unfolds Ferdinand and Marianne acknowledge existence outside “the fourth wall.”  Godard, by doing this, brings the audience into the real of the narrative.  The film is also dominated by midshots of the isolated characters, in which make the audience study and see into them.

The use of montage, I believe, is the strongest element and definitely most successful in Pierrot le fou and Persona.  In Pierrot le fou it is the collage effect which is most apparent.  These characters are mixed up in an adventure that is quite absurd and the montage at times is just as absurd.  Most notable the use of the random –or not so random—art images that are on screen juxtaposed to either narration or a whole conversation between the two main characters.  The use of montage in Persona has quite a different effect on the audience.  As the first shots of the movie may tell us something superficial about the life of the character(s) we are about to meet, we move in to what is an aesthetically beautiful black and white vision.  The film then progresses into something quite catalystic in tone and finally montage brings it all together by the melding of the faces of Alma and Elizabet into one, a signifier of Alma’s recognition of her self.

 

III.

          There is a strong suggestion of liminality in the    middle phase of a story, very often actually marked by literal movement in space, a journey, an adventure,                           but certainly by extraordinary events in which the      rules and expectations of ordinary existence are left      in suspense (Mulvey 10).

     The liminal space in film narrative can be obvious like in the case of Pierrot le fou and Persona.  Although, unlike Pierrot le fou, Persona has a very definitive liminal bookended by the departure and return to the normal.  In this case, the liminal takes place in the beach house narrative.  On the other hand in Pierrot le fou starts with a certain sense of normalcy depicting Ferdinand, his wife and child. The liminal begins after he seperates from his family and starts his adventure with Marianne. Throughout the liminal in this film we are faced with many absurd and surrealistic events and I think that the film ends without leaving the liminal.  Ferdinand commits the last act of absurdity that the film has to offer.  Ferdinand never physically returns to his normal family life.

     Peeping Tom takes a very different turn than both of the previous films. I see this film as all liminal narrative.  From the moment the film begins we are taken on Mark’s journey of murder and psychosis.  It is possible that the liminal is interrupted when the story of his childhood is presented, but that is the only time we see a glimpse at what could have been Mark’s ordinary life and what set him on his path.

     The choices the writers and directors of these films made in order to present a film that goes against the classical narrative are abundant and there are many aspects to consider.  Even though the obvious are sound, editing, montage, and symbolic discourse, I am also considering the use of the manipulation of ludic space as very effective post-modern technique.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Mulvey, Laura. “Changes.” Discourse, 1985. (Class Printout)

Tesis (dir. Alejandro Amenabar, Spain 1996)

What is it about violence that intrigues us so much?  Do we really have this uncontrollable, innate urge to see things that we know we shouldn’t be seeing?  These kinds of questions are visited in Alejandro Amenabar’s film Tesis.  My gut reaction while viewing this film was that I really didn’t want to seem interested in what I was watching but still I really wanted to know what was going on.  I think it stems from a natural curiosity that lives in the human psyche.  Even though we cringe at the sight, or even at the thought of something violent happening, we still want to watch.  We even want to see more.
I can say that from personal experiences, violence has always intrigued me, even though I know that there is something wrong about it.  I think I realized it more after I saw Tesis.  This is because I knew the subject matter was very questionable and atrocious, but I always found myself wanting to see what would happen next and whom it would happen to.
Amenabar’s film is centered on a film school and focuses on Angela, who is working on her senior thesis.  Her final project is a thesis on violence on television and film and how it affects the audience.  Once Angela confronts her counselor about the project it is approved, but with much skepticism.  Everyone is wondering what her interest in such material came from.  Her choice of topic partners her up with a fellow student named Chema.  Their relationship is a very odd one, I would pin it as a love-hate type of relationship.  In the film, Angela winds up getting her hands on a tape that she should have never seen and this tape becomes the catalyst for a series of mysterious and gruesome events.  Angela and Chema become involved in something that they should have never even known about.
The tape they come across is a snuff video.  The first encounter we have with the footage of the video is on Angela’s home television set, where we see her sitting in front of the set with no video being projected.  The only thing coming out of the television is the cries of torture of a young lady.  When she finally watches the video it is with Chema, who owns a big collection of violent videos and has been desensitized to the violence.  After viewing the video, they become infatuated with discovering the identity of the killer.   Angela researches the deceased girl and also the camera used to film the snuff video.  In her search she comes across a charming man named Bosco.  She is intrigued by his eyes and also knowing that he may well be the killer.
I think that seeing this film made me uncomfortable because I didn’t know how to react to the acts of violence while surrounded by a class full of people.  It was at the same time comfortable because you realize that everyone in the room is probably feeling the same way.  Having the film projected on the screen also made it more dramatic.  I don’t think that if I had watched Tesis at home on my small television it would have had the same dramatic impact on me as it did.
As the film unfolds, Amenabar successfully plots out a great “who done it”.  There are so many ways to look and so many possibilities that as a viewer you get sucked into the confusion and deceit that Angela has become sucked into.  As she suspected, though, Bosco is the infamous killer from the snuff video she found, as well as a whole collection of them found in secret vaults hidden in the school’s archives.
Knowing what she did, though, almost cost Angela her life.  Not only once, but twice.  When we finally reach the end of the film, we see Chema in his hospital bed accompanied by two other patients in the room.  When the story is on the news, it is all the other two old patients want to see.  The anticipation of the snuff video footage on the news is felt throughout the hospital and as we see Angela and Chema leave the hospital we see all the patients glued to their televisions as the news anchor warns them about what they are going to see.
This final scene goes to show that no matter how gory or bloody or violent something is, people are always going to be curious of what it is and how it happens.  After seeing this film I started to realize my own anticipation of violence as I watched television and movies.  As a whole, the film was a wonderful exploration of the human mind and also a very well developed story.  I was intrigued from the beginning till the end.  In conclusion, Amenabar’s film was successful in bringing the audience into a subject that people aren’t really exposed to, whether they’ve seen snuff and don’t think it’s real, or whether they just believe it to be a myth that doesn’t event exist.

Pixote (dir. Hector Babenco, Brazil 1981)

In Pixote, directed by Hector Babenco, a story about poverty, crime, and corruption is unfolded.  The film successfully portrays the hardships of young children in Sao Paolo who are being exploited by adults and made to commit crimes because they cannot be put through the penal system.

The film is a documentation of sorts that centers around a young boy named Pixote, who was portrayed by an actual member of Sao Paolo’s young community.    The story is about the compromising of people’s characters and their search to find a place inside of themselves that makes sense.  This is mainly because all their lives , Pixote and his friends have been used and told what to do and when it becomes time for them to make their own decisions they do only what they’ve grown up knowing.  They use crime as a means of living.  Most of these kids don’t even know where they came from or where they belong.

As a result of their crimes, they wind up in an institution that is supposed to help these children become good citizens by the time they turn 18 years old.  The audience sees right away that the institution is no better than the streets.  In a place that is supposed to better for them, they are even more afraid than they are when in the streets.  We see the hierarchy of people very clearly through the walls of the institution and also see the corruption in the eyes of the people who run it.  I clearly recognized that only the strongest kids survive and the weaker ones become prey.  This is evident in one of the early scenes where a young boy is brutally raped to death by an older and stronger boy.

In another scene we see Fumaca, a friend of Pixote, beaten to death and killed.  The officials then pin it on another boy who happened to be one of  Fumaca’s best friends.  In trying to clear his name, he holds a knife and threatens the man who runs the institution.  He is then beaten and unsuccessfully sneaked back into the dormitory.  Lilica, a gay man, sees what is going on and starts to yell and comfort his friend, who he was also in love with.  The boy dies in Lilica’s arms.

There are personal struggles going on in these boys’ lives which are so evident in the film that they cannot be overlooked.  Lilica is just stuck in the middle of nowhere and in a need for love that will brighten him and make him feel alive.  He believes he found that in Dito, but he realizes that he was wrong and leaves Dito and Pixote behind with Sueli.  Sueli, a prostitute that they live with towards the end of the film, begins to fall in love with Dito, but only realizes it after he is accidentally shot by Pixote.  Sueli’s only motive in life is to keep working so she can survive.  Her biggest fear is pregnancy.

Survival is what she and Pixote hold in common.  His struggle is for survival and feeling loved by his mother who he cannot find and who he believes doesn’t want him.  He finds a mother figure in Sueli, who for a better part of the film is like a surrogate mother to him.  At the end of the film, when Pixote is holding on to Sueli, I think this is just a way of him saying that all he wants is to live like a child and that he cannot take all the things that he has seen and been through.  He shows this because even though he knows he can make love to her if he wanted, he does nothing but suckle her.  Sueli wasn’t able to understand this and kicks Pixote out of the house.  His journey keeps on going at the end of the film.  When it closes all we see is Pixote walking alongside a seemingly endless railroad track.

*The film’s star Fernando Ramos da Silva (Pixote) was killed in 1987 during a police shoot out*