You are on page 1of 108

c i neACTION'I

A MAGAZINE OF RADICAL FILM CRITICISM & THEORY


W
Double Issue
N08. 3/4

w,,,,§3;gg
CIneActlon|
Double Issue
Nos. 3/4, January 1 986
Editorial Collective
:\Lll'L'\A
Bryan Bruce
liniiim
Semi I'\II'5)ll\
:\l\Il\UlI)' Il'\Ht\
Contents
l‘lnrcnct- Jildtlhtivdll Editorial Page I
Maureen Judge ROBIN WOOD
Richard Lippi:
$u~an ,\l<irn\un
l.nri Spring In Defense of Criticism Page 3
Rubin \\‘mid ANDREW BRITTON

Editors for this lssue Notes for a Reading of I Walked Willi A Zombie Page 6
ROBIN WOOD
:\t\tIfi.'\\ Britt-in
Ruht \\'tmd
Feminist Film Theory and Social Reality Page Zl
_ _ FLORENCE JACOBOWITZ
Dt .\'tti.\ Stuart Ru»
l ~\YUl‘l M I’.'\§II -l'l' Ilryzin Ilrtice Cries and Wliisperx Reconsidered Page 32
Stuart Russ VARDA BURSTYN
H l'l SI’ I'I l’\'ti I‘.!\I;lllI'Illf Publicatitim
Gender and Destiny: George Cukor's A S iar I: Born Page 46
PRIN I |Nt;. Delta \\’uh Graphics RICHARD LIPPE
Siilli i-uum-.i r of I/It’
rmmriu I'll!" Ininiiuv The Other Dream: The Year of Living Dangerously Page 58
Milli /nun I Walked With a Zunihic LORI SPRING
pliumgm/ihi'1Ilii' I.iiri S]I!‘l!|_t{
Hitchcock's Spellbound: Text and Counter-Text Page 72
( 'im'.~tt'liun.' I: Pl.lblI§hk'\I qtiarterly by the ANDREW BRITTON
('inc.~\ctiiin! cullcctivc. Single copy price l>
S.\.50; double l>.\'llL'§ $7.00; hllhMIl’lPIl(I.\ are Inventing Paradox: Celine and Julie Go Boaling Page 84
availahlv: for four I§§LlL'> for S1100
JANINE MARCHESSAULT
llHLIl\'ldULll>) and $25.UU(lII§lllllll0n>]l
abroad. £lLlLl $2.00.
Capital at Play: Form in Popular Film Page 9|
Mailing address; SCOTT FORSYTH
( ‘invd rlum.’
44] Alt-xundcr St., Apt. 7115 Neglected Film of the '80s: Foxes Page 98
lurnntu. Ontario BRYAN BRUCE
M-H’ H35 Canada
A Brief Critique of Pop Criticism Page I03
Mtinuutrtplx l)p\‘\l. mlitubltt-\[‘l.l\.'\'\|l Jnf \A¢IL‘\Ill\t'\.|.
1
BRYAN BRUCE
they \h~\u|i.| he -l\IL'tlIII[Ll|ItL'\.I I1) .i vlutnpcd, ~ell-
>lL|\!IC\\CLI return cnvelupc. IItt' cditiin do tint
.ie¢t~pi IC\pl)l'\\lhIIll) |\lII|1L'|KlU\\.

the \\]'llI1ltIIl\ L‘\p"-'\\l:d in mdiiidual artieln -Ill’ n-ii F rant cover: Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerouxly.
ncezwrily entliined h_\ the Ctlthllltll \.'ul|Ku'lI\c.

All JfIltiIt\ \'lYlIltllI\td lien-in an: cup;-riglii ‘


Januar§ um by ('im-.*Iiiiiiri' and mu) nut be
n.-pmdut-ed thllltnlll pCl’IIll\\llIII

I$$N 07416-97466
Second L‘|.h§ prndlng.
I'rintt'd and bnund in ('.|n;iil.i

This dnuhle issue was made possible by a


grant from the Explorations programme of
the Czinzida Council for the Arts.

LA
John Travolta De Palma's Blow Out.

editorial
IT IS ALMOST 25 YEARS since Movie Touch Qf Evil, in the work of Raymond Bellour)
introduced the practice of close reading (derived close readings that are in some respects ‘closer‘
from a movement in literary criticism) into than anything even dreamed of in the early days
English-language lm criticism. Much has of Movie: more precise, more detailed, more
intervened since (semiotics, structuralism, the rigorous, more ’scientic'—pr0dIJCl$. 00¢ mighl
appropriation of psychoanalytic theory). and the say, not only of a critical movement but of the
activity of close analysis has been partly age of the moviola (and now the VCR). Yet,
transformed, partly abandoned. The structuralist exemplary as these are in certain ways, they leave
tradition has given us (in Roland Barthes‘ S/Z. some of us unsatised and, to a degree, sceptical
in Stephen Heath's massive examination of of the claims made for them. The development ol

Winter ‘B6 CineAction! I


a ‘scientic’ approach was absolutely necessary opposed in every eld and on every level, if our
within a certain phase of the wider development Civililifl (nd P¢l'hP§ IP16 human race) is to
of aesthetics: one had to see how far it could be survive; that any hope for the future lies in the
pushed, how much (and what kind of things) it development of leftist positions, especially the

tha
would reveal, what would prove to be its limits. multiple forms of feminism and
Many of u_s (not only among the Cine/lotion! Marxism/socialism; that, in the present cultural
cBTlective) now feel been climate, any criticism that is not political is
reached (we may of course be proven wrong). ln irrevelant.
any caie, the texts in question were very few—a At the same time (and here I believe I speak
mere handful.Ihe structuralist tradition is for all of us), I would wish to dissociate Cine-
primarily characterized by its proliferation of Action! from the trap of any simplistic notions
‘theory,’ which has become ever more abstruse of, or attitudes to, the ideologically ‘correct.’
and academic; many feel that, v_v_iLh _tl1e_ad_vent of Films are products of a cultural situation and
‘deconstruction,’ it has reached its (dead) end, or dramatize (with widely varying degrees of
at least an impasse. awareness and intelligence) the conicts and
T The kinds of close reading undertaken in the tensions within that situation. To ‘read' a ‘text,’

wm
gen
original Movie of the '60s seem to me to then, is to attempt to sort out the various,
manifest various shortcomings, very much of perhaps contradictory, impulses, inuences,
their time. There was, rst, the evasive attitude determinants, that have contributed to its
to evaluaticthe construction. The richness of a work of art, and
that the the kinds of illumination and pleasure we derive
business ofinterpretation was to describeias from it, may lie as much in its internal tensions,
‘accurately as possible, leaving value-judgements its confusions, in what it tells us inadvertently
_'democf5ticaTlT tote reader (a myth, of course: (perhaps while meaning to say the opposite), as
every descriptlorrnplies evaluation, however in any extractable unambiguous ‘statement.‘ A
Tsurreptitiously). But there was also grave doubt lm like 77re Deer Hunter (which has been widely
(tn which l must include myself) as to the basis perceived as a ‘right wing‘ movie) seems to me of
on which evaluations could validly be made; to far greater value than many works offering
put this another way, the early Movie had no ‘messages‘ that l might regard as politically
explicit political commitment (and rather prided ‘correct.’ An undertaking to ‘read the text‘
itself on the fact). These hiatuses were remedied involves an openness to the range and
in the post-I968 Movie (in my opinion very complexity of meanings by which a text of any
impressively, especially in the work of Andrew distinction is likely to be structured.
Britton and Richard Dyer, which thoroughly
transformed the tone, tendency and function of Robln WOOd
the magazine); but Movie since the early '70s has
been beset by increasing difculties and now
appears only intermittently.
I (it is necessary that l use the rst person
singular, as l am not certain that l speak for an
entire collective that is anything but monolithic)
see Cine/ction! as developing the critical
tradition I have described in Movie: hence the
decision to devote almost an entire double issue
to close readings of lms. What crucially
distinguishes this enterprise from the original
Movie is our politicization. Our specic interests
vary widely, as do the specics of our political
commitments. Yet we all share certain basic
} beliefs that unify us as a group: that the
dominant movement of our culture must be

I ClneActlon! Winter '86


In Defense
of Criticism
by Andrew Btton theory are not served by nding in are in fact innocent of all politics:
every ‘realist’ text a conrmation of and asa result the language of social-
T IS NOWADAYS THE the Lacanian (or Foucaultvian, or ism has been conscripted for service
case, perhaps, that the word Derridean—-orwhatever)‘proble- in the realm of manners and polite
‘criticism‘ tends to sound matic,‘ or by proselytising for the good form. It has been reduced, in
recherché—to suggest nostalgia for mass-production of ‘modernist' fact, to a sign—a sign that one is
the days before lm studies became texts which atter the presupposi- familiar with the forms and keepings
intellectually strenuous. A few years tions embodied in the attack on real- of a fashionable academic world in
ago it passed as a commonplace in ism. Characteristically, and deplor- which such idioms are common cur-
advanced circles that criticism ought ably, such theory reduces the objects rency but which issues, nevertheless,
tobe and might become, ‘scientic ‘ it purports to theorise to mere pre- into that public world where the
and the older word evoked in itseif texts for rationalising the validity of major struggles ofourtime are being
the morass of impressionism and itsownpremises,and makesavirtue fought out.
ernpirictism frolrn vi/gicah the disculs- sf is refusalof all cognitive controils hlt is inTthe nature of fiilgions :10

ion 0 art s ou e prompt y y enouncing any concern ort e c ange. en years ago, ore t e
rescued. Today, a new set of dis- material integrity of the text as ripples of I968 had subsided, it was
coursesadjureusnottocriticise,but ‘empiricism.' necessary for advocates of the
to ‘deconstruct'—and deconstruc- \ Allintellectual fashions have their Lacanian theory of subjectivity to
tion, whether or not it is properly slogan, and the proposition that qualify the phrase with the adjective
scientic,certainly suggests an activ- 'theoryconstnicts its objects,‘ seduc- ‘materialisl‘—for at that stage one
ity at once more bracing and more tive and comforting as it is, is now was committed. if Om? W85 C0mmil-
pgecife than aéiy in \l!li]‘liCh the sgidrelnt part of the thinkinglliterary person's ted at all,hto the project gf articulati
o cu turetra itiona yengage . e common sense. is proposition, ing psyc oana ysis wit istonca
new vocabularies are awesome—at when it is not a truism, is little more materialism. A few years lalehwhe
any rate, they have attracted a good than a self-serving scholastic ction the irreducible economism and class-
reductionism of Marx's thought had

'
deal of publicity: and it is corres- and a licence for intellectual irre-
pondingly necessary, if one thinks sponsibility, and that conception of become clearer and historical mate-
the concept of criticism woi1h reviv- theory is illegitimate in which the rialism had been superccded by
ing, to undertake to be as clear as necessarily creative and formative Foucault's theory of Power, the
pt;s_si:le aboutl the_ intention with nature ofdiscpurse is u:dei;‘stood as adjgctive _wasJu:erfluo::, etéen
w ic one emp oys it. a means o reeing t e t eory in em arrassing. a it not en is-
No lm theory is worth anything question from the elementary critical covered that Marx was befuddled by
which doesnot stayclose to the ccm- obligation of demonstrating its own the most vulgar realist epistemology,
_c_ijete and which does notstTive'§§i- fpertinence. Such theory is anti- and had not Foucault asserted that
tjnually to check its own assump- \theoretical, anda betrayal of the marxism led to the Qulag archi-
pelago? Clearly, materialism would
!i2l!5..8miJ)L9£gd_tlL€s_in1elatto1Lm
producible ' texts. Much of what has
assed for fm theory in the last
f function of cnticism.
lt isi aso
l possi‘bl e to regret t h e
abusive, trivialising misappropria-
h ave t o go .
Politics, in lm studies, ought to
_dg__A%i_______|_ Ea Ele for tion of political—in particular, of be more than a matter of esoteric
its
' so l'ipsistic an o por t unis ic marxist and feminist—idioms for vocabularies that are useful while
’ c E arac t er, an d it is cur io u sthatdis- which structuralist and p ost-
structuralist lm theory have been
the y ha ppe ntobe‘in‘ but which can
be discarded as soon as they happen
Eir‘ses—which arraign ‘representa-
tion‘ and ‘realism‘ on the ground responsible,and of which the banali- to go ‘out.’ Marxism is a politics-
that they serve in essence to natura- sation ofthe word ‘materialist‘(as in not just another academic
lise a bourgeois world-view should ‘materialist film practice‘) is repre- hermeneutic.
be committed also to methods of sentative. Theeffect in general of this lt is now, and has for some time
analysis which are programmed to usage, whatever the intentions of been, apparent that the claims once
produce exactly the conclusions specific users (often, doubtless, made for the signicance and intel-
which the reader is presumed to hold 'good‘), has been to give a spurious ligibility of the successive structural-
K in the rst place. Theinterests of lm political gloss to discourses which isms as ‘critical theory‘ were exorbi-

Winter '66 CineActlonl 3


tant. Amongst other tests, duced‘ by this method has always indeed, of the Old Pretenders who i

Sebastiano Timpanaro's On Mate- been exhausted in advance and can- continue to voice their tired and
rialism, the volumes from the Har- not but serve to authenticate the dis- importunate claims against the new
vester Press on Issues in Marxist Phi- course which articulates it. lt is quite regime.
Iosophy, Fredric Jameson's The inconceivable that the text might tell The cachet of the sophisticated
Prison-House of Language, the creativelywhe assumptions of the form of academic agnosticism which
polemicsagainst/\lthusserby Simon critic. During the structuralist hey- deconstruction is,isvery understand-
Clarke and Edward Thompson and day it was hardly necessary for the able. Even at its most recondite and
P;rry Anderson's essay; In the Tracks critic to be able to read, or even to abstruse there was still, perhaps;
n Historical Maleria ism have all ake a lausible show of doing so. something unengaging ypo itica
made memorable contributions to (/21/he wag required instead to be an about the Lacanianised materialism
the necessary demolition work, from iexpert (at least, for the purposes of which ourished in the early '70s-
awide variety of socialist positions.‘ social solidarit ) in structural lin- something which intimated, in how-
While Terry Lovell‘s book Pictures guistics, structiiiral psychoanalysis, ever gesturaland paradoxicalaway,

r
,

afReali'ty2 has performed the valua- I marxist theory (selected),the history of the necessary interconnection
ble servize of introducing some of of philosophy (abridged), even the b_eLween_thgQncerns of aesthetic
these critiques for readers whose higher branches of mathematics: and theory gdjjfe; lt may well be that
main concem can be assumed to be ‘ expertise consisted not in the capac- fe unfortunate combination of
the politics of culture, it can hardly ity to ras the relevance of these arbitrariness and dogmatism which
be claimed that lm theory has yet disciplhies gnd to put them to rst- marked the political rhetoric of the
begun to take stock of, or even posi- hand use, but in one‘s readiness to Lacan period has had the effect of
tively to acknowledge, the radical apply the orthodox formulae to conrming the academic‘s constitu-
challenge to the assumptions on iwhatever object that offered. lt was tional timidity about getting mixed
which, throughout the '70s, the lm tantamount to exposing oneself as up with politics in the rst place,and
theory worth engaging with was an empiricist or (worse) a Leavisite the mandarin features of the earlier
based. lt is clearly signicant that to admit to an addiction to close projectunmistakably point forward,
Lovell‘s book, for all its limitations "readin or to maintain that a text's in any case, to what has replaced it;
an important one, has had no visible relatioh to the ideologies implicit in but it would not be proper merely to
effect or influence-it has been, in its own modes and conventions conate the kind of thing that used
fact, disgracefully ignored—and if could only be determined by an to be found in Screen with the indis-

p] ,
analysis of the text. criminate ‘deconstructions' of the

hi
force inertly reflects the passing of
the stmcgr t,' nothing
:)fdV|:€ fhlas e?erged to replace it.
“ It has distinct bearings for theory artifacts, major and marginal,of the
that texts should be read closely,and Western tradition which now grace
to the extent that theory impedes or the pages of innumerable scholarly
n ee , im t eory seems now to disc urages close reading, or sur- journals.
proceed on the assumption that renders it to contingency, theory Decongtrugtionism is the exem-
nothing which need concem us has disqualies itself for the use of the
really happened, or that honour is theorist of lm. EH5 the
§"m°i="ll¥ 5°"/°d- °\’ fa" 53‘/ed. by Of COUFSCS d¢C0$ll'l1¢li0i5m. the 2 lst century, should we reach it,
hole-and-cornerintellectualexpe- which—things being what they ean be expeeted to have 3 word or
diency.The need forac0herent,sys- are—has found a natural home in wo to say about the coincidence
tematic film theory—a political the university,offers£l_ose_re_3dingof between the rige of Derrida as the
priority until so recently—has been a kind,tho_ugh_i_Th])gssible to dliiht presiding deity of the literature
studiously forgotten. that t-kind is the'rig_hYohe‘.'H'5w- department and the |e55 specialised
lf, in such a context, one feels the t/él:.'Af5\’W liiie iYi6aé?l'iIS¢d. SW8§h- political ethos of the Reagan era. No
need to stress the word ‘criticism,’ it buckling literary academic it is the one will dispute that there is pleasure
is because the structuralist record in indilcd idivm. and lh0§¢ Wilh 811 to be derived from the conviction
the performance of the critical func- eye to the right journals can hardly that all totalisations (that is,all polit-
tion has been, on the whole, a poor afford not to cultivate it. The univer— ical positions) are Ese. and for the
one. The fact, given what structural- sity presses desperately compete in critic who wishE_'_to nourish such a
ism is, hardly provokes surprise: "it the manufacture ofDerridean prose. Qiviction without invitin the
is in the last resort immaterial," for and only the most indefatigable dt§id_fy'epithet 'liberal,‘ the new dis-
Lévi-Strauss (who is in this respect labor amongst the groaning library coiugrsejifh its air of astringent
perfectly representative), “whether shelves would make it possible to _r'n'oclei-Aniiiy, combines two 9_b_vio_us
the thought processes of the South take cognizance of the ‘state of the _s_oF'ce_s_r>fcTit.”’
American Indians take shape art‘ or to pronounce with a measure '_'E__]g_alas, the critic is committed to
through the medium of my thought, of condence on whether it is or is gqtalise. S/he will do so in any case,
orwhether mine takes place through not legitimate for the deconstnic- in that s/he uses language, and the
‘theirs?’ Whether ‘closed’ or ‘open,‘ tionist to adhere to materialism, idea than any discourse can abdicate
‘realist’ or ‘modemist,' the text ‘pro- Freudianism, feminism—to any, from politics is an illusion.

4 ClneAct|on! Winter '66


The business of theory and the I enforcement of some aesthetic ‘line’ canoe for theory and practice alike.
business of criticism cannot, in prac- or orthodoxy. The grounds for being lt is necessary to plan for radical
tice, be hived o' from one another, opposed, on principle, to the notion interventions in a culture which
and the cost of an attempt to do so is of a socialist orthodoxy in aesthetics extends beyond the Academy and its
one of the fundamental lessons of were classically expounded, half a associated institutions, and it is if
the structuralist/post-structuralist century ago, by Trotsky‘, and only important to make judgments
phase. The cost is measured in aca- the conservative or (it amounts to about, and discriminations within,
demicism of the worst kind— the same thing) the critic withastake the various complex traditions of
narcissistic, pedantic, introverted, in the notion of critical ‘impartiality’ popular narrative lm-making that
self-perpetuating,apolitical. Ob- will maintain that political convic- is because they have creative impli-
viously, there can be no criticism tion and responsibility are syn- cations for progressive work in lm-
without theory, but it is equally the onymous with monolithic intran- making and lm studies in the pres-
case that there can be no viable sigence. ent. The mapping of this enormous
theory without a viable sense of the “The conditions of protable and eld, indeed, has barely begun, and
nature of the critical function. The- progressive intervention": the critic many of the guides that are most
ory, for the critic, is—or ought to for whom these are of interest will be often handled and most widely pub-
be—the discoveries of relevant criti- centrally concerned with popular licised are seriously defective.
cism expressed as principle,and crit- culture. This interest is continuous, "Hie '80s of Rambo and Je Voux
icism is at once the practice and the for me, with the belief that the Salue, Marie (to take two obviously
critique of theory, where ‘practice’ advanced views on representational- representative works) are not a crea-
consists in the attempt to dene the ism are. for all purposes of theory, tive period, and the diculties of a
value of objects whose signicance criticism and practice, false, and contemporary lm criticism follow
cannot be construed in advance. that,whatever mayberetrieved from from this: the contemporary world
Unless the critic understands what them and put to other uses, their cinema is remarkable fortheabsence
the aims and conditions ofthis prac- basic assumptions are dangerously of significant development and
tice are, s/he will not come up with misleading. They act as an impedi- innovation, and it would be difcult
any principles worth having: they ment to signicant theory; to the to come up with even a handful of
will have no intelligible connection reading, in their specicity, of par- lms from thecurrent yearwhich are
with the kinds of activity in which ticulartexts;andtoconstructive pol- even of minor interest.Thatcriticism
the critic actually engages. itical strategies in contemporary in itself cannot affect this situation is
T Criticism isthe systematic reading film-making. The opposition be- obvious, but it is therefore all the
(that is. the evaluation)oftexts, Like tween ‘realism‘ and ‘modemism,‘ more necessary to attempt to main-
'all other activities, it takes place in between the ‘closed‘ and the ‘open' tain the sense of what an opposi-
the present. Like all other critical text, between the lm which con- tional lm culture is, or might be.
activities it presupposes a principled structs you as a subject and the lm The time, in fact, is ripe for a recon-
__attitude to the polities which con5ti- which does not is, as construed, sideration of the past and a revalua-
tute the present. The business of the
‘ entirely unacceptable, and it has had tion of methods and strategies now,
‘lm critic is to arrive at an under- the most disastrous consequences on the basis of a cogent radical
standing, on the basis of that for lm studies. position.
‘ attitude—which ought to be as alert The valorisation of the avant-
and as conscious as possible—of garde—the backing of a Straub/ Footnotes
whatisof value in the past and pres- Huillet or a Wollen/Mulvey or a
ent of the cinema and to ensure that Peter Gidal or a Berwick Street Col- i. On Materialism, London I976; Mephairi
this value is recognised for what it is,
| lective as representatives of the, or a, “"1 R“b‘"' '““" '7' M“""_-“ '_"""°~WP".v»
and has the influence it ought to progressive cinema—is not an intel- ml‘ "3'5"§_|‘." '979i7;';’f>'“""'”“"“
have, now. The critic's theory should
be seen in the light of this business
ligible political strategy, and it is leg-
itimate to be disturbed by the value
gm $§';ff,j, 0/“#21: T???
c|ark=¢i;i__9,,¢.pi,,,1,,]_,;,,,,,,1M,,,,,,;,,,,:
and in no other—for there is no which has often been attributed to Lvnd0t\l979;lIiIh¢ Ttrkrfivriwl
other test for the intellectual rele- such work. The theory which nds M""""""'- I-°"d°" 1953-
¢ance of theory. value of that kind here takes for 2. Lovell, London I980.
Criticism today, if it is to have any granted categories and political con- 1 The Raw M4,," Cooked London W69
substance at all, must be explicitly ditions which need to be challenged, p. I3-I5. ' '
'3ppositional: the critic's concern and it is necessary to reject the view 4‘ Limam" and Rnolulionv Michigan
with artistic value is a concem to according to which the popular |97i_
arrive at a sense of the conditions of cinema (or any cinema which can be
protable and progressive interven- vaguely construed as ‘realist‘) is an
tion in a dominant culture of daunt- object of urbane, ironical or diag-
ing banality and impoverishment. lt nostic scrutiny and the various
by no means follows from this that ‘avant-gardes,' imputed or actual,
‘one is committing oneself to the acquire a privileged political signi-
'/_(m_, “>4|l. _\_,._¢,|| 7,,” ,1-. ¢-dillfch .ofrL
WlnterB6 ClneActloril U
6» t'\1eov\.-i';!»~¢ 504- ¢>f’ \-lamb J/sf Iaw e-
c¢-“'2 of ‘ ?
<.a'r.l.'»~.
4~
Notes for a Reading of
I Walked With a Zombie

Segment 39b. Betsy and the ‘Isle of the Dead,’

Q Ci nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn B6

»
by Robin Wood
ITH THIS, THE THIRD ISSUE OF CIN£- beyond the point of saturation) with Barthes‘ work can of
Aclionl, it is becoming clearer that the magazine's course skip, though they may wish to check up on my (mis)re-
position is in certain respects uneasy and proble- presentation of this distinguished and important gure.
matic. We want on the one hand to remain accessible--or at
least relatively so (we don't write for people who just want tn S/Z
be entertained). On the other. we want seriously, and we hope
formidably, to challenge the current theoretical hegemony. the HE MAIN BODY OF S/Z CONSISTS OF A READ-
structuralist/semiotic/Lacanian school. It doesn't take much ing of Balzac's novella Sarmrine. One should rst dis-
reeetion to realize how difcult it is to do both. Yet the two tinguish between ‘reading‘ and the more traditional
undertakings are also interdependent: our prime objection to ‘critical interpretation.‘ The latter usually starts from the crit-
the Lacanian school is its apparently relentless inaccessibility, ic's sense of what the work in question is, what it is about, what
and our sense that it has lost whatever political thrust it once it does. and the interpretation will aim to establish the work's
had by becoming increasingly hermetic, self-involved. ‘aca- &ht:lgnee (or criticize its failures to become coherent F, sup-
Gemic‘ in the worst sense. This necessitates a third undenak- ported Fy quotations of what are regarded as particularly
ing, introducing funher problems: to rescue from the stmctu- signicant passages. A reading, on the other hand, attempts to
ralists (they might prefer ‘steal‘)those concepts and aspects o|' account for lvcqthingltd will be more concerned with
their methodology that we value, and try at once to incorpo- p5>ces§(the work of construction)tl_tart!i_th establishingg
rate them in an altemative system and render them compre- del'trlvg,_cgllere_rLt gteaning. (There is of course no guarantee
hensible to intelligent readers who have resisted the structuraI- Tlt a reading will not also start from the critic's sense of
Qst hegemony. ‘what the work in question is.‘) The reading of Bal1ac‘s
’ I believe myself that structuralism has revolutionized the 33-page novella occupies 200 pages (not counting the intro-
analysis-—‘reading‘—oflms:simply to ignore the movement ductory material and the appendices), and every word of
is automatically to render oneself obsolete. To be over- Balzae‘s text is quoted and annotated in the form of‘lexias‘ or
whelmed by it, on the other hand. is (as so many cases have units of reading. Barthes attributes to the classical narrative a
demonstrated) to lose one‘s own voice and much of one‘s ‘limited plurality,‘ and seeks todemonstrate thisin his reading
potential audience by adopting a convoluted jargon that fre- of Sarrasine. On one level I nd this misleading: what nally
quently has to be translated back into English before it reveals emerges from the reading is as coherent an overall sense ofthe
its(often quite simple) meaning.‘ (lncertain extremist strui:tur- novella as any ‘traditional' interpretation would be likely to
alist/Marxist circles, the desire to preserve one‘s own voice produce,largely free from theinternalconictsand contradic-
will be instantly suspect; but I think we need not take very tions that the promise of a ‘limited plurality‘ might seem to
seriously a Marxism that has neither place nor respect for suggest. S/Z has been widely held to mark a decisive and
individual utterance, and no theorization of its—l was going irreparable break with traditional notions of interpretation; it
no write 'validity‘—net'esril_i'. It is precisely when Marxism ecms to me that it can just as easily be regarded as demon-
rejects all intercourse with humanism that it becomes danger- strating its continuity and compatibility with them. What S/Z
_ous). I want in this article to appropriate certain concepts and uncovers is not so much a plurality of meanings as the intricate
procedures from the work of Roland Barthes. Strict semioti- and multi-layered nature of the activity of reading itself. Here

am to ning
cians will frown upon the appropriation, complaining that I
the procedures from their original
ends, diluting them, and assimilating them into a more tradi-
e adoption of the word ‘text‘ for any art work (book. lm,
painting, piece of music) is important. ‘Text' suggests ‘texture,’
and a texture is composed of many intenneaving strands. The
tional aesthetic. But no text, no concept, no procedure is analogy with weaving has a further implication, that of an
sacrosanct: the critic has the right to appropriate whatever intricate cohereneeza texture that did not cohere would simply
s/he needs from wherever it can be found, and use it for disintegrate.
purposes perhaps somewhat different from the original ones.
And if I, to some degree, transform Barthes. it is at least Th6 F|V9 COCIGB
equally true that Barthes transforms me: it is impossible to
adopt his methodology, in however modied a form, without N HIS READING OF S/IRRASINE, BARTHES DIS-
simultaneously modifying (and extendirig)one‘s own. covers that the entire novella is constructed (woven)
Thetext thatinterests me here is S/Z.This is farfrom being according to the operation of ve ‘codes‘: . . there

the rst attempt to apply the ‘codes of realist narrative‘ to the will be no other codes throughout the story but these ve, and
reading ofa lm? l lay no claim to originality, but neither am I each and every lexia will fall under one ofthese ve codes." (In
merely imitating: both my method and my results are to some fact. most of the lexias tum out to fall under several simul-
degree idiosyncratic. I shall preface the reading of I Walked taneously. and this will also be the case with I Walked with a
with a Zombie (Lewton/Tourneur, I943) with my own Zombie.)Though Barthes doesn't actually say this, the impli-
account of what have come to be known as ‘the Barthes codes‘ cation appears to be that all classical narratives are structured
(though they were his discovery rather than his invention) in upon these ve codes and only these. I have accepted this
the hope ofrendering them and the reading accessible to those assumption in my reading on the lm, but I think the accep-
who have not read S/Z(and in the further hope ofmakingthe tanee should only be provisional. As I shall show, there are
book more accessible too). Those already familiar (perhaps important differences in function and status among the ve

Winter 86 Cinetctionl 7
g codes (so extreme in the case of one that it seems scarcely to
belong with the other four, and some altemative form of
categorization may prove desirable). lt also seems uncertain
that the ve in themselves account for all the possibilities of
classical narrative: the case, for instance, of narratives within
encompassing the entire stnicture. For example, a novel might
begin withaship leaving Southampton and end with it dock-
ing in New York: the dominant action would the be ‘trans-
Atlantic voyage.‘ In between the departure and the docking,
however, we shall be led through the narrative by a continu-
ous, often overlapping, series ofsubordinate actions: A and B
narratives_ where the ‘truth‘ ofthe internal narrative may be in
question, produces problems that cannot be easily resolved will fall in love, C will be murdered, D will be unmasked as an
within the Barthesian methodology (Ophuls‘ Letter from an enemy agent, the captain will go insane, a giant man-eating
I
Unknown Woman offers an extreme example, Walked with a spider will be discovered in the boiler-room . . . . The typical
mbie a minor one). l miss panicularly the inclusion of an dominant action of classical narrative (linking War and Peace
atttharialcode, that would allow for the annotation of all those to The Sure Thing) is the construction of the ‘good’ or ‘normal‘
points (so important a feature of the ‘pleasure of the text‘) heterosexual couple(it islikely that, in ourhypothetical novel,
where we recognize an author's imprint (whether thematic or this will coincide with the end of the voyage, after all the
stylistic): Barthes was ofcourse committed to a view of art that threats have been systematically eliminated).
virtually obliterates the notion of individual authorship, so the The opening shot of Letter from an Unknown Woman offers
omission is understandable if not excusable. us two actions (one shown visually, the other introduced in the
The clearest way to elucidate the codes is by means of dialogue): the arrival home,the duel. The latter is indeed the
examples. l have chosen to concoct my own sentence (to be dominant action of the lm—it has not even been concluded
imagined as the opening of either a story or a chapter of a at the end, though we know by then what its outcome will be.
novel), not because it is beautiful prose but because l can The former is the rst small, nite action in a proairetic
ensure that it exemplies all ve of the codes: chain—arrival home, preparations for departure, interrup-
The day of ‘he picnic "waned by Max WM his "ma, tion, reading the letter—which will guide us through the lm.
_vauthful¢-agerness. began under the aiupice: ofPhoe— Z Z.The Hermeneutic code (from the Greek for ‘enigmas'): the
bur, but little did he guess in what darkness it would proposal, development and eventual resolution of puzzles,
end questions, mysteries. ln my sentence, “little did he know . .

As a transition to lm, l shall take as second instance the tnmcdiamy pmsqns an enigma‘ providing the read" Wm‘
nowledge to which poor, eager, unsuspecting Max does not
opening shot ._of Letter from an Unlinawn Woman, chosen
.
h
ave access, but not too much knowledge. we know that
. .
because (a) it is probably familiar to most readers and (b) it
. .
h. I Mr I W.“ h
. b l h_ H h ‘ 1
also happens to exemplify all ve ofthe codes very clearly and mm: mg Hi I
Z ' appcnr u W E d Thaw O..Wm
precisely.‘Here,then.arethevecodesofrealist(orclassical) (Per aps Ora un Rd-pages“? md omw 3" cpnwlcged
narrative site of the hermeneutic code is clearly the detective novel:
' someone is found murdered on page one, and 200 pages later
\ I. The Proairetic code (from the Greek for ‘actions‘): the code the great detective expounds the solution, unmasks the culprit.
that gives us the series of actions upon which the narrative is Again, we ndadominantenigma(‘Who done it'.")encompass-
constructed: in the above sentence,the action of“the picnic.“ ing the whole narrative, with a continual play of enigmas
lmmediately, we must face a possible objection from those (clues, mysterious utterances, anonymous letters, red
hitherto innocent of semiotics, an objection to the term herrings) interweaving throughout. But every classical narra-
‘code.’ Everyone knows that a narrative consists of actions tive plays on suspenseand curiosityto some degree. One might
and could not exist without them; every schoolchild can follow certainly argue that the proairetic code, every time an action is
the actions through a narrative. The term ‘code' implies the introduced,implies an enigma('What will happen?‘)automat-
work of decoding. and no such work is necessary here—we are ically. This shows how intimately the two codes are interre-
not idiots, thank you. The answer is. rst, that the act of lated, but it seems reasonable to follow Barthes in reserving
decoding is so long-ingrained and so familiar as to be entirely the hermeneutic code for the stronger and more explicit intro-
automatic, but, second, that such an act does indeed take duction and pursuit of specic enigmas. One might make the
place. My sentence does not merely convey the fact that a distinction by suggesting that, while actions are essential toa
picnic is to take place, it alerts us (because of our familiarity narrative, enigmas (in the strict sense) are not. and one might
with other narratives) to an implied process of narrative struc- construct a (very boring) narrative without any (“l went for a
ture: an account of the picnic will follow; it will occupy at the walk. l met a friend. We talked about the weather. We said
very least a paragraph, probably a chapter, perhaps several goodbye. l went home.").
chapters (or, if this is the beginning of a story, the entire TheLettershot is particularly rich inenigmas,all surround-
nat't'liv¢)2 "1! 3960""! Wi" Pwbabl)’ b¢ iubdlvisible ""0 ingtheaction of theduel: Whyisit beingfought'l—\Vhoisthe
numerous stages (preparations, departure, events on the way, °ppQ|'|gn['_7_wi|] swim |‘|;h;7__wi|| in be killggfl A|| 1|-.5;
choice of a site, events during the picnic, etc.): eventually we an m-|;w¢m1_ but not “mil lb; vq-y end Qf[hg lm. ,1“;-ing“;
shall be told what happened, the action will be concluded and C|Q§i,n8 minutes, This gives us another (almost) absolute prin-
(il "155 55 PB" Ora 11°‘/cl) Wm Si" 55¢ i" "IF" 1° °lh=f i¢li0I‘I§- ciple ofthe hermeneutic code: that,just asevery action must be
The proairetic code isindeedthe fundamental one on which concluded, so every enigma must be resolved. (l shall argue
the narrative edice is built: without actions even the most that it is one or the distinctions and eccentricities of Zombie
°|°|'"="l"Y "3"'i"lV= Wmlld b¢ imP°5§ib|° (Pf°Vid¢d W6 that one of its enigmas, a crucial one, is left disturbingly
understand ‘actions’ in the widest sense, to include for exam- un|*¢5Ql\/gd), w¢ may a|5¢ noliqg another wmmon feature of
|= 1|" 3" °l lhmklg °' 5l¢¢Pi"8)- whit" "W15 I0 b¢ §ll'¢$§=d the hermeneutic chain, that of apparent but false resolution (l
here is the intentveaving of actions in classical narrative: there ¢a]| it ‘b|Q¢king_‘ in pi-¢t'¢|-¢n¢¢ to mi; standard translation‘;
must be no hiatus, one action must be prepared as one is ‘jamming') in order further to postpone the tnie one: the
completed. Even if, as-in certain Victorian novels,the action is question as to whether Stefan will stay to ght the duel is
suspended while the author moralizes, the logical chain willbe apparently answered in the negative in the following scene
resumed as soon as the moralizing ceases. Usually, however (“Pack my things. . . . Enough foran indenite stay."). Typi-
longthework,there willbeadnminantaction overarchingand cally, this takes the form of a kind of teasing: if we really

I CineAction! Winter ‘B6


believed, beyond doubt, that we had already been given the something applied occasionally to a work like cherries on a
'tnie‘ solution, we might be tempted to close the book, walk cake but 3
major structuring piin_c_iple. He shows that the
out of the movie, then and there (compare Hitchcock‘s audac- symbolic structure of a work typically organizes itself in terms
ity, bitterly resented by many spectators, in supplying us with of oeeasitions. ln my sentence, the obviously ‘symbolic‘ use of
the true solution to Vertigo's dominant enigma. beyond any "darkness implies one of the fundamental symbolic oppos-
uncertainty, two-thirds of the way through the lm). in the tions of our culture: light/darkness, day/night, happinessl
example from Lem-r, we are not really convinced that the tragedy, good/evil. The Letter shot plays on much the same
lm's male protagonist, played by a prominent star, will not opposition: the night and min in which the lm opens will be
ght the duel. We shall encounter excellent examples of replaced in the precisely symmetrical last shot (the carriage
‘blocking‘ in Zombie (even in the opening credit-title shot). drives away from the same gates) by near-dawn and no-rain,
Clearly, the proairetic and hemieneutic codes belong expressing the lm's progress from confusion to enlighten-
together". they continually intenwine and supplement each ment, from the dominance of worldliness and corruption to
other, their joint task is to push, guide, lure us step by step the triumph of spirituality. The symbolic oppositions will not
through the narrative, always focusing our attention on the be arbitrary or haphazard: all will relate to all (though the
future (‘What will happen'Y') so that we read on; they are the relationship may be complex).
codes that ‘tell the story.‘ We can designate themasthe linear lt swiftly becomes clear that, just as the proairetic and
orliarizantalcodesn contradistinction from theotherthree). hermeneutic codes are more or less inextricably intercon-
i In the classical Hollywood cinema (and most post-classical) nected and interdependent, so too are the semantic and sym-
they are always dominant (audiences go to Hollywood movies bolic codes (and more rather than less). The themes of a work
‘for the story‘) and on the rare occasions when their domi- will inevitably be drawn into its pattern of oppositions
nance is challenged (Ha-ave-n‘: Gate) the work is considered (Hamlet‘s indecision against the promptness of Laertes, the
inept. They also represent the level at which the work of murderous ambition of the Macbeths against the loyalty of
producing and reading narratives is likely to be most fully Banquo and Macdufl): even within my sentence, Max‘s eager
conscious, on the part of both maker and viewer, and also, anticipation has its answer in the threat of disaster, and these
cnicially, on the part of the censorship (literal and symbolic, correspond to the symbolic opposition of day/night. In Letter,
external and intemal). Hence, in the classical Hollywood nar- Stefan's disillusioned decadence will be answered by Lisa's
iative, the tendency of the linear codes will almost always idealistic purity, and these are taken up in the rain/no-rain,
(there are very few exceptions) be ideologically conservative, night/near-dawn oppositions. One could of course equally
leading us, with endless repetition, towards the restoration of put it the other way around: the symbolic oppositions invaria-
the patriarchal-capitalist status quo (‘normality') and its bly have a thematic dimension. Consequently, in my reading
attendant value-system. (Critics and theorists who dismiss the of Zombie, l have not been too scrupulous about distinguish-
Hollywood cinema outright habitually reduce Hollywood ing these two codes: as a theme encounters its opposite l have
T
movies to the operation of the linear codes, ignoring the rest). tended to gather them into the symbolic code and to speak of
l

aractem,
spotiding roughly to what traditional aesthetics would call the rcmionshi . . ‘
_‘thematic' level of the n ' e. Barthes tells us that this is PO ""5 sm'.C'u.r= '0 the “mar s‘.mcwm produced
and reection proves ’l?yme rm!‘ dime P'°a'“.mc a.“d hcrmencullgcodcs can range
him correct (in Hamlet and Macbeth respectively, the themes mm I c s'mp.y suppomve (m our more F“ lmemani “a"a'
of indecision and ambition are clearly introduced and deve- "".s) w the mshly c°mp|.“'. In 5m"a]' the scmamm./5ym'
bolic structure of a work is likely to be far less accessible to
‘oped mm“-sh me prolagonisln In my '§¢mmcc' "awaited by consciousness (of the maker the viewer the censorshi P ) than
l hf l
Mai‘ “mh. h's.usl;d {gin ‘:1 rfage;?,is§nn5‘;'Cg£1=cs:sl:::cn_:‘::":::
- .
the progress of the linear code (‘the story‘). One can therefore
(or meanings )0 an pa 9 ‘yo ‘i h f at this stage posit the possibility that the two pairs
I of codes
may or may not prove tobeimportantint etota stmctureo d I h
the work, but which are here attached to what may be its main "Ea! C C op m a 5 . C ‘.3 permanm Elmo“ (per aps con '3'
- d iction) rat h er than in sim p le co-o pe ration or mutual su ppo rt.
characwn The Len” “amplc OW“ nl‘-Os‘ Obwousty ‘Sc ifhcmc I shall go on to declare that such is indeed the case with. large
ofde are e umin
rom som - . . . .

tuma‘l‘:llfl;lact‘it:(l::t';'i1‘f) a.mf),lattaciised especiall; tt;nSte(fai?€li:e ":mb"§ Pr d:“n§:;'sh°i Hallywoog lms‘ and ‘rh: ‘i. why
tog“ cm'cs‘.~ O.‘ luc C Hula‘ epmgresso l e ‘neat
j
has been over-indulging in cognac, hates getting up in the
moming, and is cynical about death and honor). We may C es an qum “mp y wrong‘
notice also, however, the theme of time (the clock, the men's 5.77ie Cul1uralcode(Barthes also calls it the code ofreference):
promise to retum at ve), which is nota part of the characteri- reference to shared, familiar knowledge within the culture,
ution but will be a major preoccupation of the narrative. suchasproverbs, common sayings, mythology, topical events,
There will of course be ‘meanings‘ that are merely transitory famous people. In my sentence, we have to know that Plioebus
and incidental, dropped as soon as introduced—‘meanings‘ is the Greek sun-god if we are to grasp the meaning. Barthes
that never become ‘themes,’ the dening characteristic of a acknowledges that in a sense all the codes are cultural: we have
theme being recurrence. We may say in general that the more to learn to read narratives, though the leaming took place so
frequently a theme recurs from lexia to lexia (perhaps in a early in our lives that the process has become entirely natural-
variety of forms and modes, from serious to comic. from ized. However, he retains the cultural code for the annotation
emphatic statement to glancing allusion) the more important of specic references. lt seems to me that this ‘code‘ does not
it will prove in the total structure. really belong with the other four, its function being entirely
different: they are structural codes, this is not (except in so far
f 4. The Symbolic code. We are all familiar with the notion of as the references are drawn into the semantic/symbolic struc-
symbolism. Barthes demonstrates very impressively (though turc, in which case they can be grouped under those codes).
the idea? scarcely new to criticism—see, for example, F.R. Analysis of the cultural code belongs, in fact, to a simpler
Leavis' concepts of ‘symbolic drama‘ and ‘dramatic poem‘; (though very important) stage in the development of semio-
extended to works of ction generally) that symbolism is not tics, that represented by Barthes‘ earlier Mytlinlngiesz the

L Wlnter '86 CIneActlon! O


exploration of a culture's ‘myths’ through its specic individ- by showing how the two examples l have used can be suc-
ual artifacts and practices (wrestling. steak-and-chips. Gar- cinctly annotated.

ofthe
bo's face. etc.). As l am concerned in this paper with stnicture. My n_,m_"“__
l have ignored the cultural code as surli altogether, preferring ' '
to group many ofits instances seman- PRO.: "picnic" (statement of action).
ticand symbolic codes. lt is probable that allmanifestations of HER.: "little did he guess . . .“ (enigma).
the cultural code can be grouped in this way: the obvious one SEM.: “awaited . . . with his usual youthful eagemess“
in the Letter shot. for example (the caption “Vienna, about (themes of anticipation and innocence).
l900"). immediately evokes not only the music (from Mozart SYM.: “auspices of Phoebus." “in what darkness . . ."
to popular waltzes) that plays so important a part in the lm's (opposition of day/night. light/darkness.
thematic development and its analysis of class, but also the happiness/disaster).
connotations of ‘n de xiécle‘ that attach themselves to the no Len" Sh“
theme of decadence. Or take two striking examples from the '
decor ofJessica‘s bedroom in Zombie, the harp and Bocklin‘s PRO.: arrival home; duel (dominant action).
painting ‘The Isle ofthe Dead‘: both belong within the cultural HER.: Why is the duel being fought'.l—Who is the
code (we have to know not only what a harp is but also its antagonist'.l—Will Stefan ght'!—Will he be killed?
association with angels. hence with a certain cultural myth of SliM.: decadence (cynicism, cognac. j/in de .riécIe'); time,
woman). but they equally belong to the semantic/symbolic passing of time (three hours).
structure (the harp standing in opposition to the voodoo SYM.: rain and night (answered at end of lm by no-rain
drums). and near-dawn).

'° " w°"" ‘*7


F INALLY. THE READER MAY ASK WHAT
gained by a method of analysis that requires such
IS
an
elaborate exposition. First, quite simply, it helps one to
Why ‘I Walked Wlth a Zombie‘?
COMPLEX OF REASONS. FlRST. l NEEDED A
lm to which l had easy access (the analysis demand-
notice(become aware of) so much more: takeasequence from ing prolonged and intensive work) and which is in
any lm with which you believe yourself to be thoroughly distribution (it has also been repeatedly shown on pay-TV)so
familiar, look at it again in relation to the four (or ve)codes, that interested readers might have access to it also. Second, I
and see how many details that previously passed by uncom- wanted an unquestionably distinguished lm with a very rich
mented suddenly relate, make sense, form pattems with other semantic/symbolic structure, but one which nevertheless was
details across the lm. Beyond that. the method greatly securely contained within the bounds of classical Hollywood
heightens one‘: awareness of structure and the p!0Ct‘.\'S nf narrative.a lm at once representative and exemplary. Third.
.\‘|fIl(‘|ll!dI|0!l. Beyond that again. it makes possible a rigorous l Wnld 8 lm BS Sh!-"1 35 P°5§ibl¢. T01’ 0l>Vi0\15 "B35005 (lhis
and systematic investigation into what has proved by far the anicle is already lengthy enough—imagine the method ap-
most fniitful concept in recent approaches to Hollywood, the plied to Duel in the Sun or Hie Deer Hunter!) l should add that
concept of ideological tension or contradiction. l hope these I have loved I Walked with a Zombie for many years: this is not
claims will be substantiated by the (admittedly skeletal) read- an ‘objective’ academic exercise carried out upon a lm whose
ing that follows. title was produced out ofa hat (an exercise of which l think l
To make that skeletal method clear, l close this introduction would be absolutely incapable).

bothered to specify these. noting only the more unusual


W998’
This is an attempt to outline the basis for a complete The figures in brackets denote the number of shots in
reading of a specific classical Hollywood narrative (om of each segment (I have tried for perfect accuracy. but there
great distinction). and to suggest. at the same time. how may be errors).
classical Hollywood nanatives work. the process of their
construction. The major omission is a very serious one: l(t|. llth. mitts. iiputq act.
there is no adequate attention to the operation of the Divwlic‘ mbivilyl though Swmiwly ‘realistic-' "W SM! his
-codes specic to mm--camefa placement. cafnefa no logical place within the narrative. Purely ‘poetic’ status?
movement. camem awe‘ editing |igh“ng' aming. Title: PRO; thewalk (specific releiencotocanefieldseguerice?)
HER.: the zombie
me Wk (an impossible om)
- _
etc. but to attempt lllllS ‘as well would make the exer visua|_ PR0
cise virtually interminab e. " "j . . . " .

The film, just under 70 minutes long, consists of 509 HER" :fuz:£2§iLb:°ek::?e°éT;gsT:; tnh:‘z°mb'°
shots. l have broken it down into 46 segments. roughly ca"e,°u,)_
along the lines ol Metz's Grande Syntagmatique.‘ In most 55"); fmedofm space; harmony betwem mm
cses the ‘autonomy of the segment is clearly marked (deception).
(change of location. time lapse. cinematic punctuation SYM.: landlsea (the figures walking along the
such as fades or diolves); in la fer cages my divisions
are more uestiona e. ia t at tween ments
28/29 (wliich occurs inetltzeliniddle of a shot). Thsggreat NOTE? 5e9l""l"9 °'
I -
m:q:gw lfgltgltzgé ggestmita (race.

5°l5Y’5 "a"a"°"~
»

majority of the segments are. in Metzian terminology.


either ‘scenes’ or ‘ordinary sequences.‘ and I have not (c°'"'d 0" P599 15)

IO ClneAction! Winter '86


Q8
. ¢

rope ladder. The carriage-ride.

6b. Betsy and the shadow.

Win(er'86 CineAc(|on! I
9 Jessicas first appearance 10. The nurse meets her panem

I14 Thebnoche. 13. Betsy. doctor. harp.

17. Betsy, Mrs. Rand, Wesley. calypso singer. 21. Betsy by the sea.

12 C|neAction! W|n(er'86
T

27. Alma's dcrecnons 2B Carreiour

5“ Jessrca and Betsy 31 Mrs Rand. the lamp

I 37. Carrefour and the Jesslca-doll 39a Betsy. the harp, Carre1our's shadow
(see page 6 for 390. )

W|nter'B6 CmeAc!|on' I3
41. Wesley. Paul; handkerchnef as voodoo patch

44 Wesley wnh Jessica's body, Carrelour. 45 Noctumal hshing.

ll Cir1eAct|on! Wmter '86


2(1). Tll Mu. PRO; dinner: i. - preparation.
Establishing shot: ‘Parish and Burden‘ SEM.: shadow-pattems. evoking notions of uncertainty.
SEM.: Connotations ol religion and slavery. ambiguity. contusion: deceptiveness ol appearan-
The scene: ces (sinister shadow is merely the servant
PRO; the interview (completed here); the joumev—i: announcing dinner).
announcement: the iob (continued to end of lilm). -my m ‘M-'_,m,_
HER: ‘Who is Betsy's employer? Nature of wife's pm’. dime“ ii . me1ami(y_
'""°$§? °"e$"°" diet" Witehereit? HER: erligmas surrounding Mrs. Rand (nins dispensary
SEM-3 595)’ Q5 "'-‘[55 (5°(V'°9- d°d'°3"°"- P""W)i Bet- but not a doctor; doesn't live in her own home);
sy‘s rationalism (witchcraft); Betsy's romantic Jessica (weshyis (one o| voice).
3$Pi'?"°"5 (limes! °'_W¢$1 |"dl°5)i d°'"i"im SEM.: male authority - the two fathers (Hollandl
P°5il|°" tit male. errhmieeiye neeitidrr di ierrtele capitalism. Rand/religion. both names carrying
SYM.: Canadalwest Indies.‘ rnedlclnelwltchcralt. connomions cg goum ,(|,toa_ imporia|i5m_
ratlonallsrn/superstition. oppression 0| (,|ack5)4

3[|3|_ yy g|||_ SYM.: the system of oppositions: the hall-brothers.


p|.1Q_; ]oumey_ii_ the ship; me mmionship bemeen dominance/subordination (‘Masters of the house‘).
Paul and Betsy (beginning-the dominant action |||5|, no llorqqoog (row),
el the trIrrr?l- PRO; dinner: iii - completion.
HER? VWW 11°95 Pd!" behave like that? HER; reasons for Wesley's hostility to Paul. and for his
SEM.: Bittemess. destruction of illusions (Paul's charac- heavy drinking; the tower. the obscure door. Jes-
ter); deceptiveness of appearances; romantic sica's dinner.
aspirations lheerrtv. the ladder. the stare): death sm: Wesley's weakness. bittemess. envy and ennrity:
(‘Evert/thirrl: dies here‘): derrrirtariee (male ever deceptiveness of appearances (the work-drum and
female. master over workers. white over black). Voodoo’).
SYM-I develeirrherrt ei eerrterttie edrrrrdtatidrre irrtd strive SVM; thehalf-brothers(BritlshIAmerican. dominantlsub-
ture of oppositions: Canadalwest Indies. white! ordinate); Christianity/voodoo (the dmms linked
black. master/slave. male/female. illusionlreality. to mention or Mr Ram as missionary).
lile/death. beauty/horror.
Note: Betsy‘s reaction to Paul (‘Clean. honest’) will he echoed in 0(7). lily’: lllrlll.
segment 33 by Paul's words to Betsy (‘Clean. decent. thinking‘). PRO; preparation for bed. first sight ol patient.
‘iii muhmu
It
HEFl.:
.
Jessica._the tower.4her illness
'
PRO.: joumey—iii:arrival at st. Sebastian. 55”" “‘°"‘e'“"‘:‘e;’l'|;'°“'°““"“ "“"‘"°“-"“‘“'°'
glce mm”(s§M"
- - t "W5 YY- Y-
a|°°me$s)' SVM; light/darkness (the abnlpt switchlrom clearcut
U ' image to cnss-cross of shadows. II1 which Betsy
5‘5]_ In mm“ herself is included).

PRO; ioumey - iv; driving to Fort Holland. mm] In My


SEM.: cultural dilference; _Betsy‘s rationalism_(You_ mean PR0. Be‘; .5. b emumeri he’ “em
.
y |o, ng pa
.
afrgurehead). domination and ODDIOSSIDI1 (linked HER.
- .
Jesslcas strangeness.
M unnatu
ram. t
.

ergh .
4 . . » -

eSp;:'a|'y0“°.;’he Inamedgonind‘ hang? '“d"ec“y threatening movernerlts nature of her illness


‘° .“" " MY)‘ ‘P "’°'.‘°‘? “‘°°“"*"‘ SEM.: deceptiveness of appearances. cultural difference
ms ( ".y°“ say‘ M55 ' ‘ ) agam "med m
1 (the crying). The crying also signifies oppression
”°a“'Y' “"°“ ‘“"’°""°"°°' with several forms linked together" (a) Ti-Misery
’ SVM.: white/black (race); rationalismlsuperstitionz (me visa‘ image)’ M Jessica (who wsy thinks
.
powerloppresslon. .

Note: Ti-Misery introduced as emblem ol oppression and black ‘S '"° ‘°“'°°)' (°) "“’ "'“°" "am 3"“ "'°"
- . descendants.
(“'5 "'3" '“°° )" svvl; whitelblack (race - the two united in Ti-Misery);
l[l3]. Fen llolhl. The sequence is unclassiliable within white/black. Jessica in white; brunette/blonde:
Metz's categories as ll moves lrom chronological nar- reversal of conventions. undemlining of expecta-
rative into an a-chronological ‘descriptive syntagma‘ tions.
and back again. the transitions linked by Betsy's nar- Hence:
ration. The three sub-sections are: SEM.: Betsy and Jessica as inverse minor-images.
a. Characterized by Betsy's POV (7 shots): SEM.: the real attitude oi black servants to white mas-
PRO; ioumey (concluded); arrival. ters (Alma‘s sarcastic remarks about Betsy: com-
SEM.: rationalism unoennined in this new world pare next segment).
('. . . like a dream‘).
SVM.: 11-Misery/St. Sebastian. uniting white! lllll. liq‘! ldrllln.
black. Christian/non-Christian. PRO; breaklast in bed.
b. ‘Descriptive syntagma‘: the rooms (three shots linked HER.: Jessica's illness: explanation i (‘She was very
by dissolves). sick. and then she went mindless‘): explanation
c. Retum to chronology: Betsy prepanng from dinner vague and unsatislying. developing lather than
(three shots). resolving the enigma.

Winter '86 CinaActlon! ‘IS


h
' r

$5"-I etrltprnl ditterenee (rnethpd pt e"’=*°"i"p: the SEM; family tension (the song)' Mrs Rand introduces
tttrmte_/pp"-pp): qeeeptiveness pi nppeerenees herself as ‘Wesley/s mother’ (she is also Pains).
( "°°t\¢- Almis Obseiltltousness - compare suggesting favoritism. a further reason for rivalry!
previous segment); class division. Betsy's inde- resentment,
erminate p ace as Jessica's nurse; the dialogue SEM; ' || |ed i .
3|°""e;tf|Je$ien and Betsy (the past and future ?l§°§Lr;"}'1£ of

Note: Jessica zterrgsdatrfas ‘doll’ ('lt's just like dressing a izflcéith owessiom gem“
me blacks (racial
oreat bio dell’): eernpare the ‘Jessica-doll’ of the voodoo svrw; light/darkness (the cu lamp. the night); white!
scemsi black (singer and darkness).
|g|g]_ 5.1-; ”m|”_ PRO; Betsy to help Wesley (alcohol); Betsy/Paul rela-
PRO; the BetsyIPaul relationship. trpnship (hints pt Betsy's influence): hence;
HER: Jessica's illness: explanation ii (‘. . . a mental SEM? M'5- Rams k"°W|°d99» alldi
case’): pai-ia|_ misieadiim HER.: Where does she get her information?
SEM.: Betsy's unilomt (whiteness. purity. service); fear
ol ‘the dark’ (commonest symbol for the lllil. Fen Ifefhel.
unconscious). PRO; helping Wesley: Betsy speaks to Paul.
Note: The watch-pendant (visual motif) introduced here. SEM.: uncertainty of motivation (Paul's refusal).
, SYM.: clarity vs. confusion or obscurity: silhouette

explanation iii (‘tropical fever‘): image “mowed by ‘am shadowed Wm‘ ""5
false resolution (”blocking‘): introduction of notion |g|z|||_ m |m._,m,_
i'oh:é)J°s5'°a '5 3 l°'“b'e (me ‘"1"’ d'59‘"5°d as 3 PRO; helping Wesley (no decanter); the Betsy/Paul
' _ relationship (Betsy's influence).
§$:"{cULh' iceogdam t;"'|‘|:'°'°:":"'e- :P""a" 35 “"99" HER; voodoo (conch. drums); question of Paul's treat-
‘j .319 °°( a, °_- .Z,°m ‘.95? ment of Jessica, secrets in the past.
SEM.. Isle of the Dead (Bocklins painting. also the Sm .. . Mme muawbiack mums "0 -
. . rmal dinner. voodoo
We °' the '35‘ °' ‘M “"5
°' '~°""°"'p'°d“°°d
honor films): borderline between life and death.
ceremony) home/houmfort (the ‘home’ is also a
-Fm-ii '

rue). no mar.
Pno: PaulIBe-tsy relationship. 2ltttl- MI’: ruin-
uen; Paul's actual feelings for Betsy; reasons for his PRO: PeuIIBetsv reietipnstnpr erpwth pl intimacy. nint-
bitiomoss ual attraction.
55M; dggepyqngsg oi gppgaygnceg (what is HER; Jessica's illness - explanation v: the quanel (note
~i;9aiitiiui'7) parallel development of dominant action and dom-
inant enigma). Again. the 1alse' explanation jux-
I512]. Sf. Seleffel. taposed with hints oi the true one (the drums.
PRO; day off. visit to town - i: meeting Wesley. swiiti 01 Je$5it1i With V°°d°0l-
$5M_; ciiiiiiiai iiitieieiiw wiiiies as ;|ieii5_ SEM.: Chopin‘s E major Etude. but more familiar to
audiences as ‘So deep is the night . .
|g|zg|_ 1|; ¢1|;gy_ SYM.: piano/voodoo dmms. white culture/black culture.
PRO; visit to town - ii: drinks.
HER: the song. hints of family scandal. of the back- !llll- he Sel-
qioiim to Jg§$iga'5 iiiiiess amt pair)-5 giiiemess PFlO.: Betsy's recognition of her love for Paul and her
sen: tensions and disunity within the taniity; decep- deeisien tn help hint determines the entire chain
tivgnesg of appgarancgg problems of intgrprgting Ot subsequent 3Cti0I\S IO the end 0t (M li|l1lI the
behavior: (a) singers subservience barely conceal- ittslill treatment. the visit to the houmfort. the
ing insglgnm (compare Alma); (b) Paul and the ‘voodoo’ invasion Of the white W0tld. It can there-
wnrd ‘beautiful’; (c) Paul's motivation - using fore he claimed as the tuming-point of the film.
Jessica to see Wesley ‘squim1.' HER: What exactly will Betsy do? Can she save Jes-
SVM; whitelblack (race). calypso and ‘the British Gren- sica? Does she really Went tit?
adiers‘: whites as concealers of truth. blacks as $5"-/SW-I the 563- already established i" $°9'W"t 3 is
Maia; of iiuttii image of uncertainty. deceptiveness of appearan- ‘

ces. linked here to doubts about Betsy's


|1|i4|_ no gg up; motivation.
PRO; visit to town - iii; i;oi1¢|iii1e¢_ Note i: symmetry ol classical narrative: the sea at the beginning
HER; Jessica's illness - explanation iv: the conclusion (Segment 3) and °"i1(599"l¢"t5 “'45) 01 the tilt". and
of the song links it to adultery. suggests it may i|5° it this "WT "tid9°i"t-
in 3 punishmgm fi)(im|1\o[3|i[y> Note ii: end of Betsy's narration (because she can no longer
SEM; woman ubringer of discord - parallel between control a narrative that calls into question her own
Jessica and Betsy. past and future trouble. in the "t°tiVitii1"'-')
song: hence:
HER; will both brothers fall in love with Betsy. repeat- Hl3l- -lwele Mn lily)-
iiig mi iiistoiyy iiaiso enigma). PRO; saving Jessica - i:a. insulin shock treatment.

‘II ClneActlonl Wlnter '86


SEM; danger (Jessica may be killed - question of Bet- sVM.: white/black (clothing. patches). rationalismIsu-
§Y'$ We lll°llVll0l1)- perstition; passage from ‘white’ world to black.‘
from science to voodoo. from conscious to
!3l4l- -NW6" "Ill Willi unconscious (the darkness as the world of the
PRO; saving Jessica - i:b. failure. ungongcious),
SEMI llheehelhlv of motivation (Wesley's sneeeh makes Note: l have segmented the film here according to precise loca-
llll5 lilllllieill: darkness and the unconscious. tions; Betsy and Jessica pass from the canefields to the
SYMI "Qhtldarkness. site of the voodoo ceremonies. marking the transgression
Note: the threatening figure (here Wesley) approaching out of of another boundary. within a single shot. half of which
the darkness. recurrent motil (compare Jessica in segment belongs to this segment. hall to the next.
10. calypso singer in segment 17).
Zllltil/2). Til htturl
34l"l- "I Mil. PRO; visit to houmlort - iv: the ceremony.
PR0-I Seville Jessica - ill veelleei at wooestleh (‘better HER; significance ol dance. danger tor intruders.
d°°'°'5'l SEM.: subjugation ot women. phallic power (the
HER: witchcraft; will Betsy take AIma's advice? dam“); 905535510"; Betsy mg Jeggiga |ir-tired in
SEM; uncertain motivation (here, Alma in relation to frame. like doubles (female transgression).
r Jeesieei help her. or oet her to the houhiliirt for SVM.: development of interlocking systems or oppres-
'le§l"-') sion: whitelblack. masterlservant. male/female.
SEM.ISVM.: the drawing together of maior components of
the system ot oppositions: white/black. science! 3g||), germ; tag leer,
V°°d°°- l3ll°"3ll5ll'l/5lJP9f5llll°"~ Tl"! Wllillse 0' PRO; visit to houmlort - v: plea to Umbala.
Betsy's rationalist certitude is linked to her HER; the door, what is behind it?
lhhlhled. uhelear rhhtlvatieh (less el Sell-ilheoel. $YM.: medicine/voodoo; Betsy as white nurse involving
Note: visual motif: the brooch for Ti-Victor (compare Betsy's herself in irrational practices associated with
W3l¢ll'll9"difll)~ blacks.

!5l4l- lit ll'Fl'"Y- 3l(22]. Aiteriieiirq aquatic: into ad nun.


PRO; saving Jessica - ii: voodoo: b. proposal. PFt0.: visit to houmlort - vi: revelation. failure; begin-
HEFt.: the houmlort and possibility of danger. ning of attempts to reclaim Jesica as zombie.
SYM.: Christianity/voodoo (‘. one loot in the church
. . HER.: resolution of some enigmas (Betsy's danger. what
and one in the houmlort’); sciencelvoodoo; is at houmfon: etc.). development of others
church/houmlort. dispensary/houmlort: rationa- (nature of Jessica‘s illness - she doesn't bleed -
lism/superstition (psychological explanation for p3|1ta| revelation ot ‘true’ explanation).
Milma R°$e'5 We)» SEM; compromise. cormption. ambiguity (‘. . . there's
no easy way to do good. Betsy‘ - compare Betsys
3; (I) 1;, prlui ugitueu
_. M own,
behavior and motivation); female transgres-
PRO . visit ,0 me houmron . 5. depanure sion (theme connecting Jessica. Betsy and Mrs.
SEM'.': continuous camera-movement to connect Paul, 53"“ . .
wash), 5e(5yy_ressica Mm and Ti_Mi5e,y. SVM.: some of the structural oppositions abmptly drawn
theme of interconnectedness. breakdovm of clear legethef ih the ambiguous ligure of llilrs. Rand.
divisions’ Mme "ansgressi°n_ ?CI::lC€/VOOGOO. Christianity/voodoo. darkness!

SYM.: movement lrom light to darkness (the black exit). lll -

21(2). oiruia in mi. 32l2l- Th


PRO; visit to the houmlort - ii: directions. PR0-1 "[5" ‘° h°“m'°n ' V": me Mum l°“mey'
HER; will they get lost? - what will happen? "E"-I Wl" "WY °° l‘"'="°“?
SYM.: lightldaikness (complex image with Alma, flour.
llashlighl. Betsy's black cape); the voodoo
Dames (compm 5e(5y~5 wa(ch.W,dam_ Ti.
"WPRO;F" "","!'-' '*' l"""-
visitto houmfon - VIII. homecoming. BetsyIPau
. I

vietors brooch); blacklwhite (race and clothing), l¢'="°"§'"P= °€°P°' ""°°"'="‘_""ll- .


gm/| air - HER; Paul's real feelings about Jessica (explanation).
,

SEM.: Carrefoui’ (French for crossroads) - passing from


h ; ( -
SEMJ "he "“'5° ""“°5 a""“d
kness. the unconscious.
'
°' ‘he dam mar °' Ga"
one wand to mm H male transgression SYM.: white music (Chopin theme on soundtrack) con-
alati/||_ 1“ udma trasted with V00d00 drums _0l preceding seg-
PRO.: visit to houmlort - iii. the walk. merits; clean. decent thinking vs. unconscious
HER; will they get lost?; significance of the various sin- "'°"‘”“'°"-
ister objects.
sen; voodoo (conch). death. the ‘living oeaii (Jessica Il4lIl- Th MI! fllrl
linked to images of death. her dress brushing past PRO: visit of commissioner.
the $i<u||_ em); garretour - passing (ire crow HER.: reason for visit?; connec)tion with visit to hourn-
roads (point ol no retum7l l°"?I WW °l Vl>°d°°-

Winter '86 ClneActlonl


SEM.: class/race difference - the white lady's knowledge tems; the major oppositions undermined in Mrs,
of noises: male/lemale relations (leading horse Rand.
without looking at him); h°'5e as Note: recurrent visual motif: Mrs. Rand's pocket handkerchief as
represemave
of (male. white) authority (commissioner. police. voodoo-patch.
Paul); uncertain motivation (Alma's ‘stupidity’ as
possible cover for eavesdropping?) "ll 7|. lllllrf. glril lllimllng queue].
PRO: getting Jessica back - iv: another ritual.
Sill). Tll bliiidorf llntlslptlon oi 31]. HER: Jessica's illness: explanation vi confimied (remo-
PRO; getting Jessica back - i: ritual. val of block’ by revelation of coma; Jessica's
HER; witchcraft. meaning and effectiveness of ritual. T9$P°"5¢ 1° l'il|Ji|l-
SEM.: male domination of women; Jessica as ‘doll’ SEMI voodoo as block male newer-
(compare No. 11). SYM; the half-brothers. the 'righteous‘ and the 'sinner,‘
SVM; white/black. rationalism/superstition. on opposite sides of gate (Paul's scepticism. Wes-
ley‘s belief in voodoo): echoed by Betsy/Jessica
36(3). Jessica‘: rim. °l>l>0_$lll0rI4
Pn()_; Paui/Begsy remionsiiip; muiual |'e5pgc[_ Note: recurrent visual motif: the pocket handkerchief as voodoo-
HER; relationship between Jessica and voodoo? Paul's patch. here associated most P'0"ll"°"l|Y Will) Paul. "18
guilt? apparently ‘righteous’ brother who doesn't believe in
SEM.: malelfemale relations: male authority. female voodoo: lteoet
submissivenoss (gevionsngsg). SEM.: undennining of moral certainties.
SVM.: harp/drums.
42(0). he prleii. lb mule.
31|5|_ 1;; |m|m_ PRO; ‘freeing’ Jessica - i: Betsy's complicity sought.
PRO; getting Jessica back - ii: the agent. "ER-1 Whit will become of Jessica?
HER; precise meaning of ritual? Carrefour as zombie? 5EM~¢ 5el$Y'$ 'i"l¢qriiy'I she Can't do deliberately what
SEM.: the ‘living dead’: connection between Jessica and she has tried to do unconsciously (eliminate
Carrefour. J¢$$i¢3l-
5vM,; whim/biack; binning or boundaiy_ $YM.: Ti-Misery (the white/black opposition under-
mined).
;|||5|_ 1); pm; Nofe: Recunenl visual motif: watch pendant as voodoo-patch.
PRO; Paul/Betsy relationship: confession of love. need
ioi 5gpa[a[iQf|_ 43|l2|. The glrlu. me hoiiiiliirl llllorintlng uguliice).
HER: will Betsy retum to Canada? P303 “ll'°9l"il' Je55l¢3 ‘ ill W95|9Y 35 509'"-
SEM.: male authoritylfemale submissiveness (devious- "ER-1 -lessi='s late-
ness?); male desire to dominateldestroy women - 5‘/M-I ")9 °DP°5ill°l15 l°l"B\1 in W9$|9Y (3¢""9 35
Paul's fear of his own impulses. another ‘Zombie'); use of arrow from Ti-Misery.
SVM; Canadalwest Indies.
“[21]. Tllullnerl.
3g|43|, guru’; min . Wyn PRO; ‘freeing’ Jessica - iii: ‘death.’
PRO.: getting Jessica back - iii: the agent. failure. HER: resolution of problems-
HER.: Cairefour as zombie: is he dangerous? will he SEM.: oppression involving both worlds. white/black,
succeed? basis of Mrs. Rand's authority over Christian/voodoo. rationallirrationalz the proble-
him? matic of transgressive sexual desire (especially
SEM.: Mrs. Rand's authority. her usurpation of power. /9/713/B 595"?) ad "5 PU"i5"'"9"l 0|’ elimination
transgression of male order. to maintain the patriarchal order.
gm; home (FQn)IhQ|_||‘[|'o[1 - iransgiession or game)‘; SYM.: white/black: possession of Jessica (Wesley!
harp/shadow of Carrefour. Carrefeuri
SEM.: ‘Isle of the Dead.’
45(1). no no.
Til Ilvfng-moi. PRO; recovery of bodies - i: the sea
40l34|.
pR0_; ;nvestigayion_ c°"|es5i°n_ SEM: the sea. as signifier of uncertainty. deceptiveness.
HER: Jessica's illness: explanation vi: the ‘true’ expla- illlbllllilf _(C_°"lP3"5 59lJ"'l9"i 3)
nation immediamy mocked by |),_ Maxwe" (J95. SYM.: voice of minister (black. Christian) begins
sica never died), followed at once by new enigma °" 5°"'!d!'a°'iI he'll‘-Bi
(M5 Randi; -or some-)_ SEM: undemiining of oppositions; continuance of oppres-
SEM.: family tensions; repressionlpunishment of female 5'°"
sexual desire; ambiguity of Mrs. Hands position
(she destroyed Jessica in order to protect the pat- ‘ml 77' Fm‘-
riarchal system within which women are subordi- PRO: recovery of bodies - ii: procession home; resolu-
hated, siding with the ‘fiistbom.' Paul. for whom lion of Paul/Betsy relationship.
she never snows any affection. against Wesley, SEM.: a. the ‘happy end.’
whom she loves); the oppressed become in tum b. continuance of themes of oppression. ambi-
oppressors. guity, undermining of clear-cut oppositions:
SVM.: the ‘white’ system (palnarchy. the family) and the the black minister, Mrs. Rand. Ti-Misery (on
l
black system (voodoo) ioined as oppressive sys~ whom the film ends).

IQ ClneAction! WInter'B6
The caneelds.
Appendlx I: "do mat
B.
C. The site of the ceremony (dance).
B°y°“d me are symag ‘qua D. The interior of the houmfort.

A NUMBER OF CRITICS (NOTABLY RAYMOND


Bellour) have pointed out that, while it makes a useful
starting point for segmentation and analysis, Metz‘s
Grand: Synmgmalique can have the unfortunate side effect of
From segment 26 to segment 33 (inclusive), this gives us the
progression A B C D C B A. The central movement( in certain
aspects, central to the whole lm), the revelation of Mrs.
Rand‘s position, is marked further (within a segment predom-
exaggerating the autonomy of the so-called ‘autonomous inantly characterized bydarkness) by theabruptswitching-on
segments'—that the individual segment is invariably con- of a lamp. (lt will be noticed that the symmetrical use of
tained within larger patterns of altemation. repetition and locations isqualicd by the asymmetry ofduratiomghe fgquy.
symmetry that structure the entire lm. It is scarcely possible rcnce of locations C and B after D is much briefer than their
here to demonstrate this systematically and exhaustively; I initial appearance).
have selected three examples which at once illuminate particu-
lar aspects of I Walked wilh a Zombie and illustrate the work- Appendlx ":
mg of classical Hollywood lms in general. The rst two
concern the lm's overall structure, the third exemplies the The operatlon of the codes‘
pattems of symmetry and asymmetry within a segment larger
than Metz's classication allows for. CAN» FINALLY» DRAW SOME CoNCl-U‘
sions from our tracing ofthe four codes throughout
l. As indicated in the foregoing reading, the image of
77ie sen. ‘he mm (lhough ‘he reading on complex work can
the seats used symmetrically to mark the beginning and end of nave, many be conc|ud=d)_
the lm and the tuming-point of its action. But this is not to be |:im_ lhc ‘W0 “mar Codes (pfoail-‘dc. Humencmicr they
RB" 35 3 lT|¢l'= f°""3| d=Vi¢¢- "I"? Pa“=|'"'""3_kl"81 Z" fl" are dominant (though not always to the same degree) in every
°"|5°l °“_h= mm (5°_8m°m 3) ‘hf 553 '5 "wcsled Wm‘ 3 5F{°C'° classical Hollywood lm, whose rst aim and duty has always
m¢‘3Ph)'5"33| m°3m"8 (‘d¢9=P"V¢n°55 of 3PP¢3l'3"¢¢5- "C-) been to tella story. Every story, and every telling, depends for
“/hilihg has "5°"3"f?°5 l|f|'°"8h°'" 3 mm i_" which "°lhl"8 is its success on the logic of its chain of actions and the maintain-
"
Whaf 5¢°m5v and '" Whlch "'05! Qhe mam ‘3ha"3c‘§"5 (P3\{l- ing of interest and curiosity through its chain of enigmas. lt is
J¢55|¢3- MP1 Ralldi 5'35)’ ""550 "'7" °\" ‘°b°a"'b'B"°"5 "1 not quite possible to imagine a narrative lm that entirely
V8l'1°\15 W3)'5- lacks a semantic/symbolic structure: as soon as you introduce
2. Night/Day. The most obvious structuring principle operat- 3 E°°d °h3"1¢l¢l' and 3 bad Cilafcwf l/"ll ha" "19 |>¢8""\"')$5
ing across the lm as a whole is the alternation of day and °r°"‘-“Pd "'5" ""1 m°§‘Ph'|d'5h and 5""P|¢ '3' ‘"°5‘°_"" “"11
P"°d"°'= "5 5*" °r °PP°5|"°"5 (8094 °°Wb°)' Wu" "'1"? ha!-
i

night . Clearly, this has its signicance in relation to the lm's II

complex structure of ‘symbolic’ oppositions indicated in the rid“ ""'i"' h°“°- Md C°‘”b°Y wears b/"ck hab lid“
“Mk ;.

‘reading’ above (Canada/West lndies, white/black. science/ P°l'5¢-¢"3-)- Bl" °"_lh_3l Y"dl"1¢"W'Y3"¢ banal |°V°|' ll": °"|)'
witchcraft, Christianity/voodoo, conscious/unconscious, etc. "“°"°5l °flh= mfn '5 |lk=_|Y 1° b¢ Q" "W |=V°| °f Wh3l"h3PP¢"5' l

)_ The ahemmion can be SH fonh as fcnows (‘he numbs next (usually quite predictable, also). One might venture the
refer of course to the segments in ' ' .
the reading). proposition that, the richer and more complex the semantic/ i

Syn] lC 5!“-|C Uni, l C lnf I C I Tn. i

Di)" ‘-3- 4-5~ “"°- '8 22- “-15- 34- ‘°~ At the same time, the linear codes represent-—in the over-
I M3“: 3 Mo‘ I7‘ Wu‘ Z3‘ 2643‘ 35 39' ‘M6 whelmingmajorityofcases—thecini_tciau.tlevelofHollywood
lt will be obvious that the altemation isneither consistent nor lm-making: even the greatest Hollywood directors (for
symmetrical; the imbalance takes on great resonance in rela- example, Ford and Hawks)tend to discuss their lms predom-
tion to the overall thematic and dramatic movement of the inantly interms of the story. the action, the characters, appar-
lm. ln the earlier pan, there is a fairly even distribution of day ently being (at most) only vaguely aware of the semantic/sym-
and night scenes; in the later pan, night progressively takes bolic dimension of their work. What is also crucially
over. From segment 26 (the departure for the houmfort,very important is that it is on the level of the linear codes that
strongly marked as the lm's only true sequence-shot), only 2 Hollywood lms have always been most vulnerable to censor-
of the 2| segments are set in daylight. ship in various forms (from studio decisions to the strictures of
3. Symmetry wiiliinalargersegmerii. The fomial principles of .M°n°: min": rprlfdgctiqn code‘ elaborteq to Fumd
‘he
symmetry, alternation, repetition operate within classical Hol- ggunst §u Teon° ‘ht 9m|:“a|m ':°T'sh9 hwcmy ";‘.an.y
lywood cinema at all levels. The arrangement ofshots within om‘)? “mp! cause I at '5 t C eve ° W 'c °°n5°'s '9 '5
conscious, the level that must be seen to conform to the
.A If
an individual sequence Wm Show 3 equcm uildency
IWlkdWIt
Zob
[gush symmeéry n gang (‘throw ) gm‘, scéloflssggée
‘O .3 demands of ‘the dominant ideoloKY .‘ ln the Holl Y“ood lm -
.

then, the level of the linear codes—roughly, the level of the


aegis?:l:;a:ngsm§°g_':;':cumnzsbgwjén gr.“ and Busy H; ‘plot —is likely to be (supercially, at least) conservative, the
iwmion separawd me bow the “mm shm (No 7) is ‘restoration of order‘ at the end being the resoration of the
both(a)byfarthelongesttakein ihesequenceand(b)theshot
.
“an” W0’
serves it.
Pamarchy and ‘he wnvcmional m°mmy that
. . . .
m whwh Paul moves mw Busy 5 spam‘ SO that they an in I
One can see this clearly (and typically) in Walked willi n
fmgzréoigazer I wan‘ briey In indicate the mldmcy to Zombie. We have specied the ‘dominant action‘asthe devel-
symmeiry overa iargersegmentthanasingle sequence lhave
chosen the visit to the houmliart, because it is the core olf the
opmem of me Paul/Busy "h“i°“5hip' and me .d°minam
‘ fJ
:58: hctmprgeblJgizleowilelsslisaq;
' h L
‘ll
I

lm. The segment divides tween our (continuous) oca- . .' '
--- ~= -5
The garden of Fort Holland.
;';:'i:S:rz.°&:‘:r §LT.2.§;fS2?;I2‘Z;‘5?"J£‘ii°?;Z¥lZ";i 1::
dead, and her enigma explained, Paul and Betsy can embrace.
A. )

Wintor'B6 ClneAet|onl IO

. 4
To put it another way: the lm moves, in a way paralleled in 4. The Voodoo patches. The caneeld sequences associate
countlessother narratives, towards the elimination of the ‘bad the women's protective voodoo patches with the recurrent
couple‘ (Wesley, Jessica), who have transgressed the patriar- theme of ambiguity (white on black, black on white). But this
chal moralcode, in ordernally toconstruct the ‘goodcouple' is taken up in the visual motif that ntns through the lm:
(Paul, Betsy). Betsy's watch pendant, the brooch she gives to the baby
What interests me here above all is the ambiguity of the (segment 24), the pocket handkerchiefs, of which Mrs. Rand's
relationship between the operation of the linear codes and that (40) and Paul's (41) are especially prominent, all gure as
°f 1|" Rmaniic/5Ymb°|i¢ §"'"¢""’¢- Whi¢|1 §"PPO§edly sus- subtle reminders of the transgression of boundaries, the uncer-
tains them but in fact undenriines them: I want to claim that tainty of accepted values.
"1? Wh°|° “M37 P|’°B\’=$5 °f "19 lm l°Wil'd5 "5 aPPal'°"llY 5. Ti-Misery. Arguably, the central symbolic image around
conformist, conventional , reactionary resolution, effectively which me whok mm is °rgani7_ed_ lmmduced in segmcm 5 (by
°°"3P5¢5 "M" "15 W°i$|" 07 5""a"!i¢/5)"_"l?°|i¢ imP|i¢§li°"~ verbal reference), he is visually prominent in segments 6. l0,
One ennsnsseslnewthtseemesnbentbyltsnnslhedonnnnnt 26, 43, and 46. Combining white Christian saint and black
themes that are established, reiterated and developed: slave, he becomes a generalized image of oppression, trans.
d°°°PllV¢"°§5 °raPP"m"¢°§i""¢°"3i"lY 051101‘ gressing the boundaries between the lm's oppositions: it is
iv=lien.ei>i>tee§ion (en many levels. in many forms). tting that the lm ends with a tracking-shot in on him.
female transgression . . .
etc., etc. . . . . Footnotes
and by tabulating the intricate structure of binary opposi-
uons Indicated as forming the mm 5 symbolic simcwrt Desire and the Film Text") in CIIIIIPIZ Obsrum Ii.‘iEiit(rerrtl:!st'ii
Canada wc§[ lndigs not altogether iintypical is the author‘: denition of the ction
whim mack (race) lm_ as ‘a textual _mode which privileges the scopic and the
while black (clothing) auditory. Translation: ‘Films are seen and heard.‘
day "iShl Z See. in particular, Julia Lesage‘s analysis ofla Régle duleit in
SCIENCE WllChC\’3fl Jump CIll, preceded by Judith Mayne‘s explication ofthe codes.
E:'::!;;I:g') mumfgg 3. For those unfamiliar with Ophuls‘ lm, the content of the rst
. shot is as follows: A rainy night in a cobbled city street; a
hlht darkfmss horse-drawn carriage is approaching in long-shot; the caption
9°n5c|Qu5 unconscious “Vienna, about l900“ appears over the image;a clock is striking
harp, piano VOOCIOO drums two. As the carriage draws near and stops outside iron gates, the
rationalism superstition camera moves in so as to frame the man who gets out (Stefanl
Louis Jourdan) in the rectangle ofthe far window. Briefdialogite
em" ac‘ ' ' ' . . with the two men who remain inside the carriage: “So you're
One rnust then go on to indicate (as I have done in the reading
_

going through with it?" Stefan (shrugs): "Why not?“ “Well, for
Qhc _r||m)_h°W lhl 3P|_J3\’€l1tly clearcut nature Of the opposi- one thing I hear he's an excellent shot." Stefan: “Oh. it‘s not so
tions (in asimple narrative they would be reducible to ‘good‘— much that l mind getting killed. But you know how hard it is for
left-hand column—and ‘evil'—right-hand column) is system- me to get up in the morning." One of the men tells him that they
atically undermined as the lm progresses, so that all moral ‘"5" '°"ff" 3' 5"
'_J'°|°°k- if-W"! “AM in We" Yvlh "0 "wfe
certitude is lost; and also to indicate how all this affects our °°5"“°' Th‘ °“""“3' °°"""““ ""
°" "5 "’*'Y- “"d 5°‘ SM“
reading of the characters and their actions. lsuggest here a few app'°ach'"5 ‘h° saws‘
points where linear and non-linear codes intersect. 4. The ‘Grand: S_i'nIngmnI|'quP' was Metz's attempt to constntct a
l. Je.r.rica'.riIIne.r.r. Weare clearl Y meant to take ex P lanation syntax of the narrative lm. specifying the possible types of
vi (Mrs. Rand's confession) as the ‘correct’ one, yet it is clear Seqlleee (Or §)'r\l=gm=)- lliusefuleis livery lifimd (P\'°P|=l'"§
that it complements rather than disqualiftes the preceding a"*"|"'°§' "°\'Y ""1=Q"=l"¢§*°aPP|Y |l_)ibtll‘ll h_$PY°\"d°d=
ones: Jessica was engaged in an adulterous affair with Wesley; """3h "“_‘“g °f b':ak'"g a GIT d°“'“ ".“° "5 a“‘°"°"'°"‘
she and Paul had a violent argument in which he said terrible ,,"g,,:,,,-1'1,,‘lr,r,fZ§,i:f§,il§naiinisimnieiiiiii
‘zmgs ‘O hen she fen In‘ ‘“°€“'"b‘“$ ‘O a "opwal rev"; only is perfectly continuous in time and space, without ellipses; the
‘ ‘Q was M75‘ Rand awe to '_m"ven=- mh" Wmdst '1” lb‘ ordinary sequence is like the scene but omits stretches of time
family 3" |mPl|¢3l¢d ln J¢5$|c3'5 C°nd"|°"- unnecessary to the narrative (e.g. the walk through the catte-
2. Betsy. Signied heavily as the ‘pure,‘ ‘innocent' heroine elds, segment 28). These twosyntagmasaccount for most of the
(‘elean,decent thinking,‘ etc.), Betsy is in fact drawn into the Sestnenli inlv Whieh I have divided the lm There is also I
web of moral ambiguity (repeatedly suggested vimally, by the 4'-Y"iP'iv¢ I.\"I"1_3"II1 lNv- 6)- B §=q"_=I"f= "T 511015 Pllliide in)’
intricate lightingeffects): the insulin shock treatment and visit dc" °h"°"°'°3'°“' P',°3'°’§ °‘“'b"5'_""B 3 '°°f"“°"- ‘"5-5 3
to the houmfort (both of which she has been assured are “‘7"€"” sh“ (N°‘ 2.6) '" “'9” "".a°“°" ma‘ ""5h‘ "°""a"y
re uire a se uence is lmed take; and an
in a sin le aliernale
exlnmely dangerous) can be mad as (unconscious) anempu syzlngmn llgrefer ‘alternating sequenlce ' No 3|) in which two
to §li'g2'J'cl'f§:5:;::;;sa;:ehi;igma is lei.‘ conspicuously actions taking place in different locations are intercut.
unresolved. whal one mib“ ¢a|] the ¢hj¢k¢n.3|-|d.¢g8 qugson S. The diegexit is the complete ctional world created within the
of Paul-S Chanel‘ . “min elements in the mm suggest that he lm, its illusion of reality, including for e_ita_mp|e the action. the
became bitter anii cynical because of his wife's indelity, °ha"‘°‘"S- ‘he §‘“'"3‘-‘“"‘°‘Ph""- '“""“° “"3" ' ' ~

others suggest (more emphatically and more convincingly)

"r
"°“ °' 155'“
nominal ‘happy
"d'
that he wasalways like that (which can be read as the motiva-
‘Sm '° ""1 away W"
S
ending‘ in no way
‘hWl.Thfl‘
'5 cg)app iscgsmaz
guarantees :
This article is dedicated
..
Lowry. a critic of exceptional promise, who died
.
the
."Y _

Betsy and Jessica are frequently paralleled in the lm,we are La:,‘“Sggt):r' we had hoped ‘O enllst mm as 3
free to believe that Betsy's fate will be similar to that of her
deceased patient.

IO Clne/tctlonl Wlnter'86
Feminist Film Theory
4

Social Reality
by F|QfQf|cQ Jagobowk; entrenched political values, morals, voir was perhaps the rst to appreciate
ethics, and beliefs, and conceiving of that oppression is reinforced through
F | WERE Aglqgt) To DEHNE altematives. popular myths of romantic love and
feministtneet-y_twnttldrstsnggest Theoretical discussions of ideology marriage—the stuff and substance of
that it is eeneet-ned with both nnner. and its effects on culture and society are popular narrative an.
§[3|1di|1B[hg§Q|_||'c¢§3|-tdpgfpgluationof often unsatisfactory in that they seem Aside from the potentially negative
oppression related to the rigid division of l°° ab§""‘7l 3"d dlmcull 1° Pl'°"° 0' 1° functions Of lm and TV (perpetuating
gendet-1 (and gender t-nles) in n Society’ refute. There exists a great deal of ten- patriarchal concepts of gender and slyly
and withinyggtjgatinggtt-atggies nfsneial sion and ambivalence (which is difcult natut-alizittg [cg|'¢55iV: ideologieal
change: i.e. articulating a course of 1° f°°l"°l¢) l'°B3l'dl"g "W lmP°flnC¢ 'nomts'). 1|" °’l"°"\B popularity of c-
change in a real, 'material‘ world. I °(°°"l¢l"P°""'Y C‘-1|l\"’3| lh¢°I')’ i1l1d.itl tional narrative entertainment for both
would stress that the ultimate goal of man)’ f¢§P¢¢l5. ll d¢§¢l’V¢§ lhii t=PlIl- adolescents and adults suggests that
analysing social and cultural conditions ll°"- ll °°" in
3PP¢3l'§ ¢lillSl. l0C|<¢d there are other functidfli. and Olh
is political action. l"¢"35l"8|Y-P"fP°§=|)’ 0b5C"l’Bli5ll'h¢- needs being satised. Popular culture
Funhgf thinking would lend me tn toric,and,worst of all,divorced fromthe provides an arena for the release of ‘uto-
declare what many more astute thinkers h¢l’¢ and HOW» 115 llllimlll dfiliny "ems Pi="' Vl5l°"$-‘ OT MEGS. d¢$il'€§ and
have already discemed—that feminism I" b¢ 5°h°|‘"|)’ l°"l’"a|§ 0|’ lllliviil)’ forms of pleasure which can never be
involves an immense epistemological dl§§"l3ll°"§— 5°|lP5l5ll¢~ RH‘ =l1lil'=|Y ¢°"ll‘°"=d by f°l'm5 °f °¢"5°T'
upheaval:rewriting,rethinkingandrein- refmlllial uia¢ti<=¢- Bsfvrs Pl"§"l"8 ship. As Terry Lovell writes. there are
terpreting the world from a feminist ""55 a"¢83ll°"5 r""h'="- ll 5¢¢"l§ P¢l- many forms of public and social plea-
perspective.Giventhat most people have ""1! 1° °"\|l"= my fgumll TOP Ill! sures which can be utilized in radical
been edueated and §Q¢ia]iZ¢d tn n pat. inclusion of popular culture and art in strategies; “plgagufgg or eon“-non expe.
t-tat-ehal, t;la5§.5ttu¢tt"ed and t-neist feminist/socialist strategies. (I am refer- rienees identied and celebrated in at-t,
society, feminism requires an entire "l"B 1° P°P"|4‘" ""ll"5"¢3m '°"l=l'lal"" and lhwllgh this C=|¢lll'Bli0. Bil/in
l'e0rientation—leamingnewwaysofsee- m=l"' and am avoiding the P<>ru0- recognition and validation; pleasures of
ing, thinking, evaluating and represent- graphy/censorship debate as it is an solidarity to which this sharing may give
ing. Implicit in this perception of femi- aspect of popular culture which does rise; pleasure in shared and socially
nist theory is the belief that there is a receive a great deal of feminist atten- dened aspirations and hopes; inasense
knowable social world that is mutable lion?) To begin, it is in the sphere of of identity and community.“
and changes. In other words,the current entertainment (predominantly film, One of the most important feminist
' ‘dominant’ ideology is only currently video and television) that notions of strategies involves making previously
dominant and assumptions regarding gender roles and familial stmctures are unacknowledged experiences visible,
sexuality, family groupings, kinship sys- set up, and where cultural tensions and and claiming these experiences tobepol-
tems, the organization of the state, vary conicts are acted out. While I do not itical. Ignoring popular culture and
in different historical periods. The de- have the statistics at hand, one could entenainment, or considering it peri-
nition outlined above also assumes that reasonably argue that for a cenain age pheral to the more pressing issues (pre-
one (an individual or group) can learn to group (approximately ranging from the dominantly economic and reproductive)
see, to ‘read,’ to interpret, and hence to fteen to thirty year olds who make up is precisely in line with patriarchal ideol-
reject and choose alternatives. The the bulk of these audiences) popular ogy. Our society's dominant attitude
potential for transformation exists in forms of entertainment have eclipsed towards entertainment suggests that the
both the personal and the s0cia|/t;0m- other sources of socialization (like the fundamental desires, pleasures, frustra-
munal realms. I am suggesting that education system and perhaps even the tions which are evoked, are inconse-
consciousness-raising (to use a currently nuclear family) in terms of providing g- quential and ultimately unrelated to
untrendy, passe term which implies ures of identication and infomtation on ‘real' life. Criticism and analysis is dis-
something signicantly dilTerent from how gender is socially dened. They couraged because it is politically prefer-
l ‘deconstruction,‘ as will soon be dis- provide fascinatingresource material for able to be able to control, and hence
cussed) is one of the key elements linking understanding how images are propa- diffuse, the conicts, anxieties, and ten-
theory to action, and this involves the gated and entrenched and why women sions enacted through narrative art.
possibility of both critically distancing collude with patriarchal representations Andrew Britton develops this thesis in a
oneself from the entanglements of of female experience. Simone de Beau- discussion of what he terms "Reapnite

Wlnter'86 Clnehctlonl I1
‘M

‘pk’;

I
i
~ @

CineAction! Winter '86


entenainment." The lms he analyzes levels of meaning; forexample, the image ter points out, according to Lacan, “lan-
insist on their fantasy element in order of a woman signies plethora of con-
a guage is given primacy over social stnic-
“to avoid exposing the incoherence or notations in a patriarchal discourse: cas- iures."" At least Freud's model of the
stimulating the very anxieties which it is trated other, lost mother, sexual seduc- creation of the gendered subject from its
the lm's function to lay to rest.“’ By tress, etc., hence new signs are created initial bisexual nature depends upon
demeaning pleasure as ‘just entertain- which are specic toaparticular culture. social practices—-the Oedipus complex,
ment,‘ as not related to realanxieties and Die speaking subject, then, is con- the incest taboo. the patriarchal family.
dissatisfaction, these lms provide a strucied (and hence controlled) by lan- The Lacanian version of the constmc-
place to let off steam that might other- guage and therefore, by ideology. One tion of the subject, (the process wherein
wise be directed and mobilised. By can at best deconstnict pans of the sys- the ego is constituted), which treats each
adopting the attitude that cultural forms tem, uncover some of the inconsistencies subject as an undifferential male subject,
ofplay and pleasure are trivial,and ulti- and nd the cracks, but one can never begins in the mirror phase when a child
mately unrelated to politics, feminists altogether step ouigidg of di§¢0u;§¢_ misrecognizes itself in the minor as
risk falling prey w the most basic 0pera— Quoting post-Allhusserianslike HlI‘ldC§S being mm ¢<>mPl¢l¢ "W1 S/hs is ("is
tions of co-optatinn practised by the and Hlf§[' Terry Lgvgll makcs the ‘mini child sees itself united with the mother).
dominant ideology. Britton points out that " , it is than no tong" possibia to
_ _
As Laura Mulvey explains.
13"" “slgnill 31'!/'0" Ills Olhr hand. refer to objects existing oulride of dis- recognition is thus overlaid with mis-
"il1f0l'm5 U5 Ollh elwfk Ofwfial f¢|B- course as the measure of validity of dis- recognition: the image recognllcd is
tions out there. related to the ideas, feel- r;0ur§e_"" "what diim-eniiaies re,-,|g§m Cuntjeivtrtl as the reected body of the

"'85 1" here‘ r and "'3"5r°""§ UT Win"


< - from this absurdly consistent t:onven- 5°“: bl“ "*_"‘i5'°°°E"lll_"“ f'5 §“P“l°'
""115 "I6 P05§ibi|ili=§ OT f¢f¢f¢I\¢¢ - - - - tionalism is precisely its insistence that, P'°1“"“ ‘ms b°.d>' °““"J° .'“°" as. a“
Tl“ "X1 "il"§f°""5 lhc W3)'§ in Whilih WE while concepts draw their meaning from
are able w.c0ncc:,“e oi a social rcamy me" place wnhm a system or Concepts‘ to the future generation of identica-

"i"“‘°T)
¢X!¢m3l 1° ll - - - - these concepts can and do refer to real lion Wm, mhm_ Thu mjno, momcm
lt is at this point that we can return to objects in a real world, about which pj-,_~d;j|¢§ iansuugc for [ht ¢hj|¢==

Il§§S§?l?‘;"..1‘Z.§.i,‘l2‘fZ"E;’§“..'iiT."il;“,1
“reformulate conditions of experience—
::;'..:::::?-...:‘:
‘subject' who can act outside of ideologi- 9 .' ."y M ma. H ‘mag? 'sal'ppcar' Th“ C

in order to change them . . ."’ then a cal discourse and refer to an extra- 'l""al “pcmnc: or “"°T"“'°“- sePam'
feminist‘s wholesale adoption of many discursive world, the Althusserian "°n'i1'b5m]:e (T".'1p°“m.'a| d°a‘h)'S.u?e
(supposedly radical) strueturalist and school effectively denies the possibility r? "".‘n C C ' “pF'."'mccS alspl" m
post-structuralist semiotic discourse of challenging the dominant ideology lh“ u""y—r‘:.° le.c°3"f“°_n lira Mk‘ or
theories (including the reinterpetation of from an individual or collective basis. albscncc‘ 0 d'v's'°n' ‘(Til cézagehlg
psychoanalysis and Marxist theory) is This same criticism has been raised in lfmguage 9'? creams mfg}. C C. ‘ed

problematic to say the least. Althoughl relation to the work ofMichel Foucault. grave’ me’ .l° mum I" dmg Pm"
don't have the space to argue through all Although Foucault's theorization of the mlln.‘ [PE T1921?‘ age dcsms :10
ofthe objections which have been made, discourses ofpower implies the existence 1'_h m l u 3“. W ‘E. hask Ci‘ ' "ca:
l would like to outline some ofthe major of resistance, he explains that "resistance cs: rcpresslonsy LC ‘ab p ace‘; C:
problems since these theories so centrally is never in a position of exteriority in m|:.m°ry;l";aCFs D ‘ C a ?.en;:‘c of ‘ C
infonn much feminist lm theory. relation to power.“Jeffrey Weeks makes ° -lac‘ 0 B?“ an pan O W at ("ms
Feminists have (understandably) thispointstatingthat“theveryexisience ‘he. u“c°"m°"§' Unmfe Fleud‘ Lawn
claims that the unconscious is structured
been attracted to discourse theory, to the of power relies on a multiplicity of points like a language; as Annette Kuhn
concept that power is maintained of resistance which play the role of . . ._ ,_ .

through language and to the idea that ‘adversary, target, support or handle in exP_la.'ns' n.“ formed“ ‘he same pop
subject identity (hence gender) is inter- power relations.‘ It is difcult to resist :5" irnhughi;‘:%cgf';:'::":?;
dependent with language and discourse. the conclusion-which Foucault actu- Th ‘ . S d E d,_
Althusser and Lacan, in their respective ally denies-that the techniques of disci- .e.:'.“"°riP st pr“? es; °hc.s;h 5

disciplines, have been the chief propo~ pline and surveillance. of individuation. ac‘l1ru'§' '°':h 0.5 ;T,gl::§':)r::r(m;
nents of the idea that language and dis- and the strategies of power-knowledge lm ym“? e y . °
ipal phase). As Juliet Mitchell writes,
course determiner social identity, expe- that subject us, leave us alwaystrapped."
rience and knowledge. They borrow He notes funher, a “latent essentialism" ll W5" 5* 50"" ""\_¢ l?=T°Y= lbs bah)’
from Saussure‘s theories of language the in his work in that Foucault's theory ‘;°‘l"'"* 311"" 5'8"“)/‘"8 "='"\>'—lh"
seems to imply that “if we break out of

notion that language is understood d:'f‘ l§"““lf"'h" ‘_"l‘l“"l4““5“" w"°T_ 5'


through the perception of dilferences, the regime of sexuality then power will M dv$n:'in‘in§:°
and the conceptual categories through play through new series of dis-
a ugrmh by ‘hm diyfmmcc As Ehcyyarg
which differences are aniciilated and courses."“’ OfJ¢_ _383i“- ‘his 5e°'“5,‘° relatcd‘by_their difference, some
understood are profoundly ideological. deny the possibility of ever effecting runim§,gm[y,ngmm mus‘mark‘h:
(For example, woman is perceived as not social change. difference—a difference that says they
male—relegated to the realm of the The use of Lacanian psychoanalysis canncverbethesamcaseachother.lt
‘0ther.‘)Also,signscan connotevarious compounds this inability to challenge I? ll"
Ph=""$—Wilh 11" lhf ¢0"Ii0l_=-
tions ofsucli a term as are lound in its
governing ideological ‘norms‘ as it
Cllmi that the child's lnltlitllon iiiio ll1- “"°'="‘ ““B°—.'l“" P’ "‘= "B""Y"'8
bl d d mark of the distinction between the
The Scarlet Empress: Dietrich and jge‘:§:yis::ig‘1°‘;’e'g“in:' in°':v';';i"‘u:n sexes . . . It is the mflt of dllT¢fCIlC€
.

' - ‘ - ' , d h t -ii" ii‘ ii


ii
the foregroundmg of mascu“mty' lerms ‘he m"T°|' Pha5e—3 P'e'0¢’d'P”I iarilfriniswlitti it foiiiicdftjrlje abxgnliri
stage of ego development. As Mark Pos- ‘M m,,ih,;_=~

Winter '66 CineActlon! 83


The privileged signier of language (and of her methodology) is ultimate
less the scsnm (0¢¢="¢=§i|)"/"if! "1i§§lf\I¢-
gender identication) is the phallus. The challenge, than the ultimate paradox. """l\’°"' °"="§°“'"d-'1)‘-_d\'¢_‘4"\§~)Tl\=
phallusisthe primebearerofmeaningas How can one ght a system which is Pm“ "1" ‘“h!‘°‘,°F°"P'°§ '5 """‘d
it establishes the concept ofsexual dilTer- instilled before the entry into ideology— “"4 ‘.'.°" '“"_'5'b." b°'"3 d"
subjectivtsed as iilten in dreams Phan-
ence (who has the phallus and who i.e. into the family, into kinship systems micsare;mpkscapab|co[dm;1adsa_
doesn‘t) in a determinedly phallocentnc and all other facetsof socialization? How “um “Sunny in visual fomn
culture. The mother, once signifying can one change to another system of dis- _'

comfort, plenitude and wholeness, now course (which is what Mulvey proposes: ll '5 l"l¢l’¢5\"18 I0 "9!" h°W =35l|)’ ll"?
also connotes fearful castration (for the a retum to zero, a new language ot ""m5 “Sm l° d‘§_°"b¢ Ph§"'a5)' |°"d
male subject), the powerless Other. She desire) when one is locked, both concep- 'hem5°|"°§ m PM '~""°'"a"° 5""a"°"—a '

recedes (consciously) in imponance as tually and perceptually, within patriar- “Em 9" 5‘7"'{"Ei Y"h‘{'° °"¢ 3'35 °"l
the fathertakesoverasan active gure of chal discourse? d'a'“‘"'5cfi sen?“ "1 ‘"5"a| {mm-
identication. The subject, throughout lt is, nevertheless, worth outlining '_\¢¢°"d'"§ lo M"|V°Y- ""1 ac‘ °f§P¢°'
life, is tempted and continually consti- Mulvey's inuential thesis as some of it is "‘“"B d=P¢"d5 °"
tuted by other mirrors which reactivate recuperable from its Lacanian connes. mm wn,mdic,u,y “peels of me
the mirrorstageof the Imaginary preced- Mulvey explains that cinematic pleasure p1cmumb|= 5m,cm,.,,s of |,,°kmg in
ing the traumas of sexual dilTerence— is created and maintained by the manner the conventional cinematic situation.
mirrors which offer imaginary reflec- in which it recalls “pre-existing patterns The rst. scupophilitt. arises from
tions of wholeness and control (which is of fascination already at work within the P|=§"f¢ i" “Sins ‘"\°lh°\’ WM" 35 =1"
what ideology does). The dominant individual subject and the social forma- Qbiccl "T $°X"| *li'""|=li°" ""0"!"
ideology maintains its power by offering tions that have molded him."“‘ By link- "gm; Th‘ 5°c°"d~ "|°"°"_’P“d ‘h'°“3h
false, deceptive and soothing mirror ing primal erotic forms of looking (evok- "“"c'$§“"' f'"'“‘ ‘hc .°°"5l"““‘.’" °r'.h°
images of coherence and unity (through
. . . .
ing memories of satisfaction and ::“‘.c°m_“_ from 'dc_'“.'r'ca"°" Wm‘
e imagt seen. Thus. in lm terms.
the family, religion, the state) while sup- pleasure as well as memory-traces of um, impncs 3 scparmion or me "mic
porting and reinforcing the ‘correct’ g- ‘lack‘ linked to the Imaginary stage) to ,d,_.,,mv of me sub]-cc, [mm me obj“,
ures of identication (the law of the socially-dened notions of sexual dil‘fer- ,,nt|,,_-'§¢m"(u¢|i\-= 5wp(-,pi,i|i,|)_ti,¢
Father). (The cinematic screen has been encc (the Symbolic), the Hollywood other demands identication of the
compared toonesuch mirror"as it reac- cinema unshakably reinforces dominant =2" Willi Ills‘ "bJ¢¢l On lllc Scrrcll
tivates the mechanisms of the patriarchal denitions of gender. The "'_"’"S" "W §l>f~‘f=ll°\">‘ f_§¢iQ=\li°"
imaginary—the erotic fascination in- experience of viewing a motion picture ‘"“h “"d "°‘°5""""‘ “r h“ "k'-‘D
volved in looking, specularity, recogni- within the surroundings of the darkened womem ‘he,-,_ an codcd as "mic cg]-eels
tion/misrecognition and identication.) theatre sets thestage for the above opera- ~;o_b¢_|ook¢d_m_- Their visum image
As Lovell points out,accordingto Lacan lion. ‘More than any other ‘conscious‘ e-(reams) ma ow Ofauion in momems
“the self is nothing but the combined expenence, lms recreate a kind of ofc,-mic comcmpjalmn--rt (bum for me
product of these imaginary reections, dream state whereby one is invited, in spwlalor and for his gure o{id¢mi¢3_
and as inconsistent as they are." lt part, to lose oneselfin a narrative world [gum me male chamcm. wimm me d;egc_
becomesdiicult to reconcile this theory meticulously recreated onscreen—in a sis) whc me m3|c characmr of idgn.
with any concept of class struggle which world which is, at once, larger than life Canon commls me aclmn and moves me
“reinforcesaconstituting subject,collec- yet safely separate. As already men- Sm,-y ;,|ong_ A5 Robin wood (mm m,"d_
tive rather than individual, which is cap- tioned, the cinematic screen has been (mmmmlmg Mulvcy) --me ma]: carries
able of infomied intervention . . . .“‘° All compared to one of various ‘mirrois' me M,-mliva forward wmk mc woman
one_ean talk about is an ‘interpel|ated' that help constitute and dene the spec- hows it up_-~11 H,,wcm-_ mc woman-S
subject doomed to inisperception. tating subject. Through the form of the image does nm 5imp|y_ unprobkmati.
Perhaps what might be descnbed as realist ctional narrative, the spectator is ca||y_sa"5|-y ma|e pkasure and dcsim As
the backbone of all contemporary fetni- situated at the centre of a unied, coher- Mu|v¢y c,,p|am§_ --me |°Ok_ plcasm-ab]:
nist lm theory is Laura Mulvey's article ent, closed universe. led through the m (0,-m_ can [K mmalenmg m comcm_
on “Visual Pleasure and Narrative story _by an invisible, omiiipotent all- amjms woman as mpmsenmuo"/image
Cinema.“ Mulvey's account of how the knowing masculine enunctattng narra- mm C,-ysmjjius mi; paradox’-~21
cinema addresses and constructsa mas- tive voice (inaudible yet present). Akhough me woman means an emqy
culirie, gendered spectator by tnstigating To extend the screen/mirror analogy memory of -p|,mjwd¢_' 5|“ com“ lo Sig.
erotic forms of specularity is based on further, one might note that the cinema mfy 5cxua| dm-5,-¢nC¢_mc casumed
Lscan's linguistic reinterpretation of allowsa space for pleasurable phantasies Omen
Freudian psychoanalysis. She outlines to be acted out. Mitchell argues that
the importance of this type of analysis when the baby acquires language, it
for feminists by claiming, unconsciously maintains The paradox of phallooentrism in all
its manifestations is that it depends on
lt gets of our
tis nearer to the roots a memory~trace signifying satisfaction the image of the castrated woman to
oppressiomitbringsan aniculation of but left to satisfy itselffrom its own
is give order and meaning to its world.
the problem closer, it faces us with the phantasies. ln psychoanalytic terini- An idea of woman stands as lynch-pin
ultimate challenge: how to ght the nology, a phantasy is an imaginary iothesystemzit is her lackthat produ-
unconscious structured likealanguage scene in which the subject is the pro- ces the phallusasa symbolic presence,
(formed critically at the moment ofthe Iagonist and in which. in distorted it is her desire to make good the lack
arrival of language) while still caught manner, a wish is fullled. Phaniasy is that the phallus signies.“
within the language of patriarchy." the setting for the desire (wish) which
came into bein with its prohibition A5 Mulvey °“m"°s' “me male "n°°n'
lf one‘s goal is social change, beyond (almnc: or Oh]-§m_ Th‘ baby_ 0,, any scious has ‘two avenues of escape from
d¢°°"5"\"3"°|'|i ‘hen wllai Mn“/5)’ 5'95‘ human subject of whatever age, places ""5 ¢35"3"°" 3"X|Y- Z’ The male SP“?
cribes (given the theoretical parameters himself 85 actor somewhere in the tator can demystify the female Other,

I4 ClneActlon| Wlnter‘86
and then punish or save the guilty iibjeet CllllglllI71ll\¢I‘ntI\'.|i;|II\l1lgt|ll) Ul liii»l.- Rind ills‘ L411!"-\¢“"'§ 5}‘? P|")’5 '-15¢ ‘M5
through voyeurism, or disavow e;i§m|- mg... I1-rii,;-iiitiqise-siiii the iiiiplie;i- kiiiiwledge tn assert their needs and
tion by fctishizing woman so that she """‘ “' ll" *'*"""/l*‘"|""£- P-I~\\\L'/’ desires. Man)‘ of mii Sternberg's lms
becomes reassuringinslcud ufdangcrous luuked-at split iii lL'Hll\ ul sL‘\ll;t| dil- (QR-gruum] ihc malq chal-anal-5'
(through fctishistic seopnpliilia).Miilvey
[he nwrvvulmmon "I.
men“ 5"“! mu pm” “I [M "Lik i"l'~"“Pl> l" P"»“s‘>> ""11 ¢0""0|
mL_h.> §L_“m]il'\, (-I-ho Dew.’ is
Dil-
wumanh
for \_\l\lb\lilL eiie.|psii|.ited in the l\e|'i>.'

female 513;; as 3 m;|nj|1;q;“h,h 0|‘ ‘ht .\1ii|\'e_\‘failstuiiieiiiioiiiliatby thelaiiier The Seiirli-I IfIll[7f:’Y.\’ amongst °lh°Y$)
|am;r_ h;il|' u|' the lm, one also ideiitilies \\lli'l while she eludes masculine domination.
Many fcmini§[ lm ihwymh-guns ml. the female protagoiiist [,ltid_\/M;ide- 'lhe lms draw attention tolhe woman's
;|-31¢ Muh/¢y'5 [hggfiqg wiihoul cu|]§|d_ leiiie, pl;|)4.‘d by Kiiii .\lii\;ik.) Far friiiii kil\L'Il!p\IWL‘fL‘Li positiun and to her very
Hing ihc mo ,_-mmpics shc ,hL-mhm,- m endorsing masculine forms Ul enme limited lkirnix til‘ protest. Whereas Mul-
illusu-aicandvu1id;,;¢h¢,-u$§¢nh,n5_ [1 5, limkiiig, the lm presents ll severe eri- ve) iiiaintiiiiis that. "shadowy characters
in [hig scclhm hf hcr discumo,‘ ‘hm tique of various lkiriiis oi patriarelial like La Bessiereiii .lIurnu'0 act as surro-
§cfi°u§ douhis a|'i§L-_ \,vh,_-yqas mm L-uh doiiiiiiatmii and allows fur critical dl,s- gates for the director. detached as they
dgsgribg |-{i|¢hw¢i;', [1-”,';_',, as u mm \;ll1CC. Mul\e_\' admits ihai "llii¢liei»<;k .ire fmni 1l\ldlL'l‘ICC idcntication."“' one
Whgfcin01¢mulg§[|'|[ig§u)cUnu-U]and uses the prucess of identilieatiiiii iii»r- eaii also argue that the director deeply
fgmgld 3 woman who may w¢1| ¢“>t;¢ nially associated with ideuliigieal eiir- identities with I)ietrieh‘suppression
cam-aiion ;,nxj¢1i¢5_ Ont L-hnnm mm]. reetness and the reeugiiitioii tn‘ est;ih- \uihiii ll patriarehally dened social
dmily 35;“; [hm Hitchcock"; lm mu. lished iiiorality and sliuws up lls \mrld. l-iiially, Mulvey tails to theorize
31¢; [hf §p¢(j[[Qf on john/5¢uuiL-'_\ perverted §ldL'."'H'l_lll§ seems tucall into l1<\\\ the leiiiale spectator responds to
(_|am¢5 Sic“-an) 5|d,; ihmugh p|-ha-55L-5 question l\‘l\il\'ej»'s liiial cniiiiiients siig- stars like l)|etrieli—heyiind assuming a
of idcmicaijqm A5 Mu|\-Cy hcrsk-||' gesting the need in hiiild a ‘cnunler- iiiasculiiie llvrm Ur looking.
cinema" outside nl lfiltlllllldi lkiriiis. Since Mulve_\ suggests that oppressive
notes,
_Siiiiilarl_\,wliileuiieiiiaycunieiid that lnriiis of iii.i.\eiil|iie pleasure are built
look ii disumnuungz Um DICIIILII is tetislii/ed aiiid u\'er\‘alu.ited uilu the spectating prueess itsell and are
fascinalionmurmd ugmm h"“;Mh‘_ as an erotic iihieet iil the speeiaiiir/di» intriiisic til traditional lilmeonventions,
nammvc mum hm‘ mmugh and reeiurs desire, liei persona is l1lt' [U0 she calls livr a emiiplete l’L']CCllOY‘l oflhe
mlwims hm, wnh my pn,L_cm,§ Um complex ti» he reduetively described iii “traditiiiiiul lilm liirm“ and uf the kinds
hg is h|m§¢1i'¢“~m§|ng4 '|1,,_- W,-L-. this W-.iy, ()ne uftlie uuistaiidiiig eh;irac- til pleasure generated hy that form, even
tator . . . sees ihmugh the liml. L|I\ti teristies ul the Dietrich perwiia is though she indicates a few paragraphs
nds himself exposed as eiiiiiplieii, iruii_\—slie knmi \ how men perceiie her earlier that lflldllltllllli realist lms like

Rlnndn Vsiniic Diatrirh with the valria dentara

Wiriter'86 CineAction! RS
l

and the foreqrounding of male domination . . .

l'urlit'~ etin work to tlisttinee the viewer words. the forms !f3dlllOl'lil|i)' defined or iisesthe eittiiiiple ol Hut-Iin 1/it-Sin; \\ here
lroiii the iiiale tigiire of ideiititietition in usurped by patriarchal ideology may he tin ilCll\'L‘ femtile protzigonist (l’e.irl/_Ien-
order to liiighliglit his iippi'L‘.\.\l\‘L' heli;i\- ct'|'cetivel)' used for other purpnscs—i.e. nifcr Jones! is uiitihle to repress her
iotir. It this ii the L‘ll\L‘.ll\L'1llllttlpiltalilt ti severe critique ol'a traditional position. acti\'i:ttess/nitisciilinit) and esttihlisli ll
pi1§\lhlill)' ot C.\lt|h|l.\hlllg0lilL'[ ttiriiisot .-\ tt1il]\\l' blank space in Mulvey'.s stahle sexual identity. She eoiiiptires
lookiii_e_ tor ¢\;|mple ;in;il_\tie_ (not theor) of visual plctisure iiivolves the these conicting desires to those expe<
unlike her e.il| for “pti~sioii;iie dei;ich- lenitile position. lt is ti fairly signicant rieneed h_\ the l>L'llliL‘ spectator. How-
iiieiit")“ ixiiliin llkillltllllli retilist hltiitk spaeciii Lacaiiian psyclioziiitilysis evcr. this does not seem .itleqii;ite in
eineiiiai. l'lie .iet of iiewing is rm! inher- as well: \\'h_v is the phtillus mcaniiigful zieeoiinting for the ll1lL'I\\ll_\ of lenitile
L‘|'lli_\ I\iL'\\i\\i.!lL1l|. RL‘.li|\l airt can allow and \\'h_\ is the female scrotal orgiiii less pleasure provided iliroiigh puplliilf nur-
the spcetatiiig tiiidieiiee to Illilllillll ll \'aluahlc'.’tLui:c |flgilf1l_\' tries to eoiiihai rative foriiis ilti tliroiigh ideiititieatioii
certain t.il\lilllL'L' h_\ prtnit-riiui_t,' ti eriiique one privileged sigiiitier by substituting with \l1lf\.
ortliroiigh the Use ol'iron_v. tinothcr, hence the ‘two lips‘ theory.) In ti recent leeiiire-‘* .\liil\e_\ herself
Juliet Mitchell iiitikes this point \\ith How is the female initiated into the UUl|l!‘lCd some ol ilie prohleiiis her “llil
reference to l-iiiiily Bronte (aiid others 'S_\'mbnlic".‘ Whtit is female desire all original position. She discussed the
h;i\'e argtietl the \;\lllL' thing in relation tihoiitl‘ ln terms ofthc cinciiia one might dangers of polari/iiig 'di|'tL-reitee‘ iiiio
to (ieorge l-.liot. Jame ~\usteii. lidith tisk. how docs the feiiiule spectator opposites liiclive/iiitiseiiline p;is\i\'c/
\.s.
\\'h;irton tiiitl l'l'l1|I\_\' other signicant :ii:ltieve pletisurcl‘.-\ccordingt0 Mul\'e_\"s tbniiniiiclwitlioiii ehtillengiiigtlie iiieiti-
feiiitiletititliorsiiiirkiniitvitliintlie retilisi tlteoryelaboralcd in her response tothis phone base thait csttihlislics se\u;il dit'-
ii;irr;iii\e iiiodel. ‘|:iek‘ in licr origin&1l@\flIC1i!." the feiiiule ferciice. She lt12lt[‘ll£ll|lL'L| thait this l-tiiitl ot
ptblllti within this syslcni is pmbk'- dualism lctives opposite-.~. iiiizihle to iiieet
- ‘i“' "*1“-"|-‘ “““*"‘¥ “"""‘ lb“ matic. She can ciilier adopt mzisciiline or and also mtikes it difliciilt to iii in ;||ti:r-
‘1“_'K',"‘_ ‘!" " 1"|:‘§;",'§‘:“‘;"'d;_ {'l"‘hrt"';':' active forms of looking. and idciitit'_\' natiie discourses.
:|:nl::lL£h .‘|l\kf:“.1|"tla:u":Tvp(N:n|:q‘;|c#:
with both l'tltl|C and teiiitilc protagonists l‘his seems to he one tit the iii;i|or
[huh Jhum p‘m|_m.|L;| urganllmmn lLlfULlSlg her repressed ticti\encss/itias- traps some til the l-rench lClt1lIll>l>i\ll\'C
it culinitylor nitisnchtstically identity with cnijtiuntcrcti in their ;|lKL‘l\‘|pl_s to tit-tine
the passive female ‘ohieetf trapped feminine speech. (.'\lLk|ll1‘ the) do not
.iiid ~lie proceeds to otitliiie the eritiezil within the power of the iiialc gllltl tind $iglCllhl|)'\Iil;li|Cl'lgCli1C§C|l-ftltftflllili
position Broiite iii.iiiittiins. In other the rules of patriarchal society. l\‘lul\'e_\' miium tihjiseoiirsi; thciir_\ or the deter-

‘ 28 C|8AC[lOn| Winter'B6
l

. . . Vertigo, with James Stewart and Kim Novak.

minism of Lacanian psyehtitinalysis-.i As ‘ft-minine‘ describes everything not being xed, symmetrical. closed. l~'emi-
Luce lrigaray notes, "the unconscious is ‘masculine,' for example a ‘homosext-tal' nine language, on the other hand, is mul-
l
l
structured like a language. he (Laean) voice. This is Kristeva‘s position. Why. tiple, fluid, open, polyvalent. Kristeva
1

claims repeatedly. ()b\'ious|_v. but however, call it “feminine”? similarly maintains the categories of
which'.'"“ The female voice has been Juliet Mitchell argues that the pre- masculine vs. feminine (i.e. not mascu-
dened as being ti disruptive force uut- ()edipal,the carnivalesqumcannolbethc line), by claimingthat the ‘female modal-
side of organized discourse. occupying areaof the feminine. ity,' the ‘semioticf the disruptive, trans-
hlsjuslwhauhc pamarchalunmm gressive, voice represents a negativity.
ll“3_"3|m °n_h° P“"O=d|P11|-the '$¢fT}lt)-
tic, the carnivulesque. the poetic. ‘lriga-_ ‘M-Inn as me rcmininm lhc inmuivm She writes,

‘hi Y=|iEi°"§-‘hi "\Y5li¢<'l|-‘hi a female praxis can only he negative,


my spcucany thscusscs ‘ht C“-m.mn O‘. all mu“ mi,-,8, that
Plyfttl.
have bun an opposmun m Wm“ c‘mu_ m Urdu
female speech based on a new stgnifierol
assigned to women-—th¢ heter0gcttc- to say, ‘that is not it,‘ ‘that is still not
m°3"i"8—lh= \'i1Bi"3| ‘W0 |lP5< KTi5l°Vi1-
unlike Héléne Cixousand Lucelrigaray, t>us,thc notionthatwomcn‘ssexu:ility ii‘. I mean by ‘female' what is Hut
much moreuncufzt whulcb0dy.not represented, what is HUI said, what
“does notdistinguish the femalcimpulse i~
so Benital - nutso phallic_- ltis netthat remains t)t.tlSlt.|L‘ tit ntitnintititiiis and
(le féminin) from other polvriiorphous '

manifestations of ne ativitvi and dissi- ‘h°‘“"‘l"**1°"""°‘b°d‘““P“""_“ the‘ ldwlotsit-'>-"


g ' law‘ hut it disrupts only within
dcnce-"“ If in fact. the feminine dt:s- ‘ ' mh lbw .. Andrew Britton Clilburttles upon the
“lb” ‘he PY°'0°dlP11|- 4""-l if "W PW" mm“ 3 4 l objections raised to these classications
ocdllial Ci!" ht‘ 5°Pi"i"° {mm ll" Milchcu 5°“ mt P'°'O°d'Pa| as a of femininity (and it seems worth quot-
ins at length’.
Oedipal (which is in itselfu contentious moment “provided by the law, by the
point-—l have argued that this is doubt- symbolic lvf illf." 3_"d I10! 3 “5=P3\'§l¢
structure in its own right."“‘ Tltc claim TM" '5-‘"lhi$P°'"l-l1‘~'¢Y>' ""111"-
ful that the initiation into language in ‘ | f ' tic identification of madness with
_-pmary
'
the Imaginary stage cannot be divorced that the pre-Qedipal is exclusive y emi-
l
'
from me acqmsmon u‘ Ianguugcl ‘hen
the feminine refers to a point in a child's
mm '5 3
ltigztray. who
pamarchal view‘
seek to dene fem-
example’ ofthe cnsis ufdilTcrence and
ofbom wm“hc.rcmininc._ Th“ m'od:l

d°V¢|°Pm°m Preccding >"X"3l dm‘ imne |!'8"°$=» nsks mes: _sa'_nc pllfaus of feminism, which also underlies the
<>ftt1y§ttft¢<'=tttt>tt-H=t‘tWt>ltP§ \l_t=0l'Y Of lms of Peter Wollen and [Aura Mul-
ence; i-e- at time when the child's gen-
feminine speech is set up opposite mB$- vey, seems to me most dangerous in its
dered sexuality is not yet determined. its
culine discourse which she describes as implications. As right-on. tugether_
bisexual period. If this is true then the

Winter ‘B6 CineAction! 27


T
liberated, political beings, we have ling ggngtruc The goa| of lhc femaic Chapter I we saw that the repeated
aba"d°"°d "W "°"°" °f ""= “"9” speculum is to shatter what she tenns §““°"‘i"i°_‘°‘"""i°‘ "W °h“"‘F“"'
ihorhable mystery of w,,m;,n_ gnly to “the old dream °rsymmetry'IIl| Pam-a,_ ize the family melodrama effectively
see it replaced by the ‘the voice of the dwl order and um or do immobilize the female viewer. While
Sphinx‘ (referring to Mulvey/Wollen‘s f I. h . . su a. a the male viewer is given idealized
lm, Riddlernfihe .S'pliin.r)—thc Fem- mcans Q “.3 mg‘ °.°"‘"“°‘°"‘ pamap screen heroes that retum the image of
inine as the ‘unspoken and the chal v°'ce_l5 9'T°n5l_V9_~ sY'Ylm¢"Yf15 3 his more perfect self in the minor
un5p¢,kah|,'_ [ht |:m,d;a,, ~da,k w,,_ formal device is not, in itself, ideological, ph;|§¢_ |h¢ |';ma|¢ spmaior has only
tinent‘, the voice of the poet and the and there is no reason why aesthetic and powerless. victimized gureswho rein-
madman.amysierrous,repressed,vol~ formal pleasures cannotbeappropriated for“ an lmldy wablishvd 5¢"§¢ "T
canic life-force. l(risteva‘s argument, for more politically gagfying ¢hd5_ worthksncs.“
"I
' ‘f "l°""* lf
f3" , ""="Y l YB“ *5 ' I h °""’- A further 0b_|CCllOl'I
' ‘ to much current Ahhough Ma,,a,m-.
and M1,“;. .
,5 Ooh.
nine‘ on to at collecti n f mantic/ i
ti,“
- < ~ - ~ _

anarchist 5l,,,myp,,D_l|?¢ ;,,°|_ r°m:f“_s‘ fuhuml w‘:_k '5_ "5 ah'§‘°"C3|- ceived within a realist style, Kaplan feels
the daemonic poet the spontaneous apo mm “alum (W ‘Ch IS also‘ m pan‘ °b“8¢d [0 3P°|°$iz¢ for this and 799"?‘
disruption of social l'orms—and then “"'."’““"?'° ‘° "5 b°".°‘”'l‘g r'°'“ "‘° crate the lm: "On: is reminded very
0fTers the result as sexual politics. ‘fa“°“5 d'5c°‘"$‘ ‘hF°"°5 dlscusxd °?"' much of the kind of realism we nd in
While both are clearly comprehensible her 35 Ye" 35 I-acaman P5}'5h°3_m3|)'5l5)~ gaglgfn European lm; by dii-¢¢t0|-5 like
as rt response to oppression, the ‘femi- There is no sense of class, of history, of Andrej wajdm Mam‘ Mesa"-,s_ K5‘-_
mzsoas iiescrit-3:‘ roam: gontexltj of alga, of ethnicity or of race. As 0|), Makk and P5] Gabon--ii
- " t ; -

Knste?a'sden§:ign ofthc‘F£minine', erry Ovc “mes. Von -.n.'°na‘hkc.m.any oil!" lmmak-


which iscsscntially mythic (it isetemal Th" '¢|i"i°"$ Or |3b°"|'/°°Pll3| 37° "S Scnsmvg to remmm P‘?lmcs'w°rks to
and ,;,,s,,,,-,,,a|)_ pSyc|,,,a,,,,;y,,s has in danger or bcing reduced to the upset painarchal denitions of gender
“com, hh|¢ more ‘hm, 3 mun, or revolt of the son against the Father,a without sacricing the means of reaching
reinforcing the most cherished dreams "=<|"'="""i5"1 "0 "1"" ¢¢=Pl=b|= than a wide audience or the various pleasures
of Romanticism.“ "F ¢°°"°"\i§"' Wm" /\|"1"§$=f 3"‘! evoked through realist ctional narra-
Aside from the claim that both fcmi- giigowc Wm: 3‘ such Pmns to liV¢5- Thi-5 i5 "°l 3 °°mPl'°"'i5¢—il3
nistssuccumb to mystication,one must ' Valid 5!""°B)'- “WW P|¢f‘15\"¢§- W"_"¢|"
omighe an addhiOna| probiem h-183,-ay_ A case tn point: in her recent collection of are culturally and histoncally specic,
K,-ism“ and it/|u|v¢y_ among“ mhcm essays on “Women and Film," E. Ann touch on needs and drives which extend
an iamng about bmh mascuhm mod“ Kaplan includes a critical discussion of beyond the strict social parameters of
of disco“,-Sc (i_=_ [0,-m_ sly|c_ hmguage) Margarethe Von Trotta‘s Marianne and gender. Feminist cultural theorists must
andquesdons °fmmem(i_e_ idcoiogitd Juliane. Althoughshedoesgoon vaguely likewise expand their discussion to
notions hfgcndand {¢ma|e experienccs to situate the lm within a cultural and include wider. more exible conceptions
which are no; mp,-¢s¢m¢¢)_ and [ht mo li_istorical_context,she begins her discus- of gender beyond the rigid ahistorical
are not the same. Formally these femi- 51°" "1 ""5 Y"-‘1""¢\’1 categories which patriarchal ideology
nists callforan oppositional language(in whim Margwmc Dam cxpkms constructs and hopes to maintain.
the cinema it has been dubbed ‘counter [ha po§,h,,|hy of women mnaining This leads me to my concluding
cinema')“ a modernist text (as opposed with the world of the imaginary, rcfu5- thoughts. l am proposing a considera-
to a realist one) which is not ‘symmetri- ing the mule symbolic order as faras is tion of feminist cultural theory that will
cal‘ or ¢lQ5¢d_ qr; A5 I afgug at kngih possible, Von Trotta analyses venture beyond the phallus and will
elsewhere,“ there are many ‘texts‘ which ‘"°"'="'§ P9|i'i°*| di§¢°"'§¢§ Wilhi" remain grounded in social history. The
are open, polyvalent, etc. yet still speak 1“ §Y'“b°"‘Y "°“'"‘< sh? ‘h°“’§ ll" inclusion of other issues such as class,
with a ‘masculine‘ i.e. patriarchal voice, Jigigga race, age, ethnicity, expands the percep-
still present the point of view of patriar- asainslw dOminan‘ordcmcn_0sm) iion of female oppression, fantasy and
chal, ‘masculine' expenence (whether by or mm ‘ha, mks m emu Chang: desire beyond sex. While the concept of
a male or female artist: Jean-Luc whim, h (rcromhsl fcminismyi Othemess is useful in understanding
Godard's Sauve Qui Peru, La Vie/Slow masculine fears and consequent attempts
Malionisacasein point.)Thereare real- This introduction speaks for itself to control the threatening aspects of
ist texts which obey formal laws of sym- (through the Laeahiah Sea] ofappmval) femininity, it also perpetuatcst eoveres-
metry and closure yetarepaIi1icalI_vfem- and to itself. ln addition,describingter- timation of the phallus as the central
inist in the sense of being sensitive to the rorism as a discursive practice denies its Oflliilil f0l'¢¢- This. lhir iII1P|i¢8 "W
oppression of women, or of representing
alternative suppressed experiences, or of
relationship to events in a particular, his-
torical, social world. Kaplan also takes
i
Med T01’ di§¢\l$$i°" °f $¢X"B¢nd¢\‘ 5Y9"
tems and gendzr-clasges as ¢|IIl‘b(;'l¢d bg
exploringfcminine pleasure(andlwould great pain; to read rh¢ h-h in umahiah eminists sue as ay e u in an
go so far as to claim that they do so terms. Even though, she claims, “Von Vfda B"l'5WI1 l'¢5P°"iV°|Y~ A5 Rubi"
consciously). This appears to be more Trotta refuses to psychoanalyze the sis- IIOKS -

defensible when considering a film ters," Kaplan cannot resist accounting


directed by a woman sympathetic to for Mai-ianne‘s terrorist activities: “lt is F='f'°"\ W"! I" =XPl'=“i°" °f"""-
women's issues, like Lee Grant's Tell Me’ clear that Marianne‘s intense identica- ‘Fl ‘1i""°"‘°" °"°!“5i"° 3'"d" id?”
a Riddle; however even a male director iion with her father has resulted in her ‘.“y.“. ‘M s“PP'.'°“'°" °[ '!““f':“| ‘"""
like Max Ophuls, admittedly working taking a self-dcstnictive path."“
(‘;i\.llSldC of a feminist framework, has In runher mduccnisl mine, ‘rails; in women‘ or the hm‘
rected lms like Caught or The Reck- . . . .
Kaplan maintainsthat thelm (although d°"'"°", °r '“‘5‘"l'"? "'"5' Th‘
» ~ a ~

Ie.r.r Moment that speak to women in a Sam, mm; symm wmch Oppmm
a

I. .

manner that does not compromise spec- a ma ls‘ Om) snuams women in its relations of exchange,
tatorial forms of visual pleasure. Why is . . . the female spectator very diiTer- °PPl'¢$$¢$ W=l'>'°'I¢ in 5" iI\§i§l¢"°=
symmetry, as lrigaray argues, a ma.rcu- enily than do Hollywood lms. in upon a rigid division of personality-“

IQ ClneAction! Winter'86
even if
the classic Hollywood cinema. tive setting is part of the pleasures of
Funh" on 5|-it W,-i|¢s_ popular culture rarely discussed. lt gives
govemed as it was by strict codes of cen-
sorship, too often imposed the less than one pleasure in an unconventional sense
U'“"“l°'y' 3 ""°'°“5h5°‘“3 r"'""'5'
revolution would liberate more than
4
satisfying happy ending,‘ one wonders
~ - . of the word—it allows people to recog-
whether women returned again and nize and share conicts and experiences
wommexpression, “hem:
H would and forms
it would
or
liber-
sexual
ii" again mere_ly_to_indulge their masochism. which‘ are othenvise glossed over and
ai, hum,“ Peisunaiiiy from trivialtzcd. These kinds of pleasurearg
Although it is impossible to know with
straight jacket of gender."
. any certainty how the female spectator potentially transfonnative if recognize
interpreted a melodrama in any given and mobilised.
Bow R2,": “rd Buiyndrelai finial:
decade, it seems lo ical to assume, as This is why ‘deconstruction’ is ulti-
n 0. =“E"‘ er ‘Pen en. sys'
oppnm domination.
tems of Burstyn's discus- . Terry Lovell su
g
ests, matcl not enough (and certainly not
when )it is an operation restricted to the
.

5'0“ of 8cnd"'dm"wS' as sh: cxplams‘ gs


ll“! P=°P|¢ d°_"°l P\"'¢h=5° "mtr =="l- privileged few). Many feminists nd tra-
addtsl the dimension of appropriation
and domination in such a way as to “"11="°|'-“ls'"°l'd="°=XP°$¢"1="‘- ditional texts useful to the extent that
5‘l"°“° b°‘"g‘°isid°°]°3y-lhciidw‘ they provide discourses to be dis-
include automatically and by deni-
' ~- _ l ' l ll’ ‘,b 'f ' f
m~i=<i- *.‘*!*!"» rm °"“"‘P'°'
;-;,i,;:,~;',,=,=,;';;;'.-.~=»~'-t-M'-=- =:.;..:*.:‘:.::;“:..:"::r;Y:.
' guessed at in the absence of analysis Proposes ‘he posblmy or wading
She describes the workings of masculine and investigation. There is no guaran- agamsl ‘hc gm"-H“ bu‘ few mu‘ of ‘hc
1“ (ha; ihc u§¢.y,|,,¢ of iii, ,;u|i,,,-_,| radical potential of pleasure and desire in
dominanoe as
object for its purchaser will even be traditional ‘classic forms of narrative
mars conscious and symmac fair
compatible with its utility to capital- art, or call for at more elaborate theory of
gation of women into an increasingly identication that would account for a
4

ii i- d ii ~ ism =15 burswii idwlvgy. =tr\d_lh¢r<=-


fore no guarantcethat it Wl~|‘|‘ll'1 fact woman‘; pleasurg in ‘|Qgkmg_‘ why
c:i'i::si: Zzjcfirzg 1;? :riv;:,c;":?;
exclusion from the social space andset sew" ‘M ldmloycal mm‘ bulb" Waring down if °"¢ i5 lh°°l'=li'
cally unable to rebuild outside of ‘pat-
h

of functions in which men have taken Cuiiumi pmducis offer fgminisis a


wcaiiii of socioiogicai ini-oimaiion riarchal discourse‘? Mary O'Brien quite
chargbtéoftliie life iiftrieltizaisingly larger
I‘ . ' ' ' '


.
. .
num , ‘

;=::::*.'.".:.:?:.::?:.r;;:i:‘:*.:';:;;$: Il‘%l‘¥£lrl‘1IF&‘tl%K¥Fl?ii;??iil?li§§1
funda-
This ghettoization of women into the no,-ms and ii“ posiiioii of iii: ieminin; ical,‘ ‘static,’ ‘essentialist' and
The famiiiai -homcit iii: piivaiiud mentally ';tdealist.:“ A‘s1dTerryj inigll
powerless wiorld of‘the plgiI3lC' wasgtnd
domestic ace ii-ch ii “id N ii writes. “K c question B "SSE 0 =
remains a t eme repeate y enacte in
source ,,f§1,c,,,,:,,,',,,,,§,, Oiuiiiiiaefsso text is not ‘how does it reect social real-
the melodrama—a genre most obviously
aimil 70' ll“! lemak ¢0§lIm¢Y- Min)’ often crystallizesall that the protagonists “YT hm ‘bl’ Wm‘ "'°a“5 i? ‘h° ld°°l°$i'
yum to escape ;mm_ and the inabiiiiy in cal effectiofthe interpellatton of the sub-
feminists (like Kaplan and Kristeva)
|"a"° "ad “'°"1°"'5 Pi¢""'°5 °\' ‘he do so capitulates the narrative crisis. la‘ 3°h'°"°d lhmugh ‘M P'°F°55°5
This icpicsenuiion of ihc mm: as rcs_ whereby meaning is constructed in the
women's novel (a term which encom- .,. at,
iriciivei Oppiessivc and conning is text.
passesfemale-centredanddomestic nar-
repeatedly played out across various Cultural forms of entertainment do
ramfes “'°55 5="“a| 3°_'"°5_P"" draw upon social experiences. As
d°m'“?n'|Y‘h°m°l°dfaP13)‘“ ‘°""5°r“ genres. One must begin to consider that
'hY_5‘°"'_¢' °" "f'?5°°h'5“c' lF’“"a "°’_“' realist narratives which equate the Richard Dyer notes in “Entertainment
\lihlCh"lmm0b.l|lS8S' women into subl'ltl5- domestic sphere with enclosure and dis- and Utopia,“‘“ “show business's rela-
'd°Q|°3'°a"Y °°"‘c‘ b°ha‘"°"- satisfaction are addressinga complex of tionship to the demands of patriarchal
s“’°_-
capitalism is a complex one. Just as it
J‘-'|'°‘ M"c,h°" °" 'h' mh" h“"d~ social desires and emotions beyond
masochism and hysteria. While one can- does not simply ‘give people what they
dermds Fhe 'mP°“3“F°,°F ‘he ‘”°ma'§'5
not make claims that classic realist art want‘ (since it actually defines those
b?"“'3e°'5 “°"'l°"°“ ‘M '5 3" 'hY5‘°""“
outlines strategies for social change, fem- wants), so, as a relatively autonomous
d'*c°“"5'1
imponam and impimivg inists need not dismissively reduce the mode of cultural production,it does not
ii is an
maition, w¢ hay; to know wim-,, viewingexperience to one that ‘immobi- simply reproduce unproblematically
"51
lises' the spectator into ideological obe- patriarchal-capitalist ideology. Dyer
women are . . . the story of their own
dience. No matter what the intended pro- explains that show business, on the one
domesticity,the story of their own sec-
ject, there is “no guarantee that it will in hand, denes needs and pleasures, and
"{5}?" "Mi" ll" l!°!'!=_i"d ll" W555"
|>'|'"=5 ""5 ""P°§§'h'|"'=§ Pwvidsti by fact secure the ‘ideological effect‘." reinforces them on a continual basis ' but
that. This tradition has been attacked The work of Richard Dyer on stars
~ . »
it also .. responds to real needs erealedby
a

. . _ . . .., - -
by cnttcs such as Julia Knsteva as the society. '_ There are social tensions,
4

diswum oi-ii‘: hysmic. i bciicil (Sum, BFl,_ l9'l8) and, for example,
Andrew Bntton s Katharine Hepbum: inadequacies and contradictions created
has to be the discourse of the hysteric by patriarchal capitalism which are
Hymri, is iii, womaifs sim,,|_ The Thirties and Afler (Tyneside Cinema
Publications, i984) begin to address being addressed. Dyer outlines certain
mun“; agcgplagg and fgf|_|§a|Q|'|h¢
these issues. Female stars function in a demands created by, for example, scar
organisation of sexuality under pat-
riarchal capitalism. Ii is simultan=- variety of ways, often exposing the con- city, exhaustion (resulting from urban
°\I§|Y f-V|\=l=W°l"1"¢3"d°l>°ll\ 1°!" tradictions and anxieties inherent in life, alienation), monotony, fragmenta-
normative gender behavior. Stars can tion, which are countered in cinematic
[‘_"‘l!""‘ "Pd ‘° '_°[“5‘ r°"'i“i"5‘Y'
also act as an oppositional force, under- displays of abundance, energy, intense
“'"h'" pa"“'chal d'sc°"““"
Even if one assumes that the lmic miningthe ideologiealdemands imposed drama, excitement, and closely-knit
by the social world of the narrative. communities. Yet Dyer also outlines leg-
narrative is used to regulate potential
Experiencing the emergence of social itimate needs (“especially of class, pat-
female transgression by constructing the
tensions and contradictions in a collec- riarchal and sexual struggles“)’° which
discourse of the womanas‘hysteric,‘ and

Winter'86 ClneAction| IO
Y

are resisted, perhaps because they are


less easy to contain. Nevertheless, by
opening up a cultural space where pro-
found needs. contradictions and con-
tlicts are enacted. and complex forms of
pleasure and sexuality are played upon,
one cannot always guarantee control—
particularly in a medium which utilizes
non-cognitive. emotive, metaphoric
means ofcommunication. Richard Dyer
outlines some of these elements in what
he terms ‘non-representational‘ signs-
“colour. texture. movement. rhythm,
melody. camerawork.“°"
Semiotics has proven to be inadequate
in dealing with aspects ofthe cinematic
experience which are not easily dissected 4*?“
in linguistic terms. Feminist lm theory,
and its application in responsible criti-
cism, helps to articulate what is often
emotionally experienced yet is left undis-
cussed and unanalyzed. ln the wake of
the legitimiuition of lm theory through
‘objective' scientific study. feminists
have denied themselves the means to
describe pleasures and desires which are
not easily articulated in precise mathem-
atical terms. The ‘codes’ of Realist narra-
tive which Barthes classies as the non-
linear ‘semantic/symbolic‘ codes“
underline the difficulties of accounting
for areas which are difficult to slot,
which reside in metaphor, tone, and
resonance. Robin Wood comments,
What interests itie here above all is the
ambiguity of tlie relationship between
the operation of the linear codes and
that ol the semantic/symbolic struc-
ture, which supposedly sustains them
hut in fact undermines them: l want to
claim that the whole linear progress of
the lm towards its apparently con-
foriiitst. Ct)n\L'ntl0fl€ll. reactionary
resolution. etleetively collapses under
the weight of semantic/symbolic
inipliciitioii,“-'
The Devil Is a Woman: Dietrich and the foregrounding of ‘femininity.’
This is central to one‘s understanding of
the way realist nar
mlwes opera“: andmc it were, what utopia. would leel
-
like The ‘suhject' is nvl. therefore, inexor-
manner in which they can present an
ambivalent attitude towards dominant rather than how it wouldbeorgiinised. i\h|)/- d¢l°l""i"'-‘d|)'- "¢c¢55i"ilY C""51l'
ideolo .ml D .l It thusworkson the levelolsensibility. tuted and constructed by the texlt.
gl mm" yer wn es‘ by “~‘hi¢hl'""**"*1" ¢“°°li"° ¢°4*'lh=" Besides the fact that one can remain
Entertainment otters the image of '5 '~"l"l"\'~"l§Yi§ll¢ Of-a"d|‘"8°|Y >P"|"*' involved yet distanced from classic real-
'§°""‘"""8 b¢""' W ¢=~¢=IP¢ lulu. or ‘°- “ _3“'f_" "“’d° “r °““““" ist lms through such elements as irony
>°'"*'"""ll W" “"i"" I-l¢=‘P|)' lhl Wt P'°d“°“°"' or the manner iii which a narrative can
\1=!.Y-I"-d=l.\ “"2” dun" Provide. Alter~ comment on its own narriilivity (Eliot, I

"1llI§‘°>- l\"P\'-M Wlih“-|h°§° 4"“


stull ol utopia. the sense tliat things
ll" The ‘poetic,’ ‘non-representational," Austen, Ophu|s_ Scorsese et al) there is
’ '
could he better, that something other ‘symbolic’ elements of cinematic narra- also the question of a critical, discerning
. . . .
man Wm“ is can be mmglmd and lives, which arelnot as tangible and not
. .

and politicized spectator/reader who is


.

bcm,]Md_ ' as easily contained and controlled as active and responsibly involved in the
semiotics and notions of'suture"" would ‘system‘ til‘ communication.
h"“'"‘““"“'"‘ d“"-‘ "°‘- h“W“’"- have one believe, opens up the narra- Entertainment and spectatorship is
pmcnl mmm’ of uwpiun Wmlds‘ as tive's ‘closure‘ to the kind of multiplicity historically specic and open to varia-
in the classic utopias ol‘ Sir Thomas
Mwm wmiam Mnms H “L Ram“ accorded ‘the feminine.‘ One cannot iion. Theory lwhich. it accessible. é-ind‘
[ht uwmun,5m|§ mmaincdmmc 1-“L censor every symbol. every nuance, or directed to a public) giyes eac _rea er
mg" ¢mh,,d|,§4 || p,cs,n|§_h¢ad_o,,a5 the elTects of irony. the tools to analyze how a work is struc-

30 CineAction! Winter '86


llzid 38. Britton, Andrew. "The Ideology of
lured and how it communicates mean- 9.
Screen.“ Movie #126 pp. 2-28. at p. l4.
ins’ whatever her/his pfjmics may I0. Weeks..lelTrey.Sex. Palilies aIulSocieIy
to Soa‘ (Longman. l9Bl)pg. 8. 39. See. for example. Claire Jtihnston‘s
Those who 37° commmed
.d
. .
Women‘s Cinemas as Cuunier
ll. Poster, Mark, Critical Tht|1!_|' of the . ..
(.inema in Claire Johnston (ed.) Nam
Chang-e M“ con
Y

nd oven l eoluglcal
structions of gendcr/class/ race unaccep-
. . . Fami'I_v(Pluto Press, I978) vs. 96. on Women’: ClIlP!!I (London: Society
table, and the dramatisation of marginal for Education in Film and Television.
experiences and oppositional gures oi" l2. Mulvey, Laura. "Visual PIea.tim' aml
I973).
identication invigorating. (See Lori Narrative Ci'nenm,"Sm-en. Vol. lb.No.
Jacobowill. “What does she
Spring's article on Tlie Year of Living 33lPP- 940- 40. FIOTLEDCIS,
want‘! Women and narrative in the New
Da"8"""5!)’- °|5°“’h"¢ in ‘hi5 l55"9)- I3. Kuhn,/\nnette,Warnun'xPiclure.t:l-1*m-
French film." M.A. thesis, April. I983.
Traditional forms of communication inimianilfinematRoutlcdgeandKegan
Paul. I982) p. 48. 41‘ sunwm |)umn,_ 1),,‘ up M P, 74_
can be used to communicate very untra-
M;mhc“_ JUHCL wamm 77“, Lang“, Q Lm_u||'T"m "IL M M 46‘
ditional representations of gender rela- |4_

tions. There is a great deal of aesthetic Re,.o;,,,,-,,,, (pamhwn B°Oks_ NC“,


E Ann Wvmt-nundFtlm'lluIh
Ktiplan 'lh' NM
pleasure in conventional art that canbe York, 1934) p. 244. 43' S.’ (, ' (M h
lp.
ties of 1' amt-ra ct uen
mobilised for different ends. -~ . I04.
T I5. Seelorexample.Metz.(hrisiian. Thu.
~

F ~ t d
emlmsl theory has very en S
spec‘ Ic code Imaginary Signifier." Screen Vol I6
M1 Baudm k'an_L;mi5: _u_ "M M p_ um
in view and operates within its own Nu 2 vv I

of values. lt is up to every feminist to .. ‘ ' PP elfccts of the basic cinemu-


Ideological 454 lb‘-‘L M p_ “M4
awaken. to rewrite. and to sustain a polit- [Qg|1phlC apparatus.“ Film Quarlerly.
tl2.
vo|_ ]g_ N“ z_ pg 39,47 ("anslmed by -Mi. Iblll. at p.
ical consciousness so that social change M lm
can and does take place. Art and culture Aim, wmgamsy “,4 Mulvey, Laura. 47. Rubin. Gayle. (),|_ ‘.”_
p_

help one envision and articulate expe- "Visual Pleasure and Narrative "M 200
Cinema.“ (5¢"¢Pn. Vol. l6. No. 3)‘ ' P‘ ‘
riences.desires,and pleasures that canbe
'

B\"'>lY"- "M=I>¢"|'"=‘ D°"1i-


subversive
. . . ..
and/or revolutionary ‘ and its
..
inclusion in feminist/socialist strategy is
. lb.L
0" ll,Tmy ,0.C.
P ” “pp .40-43.
. 49- ‘/4*"-l=1~
nance and the Sititi.-.“ tit p. S0.

'
cnicial. This does not mean that ‘revolu- '7' M“"’°Y' L““"" OF "7' 3‘ P~ 7' S0. Ibitl. at p. 200.
I8. lbid. at p. 6. 5|_ Mi|¢h¢||_ _|ui|¢t, ()]|. t'il. at pp. 2&9-290.
lion‘ will occur within a privileged, self-
enclosed sphere ofculture or language—
-
I9. Mitchell. Juliet. Op. en. at pp. 242-43.
- -
51 |_m,c|]_1m.y_ on UL M p_ w_

M“""7' l-""“"" 0/" “L 3‘ '0' 53. Kuhn. .>\llllL‘llli. On ril. at p- KK.


(and feminist/aesthetic/cultural theory) 20‘ P~

2" S4. She made they: comments in a lecture


WW5‘ "CV" ‘O59 sigh‘ or ml r¢3|~ lb’-d‘ a‘ P‘ H‘
22. Class lecture at York. Winter I985. given at the home ol Meg Luitton.

Z3. Mulvey, Laura, Op. cil. at p. ll. Winn“ I985‘


Lovell. Terry, (I/i. ril. iii p. S4.
23. Mulvey. Laura. Op. til. at p. ll.
.
st». Dyer . Richard .‘ ‘Entertainment rind
F°°TN°TE$ 24' ""4 “‘ P“ "' Utopia." .\Itivi¢‘ 24 at pp. 2-1.1.
25‘ ”""' “P- '1 51. lbid. at p. 1.
26. Ibtd. at p. I6. SK [hm M T
l. lamusingthegeneralterm gender here 27 mid l ls
‘ a p' S9. Ihitl.
to include Gayle Rubin‘s concept of a ' ‘

sex-gender system as outlined in "The 28. Ibid. at p. l4. w lb‘-i 3‘ P 3‘

TralTic in Women: Notes on the Politi ' l llill an dW anti.


29 ' ”"" “P' '5 ' at - Bil" h BS. R 0'n
la d ..s‘/z
cal Economy‘ of Sex“aswell as Varda ‘
1974).
Burstyn's usage of gendewlasses in 30~ Ml'ch°"--|"ll°l-0P< 4'"-
"M=*¢""_"= D°"'i"“"" ="d"" 5'3"-" 31. Mulvey. Laura, “On Duel in nu Sun: oz. Wood.Robin.“NotesftiraReadingofl
(The Socialist Register, l9B3.Pp.45-B9). acnhousms on -visual "cam" and Walked willi a Zamlne“ (this issue of

Z . §¢¢_ for gX3mp|g' wpm,,| Again, Q”. Narrative Cinema‘ - “ Framework . No. ('i'neAr!i'an.').

J01!/lip edited by Varda Burstyn (Doug- 1547- PP- |2'l5< 63' Dyan Richmm on l.”_ M P‘ 34

las and Mclntvre, I985) and Pleasure 3; -|-M“ smemgms were made during I
""4 Dl1'IlZ"- ="-“Rd 5)’ C3"-‘ll van“ ' lecturegivenat York University Winter 64‘ F-or 3 dismssimiuf
Pierre 0udart‘s (intma and Suture.
‘sumrcs in J‘“".I
(Routledge and Kegan Paul. I984). |9M_
Screen, Vol. Ill, no. 4. pp. 3547.
3' |wi"'|ab°““‘ mnh" °“ih°w'v"'-‘M 33. "Women‘s Exile: Interview with Luce
and
argument regarding entertainment 1‘-i8amy_~ ,d¢,,,agy and Comciounen
utopia is drawn from Richard Dyer‘s M 1977 3| P_ 69
l ..
Enterta'nment'nd Uto ' .“M ‘ 24. ' '
5 n 1577 _‘z_|3_ pm um 34. Stanton. Domna C.. "language and
' pp Revolution: The Franco-American Dis»
P B
4. Lovell, Terry. Piriurer of Reality: Ae.r- Connection-~ in Eismsm" Hm" and
(B““5h Hm Jardine, Alice (eds) 17ieFuIureo/ Differ-
enee.(G.K. Hall and Co., Boston. I980),
S. Britton_ Andrew. “Blissing Out: The P4 75.
Politics ol Reaganit: Entertainment“
(upcoming issue of Movie Jl/32).
M~
”,;°h'"‘ "“""' 0" ”"
- -

“ P‘ 29"
6. Ibid.
.
37. Stanton, Domnti. Op. cii. at p. 75. (Ms.
7" ‘bid Stanton translates Kristeva' s quote
y 8. Lovell. Terry. Op. til. at pg. so. from Pvlylvrw-)

Wlnter'56 CineAction! 3|
Cries and Whispers: Anna and the three sisters.

Cries and Whispers


Reconsidered
SIC A! W B6
by Varda BUI‘8!yl‘I traditions on this side of the Atlantic. Specically in this
reading l am drawing on ideas about the repression of infantile
HENJULIETMITCHELL PUBLlSHEDI’SYCHO- and childhood sexuality, gendering and the place of the
analysis and Feminism in I974, the lacanian current mother in the psychic constellation of the patriarchal family,
of psychoanalytic theory won a special, indeed a developed in autonomous ways by Canadian Gad Horowitz
preponderant place in feminist efforts to use psychoanalysis as (Repression) and Americans Dorothy Dinnerstein (The Mer-
maid and the Minnlaur) and Nancy Chodorow (Mothering).
1

a critical tool. lt was not an accident that Mitchell was drawn


The reading of the lm proper is in Section ll of the article.

I to psychoanalysis. Along with other British and French femi-


nists, Mitchell felt quite rightly that the theories and visions of It is preceded by a prologue on psychoanalytically informed
women's liberation had to take into account issues and dimen- theories of the unconscious and of how we learn to be men and
women;and proceeded, in Section lll, by a briefconclusion on
.

i sions that had hitherto been ignored or dismissed by what we


might call (in analogous fashion to the term applied to the these ideas. With luck,these will help toexplain the reading of
the lm and some of the elements that could usefully be
1

; mantism which reduces all explanations of social reality to


economics and praises only socialist-realist art) vulgar femi- integrated into critical theory at this time. To conclude this
introduction, l would like to situate my own analysis of the
1

nism: an approach so empirical that it blotted out from critical


lm by reeapitulating certain conclusions reached by feminist
§

view crucial aspects of the reality of gender oppression.


critics about Cries and Whispers as an anti-woman, anti-

i lt was also not accidental that Mitchell should be drawn to


Lacan. Again, along with other British and French feminists. feminist lm in which women are manipulated, degraded and
she was understandably oriented to the ideas ofa psychoana- subjected to the same old stereotyping common to the sexist
lyst who, though not a leftist himself, worked with important cinema, only more viciously than usual. This seemed to be the
thinkers onthc French leftand shared methodologically in the feminist consensus with Deborah Thomas‘ dissenting voice
general structuralist trend that so profoundly shaped French being the exception that broke the nile. Bergman was seen as
intellectual life in the '60s and '70s. Today the great structural- an unrepentant misogynist wallowing in the pleasure of mak-
ist edice that was so brilliantly constructed during these ing women live through the contortions and agony of a sub-
decades is in a state of crisis as a result, l believe, of its own servient gender suffering from its physical and moral sins.
intemal brittleness. The intricate and fragile walls formed by That the women of Cries and Whispers are in agony there
its ultra-sophisticated categories have not proven sufciently can be no question. But, in my assessment, most feminist
ample or resilient to explain and contain ongoing issues in critics mistook a portrayal of women's oppression for its
cultural development. Categories which once seemed self- justication. ldoubt very much that audiences viewing Cries
evident and all-encompassing now increasingly seem obscure and Whispers left the theatres reinforced in their sexism. Virtu-
and limiting. ally everyone nds the lm extremely disturbing, and, despite
With respect to the Lacanian psychoanalytic paradigm that its lush interiors and costumes, anti-erotic though very sexual.
has infomted left and feminist stntcturalistcurrents thismeans l do not think the reaction of profound unease would be
that in the mid-'80s everyone involved in cultural theory is universal ifthe lm,in addition to being about patriarchy and
faced with the challenging task of winnowing out the valid and patriarchally shaped feminine psychology, were not also a
important insights which were developed by dynamic and powerful condemnation of these.
visionary feminist and socialist theorists working within these Theory, as I hope to show, may help us consciously to
frameworks from the husks of categorical chaff that we must account for the disturbance the lm creates. But even without
now release and blow away. Theory never has had and will not theory, the lm has its disquieting, indeed chilling effects. As
I

now have a direct effect on the mass of cultural producers. But an intervention in the early seventies, the lm sparked search-
it does strongly influence what we might term important ing discussions about its themes, working as an active cultural
sectors of the progressive avant-garde, whose influence is then agent. ln this way it helped to shed light particularly on what
felt over time as the ripples of its concerns and innovations we could call, borrowing Franz Fanon's term, the “psychol-
spread. l t therefore makes sense to aid in the process of ogy of the oppressed." Although it did not at the time present
reconsideration taking place in theory and thus tackle the in direct terms a positive programme for change, the depth of
>
question of what of various psychoanalytic theories we want its critique of patriarchal society pushed people to examine
to retain, modify and/or elaborate, and with what we want to their feelings and thoughts, and to take an active relation to
dispense. society. In this sense it was one of the very best expressions of
It is in this context that l offer a reading of Bergman's Cries its time.
and Whispers that differs very markedly from any feminist
i
treatment of this lm—whether empirically or theoretically I
informcd—that l have yet seen. Some interesting work, inu-
enced by the psychoanalytic approach of the British feminists, Th9 UHGQBOOIOUB. Dreams and Symbols
has been done on the lm notably by Deborah Thomas, but l
still do not see what l would call a full and accurate reading of HE MOST IMPORTANT INSIGHTTHAT PSYCHO-
I it in this work. l believe this has everything to do with the analytic critical theory has to offer is that what happens
v

limitations and blind spots of the paradigm in use. So in inour life and in ourculture is notalwayseitherexplicit
addition to suggesting a different interpretation of Cries and or conscious. Many of our motivations and our interpreta-
Whispers l hope that this reading will encourage people tions of reality exist beneath the surface of conscious aware-
involved with lm to explore other psychoanalytic/socialisd ness and work through modalities of cognition and volition
feminist syntheses which have been developed, out of different which difTer from the conscious and explicit.

Wlnter‘B6 ClneActIonl 33
Cir\eAction' Wmler
In his rather topographical model of character structure, Freud called the ‘dynamically repressed unconscious.‘ This is
a region of the psyche to be distinguished theoretically
at least
Freud described three interacting pans: the Id, the Ego and the
Superego. Each of these three structures is unconscious to an from the cognitive unconscious, which may hold many capaci-
ties and insights but is not a product strictly speaking of
the
imponant degree, but Freud believed that the Id and the
Stiperego were considerably less accessible to consciousness processes of repression. Freud further suggested that the
than the Ego—the pan that is experienced as the waking I, the unconscious, especially the dynamically repressed uncon-
pan that we all identify as the more or less coherent Self. The scious, has laws very different from the world of waking life.
Id, according to Freud, is a deep reservoir of universal, amoral In The lnlerpremlinn afDreams Freud elaborated at length
and biological drives which preexist the social context of our some of the crucial differences between conscious and uncon-
incartiations. At different stages of his career, Freud described scious processes. To begin with, the unconscious has no equi-
these drives in somewhat different terms, but consistently and valent sense of time to the notion of past, present and future—
increasingly he suggested that erotic/life energy, which he there is only the eternal present. Reality, memory and fantasy
termed libido, is the most powerful of these drives. As the are also conated together; related to this, distinctions
strong and even relentless agent at the core of our beings between right and wrong, the wish and its satisfaction,percep-
Freud considered libido to live a privileged existence within tion and hallucination, are all absent. These distinctions
the Id, thus compelling the ld to be a source of monumental belong to the conscious self, in which rules and morals restrain
demands for pleasure and satisfaction on the Ego. our acting upon certain fee|ings—be they murderously aggres-
The Superego, on the other hand, was seen to function as zi sive or passionately lustful. Nevertheless the people against
repository for systems of rules and taboos about whatone can whom we restrain our emotions in waking life are strewn all
or cannot desire, do, be—in short, morality. Freud under- over the landscape of our dreams, either ascorpses or lovers.
stood morality, internalised in the early years, to be the Freud called dreams the "royal road to the unconscious"
condensed expression of the constraints of the “reality princi- because they provided clues to the deep and hidden motiva-
ple": that is the dictates of the social conditions under which tions which so strongly affect and even govern daily life. For
any given group of human beings will have to make their way. him, they provided direction in plotting the (self)-destructive
By denition these social conditions are concrete and histori- patterns which were the results of the distortion that the
cal, and the morality produced by them is also in large mea- repression of libidinal drives wrought on the personality. Asa
sure temporal and relative in that it reects these conditions. pioneer of therapy. he concluded that it was essential to bring
these pattems to the surface of conscious awareness where
the
In societies organized on the basis of masculine dominance,
this means morality will seek to regulate social behaviour in wishes behind them could be seen for that they were, and then,
such a way as to reproduce gender hierarchy. The superegos of knowingly, either fullled or set aside.
all individuals raised in patriarchal societies will therefore Th: gm pain; w M mad‘; about (‘,,‘¢_¢ and Whisp; ‘hen is
contain some degree of masculinism in their orientation. And that whcn we rake 3 p5ychoam,|y;i¢ appfqagh [Q in W; an
Ii“ §\!P¢\’°8°5 °f m°"- “'h° i""=\’i°\'i7-E |=“'5 as "WY i""""a|il¢ immediately explain its form. The lm is structured like a
their identication with older men, will tend to have a heavier 4,-can which in mm is the (om, mo“ ¢ommunig3[iyg of ‘he
realms of the unconscious. The historical past in which it
is
Palnarchal °°"l°"l-
Th‘ 58° mils‘ dl "16" "°l °"|)’ Wilh ll"? demand! °f!h¢1<-I» situated is a metaphor for our own individual pasts (as well as
but also ofthe Superego. lnsofaras the desires present in the Id cxphciliy pining [he mm in F,-cud‘; |1i§|o|-i¢a|' no; to say
3" P"°§°l'ib¢d bl! "W l’°3|il}' P\'l"¢iP|°va"i¢"1@"°d i""'P5Y¢hi‘ hysterical time), our childhoods and the large and powerful
wily ""°"&h ll“mi\§c"|"1i5l Pl'°hibili°"5 °l ‘he 5"P"=8° legacy that they have created in our dynamically repressed
"Yin }° "lainlal" ll“
WW5 °hh¢ Palfiafchal °l'd" °hi"E-5» unconscious. Funhermore, the lush and elaborate costumes
'h"¢ '5 8"‘"- if ""C°"§¢i°"5- °°"m°l P|a)’°d °"l °" ""3 put us in mind of fairy tales and transport us, along with
=mb3"|=d l°"'il°|'Y ‘if "'9 ESP-‘The E8°~ I" a"°mPli"B 1° surreal and magical moments of resurrection, terror and
mk¢‘$¢§¢ °[l|1_= "}'0l’|d. "1lXl"1l7-B P|°3$“"= mid aV°Id Pai"- wonder, to the land of the unconscious peopled with strange
m\1$U"5ls_|° ¢°_"“|¢{1"8 ""¢9"5¢i°u5 d¢f"3"_d§ Wilh 3"‘! ainsl creatures and bizarre and unpredictable events.
Like a dream, the lm moves from reality to fantasy to
what Soa‘ Me Wm .p"m“_and ‘ms Fine“ “°°°“"¥‘B ‘O
5.cnd°' da§s' °C°“°"l'.c @355‘ race‘ °'h'l'C'ly: “X931 °"°m,a'
:z¢:..:;::2:.“:::::::;“:.::,f'z'.L.::.;1“;;:?*;2i:§
pa" be .p'°.dPced by ‘he Pa“°.ms Ur dcni
.

enwumem
£27.": di-ape-~-As-=
reality until at the end, the distinction between the two virtu-

have several dreams/fantasies/memones within the dreaml


fantasy/memory of the whole lm.(Each
at has! ohc of the
woman has her own
experimces c°"cc_
between individuals and social circumstance. ‘With respect to dream and they share
.g}ender,>this is true both of d|lgCl’tnI pattems( masculhne and hveh,‘ as Deborah Thomas has hoimcd huh) C"-es and
b:l'n;;':°Or fgercslg ds Zggfg" wgnen W'IfIP8!S'3l5O clearly moves from past to present to projected
future as if these moments in time were interchangeable points
man‘ h . . . on an undifferentiated continuum. Bergman actually instructs
us to approach the lm as a dream: It opens in the ragged
.

“£3357 :::;‘ 35]‘ cblchni grows am ‘ha "amy P"“°'pk’


, Pa P.“ E‘ ‘ ' supego 57°“ apacc as Fl"
constraints it embodies act to suppress and then repress desires
_
mists at, according to a large clock, four in the
hour in which people have ‘heir long“, period
moming, the
ofdrcam sleep
and actions which are considered unacceptable into what Movihgih thesbw mhhhhofdreamexpchchce‘thccamera
pans from ancient trees to sleeping house. In psychoanalytic
terms, houses usually represent the psyche or being of the
opposn-E ABovE_Anna and Agnes. the -piémli dreamer, with dilferentroomsand theircontents representing
bshian version BELow_Kan and Maa. the my different aspects and feelings. Everywhere in this particular
' ' house clocks are ticking in syncopation, suggesting that we
ismnoe to iemale intimacy’ adjust our time from normal to mythic And so we enter the
dream of Cries and Wliispers, a dream, we might fancy, that
the wife played by Liv Ullmann in Bergman's realist film

Wlnter'86 ClneAct|onl 38
Seenesfrom n Marriage might have dreamt the night that she The story begins with the birth of a human infant who is a
left her husband. bundle of libido (sexual energy). Initially this sexual energy is
To interpret dreams and the unconscious we must under- not focussed as to aim or object. lt exists as a general drive to
stand their language of symbol and metaphor. lf we want to “obtain pleasure from zones of the body,“ in Freud's words.
get below the surface of a dream‘s manifest content (which like Character and personality develop as body and psyche mature
the ‘plot' of Cries and Whisper: is in any case incoherent, in an inter-connected sequence which is a combination of
jagged and confusing) to undeistanditslatent content,its full genetically encoded physiological developmental steps and
and even true meaning, there is no point in approaching it socially organized psychological stages. ln this sequence, the
literally and head on. We must come at it obliquely and child's original polymorphous libidinal focus moves from
associationally and make our main tool of analysis a symbolic mouth to anus to genitals as s/he leams through the control of
approach. Symbols, metaphors, analogies—the forms of the appetite. toilet functions and genital pleasure a series of critical
unconscious—contain condensations, displacements, projec- lessons: differentiation and individuation from the parent
tions and introjections—the content of the unconscious. (mother), the need for physical and psychological pacing and i

Thus the interpretation of the language of the unconscious control in order to participate as a member of human society.
cannot be arbitrary but must, as many others have pointed out As a result, intrapsychic, interpersonal and social relations are
particularly in lm theory,beunderstood in terms of its own all permeated with sexual energy and meaning in various
time and place. So for any given individual the selection of ways.
5Yml’°l5 in d"°a""' M‘ is B°""'"Fd b)’ ll"W3)’ llbl'_5l"al drives Because of this primal sexual constitution, children develop
°"°°‘-‘me’ ll“ °°“_‘°““ °f 5°c'al '°al“Y- Bl" ""5 d°¢5 P0‘ an erotic attraction (erotic in the polymorphous sensual terms
"I53" lhal 5Ymb°l|¢ m°3"l"B5 =Xl5l °"lY 3! 9"‘ l°"°l- l lhmk of infantile sexuality) towards those upon whom they depend
that_they work on at least three, which interact in a complex for ‘hair greal vha| Mada; ‘hos: who‘ in the p,.°caSs' faad_
la5h'_°“ _“'l'h °“° anolllen P°w"f"l 5YmP°l5 do haw unlvelsal stroke, bathe and cuddle them, or, as the case may be, reject,
a"_d '"d""d“allY_5P°§‘° l°"‘l§ °l ‘T'°3"‘“B 35 we" a§,‘"h‘“ ‘”° neglect, even beat them. Because our family system is organ-
"fllhl °l'd|"3"lY call l"5l°"¢3l- The ¢mPh35l5 °" ‘he
_""°l'° ized around women's exclusive responsibility for primary
l"5'°"§°al l°_"°l_lh° lF"‘l W‘ ca" m°5l “my "ad childcare, children's strongest sexual feelings, whether posi-
¢°ll°°}"’°lY_'§ Pl" m°§l ""P°“am l°' ‘"3354 lh°°_rY md tive, negative or ambivalent, are almost always involved with
P"a°"°°_- P'°Y'd"‘3 ma‘ ll “ls as ‘he ml" lh'°“5h Whlch ll“ the mother. And because of the way that fathers are usually
other dimensions are approached, rather than as a block to piacm in 3 rninor nurturing role but a primary competitive
lhc" “"_d"§‘a"d'"§~ position for the mother‘s affections, attentions and loyalties,
l" ""§"8*"-"_1¢ ¢°"l="' Pl 5'“? "("1 ""'"PP" b=B"1_§ l° infantile and early childhood erotic attachment will be less
become clear. lt is a symbolic explication of the constraints, imam: rhah ‘awards the moth“ though h may grow in
restraints and suppressions—in a word, the repression— imanshy fanhu down [ha hha_
l>’l3°°d °" “'°'_“°" and "ml" "§"°°P5°l°“5 d‘5i"°5 wllhi“ 3 l5P¢‘ lt is not simply a question of the intensity of attachment,
clcally sw°d'5h)c°n,l°xl “fhlch '5 3‘ °'_'c° m°d_=m lmd leman‘ however, but also of the nature of the feelings involved. It is
clpated' (the context in which the lm is conceived, produced hare that Dorothy Dhmamein and Nancy Chodorow have
and consumedland °ld'fa5hl°“°d amd lradlllonallsl (‘he Pm‘ made some critical contributions. Dinnerstein explains that
i-iarchal and bourgeois times in which it is ostenstblyrloycated; ‘he "awn hath woman and man love and ham women so
lh‘_l75Ychlc P35‘ ll "°_P'°5en'5)~ “S pow" “"355 llllgulsnc and intensely is that all ofus came into the world under the aegis of
national borders denves from the fact that the main features of a woman who was hm only g°od_ hm aha had; who saamad
boll‘ °°m°mP°“‘"Y md “l“°‘“'“l" c°“““'Y Palnamhal Cap" moreover in her municence or denial to be the world itself
lall5m_ 3" “'3' slmllm 3“°5s dlncrenl E““_’P°a" and Nqnh and then the agent of that world, able, so to speak, to over-
American cultures and are therefore recognizable by ntIdl=n- come its obstacles with a single bound. Because of this, our
“S “l man)’ dllrelem c°“m"'S- mcludms lhP§€_ "l Fjslcm unconscious, primitive selfcontinues under the surface ofour
E'“'°P°- beau“ ‘MY ‘ham ll" same Bend" d""5'°" °l lab“ grown up personalities to demand satisfaction for needs mor-
and social alienation. tal women cannot possibly fulll, and becomes furious and
feels betrayed when they fail. Chodorow adds that women
Polymorphoua SOXUBIIIY, HOl'OOl’OC|8IYl themselves may often reject other women for another reason
ind QhO OQHOOHHQ Processes as well: because ego boundaries are less well established
between mother and daughter than between mother and son,
Y CREATING AND THEN PLUMBING THE daughters must often repudiate their mothers as a desperate
lives of four extraordinary late nineteenth century sltp in individllting and nding autonomy-
Women characters, Cries and Whisper: presents a stun— But none of these very important consequences of the way
ning vision of how the patriarchal and bourgeois repression of parenthood and childhood are organllid "=8!¢ll1°llbld|"allY
universal drives works to t women for their place in the charged nature of these relations. As the necessity to break the
gender division of labor, across what we call social classes; as mother-infant symbiosis asserts itself and the child must be
[hat group Qfpgoplc ¢har5¢d with the care ofehildren and the weaned away from the mother's body and attention, the
nurturanoe of men, andasthat gender which isexcluded from nalurc. extent and fulllment of lhl ¢l18I’8¢ lnllil llnd¢l’B0
power on the larger social scale as a result of this division of modication so that the child can mature physically and

V
labor. The most important drive in question is libido, and at psychologically. and the mothercan regain her autonomy. ll is
issue is the relation of its infantile and childhood repression to this necessity. universal among humans and common among
the maintenance of women's oppression as a whole. ln order the higher primates. that in part lies at the core of the expe-
toseethe specicities of how this is expressed in the lm,we'll nence that Freud illuminated when he wrote about the nse
need another psychoanalytic detour which sketches some key and resolution of the Oedipus complex. But the universal need
concepts for the understanding of how little human children forending the infant/parent symbiosis takesdifferent fonns in
grow up to become the divergent creatures we call men and different societies, and much of what Freud plotted in his
women. discussion of the Oedipus complex was peculiar to his times,

36 Clnetctlon! Wlnter'B6
and not universal to all humans. linity. and desire to possess the phallus which symbolized it.
Because of the way that the incest taboo was lived out in As well, it is easy to understand how castration anxiety deve-
(bourgeois families of) late nineteenth century European loped in a culture which abhorred childhood masturbation
society this weaning (including not just the end of nursing but and threatened physical consequences for it. The fear of cas-
also toilet training, and in our culture. training against child- tration, though quintessentially symbolic of anxieties about
hood genital pleasure) took place in such a way as to encultu- social power, was (and remains today) grounded in the literal-
rate the young to reproduce an extremely hierarchical and mindedness of childhood.
unequal social system. This process was extremely painful, for Penis envy, like castration anxiety, was a product of the fact
children of both sexes. For it required the utter renunciation of that in sexist societies both genders want to possess the symbol
sensual physical contact with adults and usually peers as of the dominant gender-class. This can be seen in the denigra-
children learned that life outside (and often inside) the parent- tion of gays through their classication as feminine—not ‘real
infant dyad was a desperate stniggle organized around the men‘—in our culture. Clearly, this is based on the understand-
principle of might equals right. ing of masculinity (possession of penis) and femininity (lack of
Leaming the lessons of renunciation and social placement penis) as terms of social power and placement rather than as
through the rise and resolution of the incest taboo was so terms describing a physical reality. Of course, this is not
painful under these circumstances that Freud actually consid- surprising in a society saturated with and driven by castration
ered the renunciation of erotic wishes vis-a-vis the parents the anxiety on the one hand and a wild overvaluation of the
major traumatic event ofchildhood, and, in his opinion, even phallus (the penis in its symbolic dimensions) on the other.
oflife as a whole. To this we can add that in societies where the ln such a culture men, whose psychology has been shaped
processes of individuation are less harsh, where childhood by the anxieties and desires of our brand of masculinity,
bodily pleasure is encouraged among peers and where the cannot but think (unconsciously at least) that those who do
basic repressions of individuation are not associated with not have the penis must passionately envy it. Now contempor-
cutthroat social relations, the trauma is much less. ary feminist psychologists have convincingly put into question
the idea that Pe nis envy exists as a core aspect of character
Though Freud conllated a universal social process (an
incest taboo)with historically specic ones (gender identity of 5""°l\"¢ a'"°"B 1'“ Y"°"1°"- _w°_'"°"- ll" °|"_"'¢3| °"'d¢"°°
nineteenth century men and women as encoded in the classical §"BB=§l5- 3" "°\ 115 \1f\ll}"'"1l.\' lied ""0 °V"V3|\""8 1|" Phallus
as are men, and their identities are not so wrapped up with
Oedipal drama per se), his method of analyzing psychig; con.
tent demonstrated in fact that the fnistration and eventual B¢"l"*|a¢liVilY ="'\d Pf°“’¢$§- Em°ll°"a| F=|a"°"5h|P5 "Id P37‘
E" thood P la Y a lar Ser P art in identity
for women than for men.
resolution of infantile erotic desire typical of the Oedipal
constellation was socially (and therefore, we conclude, histori- B"! ‘ha! "1"" bf’/5?“? "131 all “’°m°" °°\’¢l ‘h=‘P¢"i5 b¢°3"5°
mlly)orgini1.ed and detennined. Both his work and the work men know that women excluded from full subjecthood must
of many others since him have elaborated on what our social 1" §°m° lfvel W3!" Wuallly 3_"d/°Y "="°"8¢'-lhi§ is §°m¢lh_i"8
that I think cannot be questioned. And that women share in a
system demands in terms of the creation of ‘masculinity' and
‘femininity.‘ Because ofthe enormous difference in men's and ¢°m"1°" 5Ymb°“C Volbulafy 35? few" °[lh¢lY "l""b"$hlP
women's social roles and power, in societies of masculine 5" 3 Palliafchal °"|""¢- ‘his l°° '5 '"¢f"l3b|=-
dominance, male and female children face different paths as ln¢[¢a5jng|y aurgng [hg 1351 150 yum mm-5 unconscious
1|"! "¢8°lii\l= ll" liki of vhysiwl am‘-l C"|l"l'3| m3l\1""i°"- and as it were infantile concerns (identity and castration)have
Specically, Freud posited some traumatic developmental been restimulated by political reality. Women are plainly not
processes in relation to the physical differentiation between happy in this position and are challenging its arrangements.
the sexes most vividly obvious iii the fact that boys have What Freudian psychoanalysis mush! us "en with its pal-
penises and girls do not. This brings us to the next major riarchal bias_is that people will have tochange theirehildhood
contested offering of Freudian thought: to his notions of experiences ifthey want to grow up to bedifferent as adults.
castration anxiety and penis envy as, respectively, men's and With respect to women, this means that the experience of
women's existential burdens in sexist society. females as daughters will have to change, and by extension this
Briey, Freud became convinced that men tended to suffer necessitates a different kind of mothering as well. Though
from adeep and acute anxiety about their penises. This had its P¢"i§ °"")' and °5"ali°" a"Xi¢l)' W°"|d "Oi P"h3P5 5° ll"
basis in feelings of competition and inferiority vis-a-vis other, terms that a feminist psychology would generate, it is true that
older and/or more powerful men, and took the unconscious the way women are made socially impotent is based in a
shape of the fear of becoming like a woman—wi\hout the particular kind of repression of childhood sexuality, which
penis, castrated—if they were unable in various ways to main- according to Freud, effects in women a kind of psychic crip-
tain positions of power and/or avoid the wrath of more pling or "mutilation." Feminists have been rightly angry that
powerful people. ln the masculinist unconscious, ideas of thisdispassionately describeddistortioncan thenbeapproved
status and safety are so closely fused to the possession and size by Freud as “healthy femininity." But to acknowledge the
of genitals and the sexual prowess dened by this that phallic existence of this mutilation is not necessarily to validate it.
power and castration anxiety are experienced as powerful Rather we can use the knowledge of the consequences of
metaphors for social power or its loss in general. women's acquiescence in their ‘lack of a phallus/castration‘
The origin of these unconscious feelings is one of the myster- (the feminine personality structure, passive and masochistic)
ies Freud purponed to solve. In a masculinist culture boys to change how we organize gender and childhood
develop these fears as a result of two interconnected aspects of arrangements.
libidinal renunciation. ln order to be accepted as male they To do this we need to know how this early mutilation
must give up their identication with their pnmary parent— occurs. Freud pointed to and others have pursued its genesis in
the mother—to become like their father; and they must also the relation of daughter to mother. Mother is doubly charged:
give up their libidinal desires towards her for fear of suffering to raise her daughter in ways which make the mother feel she
punishment at their father's hands. In a culture where mascu- ha given her child the best life has to offer and also to raise her
linity was valued so much more than femininity it is easy to so that she learns the rules of the world in order that she may
understand why boys wouldbeforced to identify with mascu- make the best of her lot. These two imperatives are rarely

Wlnter‘B6 ClneAr:tlon! 37
T

‘ ‘
1 .. ~;

Jr ‘ ~" V

W
K wk Q

> V

, .
,7 ,
M!
. H ,

L.”
38 CineAction! Wi nter '86

é_J
congruent in reality, but different mothers are differently are more obviously mists than others. In terms of gender and
aware, consciously, of their mutual antagonism. ln any case, sex the people who stick out most are stigmatized through
aware or not, survival both of the child and of oneself comes labelling, and one of the most socially damaging labels is that
rst, so mothers must pass on to their daughters the funda- of homosexuality. Same-sex love is particularly taboo because
mental laws of the culture. For daughters the earliest and most it implicitly challenges the gender division of labor, and the
profound acquisition of the laws of gender and power takes nal point l want to make before looking at the lm is about
place in their libidinal socialization, just as it does for boys. women's version of homosexuality, i.e., lesbianism.
And its most important base experience is theirearliest renun- There is as yet no comprehensive theory of sexual orienta-
Ciliv Of Piiiolliilc lldlmnl I0 lhil’ fil l0V= Objl. Wh. tion that fully accounts for all levels and instances of difference
BCCBUW Of hf!’ f0|¢ 35 primary Pawn!» Ocupi lb! number in (love)object choice. Nor is therea consistent and precise t
l one position of attachment for girls as well as boys: the between sexual orientation and ego style (lesbians can be
mother. aggressive or timid, so can women whose preference is exclu-
Much has been made in popular as well as scientic litera- sively heterosexual). Nevertheless there is something to be said
ture of the psychic scars of the boy's Oedipus complex. He for trying to understand the psychodynamics not only of
loves his mother passionately and must renounce her to his certain aspects of homosexuality as they combine gender iden-
father/older men until he grows big and gets a big phallus and tity and erotic formation, but also of ideas of homosexuality as
can have ‘someone like Mommy‘ too. But less has been made they occupy and symbolically express political dynamics and
of the enormously damaging prospect facing his sister: she positions in cultural terms.
loves her mother as passionately as he, but she must renounce The culture of masculine dominance is threatened by lesbi-
her desire for mother forever, not just until she's a big girl. anism because it feels that the lesbian woman wants to take
There's no question of postponement, of waiting till she has men's place vis-a-vis women, to displace men and render them
grown up and grown a penis. The girl, minus the phallus. must obsolete. Amazons become the quintessential lesbians, threat-
grow into the role of exclusively heterosexual mother-wife ening not only to replace but also to vanquish men. They are
herself, must become like her mother. The process of renunci- thus, for men, potentially terrifying bearers of the castration
1

ation then colors the process of identication with extreme knife, incamations of a powerful and rejecting mother. With
ambivalence: the daughter may hate the mother for her ulti- respect to lesbianismas a woman's lot, Freud believed that the
mate aloofness as well as love her for her nurturance; along- lesbian sexual orientation was indeed a product of a girl's
identication with her father (this wan what made her a
<

side adoration.she may also dread the mother because ofher


trapped position vis-it-vis her father and other men. “mannish" woman) in order to take his place with her mother.
This reaiiwion is the im-mi at (ht hga of what F,-end This identication may indeed account fora certain-even
meant when he said that girls do not experience castration B |i"’8=—P3" °r 5'3"" |¢5bii"5' P5Y¢hi° P°§ili°"i8- bu! in
C°mP°"°"l which i5 °P"3li\’° ‘°
‘her: is a"°lh"
anxiety as such but experience themselves as already castrated. man)! cases
And though the image was grim, he also suggested that from 8\'¢al" °l’ 1°55 d¢8"°§- and is P°l¢mi-‘1")’ mud‘ ""1" 5"b""'
sive of patriarchal values. This is the strong identication a
this moment on (from the moment when primary gender
identity—“l am a girl/boy“—became fused with a politieal lesbian may feel with what Freud called the “phallic mother,“
sense of gender hierarchy—“boys/girls are strong/weak“) lhl SIYOBB. P°W¢|’f"| 3'14 maSi°3| “'°"\3" ‘he Child "P°'
girls feel their own genitals as a "wound" to their self-esteem, rienced before she had come to understand that her mother-
Symbolically,the wound represents the lossof instrumentality '¢3§ll’i\l¢d'—W35 315° 5°¢i3")' imP°‘°'"~ WM" 3 ‘"°m3"'5
and activity in the world at large, as rights to non-matemal sexual orientation is grounded in the identication with the
worldly satisfaction are renounced with the right to satisfac- §"°"8 mmh" Ymh" ma" °Y ""1 i" i\ddili°" 1° lhl 5°¢ii"Y
tion with (the future representative ol) the rst love. Note P°W¢If\1lfill)"-h‘1°"fol“’°m="¢3""°l5i"1Plyb¢¢°°Pi¢d
mi-¢ful|y that this who]: ggqugnpg presupposes what is effec- through masculinist cultural modalities which undercut
tively a bisexual or even exclusively female orientation on the Wml B5 B ¢|35§- 5\I¢h 3 10" ii ¢°"d\1°i" I0 Ii" °°"5\l'"¢li°"
pan of the young girl. This is critical to emphasize because it of alliances between women because it is based on self-respect
testies to the polymorphous nature of our sexuality, and its and admiration for women grounded in identication with
tendency to become involved with persons who are signicant and respect for matemal power.
in our lives. Because ofthe fact that gender identity and erotic prefer-
ln any ease, just as boys‘ renunciation of mother is part of ence are relatively autonomous from one another, in real life
their identication with father/other men; just as it requires a women whose preference is to relate genitally with men can
painful break in identication with mother, and with her have the same kind of self-respect and identication with
attributes (such as softness, receptivity, compassion) in the strong women, especially if they have relations with (some)
learning of masculinity, so girls‘ renunciations also entail a men which are solidary. But it is the lesbian who, as a sign,
break in identication with the father, because as girls they symbolically communicates the threat of autonomy from and
t must become the opposite of the kind of person who has potential displacement of men which patriarchally oriented
sexual access to their mother. The processes by which "mascu- men so fear will be the result of women's rebellion and
linity" and "femininity" are intrapsychically repressed are so revenge. So it is in the treatment of lesbians and/or what we
tortuous that they always produce failure, dissidents, mists. can call lesbian themes that so much is revealed.
l
None of us, not even the most apparently normal, is without Given the extremely rePf=S$¢d (0PPl'=§$¢d and suppressed)
pl8C= 0f|¢5biB(i§"1)§i" ¢il\=m3- and 85‘/=11 h0W very young
the
flaws according to the standards of the system. But some of us
discussion of these issues was in terms of the second wave of
feminism (two years before Juliet Mitchell published P.\'_vcho-
. . . . . RI_l'Sf.! and Feminism) the making of Cries and Whispers
OPPOSITEA50‘/E_Ma"a and femm'ty' me ch'|d' becomes even more remarkable then it seemed at the time.
Woman BE‘-oW_A9ne5' suering Freud talked about the regions of pre-Oedipal mother love as
murky depths still unchartered; he also likened them and their
location as it were below the Oedipal phase to the Minoan

Wlnter'B6 ClneActlon! 30
T
civilization that underlay the better understood Mycenaean. rience from that moment on.
The analogy was more than apt, for we now suspect that in Agnes, it seems, has never recovered from herearly wounds
Minoan society women were respected, elfective and fully and defeats. When we meet her in the lm, she is dying after a
sexual subjects, while in later and classical Greece they became long life of pain. However, partially conscious of her loss, she
a subjugated gender-class in the context of a repressive phallo- is also panially redeemed and rewarded by her ability to have
cracy. Yet lngmar Bergman and the actors who made Crier the one relationship of any true tenderness and eroticism in the
and Whispers explored these regions in I972 in mind-boggling whole lm-—her relationship with the servant Anna. Deborah
terms, not in the dry dense language of psychoanalysis but in Thomas has noted that there is a 'masculine‘ aspect to Agnes's
the pulsating and dramatic language of lm. character demonstrated by her ‘appropriation of the word‘ as
she writes in her journal. Thomas is not wrong here, but she “
ll fails to give enough weight to the most important sign of
Agnes‘s androgvny, that is to the lesbian content of her rela-
Tm w°'“°"‘ tionship with Anna.
ELOW THE NQRD|C_GOTH|c SURFACE OF There has been considerable debate over whether or not this
its mam;-as; cumauu C~,iH and whi,p”_, is a relationship is “merely a substitute mother-dalughter Eel?-
_'

mm about the 10;; of momemovu and us consaquem tionship, or whether it is “genuinely erotic or lesbian in
ms; woman-S has uova and esmem for their own “Ives and naturc.4All adult sexual relationships include. consciously or
for om" woman Cancun-cm|y_ though m a much less dub othenwise, needs and behaviors experienced in the rst flower-
|up¢u way_ [ha mm is Cuucuuad wim mm-5 has of my: rm. ing of eroticism towards the parents. The father-daughter
women, with their fearand contempt for women as ‘impotent’ and/°" m°‘h°"§°" dy"a""° '5 always P',°s°m, (am! Mm,"
and -aasu-mud" as bum ks; man [u||y human and as vengeful remarked upon) III. adult heterosexual relationships. Yet this
ful-i¢a_ The mam comum is cuucumud wuh ma repression uf does not serve to disqualify these interactions from the status
woman-5 "mic uuamauuu lo w°mau_mu homoscxual Sm: of the adult and the fullyerotic, nor to reduce them to mere
‘O ‘ha bi_saXua|/pmymumhuus consmuuon women have as searches for parent substitutes. Lesbian relations have to be
their human legacy—and the psychic split it entails. lt is thus ‘"°“’=d '" ‘hf: 53'“? ‘"33" when ""5 '5 ““d°m°°d' Agms a"d
also the story of the split that occurs in women between human A""“"5 'e]_al'°“5h'P musl bc 5°?" as, ad:];]'_‘hF mi)": S: bcfaus‘
and sexual being. As director ofa collaborative pl'OjCL‘l Berg- “I 3“ “§id“'_°"al dy““"?'° m°",r"c" 5 ‘P '5 a_5° ‘ C C °,s'5‘
man is a; ‘ha helm‘ ahaumg the ovum" work m a numb" or approximation to the sister-to-sister relationship (a relation-
way5_ As | Wm sum-y auggaau ma mammm. of the mm_m¢ ship of equals, most clearly expressing self-esteem and love for
editing—is its most important substructure, and it is com- mhersl lhf“ ABMS Clea“? °““"_¢5 “Pd ‘hm A“"a- Wmchmg
pmcly concerned with mu whom comma,‘ of anxieucs and from outside the bourgeois family circle, longs for as well.
meanin§ implied by the term ‘castration.‘ Agnes‘ is but one of the stories of the making of a woman in
The dream-like lm opens, as already noted, at four in the patriarchal culture. Karin/lngrid Thulin, Agnes's sister. has
moming with many cues to the viewers to read it as a text an even more gruesome tale to tell, indeed she literally lives out
dealing with the unconscious. We enter a house of striking the drama of the "wound." A woman of real intellect and
colors—red, black and white. Though perhaps unknown even ability, she is shown living in total subservience to a frozen and
to Bergman himself, these are the colors associated with the controlling man, fairly drowning in her feelings of antagonism
ancient Amazons, and as soon as we have formed our impres- for him. She is apparently unable to respond with any warmth
sions of the context we meet Agnesl Harriet Andersson in her to her sisters, and, we gather, to anyone else. She seems to be a
agony. She is the sister who will act as the dramatic pivot woman marshalling vast amounts of energy to keep the lid
around which the three other women in the story will in closed on a reservoir of turbulent feelings which threaten to
various ways revolve. Having witnessed her presence and her spill over at any moment. Misery and entrapment are written
pain, we are quickly taken through the rst of what will be a in lines ofdespair all over her face. With her we travel through
series of brilliant red dissolves, back to the central events that another blood red dissolve to an incident as it were in her past,
Agnes is now rememberingof her childhood: these are Agnes‘s but whose status as fact or fantasy is quite unclear (and
neglect and rejection by her beautiful and (signicantly) unal- therefore unimportant). The scene is set at dinner, as Karin sits
tainable mother. We learn through voice over and visual text across from her silent husband and the tension between them
that in compensation for being shut out Agnes "spied" on her mounts. Suddenly Karin breaks a wine glass in a clumsy
mother (the erotic voyeurism of childhood) even though she gesture of what appears to be barely contained anger. She sits
knew it was “wrong.” The sequence conveys a strong sense of at the table alone, toying with a shard of glass. “lt's all a tissue
longing, which closes on a shared look between mother and of lies." she declares, and makes for the bedroom. What, we
daughter: "a look so full of sorrow that l nearly burst into ask ourselves,is she going to do withthe glass? Will she slit her
tears," Agnes says of it. husband's deserving throat? And what is this mysterious tissue

j
What is this longing and sadness mutely acknowledged of lies’?
between motherand daughter’? And why is this sequence,and ln the boudoir to which Karin has retired the theme of
other privileged sequences in the lm, bracketed by the red repressed woman-love surfaces again, very explicitly. We
dissolves which separate and punctuate the lm‘s dramatic become aware, as Karin does, that Anna is watching her. We
components? l interpret the reason for the pain of the already know that Anna's sexuality is oriented towards '

exchange between Agnes and her mother as their acknowl- women and we begin to sense that Karin realizes this as well.
edgement of Agnes's (symbolic) castration—her ‘girlness' and "What are you thinking?" demands Karin deantly, but Anna
her consequent permanent inability to possess her mother— says nothing, simply continuing her silent, instrumental game.
and the recognition of the mother's defeat in that of her Karin apparently nds the frank look unbearable and lashes
daughter, for she once was a daughter too. The red dissolves— out at Anna. Yet as soon as she has struck she sees the look of
visual symbols derived from the castration imagery of the shock and pain on Anna's face, and begs her forgiveness. lna
male director—represent above all the wounded membranes moment of great courage and dignity, Anna refuses the apol-
of the castrated woman, marking and encompassing all expe- ogy, for which she is again punished. ln an act which also

I-O CIneAct|on| Wlnter‘86

_
pen-nits Karin to experience, though in a muted and disasso- (as mothers and children and lovers do), they grasp each
ciated way, woman to woman sexuality, Karin torments Anna other‘s hands.
by instntcting her to undress her. Bergman chooses to play out By expressing their real feelings, desires and injuries, their
this masked exchange between the two women as they replay love and their hate, they have been momentarily able to break
the impotent voyeurism of childhood with strong sensual through their enforced and internalized separation to love
ovenones, leaving no doubt as to the peninence of the lesbian each other again. The exquisite poignancy of this moment is.
theme in this context as well as in relation to Agnes. however, heightened by its brevity. for as Bergman will make
When this exchange has come to its conclusion and Karin is clear at the end when Maria betrays Karin‘s need for affirma-
ready for bed, she dismisses Anna and the scene closes over her tion of what went between them in order to go to her waiting
solitude. We realize that we are about to nd out just how she husband. in ti patriarchal culture women are not pmnitted
means to dispose of the piece of glass she still has with her. But this kind of love for one another. lt makes them too strong.
how profoundly shocked we are, nevertheless, when she And so we come tu Maria. If Agnes is the symbol for the
slashes her own vagina, cutting through that “tissue of lies"— woman who deals with life spiritually—the androgynous celi-
the lie of her own sexuality—which must, in its function as bate, spinster, nun who prefersthe abstract body ofGod to the
receptacle for the conjugal phallus, behave against the desires 00nCI’¢le b0di<!5 Oi‘ rn<!n—iind if Kilfin Slnd for 31¢ BREW.
ofher heart. The wholedrama comes toa macabre climax (the hitter and frustrated Woman who has more ability than her
scene is paced like the standard sexual encounter: foreplay, threatened husband, Maria is an altogether different kettle of
plateau, orgasm) when Karin presents her bloody and by now sh in the patriarchal typology of women. And at rst glance,
truly lethal and castrating vagina to her husband, the vagina she seems to have felt femininity as a “wound to her narcis-
dentala ofcastration anxiety at once masochistic and sadistic. slim" (FI'¢ud) flh 165$ lhn h as $i§l'=\‘5- lndwd §h= is lite
we have come to think
symbol of her hatred ofhim and herown powerlessness. But it prototype of the narcissistic female
is the sequence of the whole episode that explains its overall of her. Maria represents the most vaginal of women with her
meaning: Karin's renunciation of Anna symbolizes the renun- ‘wet smiles,‘ full red lips and dresses and her bored yet desper-
ciation of her own autonomous sexuality which occurred ale seductions. Funher, as tomas has pointed out, she is
when she gave up her mother/betrayed herselfin that implicit equated with the sexually attractive mother by identical des-
earlier drama. Her present state of castrated castrator is a criptions, by her relation to her own daughter and by Liv
result and a precise echo of what happened to her in Ullmann's playing both characters.
childhood. Maria is beautiful and thoroughly feminine, but it becomes
How important the repression of mother love, woman to clear that she is very far from psychologically intact. As her
woman love and women‘s bi-sexual potential is to women's story/memory/fantasy unfolds. several things become clear.
abilities to love and respect one another as equals is drama- Though feminine with a vengeance. she is actively sought but
tized in the interaction between Karin and Maria/Liv incapable of real emotional giving. stunted in her feminine
Ullmann, the third sister. When Agnes dies, the relationship capacities. Her inations are inadequate substitutes for mean-
t
between the two surviving siblings, so long mediated by the ingful activity in herlife. We learn,from the doctor, the “man
l
need to care for Agnes, begins to crumble. Once the repressive of substance," that over the years she has become more beauti-
mediation has gone (and it is interesting to note that it took the ful, but simultaneously has also grown petulant, sulking,
form of looking after an invalid and somewhat infantilizcd capricious. bored and empty. in uther words. she is nothing
sibling, that is a maternal form), Maria, the most apparently more than a ‘cunt‘—a woman drained of all non-sexual capac-
emotional ofthe sisters, is overwhelmed by feelings and begins ities and meanings (which need not blind us to the fact that he
to blurt out desires she has harbored for a long time: Why is nothing more than a ‘prick,‘ and a frightened one at that).
can't she and Karin talk? she wants to know. Why can't they Deprived ofdirection and a sense of worth in life, like Karin
be friends‘? Above all, why can‘t they much one another’! she seeks revenge on her husband Joakim as well as on the
Karin is appalled by all these cloying overtures, and resists, doctor who bores her despite her need for his sexual services, a
clearly suffering, when Maria reaches out and begins to stroke need both physical and psychological. The ‘truly feminine‘
her cheek. Anna's lesbian eyes are taking in the exchange, woman can onlybewhat she is if she receives constant affirma-
when we realize that Karin is clawing at her throat, literally tion of her attractiveness from men, and is thus ultra-
sulTocating in guilt if her muttered phrases can be taken to d°P°"d°m °" ""1 ‘-l°"‘l"i"'" B'="d"- a"d- "°l 5'"P|'i§i"8l)'-
account for her distress. "Agnes and Anna,“ she says distract- ultra-angry. Once again the themes of castration leap to the
edly, . . there was something . . . yes, it‘s disgusting . . , fore as Joakim, in a gesture meant to produce guilt and
contemplated suicide." In phrases as sharp as the fragment of oontrition, produces that good old phallic signifier, the knife,
glass she wielded, Karin is giving us clues to the cause of her and slabs himself. lt is as if he were saying, “See, you have
guilt. It seems that she feels a strongly controlled desire to do emasculated me by your infidelity and I will now make that
that which Anna and Agnes did, somethingso disgusting that castration clear.“ He acts out the castration he has expe-
she would have to kill herself even for contemplating it. rienced at his wife's hand—she has sought out phalluses other
At this very moment, Maria chooses to press even more ma“ his am “ms mmw" ignominy upon him‘
clossly against Krin. and Karin Snaps. "D0 you know how Maria on the other hand refuses to go to his aid,as ifto say,
much l hate you?“ she spits at Maria as she struggles to defend “lf l can't have gender equality and erotic self-determination
herself against the latent feelings of tendcmess and eroticism neither can you. l refuse to confirm your entitlement to my
she has for her sister, “you with your wet smiles?" The situa- allegiance.“ So we have more blood, more gaping wounds,
tion becomes intolerable, Maria bursts into tears and Karin physical and psychological, all stemming from the symbolic
l screams. But when the tension has been released in this emo- script of castration. And we also learn a lesson in gender
tional catharsis, somethingmiraculous happens. In stark con- politics: the beautiful, ‘feminine’ woman sulfers as much, if
trast to the interaction between Karin and her husband at somewhat differently, in patriarchal society as other women
i
dinner, truth, not falsehood, asserts itself and the sisters are do. Conned to a supercial existence because of the over-
reunited. To the aching lyricism of a Bach cello suite they valuation of her physical beauty, she is simultaneously pun-
embrace and kiss. they laugh, they gaze into one another‘s eyes ished because that beauty serves as the constant reminder to

Winter‘86 CtneActlonl 41
1

42 C|neAct|on! W|n(er'86
men that they cannot control and possess the women (who Anna is trapped above all else by her class position. Because
represent the primal mothers) in their lives as they would like she is a domestic servant whose ties to her own family have
to do. Her mutilation and revenge are assevere and powerfully been severed, she is not likely to betray other women for the
motivated as are her sisters‘. petty privileges that bourgeois men accord to the women of
The only woman who is not involved directly in a castration their class. Her oppression as a member of the working class
scenario, who has escaped the worst patriarchal mutilation, is breaks her alignment and identication with men as a group.
the one who has also escaped the heterosexual resolution of However, her isolation as a woman worker, cut olT from men
the Oedipal complex in an unambiguous way. She is Anna the and women of her own class. means that she is excluded from
lesbian, and signicantly also, the working-class woman. relationships of equality. The lm suggests that they are
In the literature on Cries and Whispers a great deal is made impossible with the bourgeois sisters. Agnes, the androgynous
of Anna's longing after her lost daughter in her relationship one, partially breaks through the class barrier in brief
with Agnes. l think this evaluation of Anna's motivations is so moments. But it is also clear that Anna is for her a second-best
incompleteastobewrong. Again,we have thedesiretoreduce substitute for the love of her ‘real’ (biological and social)
and thereby denigrate an adult exchange of eroticism to the sisters. Anna's own nal story/memory/fantasy is of herself,
libidinal relationship of parent and child that l noted in dis- seen through Agnes‘s eyes, as a sister among the others, one of
cussing the character of Agnes. And there is a further proble- the people whom Agnes “loves most in the world,“ an equal
matic overtone: the judging of erotic exchange aytinst the among equals. lfmotherlove is presentin the lesbian relation,
standard of heterosexual practice. This is a very problematic then so, represented by Anna's dreams, is sisterly love, the love
attitude from the point of view of women's liberation. For of solidarity between autonomous, powerful beings. Anna
example, a number of critics suggested, that Anna's “ample represents the unfullled potential of this love, trapped by
thighs and breasts," in Joan Mellen's words, connoted economic and gender class structures. The sisters represent its
"bovine" qualities. This evaluation implicitly accepted the repression.
dominant physical stereotypes typical of sexist and capitalist
aesthetics and misappreciates the statement of refusal to THO MOI‘!
comply with those stereotypes that (Bergman's choice oi)
Anna's appearance communicates. It also reduces the parent FEW VERY BRIEF WORDS ON THE ROLE OF
(mother)-infant relationship to some pre-cultural animal men in this lm: there's no question that the men are
instinct, in other words to less than human standards, an secondary characters in Crier and Whispers, that the
attitude that participates in the patriarchal denigration of lm's main concem is the relation of women to women, the
nurturing. Yet Anna is the only woman who has the courage, creation and maintenance of "femininity." But in patriarchal
the human courage, to face the fear of death when Agnes‘s culture psychic mutilation occurs on both sides of the gender
soul is in agony. fence, and as l pointed out before, castration anxiety is much
The continuous stress placed on Anna's maternalism seems heavier for men than for women. lfwe look at who the men are
to reect a ight from the reality of her physical lust for and and what theyare made to confront in the lm, we see that the
contact with women's bodies. Of the four protagonists, Anna castration theme is the major thread that runs through their
is the only woman who is actively involved in seeking and experience as well. Karin‘s offering to hcr husband is the
dening her own sexual gratication. Yes, her sexuality com- dreaded toothed vagina. For men, it is an unconscious sym-
bines tendemess and eroticism. Most women love with a bolic inversion of the awe and envy ofbirth-giving capacities
combination of tender and erotic feelings, whether they love little boys experience, emerging in a horric form as a result of
men or women. What is noteworthy about Anna is not this, the denigration and repression of identication with feminin-
but her activity and guiltlessness in seeking it from the outset ity. From life-giving to death-dealing, the matemal genitals
of the lm. come to represent vengeful maternal castration. Maria's hus-
lndeed, Anna is a strong, competent, buxom and unrepen- band's stabbing is a suicidal preventive strike, a sadomaso-
ant Eve who bites the apple with forcefulness and pleasure. chistic attempt to stave off the worst by anticipating it. It also
She literally performs this action at the beginning of the lm demonstrates a simultaneous fear of castration of the phallus
following, and by extension repudiating the patriarchal con- with a fear of the phallus as itself a castrator.
tent of, her prayers. That bite conveys to us that, religious The doctor's cold monologue to Maria, though couched in
feeling notwithstanding, nothing is going to interfere with her the kinds of terms that attempt to give him existential sub-
enjoyment of female genital sexuality. (Later, as we see how stance while depriving her of any subjecthood, is nothing but
she is denied emotional fulllment. we come to understand an attempt to keep control and self-worth in face of his own
just how truly she has eaten of the fruit ofa tree stunted by feelings of desire when she clearly demonstrates lust for his
cruel pruning.) lt is not coincidental that she shows guiltless genitals and utter indifference to his pretentious theories. ln
love for that apple and what it symbolizes and is also the only other words, she sees him as empty and frighteningly chal-
woman who does not in some important way betray herself lenges his own sense of identity. lndirectly, given what psy-
and the sisters (other women). This veries the necessary choanalysis tells us about masculinity,she is thereby rejecting
connection between self-esteem, esteem of other women and the acknowledgement of his phallic power. Finally, the minis-
homoeroticism which is at work in the Freudian scheme of ter‘s incredible eulogy over Agnes‘s dead body illustrates one
feminization. the most sublin-iated, but no less patriarchal for that,
attempts to ward off the revenge of woman: idcaliution and
canoniration in the patriarchal appropriation of women's
suffering. With luck, the heavenly father will deal with this
0PPOSlTE—Maria and ‘femininity’: the erotic disturbing woman, and keep her from haunting the minister's
woman. conscience and his unquestioned and privileged relationship
as spiritual authority.
ln fact, from the point of view ofthe male characters in this
lm—and from the point of view of the male director who

Winter '66 ClneActlon! 43


we

animated the entire psychodrama—the women's macabre the partial, and to an important extent misguided analysis that
horror-show puts the patriarchal order into question, from its this approach has produced. The ‘look‘ is not simply a fonn of
most physical, eanhbound dimensions to its most metaphysi- masculinist appropriation. lts pleasure is, beneath conscious-
cal realms. ln the nal scene, the sisters are divided by the men. ness, pre-ideological and deeply resonant with all kinds of
Patriarchal control is reasserted when Maria betrays Karin powerful feelings. But wecan‘t explore those feelings and ideas
and when Anna is dismissed in heartless and exploitative for their progressive mobilization if we keep looking only to
terms. But we know, having been privy to the scenes where the language and discourse to explain culture. The same must be
women's murderous rage against the men was expressed, that said for issues of pacing, rhythm, color, light—all aspects of i

patriarchal victory is hollow. The price that gender stratica- reality that are as old as our infant selves, as powerfully ‘_

tion exacts from men, though much less elaborated in Crier connected to pleasure as our primitive libidos, and as crucial '
and |‘WIi.\'pe!J, is steep and gory, and any man watching the to progressive culture as are progressive ideas.
lm's conclusion must nd it very diicult to desire the mascu- There are other mistakes we've made in rejecting the impor-
line position once its prerequisites are spelled out. tance nf the body, mistakes that hinder the formulation of l
clear directions for psycho-social change. Psychoanalysis 1

teaches us that there is no such thing as human society without ‘

some form of what it has technically termed sexual repression.


Weaning, toilet training and the end to libidinal parent-child
concuaion symbiosis (the incest taboo) require some degree of repression
of infantile sexuality. Some measure ofrepression is necessary
HE OR|G|NAL VERSION OF THIS AR]-|CLE to divert and neutralize human sexual drives from their rst
was wnucn six years nnn_ Al ‘ha, n,nn_ Lacan;nn_ and immediate aim of instantaneous gratication in order to
inuenced nnnan tncnry was in ns znnnn ln {nose days make them available for sublimation into a whole vanety of
the “law of the Father" was so massive a preoccupation that endeavors—from abstract thought to nurturing support to
many lost sight of how powerful was the effect of the mother, c"°3""° “"4 \'°°'lJ_|'°°al |°‘/°mak"18~
at times despite,at times because of her oppressed, suppressed A‘ 'h¢ 53")‘ “mF- P5YFh°3"a|Y_5“ 5h°w5 ‘hm an °"_"|Y
and repressed place. Today, the inuence of Dinnerstein and ham‘ "°P'°§5‘°n °r '“f3"!'l° 5_“"a|"Y °"“‘°5 "'°‘ “°""?|'ud
Chodorow is slowly ltering into feminist critical theory in "F78! aVi\l|3_b|¢ T01‘ §IIb|lm8ll0II. bllf rllill ¢"=l’8Y- "F11 "P
North America. Ann Kaplan in Women andFiIm:Bo!h Sidesof "’“h P'°"°"""3 the "P"~'§§‘d °"P°"¢"°¢ '°"‘ 5'§"fa°'"3_‘°
the Camera, for example, has begun to engage with the place of °°"f5‘_“°“5“‘s5' and "‘°'°f°"° no‘ f"°°_ ‘° ‘P533? m °"°a“"°
the mother, and suggests that studying the treatment of this in ac""“Y- The °"°"]Y "°P'°55¢d P°“°"a|"Y “"“ be '"c“P3b|° °f
cinema is one of the most imponant tasks for feminists who questioning certain conditions, even if these make him or her
are trying to come to grips with sexist and feminist lm ""haPPY- becmsc " Wm bc ‘°° "“’°|"°d “’"h ma'"'~a'f""8 "5
sn.mcg;es_ This is a promising beginning but we have rnncn own intemal defences to understand how extemal social con-
farther to go. ditions are oppressive.
There is another major problem that has arisen out of the ln addition to trying to describe consciousness and culture,
Lacanian paradigm specically, and out of the strticturalist there is a strategic question that those of us concemed with the
fascination with language and discourse more generally. self-creation of human beings free of domination must ask:
(While psychoanalytic thinkers discount Michel Foucault's what kind of repression of infantile and childhood sexuality is
dismissal of psychoanalysis, they have been very much necessary in order to create human beings with the capacity
affected by his emphasis on discourse, and it's shown up in the for abstract thought, creative expression and loving coopera-
literature.) lt is not surprising that cultural criticism should tion; and what kind of repression in fact gets in the way of the
take discourse very seriously—why bother writing about any growth of this kind of character? Posing this question was
phenomenon from an engaged perspective unless one thinks Marcuse's most important contribution in Ems and Civiliza-
it's important‘? But in all the emphasis on matters of the mind tion. He proposed that we call the repression-socialization of
something very dangerous has been taking place: too little the rst order “basic repression"; the second order “surplus
attention to matters of the body has been given in cultural repression.“ Marcuse suggested that the achievement of a
theory. This shows in the fact that this theory has been more or society based on basic repression would entail a “re-
less successful at producing elaborate and even arcane descrip- eroticization of the body" and the end of “genital primacy"—
tions of cultural production, but not very good at suggesting the product of our current oedipal congurations—but he
ways to change it that are both progressive and effective in stopped short of giving these concepts more precise meanings.
terms of popular communication. Twenty years after the publication of Em: and Civilization,
Though there is no direct or automatic lit between psycho- Gad Horowitz took the notions of basic and surplus repres-
analysis, feminism or marxism,these approaches, at their best, sion and elaborated them in rigorous Freudian terms. By
do sharea commitment to explaining reality in terms of mate- looking closely at infantile and childhood socialiration pro-
rial experience. As far as psychoanalysis is concemed, the cess (includingasurvey of clinical literature—a sad omission
material base of consciousness is the body of selfand others, in much psychoanalytic theorizing in cultural and political
with its genetic and physiological givens, as it is experienced, elds) he made a very important suggestion: that the repres-
interpreted and mediated through social relations. Those sion of same sex love (the homosexual aspect of our bi-sexual
social relations and the discourses which ultimately express potential) now central to the resolution of the incest taboo, is
them are critical to understanding what happens in cultural surplus, not basic, repression. Weaning, toilet training and
formation. But they are simply not sufficient, especially if they certain forms of postponement of childhood erotic gratica-
displace considerations of the body. tion vis-a-vis parents, because they correspond to somatic
What for example are we to make of the wordless gazing development, can be relatively painlessly assimilated provid-
that takes place between parent and infant, of the sensations of ing this is achieved with care, patience and attention to
oomfort and merging in bodily contact in that dyad? The appropriate pacing. The process need not betiaumatic and if
disembodiment of the look in cultural theory is one example of it is not, it allows sublimation to proceed.

‘I CineActi0n! Winter'B6
The renunciation of identilicaton with the parent of the REFERENOESQ BIBLIOGRAPHY
opposite sex and the resultant renunciation of same-sex love
on the other hand has no somatic counterpart and is not Nancy Chodorow. TTIt’Rt'p!0tI|4t‘IiGr| D[i\IOIIIP!‘i!|g.'I'.[)‘l‘hD!|lI[t'_riSllIlll
the .$'m-iaI»g_i- qr‘ (iuider. University of California Press,
Berke-
necessary (basic) for sublimation. In fact. quite the opposite.
ley, l97i<.
Because of its extremely painful nature. the repression of
bi'5°x"amY CWMC5 rigid and 9rIPPl¢d P“5°“ami¢5 Swmcd in Dorothy Dinnerstein. Thu .‘l1r-rmunliiriil l)ivMinulau!. Harper 81 Row,
their capacity for creative activity. The vast majority of indi- New York. I976.
viduals gain nothing. But the social system based on gender Sigmund Freud. Tliriw (‘unirihuliaiis Io iIii- Tlienry of Set". l)utton.
.
and Ct-Ol'\0I‘I'llC stratilication gains its own reproduction. In New Yum iqbzi no inmiwmiwn 0, i),mmi_ M,on_ NW
~ -
- - ~ -

4
other words. Horowitz was able to identify strategically York’N65;"“,Eiwam,ihi.,i,_w_w4Num,n_Ne,,, ymkiiquy
imponant directions for psycho-social change. directions
which hcip progrsivc iheoi-is‘; ‘O say sci-naming Cami-eiciy Giid Horiiwit1.Rt-;irm'inn.-Bani-iimlSiirpIui Rt-preirriori in I’f_t't_‘ll0I||I-
h
'-""1" 77'*'"'.\'—F"w/» Rvir um
I Vii Vl'|l\1‘. Lln ivers i iy oi Ioronto
positive about the content as well as the form of progressive
Y .

~
Press. loronto. I977.
work.
Ifwe get serious about assimilating the best insights of E.Ann Kaplztn. Wunii-nuniII'i'lni.-Iiaili Siilr-iq/mi-(1iiriem.Meihuen.
New York. I983.
Dinnerstein. Chodorow and Horowitz. we need no longer be
Film. Dell. New
resmckd ‘O abracl cans for ‘he demisc of ‘hc ‘Law °r ‘he Joan Mellen. Wumvn and Ilii-ir Serunlily in the .~'Vi'w

Father‘ at the same time as we lament its ubiquity. We no York. I973.


longer need to irt with a liberal or decadent pluralism which Juliet Mitchell. I’iyrhnana1_i'.ri.\ am! Feminism, Penguin Books.
Eng-
says anything goes to avoid the harsh and somewhat totalitar- land. I975.
ian dictates of ‘correct-line sexuality‘ and ‘positive role mod-
¢|5_‘ We can retain and extend Quf und¢|'5[3ndi|'|g Qfihg impgr.
Constance Penley. "Cries and \\_/hispe~rs"vin Bill Nichols, ed.. Movies
ian“ ofsymboiic and maaphoiiczii dimensions Qfcuiiurei we ariil .\IelIiml.\'. University ol Calilomiu Press. Berkeley. I976.
of
um ‘mminue ‘° defend ‘he importance of wink ‘hm °XP|°'¢5 Ethel Specter Person 81. Lionel Ovcsey. "Psychoanalytic Theories
the darker realms of (un)consciousness. But along with this. Gender Identity.“ Journal of ihi- Anierii-an .44-adi»my 12! P.t_\'tho-
lJIlUl)‘SiJ- Vul- ll. NQ- 3. I933-
we can insist that progressive directions consist in repudiating
Deborah 'lhomas. 17n'("vIaur Films uflngniar Bergman. M.A.
Thesis.
lhc social and cultural repmssion or our androgynous pawn‘
tial. including its physical expression. We can demand social Warwick U,,i,.m,iy_ 197,;

arrangements which validate our whole psyches and our


whole bodies so that over time we can heal the intrapsychic
and social splits which threaten to destroy us.

if“? .

'
1
0-,.

....-.

cineACTION!
A MAGAZINE OF RADICAL FILM CRITICISM K THEORY

j.
Forthcoming Issues: CineAction!
0 Apr/May: Alternative Cinema 40 Alexander St.
0 July/Aug: Scorsese Apt. 705
0 Oct/Nov: Stars Toronto. Ontario
M4Y 185 Canada

Back Numbers Available: SUBSCRIBE Now!


- Neglected Films of the ‘80s - $2.00 - $3.50 Four issues: $12.00 (individuals)
0 Women in Contemporary Hollywood
$2500 (institutions)
(Abroad, add $2.00)

Winter '86 CineActlori! 48

4
Gender and Destiny:
George Cuknr’s A Star Is Born
by guchard uppe behind the l9th Century Westward Movement and the 20th

I
Century pursuits of the ‘average Amencan whom Esther is
N MANY ASSESSMENTS OF CUKOR-S A S1-AR Is meant to represent. But,according to thespeech,the \_ll/estand
Barn (1954) the 1931 o It g inalv ersi‘en is evok e din p assin g 3" b°"' _"‘° !“"d °f=q"a' PPP°""""Y '" “""°"
_H9!'Y?"°°d
asacomparison but without any real critical investigation '“'"a""' a"d d°l""""a"°" 3" ‘he pnme fact°'s' Thmugh
of the earlier lm. This practice has produced misconceptions ‘he spccch 6'3""! ‘md Em?’ arc “"k‘d as Pi°“°°'i"3
about both lms andthe relationship bctweenthem. lnactual wome" bu" as Gran“, °a‘§“°"5_' Eh" mus‘ b‘_ s"°Y'3
fact, they embody quite distinct ideological projects and l enough to endure the inevitable heartbreak her identity
_ _ _

think it is necessary to return to the original version before emasi w“h°“‘ d°f'a" Fm G"'""y' “ was lb” l°s5 ‘ff h"
discussing Cukor‘s handling of the material. Primarily, the "“‘b“"d-“"d-‘*"“'°§°“"Y-E§"‘°"""=“"‘°“"‘°°"P°"="°=-
reputation of the earlier lm rests on its being regarded as the
f
d e in my e 19305 -Ho“ y W o od on HO" y womf m which is
An" Normanls ‘ham’ in ‘w° sequent“ ma‘ mushly °°"sli'
m a lutean epilogue, Granny
,
is re-introduced into the narrative.
sub-genre dating back to the silent cinema, e.g. Behind The
Sun,” ( |9|6)' Ella (-,-"4": ( |926)_ Th: mm-5 various c°mP°_
Sh‘ f"'"°"°“5' °“ °"e ha“d' as a °°“sc'°“°e '°:"“dm3
that she musn't surrender to despair and aban on her origina
5!“;
nents are harmoniously organized so that the over-all product Pumu“ andi "n ‘he mile" as, ramy 5“pP°n' l"d°‘?d' m
fullls certain Hollywood ‘myths’ associated with ‘stardom.‘ the lm's last sequence Esther is the centre of a reconstituted
_ _ ' . .

Although William Wellman's contributions as director and “_“‘|°a' ramy ((*"'?"“y' '1“ pm,°ma|_ 5'“d'° head‘ 01""
co-author of the original story of A Star l.i' Bani have been N'l°S/Admphe M°"_-l°‘_' ‘f'h° came" M‘? ,G'a"“y' wamed
recognized as substantial, the lm's sentiments are often Es'h°'_ abm" ‘he Pnce °" ha ?mb'"°“' an?! Danny
attributed to David 0. Selznick, the pr0dncerofCuk0r's l932 M‘G"'f°/"MY D""‘°¢ ‘hf b'°‘“°""!‘°~ ‘*§°""“' '"°"“) “"‘°
Whal Price HoII_vivood.", which, according to Ronald Haver‘s aPP'°‘""9ly acccpi ‘hm daugm/5'5"’ as 3 H°“yw°°d
David 0. St-Iznick'.r Hollywood (1980), served as a kind of Sm" _ _ , , , _

guidelinein the making ofthe Sclznick/Wellman lm. Despite “r °°“"'s°-


Esmu 5 5“"d°m '§ '"_ke‘P"'g w"h,'h's
the fact that the lms have a similar structure and thematic, depiction of . Hollywood
__
as the realization of Amencan _ _

Haver doesn't considerA Star lsBunia remake of What Price 'd°a|§' ,J"'d3'"3 rf°m ‘he P'°]°5“e- Esther ‘,“"v°s m H°“y'
Hollywood? but, instead, feels that what the lms share is ”°°“ ‘""‘ "° “°""¥ °"P°"°“°.° “"d' "‘°'° "“P°"‘“"‘lYt ""
Selznick's desire to presenta ‘romantic‘ conception of Holly- mm “ever suggcm ma" d°sp"° ‘he (am than she wms an
wood.Haversays that,in particular, in the makingofA Slarls Academy Award Esther has a, talent
3 ,
to ,be an actress ‘ In fact,
_ _ _

Bani, Selznick intervened on every level of the production to E*“h",d°e5_"' msplay 3"): ¢'§‘!"8"'*'""B q"'a|m°§ SIM‘ as
ensure ‘hm me nal pmduc, would Sew: MS conccptiom talent,intelligence, orcreativity; in other words,she isn ttobe
which he felt coincided with the public‘s attitude towards §°°"_“ “P ="'F‘- “"*d""°_""Y~ Fh‘ mm» '" d°"Y"‘B *’—“"°"
Ho" 00¢ credible identity as an artist, reinforces the fact that Holly-
yw
Undoubtedly, A Star Is Barn succeeds in '
romanticizing
t
“'° Od '5i comm‘ ‘O P'°m°'° ° b5°C ' '° d miases f If ° w°m':'
Hollywood, but primarily this is achieved through the Esther !‘=,"i"8 “° {cal i",'°"_s‘ in um." as “came ind'vi.d“a|§' l“s‘°a_ ‘
Blodgemyicki Lester/Jane, Gaynor and Norman Maine, it is Ether s ordinanness which causes the movie-going public
Fredric March characters. whose eventual love for each other to embrace her_' Esthers appeal is that she exemplies the
_ , _

is used to justify the notion that 8 idve dr Hollywood and °°"°?P‘ "NF ‘*"°'a§° “'°"“"- “"d- "‘ ‘* ‘°"§°- "‘° ,"'"‘ ‘S
‘stardom‘ have an equal moral weight. While the project °"°n"3 h°'.m"d°m as fl" “ample °f mc ‘?='"°F"*"¢ pm"
su $8ests a narcissistic stance on the P art of Hollywood, the F55‘ Ac°°'d'Y'3‘° tn‘ 2,“'d'°"°° "°sp°“§‘5 d°p'c‘ed,'mh° mm'
lm attempts to avoid such a reading through, in particular, " '§ ‘he Ammca“ pubhc who ha5b‘;h°sc':1hT'a5 'h°'R'ijP"°s°:'
theconstniction of Esther‘scharacterand background.AS1nr
-

“"v°b“3P5° E§‘h,"aPp°a“'_° 5°.“ O °s°m° . " '35 t °


1, gum bcgim with an amended prologue which innoduocs character is conceived, there is no discrepancy between the
Esther as a young woman living on a farm in Nonh Dakota °F"sc'““ ""33: aim ‘he °ff'sc'°°“ 'd°'“"y' whFn Esther '5
who in addition to being a ‘star-struck‘ movie fan to the signed by the studio ' the '
make up department tnes to glam-
_ , ,
annoyance of her loutish father, aunt and brother, harbors
famasles aboul gems ‘O Honywood lo be 3 mar» hers“,-_
°“z° '1" rcalums bf" '5 d_°r°a‘°d by ‘hc "ammlness
face. But, by the time this scene occurs, Esther‘s face as
er dz ,

When Bther is pushed into revealin her fanlas , Granny/ f'|l°_adYbu?‘d°"°da5“°n°°“°'1°fm°ra|'m°5my'omh°"'


Mae ROb§0n, unlike the others, offers gsupport and yencourages initial meeting ' Norman ' after, taking Esther, to the apartment
_

her to attempt to realize the ambition. Granny's commitment d°°" suggem‘ ma‘ ‘hc cvcmng c°"|d c°m'““° 3‘ ms place‘
to Esther, and her ‘pioneering spirit‘ speech, are crucial to the
lm‘s project in aligning Esther's ambition to several Ameri-
can ‘ideals‘ that underpin the Hollywood cinema.‘ For
_
g;';g_s|TE A Sm’ Is Born (1954)' the proposal
.

instance, the ‘pioneering spirit‘ speech implies that Hollywood


has replaced the West in offering a ‘settling‘ challenge. ln
doing so, it collapses the distinctions between the motivations

O8 CIr\eAction! Wlnter'86
Q

‘ii?
F __

Wmter '86 CineAction' J7


Norman, looking into Es|her's face for a response, realizes Norman has forfeited his 'stardom‘ and with it the career
that she has a ‘pureness‘ that makes the suggestion seem through which he could regain his self-respect.
vulgar. In retraction. Norman says. "l still respect lovely ln contrast to the amount of footage devoted to Estber‘s
thingsand you are lovely." The scene.which isn‘tinthe Cukor background and initial experiences in Hollywood, the lm
lm, has particular signicance in the lm's use of Esther, provides no real biographicalinformation on Norman prior to
Norman and their relationship as a comment on ‘stardom.’ In his introduction into the narrative.Obviousl)'..~1 Slur Ii" Horn is
it, Norman discovers an aspect of Esther which. eventually, using Esther as its chief identication gure. which. in part.
will make her a ‘star'; but, at the same time. he is discovering accounts for the elaboration. But considering Norman's sig-
the ‘ideal’ woman who can fulll what he has been searching nificance to the lm's nver<all structure, his identity lacks
for recklessly. necessary denition. ln particular, in regard to the lm's
According to the lin. there is no real conflict for Esther insistence that Hollywood 'stardom' is highly coveted and a
between beinga 'star' and being Mrs. Norman Maine. Before rewarding experience, Norman's behavior suggests a deep
the above-mentioned scene, .4 Star l.i Burn has already estab- dissatisfaction which needs an explanation. Clearly. the press
lished an identication between listher and Norman through is offered deliberately as an aspect of the industry that causes
herendorsementofhis acting L.|blill_\' in the prologue but.more Norman to be antagonistic toward his status as a ‘star.’ In
meaningfully. by having Esther. upon arriving in Hollywood, addition to the crass press photographer in the Hollywood
stepinto hiscement footprints in front ofGrauman's Chinese Bowl sequence. there is press agent Matt Libby/Lionel
Theatre, which are signed "Norman Maine—Good Luck." ln Stander whose crudeness the lm depicts as both humorous
d0ingso,l;'sther is uniting herselfto bothacareerand Norman and, in his assault on Norman in the racetrack bar scene,
Maine. And Norman. on his part. isn't troubled by Esther‘s vicious. However, judging from what is shown atid said oi
ambition to be a 'star'. not seeing it as a threat to their Norman's public behavior, Libby's resentment isn't without
relationship. Butitis Normanthelniiniplicatesasthe person reason; but, as Norman's now vulnerable situation takes
responsible for the unhappiness that impinges on them. In precedence,the characit-r‘s actions appearniore barbaric than
particulanpriorto meeting listher. Norman has ceased to take ever. Primarily, in the Selznick/Wellinan version, this nega-
his obligations to ‘stardom’ seriously. Norman is no longer tive portrayal ofthe press as typified by Libby functions as a
interested in work demands. but instead. in play. As his cur- convenience. There is no real indication that Norman is con-
rent director tells Niles. “His work is beginning to interfere cerned about its unethical principles beyond an immediate
with hisdrinking." When Nilestriesto warn Normanthathe‘s sense of harassment. And. more tellingly. after thoroughly
jeopardizing his career, Norman hands him a token which denouncingthe Matt Libby character and what he represents
reads "Good foramusementonly."(‘onsequently, by the time to provide a semblance of critical self-awareness about the
of the marriage which brings renewed value into his life, industry, the lm then endorses his position through the pub-

‘U!

s___

A Star Is Born (1937): Norman and Vicki announce their engagement.

JO CirieAction! Winter ‘B6


lic's attitude toward Norman‘s death. In his nal screen l937, the lm itself raises the issue in Niles‘ comments on her
appearance Libby is seen sharing a joke about the drowning potential to be a ‘star’ in the current climate and, earlier in the
with a bartender;and in the mob scene outside the church after narrative, by having Esther do impressions of Garbo, Hep-
the funeral, a fan shouts to Esther. “Don't you cry dearie, he bum and Mae West, which serve to ridicule their ‘articial’
wasn't so much." Except for Esther and Niles, there is no one wnegptinns of femininity,
to express regret over Norman's demise. lf Esther's personality relates to a ‘contemporary’ aspect of
The other likely source of Norman's dissatisfaction seems to the l930s cinema, it is in having the kind of adventurous spirit
be his dislike of the pretentious, which is exemplied by Anita that Hepbum‘s screen persona exemplied during this period.
Regis/Elizabeth Jenns. Whereas in Cukor’s lm the equival- Morning Glory ( l933)and Stage Door( l937) parallelA Star]:
4 ent character is conceived as a vapid starlet, in the 1937 version Born in that the heroine in both lms seeks to establish herself
she is a shrill and mean-spirited 'sophisticate’ whose self- asan actress withoutan initial awarenessof the ‘hardships’the
eentredness is exposed through her insistent concern about her choice entails. (lnevitably, in the Hollywood cinema, it is a
public embarrassment because of Norman‘s behavior. Con- female protagonist who is characterized in this naive manner.
0

sidering the depiction of both the character and the relation- ln fact, it is unlikely that Hollywood has producedadramatic
ship, Norman's involvement must be read as a symptom of his lm centred on a similarly aspiring male protagonist). Never-
impending moral corruption, and indeed, their mutual indul- theless there is a strong contrast between what Gaynor and
gence in verbal/physical abuse in the pany sequence suggests Hepburn project as actresses and personalities. As already
that sadistic pleasure is a motivating factor. But Anita is mentioned,inAStorlsBom Gaynor's Estherisn't more thana
mainlyused to represent Esther's negativecounterpart,having ‘sincere’ personality, whereas in Morning Glory and Stage
nothing more than an articial surface image and,in her ‘class’ Door Hepburn creates characters who display the creative
pretensions,ananti-American spirit. Like many l9Il0slms,A energies they will need to become successful actresses. ln
Star ls Born recognizes the existence of class division but it addition, in the Hepbum lms the characters‘ development
does so to make Hollywood appear as a ‘classless’ environ- isn't predicated on both the attainment of career goals and
ment, meaning, in actuality, that it is middle-class. For fulllment as a woman through a heterosexual ‘couple' rela-
instance, while the Anita/Esther juxtaposition canies class tionship. In fact, in the remarkable Stage Door, Terry
connotations, the division is as much a city/country split as it RandalVKatherine Hepbum achieves professional and per-
is a distinction between persons. And, similarly, although sonal maturity through her relations with other would-be
Libby's crudity seems to be meant to suggest a ‘lower-class’ actresses. Considering Gaynor’s screen persona, it is difcult
sensibility, the lm manages to indicate in a studio cafeteria to imagine her playing such a character because she lacks a
scene that Norman, through his banter with a waitress, has strong enough identity to exist independent of the male rein-
rapport with ‘lower-class‘ people. forcement that characterizes her as a ‘feminine’ person.
ln the main, the press conict and the Anita Regis involve- Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference behind the
motivation of the Hepbum lms and the Selznick/Wellman
l

ment are extemals and aren't used to explore Norman's per-


lm. Most often, in her |930s lms, Hepbum accepts the
l
i
sonality. ln the nal analysis, the personality is left undeve-
loped beyond the lm's concern about Esther's ability to challengeof self-denition which leadstoaconfrontation with
i
introduce love into Norman's life and, with it, dignity and various forms of existingsocietal oppression. ln contrast, inA
Slur I: Bum, Bther is used to reafrm and celebrate American
I

responsibility. Through the relationship, Nomian becomes a


!
‘gentleman,‘and in doingso,acquiresthe necessary nobility to values and ‘ideals.’ Like Granny's, Esther's initial goal of
sacrice himself when hediscovers what Esther plans to relin- westward movement and desire to conquer a new land was
quish for his sake. Actually, in the Selznick/Wellman lm, male-inspired. ln both eases, the women have the misfortune
of losing their men in an ‘accident,’ but being of pioneer stock,

Norman attains heroic status in a manner more characteristic


of a male-oriented lm than of the melodrama. Under Well- realize that the defeat must not sway them from acommitment
man's direction, the suicide is primarily presented as an that goes beyond any individual tragedy. ln making this deci-
honorable act making it a ‘masculine’ action. The scenes sion Esther, as a woman and as an American, appears to be
between Esther and Norman preceding the suicide are brief fullling a ‘spiritual’ obligation in accepting her reward of
and downplay the despair and pain he would be expected to Hollywood ‘stardom.’ As an ideological product of l930s
feel, given the decision. Consequently, the emphasis is on cinema,A Star I: Born isaskillful variation on that decade's
Nomtan’s intention to secure Esther's future happiness which, particular version of celebrating the American sensibility. ln
he knows, has an intimate relation to ‘stardom.’ Norman, by this regard, the lm has much in common with a number of
committing suicide, becomes a ‘hero’ gure, thereby fullling the l930s lms of directors such as Frank Capra and John
the lm's conservative conception of gender. Ford. To a varying degree in the comic and/or dramatic
No doubt Wellman, who was notorious for his cultivation mode, these lms depend on having their protagonist(s) con-
of a ‘masculine’ persona on and off the set, contributed to front and overcome an adversity so that the end goal, which
the conventional conception of gender-roles found inA Stall: exemplies the American spirit, takes on sufficient value. ln
Bom, but Selznick, in casting the principal roles, reinforces the particular. with its concentration on the woman's view point,
images.‘ While March didn't restrict himself to ‘action’ lms A Smr ls Born has an allinity with Ford's Dnims Along The
during this period, his on-screen demeanor and presence are Mohawk (1939) which perfonns a similar ideological project.
~ unambiguously ‘masculine.’ When March attempts to sug- Several critics writing on Wellman have suggested that
gest,as he does in the Academy Award scene, that his sensibil- under his guidance the lm becomes a critical statement on
ity is more delicate than it appears on the surface, the result is a Hollywood. For example, Richard Combs, Cinema, A Crilical
display of self-pity, begging indulgence. And. even more Diclionary (I980), reads the lm as “a satire on success in,
importantly, in the casting of Gaynor as Esther, the lm Hollywood, considerably rougher and more caustic than
employs an actress whose screen personality was built on George Cukor’s famous remake with Judy Garland." While
projecting such ‘feminine’ qualities as sweetness, devotion and the lm contains several crude comic scenes including instan-
‘innocence.’ To circumvent criticism that the concept of femi- ces of Esther‘s experience as a contract player (e.g., the means
ninity Gaynor/ Esther represents mightseem old-fashioned in by which her screen name Vicki Lester is conceived and the

Wlnter'86 Clri9Actlonl ‘D
biographical information Libby concocts to give Esther an narrative or imbalance the lm's dramatic weight. Consist-
exotic background), the lm doesn't sustain this attitude. The ently, as the narrative demands, she and James Mason, in
Esther/Norman relationship is presented seriously and the presence and performance, complement each other, giving
sentiments that are conveyed through Esther about Holly- dimension and depth both to their characterirations and the
wood and ‘stardom‘ aren't given an ironic perspective. Essen- lm's thematic concem with gender.
tially, the lm, like its female protagonist, is ‘sincere.’ Its The remake of A Star ls Bum was initiated by Garland
intention is to suggest that Hollywood, although seemingly and her then husband, producer Sidney Luft, who convinced
unconventional, embodies and honors long-standing Ameri- Warner Brothers that it would bea suitable comeback vehicle
can values and traditions and, as such, deserves the public's for Garland, who hadn't made a lm since being red from
emotional investment. MGM in I950. Presumably, Garland and Luft, as the lm's ‘
lhave devoted the preceding space to an ideological reading producers, were responsible for organizing the production,
of the Selznick/Wellman version of A Slarlrom because too including the commissioning of Moss Hart to write a new
often it isassumed that since Cukor's lm is, in many respects, screenplay. His screenplay, which Cukor in On Cukor (I972)
faithful to the original in content and narrative structure, his calls “a really brilliant script," is an attempt, it appears, to
lm carries the same implications. But, on the contrary, such a accommodate Garland‘s Esther without unduly disturbing
reading of Cukor's lm produces very dilferent results. F_ssen- the original conception. While the changes Garland‘s presence
tially, as an ideological project, the original lm, in aligningan demands have a crucial elTect on the charactcriration and its
endorsement of the American value system and gender-role connotations, Hart's screenplay, in retaining the generic con-
division, is a ‘coherent’ text; whereas, the remake has unre- ventions associated with the‘HolIywood on Hollywood‘ lm,
solved tensions and contradictions, which, while producing a tends to expose, more explicitly than the original, the denigrat-
more ‘awed' lm, offers a richer text. The ‘incoherence’ of ing attitude these lms take toward the Hollywood cinema.
the I954 lm isn't attributable to a specic factor of the (Judging from Cukor's defense of the studio system in numer-
production but rather stems from components that uneasily ous interviews, it seems obvious that the lm isn't expressing
co-exist. his viewpoint on the industry. its products and traditions. The
Above all, it is Cukor's participation in the project that genre's conventions are deeply ingrained and, most likely,
unhinges its ideological ‘coherenee.‘ ln contrast to the earlier Cukor accepted them without considering their implications.)
lm, Cukor's version functions as a critical statement on For example, Esther's rendition of “The Man Who Got
gender-role division exploring the pressures the divisioning Away" is used to convince Norman/James Mason and, later,
produces. Also, in addition to considering the very different Oliver Niles/Charles Bickford of her extraordinary talent; yet
sensibilities present in each project and their contributions to Esther's identity as a screen actress, which according to the
the nal product, I think it is important to place the two lms lm is meaningful to her, is trivialized through a ridicule ofthe
in the historical context of their production. The original lm lms she makes. ln the “Someone At Last" sequence, the
was produced in the heyday of Hollywood's classical cinema conversation between Norman and Esther preceding her par-
while the remake is a product of its late stages. The contradic- ody of the number, in elTect, dismisses an entire generic tradi-
tions found in the remake are indicative of the erosion of tion from serious consideration, denying the richness and
Hollywood's self-condence about its ability to reflect the complexity the form can embody, as exemplied in numerous
social and cultural mores of the American public and gratify Hollywood musicals. Seemingly, Hollywood practises this
its emotional needs within the studio-star-genre system it had kind of self-depreciation of its creative achievements to reas-
constnicted.‘ sure the public that its products are nothing more than ‘enter-
A Star I: Born, as a I950: ‘Hollywood on Hollywood‘ lm, tainment.‘ By characterizing the process of movie-making and
lacks the mixture of cynicism and self-criticism of intemal ll"! Hid |Jl’°<1"¢lB5ll'iVi|ili¢§. Hollywood Si‘/65 91¢ i"lPl’¢55i°
gurruplion and decadent; found in Sulugl Boulevard (1950), that no real labor is at stake; therefore, in return, no labor, and
7712 Bad And 1712 Beautiful ( I952), and ue Barefoot Caniesm in particular mental labor, is demanded from the viewer.
(I954); nor does the lm, like Sing|'n' In The Rain (I952), revel While Hart's screenplay is about Hollywoood in the above
in a mock innocence. These lms were more accurate in sense, it doesn't use Esther and her experience to celebrate
reectingthecontemporary attitude Hollywood was adopting Hollywood as a contemporary example of American demo-
toward its industry as the movie-going public began to reject cracy. As well as abandoning the original version's prologue,
the products it was producing. By the l950s. ‘stardom‘ was Hart's screenplay makes Esther a person of genuine talent.
seen in terms of behind-the-scenes machinations andA Slarls Hence, Esther's ‘stardom‘ isn't predicated on her being an
Bum isn't as relevant to the currents of the ‘Hollywood on ‘average' person. And, in the I954 version, the scene in which
Hollywood‘ sub-genre as the above-mentioned lms are. Norman ‘discovers‘ Esther occurs when he hears her sing “The
lnstead, the lm, increasingly, has been read as being ‘about Man Who Got Away.“ Norman's initial commitment to
Hollywood’ through Garland‘s presence in it and the relation Esther is based on his perception of heras a singer/actress who
the lm has to her star image.‘ lndeed, the amount of empha- has, as he calls it, "star" quality. The lm doesn't suggest that
sis which has been placed on the lm's presentation and usage Esther's attractiveness for Norman resides in her moral integ- ‘

of the Garland persona tends to give the impression that she is rity or in her ability to olTer him redemption through love. ln
the lm‘s subject matter. (Actually, this is what occurs in consequence, the lm isn't producing a mere duplication of
Garland‘s last lm,l Could G0 On Singing[l963], which reads the Esther/Norman relationship as it is used in the original
as a text on her star image. See Richard Dyer‘s analysis of the version. On the surface neither Esther nor Norman appears to
lm in the forthcoming sequel to his book Stars.) A Slur I: be a complex character but, as conceived, there is the sugges-
Bam isan extraordinary intersection between astar's personal tion that their actions. at times, are motivated by emotional
and professional identity and makes a cnrcial contribution to needs, desires and fears that are beyond their conscious
the construction of Garland‘s star image but it is also an comprehension.
extremely disciplined lm which integrates Garland‘s perfor— ln The HuIIywoodMu.rimI( I982) Jane Feuer, in concluding
mance and gives precedence to her charaeteriration. Under her insightful analysis of the genre's mechanics, produces a
Cukor's direction, Garland‘s portrayal doesn't undermine the star image reading of A Star ls Born contending that various

BO ClnsActlon! Winter '86


j aspects of Garland‘: persona, lmic and extra-lmic, are the mirror. As the conversation tums to Norman, Esther can
- incorporated into the lm through certain musical numbers no longer contain herself and breaks down. Garland, in a
and the identities of Ether and Norman. While her reading of single long-take shot, produces one of the lm's most highly
thelmis productive, it encourages the blurring of the distinc- charged dramatic moments within the scene. Cukor, in the
tion between presence and performance. lm's rst sequence, established, with Nonnan‘s on and off
In its original conception, none of the songs Garland per- stage behavior, an emotionally intense and edgy tone which A
forms was to dismpt the lm's dramatic action; instead, their Star Is Barn retains throughout. The dressing-room scene
function was to move forward and comment on the Esther/ concludes with Niles saying that he might be able to offer
Norman relationship with Esther nding it progressively dif- Norman a lm job and Bther, ecstatically grateful, retuming
. cult to use song as a form of communication to reach Norman. to the set. On-set, Esther repeats for a close camera set-up the
ForCukor,the concept offered the challenge of organizing the afrmative end refrain of “Lose That Long Face" but her
songs in relation to the lm's dramatic ow.“ Cukor, repeat- performance does not take place in Nomian's presence and,
edly, handles this challenge with delicacy and boldness. For unlike the lm's other songs, isn’t a shared experience.
' example, the brief wedding night sequence which takes place Cukor‘s juxtaposition of the musical comedy number and
in a dingy motel cabin has Norman, on hearing Esther‘s new melodrama in the sequence is stunning; furthermore, their
hit song “lt'sa New World" on acoin-operated radio,ask her effectiveness is increased through the following sequence
to sing it “to kind of celebrate." The preceding casual mood of which involves Norman's breakdown.
the sequence disappears as Esther, after protesting, begins to Unfonunately, the complex emotional pattem Cukor
sing it to Norman. Cukor doesn't reson to a cut to ‘introduce‘ creates through the interaction between song and narrative is
Bther‘s performance of the song. In fact, the entire rendition jeopardized by the “Bom in a Trunk“ number which, as is
of “lt‘s a New World“ is lmed in a tight two-shot. As the song well-known, was shot by the studio after Cukor left the project
concludes, Nonnan and Esther embrace and the sequence and inserted into thelm against his wishes. (ln On Cukor, the
ends. While the use of the number seems conventional, it number's production credits are given in full.) Presumably,
carries signicance beyond the sentiments the lyrics express. Wamer Brothers convinced Garland and Luft that audiences
Nonnan, with the request, is, simultaneously, celebrating were anticipating Garland in a ‘musical’ and,as the lm stood,
Bther's talent and his love for her. (The Selznick/Wellman it wouldn't satisfy their expectations, but the number upsets
version doesn't contain a wedding night sequence; instead, it the lm's structural conception and its dramatic flow. Because
has a comic honeymoon sequence in which Esther and Nor- of the number's ‘narrative’ construction, length and ‘lm-
man,while drivingatrailer through the desen,take on,like an within-lm‘ presentation, it becomes a sequence unit; but it
‘average‘ couple, their respective roles in domestic life.) Before lacks contextual references and its existence can't bejustied
“lt's a New World", Cukor used Esther‘s studio recording in such a highly organized lm. lt is disconcening that the
session of “What l‘m Here For" as the context in which recent ‘restored‘ versionof A Srarlsom (see Ronald Haver‘s
Nonnan proposes. Again, the song's lyrics function as com- article “A Star ls Bum Again" in American Film, July-August,
mentary on the relationship but it is worth noting that Nor- l98J) retains the sequence. Obviously, “Bom ina Tnink" has
man's proposal occurs during the playback of Esther‘s record- become a part of denitive l9SOs Garland and the general
ing as it serves to foreground her professional identity in public would have protested its exclusion but, since the
relation to Norman's commitment of his affection. Cukor number forms a self-contained sequence, it could have been
reinforces this by having the technicians accidentally record shown before the lm proper. (As Feuer suggested in her
the proposal and then let the couple hear it as part of the reading of the lm, the number's referent is Garland; its
playback of the song. function is to recapitulate her identication with and survival
The most striking use of songin the lm is the placement of in ‘Show b"§iI1=$5-') In iddill°" 1° ¢l’¢3li"8 3 f°l'ma| dis"-ll"
the “Lose That Long Face" number. In the preceding bance and an explicit emotional distraction, the “Born in a
Academy Award sequence, Norman, drunk, interrupts Esth- Trunk" number evokes the musical comedy tradition that
er's acceptance speech to make a job appeal to the industry Cllkl’ “'35 3"="'|Pli"8 IQ a_"°id and ll mak" lh° mm 3PP"l’
members present and, inadvertently, slaps Esther across the "10" ¢0\'\V="li°I‘ll "13" ll I5-
face. The sequence concludes with Esther guiding Norman ln critical writings on the lm, A Star ls Born has been
back to their table and his asking foradrink. Cukorcuts to the identied generically as a lm ‘about Hollywood‘ and as a
studio where Esther is about to perform the optimistic song in musical but there has been no real consideration of the lm's
an elaborate production number. Esther, in costume, is intro- central relationship to the melodrama.’ Interestingly, Martin
duced sitting in front of her dressing room mirror having a Scorsese's ‘musical'New York, New Y0rk(l977), which is,asl
nishing make-up touch applied. As the camera moves in to argue in Movie Jl/32 (forthcoming), indebted to Cukor's A
frame Esther in medium close-up, she tums to reveal her Star Is Burn, has been ignored by the critics as a melodrama
made-up face which is that of an androgynous-looking youth. despite the fact that, in recent years, theoretical investigation
Make-up and costume combine to create a cheerful image that has stressed the complex cross-currents underlying lm
‘ Esther, as her verbal and facial responses indicate, is straining genres. While the concept of genre can be valuable in analyz-
to match. The shot is followed byseveral brief on-set shots but, ing the vast output of the industry, it is important to realize
as Esther and the chonis begin “Lose That Long Face", the that Hollywood genres function to produce variation in
. number becomes integrated into the lm itself. Without tran- addressing shared ideological and cultural concerns promoted
' sition, Cukor switches both generic convention and the emo- through its cinema. (Steve Neale‘s Genres [I982] offers a
tional register of the lm. As a musical production number, provocative analysis of genre from this perspective.) Although
“Lose That Long Face" has an insistent brashness to match Scorsese's creative use of various generic components and

z
the song's upbeat lyrics and, deantly, the number functions their emotional ramications is found in lms preceding New
to produce elation. But, with its conclusion, Cukor returns to York, New York, the lm was judged a ‘musical' and this
the on-set environment; Esther is told to “take it easy fora bit" categorization dictated the critical viewpoint taken toward it.
and retires to her dressing room. When Niles unexpectedly No doubt, Scorsese, like Cukor, was concemed about the
enters, Bther, as in the introduction shot, issitting in front of lm's ‘musical’ aspects, but his subject matter is, as it is in

W|nter'86 Clnetctlonl 5|
!
Cukor's lm, the characters‘ gender-identities and the unre- and personal crisis may have been an attempt to avoid takinga
solvable conicts these identities produce in the context ofthe ‘serious’ stance on his sexual situation. As Vito Russo points
‘couple‘ relationship. The film's central thematic conflicts with out in The Celluloid Close! (l98l), ‘gay' characters in l930s
the traditional conception ofthe ‘musical’ film which depends
lms were used. in general, as comic relief; most often, these
on the resolving of differences (sexual, class) to produce a characters were presented as being non-sexual which was a
‘happy ending.‘ coding to indicate their lack of interest in heterosexual rela-
Aslsaidinthediscussion oftheoriginalversion of.~lSIar l_\' tions. ln addition, a lm about Hollywood ‘stardom’ can
Ham, the lm's antecedent is Cukor‘s ll 'hal l’riri' lIuII_i'ii-owl? easily accommodate an alcoholic director as a principal char-
ln that film, an aspiring actress. Mary Evans/Constance Ben- acter; whereas. to deal with him as a sexual deviant automati-
nett achieves ‘stardom' through the help of Max Carey/ cally makes ‘sexuality‘ the lm's subject matter.
Lowell Sherman.a Hollywood director whose career is decl|n- ln Wlial Prim Il0II_rii'u0il." Carey can't be completely inte- l
ing because of his excessive drinking. While the lm is centred grated into the narrative because he's gay. (The film's produc-
tion predates the censorship codes inititated in I934 through l
on Mary's personal and professional life. Carey's presence is
given considerable dramatic weight but. curiously. there is no the Hays ("ode and the Legion of Decency but. interestingly.
attempt to explore the character. Carey's alcoholism is unex- Carey is not identied as gay. lt is an indication of Holly-
plained and the nature of his feelings toward Mary are left wood‘slong-standing cautiousness about openly acknowledg-
obscure. Most striking. the lm refuses to make any reference tng the existence ofan alternative sexual lifestyle.) His sexual-
to Carey as a sexual person. ln its reticenee_ What I’nu' ity makes it impossible to pair him with the heroine in a
Hollywood? seems to imply that Carey's problems are of a heterosexual couple;additionally.itundermincsthe option of
sexual nature; and. considering that he is depicted as having no employing the character, convincingly. as a ‘father‘ gure who
interest in Mary on either the romanticor sexual level. Carey's functions to re-affirm the patriarchal order. As the character
sexual orientation inevitably becomes ambiguous. Under disrupts both the film's formal symmetry and its ideological
Cukor‘s direction, Carey. of the lm's majorcharacters, is the position. the script resorts to having Carey commit suicide to
most vulnerable and sympathetic and his suicide scene has a resolve these dilliculties. Conveniently, the suicide eliminates
the character from the narrative; and the film, without having
forcefulness that overshadows the remainder of the narrative.
(Cukor. in the Carlos Clarens book, CuIi'ur[l976}_ comments to give an explanation. can rely on the conventional belief
on Sherman's contrihutiontothe film. 'lhe remarks areagood that to be gay leads to anguish and despair. With .4 Slur Is
example of his perceptive understanding of how the personal- Burn. Wellman and Robert Carson performed a major revi-
ity and presence ofan actor functions in relation tocharacteri- sion in the story through the creation of a romantic relation-
zation.) Conceivably, the lm's vagueness about his identity Ship bvllw NOITWIHIMHX Cureyland listh¢rlMary EVHIIS). ll

‘Somewhere there's a someone.‘

-
-\\

\\$1

l
i,’ .14 J

1-Q

ts.-.

B2 CirieActiori! Wiriter‘86
w

screen

gives structural balance and einotionalcohesion to the mater- "gender iindrogyny." l3$SL'l1llAlll)'. Dyer sees Garland giving
ial,and although Esther is still thecentreofthe story. Norman, expression to androgyny in certain musical coincdy numbers
and in particular. his suicide. become more 'heroic.‘ The such as "A Couple of Suells“ which she perforiiis with Fred
reasons behind Norman's alcoholism remain obscure in the Astaire in Emit-r Purailvl I9-IX). Dyer, in discussingthe ‘tramp
Selznick/Wellirian lni, but the conception of the character look‘ which (iarliind took from the lm's number and used in
leaves no doubt about liis 'masculinity'—;i fact which con- concerts and television shows. says, . in the tramp we
.

tributes to making the lm more ‘unied‘ than either Cukor could identify with someone who has lelt questions ofsexua|-
version. As l mentioned earlier. Hart's adjustments in adapt- ity behind in an androgyny that is not so much in-between
ing the screenplay were to accommodate Garland's Esther; (marked as hotli feminine and masculinelas withoutgender."
essentially, Norman was iziken intact from Wel|man‘s concep- As Dyer suggests in his marvelous reading of Garland's star
tion. Tl'1US, Hart's screenplay leaves unanswered the crucial image. the raiganiutn look in "Lose That Long Face" is 2|
question of what is motivating Norman's self-destructive variation on the tramp outt. But, as in the Crawford and
behaviour. The 19.17 version. through its self-assurance about Hepburn lms. gender concepts are shown to inform both the
the ‘positiveness' of the Esther/Norman relationship. man- professionaland personalaspectsoftheeharaciers‘livcs;and.
ages to gloss over the question. Cukor's lm addresses it.and especially in .-I Slur I.\ Hum. their internali7ation is evident.
although this is done indirectly. it becomes a central issue in Although, eventually. the characters confront the pressure
the narrative. involved in fullling these concepts. there is no real awareness
l" PY°"l°l15 P1"1‘8“'Ph>- I ha“: m°“"““°d ‘hm Cukur S mm on their part of the source ofthe oppression. lnstead, while the
fi5¢5 ll" I551!" "li8¥'"d"» -4 5"" I‘ BM" docs 5° w"h°u‘ lh" characters feel that they failed themselves and each other, it
f°Y¢BY°l"'|dl"E f°“"d in Willi" Cllkm lms like A W”_"'”"'5 becomes obvious that the expectations and demands entailed
Fl"? (I941) 0' Sc‘/al or ll“ Hcpbum mm5- l"_add'"°" to bv their respective gender-roles are overwhelming them.
considering the lms as individual projects. there is the factor '
that Crawford and Hepburn have screen personas which are Foran understanding ofthe construction ofgender-roles in
self-consciously about gender identity. ln a number of CraW- our society, it is necessary to discuss the physical and psychical
ford and Hepbum lms. their gender-role transgressions components involved. On the physical level.biological factors
become the source ofthe narratives’ tensions and conicts. ln relating to reproduction account for the division of the sexes
Y1 trast . Garland could express - as Richard
' Dyer ( “ Judy into
‘ male and female. Culturally. the physica ' l d'fl'
i crenee
garland and Gay Men," the sequel to Stars [l986]) coins it, between the sexes has been overlaid with behavioral character-

Winter‘86 CirieAction! B3
istics which are dened as gender-specic. Of these character- alludes to Norman having anxieties about his ‘masculinity.‘ ‘

istics, the chief one is that the male is active and the female is Cary Grant was the original choice for the role and given the
passive. The assumption that these characteristics were ‘natu- complexity of his screen persona in terms of gender—see
ral' wasn't really contested until Freud advanced his theories. Andrew Britton‘s Cary Gram: Comedy and Male Desire
According to Freudian theory,all human beings are constitu- (l9B3)—seems to be ideal casting. Nevertheless. M850". il'I
tionally bisexual at birth, responding sexually to, and identify- tldiliml I0 living 3 5¢"5i!ive and imellilenl P¢l‘f0l'ml'l¢=» C3"
ing with, both sexes. Yet, in the early stages of childhood, the convey, as he does in the lm, an intense emotionalism which
Oedipal phase occurs in which the child, unconsciously, begins threatens to consume his social image of reserve and control.
to desire the parent of the opposite biological sex and wants to Again, in Bigger Than Life ( I956), in which Mason also suc-
eliminate the same sex parent. (Freud assumed this pheno- Cumbs to the pressures (imposed by masculine identity), this
menon to be universal and disregarded the immediate social tension is fully employed. ln the opening sequences of A Star
forces that give shape to boththe conscious and unconscious.) Ir Burn. in the backstage encounter with Matt Libby/Jack
The child resolves the Oedipus complex through an identica- Carson, Norman ‘humorously’ remarks that “Mr. Libby
tion with the parent of the same sex while temporarily looks after me likeafond mother withagood sense of double
renouncing the opposite sex since, in adulthood, the opposite entry bookkeeping.“ He is characterizing their relationship as
sex will be reclaimed as a sexual object. It is through the that of parent/child and. in ddilirt. expressing his resent-
Oedipus complex that the child leams to adopt the sexual ment that Libby can handle responsibilities. Or, later, in meet-
characteristics of the same sex parent. The process entails the ing Esther fler the benel. Norman immediately Prjeels
repression of bisexuality into the unconscious in favor of a romantic (he drawsa pierced heart on the wall containingtheir
single sex identication. For the female subject, the repression initials) and then sexual connotations onto their encounter.
of the bisexual means the denial of an aggressive or active when E$ll1er'5 friend Danny M¢GlIil’e/T°"‘l"\Y N°°"i"
sexual identity which will prepare her to fulll the submis- attempts to intervene, Norman treats him as a rival and
sive mother/wife role; consequently, for the male subject. the threatens physical violence. The sequence is used to indicate
passive is denied at the expense of the active which is given that Norman's drinking is bound to a need to assuage his
expression through the father/husband role. precariously repressed anxieties and it is crucial to reading
Again,according to Freudian theory, what is repressed into Norman‘s subsequent responses to Esther and the relation-
the unconscious continues to exist and seeks recognition. The shiP- A5 the f0ll0Wing COCOMII Gwve sequence illdleles.
repression of ‘undesirable‘ impulses is only maintained N0l’m3n'§ C‘-?"§¢l°"§ l"l¢"li°" in P"\'§"l"8 551"" i5 5eX\I3l.
through great psychical effon which, nevertheless, has lapses yet, after seeingand hearing her perform “The Man Who Got
allowing these impulses a chance to assert themselves. Dreams Away" at the Downbeat Club, he abruptly adopts a patemal
are one means the unconscious uses to communicate its image. (Again, Feuer sees the number solely as a Garland
desires. The more powerfully these desires are blocked, the referent and argues that, contextually, its intensity isn't war-
more extreme are the measures the unconscious takes to nd ranted at this point in the narrative; on the contrary, the “Man
expression. Hysteria, in a physical and/or psychical manifes- Who Got Away" number and its placement have a dramatic
tation, is one of the more extreme forms of the unconscious function. Cukor is establishing, in addition to Esther‘s ‘star‘
expressing itself. Actually. the notion of hysteria didn't origi- talent.ll" °m°‘i°namy' which. ller. Predlleei llle Heir hyste-
nate with Freud but derives from the ancient Greeks who ria Esther attempts to containasthe relationship disintegrates
thought it was solely a female disease traceable to uterus but which is given full expression in its aftermath through the
disorders, and, essentially, Freud formulated his theories numbers. ln elTect,Cukorisdeveloping characterization and.
about hysteria from the study of female patients whom, he in the context of a ‘musical’ lm, its placement and usage is
found, were repressing strong sexual energies. But. at the both unconventional and imaginative-)
PT°5¢"l llm=- h)'5l=l'la is "° |°"8" °°"°<i"‘l °fa5 b¢i"8 ""iq"= Undoubtedly, Norman's reaction entails the excitement of
to female subjects, although its causation is still aligned to the -dismvcr-ing‘ Esther‘; talc"; and a dgsim to 5“ i; given ,-ems.
¢°"5¢l°\15 dllil °f 5""3l ""8! and d\'lV=§- nition but, in the immediate situation, it also serves to deacti-
Obviously, in a patriarchal society like ours, the repression vate the sexual implications of his pursuit. Furthennore,
of bisexual or homosexual impulses is exacerbated by the Norman. in convincing Esther that he can contribute to the
5°¢i=lY'5 d¢m=l1dl° hi"male (=¢liV=) and female (passive) realiution of her career aspirations, initiates, in effect, a
roles clearly dened and fullled to ensure male domination. parent-child relationship between them. Through his com-
Udef Swill edilivni. lhe ulleonseious impulses can cause mitment to Esther‘s talent, Nomian can assume a responsible
anxieties and fears about the inability to function within a role, becoming a ‘father' gure. ln Cukor‘s lm, Norman
gender-role, leading to hysterical symptoms. lnA Smrlsnm, doesn't cast Esther as his leading lady, making her an on-
both Nonnan and Esther, to varying degrees, appear to be screen lover. lnstead, he guides Esther‘s progression at the
under tension in attempts to enact their respective gender- studio through various stages until she achieves ‘stardom,’
roles, with the pressure intensifying a need to succeed in the while Esther, falling in love, blurs the tenuous distinctions
roles. ln particular, the oppressive expectations and obliga- between the professional and personal spheres. wanting Nor-
tions these roles entail are given denitions through the mar- man as a father/husband gure. For Esther, Norman decides
riage which.asasocial institution, is used to perpetuategender to prove himself . . absolutely dependable on all occa-

roles and division. The result of the tension, in both charac- sions," but, when his career fails, the pressure the failure
ters, is a tendency toward behavioral excesses which are a produces leads to feelings of inadequacy. Norman becomes
symptom of hysteria and, under Cukor‘s direction, Mason increasingly susceptible to anxieties about his lack of ability to
and Garland are encouraged to display emotional excess. To sustain the role of father/husband in the marriage. These
an extent, Cukor‘s lm can be read as a text on repression and anxieties culminate when a delivery man assumes that he is
hysteria, linking it expressly to the melodrama. “Mr. Lester"; Norman retreats into drink.
ln contrast to the I937 version. the lm's rst sequence is Effectively, Cukor precedes the scene in which this occurs
centred on Norman and, in several instances, it offers reveal- with the “Someone at Last" number. Esther, arriving home
ing insights into his behavior. ln particular, the sequence late from the studio and sensing Norrnan‘s pretense of con-

Il Cinetctionl W|nter'86
w
tentment about his day, gives an impromptu performance of possibility is substantiated through the song she chooses,
the song in their living-room to alleviate the tension Norman is when Norman. before taking leave for a swim. asks her to sing
trying to suppress. Esther ‘visualizes‘ the number through around the house as she used to. As Norman walks toward the
her imaginative use of objectsin the roomand draws Norman wean and into the Water t0 drown himself. Eilhef is heard
into participating as an active observer who ‘sees’ it as a lmic singing “lt‘s a New World." As a statement on the potential of
l
spectacle. Contextually, the number functions as indirect the flltivnihip. the Song is as iwnic is il is poignant. The
commentary on the relationship in several ways. Unwittingly, marriage began with Esther singing it and it now serves as an
Esther, through the performance, is making reference to her accompaniment to Norman's death: Esther‘s ehoiee of the
career and performing talents; in a way, she is contributing to song conrms our sense of her capacity for self-delusion and
Norman's sense of humiliation about his present situation. ln of Nonnan‘s recognition that a ‘new world’ no longer exists.
The sequences that follow the suicide are, in narrative
v

addition, Esther‘s decision to entertain Norman suggests that


she is, unconsciously, assuming a parent/child relation movement and resolution, faithful to the I937 version but
between them feeling the need to coax him intoa better mood. Cukor remains, as much as possible within these demands,
Finally, the song itself functionsasan ironic statement on their consistent to his inection of the material. After Norman's
present relationship. As the song's title suggests, its lyrics are death, Esther isolates herself in the beach house and appears to
about the search to nd lite someone to become “someone at be lapsing into melancholy. As depicted by Garland, her grief
last." ln celebrating romantic and sexual love, it depends on implies a suicidal despair which suggests that Esther, beyond a
strict gender-role denitions. conscious sense of loss, has feelings of self-reproach. In the
While both the I937 and I954 versions employ the formal light of her previous anxious behavior, the self-reproach,
symmetry found in classical lmmaking, e.g., the ascendingl undoubtedly, is bound to her ‘failure‘ in the role she under-
descending career movements, Cukor uses the pattems to took in the relationship as Norman's mother/wife. When
elaborate on the protagonists‘ identities and explore the ten- Danny confronts her about the benet appearance, Fsthefs
sions their relationship produces. (Cukor‘s lm has the more hysterical outburst is silenced only after he convinces her that
pronounced ‘doubling’ stmcture: the opening and closing she's denying what Nonnan loved. Of Norman, Danny says:
Shrine Auditorium sequences; two balcony scenes in which . . he was a drunk and he wasted his life but he loved you

Nonnan and Esther make commitments to each other; Nor- and took an enormous pride in the one thing in his life that
man's two interruptions of Esther on stage occurring before wasn't a waste. You.“ His assessment of Norman functions to
and after the marriage; two bedroom scenes, early and late in make Esther resume a responsibility toward Norman which,
the lm, in which Norman is referred to as child-like.) For at present, is necessary to her emotional survival. ln the con-
instance, with the failure of Norman's career, it becomes cludingsequence, Esther,at the benet,expresses hcr loveand
evident that Esther, too, is anxious about satisfying her own commitment to Norman through identifying herselfas “Mrs.
gender role in the relationship. As the “Someone at Last" Norman Maine.“ ln Cukor‘s lm, the identication speech
number indicates, Esther‘s responses contribute to the under- carries a double connotation. On one hand, it is Esther‘s
lying anxieties that inform Norman's behavior. Progressively, means to acknowledge the unrealized potential of the relation-
Esther realizes her inability to understand his needs, but §l\iP Whldl M5 b¢¢" b35¢d°" 3 """""l| \’°5P°°l and Bllili.
instead of accepting the reality of her position, Estherdisplays but on the other, the speech has an ironic and tragic dimen-
a mounting desperation to fulll her obligations to Norman sion. Esther, as a woman and as a creative artist, is using her
and the relationship. ln confronting the pressures the marriage identity to give tribute to the traditional marriage union which
produces, Bther begins to rely on enacting matemal impulses; has served disastrously to reinforce traditional gender div-
and, for both protagonists. these impulses produce a series of isions. ln an attempt to honor the institution and the roles it
disabling reactions. Whereas, initially, Norman used alcohol canonizes, Norman has been destroyed and Esther brought to
to check his ‘masculine’ anxieties, after the marriage the the brink of despair. Interestingly, Cukor doesn't use Esther‘s
retreat intoalcohol leads to hisemployingpublicdegradations identication speech as the nal shot of the lm. (While,
to conrm his irresponsible behavior. ln addition, for Nor- technically, the nal shot in the Selznick/Wellman lm rein-
man, each of these occurrences increasingly lowers his self- states the framing screenplay device, the lm's penultimate
respect. Yet, when Norman makes an attempt to salvage his shot is of Esther, in close-up, saying, "Hello, ever, body . . .
self-respect, he is denied the opportunity through Esther‘s This is Mrs. Norman Maine.")ln fact,the nal shot, in which
actions. In the courtroom scene, despite Norman's signalling the camera cranes back from Esther to place her centre stage in
to her to remain silent after the sentencing, she intervenes. ln front of the audience, doesn't offer a xed reading. Similarly,
accepting responsibility for Norman's future behavior, Esther it is impossible to determine the precise signicance of “lt‘s a
is actually acknowledging his helplessness and need of her New World" on the soundtrack. Cukor, in employing such an
matemal care. Signicantly, in the original version there is no equivocal nal image/sound, disengages the viewer, to an
indication that Norman resists the roles Esther is assigning extent, from the obvious ideological project the sequence
them; the assumption seems to be that the scene is another entails. Actually, the sequence‘s introductory mise-enscene
‘ illustration of Esther‘s virtuousness. But, in Cukor‘s lm, the has already undermined the ideological implications in the
scene functions to contribute to the total despair Norman material. The sequence begins with a backstage shot in which
experiences when, later, he overhears the discussion between the camera tracks left from a group of showgirls to performers
Esther and Niles and leams of her intentions to devote herself dressed to resemble gures from a Picasso ‘Rose Period‘ paint-
to his recovery and needs. Norman's subsequent suicide can ing. The track, which is accompanied by melancholy guitar
no longer be read simply as a noble act to ensure the continua- music, reveals several gures who, in make-up and costume,
tion of Esther‘s career. For Norman, there are no longer any look androgynous. ln the second shot other Picasso-like g-
illusions left that he can be a ‘responsible‘ person. But, in ures are seen but the track is reversed. The camera movement
contrast, Esther still harbors illusions about herself, Norman stops as Esther and Danny enter the area but the camera
and the relationship. She refuses to acknowledge Niles‘ obser- begins to track backward as they move toward the wall on
vations on Norman's deterioration and his conviction that it is which Nonnan had drawn the pierced heart. As Esther sees it
impossible for them to begin anew. Esther‘s belief in the and remembers, there is a violent outburst of guitar music on

Winter '85-.GiI18A$\l@l.. u
the soundtrack. Through the two shots, Cukor, momentarily, he sulTers from impotence caused by a war wound. Mankie-
evokes the denial of the gender-role denitions through the wicz. discussing The Bare/av! Canmm in Interview
presence of the androgynous gures. (November, l98I), says: “This was to be my version of a
Although What Price Hollywood.’ and A Slur I.r Barn, as Hollywood Cinderella tale in which the beautiful young lm
lms ‘about Hollywood,‘ are grouped in Lambert's book, Cinderella meets her prince and he's homosexual. Or l was
there is no real discussion on the possible levels of continuity willing to settle forjust plain impotent. lt wouldn't have been
between the two. Yet, l think, in comparing the lms, it is nearly as exciting as having him be a homosexual but the
necessary to consider, in particular, Max Carey in relation to Legion of Decency and the censorship bureau of the 48 states
Cukor‘s conception of Norman Maine. For instance, both really wrote the lms. There was such a mass of non-
characters have similar qualities such as wit, sensitivity, and knowledge, of ignorance about Hollywood and who made the
intelligence; and in neither lm is it suggested that, profes- lms and what they were about.“ lt is because Cukor was
sionally, these men lack the creative talents their careers working in such a climate when making A Star Is Burn that I
demand. But, more importantly, it is arguable that Carey's am raising the potential signicance of implication in the
gayness inltrates the later lm. There are several scenes in the lm's presentation of Norman. In addition, in contrast to the
lm which give substance to the notion that Cukor and/or I937 version which emphasizes Norman's responses to ‘star-
Hart,in rewritingthescreenplay,imply that Norman'sanxiety dom‘ as the focal point of his character, Cukor‘s lm, in
is traceable to unconscious gay or bisexual impulses. dening Norman, is more tentative and, l feel, subjective.
Obviously, in suggesting the lm has a sub-text centred on Cukor produces a less ‘coherent‘ character. but Norman
Norman's repression ofhis sexualdrives. lam not attempting becomes a more compelling and complex person and his
to claim that the lm is restricting the oppressiveness of gender movement toward self-destruction is as senseless as it is tragic.
roles to the sexual deviant; the socially constructed gender Actually. the entire lm conveys the impression of beinga
roles within patriarchy restrict everyone. In the initial Coco- very personal effort on Cukor‘s part and I think it is one ofhis
nut Grove sequence, Norman, searching for Esther after the nest achievements. A Star Is Born is a remarkably rigorous
benet, questions the head waiter, Bntno, about the Glenn investigation into the personal and social tensions gender-
Williams Orchestra. After telling Norman that the orchestra identity concepts produce within heterosexual relations. These
has been replaced by a mmba band because of the late hour relations are conceived as social institutions through various
and advising him about the possible whereabouts of the concepts, e.g-. romantic love, the couple, the nuclear family
orchestra's musicians, Bnino asks. “Would you like a table, and ‘home,' which function to reinforce gender-role divisions.
sir'."'to which Norman replies, “Not unless you wish to rumba In subject matter, the lm generically is dealing with issues
with me. Bruno.“ Later, in the sanitorium sequence, Norman central to the tradition ofthe melodrama. (Michael Walker's
has a burly male attendant whom he calls "Cuddles," and article. “Melodrama and the American Cinema“ (Movie,
during the course ofthe sequence Norman, repeatedly, implies Z9/30, Summer. 1982] is a useful attempt to give denition to
that they have a romantic ‘couple‘ relationship. After Niles the genre in its broad and more specic usage.) Although the
depans, the sequence concludes as Norman says, “All right, lm has been neglected in this area ofstudy, l think A Star Is
Cuddles, alone at last.“ Clearly, in these scenes, Norman is Burn relates to some of the major melodramas of Hollywood's
joking, but tocite Freud‘sconcept ofthefunction ofjokes, it is late classical period. To take an example: Norman. in his
possible to interpret the statements as Norman giving expres- alcoholism and self-destructive behavior, has a strong resemb-
sion to his repressed homosexual desires. These ‘jokes’ assen lance to Kyle Hadley/Robert Stack in Douglas Sirk‘s Wrillen
the desire and, simultaneously, make it appear ridiculous. On The Wind (I956). As melodramas the two lms are of
Although the dialogue in the sanatorium sequence is taken particular interest in having a vulnerable male protagonist
verbatim from the Wellman/Carson screenplay, the earlier who is as central to the narratives‘ exploration of patriarchal
sequence is an addition to the 1954 version; and, in explicitly sexual structuring as his female counterpart, who, in Sirk‘s
acknowledging that there is no explanation for Norman's lm. is Marilee Hadley/Dorothy Malone. ln both instances,
behavior. the lm encourages speculation about his motives. the male characters have anxieties about their ‘manhood‘
ln the "Lose That Long Face" on-set dressing-room scetles, which leads to ztsense of individual worthlessness; each makes
Esther begs Niles, as a long-time acquaintance of Norman's, an investment in another person (Kyle in Mitch Wayne/Rock
to explain to her what “. . . makes him want to destroy Hudson, and later, in Lucy Hadley/Lauren Bacall), who,
himself." When Niles can‘t give an explanation, Esther goes unwittingly, contributes to an intensication of their self-
on to say . . I thought l was the answer for Norman. . . but destructive behavior through a foregrounding of the expecta-
love isn't enough for him." While the scene indicates that no tions a ‘masculine’ role entails; the characters are in a privi-
one,including Norman,hasthe ‘answer,‘ its placement within leged social/economic position through fame/Norrnan and
the lm is suggestive—the scene is almost immediately fol- wealth/Kyle but, instead of fullling their needs and desires,
lowed by the sanatorium sequence. these positions act as oppressive agents. In addition, Cukor.
Considering Cukor‘s sensitivity to these dynamics in deal- like Sirk, uses a highly self-conscious mise-en-scene which
ing with the relationship, the characters appear to have been tends to undercut a ‘realism’ effect. The shared stylistic
conceived as lacking full comprehension of the motives behind manoeuvres include a selective color schema, the use of histri-
their response. In any case, during the early l9SOs. it would onic performance. and, at times, a ‘dramatic‘ lighting of set-
have been impossible to dene a character as a latent homo- piccesand actors, which call attention to soundstage shooting
sexual because of censorship codes. As is well-known, from control. Furthermore, as narratives, both lms haveacircular
the enforcement of the Hays Code in the mid- l930s onward, it pattern and employ an ambiguous ‘happy ending‘ resolution.
wasn't an uncommon strategy for lmmakers to resort to In pointing out similarities between/4 Slur Is Barnand Written
implication to avoid censorship problems. ln another lm of On The Wind, lam not attempting to diminish their consider-
the same year, The Barefoot Conlessa, which is also centred on able difference as projects or suggest that Cukor and Sirk are
Hollywood and ‘stardom,’ Joseph Mankiewicz was forced to interchangeable. Rather, my aim is to place Cukor‘s lm
alter his conception of the Rossano Brazzi character; origi- within the context that will best illuminate its thematic.
nally, the character was a homosexual but in the lm version

B8 ClneAction! winter'B6
’§>
ax §
3,» r‘?- ' .» >

,=
Q
<
@4 W * 1
$1,,

aw

‘The man that got away.‘

FOOTNOTES .\nn\ d|rc\;uun1\|\'l 1\\urclh.||| pv:r!\||\uhrr_\ and the |m'\ \'1.~.uuI


cnllnicpllull |~ An \1nc.|\\ n\|\um<--I m\uu.| \ur1lc-lnkumulugc and
l. I|\ .\Ium-.\ .-Hmu! Alum-\/1 lvuuun "". Hull llnrngun. m d|~.cu~~||\g "W ||"||.\\\""\1 "\\l\l¢-ll -ll "~ I1" "1 "I"-l\1\\-I) hf-\“.\-
"W 19-“ \"'*“'"- '"-'\"* ""*'“"‘~'" "' "W ~'"""*'~"""‘ ‘*""'"> *1'““* 5. “|I‘hv4 my/» HurI|.(F.|r|.|ml \\.|\.|llum[1l||\ghH1!u\c hcynnd hcr
h"“*~'"" ""'“"'- "“""
-"'4 "1" """"'"7 "" *“l=¥*'“‘ "W "
nnclnnuuun lu crlrluhlr Hull)\\u\>d by rcunnncm|1|\|nr|c.1I.|n;||-
- - » |\lrnl1c.|l|un\ul|\lhv: H\ll\lL¢llL'4\|\k'd_\ »mm mu hccn N;-h11>n=u
lhmugh My “(M I-mm (»ukm_ m “M “,H,,_dm.““|“g(m.|J“d_
"z=> ~"~""~ \~"> ""'~" ‘" \1""~'--'11~""-"""‘ *~"""<\ - V \J_\)I --sh.-\ |\c\v:r pL|)'L’d.|~cr1nu~ p.|rl hclun: m|~_ aw mad mu
: (i.|_\|\ur'~ ()\L.lf-\.|lh.'ll|]L‘\| pL'l'l\\rII\:|lIcL' m .\'u!|n\:' um». -~ n:k'~
1 ~hv\I Iwwr \\L‘P|ht'1\\f\'|Il\lh\' \\.YL'\‘|\, mwcr \crc.||v\ud_ new! hudu
v.|nlhurt.Mm!nllrn.(i.|)1mr.rcpluu|\g Mar) P|ckIurd;|\'4\1m-r- ml! ‘“"“' ]~'l"- 7"‘ \‘""'"*""* “'\ 1"‘ "1 P'~"‘P|\' 1" '“"-‘1¢"|
|c;|\ S\\cclhc.|rl.' nl.|_w\l. l|\ xhu dud m .\'unr|\v_ [hr cluld-\u>|||.1r\ ¥"""\'\1.\~""|'k°""""¢‘“""\P"‘*"\-"“T‘-“lmh"'""Y¢¢||"c"l\E-
\\'h\l|!\J|\-1gL'\l\Il|‘lulIIpl\<r\cr‘|d\r:r\|l|c\lhruugh.||;u||\h|I\.|l|n|\ lhc) PY\'"\I\l' '"""' 1"-I" "“'.\ ll\'|'\" \"" "\"\\~ '1" ""|.\' "WY
um1\.=|¢~.»1m-11¢“.~||\.»m1> .||\d nu|\-cl) In m.~¢.m_\ '_\0.\,Li.|_vl1nr wuld nl--\ -ml u ~~"--w h-~~\ s-~-'~I\Iw\'-IM‘--1\~1\¢r>~'ll<'\>-w‘rv
(rind lulurccl u\ .\lu\l|u\nnlugn-||\ghcrnurrc\.|nv:dchur;|cu:r|I.1- “"‘"L!- 3"‘ -hid.‘ (Y-"I-"\\| “~-I‘ -l WY‘ ""141"-ll -"M |'\""\"\"~'|'"|
nun» hm. .|\ hcr [1rn‘\|u\|\ lilxm were pr-11'|(.|hlc. xhr mcl lhcnr ~l~'"\‘>> "
rc\|,\L|nu'_ li_\ lhc|u1d—']l)\,(i.|)|\\Ir'\dlH\lT11\)\ln}: pup\l|JY".\ *1“ (»_ )'nu!|\_'.~|!lI:'4|rI..||\\Ilhcr W5-I \\.|rnurHr-\l|\cr~.|iln1.h;|d;|~uu|l;|r
.llll'Ih\l\L‘dl\\(hC|-lkl lh.|l\|\c|.|ckud1I\c gl.|n1nr:|ml wvappcul ul pm,“-|_ nw mm 1‘ .| mu.1k1- --1 .| |\--mnu~|c.|| |m.Inur I)uuqhn-n
.|clrc\\u~ ~uch ‘|~ Li.|rhu_ l>n-Inch .|nd M.n: \\‘c\l, \\’|ulc.1lSmrI\ ‘]9\y{|_ |1|_“_ \\||||,_- ||\u|rpur.|\|||g \nng\Xnr|l\l\\u|I!ll\lC.|1\lilf\.
””"' 3"“ ("“"“' " '“““' "d“h "h‘""""'“"'""" "1"" "‘““l' ‘hc Dun» l).|_\ .|nd l'r.||\k Sm.|lr.|_ rul.un~ lhc unguml n.|rr.|lm:‘s
c|1\p|n)\_ m 5-“cnuu. lhc |1L'Y\\\-l lhc puhhc had Ll\\0\ZI-lll wh Ml’ dr.1m.1l|c cnnl]1cl~..1|lhnugh lhc lm rcv-cr\c~. lhc rcwlulmn and
[mm pm! l|lm~ Ihmugluum In-r can-cr. (|.|_vnnr'\ nu;|gu w.|\ ha‘ _| -h_|m,\ ‘."d|ng- mnn. In |“.q,|nF “uh 1“ JW,L.|_"",n H, H“.
um|\hcl|c.|| m u‘ \'uv\u'pl U1 [hr ‘|uunul.|clnrc\l‘ pcrullkllll). mum“! '

3. hwr .m -:\.mm|c -1|‘ lllc pcr~<>n.| \\'v:llm.||\ uullmm.-d we R1ch.|rd 7_ Hunm“ H~_“_.m.n" --|_|lL_ml S‘m"d_md | "H--‘ \I,,”m,,u,,,_ Nu
§\‘h1ckc|'\ Ih.»\11-1. 1:11.. \Imlv!In'.\In\‘n'\(.-\l|\cnc\||n_ |ws;. mm 4_ ,,~3,_,,,_, |,.,"g,;“ 5-,,k__\,,,\ ,,,,,,,,_ [K-,,,L_;,,_, Um“ |\m,_L._,|,
Sd""k“l“' '""“‘l‘““"" "ml "W "“"“"~'“ ‘""“ w"]]"“'““ ‘wad .|ncnl|o|1lnllwlucllhzllmch>dr.m\.|.||\|l~ur|g||\:|l\|~.|gc.xmphcd
8'“. "““l“'- 'mu~|u and dr.|m.\.' I |~‘|u\\cr, ||\1l|~u|~\1nglhL' crc.|l|\c mug: of
- 4. \\'h.|lc\cr um lnlcllllnn. lhu _Iun/P;-n.-rx/l!.|rhr.1 sm-|-
nr|g1n.|| -“um MM dmvw-. r=-~w~l~ h» \'\--"\wl-~ \-- lm "1--I vmplvy
mm; ‘K-N,," ‘,1 4 gm, 1, ;;,,,,, |97¢,] h¢“,,|,¢, J L1-|,_-hnm‘,“ ‘,|
¢ h.n;kgrunnd mumc uluuh ]’!ru\1\|u:\ .| rl1_ulm\ Um !um‘l1un\ m
SI rc|\.n\d\ ~wnch mun pup In rm k numc cum;u|ung nulncnvus uanjunlucuun In lhc |\.|rr.|u\c mlhur \|m|rr~uml\g or cmn\u:rp<nm-
mu~|c;|lmm\hcr\»\h|ch|nlhcn\;||n.|rc|rrclc\'.|nllnlhc n.|rrul|\'v'~ "H1 "W \|Yi|m-"K n"“ |'“""""".\- "W ‘4““" P""*"l"4'| '* h\'“"B
L-Um-Cr“, ((‘\,|“p_|“- "W “_,_\ m “|m~p| "W mu\|L-;|| m,mb,_-|-., 31¢ v.'II1plu_\cdIHlhv:l’u|u>r‘||\x1Scur\t~t|ll1\.|n\|,;|rgu;|bl).|n.|mum
lu 1]‘ ML-gm|,_-\| mm 1|“ ,,‘,m,|m- 1,, ('ug,,r\ mm ;_.\|()“,ugh 91¢ chnllcnguugu>nu:p|umlurhmhIlwl1l|u|n:|kcr.u\d\1cv\cr,>|nccn
hl mrul.||n\lhc h.|>|c|\.|rr.|l|\cprrllmcsullhc v:.|rln:r\v:r\m|\>_|l|s, |* il|\" ¥""h“d'*'d '" d“'l!l'"\' "1"‘|\\'l P<'|'1"""""\'\‘- -‘\‘ P\'"‘"T'
undcr nu» prndm.cr\' gu|d;u\u:, ulmcr In 4 n:|n.|kc ul I*unn\' (ilrl m.mcu_ n mu) he mud wlulx h) lhc \n.~\wr .|> n n\u\|c:|| numhcr
(l9¢\I<)\ulh Slrc|\.1|\d .|g.|m pl.|)|ng lhc “rung w<\m.|n who |;1|l\ m |:\lcrn.|l m ch.|r;|clcr|lz|lm|1 and X\.lff.l\l\l.iL1C\!J|\lPIHCI‘|l, mlh lhc
|m,_. “uh _| “wk m_m_ M m I.-M," 1,-,,/_ §m.Nmd NH u,m~,_.,"¢d hm 0| ||~ cmul|nn.|l cunn<>l.|l1n|\~ In (hr hlm \ uvcrrull structure.
nhuul lhc nppu-“|\cm-\~ uf gm-mlcr-rule |dcnl||y but lmlcud
l.|n\cn\\lhcla|cl lh.n \hu'\uvmhlcmlmldnnl\\|\v:rmun. l.»\llh0ugI\ '~|0l'E= Ow-‘In l~=mh¢H‘\ Hm-r\-=- P»--wk (M l'~/~-In In which
H, “Tu,” rL.\p¢L-H "Hm. ‘,n,gn.,,|w_-_ §"L-|,;md', )1-,|,/(|\;y(_1),., Ill l|!L‘lL‘Kl_\\.l\ [1\|h]l\|\L‘vJ Ill I972 by (i.|"|'\1ll'IL|lI\'>
f&'|t'l'L‘CL'|§ made
l'und;m\cn1.|ll_\ .|n<>lhcr \.|n.nu on lh|\ ~_\ndn\nu.-,1 l~r;u\k l’u:r- 5""\- N?“ ‘THIN

Wimer'86 CineAction! B7
v

»<

an

The Year of Living Dangerously: the romantic couple.

The Other Dream


The Year of Living Dangerously
DY LOI1 Spring Peter \\'eir‘s The Year 0/Living Dangemusly does not appear
to know what it wants to say: the lm creates a very power-
|l‘IIl'OdUOt|Ol‘\ ful. even attractive, image of ‘Other-ness_‘ investing it with
wisdom and compassion, imbuing it with both Western and
H E “INCOH ERENT TEXT“ IS TH E TERM Third World characteristics, but simultaneously comprom-
| Robin Wood uses to describe those lms "in which
the drive towards the ordering oliexpericnce has been
ises this image, possibly to the point of extinguishing its
power. This process of neutralizing its own presentation of
visibly defeated" but ofwhich “the interest lies partly in their ‘Other-ness‘ appears to be at the basis of the movie's ‘inco-
incoherenec." He savs of such lms: hcrcnce.‘ of its defeat in "the drive towards the ordering of
-x -ri~n‘c."
They are neither succcsstul nor negligible. lt ls also tit L PL _k. L

their nature that il they were mun‘ suci:i:\sl'ul (at least in H '5 '.mp.0rEiml m ‘Ind ,ways 9' undcrslanqlng ‘he enigma
embodied in incoherent movies such as this one: the em0~
realising what arc generallv perceived tn he their con-
scious projects). they \\'U\llL|-be‘ pl'OptI|0l\l|lL‘l} less inter- mm-‘ ll '5“‘k¢5 ln ""7 3PPei"' 1° be aulmmlc and d¢°Pl)' “hi
csting. Ultimately. the) art: works that div nut ltntm what while I can justify this response in relation to some elements
they want to say.‘ of the lm. l cannot adequately explain it in terms of my

BI CineAction! Winter '86


tr
sympathies with what the movie has clearly and effectively satisfaction of these desires.
lf
tried to accomplish. The YearofLivingDangerau.rl_v works My method of analysis immediately raises a number of
towards the neutralization of that which has evoked such obvious problems. lfmovies are to be compared to dreams,
strong emotion, how does it do this, how effectively, and whosearethey? Thedirector's?The scriptwriter's'? The spec-
Whl has il d0u¢ I0 m=. B Vi€W=lZ by °"¢°"l'38ig such a tator‘s'.' This question is perhaps unanswerable but l would
strong response but shifting the terms on which it has been like to make some general suggestions which would at least
elicited to others which would not have had the same point towards the viability of my analysis of The Year of
impact? Living Dangerously.
4 One can elucidate the basic themes and structural confu- lt is a commonplace that movies resemble dreams on a
sion of The Year of Living Dangerously, wherein the lm level of mass experience in at least some obvious ways. This
seems to be working at cross-purposes with itself, by refer- similarity arises partly from the conuence and interaction
ring to Freud's presentation of the elaborately circuitous of such factors as the specic visual and sonic nature of the
processes through which the unconscious seeks to resist cinematic medium and the ‘dream-like‘ conditions under
censorship in dreams. which it is experienced; the invitation such a medium subse-
ln his chapter on “Affects in Dreams,“‘ Freud tells us that quently extends to unconscious expression in an atmosphere
the a'ective (emotional) rather than the ideational (coneep- outside ofthe realm of everyday reality; and the dynamic by
tual, thought-based) content ofdreams is integral to our real which elements of commercially successful lms are contin-
mental experiences; that while the ideational material in ually recycled and simultaneously modied to accommo-
dreams has undergone displacements and substitutions, the date social tensions relating to changing historical circum-
affects remain relatively unaltered. The affect is far less stances. (When movies are specically inscribed with
susceptible to the inuence of censorship and hence it alone signiers inviting the spectator to experience their unfolding
can point us towards “the idea which belongs to it but has as dream-like, the resemblance to dreams is often amplied,
been repressed and replaced by a substitute."‘ an effect l will later discuss with respect to The Year nfLivir|g
“lf
Freud says of dreams that the affect and the idea are Dangerously).
incompatible in their character and intensity, our waking Mainstream lms‘ are not, ofcourse. products ofa single
judgment is at a loss.“’ Similarly, if a movie evokesastrong uncgnggiqug in the way dreams are; however, just as the
emotional response which seems oddly detached from that ingividual psyche is shaped largely by social and cultural
portended by its most obvious cinematic and narrative forces, lms may reect these same social inuences and
strategies, our analytic judgment is also at something of a psychic tensions, due perhaps to what C. Metz describes asa
ifl
loss. Clearly, am to carry through consistently with my “correspondence between the libidinal economy" and the
analogy between dreamsandthis movie,lwould look tothe “political economy (the current cinema as a commercial
emotions evoked by the lm to begin to unravel the ideas enterprise)."’lf a direct and specic comparison were possi-
eI'nb¢dd¢d in it. ble between the factors determining the ultimate structural
Admittedly. l BI11 using as a point of departure my own components of mainstreamlms and the psychic compul-
response, largely attributable to the strong identication l sions that cause dreams to be structured in the specic ways
r
experienced with the Linda Hunt character. However, there they are, it would likely reveal both analogous and diverging
has been some discernible consensus regarding the lm's factors.
impact—it was a box ofce success, both in rst run and on Under the relaxed conditions of dreaming, repressed
the repertory circuit, this success pre-dating Mel Gibson's unconscious impulses attempt to make their way into con-
relatively recent rise to fame. Leaving aside the evidence of sciousness; however even in the dream state, the forces in the
random conversations and much that has been said about psyche that keep these impulses repressed are not entirely at
the lm by reviewers, that this impact is largely attributable to rest. The primary condition of the dream-Work, according to
the Linda Hunt character is borne out by the actress‘ having Freud, is that it “has above all to evade the censorship.“
received the lm's only Academy Award as Best Supporting One could say that popular movies are often doing much the
Actress for her portrayal ofBilly Kwan. My analysis ofthe same thing, so that what would be censored from them is
lm begins with the assumption that the Billy character anything that would be disturbing enough either to keep
evokes a strong emotional response for many viewers, and large numbers of people from coming to see the movie in
attempts to discover the reasons for this, and in terms of my question or to arouse intensely ‘anti-social’ feelings. One
analogy with dream logic, why such a response would be typical strategy popular movies have for evading ‘censor-
forccd to nd strategies of evading the censorship and what ship‘ is so effectively to create a surface of mass acceptability
these strategies are. that all or most traces of what must be repressed to create it
Herel must acknowledgethat I believe, along with many are eradicated or co-opted, rendering censorship super-
others,that Freud‘s theories provide an insightfuland useful uous. Other lms, intentionally or not, have structured
d¢$¢l'iPliV¢. father than prescriptive basis for the potential into their unfolding the tension or dynamic ofcontroversial
reformation of ourselves and our society. Our utopian and even unconscious or repressed elements, with narrative
impulses, which transcend the constraints of the conditions and cinematic conventions constraining (often just barely)
0
lld¢l'Wl1i¢h W6 ii‘/E. BIC difnibls and Sli|| very mud! alive. the disturbing elements. Very few mainstream lms present
although their expression is compromised, in ihe dreams we an unmitigatedly disturbing vision. One possible result of
dream and possibly in the movies we respond to: beneath the the attempt to patch over, with touchstone elements of famil-
more and less obvious ideological manipulations our emo- iarity and comfort, any rents in the presentation ofan accep-
tions must undergo before being allowed to surface, our table reality, as inthe case of The YearofLivingDangerou:ly,
deeper yearnings often cry out,unheard. Thuslbelieve there is the sacrice of a lm's narrative lucidity and thematic
is always much to be gained in the attempt to bridge the gap coherence.
between affect and idea, both in the way of opening our- l will endeavor in this analysis, by way ofelaborating this
selves up to the voices of our real desires, and as a movement analogy between dream structure and the stmcture of this
towards nding strategies for the tnie and unmanipulaled lm, to disentangle the conicting discourses in The Year of
F

Winter'86 ClneActionl BO
Living Dangerously, to determine what the actual and per- the level of conscious awareness; it simultaneously works as
haps very potent ideas attached to the affects of this movie a wish-fulllment, which “consists in nothing else than a
might be, and to discern whether this potency is burned up in replacement of a disagreeable thing by its opposite“" (e) the
the friction of the lm's conicts with itself. relinquishing of the narrative trajectory to the relationship
between Guy and Jill, which is narratively explained as a
D9V°i°p"\°n‘ °f the D7937“ Ana|°gY result ofBilly‘s exercise ofthis over-determined power, is a
the ideological precon-
capitulation to the need to reinstate
.
Fredric Jameson makes some interesting suggestions about
. . .
‘hi
I 0"
S mm have allowed the . ham“ . of Bi"
P Y
lo mm, C
8
and to ha" Such pow" in the rst place, and (O this mm,
. Y
what he terms the fantasy text, also based on the tenets of
.

Freud's dream theo , which oint towards issues ert' ent simultaneously serves to neutralize the political issues raised
- ~

invesugmiogyof The Pym, af Living Dangemllv


- ~ ~
-

‘O
According to Jameson the fantasy text is structured on the by ‘he im: Billy‘ as accepted ‘Oi-her‘ siigmes as link -w- t-he
Indonesian ‘0thers‘; as well, his attitudes and activities
basis conccalcd wilhin iv
of _phamasy,
' embody a recognition ofthe imperialist, racist attitudes that
[The fantasy text] knows a peculiar ‘unconscious' reex- perpetuate their oppression. The capitulation of his central-
ivity, as, in the process ofgenerating itself, it must siinul- ity as a character undercuts the clarity ofhis political/hum-
l==°"5_|¥ §¢¢\"'="WW"id=°1°8i¢=|P'=¢°"dili°"§~ - -ll" anistic concerns and retranslates them into a notion of
5°_“°"'"°" “"1 "'°P"°“ °d‘°'°5l°“| P"'¢°"‘“‘l°"5 3" human love, further tamed to the transcendent love possible
5"" mane“ "r Mm W‘ may can 'h' Gm ‘em °f U1‘ within an idealized white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual relation-
wish-fulllment . . . It would seem a precondition for the h-
indulgence ofa specic daydream implies something like S ‘P’ . . . . .

a reality principle or censorship within the latter.‘ I Wm develop mesa 5"‘ pom“ "1 mull’
How successful, one might ask, would a mainstream (B) Th0 Fllm 88 Dream TOXQ
movie about an impassioned, socially and politically aware,
lt might beobjectcd at this pointthat the lm,setasit is in an
half-Chinese dwarf be? Likely, not very. However,
actual Third World situation at a specic historical moment,
embedded in what can be marketed as a hot romance
between two full-grown and attractive caucasians of oppo- and with the ethics ofjournalism as one of its key thematic
site sexes it might be gotten away with. The fantasy text elements, is not intended tobereadas dream-like, but rather
which comprises The Year of Living Dangerously emanates as a very realistic evocation of particular events and charac-
from the Billy character; the ideological preconditions ters played out in a life-like situation. This is indeed a level of
demanded by censorship within the reality principle are the lm's operations, but one to which it attends rather
embodied in the romantic Guy Hamilton-Jill Bryant plot cursorily.
line, which represents the rst level of wish-fulllment, Aside from the notion that, as l‘ve suggested, all lms are
according to the Jameson terminology. For to some extent dream-like, this particular lm is heavily
. . . coded as depictingasituation that is very much likeadream,
in most instances pointing towards Guy as a nexus of identi-
. .

' ' ' “ '5 P'“'“'y ‘h.’ fa""‘5y. °' "'§M""_'“'"5 .°°'“p°“".'“ F h d
of the . [text] which constitutes its most serious barrier
. . . - »

to its reception by a public: [citing Freud] “You will 'ca“on“i"°ug},‘w use eiwcncnces anpcrcgptloqswe par
"member how | have said um me daydrum, cam-any take of this exotic, hallucinatory and often distressing other
mnccag ms phan‘asi:§ from Om" Wow, bggausg h¢ world. Forexample,there is the recurrent uscofirnagesshot
feels he has reasons to be ashamed of them.““‘ through the windshield of a car in which Guy is situated,
either as passenger or driver: during Guy's initial taxi drive
in which GU and
lf this logic .
holds true for movies, the phantasy Billy
- - - . ~

h H I I d . .n ‘h
tot
Billy
e ote n onesia; i e seq
wvmng ‘he PK, dcmonralion al me Us embassy;
y
embodies is concealed beneath the normality represented by
4
- -

‘h’ '°'“"°'“"'P b"‘"°°" 6"’ ““d 3"" H°“’°"" during Guy and Jill's drive to Billy's bungalow the rst time
lt then sometimes happens that the objections are irrefu- they are alone together during the day, and later on in the
"h|°- ""1 ""1 ll" ‘"i5l\'T"|"i"8 i'"8i"=li°" <10“ iii lm, in their dangerous drive through the roadblocks at
preparatory work so well that the wish. and desire itself. night; in Guy's aborted visit m [hg -cu-"cm-y' wilh ‘M Am".
3" c°"f‘f§"'d'd by ‘M ""’“5‘""abl° "s'5“"°' °f ‘M ican reporter, Curtis/Michael Murphy; in the drive to the
Real ' ' ' President‘s palace which results in Guy's injury; and nally
And sothe values embodied inthe Billy characteraresuper- during Guy and Kumar's drive to the airport. ln each
seded by those ofthe romance, even to the extent that Billy is instance there are numerous shots through the windshield in
killed off well before the movie ends. which are seen soldiers, the poverty-stricken population, the
Applying Jameson's suggestions about a text's produc- younglndonesian prostitutestrying to selltheir wares,press-
tion of a rst level of wish-fulllment, which enables the ing faces and bodies up against the glass. Frequently there is
more disturbing deeper level of wish-fulllment to break a sense of these bodies oating past—the effect of the
into consciousness without being censored, l posit that: (a) movement ofthe car in which the camera is situated combin-
The YearofLivingDangerausIydoesindeedestablishitselfas ing with that of the people stepping aside to let the car
dream-like, as a kind of fantasy text; (b) Billy embodies the through,often glancing overthcir shoulders towards the car
‘phantasy‘ at its biii. Which H1051 b¢ ¢i!h¢l’ di§V°W¢d 0|‘ (i.e., the camera, i.e., the audience). ln the daytime the heat
neutralized; (c) the over-determination of power accruing waves in the bright sunlight further enhancethe dream-like
to the signication of the Billy character is a device for quality of the images we get ofJakartan street life, etc. from
rationalizing the distress caused by this surfacing into con- the point ofview ofGuy; night shots through windows here,
sciousness of the 'phantasy' he embodies, and for offsetting as in so many other lms, produce an hallucinatory, even at
the positive signications the character is given; (d) the close times nightmarish effect (cf. Taxi Driver, The Conforrnisi).
connection between Billy and Guy serves to censor, by dis- The overall mingling of diegetic and extra-diegetic sounds
placement (Guy narratively displaces Billy both as Jill's and music contributes sonically to this atmosphere of
‘special friend‘ and as the central gure in the lm), the unreality. The three basic musical motifs, one involving
qualities of the Billy ‘phantasy‘ which are unacceptable on Gamelon gongs and bells, another synthesizer music, the

CO ClneActlon! W|nter'B6
third orchestral. are often combined with such sounds as the natory impact of sounds and images which are not mediated
creaking of bamboo, bird noises, children's voices, dripping by Guy's presence on screen-
or owing water, etc. ln Guy's actual dream sequence Equally confusing to identication codes is the promi-
(which l will discuss in more detail later) many of these nence given the Billy character. We are introduced to Billy
sounds, along with that of Billy's voice, are reprised. before we see Guy. He is given the voice-over narration
At one point, as Guy plays back a recording of one of his which suggests, within popular cinema conventions, that we
news reports, we hear his voice: "I move as if in
dreama should be identifying with him. However. our responses to
through this agony which is famine. . . Within the rst ve him remain unsettled, the signications continually shifting.
or so minutes of the lm. several interrelated notions are w='i’¢ "01 5"" Whh" ‘"5" 5"PP°§°d 1° ""5! him Oi’ "OI.
implied: a dream-like quality which also is related to a whether Billy's role is or is not limited to that ofthe catalyst
l beckoning towards a child-like consciousness; the relating of to a dream we are having through Guy's eyes. The access we
this quality ofawareness tothe presence or inuence ofBilly; are given to Billy as a thinking and feeling individual
and a denite but inexplicable connection between Billy and (8|th°\l8h again. "itch With Guy °h§¢l’==l‘l t0 l'I'I=dil¢. With
Guy. Beneath the unfamiliar and eerie shadow images ofthe lh¢ hotabll =X¢¢Pli°"5 °l BillY'5 Vi5ii5 i° hi5 id°l-"id l|'ld°h¢"
Wayang puppet theatre in the opening credits we hear the sian family) serves enormously to humanize him for the
sound of ehildren‘s voices murmuring and laughing along viewer, and also offsets our inclination to distrust him. Bil-
with the.lavanese Gamelon music. Before we are introduced l)"§ =l'l‘l¢l'8=h¢¢ =5 ii i?h8l'B¢t=i' in hi5 OW" right diilllfhi the
visually to Guy, we see Billy, small and somewhat strange- ease with which we can share Guy's dream. lt separates us
looking, at his typewriter, and hear Billy'svoice identifyGuy from Guy. We share Guy's dream, but also watch him
by name and birthdate- We then see Guy. rst trying to nd dreaming in a movie which is like our own dream, and in
his bearings in the chaos and hallucinatory glare of the which Billy plays an equally prominent role.
airport interior; next thrust into the visual busy-ness of ln his book Freaks, Leslie Fiedler says:
mmmg crowds or l"‘l‘3"°"“"§- polmcal placards and Reading[the]Oz books. for instance, or . . . Pererzn, or
banners’ em" ‘he mg!“ 5 darkness alums‘ undetectable Alice in Wonderland or Gulliver’: Travels we cross in our
through the unnatural glare which bathes the scene; and gmaginaliuns a b°,,]=,|i,,, which in childhood W: could
nally being driven through the Streets to his hotel. during never be sure was there, enteringa realm where precisely
which there are a number of the aforementioned through- what qualies usas normal on theonc side identies usas
the-windshield shots. There is then a cut from a close-up of Freaks on lhs i>th=i- And after r=t""iii\B- W may "Pe-
Guy in the taxi ta 3 min-or ¢|°5¢.up of 3g|1y' his |°ca;ion riencc for a little while the child's constant confusion
unestablished, and then a medium shot ofGuy facing right ‘b°‘“ “_’l"“ "““Y ls l'_"kl§l‘~‘*'l““ "°"'“l-°" =l"‘°f5ldF~
and a return to the close-up of Billy, who we now realize is in F°' °h'l‘,i,'°“' ll“ P"'"““'y s°'"°' °r “Ch ‘°°“l“"°" '5
a bar (which we come to know as the Wayang, where the scale ' ' '
foreign journalists socialize), looking over at Guy. ln the ln The Yea! 0/ Living Dangemuxly
the spectator is brought
t
bar, Billy is the only one ofthejournalists to realize whoGuy into this state of confusion through a number Of ¢lTe¢l$i l)
l
is, and Wally, a British journalist (Noel Ferrier), bemusedly our identication with Guy. and hw With the regression
remarks: “Now how did our diminutive friend know that?". i" °°"=°i°"§n==s he is undersoins; 2) our simultaneous iden-
as Billy approaches Guy, introduces himself, and takes Guy tication with Billy, who is a dwarf; 3) our visual confronta-
in hand. introducing him to the other journalists seated at lien with the disparity in size between the two characters
the bar. Moments laterGuy leavesthe bar with Billytrailing given prominence in the lm. forcing us to cross in our
behind him. As they walk, Billy crosses in front ofGuy and imaginations that borderline which according to Fiedler was
seems almost to lead him on into the bustling streets. The such a source of confusion to us as children; 4) Our WitI1=$$-
soundtrack is one of the bells and gangs of the Gamelon, ing of the inexplicably close connection signied between
these two characters(with allofthese effects interacting and
.

again intermingled with children's voices (there are also a


l number of shots of children, often watching Guy). other 8¢h"3llY 3'-\8m¢m¢d bl! ll“
ill"!/5 P°i°h!iallY dl'°i"l"lik°
more specically diegetic lndonesian adult voices gradually COW-‘lilihi Oi thl "'l¢di\"h)~
t

emerging. As Billy and Guy begin their walk through the


(bl B|"Y 33 'Ph3'“a3Y'
l

night-lit Jakarta streets. we hear Billy, in voiceover, saying


ltis difculttobeentirely ,.specic about the threat embodied
i
l 'hl hd WM" W‘
Mus‘ of "5 beam’ chndrm asai"
fA'.Th k' ‘M
lkbem" .
by the sight of the ‘Other
.
tn the particular form of a dwarf.
oltiisi‘lfipiiosiuinieniihiiesvaugliar 12:1
stltie
misery, the crazy and the grim. Toytown and a city of A¢c°|'d"|S lo Fiedler:
rear’ Only the true Freak challenges the conventional boun-
On one level the lm is clearly signifyingGuy's regression dafl” l*""=°" mil‘ ahd i="“l°- ""4
“"4 $1155’
to a child-like state; the expression on his face through much “'""‘al “ml h“'““"' W3‘ _“"d ‘"‘?"- 3" “"4 °§l‘°'- ""1
of the min suggests that he is dazed and disoriented (this is ‘°“"‘l“'""Y "“‘”=‘“'$,="‘Y “"4 "'“"°"-'*P°"°"°= ""*
less consistently the case when he begins to be involved with hung’ tau and myth’
t- Jill). Whether or not the individual audience member feelsa Perhaps it is in the conjunction between similarity and dif-
strong identicaiton with the Guy character, our education lerelwe that the dwarf emlwdies eah idividl-Ial'S fear that
into the language of popular cinematic conventions has he or she might also become different, marked for ostracize-
taught us that by allowing ourselves. at least partially or I
ti0h- The dwafl i5 P¢l’§°h Wh0- 35 Bill)’ t¢ll§ Guy ill lh¢
i

temporarily, such an identication, we can gain access to ¢0lll'§¢ Oi th= lm (hd il


lh¢ Psh is milk) i5 “B fmil
what the lm is about. However what is demanded of us as ITIh- Of Il0rm=l intelligence. Cftble Olhaving nfml Child-
spectators in this lm is not entirely clear: while, to some ren. but whose body isajoke-"No longeraehild.“normal"
extent, we share Guy's bewilderment because he is, via the in ill i'¢5P¢¢l§t lh= adult dwarf is "ever 855il'l'Iilibl¢ iI‘ll0
familiarity of his ‘type,‘ an obvious focal point for audienee normality. ln reminding us, by his or her child-like stature,
identication, we are often directly subjected to the halluci- Olwhl it W38 like I0 11¢ 3 Child. th¢ tiwifli reminding I-IS OTB
i

Wlntsr'86 ClneActlonl Q!
freedom we experienced before we were socialized into nur- as are now taking place in his bungalow, he cannot partake of
mal and acceptable societal roles,a freedom which it became them. His SIRIUS 85 01ll§_id¢l’ clearly =X¢l\-l<l¢$ lllm fl'0m lhc
increasingly more frightening to acknowledge, which it relationship between the idealized nomial couple.
became more and more necessary to compromise and nally lll all °55a)' ¢l'_lllll¢fl “7 N°l°5 l°l' lh° R=¢°l'l5"ll°ll°h °l
to disavow as we gradually grew into our adult awareness of $¢XllalIl)'-" Mlllll Dllllll 5a)'51
our social mks‘ Bu‘ the dwarf'as'aduh ‘l"‘“'"!"°°“5'Y Disavowed by the domestic origins of intimacy and
frightens us, suggesting to us on some level of consciousness shunned by me public places 0,-work and pow“ [mma|_
that our presocialized perversity is still present in us as y]|,¢¢um,5;|g¢nam1frommcbody/psvchcinwhiuhgl
adults—perhaps our defences will collapse and we too will awe; |i5 fgaum: §iran3=n¢§§_ a |-gsult of childhood
reveal that we are not truly "normal." According to Fiedler: amnesia, informs sexual orientation, gender identity, and
sexual ideology . . . In other words, the learning ofsexual
. . .each sex tends to feel itselfforever dened us freakish repnssion is also ma kaming of om:-5 place in send"
ll‘ l=lall°l" l° lh‘ °'h"- Al“! h'°"‘ °“' “"°“5l"°*§ “l ‘hi’ ~ stratication. as well as the learning of the reication of
- all llls lllam ‘ll a"l‘ll"BYll)'-" self, other, passion. The gulfs between male and female,
child and adult. work and play, self and other. domesti-
Billy is, of course, male but he is effectively (narratively) cate ‘passi0n' by calling it love. harnessing love to mono-
neuter by virtue of his supposed physical incompatibility with yimous heterosexual marriage, and embedding marriage
‘normal‘ people. This is further complicated by the fact that lll ll" ""¢l=al’ lal"ll)'~"
Bill)’ l5 PlaY°d bl’ a WQl'l'lall- Tha llllahl l° Whllih all a"dl°"°¢ Billy's existence may be a causal intervention in the ‘pas-
W°l-lld h¢ aWal'° °l lhl5 Pl'l°l l° l"¢WlhB lhl lllhl '5 °l °°l"'5¢ sionate' relationship but never an active ingredient; in fact
dlmcull l° a5¢°"alh' ahd ‘"h°lh°l °l "°l BlllY'5 ‘"ah55°"“al' his existence is ultimately justied solely by his ability to
llY' l5 all $55¢l1llal lllgmllalll lll lh° llllll '5 5_lll"Il"l° and llhpacl intervene in the construction of normality such a relation-
lll'¢5P¢¢ll‘/! °l a"dl°ll°° al"al'°ll°5_5 °" lhls °P"lll l5 a mall" ship entails, and the destmction of that which is outside of it,
llqllally hald l° d¢l"llllll¢- (Thal ll “'a5 P°55lhl'= l°l a l°"‘al'= in this case, his own life (and, along with it, any disturbing
dwarf to effectively play the pan of a male dwarf in itself avvavmcss Of {ht spccic Third wm-id simalion in which
5ll§8°5l5 a lh°l° lllllhlldlala <l=Bl'°° °lB°lld°l' lhl¢l¢hahE¢ahll' these events take place, an aspect ofthe lm which l will be
ity than is possible for ‘normals‘). Through the course ofthe “king up me,-)‘
rlllll ll1¢l’=‘l5 al l¢a5_l °ll¢ 5¢q"=ll¢¢ lll Whlfh ll $==m5 P°55lhl° As a character, Billy represents a disturbing conjunction
lh_al lh= dl_l'¢¢l°l’ lhl8hl- ll" 9"“ l°a5°h °l' all°lh_°l'- ha" °°“' of various threads—a humane, intelligent, compassionate,
sciously wished to reveal that the male character is played by a im¢8mv_|,°und_ prgncipkd man bu; one who is deprived of
female. Billy has successfuly encouraged a romantic liaison the --n,_,|-map social codes of behavior by -a uke of
b‘_*l“'°'h -ll" “Fl 6")’ which l5 i‘h°“l '9 °°h5“ll““al°d lh nature'—hisabnormal physiology; a bridge between the rst
3lllY'5 h°lll¢ lalll)’ ha5 l°ld Ga)’ lhal h= Wlll b° aWa)' l°l a law and the third worlds (he is halfAustralian and halfChinese)
da)l5 lllll’ll'lB Whlah llll‘l¢ h¢ ha-5 Olllll 0")’ "R lal lhe huh‘ whose existence inextricably and undeniably links these two
Eal°W)- Ga)’ and -llll ha" "lad° a S°la“'a¥ ll'°'h all EllllJa55)’ cultures within the community of humanity; a journalist
8alh=llll8' d¢l)lill8 h°lh Pllhllli °Plhl°ll alld lh= 8°"°""lh°l"'5 with a conscience, a cameraman who puts the well-being of
curfew, and driven with reckless romantic abandon to Billy's. those ht phomgmphs above ‘he assumcd P,-iomv of the
wa lllll lmlh lh° °°"Pl¢ lll lhll Cal l° all °*ll=lh° °l°5¢'"P °la value of information, an assumption which is the corner-
hull" h°l¢- haldly l°°°Blll73bl° as 5"°h- ll‘ lhc ‘3al~ l-°h8~ stone of supposed journalistic prowess, and who acknowl-
l-°lllllll"° rlll8¢l'5 "ll" lh¢ ll'alll¢- "la" 5l°WlY a¢l'°55 l° lhll edges the political responsibility of all of his actions, within
bllll" hl>l° alld h°8l" dcllllalall’ 1° l?al°55 ll- we ‘hell Cl" l° a and outside ofhis profession; and nally as well as consum-
llledllllh al°" "P °l 5°lll=°ll¢'§ l°l'5° l"°Vlll8 b°$ld° lh° °al'- mately, a man who is not a man in any traditional sense,
which is riddled with bullet holes incurred during the drive because ha is 3 dwa,-(_ and prior to this‘ 3 ma]; dwarf played
lhl'°ll8h ll" l°alll7l°¢ll5- W5 l°¢°Elll1¢ lhla a5 Bllly hY lhe by a female actress, the very denition ofthetransgressor of
Hawallah 5hll1- Whlch h° weal‘ lhl'°"8h°"l ‘he hllhr Th‘ norms. What makes the character so threatening and poten-
svr=‘5 womanly boasts =r= quiw di§¢="1il>l¢ as lh= wmm tially distressing is that while indeed every element which
"aFll5 al°ll8 lhe cal’ Wllh lh° b°d}'- The °alll°_la ‘hell "l°"°5 “P denes him denes him as the ‘Other,‘ the one with whom we
to include Billy's head and continues past him to include his mus; no; id=mifv_ the one who is by dening“ our me,-nv_
hll"8al°l"~ wa lhllh cl" la a °l°5¢ "P °l 5lllY‘5 la“ lll lhl" the movie simultaneously allows Billy a hero's status, aswell
qllal'l°l'5 Pl°lll°» hl=alhl°55 alld Wllh all allll°5l Slllh "PR5" as wisdom and compassion beyond that of any of the other
5l°ll1h=l°°ll5 llawll and lh°ll "P a8alll$ ll°‘" lhlll‘ l5 a 5ad slhllc characters. He is simultaneously much that we aspire to be
on his face (this scene is perhaps an oblique reference to a and everylhing vv, fear bccomil-|g_
Pa55a8° ll’°lll lha ll°\'=l all Whlch lh° hllll l5 ha5¢d- lll which Juliet Mitchell, in elaborating on Freudian terminology,
there is a description of one of Billy's identication gures, dc“,-ibes 3 svmpwm as;
“Dwarf Semar, the god in mis-shapen form, whose breasts are
f:ma|e'Simngin [ears--)_|t Heme" boks up at thc sky‘ the sad an alternative representation ofa forbidden wish which
smile still on his face, and subsequently walks out of frame. l;:;l’:‘°:°'.' ‘lh'°“5h l"°'s':‘::_':'l')‘::'."’I°";‘_"i'“'h'"°i;:E§
IS C, In OCOIISCIOII I 3 IIICCOQII
Billy °b.v'°us.ly has no‘ le ‘°‘fvn'.ramc.r ha ls °_ms'dF ms home: form. Condensed into the symptom are all the energies of
witness ' n3 h '5 succcss at bnn g in 5 his two s Pc cial fnends the sexual drive and those that were used originally
~ - -
to
l°8=lh°l’- repress ii: it is both the thoughts attached to the drive and
What one sees in these shots, whether or not they are its denial."
actually meant to reveal that Billy is played by a woman,
undoubtedly adds to the aura of gender ambiguity surround-
ing the character; one‘s sense of this ambiguity would certainly

ESL';‘i'lZ'l'§{1'L’£ ‘%i'i§.'p'2'l.‘1l"lT;’f;Zi.L'IZ="ZTZ,'ll§ ?l‘.iZ.'§'il'§l§ °PP°5'lE—G“Y ="° "ls '°Y°*-'


in either case, that while Billy well may orchestrate such events

GI CineActl0n! Wlnter‘B6
1* R.
“ylI1
»
i
.-

.4’

ff’
\_ /,

"A

‘@ |

Winter '86 CineAction' O3


This, I would argue. fairly accurately describes the role it. is reciting from his le on Hamilton. We cut from Billy to
that the representation of Billy plays in the lm, and explains a series of shots depicting Hamilton's arrival in Jkfl ("W
the need forthe neutralization ofthis‘phantasy‘—this full- lnd0I'IB§in ¢Pil|)- Bi"! |>P¢al'5 383"! in 1|" bi" N lh¢
fledged image of pre-socialized, non-sexist. non-racistpus- hotel to greet Hamilton and to take him under his wing.
sion that Billy represents. After guiding Hamilton on his unsettling walk through the
streets. he tells him he will fail to et an interview the follow-
(5) Th9 °V9rde‘9"'n|na"°n ing day at a press conference becaguse he has no contacts. We
of B|"Y'3 Powar then see Billy at his typewriter, working on his le of Hamil-
The concept ofolhcrness can be theorized in many ways ton. the content of which we hear in voiceover. Next we see
and on many levels. lts psychoanalytic signicance Guy failing miserably at the aforementioned news confer-
"sid i" "W 73¢! "W il f\1"¢"°"> "ill §i"\P|Y =5 §1>m=- ence, and returning to his ofce. The camera holds its posi-
ll"
"\i'\8 =Xl=|'"| l° *1"|l""~‘ "Y “"3 b"l 315° is "hi" is tion in the stairwell. so that we continue to see the backlit
'°p"“°'“' 0"“ "W" d'“"°y““ '“ ‘h.° “"a"d.P'°j°°“d frosted glass window outside the ofce as Hamilton enters
°“M"¢§ "' Md" l° be ham“ and d'5°w"°d'| and closes the door behind him. Through the glass we see a
The lm begins with Billy. The creditsequenee consists of dark image. remarkably similar to the Wayang shadow
the shadow imagery of the Wayang. with which he is to be so imagery which opened the lm. of Hamilton removing his
closely associated. accompanied by traditional Javanese jacket and hanging it up.The sequence is accompanied by an
Gamelon music and children's voices. This conguration of eerie version of the Gamelon music, the sound of water
sound and image is mysterious and inscrutable to the unini- dripping from the air conditioner and then the squeaking of
tiated Western audiencc—its strangeness is the movie's rst the door as a shadow crosses the venetian blinds. Billy then
signication and atmospheric layer. The voices fadeand the enters. startling Hamilton. ln the conversation following.
music carries over into the rst shot ofthe lm which is ofa Billy offers to arrange an on-lm interview with the head of
dwelling in a lush and tropical setting. night-lit, which we the PKI, which will be of enormous benet to Hamilton's
will come to recognize as Billy's bungalow; then there is a career. and they agree to form a partnership. Throughout
shot of Billy himself, seated at his typewriter. During this the entirety ofthis conversation. Billy is seated cross-legged
shot, Billy. in voice-over. begins a narration that continues on a desk. so that we are continually cross-cutting from
intermittently. although it becomes increasingly less fre- low-angle shots of Billy from Hamilton's point of view to
quent. until his death. (Incidentally. the gender ofthis voice shots down on Guy from Billy‘s vantage point. As Billy
is unusually indeterminate). We assume that the narrating makes his offer. these shots become increasingly tight. cul-
voice(which we expect, from experience, will help us under- minating in an extreme close-up. from the same slightly
stand the events about to take place) belongs to the dwarf low-angle. as Billy says, “You want it . . . it's yours." This
whom we see as we hear it (and whose gender is also visually scene has obviously been shot in a manner that confers visual
somewhat obscure). The voice can at once be identied as power on Billy. along with the practical power he has in his
that ofan outsider. i.e.. of one physically marked as outside ability to obtain an interview for Guy. The sequence ends
ofsocietal norms, He is also perhaps a gure ofsome power with a close-up ofGuy asking, “Why the break to me? Why
in that we might well become dependent on the information not Potter‘? [his predecessor].“ a medium shot of Billy, with a
his voice provides. That he is at a typewriter extends the stem expression on his face. answering, “I didn't like him."
potential limits of his power by suggesting he may also have as Billy hops offthe desk. the camera following him, his face
some authorial power.albeit asacharacter, in determining half in darkness, saying. “We'll make a great team, old
the nature ofthe events about to unfold. (Re-viewing the lm. man.“ and the camera dollying into Billy's face, intense and
knowing that Billy dies during its course, the effect of Billy's solemn, "you for the words. me for the pictures. I can be
voice is disconcerting. signifying. if anything. his power to your eyes.“
return from the dead and to reinhabit events. comparable in At this point in the lm Billy is already ( l ) connected with
some ways to the opening ofWilder‘s Sunset Boulevard. ) The tn; Wayang; (2) shown to be 3|mQ5| omnipresent and pom.
\l"°“5¢ “"3 may r¢=| by "i\'l"= 01'Bi")"§°"l5id"5"=\l\15(iTh=ii bly omniscient (so far in the course of the lm we have either
not ‘one of us,‘ he could bee lhfvl I0 I15)-i5¢°l'IlP0l1"d¢db)’ seen him onscreen, heard his voice or seen his predictions
the fact that he has been given the potentially authoritative coming lfug); (3) shown to hayg 59mg in“,-est in |~|ann|wn-S
control which is vested in the narrative voice. The ground- destiny; and (4) shown to have some actual power, perhaps
work is already laid, in these rst several shots. for the super-na|ura|_ to nffaqt that destiny
spectator to be. at least unconsciously. wondering: is this a |n the mm/i¢ than an many ext)-action; from ann a||n_
"=3"-"5 "3 be r¢i"'¢d7 Wm he “mild hi5 P°W°' kindb’ 01' sions to passages inthe novel on whichthe lmis based(wilh
¢|'"¢"l/7 the same title and whose author. .l.C. Koch. is credited as
This undertone of Billy‘s power becomes an actual motif one of the screenwriters) Ptfliig I0 lh history and
in the lminthe recurrent references tothe Wayangshadow mythology of dwarves and to the beliefs underlying the
puppet theatre and to Billy‘s intimate connection to this Wayang puppet theatre. Although not nearly as intricately
tradition, the suggestion being that this connection exists drawn as in the novel. the references in the lm sufce to
largely because he is a dwarf, and that through it he exerts create a suggestion ofthe interfusion of these mythologies.
some kind ofinfluence over the lives ofothers. The connec- In the lm Billy explains the characters of the Wayang to
tion extends through his keeping of les on various individ- Hamilton. One of the characters he describes is "King
uals and to his power as a photographer (in Hamilton's le, Kresna: . . . he‘s obviously Krishna. who's one ofthe incar-
for instance. there is both a cut-out photograph ofHamilton nations ofthe Hindu god Vishnu. Vishnu comes to earth as
and a cut-out image of one of the Wayang puppet gures, many things: as Krishna. who acts as a charioteer to the hero
Prince Arjuna). The opening sequence has already con- Arjuna—and also as a dwarf. in Hindu myth." In the novel
neeted Billy with the Wayang, the strangeness of its shadow he also speaks ofSemar. who “is a dwarfwho serves Arjuna.
puppet imagery being immediately followed by the strange- But he‘s also a god in disguise-—the old Javanese god lsmaja
. . . My patron. . . The patron ofall dwarfs,"’° who has
ness ofthe image ofa dwarf. Billy‘s voice, when we rst hear been

Q4 ClneAction! Winter '86

L
“transformed into a dwarf and a clown“ and who could
byanobjectionableorsupcrctalassociatitmthercisnlso
"still rule the world if he wanted."“ Thus Billy identies a legitimate and deeper link between them which ts sub-
himself with a god, who in dwarf guise, serves Arjuna, jectcd to the resistance of the censorship.“
with
Whom i1¢id¢liii¢5 i‘ia"1iil0"(liii5i§ ¢i=¢"ii'°"i
ii1¢im3E¢ Oi l have already shown how the rst several sequences ofthe
Arjuna in hi5 iii¢ '9" Ha"1iii°l1)» The i""i¢ai¢ 5"i"B °ii
lm establish a close and inexplicable connection between
c°""°¢ii°"5 °°"iii'i“°5- Ti“? ‘daii"iB'_iii° Pi-iPP°i "i35i°Y_ Billy andGuy, primarily by way ol'Billy's unexplained know-
“i5 G05-" mid Pi'¢5id°"i S“k3"‘°- Wiiii “'ii°m Bin)’ ai5°
ingness aboutGuy even before they have met,and in the way
id¢"liii¢$ (li1"¢ i5 3 Pii°i°8\'aPii °ii Biii)’ d"55¢d
"P 35 the two are visually linked through the cross-cutting of
5"ii3i'"° 0" ii" Wiiii i" BiiiY'5 bi"\Bai°Wi 3! °i'i¢ Poi"! i"li1=
almost symmetrical close-ups in different locations, a device
iiii" BiiiY d°"5 3 ¢3Pii"1ii§i"1ii3iiV¢ °i°"¢ 5l1it3"1° ai“’ii)’5 which recurs frequently in lm. There are also il number of
‘"3" Publicly) i5 dcfibti ii)’ Biiiy "5 “iiis 8"?" PUPPEI specic privileged instances which link the two characters.
master-"
Billy clearly sees himselfas exerting control over the lives ht the sequence in which Billy has brought Guy to his
i,imgaiQw_ Guy is show,-i standing in (mt-it dfa photggfaph
t>ft>th=t§ akin to that of a sod. or alternatively. ofwmaotw of a dwarf with whom Billy has just identied himself(“a
i" P°iiii°3i P°W°i’- Al 0"? P°i"i ‘W 5" Biiiy iii his ii/P'=“"'ii" normal man. of normal intelligence. capable of having nor-
and Mar him- in vvit==<>v¢r- saying. "Hm on the ttui=t Pass H13] children, but whose body is a joke"). Billy
i'"i ""151"-Ji"5ia5i'm mam" i" ‘he da"k'°°m Ali‘-i hem- -
leaves the
frame. Guy stands alone. the photo on the wall visible over
3"i°"8 my iii°§- i Ca" §i"1m¢iiii¢ "lids ii“? iiV¢5 i <-i"i
<

Their faces stare out at me. . . people who will become other “'iiii- his right shoulder. a sort of stunned expression on his face.
He thdh tut-its his hcad ih sudh a way that it is gupgrimpogcd
vwPI== t>=t>Pl= who will bawma Old. batrav
th=ir dreams over the head ofthe dwarfin the photo. and the image is held
i’°¢°i'"= 8i1°5i§-" ('\!3i"- "P0" "°"’i¢“'i"8- iiii5 P355-18¢ i3ii°§
011 3 ¢¢"ii|'i 8i1°§iiY iY°"Y-) 5i1°l1i)'
for several seconds before cutting away. During Billy's death
i’¢i°i'¢ hi5 diiit iii his sequence we cut from a shot of Guy running to a shot of
tonlwntation with Guy. ha says. "Don't you undmtand?
You've I051-iiii-»~i8i"'°i1=i'i°Y°"-"°Wi'm Billy's body falling through the air during which we hear a
i"i<i"Si1¢i'i’"i< scream, obviously Billy's. The scream continues into the
- - i i>°ii¢V=d in )‘°"- i iii°llEi" Y°" “"1"? 3 ma" ‘J7 ii8i"-
following medium shot ofGuy running with his mouth open
~

Tii3l'5 W71)’ i Ea" Y9" li1°§¢ 5i°i'i¢§ Y0" iiiiii are 50 i"1P°i'
so that the scream almost appears to be coming from him.
"ii" i "iad¢ Y0" 5" ii‘i"B§
- - ~
- i °[°ai¢d Y°"t"
-
There isalsothe reverberation ofBilly‘s “l can beyoureyes"
in ii" Swcdisii "°"¢i 77"’ D"'l"fi>Y Pi" i~38"i<Vi5!t lil !il|¢
~

when Guy is in danger of actually losing his eyesight (the


Cilfclt ii
ts! d¢¢"i=d i"5i8"iiiC<'i"i bi’ ii" Pi’i"¢¢
whose court he serves. ultimately comes to be seen ii narrative implication of course being that through his asso-
as the Ciatihh with gii|y_ guy has lgafngd to 5“ bgyod his
Pi"V¢)’°r °fih¢ "ii
P°“'°i' 8°"°i'"i"£ii'i= choices mid eviiiiis complacency; the extent to which this has been realized
own
ii‘ ii"
iti"Ed°"i Wiiiiiii i°3d 1° di§35i"- Mt"? 5P¢Ciii¢aii)' i" remains questionable). At one point Billy tells Guy that
becomes the embodiment of the potential for evil
and all that pwptd have “marked oh thi, gjmilafy or thdit gfggn gygg;
is antagonistic to love in all of the others.
In The Year of hc aim 5tig8¢5t§_ in voiceovgi-_a§ h¢ cut; out 3 piclurg
Living Dangemu.rI_t', Billy is of course rendered quite differ- ofuy
for his le. that h¢ and Guy “havg somdthihg in ¢um|||cm_
ently. but what he has in common with the title character
The Dwarf is an extraordinary power over the
of wet“ divided mdh_ your rather Amciidath mine chihcsd,
lives with
which he comes in contact. However. Billy's actual power,
w:'fc not quit; at homd ih the w;,tid_"
as What seems on the surface to be an absurd identication
a character. to affect the lives of other characters
clearly hhtweeh the qualities ofthe male protagonist.Guy
comes not from dwarfnessperse but ratherfrom
his cunning
Hamilton
tiaiiv strong‘ ma§¢ti|ihd)_ and tho“ of Bjiiy is perhaps not
°"' the °"° hand 3"d his CaPa°i'Y i° i°"° mid bccomc so
absurd at all. In fact the lm has gone some distance in
i"V°i"d Wiiii hi5 i¢ii°W iiuma" iJ¢i"E5 °" iiie °ii1"- iii°i-
i" asserting that there is something to this association between
ii" =Xii'3°"1i"i"Y P°W" 3"ii1i8"°ii5i)' aiiiibuied i° him ¢°"' them. At one point Curtis (the Americanjournalist) refers to
fuses this point: it marks him more clearly as outside of Guy and giiiy dciisiviiiy as~*5it- Gtiy and tho Black [)warr,"
normal socialrelations and undercuts his effectiveness as
an (it is wot-th noting that ih thdit scenes togdthdt-_ Guy is
idii/id"3i i"-‘"13" i1¢i"8-
generally well lit while Billy's face is in varying degrees of
BiiiY'§ P°W" i5 Ciiiiy °V"'d=i¢""1i"'=d- 5° "iiicii
5° iiiai shadow; in fact. rarely. if ever. is Billy's face fully lit.) “ln
ii" i°"¢ °iii1¢¢i1i'3Ci" i5 ¢°"1Pi¢i¢i)’ 3"ii>i8"°"5~ wiiiic °" unconscious thinking itself every train of thought is yoked
the one hand he is shown to be sensitive, compassionate,
with its whit-at-y opposite Ft-dud says}!
intelligent. talented and procient. the extraordinary powers
simultaneously attributed to him invest him with an under-
current of malevolence. Why would a lm go to such This turning of a thing into its opposite is made possible
pains by the intimate associative chain which links the idea ofa
to create a positive and even inspirational character and
yet thing with its opposite in our thoughts. Like any other
undermine its own efforts’? Why bother developing such kind of displacement it can serve the ends of the censor-
a
fascinating and engaging character. in the gure ofa dwarf. ship; but it is also frequently a product ofwish-fullment,
only to supplant it with a much less interesting male for wish-fullment consists in nothing else than a
protag-
onist. extraordinary only in his ordinariness as a male replacement ofa disagreeable thing by its opposite.“
hero
and not drawn in nearly so much detail (this would
unnecessary. BS the type Guy is signied as representing is
be lf Billy embodies our deeper wish to be able to fulll our
desires beyond the intervention ofthe constraining forces of
immediately recognizable and almost totally self-
culture/society/superego/conscience/reality principle, the

L
explanatory—even the name contributes to the sense of
the possibility of fullling this wish, as it is allowed to surface in
already given ‘regular Guy‘)?
the positive aspects of the character, must be displaced,
because in the very movement towards consciousness the
(d) Billy/Guy anxieties around the immediate societal dangers of enter-
taining such a fantasy outweigh the potential pleasure of
Whenever one psychical element is linked with another
allowing it to become reality. And so Billy is not only trans-

Winter '86 ClneActlon! O5


3t

I».
.---t-qua
..»_

' - lsm.

Guy in pursuit of a story.

formed into that which is opposite to him. but is put to the Fdli\'¢-
service of creating the conditions that enable this transfor- (1) Bl"? l""°d"c¢5 GUY ‘Q lb" w“)"l"8 §\"¢51 Pfime
mation. This latter manufactures u narrative rationalization '\l'J""41(“h¢'-* 3 h¢\'°- bu! he C3" 315° b" ckk and 5¢m5h""
for the existence of the character who embodies the deeper 35 V": 5"‘ 1° 1‘ ¢|°5¢'\-‘P 9" GU’)? PYi"¢¢55 Sfikilnda (""0516
wish fulfillment that must remain concealed beneath what and Pmud. headstrot18- /“Jun” will fa" in 1°“ Wm‘ MY"-
Jameson has termed the first level of wish fulfillment. This ‘he 13"" 5P°|“'" 35 GU)’ fl U16 frame) and the Dwarf.

rst level of wish fulllment entails the creation ofthe ideo- SW1?" ('“H= 5"\'°$ "1? Pl'i"¢'="—3"d “'¢ C"! l° 3 C|°§¢""P ‘Ira
logical preconditions which embody the very opposite ofthe Ph°‘°BT3Ph Of -mil Thmughoul [hi5 5¢'~l"¢"C'5- GUY3 ("C5 l5
‘phantasy‘ which must remain concealed within it. Without fl-1")’ “R Whlk Bm)"5 J5 PY¢d°ml"a"l|)’ in 5h1"1\‘W-
the presence of a Guy character, a chariltll Suith BS Billv (Z) Billy introduces Guy to Jill and the Colonel. Guy covers
would likely never have been allowed to come to exist iii ml’ "W C°l°""|'§ Y‘-‘d‘"‘¢5$ l" ‘he |"d°"°5l3" W1lll°Yl"3 Bi"
m3|n5[[g;|m vi;-|¢m;,_ and tonie does mil have ice"). and inadvertently insults him,
(“Some joker kept playing the bagpipes"), after which Jill rubs
her foot a inst the Colonel's. The Colonel challenges
(3) °9d|pa| TraJ°c‘°rY Guy to a rag: (“You Australians are supposed to be able to
§W|m_ aren't you?" Jill: “When Ralph says race. he means
In the West we want answerstor eierythingz everything is ii"); Guy allows ‘ht comm] lo win i~-He had you wo"i¢d_
'.'@"‘ ‘" “"“"‘ ‘" *““" “' "“"" '" "“' “'“-"““'-’ "“ *“"‘ didn't név" “Indeed he did"). Billv' and Jill boiii smile down
tinal conclusions exist. warmly at Guy.
The Guy character is a gear in a larger mechanism, the (3) Billy defends "Jilly" against Guy's accusations ofa Brit-
Oedipal narrative, the powerful given-ness of which obs- ish attitude ofsuperiority. He alsotells Guy that he has once
cures the unpredictable. free-floating story of Billy, forcing proposed marriage to Jill but she refused. Guy asks. "What
the latter into its service and then into self-immolation. The about the Colonel?" Billy responds that "She's fond of
following are. briey. the phases wherein Billy's story is sub- him." In the same scene Billy tells Guy that they make a
sumed into a normative boy meets/loses/gets girl nar- good team. and that they even look alike. (lt is difficult to

C8 CineAction! Winter'86
ascertain whether Billy is trying to replace himself with Guy, the aftermath of the failed revolution (roadblocks, roadside
inorder to haveJill,or with JilI[Billy/Jilly] in order to have executions, general chaos) he makes it to the plane in the
Guy. Presumably either or both.) nick oftime (they actually have to roll the stairway back for
(4) At Wally‘s party, Billy ignores the Colonel's announce- him to ascend). Jill is waiting to embrace him in the plane's
ment of“Curfew time!“ to bring Jill and Guy together. The doorway.
Colonel insults Guy on the basis of his work (“You're still In his analysis of Fassbinder‘s In A Year af Thirteen
young enough and brave enough to speculate"). Jill takes Molmr, Robert Bourgoyne says:
the Colonel's part. Close-ups of Billy link altemating close- l
ups of Guy and Jill. We cut to a photo of Jill in Billy's _ . _l . . um l

bungalow, and then to a close-up of Billy as he says, “So it 3"?)p£:c$gs;:"::°:;Lio‘é':,:r;:[ lrgnsgosscd ‘M l»

begins" with what seems a sad, but determined, expression rundamcnm divide of Bond“ upon w§,ich_ accoming ,0 §

on his race‘ psychoanalytic theory, all society—lhe systems which


(5) Bill)’ f3il5 1° "lee! -lill 3i Gii)"5 °mee- Gil)’ 3nd Jill 8° °lTi compose it, including language itself—is based. . . Thir-
supposedly in search of Billy, and spend the afternoon m-rl Moan: exhibits a balanced, stubbornly rectilinear
together. As they approach Billy's, Jill asks Guy why he let form apparently indifferent to the transgression whielt,
1
Ralph win the 5wimming [a¢g_ Hg answer; “lt gggmgd by an ordinary logio. should constitutcthe collapse oi IIS
important to him. l guess he reminded me of my father. He ¢l3§§i¢=li§)'"l"\e"')'-“
li3d llie 53i"e b3ld l‘e3dt m"5l3elie- He ‘"35 killed iii ilie Hethen goes on toexamine“some ofthestrategies by which,
Will’-" Jill l=l|§ Gil)’ "13! he i5 e""Yilii"B Bill)’ “'°"ld like l° like the secondary revision ofthc dream test, the lm binds
l>e~ Tile)! diseiiss l3ill)l'§ iel3li°"5liiP Willi lb" (Gii)’ 35i‘5 the threatening and potentially disruptive sexualitytoaplot
lii¢l'¢dlll°"5l)'- “N°l his kid» i5 ii7"—“N°- lie Bi"e§ iliei" l°°d all too familiar, a scenario all too recurrent." Bourgoyne
llld money. ll'lil'§ 3ll~")- The ""9 3" °3"8lii in ihe i'3iii might almost have been making these comments with
ws=lh=r- Guy parodies th= Colonel (“Gr==n will usually respect to The Year afLivingDungernu.l‘Iy. Billy's centrality is
ll3§i‘1e~d°e§"'l il'-'w3ilei’~Eei "1e3"°ll‘iei'°"e~“)-Tlie)'l>°ili unceremoniously abandoned when the character dies, at
l3\iEli- we see Bill)’ in hi5 33i'l"°°"i ‘lei/el°Pi"8 3 Pl'i°l°' which point the lm attains toareconstitution ol"‘its classi-
8T3Pli °l ilie ""° °i iliem l°8°llleY \li3l 3li=l'il°°li- cal symmentry." The unassimilable ‘Other-ness‘ of Billy is
(5) -iill'5 ll3i'l1'l3le 3"§Wel'$ll1¢ Pli°l'le 1° G")"5 C3“; beside awkwardly subsumed into a readily recognizable
l
her there is a lamp in the shape ofa black dwarf, which lls Holtywootytype narrative format (this awkwardness is
1 almost halfthe screen. Jill will not accept Guy's call. We see apparmt in the forccd irregularity of the two Oedipal-type
3 ¢l°5e'"P °l -‘ill i3°i"8 i’i8lll- P¢"5i"et 5m°ki"8~ Ci" l° 3 situations: in one, Guy and Jill are parental gures and Billy
¢l°5¢'llP °l G")’» i3¢i"B leiit l°°ili"8 Pe"5i)'e- 5"i°ki"8~ we is an ‘abnormal‘ child in that he is simultaneously in love
hw Bill:/'5 v°i<==- discover Guy is =1 Billy's as lh= wmvra with both ofthem; the resolution is Billy's death; the other,
il’3¢ll5 3¢l‘°§§ llle W3l|- l"°)’il\8 P35‘ 3 Pll°l° °l-lill- ilie" °lie with the Colonel as father gure and Jill as daughter/lover is
l

°l 3" l"d°"e5i3" Pe3§lll. Ill"! 3ll0lll¢l' Pll°l° °l'-lill~ Bill)’ resolved when Guy, as son, actually replaces the Colonel as
offers Guy the rm of his h"hsl°W- Jill's lover/husband/protector). Both Billy and Elvira, the
(7) Bill)’ 3"¢l -lill li3"e liiiiel‘ i°8eihei'- Jill 35k5t “wliiil 3i'e transsexual protagonist in the Fassbinder lm, commit sui-
l
you srinhinsal-y<>h§lyf<>X?"N=Xls=qu=n¢=-Billyxivesuy cide. The Fassbinder lm thus plays itself out within the
an invitation to a reception at the British Embassy. “Jill will --Ctassimt symmetry" demanded by the Oedipal trajectory
lie llieiet“ he lell5 lii"'i- essentially as a tragedy, in which the character's fatal aw,
(8) Guy spirits Jill away from lhe r=¢=Pli<>h- lwvinx 1h= his transsexuality.dooms him. lfthe question to which he is
C°l°i‘lel~ “’e3i'i"8 kill 3"d ¢3")’i"8 l’3SPiPe5-5li°"li"8- “-lill- seeking an answer is “How can such an individual as myself
Wl'i3l ll" hell 3" )l°" d°i"87 The ¢‘"'ie‘"l"Tl‘e l"’° dilve °ll exist in society?“ the solution he discovers is that he can't,
I l3 5ill)"§ I Billy l"i'k5 °"l5lde- and this provides the narrative logic for Elvira's suicide. The
Fl’°i‘" ‘hi5 P°i"l °"- Bill) i5 5li°“'" l° ii3Ve le5§ 3"d less Year of Living Dangerously resolves the difculty of its
P°‘"el‘ l° iiilll-lelllie eilllll’ °i ll1em- Bill)’ "id -lill 3" ‘transsexual‘ central character somewhat differently, with
ll"! Re" l°Seiliei 383i"~ Bill)’ "35 iliiee i"°i'e Seeiies Willi noneof theclassicalgrace of tragedy. Billy isalsoaskinghow
Gil)" °i'ie iii Wliieli he eXPi'e§5¢$ l'li5 3"!" 3i C'")"5 "ie "ill" to exist, specically with regard to his sociaVpolitica|
information Jill has given him; another nightmarish concefns ("what then must we dc?" he wntinttally asks
sequence in which they confront one another in an alleyway |rim5¢||)_ and by implication, with regard l0 his own d¢Sil'=S-
3l‘ll‘l Gil)’ ¢3ll§ Bill)’ 3 “"133 liiile b35l3i'd»" 3"d 3 iliiid iii His effort to create the Guy/Jill relationship seems to be a
Wliieli Bill)! li¢§ d)'i"8 °" ihe P3)’ei"e"i- Dull"! ilii5 P°iii°" rather desperate attempt, in the face of the obviousanswer to
°l-ilie lmr Gil)’ 8°e5 °ii i° ‘lie ‘eei"eieT)"—llie P3" °l lhe his question—that he can't exist happily as a dwarf, and that
iii)’ Where llie )'°\""8 l"d°"e5i3" Pmsliiules ‘"°i'l‘—“'iili he can't do anything to alleviate the oppression and starva-
l Cimlsl he 3l5° 8°“ °iil l° ‘lie -l3"3"e5e e°“""'Y5ide Willi tion that nlns rampant throughout the world—to evade the
K\i"i3'- "id ll" 3 "i8l‘i"'i'i3ie in which his ie"i3le °mee answer to this question.Itamountstoasubstitutionofwhat
355i5l3i'il-Ti8ei' l-il)'- dieiseil iii 3 bl3ek b3ihi"8 Wilt ‘Ties i° is possible for what is not, which also describes what the
t

l ili°‘"i" liii" ii'i llie 5‘"i"1i'i'ii"8 P°°l i"i° which slie i135 d°"e narrative does. What would have been Billy's tragedy is thus
Jim Pi'i°i’ l° liie 8°il18l° 5leeP- l'l°WeVei- 3liei' Bill)"5 de3ll’l- transformed into what Frye would describe as a quest rom-
Guy rejects “bad desire“ and pledges his loyalty toJ ill, when inc; which‘
they meet unexpectedly at Billy's: “God, I loved him.“ . .

“when are you leaving-_,n “Tomorrow at lwo_-- "The hi, translated lnlodream terms..lsthe sriarchofthelllbldoor
thing l wanted to do was hurt you by writing that story. l d's'.'"l5 5": r°'|?‘ $6538 l C
wanted to talk to you. I didn't want to lose you. Jill, l‘ll be on :;::::d° “:3 nal mum me quewromancc is
ll“! Pl3ne~" Guy d°e5 have one l35l misadvenluie which victory of fertility over the wasteland. Fenility means
almost prevents him from getting to the plane in time, but root; and ,1,-i,,k_ bread ma wing_ bgdy and blood, the
everything seems to work in his favor after that and despite union of male and female.“
l

Wlnter'86 ClneActlonl 67

"i
ln dream terms, the reality that Billy embodies is still pres- albeit possibly owing to the greater ease with which such
' ent. but the anxieties that surround him are alleviated by the information can be imparted in a novel. In the lm, ifone is
conversion/displacement of his reality into the fond not familiar withthe politicalsituation in lndonesia in i965,
memory of the one who made all this present happiness one has a hard time knowing quite what is happening, and
possible. Within the terms of patriarchal ritual. as long as the situation is subsequently generalized into “Third World
Billy lives. the wasteland will prevail ovei fertility. political chaos.“ The novel ‘s action involving the ctional
characters is made contingent on the actual historic events
Leslie Fiedler says:
rather than being superimposed over them as it is in the
Whit! Children‘: btwks tell us. nally. is that maturity movie, and we are given a much more specic and detailed
involves the abililyeto believeethe self normal. only the pom-aya| of these ¢yem§_ i

(2) Kumar is much more fully drawn in the novel, and be-
l

1h::|:';‘:l"5:°' °:jfb'°“k"F“"'".3‘°"""'"|T“: §i_°“'"yi


Gulliver. wiioittcsve iii:talTi1wi'lt:h
le)ai/1: afiii:vsiI<§r\;Ps:i\i‘.l comes an °"‘.'°"‘°'.>' doquem spokcspcrspn. for his. people’
bcms_his So]: Mug: from adu"hmd_ hum“ and ‘he (3) The relationship between Quy andJill tslnot given nearly
famyy as much narrative centrality in the novel, ts far less ideali-

The Oedipal trajectory is the path to ‘maturity ‘ lfwe are to again ll isthemselves.
gcncmny dcrmmed
The reader by eve.ms larger
_ ~ than and
zed' the characters knows, from the
cnwres from lbs ¢Xi>=n=nv= of the ini as fully wnsiilvlsd information given in the novel, that “The Year of Living
‘adults,‘ we must leave the theatre with the sense that our Dange|.°us|y-- is ‘he pomiem theme Sukarno has decided
he?“ has been Wm‘ ‘h_' Q"Y/1*" '°ma"_°° an ?|°"3' ‘hm "5 upon for his country in I965. To the extent that the charac-
fruttion has been gratifying, andethat Billy existed solely to [ere are -living dangemustw it is because ‘hey are affected by
help make possiblethisgraticatton. lfwe do not accept our even“ resuming [mm Sukarno‘ policy) -|-he mm-S ‘me is
'm°'i°_"5 “Yum” such 3 m_‘me‘"°'k_' an “'° are is c°"r“5‘d- “"5 never explained and we are left to assume. after the sequence
°°"f"$'°" '5 "°l ‘"\=""=~ '\"°l'd'"8 1° 1a"1¢“="= in which Guy and .lill take the dangerous drive through the
OM or the must pmistent functions of an has |,ee,,_ curfew barriers under machine gun re in order to make love
not to sharpen contradiction or to force a painful self- ill Bl||)"S bUI\$3|0W- lhai l|1i5 i5 Whal ‘living d3n8¢f°\l5|)"
consciousness about irresolvable conflicts. but rather entails—pursuing an intense and serious love affair despite
V"! Pi'=¢i§=|Y I0 =‘/0|"-‘ "i"1Bi"=">' i’=§°|\"i°"§ “T "ill the dangers posed by an exotic, politically turbulent
contradictions," to use Levi-Strauss‘ apt fonnula: non- envimnmem_
.°°““p‘§“" “'“°'"“°'“" i“ whmh ‘h° "_a“'a"v' l°5'° (4) The treatment of Wally's homosexuality in the novel is
'“°"—"k° 'h° "W5 °' ""‘“'“_'°“"°5 s“"my °"°"5" '° more detailed and very sympathetic—he is characterized as
generate an uftcr-image of appeasement, of harmony, .

having a genuine respect for and devotion to the young


. .

and ufwnnieum "wncma“°"_=s


lndonesian men with whom he is involved.
Ti"_5559"“ ‘° ha“? b" lhc _"i"’l'a"V= P_|°Y °f 77"’ Y?" "f (5)The lm sequence in which Tiger l.ily dives intothe pool
I-""18 Dl"|8"@"-i/.l- Ti" Q¢d1P§| "=§_°|"_"°" ""5 "°l mil" and then attempts to drown Guy in his dream seems to be an
any conceptual sense, for it carries with tt a long tradition of attempt to make use of what in the nov¢| is 3 fag,-1y wmpt
‘he image ‘Jr "3PP°“5°m°"‘“_‘h° i'"aS° ‘hm has R" um‘ subplot involving a female Russian spy. and which is inte-
immem°'ia] hem °“r°"°°d “P°" °‘“' 5°°ia]' 3d"l'- 5“"5° °f grated into the specic political convolutions of the histori-
°“"5'l"°5~ cal situation. ln the lm, the sequence is simultaneously
sexist, racist and from a narrative perspective, totally gratui-
(f) p9||g|¢g of ghe D|-ea|wn]F||nq tous. As l have earlier suggested, it functions ‘obliquely as a
phase in Guy's movement through the Oedipal situation,
There is much in The Year of Living Dangerou.rI_t' that, Wm‘ Ti!" Lil)’ P|3Yi"8 ii" °°mbi"¢d mi’? °f W°m3"_ 35
within the contextof mainstream lm, is difcult to fault in ‘“""P- i-=- ¢35"a1i"E f°""‘|¢- 3"‘! "°"'=- ‘h"3‘°"'"E
its ostensible intentions: to draw attention to gross inequali- 'O"“f" (l"d°"°5ia"-_ "Id _'h"=f°"¢ _di‘"k'¢°mPl"i°"°d-
ties of living standards and to the attitudes that perpetuate “'"""8 3 blach balm"! 5""- ‘h'Fa'°"'"B|Y 5="5“a|~ 3"‘! ‘°
such situations throughout the world. However. the political °°"'P|¢l° ii“ P|°""¢- 3 CPm"i""l§Q- (OW! Ca!‘ °"|Y 355"!“
discourse ofthe lm is quite diffuse and vague even prior to ‘Fab Y"ha'°"" {he ‘=°"§°'°‘!5 "“°"“°"5 ‘F ""5 "a"5f°""'"§'
the compromises imposed on this discourse by the lm's "°"- l" "W 5¢"Pl ad3Pl3"°il imd mmmg P\'°§¢§§¢§- lh|_5
self-censoring strategies. This vagueness, coupled with the nfaifflal was "f°""°d "1 ‘he "lf"¢5‘§ ‘Ff "P"755|_"B 3 P°5"
compulsion to withdraw credibility from the Billy character. "W ""33: °f ‘o'h°""°55' 3"‘! """5““'“3 ‘"°"““‘]"Y")
who is wnstmcted as thc rm] Point for the most §°|id_ All of this is not to say that the lm entirely compromises
immediate relationship the viewer can have with the political its P°|ili¢3| ¢°"l¢"l- Much f°°\38° is 8iV¢" \° d=Pi¢li"8 1|"
issues the rihn raises, makes the question of the rihn's politi- dvsraded Iivins conditions of the poor Indonesians Some of
cal impact one of its more plqblgmalit; aspect; this footage falls into the category of the pseudo-
Many of the inconsistencies ofthe lm‘s political project d°¢\""¢i\l3\'Y ("W WP"! Ofwhich °P¢"5 °"l° ii Wh°|° 3'"
are immediately apparent in the movie's diver ences from Of dbw which I 5° ""1 ha‘/¢ 1|" SP3“ 1° ¢"|l'8° "P0"
the novel on which it is based. Some ofthe key altgerations are here)- some HOWCVBY. mllllh Of this
mm me hallucinatory.
as follows: footage is shot from Billy's point of view, which is not only
(1) with 3 fairly disgngaggd character named ecookic" as emotionally empathetic (to the extent that we identify with
narrator in the novel, and Billy as a character whose les his humanism). bill Whiiih 815° ii Chicy 5'10! "Om 3 |°W¢l‘
have come into Cookie‘s hands. our perspective on the nar- i\I\$|¢i Whih ""55 10 dominili 51$ §\lb.l¢¢|5 155 "Id 1° imPli'
rative events and attitudes towards them is less strained and ¢l= lhl Vi¢“'" "'0" i"li"\3l¢|)’ i"l° 31¢ 5il"3ll°" °f "W"
confused than in the lm, particularly by the inconsistency P=°P|¢ (Bi||)"5 Vi5il§ 1° Ii" fill" ¢°"""""i!)’ 37° 5h°"1hi9"Y
ofthe presentation of Billy's character with his intermittent in lhii manl‘-)
voiceovers. We are given concrete political and historical Ti"? w=5l"""5 3" cfiliuiu)’ P°l'li'3)'¢d 35 a|lT\°§l ""l’=m'
background in the not/¢| which i5 not provided in the lm‘ ittingly callous and insensitive to the plight ofthose around

GI CineAction! Winter '86 i


7

l.
l

t
..,w .

v V ‘pm
-

MP‘

Billy visits his adopted family.

them. For example. after one ot'Billy's visits to lbu, we hear way," and (iuy says, “Sure. Kumar." which imparts to him
Billy's voice saying: something ot'an edge of moral superiority. Similarly, in one
of the nal sequences of the tilm. as Guy lies, his eyes
Her tragedy is repeated a million times in this city. What
,
thenmustwedolWemustgit/cluvetowhomever(iodhas
placed in our path.
"
bandaged. tn Billy's bungalow, Kumar appears. ln the ensu-
in E 5 onversauon, tn which there is a ritual exchange of
_ .

American cigarettes ("Still the good cigarettes. boss“). Kumar


During the above, we cut to an image of Indonesian faces
peering through a circular window into the Wayang bar and says In Guy:
hear lau hter and raucous voices; we cut to a close-u of 'l'¢||""' >""1¢|l\'"ll-11"‘l~l"PId"\=l"'?-- lU"3'I"N\"'l-»-
moneybetngsweptolfabarcounterandthentoashotofthc
~ - p - V 1 --
Th“? “hi *h““|d I M " pm" mm J
V e 11
.m"‘
"-
“ in-U‘
journalists, with Wally joyously declaring, “l have just impffi P"‘1lP::' m Wu’ ““'("n"‘-‘__|l'“‘ “.:.|.]]' ' I ]%1"md
ton ... en answert can ... gut‘;-
en w y U
_ , » n
~ _ - -

sawed me A puma“ 0' lndomsm‘ referring ‘O the bum you condemn those tn my country who try to do some-
galow he has rented’ ihtngahout tt'.‘Mr. Bill) KI“-an was nght—Westi.-rners do
To some extent, the treatment of Kumar humantzes the mu haw ;,,,§M.,, any m.,,,,_
lndonesian plight. His character is not drawn in great detail,
1 but he is rendered as intelligent and his convictions as valid, However. this is followed by Guy's request that Kumar drive
and as representative of those Indonesians who have been himtothe airport. While this could also prove advantageous
politicizedlwe also seea PK! demonstration at the American lo Kumar, who has been condemned to death for his part in
embassy which is fairly objectively depicted). During their the failed coup and might be able to escape to the country-
I trip into the Japanese countryside. Guy says, accusingly, side, it is in fact issued as a command from superior white
“You're PKI. aren't you'?“. Kumar answers: “My country boss to inferior Indonesian employee. And once at the air-
sulTers under a great weight ofpoverty and corruption. ls it port. Kumar is left behind to his uncertain fate. whereas we
wrong to want to change that'?". However, it is also worth follow Guy straight into the arms ofhis beloved. beyond the
noting that during this sequence Guy's lace is fully lit by a reach of danger.
candle which has been placed on the table, while Kumar‘s is Above all, a great deal of screen time and credibility is
in almost total shadow. The conversation continues with given to Billy's political/humanistic convictions, and to his
Guy asking, “Are you going to be part ofit when the killing critique of Western attitudes. particularly those ofthe jour-
starts'."'. Kumar responds. “Sometimes there's no other nalists, who as Billy sees it. abuse their privileged position.

Winter'86 CineAction! BO
Early on in the lm, Billy tells Guy: quite clearly depicted as brazenly and obnoxiously guilty of
usin lndonesian irls as “ob'ects of leasure," Wall ‘ *

i§“pP°“ ‘hf "'°"’"“"y°" d°"" 'h'"k “b°““h° "'.a1°' infraaction seems Elinor and ‘possibly pnomexistent; dthis
-‘ d I B1‘ . d-b-Y
issues. You ]llS| do whatever you can about the misery b» -ha

that's in front of you. Add your light to the sum oflight. :‘gi:|vyic‘::p:i::‘u :5 :hZ spgrsiiglg lg,‘;:;dLsc1ss:F';;;c;:
And to Guy's “We Lioumalists] can't afford to get involved." resulting from his own frustration; (4) again, Billy’s hoisting
he responds. “Typical joumo's answer.“ ln his next intimate of the banner, which results in his death, accomplishes
conversation with Guy. during which Guy is looking through nothing.
ms phowgraphs of impoverished Jakam"5' Billy “"5 him: The failure of most of these concerns is necessary to the
That's the real Jakarta. Scrounging around for a few ms‘ kw] of Wish r"|ml_""°m_°f ‘he _mm- A5 _B|"Y b°‘f°f'l°5
handfuls of rice to try to survive for another day. That's ""773 and "19" hY5l5"c3|v lnc"35|"SlY_ I051"? cf'_3d|b||"y
the story you journos don't tell. (and simultaneously, the power of narration: his voiceovcrs
Guy responds, “Nobody wants to hear it," to which Billy :.°C°m° leiis cquemlald mg: despégagzfa e.p emgzgnfgé
ts convic ons seem o .em . an g
re lies ‘Tell them an a .‘ When Bill becomes disillu-
- . . - » -
. . .

' yw y y way for their transmutation into his exclusive endorsement


P
if
-
sioned with Guy, we hear him say, in voiceover: . . . .

You am“ posmon asjoumalis‘


and addimd morggamous llgeterosexual love within the idealized
to risk. You attempt to rule neat lines around yourself, “3l°' ‘On “mp . I r h
makinga fetish of your career and making all relation- The lm °lT"5 an uucmclli amblvalcm P9"-m_Y3 ° l 9
mp, mmpom-y ks; they dim“-i, rim C,-,,¢¢,_ why can-i politics of the situation in which the lm's narrative events
you give yourself.’ Why can't you leam to love? occur; co-incident with its project of endorsing an image of
And later. after he hears of Curtis's reassignment to Saigon, n°.ml1al“X .m iuual legqls '5. me m:§l?un3 of n.°rma.|':]y in
close to hysteria over the recent death of lbu‘s son, he says {gem /pohfwa terms’ ' 3! '5 the C ': c°.n"°9“°n Y" l f
bmcy: _therness of tl-ie Indonesians. blot only is Billy an Other
with respect to his dwarfness; he IS also halfChinese; besides
Curtis got Saigon.Well. we must all drink ioihat. Where this, as I've pointed out, it is generally given to Billy to be
ii
hum" "Iii"! i$ "5 \"°f§\- ll"
PW“ Will M "W" in seen in and amongst Indonesians and to express the lm's
r°'°¢_< >5*‘l_B‘"‘- Y°“ k"°""- """° “" P‘°P'° °“‘ 'h°"
-
concern over the plight of the poor. When Billy loses his
.“8'“'"8 f°' "c°' I sh“ mm‘ r°°"'5" D°'s “"yb°dy Wm‘ credibility and centrality, we also lose much ofthe impact of
"7 the lm's already somewhat vague political analysis; as the
Billy's convictions do not seem particularly naive or unin- lm retracts its invitation to identify with Billy, so does it
formed and yet they always remain vague; they appear to be retract its invitation to identify with his concems.
an amalgam of spirituality, human compassion, pacist The evolution ofthe identication with ‘Other-ness‘ can
activism. and anti-imperialism. He has various things to say be traced through the permutations of the ‘eye‘ motif
b°"l 5"k3"|°- bill b¢y°"d ll" fa‘?! lhal 31¢ m°V¢5‘ ll"lf°\lBh through the course ofthe lm. The first occurrence is when
the course ofthe lm, from adamant support to total disillu- Kumar tells Guy to remove his sunglasses when he goes into
sionment with the lndonesian president/dictator. his spe- the Presidential palace, because the “palace guards say they
cic position is never clear. lt is suggested that he is a can tell an assassin by his eyes.“ This is shortly followed by
pacist. and he is certainly anti-PKII when Kumar. who we the exchange of extreme close-ups between Guy's eyes, as he
later discover is a member ofthe PKI. comments that the FKI removes his sunglasses. and those ofthe lndonesian security
have good discipline, Billy responds, “So did Stalin. He wiped guard. and a few seconds later, of Guy's exchange of glances
out ten million." Using Billy to undermine the integ- with Sukarno, who is looking down at him from a balcony.
rity of Kumar‘s politics is very much in keeping with the Guy then fails to make any actual contact with any of these
trivialization and neutralizing of Billy's own political con- important lndonesian sources. Shortly after. when they
victions; in addition, it creates a rift between him as ‘Other’ decide to work together on the basis of Billy providing
and the lm’s most prominent Third World character. on lndonesian political contacts to Guy. Billy says to him, “l
the basis of their politics. can be your eyes," and later he tells Guy that people have
Billy's concerns can be summed up as follows: (l) the remarked upon their looking alike because “we've got the
infusion of an ethical imperative into journalistic activities same colour eyes.“ To this point. the interfusion of the
and a continual effort to convince people to pay heed to the identities of Billy and Guy has been gaining momentum, and
plight ofothers; (2) concrete efforts on his part to alleviate Billy has as yet to lose his credibility. The next specic
suffering; (3) a harsh critique of the racist/sexist/exploita- instance of this motif is in the last confrontation between
tive attitude of the Western journalists (who stand as sole Guy and Billy, in which, after berating him for betraying.lill,
representatives of Western attitudes); (4) a willingness to Billy cries. “l made you see things. l created you!" By this
take political action at risk to his own life. Unfortunately. time the motifhas been transformed, ifnot into the rantings
the validity of each one ofthese concerns is compromised in of a “mad little bastard," then into its applicability in the
the process of the undermining of Billy's credibility: (I) context of Billy having contributed to the relationship
Although one can assume that Guy. at least, has been to between Guy and Jill, and Guy having compromised that
some degree humanized by his contact with Billy. the other relationship. Finally, when Guy's head is struck by an
journalists seem impervious to Billy's message. lnthe case of lndonesian soldier. and he runs the risk of losing his eye-
(2) his attempts to provide concrete assistance to lbu and her sight. he lies at Billy's. both eyes bandaged, hallueinating
ailing child are shown to be futile: the baby dies; (3) the sounds which include Billy's voice saying repeatedly, “All is
treatment of Billy's discovery of Wally‘: homosexuality is clouded by desire.“ He chooses to risk his sight in the
ambiguous: it is unclear whether he is condemning Wally for wonded eye. tearing off the bandage to get to the airport in
sexually exploiting impoverished young male Indonesians time to meet Jill. The implication is clearly that Billy has
just as Curtis exploits the young girls (“starvation is a w0nd- taught him to see what is really important—but now it has
efflll Phl'0di5iB9." he says to them); h0Wev¢l'.Whi|! Cllii i5 nothing at all to do with the earlier apprenticeship into an

70 OlneAction! Wlnter'86

- . 4
B
action-oriented empathy with ‘Other-ness‘ and has only to 4. ibiit. p. 596.
do with the commitment to 'tnie love.‘
5. ibid. pp. 596-7.

co nclualon 6. It is important to acknowledge for the purposes of this discus-


°'=="‘.*"!
.

the
, . . " '1 Thtl“ w"
L"' D I.-
- ~ » »_~'-§=h's=>" Z‘.‘L'Zil'£i‘.§L","1t°.....§'iE.’.m;...§.'¥=Z{.iL'2fm i‘Z.7i‘i‘l7i‘Z-Zii§¥?§
serves it as_a salety valve and_at the same timepreserves me Hm urcvulmion ohm L.|assiCal Hol|ywu°d_which A w§uy_
nit Shep 0' ‘he Pmwnsuous In “mm rgr a 5'11"“ “Pam mainstream lm. Just as. for instance, Bringing Up Bally was
d'.“;_|"f°]';_||)SyCh"i mcrgy ' "'hlH0wu/"1 ""5 a“.=Tpu;d if highly idiosyncratic but also entirely typical ofa thirties genre
V WIS T ‘.1 I mam Jam "pl," C PrFm“sc'°u5 so “O ml y (screwball comedy). so The Year afLii'ing I)angenii4.rI_i' is both
I ma‘ H '5 unablc .m cumfnuc sleeping‘ ‘hm [he dream has singular (characterized by Weir's penchant for ‘weirdness')
made a breach in the compromise . . . ln that case the and pan Ora km .70s_carly.30s gmu‘ Wm“ migh, bccaucd the
dream 's]'n‘_mc_1'?leljY, broken on and "placed by a slam stormy-relationship-set-in—politically—volatile-circumstances
of comp ck W“ mg‘ drama, eg. Mi.r.ri'ng. Under Fire. Silkwaad. Iiina_S_t'nibarne-
lfl am to follow my analogy to its logical conclusion, I etc., and in whieh_the use ol’Third World settings is currently
must address the question of whether the spectator remains b¢8II"'I"\8 1° °°"§"l"l= 3 §"|>-8="" 0' “"5-
asleep or is awakened by the lm's impact; whether or not
. ,
. .
" .
l' . .
5
the underlying discourse of‘Bi|ly breaks through the com-
. .3
"H" "mm"
. .
. .
7' C'}g's"""‘ The lmwnary 5'5"‘ M
promises and displacements which constitute the more ' P‘ ‘
obvious levels_of the lm's_operations. The lm is both 8_ Fmumsigmund an 1.,-,_ P‘ 650‘
moving and ultimately dissatisfying, because it does sacrice
lls C°h¢l'¢"C¢ in Old" 1° l30V¢l’ UP» by l'¢§ll"¢¢ll"8 lh 9. Jameson. Frederic. The Pnliiiral L/nmnsriuas. (Princeton:
middle-class white Anglo-Saxon couple as the standard for Princeton University Press. lqttll. pp. Iii:-:43.
normality, as the emotionally-sustaining nucleus around
which 50¢ia| and mom] -goodness‘ is 0|-ganized_ the mom I0. AscitedinJam_eson,Fredrie. Thelmaginury undymboltcin
profound idea which inhabits the lm—the acknowledge- L““““'“ 7",” ”"""' 3'"d'"' N“ 55"" I975 P‘ 340'

:In$i)l::<le\:;':i1Il':;i\iE|:3aS Fgflilcltxcc:8S¢Scnscilileb\:¢‘|::ncElé;:r‘;, 2:; ll. Jameson. The Political Unmnxciaiis. p. I83.


the inhumane behavior that results from its hold on us. |2_ |,~m,d_,,,,_ c,,_ p_ 605‘
A less profound idea in a mainstream lm would not have
required the compromises this lm makes and could easily 13. Fiedler. Leslie, Fn-akx: .\I_\‘Ih.\' imil Imagi-.\ qf ihe Si-rm St-If
have been the basis for a more structurally consistent and (New York: Simon and Schuster. I975). pp. 27-8-
satisfying lm. l would like to draw on the obvious similarity
between Billy as freak. and the monster in the horror lm, to |4~ "ml P- 34»
cite a comment made by Robin Wood: H-
. . .the central question oflhe horrorlm today. . .[is]the
extent to which it is possible to conceive of and create a I6. Koch. C.J.. The Year 0fLi\'|'riE DIIRl"WIl_\' (New York: Pen-
‘positive' monster. The repressed cannot bereleased with guin. l97t§)- P. 205.
impunity. llil didn’t constitute a threat it wouldn't have
been repressed in the rst place; and to repress at drive is I7. Dinen. Muriel. "Notes for the Reconstruction of Sexuality.“
to some degree to distort and pervert it. . lt isa problem
. Social Texl. Fall. I982, pp.2!l-9.
that reaches out far beyond the horror genre and the
cinema: its resolution is central to the future of our Ill. Mitchell.Juliet.i1p.rii.p.l0.
civilization. ‘"
The Billy character goes a long distance towards creating a
‘positive monster.‘ That the character exists in popular
19‘ gmml '
-

' ' '


. I »

MRMHIMI (1 umnm
. .

rcsum M
.

cinema is a cause for optimism; that it is so compromised, 20_ Koch ,,,,_ m P, ii;
that it isn't given the support ofthe lm's other discourses, is
a disappointment. However, to my mind the magnitude of 2t. ibiit p. I32.
the lm's failure to completely undo the character is the
measure ofthe lm's more profound success. The dissatisfy- 32» F""d- "I1 f"- P~ 676‘
ing residue ofmany 'fai|ures' ofthis nature, while not nearly
as much as one would hope for, would certainly do more 23‘ ‘mi P’ 605'
towards our awakening than the normal run of mundane
.
24
.
“M . p.
608
.
and coherent successes of contemporary mainstream
cin¢m3' 25. Burgoyne, Ruben. "Narrative and Sexual Excess." Ociizber, No.
Zl. Summer. l982. p. Sl.
FOOTNOTES
26. Frye, Northrop. Analaniy af Criiicism (Princeton: Princeton
' ' . . l 3.
l. Wood. Robin. Hallywoodfmm Vitllllll In Reagan (Columbia Umvusny Press‘ I9”) p 9
University Press, I985). P- 47. 27_ Ficdkr‘ all “L P’ 4|‘

2‘ I”"od"uMy L““”e‘l (London: Pm" 28. Jameson. Frederic. “On Diva." Social Trxl. Fall. I982. p. l7.
29. Freud. ap. rii. pp. 735-6.
3. Freud, Sigmund, lnlrrprelaiian aj'Dream.r (London: Penguin.
l976)- P. 650. 30. Wood. op. til. p. 32.

vi
if
_..=~
Hitchcock's Spellbound: i

Text and Counter-Text ‘

by Andrew Brltton tion is that just as one can assign a crime to a criminal, and
solve it, so one can assign a neurosis to a trauma, and cure it.
NE CAN DISCERN lN SPELLBOUND Tl-[E indeed, the traumatic event in Ballantyne‘s life is itselfacrime;
elements of three of l-liteheoelfs favorite and his triumphant cry as his memory returns—“l didn't kill
narrative-structures: my brother! It was an accident!"—conveys his liberation from
( l ) the double-chase, in which the hero, in pursuit ofthe real bmh Elli" and di§°a5°- The 3b°m“l°"§ 3" °l¢="'°d 3“/3)’. and 3
conclusive state of ideological condence is established, both
villain. is himself pursued mistakenly by the police (c.g, nit»
Dtirly-Nine Steps, Saboleur), on the social level (the crime has been solved and the hero is
(2) the romantic love-story, usually characterised by some i"lllX>¢"l) and 0" lh¢ P§)'¢h°|°8l¢31 |¢V¢| (ll\¢ h=F° ha-5 b¢¢ll
form of tension or struggle for mastery between the partners Pllfled and l5 "OW ll0l'm|)-
(e.g. Notorious, Marnie).
The second ideological project is familiar from numerous
(3) the psychopath story, in which the male protagonist is H0||YWo0d movici lhc 'mill1l1.ll\ll.' llld=9°"d¢lll- PY°f°§5l°"3|
gradually revealed to be insane and criminal (e.g. Shadow of o ?"d/°‘ i'"°""‘"a| “'°'"3" b¢¢°m°5 5 'l’°3|' W°""a" bl’ falling
ll‘l love with the hero. ln Spellbound, this process unfolds in
p,,,,1,,_ p;_y(;,,,)_
Thesethree simple,schematised structures,ordelicatevari- P3"l"¢| 1° ‘he h"°'§ ¢l"¢- and l5 Pl'=5¢l\l¢d. through the
ations and modications of them,usually co-exist in any one ill11\E¢l'Y and dl3|°8ll=- 35 a"3|°B°ll5 I0 51- C°"5lB"¢¢'§
‘manlessness‘ is characterised by frustration, repression, and
lm: and in the case of Spellbound, one can relate them
the usurpation of the male role, and the lm ends with the
quite distinctly to explicit ideological projects.
The rst of these is the validatinn of psychganalygis as_ ‘cure‘ of her frigidity and her accession to her proper place as
simultaneously, the science of ‘the truth‘ and the science of B@l||3lllY"¢'§ Wlf¢- H" f°|¢§n analyst his bel P|8)'=d 0"! ill
the course ofthe action, in that (a) she has cured Ballantyne,
‘normality’--a project spelt out for us in the eaption whieh
follows thc credits. An incomplete quotation from Shakes- (b)she hasdiscovercd the realcriminal.through psychoanaly-
sis, (c) she has found ‘herse|f.‘ As the only other patients with
peare (“The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves") whieh_
in context, has nothing to do with psychological dis0rder—it is whom we sec her involved. Miss Carmichael and Mr- Garmes.
part of Cassius's plea to Brutus for revolution—introduces a flllllilill 35 symbolic Pf0j=¢li0ll§ Of ll=l'S¢|f and Ballantyne.
preamble which tells us that psychoanalysis is a method of there is no need either in narrative or symbolic terms, for
treating “the emotional problems of the sane." Once these Constance to be an analyst anymore. The lm begins with
have been "uncovered and interpreted," the "illness and eon.
both characters ‘misplaced‘ inside Green Manors, their ‘tme'
fusion disappear. and the devils of unreason are driven from idlllllii §"PPf¢5$¢d (Ballantym in lll l’0|¢ OfTheEdwfdcs. achieve-
the human soul.“
Constance in that of prim, ‘sexless‘ physician).
The vocabulary suggests that the attainment of ‘nt)t'ma|ity‘ ment of essential identity at the end is again reinforced by its
juxtaposition with a similar process (the clearing of the wrong
(reason) is like the entry to a state of grace, and that psych0-
mart. tl\¢ f¢V¢|3li°" Of lhl right lllilll) in lhl dcllllil/¢ story-
analysis is analogous to exorcism. This association of science
andthe casting out of demons,which unites, onthe one hand, The two projects are brought together through the door
of imagery which informs thewholelm. ln the openingcaption,
an appeal I0 a belief in the rigorous, objective nality
empirical evidence, and, on the other, to the mystic notion of and repeatedly in the dialogue. the discovery of thc causes of
ritual purication, establishes psychoanalysis as a kind of n=\ll'05i§ i5 =XPr=$§¢d ill l=l'm5 Oflh unlocking Of d00l'52 ind
secular religion, the embodiment of the union of two forms of the caption is superimposed over a shot of the stately door of
Green Manors, set between pillars in a grandiose, mock-
ultimate authority.
classic portico. At once, the detection of trauma and the
This emphasis is obviously well-served by the use of the
detection/manhunt story. Through a variation of the dQuh|e- detection of the crime are linked. Green Manors is the house of
chase format, the villain whom the hero and heroine are Dr. Murchison.and thc film moves t_owardsConstance'sl'inal
pursuing becomes the hero's neurosis, and his cure becomes pcnetration of its ‘sanctum sanctorum.‘ Dr. Murchison's
the removal of the stigma of guilt and of abnormality—the sludy,and her unveilingof the mystetydliccc to Whichlihll
assurance of his ‘innocence.‘ This is intensified by the fact that l'¢llll“ll |l=r- Finally. lhc Wlllc Clllmirltllillg ill lllc t10llp|c'$ rst
there is also a ‘real,' human villain involved, Dr. Murchison, embrace is based on the door motif—most obviously. in the
who has to be unmasked by Constance (just as she has been shot ofa vista of openingdoors superimposed on Constance‘s
the driving impulse behind the cure of Ballantyne) before total
harmony can be restored. The conclusion of the narrative
elides the discovery of(a) the hero's neurosis (b) the real villain oPPo$|TE—sP3”b°u"d-' mgrid B9 fgman as
(c) the ‘truth’-—so that the achievement of psychological cer- C°n5l3l'l¢9~
tainty is colored by the unmasking of a murderer. The implica-

72 CineAction! Winter '86 -


§1.~

,.,~
;
I
§
-

$§~\§\;
.\
~" -

\

~;
1‘
\‘¢\$~‘~
§@§@'
<\I §»%w
§»@§
3 -wk
&%
;\_ \\ .j
g -
*#§
$:..;\,“,¢:_
g _
i E

' .I-

‘ , I 4

k. 1 V.

5"

0
"~»

’ '4

1 .

Winter '86 C|neAction! 73


gs

Harry and Miss Carmichael.

faceto suggest her‘release'at the nionicntnltlie kiss;hutal.so ||| in En"). or Ha”), and Miss C.“.m|chuL.| m Cunsmnu.-S
insisted on in the preliminary detail of the scene—-the suhjcc otlice. Departure of Harry.
tive tracking-shot towards Ballant_vne‘s door and Constanee‘s l h I Constance and Miss Carmichael. Latter‘s outhurst
hesitation outside it; her choice 01' the library door before she |k-mi, w
dares to enter Ballant_vne's room; and l'inall_\‘_ the threshold of I
Ci }{n|;_y Q|'Hun-y am] [)r_ F1;-umi_ Hm-yy ]¢;|“-5 with Miq;
the bedroom which separates the couple. until l3a|laiit_\'ne Carmichael.
crosses it and they are united in the kiss. id) Constance and Dr. Fleurot. interrupted by
lwish to suggest thatthescene-by-scene realisation in.S'pvlI* (C) Em,-_\ 0|‘ D;_ Mu[Chi§Qn_ Dgpflufg of [)[_ F1;-umi_
hriunrlconsistenlly works against theconclusitiiis ot the narra- (Q Cnngmngg and Di-_ Mu{ghi§t)n_ im;-rmpicd by
ti\'e.andthat although everydetailol Constance‘s and Ballan- ig) Enlfy 0|‘ Harry um] Mi-_ G;|[m¢5_ Cttnslunce 5¢¢§ 'l)r_
t_vne‘s ‘case’ is systematically explained and accounted for. it is Edwiirdes‘ through the windnw as he arrives for the lirst
implied.eqtiall_v systciiiatically, that thisexplieit solution is no time. Cut to
solution at all. l will begin by considering the ripening of the
mm IV ta) Doctors speculating about Dr. Edwardes. Enter ‘Dr.
S/zcllhuuml begins by establishing a very intricate pattern 0!‘ ljdwardes'/Ballantyne.
contrasts, similarities and parallels between the characters lh) ‘lidwardes'/Ballantyne and his new colleagues. Enter
presented through a series ofiiieetings and conversations, as in Dr. Murchison.
the following chart: (c) Meeting of ‘Edwardes‘/Ballantyne and Murchison.
Exit Dr. Murchison. Fade out.
l Miss Carmichael playing cards. Interruption (summons
from Constance). Miss Carmichael leaves with Harry. Vtai Dining-room. Fleurot_ Murchison, Constance and
the guard. other doctors discussing Dr. lidwardes. Enter
‘Edwardes'/Ballantyne.
ll Harry and Miss Carmichael on their way to Cunstan- [bi First meeting of ‘Edwardesf/Ballantyne and Con-
t.e ‘ s ollice.
~ stance. ‘Love at rst sight’: crisis.

74 CineAction! Winter '86


It will be seen that the conversations are built round the incident by the fact that (i) Constance refuses Mr. Garmes's
entrances and exits of various characters; and this is panicu- offer to cut the envelopes for her with “l can do this myself
larly evident in the third scene, where each conversation is very well“; (ii) at that moment she is watching, through the
marked by the an-ival of the next character and the departure window, the arrival of the man who is going to displace Dr.
ofthe previous one. The scene is given a further symmetry by Murchison.
the useof Harry, theguard, who bringsin Miss Carmichael in Thus Miss Carmichael is related. in the lm's symbolic
lll(a)andintroducesMr.Garmesinl||(g);andbythearrange- scheme, both to Ballantyne—in that both are Constance's
inent of the meetings—two with patients, two with doctors, patients, and both succumb to breakdown or violence at
thelatter insened between the former. Let us consider these moments of extreme erotic tension in response to what is
four encounters in tum, in the light of the ideological projects interpreted as Constance's aggression—and to Constance her-
that have been described. self, in that she is simultaneously sensual and repressed, sexual
Th e Him be gins wit
- h
abnefscene(l)in desire co-existing with a strenuous denial of it.
-
which weseeMiss
-
f h
~ » ~

be . . M. C . h I .

CarinichaeVRhonda Fleming, the ‘nymphomaniac' patient, A‘ ‘he gmmng .0. ‘ C scene‘ '.ss “mm ac_ fccupws
playing cards with 3 group of other palienm me game being more or less the position of the‘sceptical spectator. Psycho-
interrupted by a summons from Dr. Constance Peterson/|n- analys“ bur.“ the pams 0mm‘ The phrase‘ Whmh echoes me
grid Bergman. Miss Carmichael leaves, saying that she had °"c sh: hasjuff “seq '0 her °pponcm,s m thecard'gam=' WM!‘
had ..a pen-cc, hand‘-. and ..wOu|d.ve beaten the pams an she speaks of beating the pants ofl‘ them, marks her transi.
you." and when she enters Constance's ofce, tells her that she um. from Potency anfj power.” ‘he Pmspecuve. wmn" w ‘hf
has..minedavc imcstin card amt).-I-he Sexuals mb°|_ SLlb_]CClCd role of patient. This strategy, ostensibly the lm s
ismo
- f t h egameoFYf cards,and8the motifofa
8 Y . .
I‘l1I.l0!I ifeire, is elaborated in the encounter between Ballan-
doctortnimpingor D B I /M. h lch kh
» -
h nd b
spoiling the patient‘s hand, is resumed in Ballantyne‘s dream Wm aim r’ m ov ‘C. 3? . . E 9“ a C am "23 ' 7
(to be considered more fully later). where the analyst-gure cxmnmon‘ me specmon '5. '“'."meq mm me. mysmmi and
miraculously beats Ballantyne with blank cards. The sugges- ‘Pad? a.wa'c,°.hhc p"Sp°F‘“.'e m Much expmcnce/‘ha '.'am"
tion in bum cases is that the cards are loaded inevitably in tive is intelligible. There is, in fact, afundamental tension at
favor of the doctor; and in both cases, the patient's defeat—the Ems P°"?‘ b,w°en ‘ht r"".‘ 5 ‘W0 prohesz mt w°ma".wh° '5
repression or sexual drivcs‘ the sugggson or impotence or presenting psychoanalysis to the patient who embodies sex-
inferiority (Miss Cannichael accuses Constance of wanting to ual ‘excess is herself seen as sexually repressed.
“feel superior" to her)—is followed by an asault on the Miss C3"mi°h“l- 1° c°"§l3"°¢- is 3 lYPl¢3| °a5¢—5h¢ has
analyst; Miss Cat-mi¢h3¢|'5 ougbum_ physiwl and v"ba|_ told “the usual proportion“ of lies under analysis. The former,
ag;in5tCgn51;m;¢, and [);_ Edwards‘ fa" [mm [he mop The lying on the couch, admits this, and, with sudden, uncontrol-
notion that the patient‘s symptoms are a response to p:r9egu- lable vehemence, launches into an account of how she bit off
tion by a gure of authority is central to the lm, the moustache ofa man who tried to make a pass at her. This
ici iconograp ic an mhcsis is a , on“ es l a hushed
A n exp |- -I
- h- castration fantasy,_w_hich anticipates Constance's role in the
,_ ,,
between Constance and Miss Carmichael. Constance's hair is =“su'".g narfauvm '5 "modumd by [he pm“: I ham mm‘
gathered up on her head in a tight bun; Miss Carmichael - s is
- - » < 4 h h Hit h
on W '6 C we
k
C“
tst O 3 C I °“'"p O fC mi st c cle l
loose around her shouldns Consume wears 8.355“ (fora alarmed and personally touched by the violence an C‘ at y
of the
woman, an instant signier ‘of ‘intellectuality‘ in Hollywood Confession‘
movies) and a while, ‘sexless’ doctor's overall, and when we Reacting against this intense self-revelation, Miss Carmi-
rst see her at the desk, she has a cigarette in a holder in one chael tums on Constance, denouncing both her as an individ-
hand anda pen in the other, the phallic symbolism underlining ual ("Miss Frozen-Pussl") and the notion of ‘scientific de-
her masculine appearance and her status as an ‘authority.' tachment' as such (“You and your drooling sciencel“). We
Miss Carmichael wearsa skin and a loose, plunging blouse, think back to the transition between scenes one and two,
and is offered very obviously as a type of seductive femininity: which is marked by a dissolve to Harry and Miss Carmichael
she moves with nonchalant, sensuous grace, and drapes her- in the corridor from the sharp. angular face of a nurse who
self on a chair, in contrast with the erectness of Constance's whispers to Harry as he is leaving, “Don't take your eyes off
posture, and the precision of her movements. The opposition her!“: the dissolve, in preference to the simple cut (there is no
‘doctor/patient‘ is thus redened as the opposition ‘repression time-lapse), suggesting the lingering, prying gaze of the nurse.
or denial of femininity/magnication of femininity'—both The notion ofpersecution through a look is central tothe lm.
being, in the terms of Hollywood convention, abnormal The outburst prompts thearrival of Harry and Dr. Fleurot.
states. The nymphomaniac and the intellectual woman are Miss Carmichael allows herself to be led away, after an
both seen as threats in that they both possess characteristics attempt to make a pass at Fleurot. which he, in his role of
regarded as the prerogatives of men—in the former case, doctor and authority, circumvents. The moment he is alone
sexual aggression, and in the latter, mental penetration with Constance, however. he takes up Miss Carmichael's
(knowledge, and the ability to pursue and acquire it independ- accusations, telling her that her work is “brilliant but lifeless,"
ently), sometimes combined, as in this case, with an institu- and that she lacks the “human emotional experience" neces-
tional position. Constance and Miss Carmichael are both sary to “treat a love-veteran like Carmichael.“ His remarks
‘phallic‘ women; and it is signicant that the scenes ll-lll (h) lead into a declaration of his fondness for her, which she
begin with the latter's ‘attack’ on Harry with her nails, when rejects—“You sense your own desires and pulsations. lassure
she takes his hand in an apparent attempt to seduce him. and you that mine in no way resemble them"—and the conversa-
ends with Constance causing acute distress to Mr. Garmes by tion moves towards a conrmation of the parallel between
cutting open her mail with a paper-knife. Again, the ostensible Fleurot and Miss Carmichael, rst established explicitly in the
antithesis (abnomtal patient attacks her guard/doctor about dialogue (Fleurot declares that he feels “exactly like Miss
to resume the attempted cure of her patient) is subverted by Carmichael"), and elaborated in the use of the book which
the symbolic parallel. Both incidents suggest the transference Miss Carmichael has thrown at Constance at the end of the
of potency to the woman, and an experience of emasculation previous dialogue. Fleurot, when his kiss produces no effect,
by the man—a reading stressed particularly in the second murmurs resignedly that "it's rather like embracing a text-

Winter '86 ClneActIon! 78


book,“ and then, as he is about to leave, asks if he can borrow reaction and repression, resisting the new, and as a victim of
the book, which he has picked up from the floor. He is just the ideological obsession with youth. He is “as able and
telling her that "l think you'd better stick to books" when Dr. brilliant as ever,“ but “having crumpled once. l might crumple
Murchison cntgrg the mom, again": and it is made clear that his breakdown isa response to
the threat to his position at Green Manors. He has been “like a
The notion of reading as a sublimation of sexual desire, of new man since his vacation" because the murder of Edwardes
the book as a surrogate for a human object, re-emerges a few has removed that threat.
scenes later, when Constance, repressing her longing to go into The main importance of the age/youth antithesis in Spell-
Ballantyne‘s room,goes into the library instead and gets down bound lies in its Oedipal connotations, which are variously
Edwardes' book—one of a limited edition which has been emphasised in the four main characters:
personally autographed by the author. Here, it is Fleurot who (a) Constance's resentment of Murchison‘s replacement;
is forced to seek altemative satisfaction; and it is signicant (b) Ballantyne's desire for/revulsion from Constance;
that Dr. Murchison should appear for the rst time at the (c) Murchison‘s plot against Edwardes,and then Ballantyne;
moment of Constance's denial of her sexuality and the arou- (d) Bnilov‘s resentment of Ballantyne.
sal/frustration of Fleurot—the two elements which will cha- Constance's progress is marked by the gradual movement
racterise her relationship with Ballantyne. With the single away from the two possessive father-gures, Murchison and
exception of this third encounter, all the conversations in the Brulov, and the movement towards Ballantync—a movement
scene end with Constance inciting some form of neurotic which is, simultaneously, a rejection and violation of the
disquiet in her partner. psychoanalytical practice which they endorse, and which, for
Leo G. Carroll's Dr. Murchison is clearly in the main them, puts her onalevel of irrationality practically compara-
tradition of Hitchcock's villains—charming, rened, immacu- ble to her patient‘s. Hence the constant identication of love
lately ‘civilized‘; and although the character is not developed, and madness throughout the lm: Ballantyne tells Constance
he is an essential part of the lm's organi1ation. The Ballan- “l think you‘re quite mad-—you‘re much crazier than l am";
tyne/Constance/Murchison relationship anticipates the tri- and when he asks her if she will “love him just as much when
angular adulterous affairs of the later lms with lngrid Berg- he's normal,“ she replies, “I'll be crazy about you." The theme
man. In both Norariuus and Under Capricnm, Bergman is receives its most extensive treatment in a long conversation
caught between an older man, her husband (Claude Rains, between Constance and Brulov, when he tells her that a
Joseph Cotten), who is clearly deeply attached to her, a woman in love “is functioning on the lowest level of the
younger, attractive lover(Cary Grant, Michael Wilding), the intellect." lndeed, his decision to help her rather than tum
nature of whose love is ambiguous, who is involved in the Ballantyne over to the police, is expressed in terms of humor-
causes of the heroine's predicament, and who disntpts the ing, and himself panly assuming, her madness—“l'll pretend
marital relationship by intniding into the husband's house. (l to myself that l'm acting sensible for a few days." There is the
am, obviously, schematising here, but this basic pattern is constant tension in the lm between the presentation of a
present and important.) Spellbound relates signicantly to this ‘rational‘ science, and the fact that the only creative use of it we
structure, though, in the nature of the subject, the particular see is based on feelings which are totally irrational (trust, faith,
inection is different. love, intuition) and methods which go against every precept
Murchison, Green Manors, and Constance's position as for its successful operation.
analyst/intellectual/repressed, ‘denatured‘ woman, are inex- Constance's afrmation of loyalty to Murchison (lll l) is
tricably bound together. We can distinguish various elements balanced on one side, as we have seen, by her rejection of
in their conversation. Fleurot, and on the other by the scene with Mr. Gannes, the
(l)Murchison seems tomaterialiseout of Constance's rejec- paper-knife, and the arrival of ‘Edwardes‘/Ballantyne, the
tion of Fleurot, and his arrival drives Fleurot out ofthe room; knife suggesting an assumption of potency, and an attack on
the denial of sexuality is underlined by the afrmation of newcomer and patient (between whom, as we shall see, an
loyalty to Murchison. As Fleurot leaves, Constance tells him important symbolic parallel exists). Her rejection of Murchi-
that she won't come with him, as she is "in no mad hurry to son in the lm's penultimate scene is characterised by the
welcome Dr. Edwardes," and one of her rst remarks to turning against him of the aggression originally excited on his
Murchison is "You are Green Manors.“ The hostility to eroti- behalf, and reverses the pattem of Scene lll: the series of
cism and to the idea of Murchison‘s replacement are thus incursions into Constance's room, the repeated agitation and
linked together, with. in addition, the hint that iust as Fleu- undermining of her position, is balanced by the visit to the
rot‘s obsession with sex unites him with Miss Carmichael, so study, in which she becomes the intmder.
he is "mad" in his concem about Edwardes' arrival. This nal confrontation again turns on a transference of
(2) Resignation, maturity, freedom from illusion. Con- sexual potency,and is riddled with sexual imagery. Murchison
stance tells Murchison that his behavior is “a lesson in how to gives himself away to Constance, at what is, apparently, his
accept reality,“ to which he replies, “Don't be too taken in by moment of triumph (the ‘recapture‘ of Constance, the murder
my happy air, Constance“—an exchange which is charged of Edwardes andthe conviction of Ballantyne;i.e. the elimina-
with irony by the subsequent narrative. Murchison‘s crime is, tion of the rivals for Green Manors and for Constance)as they
precisely, an evasion ofthe reality of his dismissal,and his very are standing in the doorway of Constance's room, when he
disclaimer augments the elTect of his stoicism, and Constan- says that he knew Edwardes slightly (he has earlier professed
ce's admiration for it. never to have met him). Left alone, Constance, disturbed by
(3) Youth and age. This theme is strongly emphasised in the the remark, walks slowly towards her bedroom, Murchison's
opening scenes, and both the group of doctors who rst meet words echoing distortedly on the soundtrack; and she grasps
Ballantyne, and then Murchison himself (it is his rst remark, their signicance as she is standing in the far doorway, her
as he comes through another door), comment on the fact that arms spread out grasping the uprights of the frame. She goes
Ballantyne is “younger than expected." Murchison tells Con- upstairs; and Hitchcock repeats the forward subjective
stance that it is “the basic secret of science" that “the old must tracking-shot towards the door used earlier for Constance's
make way for the new“; and Hitchcock maintains a subtle wary, fascinated approach to the room then occupied by
balance here between a sense of Murchison as a gure of Ballantyne.

78 CineActlon! Wlnter'86
The explicit ackowledgement of Freud invites a psychoana- neurosis of the analysts, and recalls the Freudian formulation
lytical reading of the lm's imagery,and the use of doors here that the choice of love-object is affected by recollections of a
isespeciallyinteresting. For Freud, doors areafemale symbol parent (Constance has just fallen in love with Ballantyne at
indreams. Thus Constance. unshakably committed to Ballan- rst sight).
tyne, refuses Murchison entry to her room; and the track The parallels with the other male characters are striking.
towards Murchison‘s door, which places us in Constance's During his conversation with the policemen,Bnilov agitatedly
position, and which associates the female symbol with the manipulates a knife in his hands, and his response to being
man, exactly expresses the scene's symbolic force— questioned again is the remark, "What is this kind ofpersecu-
Constance's potency is re-established by her knowledge of the tion?" From what he says, we learn that his disagreement with
crime, her penetration of the secret. and her visit is an act of Dr. Edwardes at a conference they both attended resulted in
sexual aggression. The shot also creates a link to the earlier an outburst of violence (kicking over chairs) and his furious
scene with Ballantyne, and suggests that the breakdown of the depanure from the lecture-hall: and his exasperation at Con-
nien towards which both encounters move is a response to that stance's irrational commitment to Ballantyne induces him to
aggression. start smoking compulsively; spilling all his matches in the
Murchison agrees, unwillingly, to discuss Ballantyne‘s process. The overtones of impotence, sterility, sexual isola-
dream ("Nocturnal conferences are bad for the nerves"), and tion, loneliness. are very strong. Brulov assens that his house-
comments with patemal condescension on Constance's loy- keeper "hates" him (we have seen the housekeeper briey
alty, “one ofyour most attractive characteristics." As he says when the couple arrive at the house—-a perfectly innocuous
this, he reaches for his cigarette-case, and throughout the rest woman, worrying about the professor missing his evening
of the scene, until he throws it away into the grate at the meal), and describes himselfas “living on my own withaean
moment of his confession, he is ngering and stroking a opener." When he is fetching the milk for Ballantyne, he
cigarette which he never lights. The phallic symbolism of the remarksthat he is "glad to have company," and that although
cigarette, here suggesting Murchison‘s impotence (because he longed when he was young “to get alone by myself instead
unlit and then discarded), recalls both Constance's rst of wasting my time with people," now, in old age, “everything
appearance,and a moment ina conversation between herand becomes just the opposite.“ As he is handing Ballantyne the
Ballantyneafter his breakdownintheoperatingtheatre, when drugged liquid, he is saying that old people cause all the
he tells her that the only clue he has of his real identity is a trouble in the world. andthe last words we hearbefore Ballan-
cigarette-case which he found in his pocket, with the initials tyne loses consciousness (the camera puts us in his place as he
'.l.B.' engraved on it. drinks, so that the upturned glass and milk gradually ll the
After the confession, the cigarette is replaced by the gun, screen)is Brulov‘s toast to youth—"to when we are youngand
which Murchison also strokes coolly as he points it at Con- know nothing." He will later, of course, while Ballantyne is
stance. As with Garmes and Ballantyne, the response to the unconsciousand “knows nothing," try to persuade Constance
woman's assertion of her potency is violence: her possession of to let him have him arrested.
the phallus is barred by his possession of the gun. ln all three Bnilov's attitude to the couple ranges from an initial senti-
cases, the men are also responding to Constance's knowledge, mentalism to the resentment of Ballantyne which has more
lter use of her intellect. Garmes and Ballantyne are her explicit sexual connotations than in Murchison‘s case. His rst
patients, the latter constantly attacking her for her insistent reaction is to canonise them (they pretend to be newly-weds)
probing of his memory (he calls her “a phoney King as the embodiment ofan unfallen innocence and purity—the
Solomon“ and “a smug-nosed old schoolmistress"); and ideal, young, normal American couple—in which the equival-
Murchison is now exposed by her detection of his guilt. lt is ent of the worm in the bud is mental ‘disease.‘ He tells them
notable also that Murchison remarks on Constance's “agile that “there is nothing so nice as a new marriage—no psychosis
young mind." '1rough herassociation with Ballantyne, she is yet, no aggressions, no guilt-complex,“ and wishes them
no longer the object of desire, hutanembodiment of the threat "babies and not phobias." We are reminded of a remark by
of youth to age associated with his professional rivals. At the Ballantyne earlier, just after the departure of Mr. Gannes and
same time, he begins to abuse and ridicule her devotion to her the mysterious phone call from E/dwardes‘s secretary, when he
lover (“A love-smitten analyst playing a dream-detective“). tells Constance that some fresh air would do them both good,
Constance triumphs over Murchison in a manner which and they can go and see some “sane trees, normal grass, and
exactly reverses the procedures of her science. Psychoanalysis clouds without complexes.“ ln both cases, the explicit sugges-
as the lm denes it is the means whereby the analyst guides tion that there are at least some things which are uncontami-
the patient towards the recognition ofthe truth about himself. nated ('normal' marriage, and the country walk and picnic on
Constance escapes from Murchison by an exertion of control- which Constance begins to thaw) is quietly undermined by the
ling will which is close to hypnosis, staring at him with an implication that both speakers are neurotics.
\lt1WV=!'ing.0PPI'=§§iV¢3816.805 impoiig |i¢0 hiI'I1—ifh¢ Bnilov‘s second reaction is a belittling, sarcastic revulsion
his h" 89- ‘he P°h¢° Wm "cal him |¢hi¢hl|Y ("Th¢)"h nd from Constance's foolhardiness and irrationality (“a school-
=Xl=m=alins sircvmstahm in lh= slaw vfyour health"). and he girl in love with an actor"). Bnilov is, obviously, not identical
will be able to continue to work and research in prison. in Mufchi§()n'and[hQif characteristics('Eur0peanncSS,'ira$-
Constance‘s stare is the nal, and supreme, expression of her ¢ibg|ny_ excnnbilim gnnn-|¢_]ik¢ old age, as opposed to the
5‘-'P°"i°l' POW" (I-‘1l’h¢\‘ in lh $€1=. M"l'¢hi§°h h3$ wcarily ‘Englishness,' suavity, self-control, nesse, sinister middle-
hiddm hi5 °“’h ¢Y¢5 h¢hihd hi5 hand TOT 3 mmvll. and lh= age) are readily distinguished by the lm. But in both cases, the
"la" l'=§P°hd$ bl’ "-"'hihB his ‘"=3P°h °h hh"5°|r- presence of Ballantyne emerges as a personal threat. Brulov
The father-gure is split into two in the lm; and Murchi- dam-|y mks 0-," Constancg at one; as daughter/pupiv
son's analogue is Dr. Bmlov/Michael Chekhov, Constance's 5;,-van; ("']'|n§ morning | ggl going rgal ¢olT¢¢!"); and his
former teacher. Brulov is rst mentioned at the moment of repeated insistence that personal, emotional involvement and
Ballantyne's TIN! bl’¢8kd0Wf1 ill lh dinner-table. When C0n— science are incompatible (the remark, for instance, that
stance says that Ballantyne's irrational behavior reminds her women make the best psychoanalysts until they fall in love,
of him—a remark which both underlines the emphasis on the when they make the best patients—which equates, deroga-

Wlnter‘86 CineActlonl 77

--at
tively, love and irrationality. and which is one of numerous “fill his 5)’lllPil_hY and Sal" his h°|P- The d=l°¢llV¢ d¢$¢l'lb¢$
remarks which suggest that Constance is only saved from “the hllll§¢|f 35 "'3 kllld Of P§)'¢h°l°Bl§lt" alld his midi"! °r C°ll'
usual female contradictions" by the discipline of hcr work). 5‘a"“'5 5i"”“°" is based °“‘"h“"- [mm "P°l'l¢"°¢- he has
ties in signicantly with his advice to her at the end Oflhc lm. fuuud to l>= “thv usual P§Y¢h°|°8)"'; so that the msetlns is
when both hc and Murchison fgcommend fcpfgggign and suddenly recast as that between analyst and patient, with the
sublimation as a cure for her attachment to Ballantyne. hm" 93l’¢f""Y ¢XP|°lllnB ll" wmplaccm 5°"'355ul'3h°° ohe
American ideology is founded quite explicitly on the notion r°"h"- who nllsfeads lh¢ 5Y""Pl°m5 c°mP|"°|Y- "¢3ll"8 his
of work as the sublimation of sexual drives; in Franklin's 5uh.l°°l353|YPl¢3|'C35e'(35 C°"5l3"°° has d°"° Pl'°Vl°"5lY"'
words, “industry and constant employment are great preser- “H! his PFl’f=°l|Y l"l° Y°\"' ¢haPl°l' °" lhc 8"l|l"¢°mPl=X"l-
vativcs of the morals of a nation"—Hitchcock explores the H" 5""3"°" has b¢¢" l’=V=l’9¢d- This l5_ lh¢ l'5l §¢¢ll= lll lh¢
concept extensively in Shadow of iz Doubt. At the end of mmiapan '°"' ‘h",°“""Y"f"3"‘-1" Whl¢hlh=¢°|lllP5¢0flh¢
Spellbound, afterthe apparent irrefutable revelation ofBallan- P°“°"‘* b°$"‘5) Whlch mks Pia" °l"$ld¢ Gl’==ll
analyst
tyne‘s guilt, Constance has retumed to Green Manors. She has M3l_l°l§- 3l1dt3§lh° PY°$P°°llV= 3°°°l'llPh°§ °r3 Wallwd "13"-
,-ewmcd aim lo Brulov and Mu";hi5on_ and mt aulimmy they she is the victim rather than the representative of institutional
represent; to an environment characterised by age. paternal 3"'h°"lY- Th"? 3" hlhls aalht h°Y°- °f lhl =ql""l°ll °f
possessiveness. and impotence, Murchison‘s gun and unlit 3"3|Y5l3l"_1 P°|l°¢""l"»"l°ll_lil|P1lll_=lll3lld ¢l'lll1lll31-ll'l V/hl¢h
Cigilfclli: being balanced and tbinrbtbta by the cane which ‘=l>u@"u=lluy' l>==°m== an ldsulouwl <>lT=u¢¢- ll is imi=li=d
Brulov grasps throughout his conversation with Constance. ‘hm C°"§l3"¢° hself ""151 ‘weak ‘h: laW‘_b°lh P°h¢¢‘laW
He insists to her that she can't keep on “bumping her head (‘U "-"'l"l"8 “WHY “'"h‘lh° 5ll5P¢¢l) alld 3l13lY"°3| law (by
against reality and pretending it isn't there"; and the remark 3¢ll"E 'm3d|y')—a"d_i°l" Bfll|3lll)‘ll= °ll lhe “"'°"8 §ld= °f ll
echoes Constance's praise of Murchison's ‘rcalism‘ in ill (D, b°r°'e 5h‘ F3" h°|P "Ih" hlm °f hel'§¢"~ H" ‘5°l°n°¢' l'l'l"5l
creating a disturbing network of ironies. Brulov‘s demand that Pal'l3k¢ °f "5 Sham °f illlsilllly-'
she “accept reality,“ which, in his role as psycholanalyst, is the Green Manors itself can be read both as a social microcosm
nature Of his demand on 1| Patient. becomes. in Bffv-‘l. II andasamonstrous,pervertedfamily,eharacterisedatonce by
demand for acquiescence: Constance must accept the law. sexual repression, a claustrophobic lack of privacy, and a
both psychoanalytic law (hc and Murchison have diagnosed pervasive immaturity and childishness. Fleurot's style and
Ballantyne as a schizophrenic) and legal process (Ballantyne manner (slicked hair, thin moustache, smart suit, leering
has been found guilty of murder). Work within that law thus innuendo) suggests the supercially sophisticated, big-city
becomes the means of repressing the sense of loss and con- charmer, a familiar inhabitant offilm nair, and his encounters
structing a “fresh or substitute satisfaction which has become with Constance recall those between Joan Fontaine and
necessary owing to the fact of frustration" (Freud's words in a George Sanders in Rebecca. Constance twice remarks on the
discussion of symptom-formation). “There‘s lots ofhappiness childishness of the doctors, rst reacting against Fleurot‘s
in working hard—perhaps the most,“ Brulov tells her; and insinuations about her attraction to Ballantyne (“l detest that
after he has left, Murchison repeats the injunction to "try to sort ofhigh-school talk"), and then theconeened sarcasm,led
forget things better forgotten.“ once more by Fleurot (“You look as ifyou‘ve been having an
We thus arrive at the point at which the two representatives lllslrlllillvc llm=")» Whhih 87°"-5 h" °" h" '3" "mm fmm ‘he
of psychological health attempt to direct the heroine on the ¢°\ll'lll'Y-Waikt and which Pl°"lP'5 h" l° c°mPal'¢ lhc 59"
pathtowards neurosis:and it isat this pointthat theidentity of dlllll"-lbll l° 3kl"d°l'Sa"="- A83l"- l" lhc 5""? in lh°
that science with patriarchal law and its prescribed 'normality‘ library all" B=|l3lll)'ll¢ dl53PP°3l'5 h’°m Gl’"" Ma"°l'5~ lh=
is clinched. Indeed, the dialogue indicates that Constance it in doctors talk casually and uuwuvsmdly about his l>r<>b=l>l=
a state similar to Murchison's before his ‘vacation‘—“l know fate. to Cunstanwsacute disussstlwrfeelings communicated
that feeling of exhaustion only too well. One must humor it l° "5 hll 3 51°“ "'3ck'l" l° 3 °|°5¢""P °fh¢l’ ill“). and F|¢\Il’0l
bgfcifg it gxp]Qd¢§_" Mu|'¢|1i§g|1‘§ °|_|([e[ has imn (hg murder or tums the conversation into an attack on Constance heiself—
Edwardes; the outlet for Constance, Ballantyne and the narra- “A W°"'lall hi" Y°" ‘3°"ld "W" b¢¢°m° ¢lll°ll°ll3")’ l"V°|V°d
tive (their resolution) is the death of Murchison, with any man, sane or insane." Thus the three male doctors in
Before passing on to the Constance-Ballantyne relation- lh¢ lm B" \l5¢d 1° 5ll88°$l Vil'l°ll5 l‘=§P°"§¢5 l° lhc fa" °f
ship, it is useful to remark at this point, while the subversion of Sllllil l°Pl'°§5l°"- "~ l" Bl'"l°V- ll 8lV°$ Tl” l° 3" ld°3h53ll°"
psychoanalysis is in question, on an incident in which the 0flh¢'l1°YlTl=\lt'¢°lTlllllll'h¢"ll°lh"llPl’¢m9W\lll¢°fW°l'k35
parallel between analysisand detection,socentral tothe lm's SllhllltI3ll0ll- d 3 l¢lld¢ll¢)l l° 5" |°"= 35 3 5l"Y Emil‘
attempt to confirm ideological confidence (Constance l"“5l°"(C°"5‘F"F¢'§1°"'}'3"5hP"m53“§¢hl1°Phl°'ll¢“lhlQa
becomes, in Ballantyne's words, “a great analyst and a great "V3i¢"""°")3 ‘ft "l M}'f°h'5°“» " P'°d“°°5 P5Y°h°5'53 me" "'
detective"), is subtly undercut. l am thinking of Constance's Fleurot it leads to mlwwus wlluususssr Wltsu Coustaum does
encounter with the hotel detective who helps her in her search l1°l l’¢§P°"d 1° his 3d"3"¢°5- 5h° b¢¢°"l°5 lhc “hulhah
for Ballantyne after he has absconded from Green Manors; an 8|3°l"“—a" 3°°"§a‘l°" which °l“*°l|Y ""lll'l'°l$ Ml55 Calm‘
encounter which is elaborated beyond its strict narrative func- <1ha¢l'5 (“Ml§§ Fl’°1=l1-Pll$5!")- The ll'¢ll'l'l¢lll Of Flllml h¢l‘=
non, and which at rst sight mm; 3 mgfgjgy ifggpm, (together, of course, with the warmth and intelligence con-
The detective rst rescues Constance from the advances of veyed l" 3"8"l3"'5 P¢l'f°l'lll3ll¢¢) Pli)'5 lls Pal‘! in quallfylhl
an obese drunk who tries to pick her up in the lobby, and who lh= ld=°l°Bl‘1~'*l Pl'°j¢¢l 35°"! lh¢ lmlkllll °f 3 ‘l’¢3l' “'°l'l1Bl'l
spons a phallic cigar—the symbolism, in association with the Whl¢h I °lllllll¢d 35°"! ahh°"8h- becall-5* Fl¢"l'°l l5 5° ¢"ll'
theme of loneliness and isolation and the desire for Constance ll¢"ll)' ‘""5Y"lP3lh°ll°' l" °°"lP3l'l5°" Wllh B3|l3"l)’"=~ lh¢
to alleviate it (“A fella could live and die in this town and never Pl'°j¢¢l l'¢"lalll5 -"lb-""'lll'"”)‘ llll3lT°¢l=d- 0"! l'l'll8hl l'°"\3l'k
meet nobody"), uniting him to the lm's central falhgp also, in the library scene, on the complex effect achieved by
gures. The kindly detective interprets Constance's plight as Mlll¢hl5°l'l'§ °°"llll8 1° c°"5l3"°°'5 d°r°"¢¢- and l" "fins
that of a distraught wife seeking her fugitive husband to beg which echo her comments on the doctors‘ immaturity--he
his forgiveness; and the conversation is built on this confident apologises that “our staff still retains the manners of medical
error, in which, gradually, Constance begins to collaborate, to students," with that consideration and courtesy so typical of

78 CineAetionl WInter'B6
Hitchcock's villains (consider. especially, Claude Rains in burnt his hand in a ying accident. and the two crucial trau-
;Viiioriou.t'). ntatic experiences (the death of his brother, the death of
This brings us to the tiln1‘s central relationship. Constaiiee‘s Edwardestboth iniolve hurtling uncoiitrollably down a slope.
devotion to Ballantyne is obviously intended to reconcile the They also involve. respectively. a ho_\ and a man. and two of
psychoanalytic theme with the emphasis on romantic love and Ballantyne's breakdowns occur when Constance forces him to
sexual awakening: her role as analyst/detective is elleetual re-live with her what he did previotisly with Dr. Edwardes
because her coinmitnient to his cure derives its force from a (buying the railway-ticket. going down the ski-run). We think
love which is repeatedly shown to be ‘cra/y‘—preeisely of Freud's suggestion that tlying dreams “have to be inter-
I'uni0i1r ni. On another level. the lilni alinost becomes, preted as dreams of general sexual excitement," and that
through the heroine's name. a fable about the constancy of “gliding or sliding" are “symbolic representations par excel-
l
wuman tc.t'. Chaucer's Constance in The Mun ziflAii"\ lulu). [('!ll'L' of masturbation." Similarly. the ramr scene strikingly
and the redeeming power of woman's love, which coincides anticipatesthe atiiiosphereofthe shower-niurderiti P.t'_i'rIia_in
with the religious dimension imparted to psychoanalysis b_v which Norman Bates resorts to a sharp instrument and vio-
the introductory caption. Guided by Constance. Ballantyne lence as a substitute for the rape he cannot commit. Rubin
descends into the inferno of the unconscious, and returns Wood has suggested that the attempt to explain away Uncle
whole and sound-—a traditional enough romantic theme, CharlieinSIimluit'ri/‘u Ihiuhitis anaberrant monster by means
which receivesits baldest stateinentintlie scene onthe station of his childhood accident (ideological|_\ necessary in a '40s
platform about halfway through the tiliii. Surrounded by Hollywood lm)ntay also be interpreted asaeuphemism for
embracing couples. Ballantyne tells Constance "There's sexual trauma: we are told that Charlie, "such a quiet boy“
nothing wrong with me that a good long kiss \vouldn't cure." before the crash on his bicycle (“You didn't know how to
to which she replies that "I've never treated ;i guilt-complex handle it“), is perpetually in trouble alterwards. as it"‘he had
thatwaybefore." lloweventhelilinconstantlyiniplies.onthe to get up to misehiel to blow ot'l' steam." In both lilms, the
contrary, that Constance aggravates Ballantym-‘s sy inptoms. ‘safe’ explanation becomes more. rather than less. troublingly
and that his neurosis. whatever account may be given ofit in suggestive. ln S/it-llhiiiiiiil, too, the fact that Ballantyne is a
returned serviceman relates the lilm to a contemporary group

.3
the narrative. is sesu al in nature.
One might begin by noting that the incidents associated of movies (including I711’ Blur Ilahliu and (‘rtnr/Trr) dealing
with the neurosis have erotic connotations has with dentobilised aiid/or wounded ex-soldiers and sexual
.

F.

>54

.\

Analyst and patient: the bedroom.

Winter '86 CineAction! 79


pathology(Wi|liam Bendix in The Blue Dahlia has asteel plate seized by guilt and panic, the dreamer is unable to consum-
in his head; sulTcrs, like Ballantyne, from amnesia and war- mate the desired union with the mother, and ees from the
shock; and is suspected of the murder of the hero's promiscu- achievement of his crime. The dream has begun with the image
ous wife). of an eye, and of a man cutting through eyes painted on
Ballantyne‘s dream is as good a starting-point as any. ln the drapery with a pair of shears, both suggesting the sexual wish
narrative, the dream is treated as a decoratively esoteric ver- on which the dream is based (recall the opening of Un Chien
sion of ‘reality,’ a sort of allegoric distortion of the circum- Andalou, in which, of course, Dali was also involved).
stances of the crime. Dr. Brulov, in response to Ballantyne‘s The link between the dream and Constance (which, once
scepticism, compares dreams to jigsaw-puzlles with the pieces stated, is ‘forgotten’ in the narrative from thereon) is implied
mixed-up; and it is the interpretation of the dream which by Brulov himself. Constance is attempting to interpret the
reveals the location of the crime, precipitates Ballantyne's winged gure, and Brulov cuts in with, "The gure was you: If
therapeutic re-enactment ofthe skiing trip, and nally reveals you grew wings you would be an angel.“ The implication of
Dr. Murchison as the murderer. This use of the dream empha- this seems to me fundamental to Hitchcock‘s presentation of
sises once more the suggested parallel ofunsolved crime/l'or- the central relationship. Constance, the matemal, loyal,
gotten trauma. Dream-analysis becomes the means by which devoted woman. is also the potent woman, the woman with
the mystery of 'reality‘ is made intelligible: tting together the thc phallus, the forbidden woman (the mother): like Miss
pieces of the dream solves the patient and the crime. Carmichael, Ballantyne simultaneously feels desire and denies
The most striking thing about the dream as we are encour- it. and the series of hysterical breakdowns which he sulTers
aged to read it is the remarkable absence of the personality of throughout the lm are all associated with moments of
the dreamer. Apart from the sequence in which a voluptuous, extreme sexual tension. This, and the fact that Ballantyne is
scantily-dressed girl appears. kissing the players in the casino appalled by a particular color, relates Spellbound emphatically
in tum, and identied by Ballantyne as Constance (a sequence to Marnie, and, more generally, to the recurrent characteristics
which Brulov dismisses brielly and wearily as “plain, ordinary ofthc developed erotic relationships in Hitchcock's lms. The
wishful-dreaming"), the dream-images are made to coincide Cary Grant character in Notorious, for example, is based on a
point-for-point to ‘real' events. as ifthey were empirical clues. similar tension between desire and revulsion. and hc tries I0
The lm purports to be an explication and justication of transform Alicia (Bergman) into a prostitute so that he can
psychoanalysis, and yet the fundamental Freudian thesis that despise her for being one. The ambivalence is further explored
a dream represents the fulfillment of a wish is mentioned only in Under Capricorn, in Flusky's (Joseph Cotten) complex and
to be dismissed as comparatively trivial, and replaced by an vacillating response to his wife's degradation (Bergman once
inverted version of the pre-Freudian thesis that dreams "could more)-
be used for practical purposes" l Freud's words)—-here. not to I shall consider the crisis-points in Spellbound in their chro-
foretell the mystery ofthe future, but to unravel the mystery of nological narrative order.
the past. Thus, if the proprietor of the casino is simply Dr. (l)71ie_/irxl meeting. Constance and the otherdoctors are at
Murchison, there is no reason whatsoever, apart from consid- dinner in the refectory, an empty chair (for Edwardes) separat-
erations of narrative-suspense, why he should be masked in ing Constance and Murchison, and suggesting the rupture
the dream, since Ballantyne has seareely come in contact with which the newcomer will create, displacing Murchison profes-
him, and there is no necessity for his identity to be repressed. sionally and sexually. They are discussing Edwardes. Con-
l wish to suggest that the dream is an Oedipal dream, and stance says that she has read his work, and that “I intend to
that such a reading is supported by the whole presentation of learn a great deal from Dr. Edwardes—l think we all can.
the Constance-Ballantyne relationship. Ballantyne is playing Ballantyne comes in, and is introduced to Constance, Hitch-
cards with the bearded authority/father gure, identied for cock cutting between close-ups of the two while the lm‘s
us as the ‘real' Edwardes, but who bears a striking physical theme-tune wells up on the soundtrack—instant signiers,as
resemblance to Bnilov, and might be a younger version of Truffaut remarks, of "love at rst sight.“ The conversation
him. We should rememberthat thedream occurs inadrugged tums to the value of sports as therapy for the patients, and
sleep which Brulov has induced (the drug concealed in the Constance takes this up excitedly (“Dr. Murchison always
innocent whiteness of the milk-the color which terried said we never did enough in that direction"). Here, as in the |

Ballantyne—and the deceit concealed by Brulov‘s paternal interpretation of the dream (the descent into ‘Angel Valley‘),
benignity),and which follows Ballantyne's suspended attempt sport is given unmistakable sexual overtones. Fleurot de- \

on his life. The bearded gure defeats Ballantyne with blank scribes Constance as “frustrated gymnast," and Constance
cards, i.e. defeats him ‘against reason‘-—his authority and agreesthat she missesspons,“particularly winter-sports." She
victory are preordained, ‘givens‘ of the game, and do not begins to tell Ballantyneabout plansfor buildingaswimming-
depend on the value of the cards he holds. The proprietor pool(“anirregularone").and outlinestheproposedshapeon
appears and threatens the ‘father.‘ telling him “This is my the table-cloth with the prongs of her fork. Ballantyne is
pIace" and “You can't play here." He is masked because he is immediately alarmed, and over-reacts hysterically—“l pre-
Ballantyne‘s surrogate in the dream—the son can express his sume that the supply of linen in this institution is inexhausti-
hatred and jealousy through him. and deny it as his own ble!“ Constance tries to gloss over the incident, and begins
emotion. We then see the father falling from the roof of the talking rapidly about how Ballantyne's behavior reminds her
house—the wish for his death is fullled, the threat enacted. of Dr. Brulov, who couldn't endure the presence of a sauce- >

The masked gure appears from behind the chimney, carrying bottle on the table. Ballantyne sits smiling at her, at the same
a wheel, which he drops onto the roof. The wheel suggests the time trying to smooth out the fork-marks with his knife.
vagina: with the death of the father, the mother is now sexually All the important elements are present in this rst encoun-
available to the dreamer. The camera tracks in on the hole in ter: Ballantyne's initial attraction, the hint of Constance‘s
the hub of the wheel (a deeply suggestive image, given the use repression, the sexual proposition (Constance tries to interest
of doors and forward-tracksin the lm). Suddenly. the screen Ballantyne in sports), the association of Constance with the
lls with billowing smoke, and wc then see Ballantyne eeing phallus (the fork, and, in addition, the knowledge—about the
down a slope pursued by the shadow of enormous wings: pool—which she has and he lacks), Ballantyne's perception of

I0 ClneAction! Wlnter‘86
her as threat and aggressor, and his hysterical withdrawal, tyne's dream. The second meeting between Ballantyne and
followed by the attempt to erase the mark of her presence. We Constance takes place in Games‘ presence, and is precipitated
see also the link between Ballantyne and Bmlov, and the by him, when Ballantyne rings her and asks for her help and
common element of fastidiousness in their reactions, rein- advice with him, intemtptinga conversation between her and
forced later by the similar dialogue given to both in praise of Fleurot in which the latter is lying on the couch like a patient,
the eleanness of normality. This is important both in under- revealing his ill-concealed jealousy of Constance‘s interest in
mining the status of the analyst (his reaction is neurotic) and in Ballantyne. As Constance tries to explain to Garmes that his
respect of Constance—al| the men perceive her as a threat. guilt is illusory (“a child‘s bad dream"), Hitchcock cuts away
(2) The rst embrace. After fetching the book from the to a shot of Ballantyne watching with fascinated intensity
library, Constance at last summons up the courage to go into (compare the cut-away to Constance when Miss Carmichael
Ballantyne‘s room. He is asleep in a chair in the bedroom with confesses that she “hates men“). When Constance returns late
a book in his lap, but wakes when she comes in; and Hitchcock from her walk with Ballantyne, she is told that while they were
cuts between them, separated by the frame of the door. Con- away “Mr. Gannes became agitated again“: and the walk has
stanceat rst pretends awkwardly that she wants to discuss the been characterised by the interplay of desire and repression,
book, but then abandons this—“l‘m amazed at the Constance insisting that love is a "delusion" invented by
subterfuge—l don't want to discuss it at all." Again, the poets, and oblivious to Ballantyne‘s interest. The walk scene
blurring of the boundary between ‘sane' and ‘insane’ is impor- ends with Constance looking out over the landscape, seeing it
tant here. Later, in the scene in which Edwardes' secretary for the rst time, and declaring “Isn't this beautiful?"; while
appears, and the masquerade is uncovered, Murchison des- ' Ballantyne replies "Perfect," looking not at the country but at
cribes the imposter‘s deceit as “typical of the short-sighted her, before distracting himself hastily with the picnic.
cunning that goes with paranoid behavior.“ The immediate The Garmes/Ballantyne parallel reaches its crux in the
irony stems from the fact that the speaker himself is the seeneof the embrace,and intheensuingscene in theoperating
murderer, and from his eminent clarity and clear-headedness theatre, in which Ballantyne‘s breakdown becomes complete
(the note of scom for ‘mental illness‘ is also important,and ties as he explicitly identies himself with Gamies—“You can't
in interestingly with Brulov's idealisation of ‘normality'). One keep people in cells! You fools babbling about guilt-
can also relate it to Constance‘s actions here, the fragile impos- complexes! What do you know about them?“ The imagery of
ture breaking down under pressure. Signicantly, she has release which is so conspicuously insisted on (the doors; the
removed her glasses; and throughout, the spectacles are asso- books which both characters discard before the kiss) is radi-
ciated with the scenes in which she is an ‘analyst,‘ as opposed cally subverted by the lm's symbolic relationships.
to the ‘romantic' scenes. (She puts them on as a disguise in a (3) During the analytic session at the Empire State Hotel,
moment of nervous tension when they are confronted with the Constance notices the burn on Ballantyne‘s arm. She grasps
two policemen in Brulov's parlour, removing them when the him by the wrist, demanding that he remember the accident.
agents leave—an act which, ironically, gives heraway to them He tries to pull away from her, telling her she's hurting his
later.) The whole scene, indeed, is treated, for Constance, as arm. He becomes hysterical, and nally collapses when her
the ‘unlocking of a door,‘ the discovery of her true self, the grip is removed. Again, the scene up to that point has been
driving out of the demon of repression: “What a remarkable marked by the altemate expression and denial of d¢$il'B;
discovery that one isn‘t what one thought one was!" Constance embraces him and is obviously alarmed when she
She still attempts to resist the idea that they are in love——“lt thinks that he may be married, yet insists that “it has nothing
d0¢§ll'l hppcn like lh8l—iI1 8 day." Ballamyne. Walking to do with love." Similarly, Ballantyne‘s panic is juxtaposed
towards her, crosses the dividing threshold of the door. He is with his assuring Constance that "Thank heaven l can't
gazing at her with hypnotic xity, while she stands motionless remember 3 wife,"
(spellbound)—and the image of the staring, controlling eye is (4) 17r¢_/in-r [rain-jgumey, Ballantyne remembers his acci-
Whlfl. H105! notably in lh¢ Plllhimlc §¢=I1¢- Wh¢l’¢ il dent in the plane over Rome, and responds to Constance‘s
becomes Constance‘s own: at the moment of her surrender. in pressure with abuse, described metaphorically as blows in the
the kiss, her eyes close, and we are given the superimposed dialogue,
vista of doors swinging slowly open. (S) 17iefirst night together. Just as the couple rst met in the
Ballantyne‘s last line before the kiss isan insistence that they h()u§¢ of Dr, Murchison, they spend their rst night in the
are in love: “It was like lightning striking. It strikes rarely.“ house of Dr, Bru]0v—undcr the aegis of the father. The
Afterwards, as he sees the black lines on her dressing-gown, he desire/repression pattern here is crucial. Symbolically, it is the
Push“ h" away. l’¢¢\$5"l‘i"8 her ‘ha! “T5 "01 Y0"-" and couple's wedding-night (“l take it this is your rst honey-
muttering that “something stnrek me." Immediately, the moon"). Alone, they can abandon theirpretence (adopted for
‘phone rings, and Ballantyne is told that Mr. Garmes, Con- Bn.tlov's benet, and which, ironically, never deceives him):
stance‘s patient of lll(h), has “run amok,“ attempted to killa and, through Ballantyne‘s amnesia (“l can't remember ever
Bl-lfd. and lhl CU! his OWNlhfol Wilh 8 P111011 having kissed any other woman before") and Constance‘s
Th¢ fflivl inil. clearly. lhl lh¢ breakdown is Ml 8 inexperience (“l have nothing to remember of that nature
$¢X"i| Cfiiii (“W5 "0! YOU"). bu! lh ¢0II0l8li0n§ IR lmmiS- either“) they seem for a moment the innocent, ‘unfallen‘ cou-
takable. There is, rst of all, the repetition of "strike," linking ple. An ambiguity is introduced by Ballantyne‘s suggestion
the embrace and the revulsion from it, and establishing the that they are "bundles of inhibitions“beneath which “dynam-
idl Of i\$8ilI-I|!- MOS! imprl-‘in! is the €X!¢nd¢d symbolic ite" is buried. They embrace, but Constance pushes him off,
parlkl between Ballantync and Garmes. As we have seen. insisting again that she is only his doctor, and that “the doctor
they are introduced into the action almost simultaneously omupies thecouch—-fullydressed," whilethe patient takesthe
(lllh) and linked by means of the paper-knife, the cutting- bed. Immediately afterwards, Ballantyne notices the counter-
open of the maiVmale becoming an attack on the unwanted pane (white with embridd Whil¢ h"=$) hd ¢°||iP5¢i-
newcomer and the patient (it releases his symptoms). Ballan- There follows the superb suspense set-piece, in which Ballan-
tyne believes he has killed his brother; Garmes believes he has tyne‘s anxiety it triggered by the whiteness of the bathroom,
killed his father—the Oedipal crime which underlies Ballan- and he enters the somnambulistic trance in which he rst tries

Winter '86 ClneActlonl OI


7

Arglfyet and patient: the train.


16) The mun /uurm-t m (iuhrtcl l'uIh-_t. Hte_\ ttre ttt the
oh\esst\ e|_\' to .\ht|\e httnself. hre;tk> ul'l' and ttppruattihes the
Sleeptng ('t>n>t;tnee \\tth tlte rat/or. .tttd then goes do“ nst:|ir.\
re>t;turuttt-ettr, and Cnttatttttee t.~ hut tng ;t tt1e.tl. She my that
where Brulm \\';ttttng lbr httn. tn the future ~he tntend.~ tn ehunge her ~t_\|e wt tire»-“l'\'e
;tl\\';t)\ lnved very fettttttttte eltvthe\_ hut ne\et qtttte tlztred to
t_~.

The phttlhc \tgtttc;tttt:e nf the rttzur ta cttnrttted by the shut


tn uhteh Bullutttytte de.~teend~ the >tttirc;t_»e. an unhruktn - take wettr them." Bttllattttytte .st;tre~ tth\e\~t\el} ttt her h;tttd.\ an the
which hegtn> \\ tth tlte gure ttt ntedtttnt lung shut tn the [up of tltrk .tnd kntfe cut the ntettt; and ;t> ('ntt\tttttee gt\e\ut1_1|\k':1|’L‘
the st;ttr>_ ttnd ettd\ in an enortttou> elme-up of ht.~ hand, held of his ulztrtn. Htteheuek cuts tn at eln.\e-up of ht\ lltee. gltt/ed
rigidly ;tt ht~ .~ide. the r.t/or _|utttng nut tn front nt‘ hint. 'lhe with horror. gruloquel) tllunttnttted hy the llztxhtttg ltghtx nfu
incidettt exttet|_\' ttttrmrs the end nf the rst kmtttg wene. passing tr.ttn. the el.ttter utwhteh thttnder> de;tlentttgI_\ on the
withuut, tn thi.s ett>e_ the tttedtttttntt ut‘Mr. Gurtttes: the sunte snttndtrttck. 'I1te tntttge hl;tek~ nut.
catalyst (sexual tettstott utth (unmtneet. the autrte weapon. The tktrk-ttttd-kntte ittt;tger_\ rel;tte~ httek huth to the enu-
Mr. Gatrtnes turns on ht.~ guard; Hullutttyne nn ('nn>tttnce and p|e‘> tint tneettng and to the pttper-ktttte seenee end relttlea the
then Brulttv, httth gures ttf potent, uppre.\m\e ;1utht\r|ty;;tnd threttt of Cutt>t;tttce ;t.\ the c;t\tr.tl|ng \\uttt;ttt to her de\|re tu
the uetuul procedure otsltttt tng. wltteh cotnpletes Bull;tntyne'> tncrett>e her ‘l'etntntntt_\.' lrunte:tll_\_ her ']ther;tttutt' ;t> tt 'rea|'
dmcunttttre lltatvtng-htu\'h sttrrtng the lttther tn Ll cup). hu> wntttun nnl_\ ;tugtnettt.~ the tttttn'.~ ttettnt_\t.\. denes tt\ natture
clear erntie u\'ertntte.\. As tn P.t_t'rIm, sexttulity is channelled more elettrly. In the pre\‘tt»tt> trttttt wene. the nnt~e uftt pttastng
intn violence by the nterwheltntng three nt‘ repressinn—here, lncntttnttu-_ ttnd the reeettttn of tt~ hghh on Hull;ttttyne‘>
bnth partners‘ eemttnltip nt' destte, and the presence nt‘ tltee, hee;tme_ \|tt‘|ult:tnet>usI_\' the rttttr ttnd glare ut ht> ytng
Brulm-. ttectdenl. Ntt\\‘_ the repettttun of thttt ttttztger) ltnk.~ ect\t1nmi-

B2 CineAction! Wtnter'B6
cally the connotations of the various events involved—the Brulov, can be resolved when it is directed towards ‘the
‘accident,’ Constance with a knife, femininity, the journey monster‘—the darker and more dangerous father-gure.
towards ‘winter-sports‘ in Gabriel Valley. The lm ends with the achievement of ‘nomiality' and
reconciliation, the exorcism ofthe "demons." Constance now
(7) The ski-run. The connotations of winter-spons have accepts and invites the public kiss from which she shrank
already been described, and the descent of the slope on skis is before (“We don't want to attract attention“), and the union is
clearly a sexual culmination for both Constance, “the frus- blessed by Bnilov, who repeats an earlier remark that “Any
trated gymnast,“ and for Ballantyne. The scene begins with husband of Constance is a husband of mine.“ Given the
Constance looming over him, ordering him stemly to put his nature and role of fathers in the lm, this is a deeply ambigu-
skis on, and throughout the run, he is staring at her with the ous suggestion—one might compare the end of To Catch a
utmost repugnance and loathing. lt is at this point that the Thief. in which,in the last shot (also an cmbrace),Grace Kelly
ideologically compulsory resolution of the conict (Ballan- informs Cary Grant that mother will be coming to live with
tyne nds salvation through his relationship with Constance them. It should be noted, also, that Constance is still wearinga
and remembers that he is ‘not g uilty,‘ the Oedipal trauma suit!
cancelled out) intrudes at the expense of the logic of the ||1BV¢ll'i=d l°i"di¢3l= ll" Ways 1" Whi¢hW°l'k d¢§iB"=d
symbolism; as if Nqmian Ba|¢§ were to be rgdgpmcd by Map ostensibly, in praise of the science of ‘normality,‘ continually
ion Crane as he tore aside the curtain of the shower. Hereafter, subverts its surface-project. The way in which that subversion
Constance‘s potency is not a problem for the hero or the is achieved (the blurring of the 'normal‘ and the ‘abnormal,‘ so
narrative (Ballantyne, now ‘cured,‘ can declare that his love is that any denition of either becomes uncenain; the indication
“beyond cure"), and it can be directed against the villain—as of insoluble conicts in the main sexual relationship) suggests
we have seen,Constance‘s gaze deprives Murchison of the use that Hitchcock's presence is a cmcial factor in it. One can
of his gun, and her use of her knowledge, which unmans make no claim for Spellboundas an achieved work of art—the
Ballantyne, can become benecial. discrepancy between surface and implication, the grotesque
Such an interpretation helps to make sense of the connec- uncenainty of tone (especially noticeable in the wildlyclashing
tion between Murchison and Ballantyne created by the mise- conventions of the acting) and the frequent banality of the
en-scene: the repetition of the subjective tracking-shots script testifying only too clearly to Hitchcock's profound
towards the door before the love scene and the suicide scene, unease. The lm's interest lies in the nature of its ‘badness‘: in
the tension between the afrmation and justication of fun-

them._
and the two ostentatious subjective trick-c|fects—Balluntyne
drinking the drugged milk, and Murchison shooting himself. damental ideological assumptions, and a repressed meaning
The threat to the hero ofthe woman and of her teacher/father, which is everywhere at odds with
IIIIIIIIIOI‘-QIJIJIQQJIIIIIIIIQIJJJIIIIIIJIIJIJIIIJIIJIIIIIIJIIJOCIIQJJJIIIIIIII
\ \

I
St);M%bk/
r8°o " T
r 6" 4lnf,°°'71°'°"t0
ark U. Sign 4§:°I1“:: Len,“
/
\\ \
\W0 c .

on
"
3 -

:.:;»~t. .

J/In 0%’ '7

ca f’ ; l ’ » i

Prob;-derd A.

Pe "e¢
Taro 80,‘. 7275/’: ’: f'b/7,
Ea;-/,:'t'-1 O’: Sq, 2°‘:
/r/Q ,5 . M1’ .
-$0
Po;
*2/y7
‘Pa

ca--------.-pp-aqua-a-papa;----np---n-aaon;-----pava----p--------------'p-a-----
Winter ‘B6 CineActionl 83
aa-
P

_.
‘*1.

|<—¢

Celine and Julie Go Boating: women and magic.

Inventing Paradox:
Celine and Julie Go Boating
gpghggggq
by Jgnlng cies within our culture owe alarge debt to his pioneering
anti-aesthetic in the late '60s and early ‘70s_. However, it is
Of what with
is great one musl either be silent or speak wnhm coma‘ 9f.'hcof80$ ma‘ Y" mus‘ Pcgm anew to
the political deffecttvity an anti-aesthettc—ot" works which
t -
greatness. With greatness—that means cynically and with
V

h t. I l. d m.“ mmodes
innocence‘ arestructure _t roughancga were a ion o o ‘I a
of representation. WhtleGodard s post-I968 project attests to
tNiel1srh¢. The Will In Pvwer)‘ a kind of realism which comes under the aegis of Brecht, the >

‘anti-illusionist‘ aspect of the epic theater was meant as only


0DARD'5 CONTRIBUTION T0 A RADICAL therstste P in theex P loration olasocialrealit Y .ForBrechtit
polemicaround representation tnthecinerna is popu- was important to problematize the language of
larly celebrated. Certainly those practices which representation—-to drain it of itsillusory characteristics; but it
work to dislodge and challenge dominant patriarchal tenden- was of equal imponance to recuperate this language as a tool

Cl CineAction! Winter'B6

Vi
for meaningful cognition. Unlike Brecht, Godard chose to garde, these practices tend to signal a move—in different
remain entangled in the complex network of signication: the directions—away from negativity towards an alrmative POS-
language of cinema. Godard understood that social realities ture, olTsetting a binary system which draws the line between
were inextricably bound up in language, in the ‘bourgeois the ‘avant-garde’ and the ‘main-stream.‘
concept of representation.‘ With this in mind, he developed It is this olTsetting, this mixture of discourses which we nd
deconstructive strategies based on a negativity which worked at the heart of Celine andlulie. lf Godard set out to ‘expose’
to uncover the historical underpinnings of the dominant the limits of representation, then Rivette penetrates those
discourse. limits in an antigenetic fashion and tums them inside out. For
What many have chosen to see as Godard‘s failure—his this reason, Celirieandlulie isadifcult lm to write about; its
inability to posit alternative modes of representation—was an transgressions come in the fonn of slippages and shifts, in the
inevitable extension ofthe aniinomy underlying his nihilistic form of a writing which obviates classification,
project: THE END OF CINEMA. Godard's ‘j‘accuse,‘ an categorization—that is, in a form which resists analytical
economy of truth, only furthered his implication in the crime reduction. Nonetheless, the following discussion will attempt
he set out to denounce: he was crushed by his own accusation. to grasp part of this complexity.
Radical nihilism, Nietzsche surmised, is “the conviction of an ln order to establish a point of entry into this rather
absolute untenability of existence when it comes to the highest ‘slippery' text, it will be useful to make a theoretical detour
values one recognizes; plus the realiration that we lack the through the works of two writers: Sergei Eisenstein and
least right to posit a beyond."' This can only lead to a self- Antonin Artaud, who each in his own (and yet strikingly
imposed censure. lt is in respect of this censure that Godard's similar) way, sought to create a new form of writing.‘ Both
counter-cinema was an intervention, a negative assertion Eisenstein and Artaud worked towards erecting a language
(“not a owering“: Barthes). But it is also this censure that which was neither written nor spoken but constnicted along
condemnsany practiceassuchtotautologicalrecriminations. the principles of a third variety of speech—a variation of
Through the logic of its trajectory, the negative speculation is which can be detected at work in Celine and Julie.
locked into a relationship with the dominant discourse. The Upon reading Ulysses, Eisenstein was immediately struck
cinema which counters, which denounces by exposing ‘false~ by James Joyce's ability to collapse the subjective and the
hood,‘ is also the cinema which inadvertently serves as a objective in a process of writing which took the fonn of
complement to the dichotomy of domination. interior monologue. lnner monologue, as a stnicturing princi-
This notion is implicit in Theory of The Avarii-Gard: where ple, could nd “full expression" in the cinema, for “only the
Peter Burger alleges that the avant-garde‘s predilection sound lm is capable of reconstnicting all phases and all
towards negativity anticipates its inevitable downfall.‘ ln the specics of the course of thought.“ Eisenstein compared the
face of the insurmountable monolith, the avant-ytrde will, in notion of ‘affective logic‘ associated with spoken (as opposed
the end, opt for cultural suicide by negating its own emancipa- to written) language, to cinematic montage which is regulated
tory potential. lndeed, it is not uncommon to nd couched by similar laws. Through the analogy he discovers a third
amidst the pages of glossy art magazines, casual references to term:
lb.‘ end on”: ‘?"’""¥“'d°~ “ch speculations‘ would .s“m'
“ montage
anse out of similar assumptions—that the avant-garde . had to make further serious creative ‘eniises‘
"mush ‘ha inn"
. .
is one monohaue. or-Joya‘ mroush "Winn"
homogeneous movement.
monologue‘ as understood in lm, and through the so-
l t is precisely this sort of facile generaliration which serves I
¢a_||,d -ir,r,||¢¢u,a| crrrrrrra; before discoygfing mar fund
so well to maintain political and aesthetic borderlines. lf it is to Qrthm laws can in found in 3 third variety Of§p:¢¢h—|'|Ol
endure, the avant-garde must be that which resists historical in written, norinspoken speech, but in innerspeech, where
xtures; it must be that which is constituted not in one project lh= =Tf=¢li" Sllt-'l"\’= f\"{¢li°"$ 5" all "=11 "10" full Md
but across several different and changing positions. Through PW? f0l'm- Bill the formation of this inner sP¢¢¢l\ ii 11""!
this, radical practices might work to dissolve the borders '“§""_"'b!° f'°'" ‘hm "’h"h '5 °"“d“d by ‘"5"’!
erected to contain them and in the process vitiate them beyond ‘h'"l_““5j
-r°r;r,grri;i0rr_' Godard arlemprcd [his erasure and ye; was Eisenstein distinguishes thesyntaxofinnerfromouterspeech:
halted at the height of the interface: he refused the metamor- "H9" Y0" "ilk 'l° )'°"l‘$§"' i_$ 415110}?! "Om '°}" °r Y°\"'
phosis. lnstead, his particular stratagem aimed to de(con)- “'7-"' ill"? 5P"¢h_!h°'P ""P|l°5 "IF |"°°YP°"*"°P and ‘he
struct capitalist mythologies (for destruction is always the internalization of social discourse which, through this process,
-sighp 0f 3 "cw b¢girrrrirrg)_ is subsequently broken Vdown, condensed and abbreviated.
it is beyond this nihilism, however, beyond this destniction Elwmlyinfi °XPl<_>\’i"°" of the i>r1I1=1i>l== Inljmnt gn mn=_r
that,u Paul Ricoeur puts it, “the question is posedas to what speech coincides with the work of the Formalist cntie'Borts
[||qugh|_ mason and eye“ faith Sm] signify)-¢ “/hi]: Godard Eikhenbaum who, in I927, contended that the cinema did not
was mounting his counterattack, other practices in France 5l_"1P|)' °$¢3P¢_lh¢ W15 °f ‘"°|'d5- bl" Paul" °°"5"""_¢d 'h°"'
were attempting to work through this very question. Speci- dl-*P|i°¢""_=|'" "1 Whal h¢ ‘|°°¥ l° R H" Pl'°f3¢55
eally, such ruminations can bedetected in the lms of Jacques
°f
"'"°mi|
5P°°¢h- E'kh°"b"m "“*"""""°d lhaf lh°°"°$ °f m°“m$°
Riven,‘ whose corrrribmions mm an we often subjm ro would have tobeconstntcted to take into account the way in
°ye|'sigh[_ which the viewer ‘reads’ images: “Hemust continually form a
Rivette‘s work reectsinalarge way the renewed interest in chm" er 1m'Ph"*$°5 °Y ¢|5¢ he W1" "°l \""d"5"1"d MY‘
psychoanalysis and the overlapping concerns of feminism and 5|5¢"5!Fi"'$ ¢°°"" I5 1° "1"§f°"" ""5 P|'°°5_5
semiotics. ln this respect it is interesting that Celine and Julie
"‘""B_- °f
Go Boating, made in 1974, coincides with Yvonne Rainer‘s
‘|'=3d"\8'—3 !°_8l¢3| ""3 |°§m°d P'°°¢59_—3"d _"°5"'"¢1"" *5 "
3 5¢'!5"3l i°_"V"Y- Th"§- |"§ “Y '19)’ P\’°J°¢‘ 1° l"d"°¢_3b5"'a¢1
Film about A Women Who, Chantal Akerman's .!e,Tu,lI,EIle 3'14 'd°°|°E"=a1 "3-“°"l"B *5 f°l'f¢"°d "1 Pu"! '5¢"$a"°"'5
lllti-MUIVCY-wOl|El\'SPBIIIIIEIIICG and shares with theseworks Now rm ipecmm.-5 Maia“ mus, nor be rhouam bur
similar preoccupations around questions of language, repres- p,rrrr,,_ -,,;,my- rh, very wrmpr or rrwrruge rs over.
entation and sexual di'erence—concems which are primarily hauled, Since tho work ofan rnusi map the way we create
investigated through narrative modes. Within the avant- felt concepts in life, montage‘: ability to render the

WInter'86 Clr|eAct|onl I5
dynamic flow of images makes it the sovereign formal
principle.“

the Other“ which is “structured like a language." Moreover,
Willemen claims that inner speech is not to be understood as a
Similarly, Artaud, working in France in the early l930s realm of pure subjectivity but ratheras ai1 articulation which is
was attempting to combat the dictatorship of words by posit: ‘lined. Wm‘ lb‘ id°°|°3i_°a|' Yha} i5' $'°‘"!d‘d in the §°da|'
ing a new practice—The Theater of Cruelty: Thus, we nd that this pnnciple, used in accord with mon-
tage, can serve to reveal the foundations of epistemologicall
{Words) . . . by their very nature and dening character, ideological practices: inner speech can reveal the materialist
fixed once and for all. arrest and paralyze thought instead
history of language." At the same time, inner speech can
of permitting it and fostering its development . . . l am
adding another language to the spoken language, and l am disturb this history by positing heterogeneity-—differenoes in
trying to restore to the language ofspeech its old magic, its articulation and emphasis.
essential spellbinding power. for its mysterious possibilitis The concept of inner speech has been used as an analogy for
have been forgotten . . . even the spoken and written understanding the workings of various modes of articulation
ponions (of the new spectacles) will be spoken and written operative in the language of schizophrenics, primitives, child-
in a new sense." ren and in ancient languages." That is, in all modes of dis-
Like Eisenstein, Artaud located this new language not in writ- course which postulate a slippage towards an origin: in the
ten or spoken speech but in a ‘new sense‘ which would not direction of the theater of cnielty. However, this slippage
inhibit thought but allow it to ow freely. towards ‘origin‘ can never be complete as it implies that there
Anaud recognized that in order to produce a change in existsaposition ‘beyond’ the ideological and thereforeoutside
consciousness, language itself had to be uprooted and refor- language.
"\"|3l¢d~ This "9" “"8"-‘lgsi Dl°")’sia" in ¢h"3¢1"- “’°"ld Artaud‘s theatre of cruelty strove for this evasion—the pure
W‘-"k l° sub‘/"1 "13! mmnel“ “hm slB"i¢3li°" i"'|P°s°s unmediatedexperience.Anexperiencewhich then could never
01'4" 0" ¢hi°s~ This P\'°¢°ss is "°l 3 "#8315" i"s¢\'iPll°" be repeated, but which would constitute itself in eternal
dssiled as d¢¢°"s"'"¢‘iV¢ '"°is=-' bu‘ 3" amfmavs i"n=¢‘ change. Butas Derrida points out, hcrein lies its impossibility:
"0" “Fable °rY°"=Wi"B ll" s¢"s¢s1“Wh3lisi'"P°"a"'is "'31- repetition is always a necessary correlative to meaning(mean-
by positive means. the sensitivity is put in a state of deepened ins is oniy posimj ihi-ough i-epemg°n)_ A;-mud_ how:yef' was
"ld k°°"" P"°¢P‘i°"-“R I" ‘his “'aY- Aud ='“'i5i°"s 3 fully awarethat this cnielty was impossible (which makes it all
|3"8"aS° 5" °°"s""" "'°"°"""“- 3 nus "’hi¢h- as Banks the more cruel),'“ yet he insisted on the contradiction; on a
“'°"ld Pl" i‘- is 3|“/3Ys “ahead °'$°|r-"U \'°f"si"S "1? "Pm" representation which could never be constructed outside the
tive instance. ideological but which would nonetheless attempt the
Both Eisenstein and Artaud were striving to formulate a imp°55ib|e_"¢ynj;;3||y and wilh ini-|0¢¢m;¢_" in mi; ami-np;_
new language derived from the Sensual. ln light of this, it is ii would "oi bicak away [i-on-_ bu‘ would pcnqralci ideoiogi.
interestingthat they shareda fascination for dream work, for an smicmi-es through [he gaps and 555";-gs in [hg compkx
the relationship between words and images, and for ‘secret’ s°¢ia| fab,-i¢_
law? or the ‘onsmi which. ihcy. Ml could be msumcd. m We may locate the concept of inner speech as an operative
ancient languages and primitive rituals. lfArtaud was looking imsioii in iiiis paradigm as ii wiicicic moi which imiisiaies
to nd the ‘dark truth of the mind,‘ then Eisenstein WIS ihe impossible (originl) into the possible (language)-
ammpng ‘° uansme in“, m°ma5° Wm“ he saw as ‘hc collapsing the subjective and the objective. This is an opera-
“P'°“?B‘°“'~"“‘i*"P'9'°!~‘°="'°°""8*€""*°"""P“=d"‘= c°n' tion which does not reduce and fix signication to a hyper-
smfcuon on spa“ whmh would work mdependemly [mm ‘he centric closure, but posits new possibilities: the Afrmative
social formation. As opposed to Brecht. who wanted to Gcsium
change mcial smmures ‘hmugh comm‘ p°“n°al acli°n' In contrast to Burger's simplistic conception we must not
Eisenstein and Artaud set out to change social structures by see iaiiguag: and sociai Smimiics as m°'i.i°iiihici aii_
changing consciousness—by releasing it_from the social stric- encompassing sysicms io be combaimi wiih niiiiiisiic 8i.iii,ia_
tures which lead to its domination. Their practices sought to
.
as Ram" . wiiai miisi be cxamimd are iiiose pmciica which
~

angm ahnFwb‘:i)_“i"_‘:,'°"5"°s5_'d_ _ i h id be work as infectious incisions—stretching and penetrating the


...."::.::'..
_P y ::.::.::'".:.
3 5'.::":'::‘.:::;..*:".:'-
5 3 ' , i
W-I
edis the discourse§~~=~~=
designed to accommodate. This of cnielty, the
stein and Artaud were accused of abandoning materialist
_

discourse which cndangeis by iiansioiming meaning by


(polmcal) P"*°."°“ "avor or mysm.:mP' Hqwcvcn I Ymsh ‘,0 increasing its own possibilities, by positing difference.
argue lb.” the" pmmccs and mt pn“c'P|'§ m,h°"m '.“ mfi" Moreover, Barthes may be correct in his assertion that “in
amrmanoi“ can be understood as mmenalm 'mP°“‘“"'°s' inventing a paradoxical (pure of any doxa) discouise: inven-
Paul Willemen, whose work has served to bnng about a lion (and iioi pmvocaiioiii is ii ievoiuiionary aci .- 10 i
renewed interest in the concept of inner speech, observes:
Celine and Julie Go Boating celebrates the occasion of just
. . internal speech (thought) can operate with extreme
. such a resistance. lt is a text. which constntcted along the
forms of abbreviation. condensations, image equivalents principles of inner speech, decomposes and repossesses ety-
or fragments of image equivalents, extraordinary syntag~ mologies. lt is a lm which interrogates representation by
"l-"is disl°"i°"s- ad s0 °~ 1" [ill
I" "W mschlisms
which Freud detected to be at play in dream work can be
perforating those very connes in which it is imprisoned. For
this reason (in order to break loose), it is a lm which manif-
seen at work in intemal speech as well."
ests a rather contradictory mitosis: the Cinema and its Double.
The connection that Willemen makes between inner speech lt is within this doubling that we discern part of the lm's
and dreams is signicant for, as Freud maintained, the dream difculty.
image can be understood as “grounded in folklore, popular Celine andlulie Ga Boating orPhnn1om Ladies 0V‘PlI!'f.l‘ is
myths, legends, linguistic idioms, proverbial wisdom and credited with several signatures. lt is constructed along a
jokes.“ There is not, as Stephen Heath points out, much to complex polyphony of interceptions,(re-)utterances and liter-
distinguish inner speech from the notion of the Unconscious, ary echoes; it isan intricate interpolation of tenses. Juliet Berto
derived from Lacanian psychoanalysis, as “the discourse of and Dominique Labourier developed the Celine and Julie

IO Cine/\ction! Wlnter'66

i_ A I _
story, while Rivette is said to have been largely responsible for is not dominated by one particular logic; a logic which would
the puzzle-like montage of the ction inside the House (which provide the locus for a xed image of an identity, a custody in
is based on two Henry James stories—“The Other House" which Woman as dominated other is (r&)produoed: a phallo-
and “A Romance of Certain Old Clothes"). The dispersion of gocentric epistemology. Through their discourse, Celine and
authorial voices throughout the lm is signicant for these Julie avoid this consignment. They also evade the unifying
elements engage the text in a dialogical process which refuses instance through a series of bicorporeal splinterings.
the nal mediation of one authority. This process implies. in The rst of these bifurcations occurs in the opening scene as
the Barthesian sense, “the birth of the reader." Julie sits on a park bench reading a book of magic. She reads
From the opening titles the lm is split; even the phonetic an incantation aloud and covers her eyes. As she opens her
symbols are marked by this difference. The double-barreled ngers and peeks out, the camera cuts from a medium to a
narrative, however, is a subterfuge of outward simplicity. long shot of her. The cut is so abrupt that at rst we are not
Briey: the lm recounts the adventures of two women (Celine aware that the scene has cut to a shot of the same person.
and Julie), who, having met by chance (magic). take turns Indeed, for a moment we believe that. from Julie's point of
entering a strange old house at 7-bis me Nadir des Pommes. view, we are looking at someone else. This confusion is fun-
This house is peculiar for it is a dwelling plagued by repetition; damental for it is at this moment that the split occurs, and not
a house in which the same story—a story of romance and long after that Celine skirts across the park.
murder—plays itself out, over and over, day after day. Yet it is Thus, it would appear that Celine emerges from Julie as a
a house which is oddly familiar—a house that we have all kind of schizophrenic counterpart. capable of fullling her
visited many times(but perhaps cannot remember): the House repressed desires. For it is Celine who leads Julie away from
of Fiction. her job as librarian—away from the ordering, classifying and
The lm's prismatic quality stems in part fromthe presence ‘xing' of meanings—back to the mystery of words. When
of literalisms, puns and metaphors. which are found in abun- Celine appears at the library where Julie works, she goes
dance, lodged in the crevasses of the text. These agencies serve straight to the children's section (the child's entry into lan-
as secret passages through which the author(s) may slip infor- guage) and begins disrupting the books. She traces her hand
mation (jokes, comments) to the spectator, unbeknownst to with a red marker in one of the books, defacing and deling
the characters in the text. Such devices (present in many of that which is xed. At the same time in another room, Julie
Godard's lms as well) work to highlight the presence of the uses a red stamp pad to make ngermarks on a piece of paper.
author(s) while providing an ‘extra~textual‘ eruptive dimen- Here their telepathic bond is for the rst time clearly
sion to the lm. Moreover, they extend the very notion of articulated.
inner speech to the spectator, who must ‘read’ the lm in The red hand print is a motif which recurs throughout the
order to decipher the messages.“ lm. Such a print materializes on both women after their
The most obvious of these eniptions can be located in the excursions into the House; we see them attempting to wash the
title itself: Celine er Julie Von! en Bureau. ‘Monter en bateau‘ prints off, but it is a difcult process, a difcult spot to get at.
translates as a ruse: ‘to string someone along.‘ This play is Also, Camille. one of the charactersinsidethe House, cuts her
connected to the location of the House at 7-bis me Nadir des hand badly, and a red hand print stains the pillow which has
Pommes: 'bis‘/repeat (a representation); ‘nadir’/lowest point been used to smother a little girl to death inside the House.
(deep); ‘pommes‘/unconscious (in French, the expression lnterestingly, one of the rst photographs produced in I842
‘tomber dans les pommes‘ means to fall unconscious). Thus by William Henry Fox Talbot carried the trace of a hand: the
we detect: representation (cinema) as a kind of deep hypnotic Hand of the Photographer.“ Herein lies the history of photo-
induction: Eve sunk to her ‘nadir‘ in and through representa- graphic representation: the xing of an origin, the production
tion. This is supported by the absence of memory that the ofa copy. And in this trace, the truth of representation: the
women experience after each ‘immersion‘ in the House. lt is Male Hand. The hand which possesses, which produces,
only by sucking on ‘magic candies‘ (which they mysteriously which frames and xes (and distorts) meaning. This dispatch
nd in their mouths after their visits) that the narrative which coincides with Artaud's ‘cruelty‘ which is rst and foremost
they have enacted in the House, is ‘secreted'—re-enacted--in the site of a murder—carried out by the hand that determines
fragmented condensations. Here apin the play is obvious: logos: “ltisconsciousness that gives to the exerci-. oi every act
candy (drug)/classical narrative as pleasurable passier. of life its blood red color, its cruel nuance, since it is under-
The women attempt to 'piece' together these episodes as one stood that life is always someone's death."“ Thus, the hand
would the disjointed elements of a dream. ln this dream (the which leaves its mark—severs the origin—is a violent sion.
House of Fiction)the players‘ mannerisms aretheexaggerated Celine and Julie are branded by this hand; the act is cnrel, a
gestures ofa Victorian melodrama. Their punctiliouis articu- violation. lt is the indexical stamp—the ideological
lations are delivered in monotones. The mise-en-scene is markings-—of a patriarchal society, imposed on the women
highly stylized; images are tightly composed, framed and con- through the agency of the House of Fiction.
tained. The colors inside the house are saturated and heavy, Camille cuts her hand on a glass at the very moment when
creating an atmosphere of suffocation; the bourgeois accou- she is mistaken for the dead sister whom she so closely resem-
trements are carefully ordered, everything in its place. bles. But as she tells the Nurse (Miss Ten'y), she was never as
ln direct contrast to this centripetal depiction, the Celine good as her sister. could never quite ‘live up‘ to her. She can
and Julie scenes are unpolished—rough, disordered and full of wear her sister's clothes but she can never replace her; she will
digressions, centrifugal. Their exchanges seem spontaneous always be only a shadow, a trace. A woman in search of her
and improvised; constructed along the principles of inner identity: a bleeding hand.
speech, these enunciations are lacunae of fragmented senten- The child (the only element that is not ‘xed’ in the House)
ces, muled giggles, riddles which are willfully indirect, pas- is very sick and is nally smothered by this Hand: a hand
tiches of childhood memories, and telepathic imagininp. (ln which sulTocates—freezes-the seeds of growth. But the child
short, the stu' dreams are made of!) Theirs is a ‘semiotic‘ is not sick at all! She is being poisoned by candies (dnrgl
engagement.“ Their words disrupt the symbolic matrix so poison/classical narrative) given to her by her govemess, a
carefully maintained in the House of Fiction. Their discourse woman who manifests a severe psychological aversion to

Winter'86 ClneAction! I7
‘ F
t

>~»~~ " '

i:. 1» in
-
i>,,
L ‘ >25’; V

xi

st ~ saw
Q‘; .

,, Ҥ

.1.‘
Juliet Berto.
0wers(the‘origin' oflife). The father in the House ol'Fietinn contradiction ta principle of inner speech: ‘to address oneself
is, of course, the originator of this violent trace, for it is his as it to another‘), acting both as spectators of. and actors in,
hand that exercises control over the House: the Hand ol'God. the interior ction. As actors, their engagement occurs, for the
Nonetheless, it is this hand which Celine and Julie success- most pan. in the past tense as memory (in representation, the
fully ‘wash ofl‘-erase. ln its place, their hands, their enactment has always already occurred). As spectators, they
representations—as. in the library, Celine goes to the child- embrace the present—a position (sitting together. Timing lh=
ren's books (the origin of Writing) and disgures the text, camera as if it were a screen, predicting the outcome of the
leaving her trace (her hand), and by extension Julie does the plotiwhich mirrors our own. ln this reection—a refraction—
same. Moreover, Celine and Julie protect each other from the the ‘unifying instance‘ of the cinema is undone. However, this
forces of domination by acting as stand-ins for one another. deection does not work to separate, but to include: the
(The doubling is obscured,there is no ‘origin';thus they again hidden spectatorial zone is unsealed from any notion of tex-
refuse the xed identity.) For it is Celine who arrives in Julie's tual unity, and is introduced as another circuit in the specular
place to meet with Julie's ance. It is Celine who ruins Julie's labyrinth. A purely Artaudian construct!
chances for marriage, or rather, who rescues her from an Ariaud criticized the notion of alienation and the Epic
identity constnieted by male desire: the Virgin Bride. Con- theater because it simply attempted to “cast the mind into an
versely, it is.lulie who arrives in Celine‘s place for an audition. attitude distinct from force but addicted to exultation."
It is Julie who ruins Celine‘s chances for an international tour Instead, he attempted to propel the viewer into the centre of
or rather, who rescues her from an identity constructed hy the spectacle where
male desire: the Burlesque Performer—the Whore,
A5 Gerard dc N5“/3| W70“? "I" "HY man "WW i5 3 5pL'Cli!- distance iil vision l\ no longer pure. cannot be abstracted
tor and an actor, the man who speaks and the man who fromiheiiiialiiyn|'ihe sensory milieu;ihe infused specta i
answers."”Similarly, Celine and Julie are compounds ofthis tor can mi longer consiiiuie li'||§ spectacle and pl’ttVtL.|L‘

IO CineAetion! Winter'B6

_ l p _
hiniselfwith its object. There is no spectator or spectacle. tions of possibility. It must be a cinema founded on ambi-
but festival.“ valence and irony. the montage of discourses, mobility of
ln Godard's hands, the device of mirroring subject position
would have been "std m ‘dam Sm. , d dcconsl ‘h idmiiiyiand .°p‘""°Ss“'i‘i“i'y‘ .i“.”"“‘
iiisiai°di°b'
ahysterical cinema.alwaysspeakinglromaplaceii knows
. . y y an ru gc it is not and occupying a place from which it knows it
illusory aspects of the cinematic surface. ln Celine and Julie wmm W, speak»-
tliis device carries with it quite a different effect. lt serves in a
sense to afrm the cinematic surface not as a reection of Arid Yfii ii dim 5P°iiii-Tiiis is iii” Pi“'iid°’i °iiii"3ii‘i$°3 ‘”iiii_°
Rainy‘ but asa dmercn, form orrca|i,y_ H is. like me wnccp, Eisenstein and Artaud were never fully able to realize their
of inner speech, ‘lined' with the ideological (House) which it different projects because they could never quite locate the
breaks down and transforms mm 3 new diswurm ‘origin,' Rivette avoids this impasse and simply invents a
Celine and Julie asks us to confront a dilTerent system; it ‘iiiii5i°" This ii“'F“ii°" is ii iiispiiiy °i iii“ imii§i"iii'y- °f ii”
invites us to delight in the pleasures of the mystery. to partake powers of the imagination: to imagine dillerence, and
_

in a ‘festival‘ which leaves us free to wonder, to wander, to di""°iiiiY-


come and go, to get caught up. to imagine, to read the lm as F? as M:i’:;E8¢r$:=ed. whaiiffereniiates “l|1¢r\r|Ol'Sl archi-
one wouldadream. And likeadream, time is suspended—the
mm exmnds ilsdrov, 3% houm I, simply ignores (ucynically
ieci mm i i ° C? ii" i ‘ ii°i‘_5ii'"cii‘_’ii °_ ‘i C‘ 5) is
°_
that the architect erects his structure in imagination before he
and with innocence“) the standard 90 minutes dictated by the erects it in reality. lt is by means of this conceptual distinc-
animus, sysmmv which companmcmalizcs pwduclion and tion that Marx accounts for change. lt is also as a result of this
consumption into carefully ordered time slots. This altema- °°i“Pi°’i (“mi 5°m'ii"i°s ieiiiiiiivcl Piiiiicuiaiiiy iiiai “'° may
tion,
-
however. does not oppose pleasure to work.. the duration - at least ho P" for ‘heterology.‘ Like Miss Terry, the mystery of
of the lm is not a tedious device aimed at self-reexivity but
simpb, emphasizes ‘ha, mm is of no mnsequcncc in this
‘iii°"_°i iii5i°i7—i5 iiiiii ii is iiiii"')‘iiia"3"ii’i°' The
‘magic‘ enables Celine and Julie to walk into the past and
w°,.|d_ rearrange it; to unfreeze that which is imprisoned within the
And in this world, Celine and Julie realize that an interven- H°_i'is° iii“
Ciiiidli iii P°_5ii 3 "iii" °i"5i" iC°ii"' iiisicad °i
Julie) and to start again, like a stream offragmented thoughts
tion is in order: they decide to rescue the child who is being
repeatedly poisoned and suffocated. To do this, they must which ieiiise ii"'°si-
break up the oppressive order inside the House. Thus, the
schizophrenic counterparts come together in the role of the NOTES
Nurse: the Nurse who heals the bleeding hand (in search ofan
identity) and who embodies the contradiction—Ce|ine and l. F.W. Nietzsche, The Will Tu Power, ed. andtrans. Walter Kauf-
Julie as spectators/Celine and Julie as actors playing a role. "'""~ V""=B¢ i3\X>k>- |%3- P< 3-
The contradiction she inhabits of inner speech. As Artaud
writes: “This word ‘doi.ible‘ also refers to the great magical 2‘ ii"‘i' P‘ 9'
factor, the fonns of theatre are no more than a guration of it
. . ,,. . ‘ 3. Peter Burger, Tlienry oflhe Avon!-(iarde, trans. Michael Shaw.
’ And yet, M155
. .
waiting for it to become the transguration.
University of Minnesota Press. l934.5eeJoChenScl1ulte-Sasse's
Terry extsts—not in being but in becoming, as a repreSertta- forcwmd fur 3 discussion of mi; aspect
tion which is unstable. She is perhaps the real mystery
embedded in the ction. 4. Paul Ricoeut. Fnwil aml PliiIa.ra/Jlty. trans. Denis Savage, Yale
Celine and Julie's presence in the House instigates its dete~ University Press. I970, p. 33.
notation. Like an old lm that has played too often, the
inhabilams Ohe House (Wm, their grey faces and ‘heir ml-pid 5. ln comparing their projects. I do not wish to ignore the specic-
gestures) become entangled in the reels of their own discordant iiy i"i“""i ii‘ ii‘°i' ‘iiii°i""i "id°ii"°“‘
projections}. wmzhlhlzl cms'°?'Fii‘:.Chi|d is wrm£he is
seed sown rom e ouse o ie ion, transp ant into t e
ii: 6. Sergei Eisenstein, Film Form and lhe Film Sense, The World
Publishing Comparm |%x_ p_ mi
new ction; a metamorphosis free to change and to grow (and
to go boating!)—and to create new ctions. 7_ ii-,id_ pp_ 15().5|_
The authoi(s) are careful, however, not to let this reconcilia-
tion get too carried away, to mistake itself for something it is 8. lbid, p. I05.
not; after all, this is a lm destined to repeat itself: but to repeat
i|se|fdi|fc|-enliywepcndingon who is wmchin8)_ Andsmonu 9. Boris Eikhenbaum, "Problems in Film Stylistits." Screen, Vol.
more the doubling—the textual re-fracture: we begin again, I5. No. 4. I974-75, p. U-I4.

mi‘ with ii sushi shin .in.cmpiia§is‘ 3 dieeniiai ""15" a l0. Quoted in: David Bordwell, “Eisenstein's Epistemological
minute twist, a contradiction—it is now Celine who appears Shin .. 5-"ml VOL I5 Na 4 |974_75 M
sitting on a park bench.
It is this whtradictivh and this confusion which at: the ii. Antonin Arlaud. The Theatre uniiIl_r Double. trans. Mary Caro-
necessary challenges to an imminent pathology; the very terms line Richards, Grove Press, I958, p. ll t.
of the debate are always already inhabited by the Symbolic
order: the Law of the Father. These challenges, the effects of 12- lbii P- 9|-
the double, operate the fnistration of this Order by disorient-
ing it, tuming it upside down, and redene the limits of its ii‘ h
i;ii°“:i’:,§‘;‘:_ai|?'aSi:r:;s Pl Pi T$:iii"'i’< R '° hard
|‘{7g"p‘
reason. But, as Peter Wollen cautions,

. . . any redenition can only be partial and unstable, any i4~ in "Ei5¢"5i¢i"'§ EPi5l="1°i°8i¢3i shill“ (0P~Cil~). David B0"!-
denition compliciious and fetishistic to a certain degree. ‘"11 5"B!=§l§ ii“! Ei§¢"5"i"'5 Pl'=°'=¢"Pilli°" Will‘ 5'1""
Hence a cinema that sets out to investigate sexual differ- §P¢=¢h—\'/hillh §i8"=i|¢d I mum "1 "W 5"i’l=¢i—¢°'\5li|"l¢4 I
I
gnu is mush; in diigmma, tr mu“ Qyghfgw an Q,-5". 3 break away from his earlier materialist formulations of intellec-
5y5[¢f|| or |'gpfg§¢n[;[iQ|'|§' rim Sign pmvid gr; own wndi. tual montage. Bordwell attributes this shift to the political oon-

Winter ‘B6 ClneActionl IO


..»

-gs ~. '15’ 5"‘ K ‘7‘*‘


i.
ti.‘ wt r
t,3.5,-‘..
.v

>~ *


bu“
V
'-
V’
_z
2
""
.

~.
iii-n--+
~.
o'~
~
ii
.
&4
\ ,

The two Miss-Terries.

text of the early l9Jl)> in Russia, that is, to the abolition of the works with the images. The use of lhest: elements, its in Etscn~
tnatertaltst cinema and the new-found allegiance to Socialist stein. serves to createund disrupt meanings.(F0r example. there
Realism. However. (iregtiry Lllmer in .-lp/ilteil limmmalulngy is oneinstance in whichlulie uddrcswx Cclineas“Monsieur"—a
(The Johns “t)pkIl'I\ l Ini\'ersit_v Press. I985, p. Z88) argues that negative inversion which posits another possibility: Celine is a
the shift does not lIT1Pl)‘L\l’l abandonment of his earlier formula- man?)
ttons hut can be seen iii fact as an extension ofthose theoretical
L'Xpt!YlITIt7l.\. lllnier p0l|'1l\ out that Eisenstein‘; dissatisfaction Z2. .luhti Kristen analyzes the process of meaning production
with the ‘tittellectual cinema‘ came with the poor reception through language; .»he Lt>!iOCitllt:.\ the ‘unifying instance‘ in
accorded l)l‘ID'lt‘f. l\1oreoi'er, this shift in empha.\t> occurred latiguage—-thv:dnminanee ofthe‘symbnlie‘over|he'scmiotic‘—
prior to I930, with the dominance and perpetuation of patriarchal systems.
See her "Signifying Practice and Mode of Production." Edin-
IS. Paul Willeiiieii. “Cineiri;tlic Dtscourse—The Problem of lnner hitrglt IU‘6 iiiuyasmt-, l97(i_ p. MIT.
Speech." Stsrcun. Vol. Z2, No. 1, l9Hl_ p. 6|.

16. ("I1 Stephen Heath, Ql4l‘\Il!L\ q!'('im'Ina. lndiana Uni\'ersit_v


,
-3. |‘Ufl|lU§lI'illlt)I\.hCtJ(iill|BUtZkli]d.I‘i!.Y Talbtitandlhelnwnlion
t

Press. IQKU. p. ZU-1. U[PhUIIl_l,‘!'II[!/It.BUtIkl1|I‘|dlOUklhl\ early calotype to a palmist in


order to uncover the hidden perwnailtty trails behind the hand of
I7. (T. Ihid, p. Z4]. the photographer.

Ill. Ulmcr, Op. L'it._ p. Z91. 24. .-\rtaud. Op cit.. p, ll)Z.

I9. Jacques Derrida, l4'nItng aml I)://twnre, trans. Alan Bass. The 25. Quoted in 'l zvetait 'l‘iidurov_ The Fanm.inr: .4 Slmctuml
University of Chicago Press, 1978. p. 247. Appruurli In n L|I£'!ll!_I‘ (i't'Im-_ Cornell University Press, I980. p.
l lb.
Z0. Barthes, Sadr. Fuurivr, I.II_\'UI|1. trans. Richard Miller. Hill and
Wang. i976. p. I26. Z6. Quoted in Derrida. Op. ('it.. p. 244.

Zl. There similarity here with Eisenstetn‘s project that would


is a Z7. Artaud, Op. Cit.. p. 16.
merit lutlier investigation. Rivette‘s work. like Eisenstein'.\. is
‘highly written‘—to be explored further might be the presence of Z8. Peter Wollen, “Counter-Cinema and Sexual Difference," Di/1
puns and metaphors, as well as the way Celine and Julie's fen'nct'.' (In Rt-prvsmlnlturi um! SA’\'llIl'Iv\'. New Museum nl' Con-
dialogue (monologue) IS structured into the text, and how this temporary Art 1955. p. J9.

90 CtnaAction! Winter '86


Capital at Play:
Form in Popular Film
ig/'i/iv 'I7iinIA'i'nil,£.T.—or hysuch series
by Scott Foray", as Siipi-rriiun, Roi‘/<_i'. or the Rambo
racy,‘ special effects): extensive promo-
Want to go to the M°vies9 tioiial campaigns which highlight these
lms. There is a temptation to sec this as cliaracteristics and all aspects ol' the pro<
a distinctive development; the producer
E ALL KNOW WHl-IRl; WE ductiontstar searches_scandals,even the
Robert Evans (Thu (mil/iillivr, ("anon sets themselves); elaborate advertising
go when we go to the m0\‘ies, ('Iuh) remarked recently that he was a
dun't and distribution strategies. Front con-
we'.’ However, faiiiiliar practitioner in the !|('\\'(')'I art l'orm—tlie
the phrase is, its implications are dil'-
as
ception, ti blockbuster is organized to be
blockbuster. Clearly. this isn't quite true. a hit.
c ulttospecil'y—a conuence ofa place,a
lndeed, Hollywood's typical form, the Most ol‘ the lms I've mentioned are
li ne-up, a crowd, a particular expendi- feature lm,wa.s at inceptiona blockbus-
turc oi‘ time and inoney, certain foods, major liits, with considerable fan dedica-
ter. lt liiitl to win its dominance over tion, even niultiple viewing. The apex of
‘expected‘ images, stories. pleasures, a shorter forms (cartoons, serials, two-
screcn and darkness lled by light. lt is this organization is obviouslya success-
reelers) and conipeling entertaininents ful exchange: fans, their expectations
O ur ‘choice.’ hut deeply organized:
and [vaudeville]. liven after the subsequent nely prepared, approve of the fulll-
we go to a singular movie (our purchase straticiiiion of feature production into mgnl of thus’; CXpCC[a[ion§_ Bum wito.
P rovesihat,docsii't it'.’]witharin sense hierarchtesol ‘quaIit_\"and genre, Holl)'-
0 l'plurality—the M()\'|l_-‘S. quial and critical opinion may dismiss
wood has been identied witli hlockbus- that fnlllmcni 35 "jug; ¢ni¢nainm,_-M‘;
One of the obvious characteristics of ters for 81) years: the lms oi‘ Grillitlt.
Hollywood in the last decade has been but ears tuned to the psychoanalytic will
DeMille‘.\ Biblical epics, (iune ll'il/i it’ recognize the presence of something
the string ofmega-hits—hlockbusters— ll'iml, wide-screen spectaculars oi’ the
with their continually rising ‘record' nit)“; in that qvagjvc -jug,’ Bgcaugg of
'50s, the ‘disaster' cycle of the ‘7()s. We gqurgg [hm-¢ is Wmcihjng mom The
grosses. They seeni to be emblematic of could also describe a relatively slahle set
‘going to the moiies.‘ Though relatively blockbuster promises an excess ofemq-_
of characteristics associated with such i;;inm¢n|_ that |h¢ gum 91'“, pm-(5 will be
small in number, the bloekiisters stand filins: ‘unprecetlentcd‘ budgets and
out: it is common to dene i;ontempor- aspeclclc distinct {mm allglhcf mgyigg
major stars (actors, directors and pro- or "‘|;fd|a‘Q[]f muvjeihui can Smndj nfor
aW Hollywood bythelmsollucasand ducersl: eniphasis on production \'llilll‘ ..ii IL‘. ...t...;_t ,\_ he
S i “ ‘V i
-

il

G rem/ins: star/monster/comedian. bad teen/movie spectator/toy/marketing symbol—the


culation of the aesthetic commodity. heterogeneous cir-

wgmei-'56 CineAction! Bl
F‘

i
the rhetories of entertaiment and busi-
ness are entwined: we understand the
lm as a capital investment because fail-
ure is as crucial to the rhetoric as success. i
The lm is presented as a gamble despite
its elaborate organization: the tautology
that a hit is a hit because it's announced
as a hit doesn't always work. The rhe-
toric can switch easily from genius to
hubris, glamor to waste: disastrous
scandal and failure haunt the lineage
(Intolerance, Cleopatra, Hello Dolly.
Heaven‘: Gate, I94], Dune, etc.) Super-
eially, this foregrounds the audience as a
market, with a kind of visceral power.
More importantly, it places the kind of
spectacle offered as specically ‘mass’:
the word ‘blockbuster‘ implies the pro-
duction of a spectacle and thronging
crowds; it inscribes an experience which
is collective, within lm's lineage in l9th
century theatricality—it is the mass bution. exhibition and consumption "We ain't afraid of no . .

medium Vicwcdina i'I1H5§- Tits P0inl¢-‘Iii threatened by the decline of the classic
becmphasilcd by contrasting ih i>itt¢\’- studio system, the anti-trust loss of thea- H()STBL‘S TERS. RlGHT
ing, cheering audience of a blockbuster ire chains, the threat ofaudicnce loss to from its exemplary rhyme. is
with the Silent r€V¢r¢nC¢ Ofth '3i'l' lilin other tncdia. (()ne oftlie intentions ofan clearly a blockbuster: big stars,
audiencci thc lurrner litcralilcs lhc 'di- ‘excess’ of spectacle is to indicate ‘no! big budget. the most successful comedy
logue‘ of lm and spectator. empl'iasiz- television?) Amidst declining produc- ever lmed. However, as soon as we try
ins wllectivityc the lattr inlnlillls tion and audiences. massive commit- to document the experience of spectacle,
thatdialoittieintosoliiary C0ntEi'nPi3li°i\ mcnt to these few films can reverse this lm seems rapidly to disperse all
and the crowd disappearszlhe musi hail attendance gures for ll whole year over the place. l may have heard the hit
vs. the church or library, with their (obviously locking the theatre chains to song on radio or seen the music video on
attendant class and generational the producers). or destroy ti studio. ln a ‘tv prior to the Film. I saw the ad logo in
distinctions. sense, blockbuster production since the newspapers and on billboards before
ln effect, blockbusters, though small '50s has allowed a re-constitution ofthe knowing the title ofthe lm. l see video
in proportion of total production, have studio systemteven ifonly forone lm at games, T-shirts, toys based on the lm.
always btn the paradigm ill ¢’.\'!I‘P"IiI Oi ti time): this is the clear ambition of the Gag lines from the lm enterthe popular
Hollywood production. all iii‘ Whitih keyauteur/producers—Lucas. Spicl- idiom, as with any successful ad cam-
convolutes the commercial and the aes- berg, Coppola. paign or 'l‘\' sitcom. 'llie lm as com-
thetic, and places the collective of the lhc blockbuster is llollvivood de|i- modity apparently fragments into and
audience in an apparently privileged antly announcing its mass spectaclel across \‘|'|Ul1_\ niedia and diverse enter-
foreground. Even the generic features of commodity.apparentlyunitaryand con- lglinmcnl intiustriec I "my ¢v¢n have
blockbusters tend to operate like other sumable. Blockbusters seem very much seen the lm on videocassette. directly
g¢Iil'¢ lilinii I0 Om" 3 C0mPf¢h¢n5i\'¢ like other such spectacles as rock con- contradictingthcimportanceofthe spec-
'W°i’id' ("5"a"Y in 3" "‘P“cl‘lY Ul°Pii1" certs or sports contests: the crowd as taeular and the collective. or indicating
Sense) With rules and Ciinvifiii ii~‘\IiJE- collective is emphastted \\ith a place for perhaps that our comprehension of the
nizable to fans/Connoisseurs At the spontaneous enthusiasm and ritualized spectacle is so over-determined that its
same time. the blockbuster needs cross- participation; readily comprehensible consumption can be rhetorical rather
generic appeal and tends to combine and linear narratives (though all requir- than literal.
genres—the romance With ths‘ Will‘ lilm. ing prior knowledge and ranging up to .-\t one level. this diversified commod- i

family meldfm With lani5)'. §iIi¢i'iCs‘ the density of the Slur ll'ar.i' plots or the ity organization reflects the state of cor-
ction With private eye or Wlm ui’ fairy combination of rules. statistics and ‘live' poratt: congloiiieratiun across the media
1319 (R?d-T- 15- T». B/Ed? Rll. $10! options which make sports so much a and entertainment industries. ldeally,
Wars). Nonetheless. ifthe appeal ofsuch connoisseur's pleasure—ncat|y illustrat- the huge Corporations behind bl0CklJuSl-
alm is rst to thl $1-ihiirsntie 0|’ integrity ing the tendency for media narrative to ers want a horizontal integration to
Ol'il5 ‘W0rld.' thc bl0<Il<bu5l¢r inClu€l¢§ it collapse the distinction between dramat- match the vertical integration of the stu-
Cons/CiOu5 ¢tPhuSi$ On thtl '6!!!‘-‘I-lilmi¢' ization and documentation. 'real' and dio model: revenues from soundtrack.
for our appreciation of that world: in a ‘staged'); structures of successive tab- video games. toys. vidcocassettes can all
W3Y- hilxiltbuitlfi ¢°i\5litl"¢ 3 genre leaux. mise-en-scene ofconsiderable vis- be confidently projected. The lm is only
unto themselves. ual complexity,‘ narrative and mise-en- part ofa constellation of marketing and
SONIC Of lhr apparnt Pl'0mii1¢ii¢¢ Oi scene generating both fulfilled ex- products with an intensied capacity for
recent blockbusters Can bs trailvd in the pcctatiun and surprise. exploitation. The point is illustrated
Overall C0nditi0nS Of Hollywood Pf0- Perhaps because ofthcir ‘obviousncss' neatly in (iliaslbuxu-rs in a rapidly edited
du¢li0n- Bl0Cl<i>ll5l¢i'§ lll=mPl I0 l‘¢¢3P- such spectacles aredismisscd but l would‘ sequence to the title song which we rec-
"I" 50"" °ilh¢ l'=iil>i|iiY °i ¢°h=§iv¢ like to bracket our evaluative and pres- ognize as a video (i.e. separable from the
il'lt¢§tati0n im0n8$l P\‘0dllCli0i'i- di5ll'i- criptive reflexes and look more closely. lm). and which turns out to be an

II C|neActlon! Winter'86 i
advertisement for the ghostbusters com- even a violation (this is especially the great!" Usually we hail them in a way
pany in the middle of a news repon promotional rhetoric ofsiiialler-hiidget that combines the main ideologies of
about them; their logo is the logo we social realist lms). illtlL'L'Ll, the special dominant liti practice-—the tcleologies
recognize from the lm's advertise- effects sequence docs .\'/up the lm. it of ‘realisiii‘ and technological rene-
ments. Marketing and ‘art' intersect and marks a qualitatite change in the lm ment: image plus color plus Dolby plus
cross media: we're used to lms about and its reception. a inoment ue can iso» wide-screen plus blood-bags equals
lms, and at this point Ghoxlhuxlers late as having exactly the location and "those ghts were really realistic!" ‘lhe
seems to be a lm about its own status of the 'nunibcr‘ in ti musical language is like a grade for the produc-
promotion. which, of course, has been critically tion of effect—realistic artifice; we're
This eommutlification within the remarked as a disturhance in classical happy to believe aritldis-believe hecatise
commodity may be intensifying in Hol- narrative—as they say ui iiiusicals. a the parameters of ‘illusion' and ‘real’
lywood lms although it may not be ‘show-stopper.’ Blockbusters are more have both been constructed helore us.
their most signicant feature. GhasIbu.r- and more structured like musicals: repet- lndeed, if the narrative is ‘stopped,‘
lers is organized as a chain of special itivc monstrous murders or transl'oriiia- such a moment lets us consider litiic
effects sequences, each an increasingly tions,carchases,battle sequences.gli|s. production as just the ‘application’ of
impressive display of lighting, explo- even musical numbers are organized technology; ‘|abor' is effaced or returns
sives, animation, make-up, which along the narrative chain, all requiring styliled as the sweaty play of dancing
represent ghostly and monstrous trans- particular choreography andtecliniques. and ghting actors or the interest in the
fonnation and destruction. ln between, Different generic genealogies could 'craft' of special effects ‘Lg. the promo—
the narrative progression is deliberately, probably be traced: for \vesterns and tional documentaries on 'tlie making of
jokingly irrelevant, almost time-lling, gangster lms, the slo\\-motion and . . fmany recent blockbusters). Finally,

andthough wecan seethatfamiliaranx- blood-bags of Bminiv and ('I_i'tle, 'I7it- if our preparation through promotion
ieties about female sexuality or nuclear Wild Bunch or The (ioutl. The Hm/. um! has been typical. we further equate the
apocalypse generate the pyrotechnics, it 77re Ugly mark an intensicatioii ofsucli intensication with the intensication of
is evident that the sequences are also astruclure;horrorlms endlessly repeat capital investment. Considering how
generated for their own sakes. Marion Crane‘s shower; kung-l'u and special effects deploys so much of the
‘Spccialeffects‘isone ofthoseintrigu- revenge lms work variations. Notwith- unique expressive potential of lm, its
ing phrases in lm language that seems standing genre dierences or uicreas- ‘url,' our responses tend to evade the
to express an ambivalence about the ingly violent representation, such artistic. Thus, while such sequences fol-
ideologies ofrepresentation and produt:- sequences take on the elahorate conihi- low traditional aesthetic injunctions to
tion in dominant lm. It is a crude ver- nation of playfulness, art and distance astonish or delight, even colloquial
sion of those endeavors to dene lm we associate with the miiscial nuinber_ responses show a certain ‘embodimeiit'
ontologically, like versions of lm his~ (Somehow it makes me feel better to of key bourgeois ideologies: magical
tory which place Lumiere and Mélies as think that Rambo is bLlSlL"ll|i) a musical.) production, capital as free-oating
‘eSsences' rather than as practices; it To signal the intensication that such money,invisible relations ofproduction.
impliesa regular or natural lm process sequences bring for us in the audience, From this angle, the special effects
from which the special effects are we lift them out of the ltii: "the movie number can stand as a paradigmatic
marked off, of which they are perhaps was OK but the special effects were 'product' ofcontemporary capitalism:a

4!
e, 7

‘t

Murray and Ackroyd in Ghostbuslers: stars as ironic spectators

Winter'86 CineActionl O3
i

spectacular entwining of images and thetrpleasure, their collectivity), but they Eventually a cult depends on such a pro-
technology for a notably ephemeral also inscribe the audience in the lm in cess embodying ‘going to the movies.’
mass consumption. some important ways. lico implies that cult lms have now I

Similarly. psychoanalytic criticism has We're used to thinking of many mod- moved into the mainstreamil less pejora-
emphasized the overlapping ofthe fetish- ern Hollywood directors as self- lively, l would say that various kinds of
istic and voyeuristic in lm spectator— conscious in their knowledge ofprevious parody (and perhaps pastiche)
Shlptsuch sequences, however. indicatea lms and styles, in their presentation of dominate.‘
pre-eminence of fetishism. which is i:hat- their own product, their own style. We We understand the operation of par-
acterized in psychoanalysis as simul- may make authorialdistinctions withina ody in (”ll)Ilb|l.S'|l'!_\ primarily through
taneous belief and repudiation. The sort ofhierarchy ofseriousness: Scorsese characterization, especially Bill Mur-
image's technological ingenuity and viS- and Altman ‘deconstruct’ genres or ray's. Despite the llamboyance of the
ual complexity suggest the plenitude for make ‘art' lms: DePalma “imitates” lm's special effects, virtually all such
which the 'object' must stand in. Indeed. Hitchcock; Lucas or Spielberg invoke moments are deflected (deated) by an
the typical ’eXplo$i\'eness’ of the every cartoon or serial they've ever seen. ironic comment or gesture. Murray uses
sequence (il l"E1\"ll¢d/'iiin"a!tez'. purl’ etc. Nonetheless, they all re-work pre- his TV comic persona to look askance at
Barthes?) suggests a broader utopian vious works into more or less integrated the genreand its production,and directly
dimension in the resolving or evading of new works. In a way, this is Hollywood's addressed (from ‘outside’ his lm char-
narrative dilemmas: in the over-lling of nostalgia for itself; that pervasive ideo- acter). the audience collectively become
the screen and our Senses: in the way logical operation which digests History ironic spectators.Thetypiealconception
‘spectacular' products carry our desires; as pre-text for a perpetual present— ofidentication,characterand narrative
in the ‘transformations’ enacted or perhaps the media's most puliliral, if is disrupted in favor ofa kind ofllattery
implied. indeterminate, ‘effect.’ Hollywood Qt‘ the audience. This is, in a sense, com-

50. the blockbuster seems to he tlis- recaptures its past which. of course. plementary to the special effects which
P¢\’§i"8 ""0 wmmdilis and across ‘invented‘ going to the movies. with the clearly encourage a self-referential dis-
media: even at its most cinematically audience's knowledge of the inter- lance from their production and
impressive, it fragments what we have relationship ofa movie with the repeti- consumption.
understood as dominant narrative. lions and variations, in and between Frcqucnlly wt: undgrgtand the “Se of
Before itdisanpearsintotlieimage-sated genres,ofaII movies. ln other words,an pat-tidy ;_|Q|’|_)§§ lm; and mgdia at lhg
‘everyday’ of‘consumer capitalism,‘ enormous emphasis is placed on level Qfintention as simply inuence (as
there are a few other formal features of audience interpretation despite the sense in various laments about the pernicious
contemporary lm worth noting. of recuperation that nostalgia also i|‘|[|qng_'¢ nft¢l¢\‘i§ii,i-i)i;i- quotation and
lsn-( anyone serious anymore? carries. /i_unmiu_tw. However. many lms make
Umbsv >0m¢Wl1ill>l"\-
1:60 m1\l<'l$ little sense unless we are aware of the
WANT T0 MAKE TWO FINAL ilar point in arguing that_‘cult' classics gynttiesis of “texts” taking place. For
P°"">i ‘hill ll" bl0*1kh"$l¢l'§>l=l"'-l depend on the ‘detachabiliiy’ 0| parts ol instance, the hit musical Purple Rain is a
m°5l H°")'W""ll Pluduclmns) lhc mm_dl“l“gl1¢. Sl1ll'l\lm$- f'~‘P¢!ill\"~‘ chain of musical numbers which are det-
¢mP|0.Y "W 1"!"-l'=Xlul °P°""'°"_ “"~‘ genre c0nventions—which can then cir- achable as videos, but ifwe don't watch
call parody. and that they not only tore- Qulalc amongst the audience as indica- the rest ofthe lm narrative as essentially
ground ilUdl¢n<I¢5 Uh?" Pl’0d\1¢ll0l‘I. tors of connoisseur comprehension. an L-xtqndcd video we will probably mis-

Weaver and Moranis in Ghostbusrars: ridiculed sexuality as a post-climax deflation of the special effects
sequence.
I

D4 CineAction! Winter ‘B6 ‘

.L
recognize the extreme stylization of the of the paradigm Patriarchy/repres-
melodrama, an acting style dominated
sion ""Pll°“- f'a5m¢""all°"- and °°m'
sion/dangerous sexuality. Gr:-mlin.t "i0dill¢1lli°"- Looking alm°§l as fal’
by poses and gestures, dialogue which is integrates the pleasures of the blockbus- lJu¢l<- WC Ca" 5" lhal lm has always
in effect spoken lyrics and which defers ter with a parody of media representa-
to visual imagery. Similarly, we need to bl?!" afliilulalakl in ill" "lids! °f °ll1¢l’
lion and an invocation ofthe unleashed m¢dia- Olhcf amuiemcnlil ha$ alWB)'5
‘know’ the Keystone Kops, the Road- hcdonism of the consumer society: not
ntnneranda TVshow to watch Thelilues lend“-l 1° °FBa"ll° a Chal" °f 5P¢¢la'
surprisingly, it counts amongst the Th?"
Brothers, Disney cartoons to watch E. I,
all of television ‘culture’ for Pe¢*Wt'e'_r
mega-hits of the '80s.
¢l¢5~ l5 a lam-l'="C)' lo P°“5¢l"° a
re\/i¢W Of tl'l¢ <Iul‘ll9l'l1P0tal’)’ l‘l10m=l‘ll a5
lt should also be possible to differen- a periodization rather than as part ofa
BigAdventure.'the tendency is forparody tiate amongst parodies. For instance, process (every moment is trivially his-
to synthesize across the media. both Stallone and Schwarzenegger, as toricized in media rhetoric; constantly a
A brief comparison between two stars and characters,embodyanextreme new phase, trend, movement or more
r€C¢m5tn8ll-t0Wn h0IT0rlm$. Gremlins assemblage of ‘masculine’ ideology and grandly, part of a new order—post-
and Glmsl Slory, indicates how parody imagery; some of their lms specically industrial, post-feminist, etc.) but per-
d°"'l"al°5 ¢°"l'""P°faYY Hollywood incorporate favored Reaganite themes haps there are some points about con-
ftlmmaking. Gltnsl Story. in its promo- (although who is parodying whom temporary politics and aesthetics which
tion. invoked a sense of Hollywood lra- becomes ratheramoot point). However, can be drawn from the formal issues
t‘lili0n- ind. in "105! Wa)l5- fulflllad "la! only Schwarzenegger has had the I've described.
9XP°¢lall°"~ ll lalws 5"l°"5l)’ ll"? m=la' drollery to follow the logic ofthe ‘mascu- ln the first part of this article
phoric implications Ol small-town h0r- line’ and play a monster in The Termina- (Cine/1m'an! #12) l discussed some lim-
tor. The t0Wn i5 reprtfienl-l in rCliSl lar, which has some of the exhilarating
£1
itations of ideological criticism, citing
m0d= and normalcy i5 lli5lI0V¢red I0 he destructiveness of Gremlins. Robin Wood's interesting use of psy-
biS¢d On murderuu Seliftii Pulriurh)’ Of course, parody doesn't have to choanalytic feminism. Certainly, the
f¢Pl'°55¢5 flmala sexuality and PF0du¢f-'5 involve wit. Teen series like llallawaen, Marxist tradition l write within and
the monster which threatens it. The Friday the Ijllt, !’ark_t"s, Animal Hausa come out of has been famous for its
m°"5"°"5 aPP°aYa"¢¢5 a"? 4l¢§i3n¢d I0 function like ‘B’ blockbusters in the tendency to reduce art to the ideologi-
§h0Cl< ndimulymmbiguously.ageneru- organization and inscription of their cal text. The formal propensity to dis-
tiV¢50urCe in theniuni Ofth ‘n0rI'nul' audiences and in their display of repeti- perse the lm ‘experience’ across com-
characters. Clearly, this isa ‘progressive’ tive murders or pranks. They are some- modities and media, and to organize it
lm in its critique of Patriarehyzjust 85 thing like cumulative parodies: as around ‘autonomous’ spectacles exac-
clearly. our identieulion With5urViv- sequels multiply, an initial self- erbates one of the problems of any
ingeharueleralluwsaltindufbiululion consciousness ofmovie style (familiarity ideological criticism: it is increasingly
from the critique. An interesting and with Hitchcock,silentcomedy,the Three diflicult to comprehend concretely an
intelligent lm Which "upped Stooges, etc.) is subsumed within an exact ideological effect of a cultural
Gremlin! ts the model Ofblveltbusler increasingly obvious ‘quotation’ of the product if its experience and form dis-
lhivediitluiiet-li ll iS organized urnuntlu previous film(s) and the audience's perse, multiply and invite various kinds
"Tl" °l lmPl'°§$i\/C §P¢¢ial ¢ff¢ClS expected response. of self-conscious reection and appro-
sequences; its heroes are its monsters and The crowd has always been present in priation on the parts of its consumers.‘
are the main ancillary Pr0duCt- The blockbusters: as milling extras, as the Much criticism of lm's ideological
generic fealurui Of 5Inull~l0Wn tn¢l0- dead on battleelds; repetitively in the construction of the subject rests on an
drama are lake" as 5"bl°¢l5 f°l' Parody: teenage collective heroes of many recent equation of the mechanics of cultural
Western tobein H Ver$iOn Ofa Disneyor films. The resonance between this forms with psychic economy. Not only
Capfa 5l‘l‘lall'i°Wn a"d Suddml)’ W9 ale inscription and parody is to impan an do blockbusters make the workings of
watching characters watching ll’: A clement of activity to the collective these mechanics part ofthe show, they
Wonderful Life on TV—the ‘Capra- whose ‘knowledge’ suggestively produ- seem to encapsulate the kind of social
=Squ=' i5 l‘¢n10d¢ll¢Cl and nightmarishly ces the spectacle, within the apparent pleasure lm can still produce and
disrupted with considerable glee. This passivity of consumption. which a ‘psychology’ can only partly
may imply that any invocation ofsmall- comprehend.
town America makes no sense in con-
Neither spectacle nor social pleasure
temporary terms,orit may meanthatthe Watching CHPIQBIIBI11, has an inherent politics, though it
inter-textuality doubles back on itself as Looking for History seems to me that radical criticism must
continual media surface, refusing the have an extraordinary interest in the
metaphor Gltasl Smry, with its classic BVl0U5l-Y. BY UTlLlZlNG kinds of collectivity they reinforce and
generic self-consciousness, pursues. For the bull-Wvrds Of modernist discover.‘ A properly Marxist concern
Gremlins, beneath the comic banality of Pfaillcl and Cfili¢iSm—in!=t- with form would be such becauseform
the normal is just the comic banality of "!Xl"alil)' and self-r=f=remiality—l‘m is a can-gory /Ital i.r ho/It social andae.t-
horror: the monsters are just bad ‘tecn- iudialig lhl ll" l=nd¢n¢)’ Of n‘IHin- thetic. The form I have traced is the
agers’ and are cleverly inscribed as a Slfaam lm is f°l'mall)' I0 linguish commodity circuit of the blockbuster
rambunctious movie audience. The 50"" Of the <li5tnCe between ‘§¢ri0u5' as a particular variant ofthe combina-
‘monstrous' is cinematically produced, liullur and ‘m5§' ¢ul!ur¢- l thinlt On! tion of the social and the aesthetic. If
generated bythe diffuse rebelliousness of Could argue that modemism and mass we can go no further than a revulsion
the audience against various levels of culture arose, twinned. in the midst of at the commodication of ‘art,'we will
‘authority’: a family melodrama is ¢aPllall§l m°d=""ll)"5 fa¢l°l'i¢5. free argue thatculturalcommodities simply
simply registered and resolved in a sen- markal and ¢il)’5¢P¢; and lhul l>0th reenact the reiftcation of the degraded
timental anti-climax. By contrast then, fffunld trditivnal Beithetili Of har- subject, initiated in capitalist produc-
theobviousnessofGIta.r:S!ory'sideolog- many. l>¢al")'- ¢°Il'IPl=ll°n- Burn. With
ical text may indicatea certain superses-
tion. Against such a totalizing system,
‘/al'Yi"8 °\'d¢l'§ Offad Y¢§P°"5°5 1°) dis‘ WC mus! l0¢atB h0P¢ in fgli. Per-

Winter '86 CirteAr:t|on! OI


Alice Krige in Ghoststory: normalcy's monstrous se<:ret—the violent repression of the dangerous female. . .

hill“ 1" ll" l""\'°Y>"11""l1 Y\'l_l|$1ll\ "T i|L'l'1l\\l-lL‘l(l.\. lheaiiidience is spectacu- our collective desires is both utopian
Art or Phi]o\opli_\'. Marust ‘hope-' has 1;“-l_\ tt1\L'Y|hL‘\l iii the scene as applaud- and ideological. dominating and
al\\;i)s. howe\er. resided indiscovering mi; oorker», and in their passive eele- translormative.
ii triiiistoriiizitive principle irllliiri the hration for the stars they are The Marxist critic Fredric Jameson
\It\l1ll'1|\lltIllUlls til the social ortler— .~;eiitimentally recuperated from the ha remarked that it may be impossible
ultiinatel) in the Prolettiriat. Rlllh’ reviilsioii which the liliii has previously I0 ICPICSCHI advanced capitalism artis-
lhaii negation. we should expect art to in-1.1 Inf ll,‘-m_ ']'|1L- ;L-,.i]u|il,njnm1\'L~;l tically. However. there maybe a sense
PY\‘d\"'\'~ I" "> P4""“"|=" 5°"-*\“‘"> needs little relation lo the rather in which We can draw a homologous
foritt.thosecontradictitmsaiid conicts |mp|;,“_\,h|L» n;|rr;|i|\,_- [L-mm", winch relationship between cultural product
of domination and liberation. For [NW W; ,| up en [hm “c p¢n_~¢jv¢ the andcapitalist‘reality.'Thc blockbuster,
exaniple. ifwe perceive ideological scene as a spectacle unto itself. and. as l implied earlier. presents a para-
deeipherinent to he part of ii Marxist ver_\ specifically. as an abstracted digm ofa magical production, a spec-
criticisiii. the recent hit inelodranizi .~l!t "rest,-tie‘ from class conditions. Even taclc for consumption for all of us,
(1/‘/itvr llllll u tierilleriiaii services the 1|“, m|||i;m,| (.|ni.|,) ha, L15 11> |niii;ii- embedded in the inter-textual circuit of
perpettitition ofsesutil. racial and class‘ mg t;._-mt] [ha []]\\_\[ r-,idie;i] detnund of parody which produces that media
"PPY\'“|"" in “'".\> "'1" l“"d|.\' ""4 all: an end to class oppression. As it is WIIHCIOHSIICSS in which History and
unttiaskiiig. liven in such tin extrenie rendered. we experience the ‘desire.' 4""h°TllY "Ind “Y <-H5‘-\PP'~'@"» Bl" ll"!
case we should also expect a formal umj¢r,|.mt| the ir;in\|'tirni;it|on_ as only limits oldomination imply ti horizon of
conlluence ol' domination and libera- ,m1|\.du.|]_;|]m.,,1m;,g|c;;1_hu||h¢dia- liberation: the same spectacle. l have
tion. The tinal scene involves Gere 1.-Cm-u| |,_-n,,.,,~, of mmyjduu] ‘Sum 51;" also argued. activates collective inter-
$W=#‘Pi"l_l w""B°' ""1 "H1" l‘"¢l°l'>'- "P as worker. spectator) and colleciivity ptclzllions and pleasures, produces
into his arms in extended slow motion. (“urkt-r,,_ Jud“-,,L<.-; >h.,u1L| lguyg J ‘nt-w‘ gratitications however commodi-
Like most sequences I've discussed. it is g],mm._-I .,f it“; ‘t_|¢§|[;|hj]i[_\" .,|‘;,bQ]i§)1_ ed: at the level olithc ideological. con-
detachable from the lm: set l" lh" ini: the conditions which produce the lfiidillth H1115! bk‘ l'1liS¢d and f¢l‘ll-lcd J

anthennc “You Lil‘! Me Up." it t'unc- pinging a-11.,“ -|'u1|'||1m.;m' wl; are aesthetically.containingand relinquish- Z

|i<"1h |lk¢ \'ld¢°- Jlllmugh -*l.\’l|5l|¢i111)'


41 cheering. Consideratitin of the formal ing lhtf Piihilili Ulilfill15l'Utm1lli0<“ i
more reminiscent of those ecstatic moinent broadens our sense of the ll i5. illiltff ll» \>l‘l1)/ l5ilPil3ll5"1 P|3)’l"8~ ‘

advertisenients of couples running 'ple;isiires" ll1\'Ul\'L‘tlI the spectacle for _

96 CineAction! Winter ‘B6

— j
L
Notes

I. Television sports provide ti comple-


mentary emphasis on the montage ol
time and space; the virtually Vertovian
‘camera mischief’ of replays, slow-
motion. multiple angles, graphics, etc.
1. Umberto Eco. "(‘asablanra: Cult
Movies and lntertextual Collage" in
Sub-Srurire I147_ pp. J-l2.
.1 Linda Hutcheon. .4 Theory of Pam¢{i'.'
The Teaching: of Jlli Century All
Forms, London: Metheurt. I934.
denes parody. rather fancily, its “an
integrated structural modelling process
of revising. inverting and trans-
conteittualizing previous works." This
could partially overlap with the generic
self-consciousness ofelassic Hollywood
and include the colloquial sense of
‘making fun.‘ The increasing promi-
nence of parody in lm may be due to
its typical operation across media cul-
lure and back through lm history:
generic reworking in classic Hollywood
typically operates within a set of
genres. At another point. parody over-
laps with the related process known as
pttstiche. Jameson calls pasttche “par-
ody that has lost its sense ofhumour."
Pzistiche implies an assemblage from
other works that refuses synthesizing
H011) : presumably its interpretation
owes more to the juxtaposition of col-
Inge and is less coded than the some-
what smug humor of parody. This dis-
tinction also leads us into the dense
debates about modernism and post-
modernism and the elaborate efforts to
define, celehrate or condemn contem-
porary culture which l cannot summar-
ize here. See Frederic Jameson. “Post-
Modernism and Consumer Society“ in
The .-tnli-Aesllielir: E unyx On Pas!-
Morlt-ni Culture. Hal Foster (ed.).
Washington: Bay Press. l983. pp.
I I l<lZ5.
4. See [or instance Stuart Hilll. "Culture,
the Media and the ‘ldeological ElTect‘“
in .\In.r1 ('ammummIt'an and Society.
Curran. Gurevitch, Wollacott (eds).
London: Sage Publications. I979.
. . . and the monstrous return of the repressed. 5_ Tmy Lm/c||_ Hmm afRmmy_ Lem
don: Ht-t_ l980. p. 95. This discussion
has been within Lovell‘s challenge to
investigate cinematic “pleasures of an
essentially public and social kind.“
6. Fredric Jameson, The Palilieal Uncens-
ri'ou_r_ New York: Cornell University
Press, I98], pp. 28!-299.

(Second of two parts)

Winter'B6 CtneActlon! O7
. ti the ”©s?=
lt\l\e<2)lle@‘il@@l
Flllmg ©
FQXGS
r

by Bryan BFUOO classical narrative by presenting a series of loosely con- ,

nected, heterogeneous sequences following the girls,


T [S NOT SURPRISING THAT FOXES some shot in a cinema verité, hand-held camera style,
(Adrian Lyne, I980), as a vehicle for Jodie Foster, some more calculated and ‘professional‘ in effect, some
one of the most anomalous Hollywood stars to improvisatory, some more apparently rehearsed, etc.
come out of the '70s, should have been neglected both The distance from the lm produced by this kind of
commercially and critically upon its release. Foster‘s narrative variance and the amount of effort required to
enigmaticdebutsastomboys(on television as thefriend make sense of it had become more alienating then
of Eddie Corbett/Brandon Cruz on the series The engagingtoaudiencesof theearlyeighties; in fact, much
Courtship of Eddie’: Father [l969-I972]; on the big of the criticism levelled at Foxes made reference to its
screen as the startlingly boyish Audrey in Scorsese's disjointed, confusing plot, its incoherence. (As l shall l
.

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore [l976]) and her con- argue subsequently, its narrative is actually highly stn.tc-
troversial role as the child prostitute, lris, in Taxi Driver tured and sophisticated). Finally, Foxes, as a product of
(Martin Scorsese, l976) anticipated an emerging star Casablanca Record and Filmworks, represented an
persona that ntns contrary to the conventional cine- attempt to exploit the already exhausted market for
matic representation of the teen-age girl: she is not the disco lms. (Paul Bogart and Casablanca had already
expected voluptuous beauty or brat-pack princess, but given us the Village People in Can‘! Stop the Music and
the tough-talking, realistically gured young woman, Donna Summer in Thank Gad It's Friday featuring her t

both streetwise and intelligent, who has retained the hit “Last Dance,“ and contributed another Summer
masculinity that little girls are expected to relinquish at disco hit, “On the Radio,“ to Faxes, along with a sound-
puberty, and an innocence that allows her to imagine
altematives to the narrowly dened adult world.
track by Giorgio Moroder, who has provided disco-
inuenced scores for such lms as Midnight Express
l
Foster's role as Jeanie in Faxes provides for a perfect [also produced by Casablanca], American Gigala, and
expression of her refusal to conform. The lm works to Cat Peaple.) However, the marketing of the lm by
break down the articial distinction between adult and Casablanca, with the publicity shot of four heavily
child (here, as in Foster's Disney vehicle, Freaky Friday, mad¢~\1P girls walking !0E=ll1¢l' On ii city ilfcel 3! night.‘
by inverting the traditional mother/daughter relation- combined with the misleading title(which must be taken
ship) and to create an environment sufciently open to irvni¢ally)- Save ll ll" T¢P"l3ll°" °l B '5¢XPl°llall°"'
movie. (When l went to several video rental stores to
accommodate both her bisexual impulses and her seem-
ingly contradictory drives toward complete indepen- nd ll. l W85 l\'"’al’labl)’ aikcd lfll W35 an iadlllr lm,
and at least one friendl mentioned it to asked if it was
l
dence and autonomy on one side and some form of ..
communal existence on the other. “that hooker movie with Jodie Foster. )
The combination of Jodie Foster's radical screen per- lt is possible that part of the disappointment or con
sona and various historically specic determinants may fusion that audiences felt about Foxes was a result of its
account for the general dismissal of Faxes. Like Dennis insistently realistic presentation Of the culturally-
Hopper‘s Out aflhe Blue, released the previous year, it specic problems encountered by the disco or post-
presented a dissatised and prematurely disillusioned disco kids, which contradicted its marketing strategy
girl as the main character at a time when most Holly- (the same formula can be applied to Beat Street and the
wood lms were providing an easy return to strong and rap/brekdaee Pl1e0men0l'1)- Unlike fllm Illa!
unproblematic hero identication. (Faxes complicates merely capitalize on the popularity of musical sub-
identication by splitting our attention amongst Jeanie cultures, Beat Street, Out of the Blue, and Foxes attempt
and three otherequally confused girls, the camera often to determine the source of these initially subversive
recordingtheir actions from a disorientingly close prox- youth movements (which eventually lose radical impe-
imity, as if one of them). Also like Out of the Blue, Foxes tus through their appropriation by the media and con-
opposed the strict reinforcement of the coherent linear ventionalized, popular music and an fonns), present-

II CineAction! Winter‘86
?e!~**

ter '86 Cine/-\c\


l\ fl” -- - -e» I
V

Delrdre (Kandlce Stroh), Madge (Marilyn Kagan), Annle (Cherie Currle), and Jeanie (Jodle Foster): lemale
solidarity.

ing the problems of children in the context of the can be changed. This is presented through the use of
disintegrating nuclear family and the institutionalized language, the distinction between the xed symbolic
authority of school-(catchers and principals, p5ychia- order ofthe parent against the open, imaginary world of
trists, and police. the child. .leanie's mother is obsessed with the details of
ln Foxes, it is the project of the four girls to escape words and expressions rather than the true meaning or
from their oppressive family situations to form a differ- feeling behind them. When the girls are taken to the
ent kind of communal environment based on mutual police station after unsuccessfully containing a party
support and the solution ofshared problems and con- that turned into a brawl beyond their control, she
icts. Jeanie lives with her divorced mother (Sally Kel- believes the hyperbolic words the police use to describe
lerman) who has gone back to college to get her degree, the behavior of the girls—drunkenness. narcotics, des-
and in so doing, is re-experiencing all the insecurities truction of property-—formulaic words which are used
and doubts of a young student (“I'm a forty-year-old to generalize and explain away the disturbing actions of
woman and l'm sitting here reading Plato again. It's youths ratherthan to understand them..leanie can only
insane.") Jeanie is more emotionally mature, independ- say, "Mom, they're cops"; she is unable to verbalize the l

ent, and sensible (she ends her three year relationship oppressive strategy ofthe authorities and theirability to
with her boyfriend while her mother starts to sleep with manipulate language.
a man she hardly knows and who, Jeanie points out The ght between mother and daughter that follows
with disgust, wears white shoes), and has the ability to the disastrous party is based on the politics oflanguage.
see through the false image of adult authority at high Her mother chastises Jeanie for using slang(“ ‘Yeah‘—
school—When a family planning teacher chides her for whatever happened to the word ‘ye$"-’"). refusing to
holding her baby upside down, Jeanie has to remind her recognize it as a rebellion against the rigid formality of
that it's onlya rubber doll. adult-speak. When Jeanie says that her best friend
The latter incident is only one example ofthe way the Annie might commit suicide, her mother asks, “Did she
lm sets up the adult world as one concerned with actually say the word suicide?,“ to whigh Jeanie
illusion and supercial reality, and the perpetuation of reSpOnd$. “N0. bill | KHOW Whl She feels." This is _

form over substance at all costs—the inability to recog- precisely the difference between children and parents
nize ideologyasaself-effaeing, articial construct which that the lm repeatedly returns to—the loss of feeling

I00 CineAction! Winter'B6

.-
and sensitivity that is somehow a prerequisite for the wild-child. Annie. bul. like ll’i§ in Tllii DFW", ¢l‘\/=5 8
entry to adulthood. communal order to organize her revolutionary
Annie (played by Cherie Currie of the '70s ‘l-lolly- sensibility.
wood Rock‘ all-girl band the Runaways with Joan Jett) Jeanie's presence as the rational youth links together
is signied as the essence of feeling and passion in the sequences in a highly structured narrative which creates
lm—she is the wild free spirit. an ex-hooker at l5 who the impression of disorder. The lm can be broken
is constantly searching for the immediate sensual grati- down into ve segments, each episodicand symmetrical
cation provided by sex and drugs and alcohol. Unlike (both in itselfand in relation to the other segments), and
Deirdre. the other ‘bad girl‘ of the foursome who plays each shaped in some sense by Jeanie's point of view. The
the role of the grown-up femme fatale_ Annie remains rst segment, covering roughly the rst half of the lm,
the impulsive, pleasure-seeking child who refuses the follows Jeanie's adventures during a single day. The
discipline of parents and school. Her father. a brutal opening credit sequence has the camera tracking slowly
policeman who beats her for her transgressions, across her sleeping gure and surveying the contents of
becomes all fathers and every cop to her(whenever she her room (a conventional Hollywood technique to
secs a police car she runs, thinking it's he); the adult reveal character often used during credit sequences),
world in her eyes is one single. ubiquitous patriarch including her three best girlfriends. The girls wake up
trying to take away her freedom. together and prepare for school, but their depanure is
Between the confusion in adult role-playing of the violently interrupted by the attack of a cop (who, we
teen-agers and the childish behavior of the parents is discover, is Annie's father), separating Annie from her
Jodie Foster as Jeanie. She is the most balanced and friends. Jeanie is shown at school(lhe rubber doll inci-
genuine character in the lm, who seems like an adult dent) and afterwards searching for Annie with Deirdre
but is not repressed, who experimented with sex at an and Madge. After they rescue her from a violent inci-
early age because “it was the fun thing to do," but drops dent on the sleazy Hollywood Boulevard, the four girls,
her boyfriend because he is caught up in the Hollywood reunited, go shopping and then prepare for the Angel
material world of vans and blow-dryers, who is fasci- rock concert. After the concert Jeanie drives Madge
nated by and in love with the disorder of the sensual home to prepare for a party that never takes place

... K W

Hi»
“es

we
i
._ , .4 1*.

1-13%

sci»

Jeanie (Jodie Foster) reads Plato to her mother (Sally Kellerrnan) in bed.

Winter '86 CineAction!

(ii;
I01
!
l
i

(answered QpPQ5l[Q|y in the gggond half of [he lm by into a trttck. The segment ends with the girls reunited for l-

the party out of bounds), and then retums to her own ‘he his‘ ‘iihe 3‘ ‘he h°5Pi‘iii 35 Ahhie dies-
hou§e_ ending the day in bed reading Plaio go her The fth segment begins with Deirdre and Jeanie in
mother, who has forgotten to get a new prescription for ei°5e'liP ii‘ 8 §°ie"ii'i eeieihohl’ “'hieh- ih J"X‘aP°5i‘i°h
her glasses. Jeanie is the character who connects each Wi‘h ‘he Pie"i°‘-'5 5eehe- aPPeai$ ‘Q he Aiii'iie'5 funeral-
§equenee_ and it is her conggigugnggg whieh ihe lm The camera pulls back to reveal that it is actually the
begins go pl'0jg¢[, wedding of Madge and Jay, an event which, for Jeanie,
The seeond segment begins wiih Madge [he plnnip_ represents, in a sense, the death of another friend; her
bespectacled, intelligent virgin who reversesexpectation dieam °‘ ah 3ii'Bii’i eoihihiihe i5 8°he i°i'eVei‘- Ai‘ei'
when we di5¢()Vg[ she is seeing an older man, Jay/Ranijy reaching a truce with her mother, Jeanie takes the ow-
Quaid. After insisting that she and Jay consummate eis ‘i'°ih ‘he Wedding ‘° A"iiie'5 Si’a"e- The eaiheiii
their relationship, another departure from convention, l°°i'ii5 iii 5i°“'iY ‘° ii ei°5e"iP °i hei’ ‘ee B5 she ieiis in
Madge, sitting on Jay‘; bed, gang Jeanie, who is sleeping voice-over of Annie's wish to be buried under a pear tree
in her bed with Annie, to tell her the news of the loss of Wi‘h ‘he i'°°‘§ Bi'°“/ih8 ‘hi'°iiEh he‘ h°d)' 5° lh‘ hei'
her virginity. After hanging up, Jeanie tells Annie she is iiiehdi e°i-iiei Piek 3 Pei" and 53% “Ahhie'5 iasiihg 8°94 i
depressed that one of her best friends could sleep with a ‘his Year-“ ending, by ii'"Piie3‘i°h- “'i‘h -ie?"1ie'§ i°\'¢ fol‘ L

guy once and want to marry him, and the scene ends Ahhie ahd ‘he h°Pe‘"i Pei'Pe‘"ii“°h °‘ hei' iiee and
with the two girls embracing in a romantic two-shot that Seiisliai Millie-
makes them appear as twins, Although ihere is no Clearly, Foxes hasacarefully crafted, traditional nar-
explicit suggeglion of sex, the gyrninegrieal plaeernei-n of rative based on symmetrical construction, standardized
the beds ofrhe two gouples and the ernbraee of Solidar. linking devices, and the over-determination of thematic t

ity between the iwo girls eonnoles an open sexnalhy lines. This, however, is mediated both by its formal .
consistent with both Jeanie‘s ideal of communal love ieii°5Yhei'35ie§ (‘he Pfeieiehee i°i' ‘he han¢i'i1eid eamefa i
and Jodie Foster's bisexual screen image (the scene is iihd ‘eiePh°‘° 5‘i'ee‘ 5h°‘5i ‘he 3‘9i'"P‘ ‘i’ai'i5i‘i°h5 t

remarkably gimilar in tone and mood to (he prnvoea. between and within certain segments; the consistently
tive, gauzy love scene between Foster and Nastasjia dark ahd ‘°8EY eiheiha‘°Ei'Ph)' h°‘ e°hVeh‘i°haii¥
Kinski in the otherwise uninteresting The Hotel New i1$50Ci3l=d Wilh 8 ‘I881’? m0Vi¢). and by ilS Obsessive
Hemp-hire)_ inversion of the expected representation of parents and
The third segment begins again with the four girls rem-Beers. boys and girls. the masculine and the
together preparing for the party at Jay's house (he is feminine—the debunking of cinematic stereotypes.
away on business) which results in disaster and destruc- whe‘hei' he8iee‘ed 35 ii i'e5"i‘ 0‘ 3 5Peei‘ie aiieiieiiee
tion, and ends, once more, with Jeanie and her mother, "hi'eeeP‘iVe ‘° eeeeh‘i'ie °i' di5‘i-ii'bi"B moi/i=5, Oi’ i
at home after the police station, this time ghting bit- heeauife °‘ P°°i' ihaikeiihg °i' bad i'eP"‘ali0i1. and d¢S- l
terly. Here the confusion between parents and children Pi‘e dii’eei°i' Adria" i-Yi'ie'5 Siihseqi-ieh‘ e“°i"- Fill-rh-
becomes explicit. Jeanie‘s mother expresses her fear of dance, which reinstitutes many of the formal and the-
the girls; she 5ay5_ “You look like kid; our you oon'i ac; matic conventions his fit;: lm disrupts, Foxes remains
like them, You're short forty-year_old5 and you're an exciting lm, and demonstrates that Jodie Foster is
tough ones," and nally yells,“You‘re too beautiful, all bl’ ‘hi’ ‘he ih°§‘ ii'i‘ei'e§‘i"S °i ‘he Y0‘-ihg i'i°iiYW°0d
of you. You make me hate my hips. l hate my hips.“ 5‘3i5~
Jeanie has become in her mother's eyes a mature
woman while she herself regresses to insecurities and
temper tantrums. The scene ends with another reversal,
the mother rttnning away from home, and the daughter
ready to have her friends move in to her house to form N°t93
an ideal, egalitarian ‘family.’
The fourth segment begins, like the third, with Jay ' lt is worth notingthat the context from whichthis slill has
and Madge (after we follow Jeanie to Jay's hQu5e_5he been extracted undermines the potentially exploitative image
invariably leads the [hi-ead of [he nan-alive» who fig)“ it carries by itself. Within the diegesis, the four girls, walking to
over me ruins of his homc, Madge as the mam“. a rock conccrt,are assailed by catcalls and propositions from

responsible child, Jay as the spoiled, ill-tempered adult. ‘°"'.=" ‘°°'!':8'; 9°?" “”‘°" ii“ 8"“ =*P"=‘* "° '"‘"=" “"4
The rest of the segment is devoted to Jeanie‘s melan- cl':m'm;°b:'." d°1:"'f"1,s';"‘l°““d°"°a."°‘h°" lb.‘ b°‘is accuse
choly over Annie's admittance to the psychiatric hospi- iufrixd kiggadz oi:1'crine';:;§|ii:;s:s's l:e:(?g::r‘:::§:‘ian:
‘ai and he‘ 3“emP‘ ‘° "exile he‘ a“e" she e_5°aPe5' She thegir asses at theopen-mouthed boys.y‘l'his incident sugggets
and Bmd/Sm“ Ba‘°- b°‘h ‘n ‘OW “"‘h Annie» 5Pehd ‘he that the girls (and the lm) are conscious of the radical nature
day together because they miss her, and are nally of their project of female solidarity, and are not afraid to
interrupted by a distress call from her. After they save express it openly.
and lose her again, Annie is picked up on the freeway by
a corrupt, drunken Hollywood couple, the most
extreme instance of puerile adulthood in the lm; they
make sexual advances toward her, and, distracted, crash 1

102 OlneActIonl Wlnter'B6


E to specic criteria which amount to a complicity with the
lm industry to advertise and promote its product, either
b Y P raisin B itand congratulatingthose respunsibleforit.or
by criticizing it in such a way as to create controversy
around it, or to make it into a spectacle. (There are. of
course, exceptions: the concerted critical attack on flim-
A ino‘s Heaven's Gale, for example, emerged as a conspiracy
to kill the lm as some kind of punishment directed
of
_ _
towards the notoriouslydiflicultdirector. The critics in tltis
case, although not serving the interests ofthe lm. were still
acting on behalfof‘the industry‘) ln his introduction Scott
provides excuses for these restrictions. allowing that “ . . .

M'd"'5'h'M”"""‘“ newspapers and magazines impose constraints that


bl’ -by Sm" demand the drastic compression of reality as the writer
oXf°l'd Uivcily PR5» i935 perceives it" (p. 3) (“compression“ connoting quantitative
rather than qualitative limitations). However. he goes onto
l say that the Globe amIMai'I, the paper for which he writes,
‘ gives him “ . . . more freedom than most reporters believe
possible . . ." (p. 3), and then attempts to justify the
reproduction in book format of his daily critiques. His
apologia makes no sense; his writing style and its project
are directly attributable to the disposable nature of the
daily news, and should not be separated from that context.
Scott's book is divided into two sections. the rst half
composed of longer essays on various “lactories" within
the movie industry (an analogy that is never adequately
articulated), the second, ofshort, pithy reviews of individ-
ual lms, alphabetically arranged. The longer pieces
exhibit all the conventions of popular lm journalism: the
bad punning and sarcasm (typical. for example. of the
Village Voice); the catchy gimmick (writing in the vernacu-
lar. the travelogue, the behind-the-scenes look); the virtuo-
sic word-play borrowed from literature to make criticism
more palatable. These devices are designed both to set up
the critic as the familiar and immutable voice ofaiithorit_v
(ifit‘s in the newspaper, it must be true) without sacrificing
entertainment value (it appears in the entertainment sec-
tion), and to build up for the critic an engaging persona
which readers can comfortably identify with. feeding into
the favored construction by the media of the cult of the
personality (critic as star).
Scott's largely ironic critical devices are used redund-
antly in the sections on the Cannes Film Festival and the
making of The Hes! Lillle Wltareltouse in T:'.\'a.t', events
which are so absurd as to parody themselves without the
need of pointed critical intervention. The most interesting
and valuable section is the more straightforward account
of the Canadian Film lndustry, before. during, and after
the tax-shelter years, a sober historical analysis of a stifled
cultural/art establishment and its product. The least satis-
factory section is his guarded defense of Paul Schrader‘s
Mishima, typical of the attempt by popular critics to con-
lt is difcult to
get an ideological handle on Jay Scott's ccal their politicsin order not to offend orappear hiased,a
Midnight Malineex. couched. as it is , in the gimmicks and position which necessitates an adherence to universalized
gambols of lm review journalese, and neutralized by the and unquestionable political and aesthetic models. After
hypothetical objectivity and distance from ideology that alluding to the director‘s fascist and homophobic tenden-
journalists are supposed to have automaticaecess to.Sc0tt ci:5_ Scott offers the following; “This can be said of
skirtsthe espousal ofanyovert political oraesthetic project Schrader‘s Mixhima: it is innovative, it is beautiful, it is
by lodging himself somewhere between the glib and bitchy respectful of the man whose story it tells, and it is tnie to
solipsism of Pauline Kael and the humanist populism of one defcnsiblcinterprctation ofit“(p. ll). The defenseisa
James Agce. 3 Critical style dictated by the Commrrcil familiar one for popular reviewersztechnical virtuosity and
nature of the particular widelydistnbuted newspaper or innovation over-nile considerations of content; beauty, as
"\383ll"° f°' which ll" "ill? “’|'ll°5» an objectively dened, eternal category, transcends any
ln order tobemarketahle.apopularcritic must conform banal social or political reality; truth and respect, 35 hu_

WInter'B6 CineAction! 103


manist qualities abstracted from their specic application, ln keeping with the pop reviewer‘s tendency to transmit
outweigh the unworthiness of their object. lnelTect,Scott‘s passively the prevailing ideological climate. Scott's criti-
treatment of Schrader mirrors the latter‘s proposition of cism makes room foraccrtain liberal feminism,one which
the transcendence of art, a position which ridicules any enables him to review with equal favor Von Trotta‘s Mari-
personal or political objection to it by placing an in a anne amlluliane and Levinson's Diner. the former taking
classical or mystical realm beyond ideology. This position feminist issues perhaps as far as mainstream cinema per-
also accounts for the popular lm critic's ability to mits. the latter exemplifying the blatant misogyny and
embrace simultaneously the right and the left (or. at least, unabashed male-ccntredness of muclt of the New Holly-
the liberal reformist left). as in Scott's chameleon-like wood. Scott's feminism still allows him to characterize
appropriation (both in political orientationandaffectation female stars as "delectable" (Renee Soutendijk in The
of style) of Tom Wolfe's critique of the American New Fourth Man). or maintain that they have been justiably
Right in The Rigltl Sluf exploited for their looks (Daryl Hannah in The Pope of
tm individual lm reviews in the second half of Mid- Grevttirh P'iIIw'>- and w isnvw almost wmvlmly lh=
night Matinee: confon-n more obviously to the devices of f=ml"i5l Pmelial engagw bl’ "W SCYR" P"5°" of Dian‘?
pop criticism. Most of the reviews are remarkably homo- K¢l°" (Rl'd-Y- M'I~ SQ/fl’/)<
geneous and formulaic—plot summaries, literary impres- M|'d'"'8/" M"'i"¢’PI- ifl)’Pi¢¢l| °f P"P"|1" mm <11'ill*?i§"\- ii
5iQn§ of 91¢ mm (swig has 3 pygfgrgncg for mggaphorigal certainly not its worst example; there are intelligent insights
description that redundantly reiterates the lmic image), and ="8aEl"8 §‘°l’l¢5 abm" "W mm ind‘-'5"'Y Whkih P41)’
and [he (mat ,,n¢_|in¢,- that |-¢¢uqiv=|y sums up everything tribute to Jay Scott as the most interesting uf the Toronto
with a parting punch. This fonnula has in common with MWSPKP" lm ¢|'ili¢§ (ROW 535% G=l"§° /\"lh°")’- 10'1"
the rest ofthe news the commodication ofinformation in Hal’kn¢§5)- BU! in lb! ¢"d. and Pilfliculfly Wm‘ "*9 lm
om" to make it mom ¢a§i|y d;g=§;ib|¢_wO;|d “cm; and reviews, the book retains the most basic characteristic of
art as entertainment and diversion. Taking a specic lh= dalll’ "Vi=W—l|"=" °f "38""! di§P°$3bi|il)’-

I
instance, Scott's review of The Lonely Lady. in its inten-
tional reductivism. parodies his own style. lt consists of a Bryan Bruae
one paragraph plot summary and a concluding zinger. an
account ofthe lm that only piques our interest (can it be as
bad as he suggests'.')and reduces the function of criticism to Z;

poking fun. '

To
SCM BOOK ROOM
333 BLOOR ST W

979 9624
BOOKS
256 QUEEN ST. W. TORONTO

?"T"?t?"1°U"1
‘C t. QQIY
a. MAGAZINES

'|""".'i°'i'.§1§°..".t‘t’t'."i"’".'t'{
S
books on lllm and vldeo.
ES
II“
598-HIT

B11"....
l'\

.JuMi=- cu1' nee t4.sswuwta.4s


PETER STEVEN
Tl IE F'ClV\/CF‘ OF TIIE
ttvt/ass REG t4.ssi~t0wta.4s
ANNFTTF KUHN
ANTUNIDNI C]?-LTHE
SIJFIFACE CIF Tl-IE \AIClRLD
arr; l7 srmowts.1s
SEYN/ILIIJFI CHATNAAN f f
we entztav All ¢tm>,< or (HNEMA °P‘” °""“, °‘ “
readers SI writers
'l"llRNU MID OFFEND No ONE,
lllf DOQK “QM WW Q"-JCD |iffflf|i'C‘N§ Jl'illLli7ii‘ [rt-i it
vurv I 50 lvcttttmts .1. ms: Torttnttv

I04 OlneActlonl WInter'B6

EWEWW
-
Meryl Slreep and Robcrl DcNiro in The Deer Hunler,

Contributors
:\Nl)Rli\\‘ BRITIUN |> the uulhur ul‘ Kulhurlnv Ilrplrurns rhv I7||rl|v\ uml .4lII:'V; he 1» currcnlly
lcuchmg lm m|dic~ ul Tram l'n1\'cr>|l)'. IR-lcrburuuglx.

DRY.-\N llRl '('l' hm cunlruhmcd ln.\Iu\'l1‘;|I'|d |~ wnung :1 llu-\|» on ll1lcl\uucl.'» ll-rllgm.

\'.¢\Rl).-\ HURSTYN l‘rcq\|cnlI_\' lc:|cl1c\ u lm §l\l\llL'\ cmnrau lur.<\lk1nsu>n (Hall;-gc. Ynrk I 'n|\'cml);
»hc |> lllu cdnur and purl-nullmr ul lllu rcccnl unllmlug) Women Again." Censnrshlp.

S('()l“I I-ORSYIH laugh! lm xundlcx and scnpmnlung m Yurk ll|\|\cr~1l)'> l-'|lm and \'|dcu
l)cpuru|\v|\l; hr |~ currcnlly unlmg ;| dmv:rl:|l|un nn l\1;|ru~lac\ll\cl1c\;||1d llull_\m>nd.

l'l.()Rl:N('l~. .I.~\(‘()l!()\\'llY. lv::|\.'l1L'.\ lm smdlcs for .-\lkm>un Cnllcgc. York lln|\'ur~1l_\‘ and |~
marking lur 1| l’h.l). mllnn Ynrk'\ lhpurlrm-nl of Sucml .md Pullllcnl lhnughl.

RI('Hl~\Rl) Lll'l’l; lc;|cl1c~ lm at Yurk l'|\|\cr\|l_v'\ :\lkln>un Cull;-gc. llc hm cunlrnhulcd In .\Im'u'
and |~ Wrllmg an hunk un (icurgc Cukur and lln: l'llL'|\)dfil!'l\ll.

J.~\,‘\'lNl‘ .\1.-\R('Hl:SS.<\llLl |\ currently lcuclnng lm ~lud|u~ All R_\cr~<>n l’nl_\h:cl\n|c:|l In>m\|lc.


llvnmlu; >hc |\ curruull_\ unung .1 ~un\:~ ul ;|rl|ulu> dcullng \\|lh;||lL'r1\;|l|\L‘ dm:n\|r\c.\ m ('u|\;|d\un
clncmn.

L()Rl SPRING lc;|cl1c~ xcrccnwruungall .-\|k||1~u|1('ullcgc. Ynrk l‘n|\cr~|1).Shc hm cumr|hulcd In


Im/lulu’. has marked an mullu-mcdlal prmlucnnn. and |> currcnll) wurku\g on .1 rulurc lm scnpl.

ROBIN \\'()()l) lc;n;hc> lm \lud|c\ |n Yurl. lln|\cr~|l_\".~ Fulm and \'|dcn l)cp:|rlmcnl_ and l\
cu-urd|nul<>rul'll1c .~\llu|1\un Cnllcgu lm \lud|v:~ prugnnmm-; lu: lh Cllfftllll} \MIIk||1g<>|I;lI1 cxlcndcd
\'umunul'l1|\ v:;|rl_v hunk on llllchcnck. and plamnmg n hunk on n;|rn|l|\'c lm and ldtlllnxg).

Back covcrz Judy Garland in A Star ls Born


Robin Wood on IWalked With A Zombie
Florence Jacobowitz on Feminist Film Theory
Vafda Bl-lF$tY" 0" Cries and Whispers
Richard Lippe on A star ls Born
LOri Spring On The Year of Living Dangerously
Andrew Britton on Spellbound
Janine Marchessault on Celine and Julie Go Boating
Scott_Forsyth On Form in Popular Film
Bryan Bruce on Foxes

You might also like