Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
I$$N 07416-97466
Second L‘|.h§ prndlng.
I'rintt'd and bnund in ('.|n;iil.i
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
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
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-
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.
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
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
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).
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"°"~
»
Win(er'86 CineAc(|on! I
9 Jessicas first appearance 10. The nurse meets her panem
17. Betsy, Mrs. Rand, Wesley. calypso singer. 21. Betsy by the sea.
12 C|neAction! W|n(er'86
T
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
ergh .
4 . . » -
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.
$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- ‘
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.
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
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 -
.
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" ' ' ~
"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
~ @
"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
‘
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
Wiriter'86 CineAction! RS
l
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
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,
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
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 ; -
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
.
“
.
. .
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
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-
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_
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
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
'
'
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_
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.
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-
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
<
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
_
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
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
‘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
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
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" _ _ , , , _
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
-
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
.
O8 CIr\eAction! Wlnter'86
Q
‘ii?
F __
‘U!
s___
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
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
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
-
-\\
\\$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
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
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
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
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
- ~
‘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
.
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
GI CineActl0n! Wlnter‘B6
1* R.
“ylI1
»
i
.-
.4’
ff’
\_ /,
"A
‘@ |
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|¢
~
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-
I».
.---t-qua
..»_
' - lsm.
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
begins" with what seems a sad, but determined, expression rundamcnm divide of Bond“ upon w§,ich_ accoming ,0 §
°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
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, .
l.
l
t
..,w .
v V ‘pm
-
MP‘
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
_ .
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-
- . . - » -
. . .
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.
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'
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
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-
,.,~
;
I
§
-
$§~\§\;
.\
~" -
\
_»
~;
1‘
\‘¢\$~‘~
§@§@'
<\I §»%w
§»@§
3 -wk
&%
;\_ \\ .j
g -
*#§
$:..;\,“,¢:_
g _
i E
' .I-
‘ , I 4
k. 1 V.
5"
0
"~»
’ '4
1 .
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.
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-
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
.\
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
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. .
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’ .
-$0
Po;
*2/y7
‘Pa
ca--------.-pp-aqua-a-papa;----np---n-aaon;-----pava----p--------------'p-a-----
Winter ‘B6 CineActionl 83
aa-
P
_.
‘*1.
|<—¢
Inventing Paradox:
Celine and Julie Go Boating
gpghggggq
by Jgnlng cies within our culture owe alarge debt to his pioneering
anti-aesthetic in the late '60s and early ‘70s_. However, it is
Of what with
is great one musl either be silent or speak wnhm coma‘ 9f.'hcof80$ 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 >
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
~
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$°3 ‘”iiii_°
Rainy‘ but asa dmercn, form orrca|i,y_ H is. like me wnccp, Eisenstein and Artaud were never fully able to realize their
of inner speech, ‘lined' with the ideological (House) which it different projects because they could never quite locate the
breaks down and transforms mm 3 new diswurm ‘origin,' Rivette avoids this impasse and simply invents a
Celine and Julie asks us to confront a dilTerent system; it ‘iiiii5i°" This ii“'F“ii°" is ii iiispiiiy °i iii“ imii§i"iii'y- °f ii”
invites us to delight in the pleasures of the mystery. to partake powers of the imagination: to imagine dillerence, and
_
mi‘ with ii sushi shin .in.cmpiia§is‘ 3 dieeniiai ""15" a l0. Quoted in: David Bordwell, “Eisenstein's Epistemological
minute twist, a contradiction—it is now Celine who appears Shin .. 5-"ml VOL I5 Na 4 |974_75 M
sitting on a park bench.
It is this whtradictivh and this confusion which at: the ii. Antonin Arlaud. The Theatre uniiIl_r Double. trans. Mary Caro-
necessary challenges to an imminent pathology; the very terms line Richards, Grove Press, I958, p. ll t.
of the debate are always already inhabited by the Symbolic
order: the Law of the Father. These challenges, the effects of 12- lbii P- 9|-
the double, operate the fnistration of this Order by disorient-
ing it, tuming it upside down, and redene the limits of its ii‘ h
i;ii°“:i’:,§‘;‘:_ai|?'aSi:r:;s Pl Pi T$: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-
>~ *
‘
bu“
V
'-
V’
_z
2
""
.
~.
iii-n--+
~.
o'~
~
ii
.
&4
\ ,
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|.
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.
il
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
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
.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-
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
— j
L
Notes
Winter'B6 CtneActlon! O7
. ti the ”©s?=
lt\l\e<2)lle@‘il@@l
Flllmg ©
FQXGS
r
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!~**
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
.-
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.
(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
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;
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'\
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.
\'.¢\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.
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).