I need to talk about Kevin
We need to talk about Kevin is a 2011 film directed by Lynn Ramsey about a mother and her adversarial relationship with her son Kevin. The film is a challenging and visceral experience with a constant heavy tone that keeps an intense mode that crushes the viewer throughout the film. A few things are making the […]
We need to talk about Kevin is a 2011 film directed by Lynn Ramsey about a mother and her adversarial relationship with her son Kevin. The film is a challenging and visceral experience with a constant heavy tone that keeps an intense mode that crushes the viewer throughout the film.
A few things are making the film interesting. The first thing is the structure of the film. It switches back and forth between the present and the past. The mother of Kevin is named Eva played brilliantly by the always amazing Tilda Swinton.
It is clear something has happened in the present, Kevin is in jail and everybody hates Eva for reasons unknown to the audience. Random people just walk up to her and hit her in the face, she hides when she encounters a certain person in the grocery store. The constant switching back and forth works amazingly well, keeping the viewer guessing.
We learn at the end that Kevin used his skills as an archer to murder a lot of people in his high school. Kevin is played by Ezra Miller and his performance is incredible as well. Kevin seems cold, distant, and manipulative toward the mother. Given how he acts throughout the film the final reveal of him killing people is not really a surprise and in a way you kind of see it coming with how the film unfolds.
The most important question is:
Why did Kevin do it? Why did he kill those people and torment his mother that way from an early age?
To first understand Kevin and his motivation we need to invoke some philosophy.
The British Philosopher John Locke was convinced that a child is born as a blank slate meaning the child holds no thoughts, feelings, or concepts about the world and that the child must interact with the world to know stuff. In contrast, the French philosopher Rene Descartes was convinced of the opposite that children are born with certain concepts that in philosophy are known as a priori concepts.
If you believe Locke was right then Kevin is born as a blank slate and thus he “learns” to be evil from his environment and his mother.
If this is true Eva takes a majority of the blame and it is thus somewhat justified to hit her on the street.
If you agree with Descartes then Kevin is born evil and Eva holds no responsibility and it is therefore not okay to hit her in public.
That is all well and good but what happens in the film?
In the film, Kevin cries a lot….. Well, no shit every baby cries from time to time. This is different or at least it feels different. Kevin cries so much that Eva has to stand next to a construction site to drown out the noise of the baby. According to Eva Kevin cries way more than the average baby. However, when his father (John C Reilly) holds him he doesn’t cry at all.
There could be 2 reasons.
First of all, the father might have gotten lucky. Holding Kevin in a split second where he doesn’t cry.
The second and more sinister reason could be that he wants to annoy Eva. Throughout the film, Kevin displays different attitudes and emotions with his dad than with his mother.
A baby can’t actually choose this so it would have to be instinctual. Kevin hates his mother so much that much is clear. If he were to cry as a baby only to annoy her it would indicate how evil he is.
When Kevin is a child around 6-8 years old he and Eva have an argument and Eva pushes him into a wall and he breaks his arm. At the hospital, we do not know what Kevin says to the nurse or the doctor, However, when they both return home and the father asked what happened
Kevin tells a lie saying it was his fault alone and that Eva did nothing except drive him to the hospital. Why would Kevin say that?
Maybe he wants to protect his mother and deep down he really does care for her. Maybe he just wants to manipulate her, giving her a greater feeling of guilt than she already has.
There are many instances of Kevin behaving rudely towards her mother. A particularly weird situation is when Eva accidentally walks in on Kevin masturbating. Instead of stopping he looks at his mother and keeps going until she closes the door in shame. This along with many other situations indicated that Kevin is a strange one and that he acts differently around his mother.
There is one episode where Kevin as a child gets sick. When he is sick he is behaving like a normal kid he even apologizes to Eva for being sick. The two of them have a heartfelt moment when Eva reads to him in bed. Funnily enough, when he is sick he talks shit to his father and not his mother. The next day Kevin is feeling better and is back to his devilish behavior.
This could mean that Kevin is only putting up a front that disappears when he feels vulnerable.
When Kevin was a toddler Eva speaks to him in frustration saying she would be better if had never been born and how she would be a lot happier if he had never been. These words could have affected Kevin on a deeper level. Eva could have conjured Kevin’s personality without knowing it.
Now, it is all well and good discussing these things but Kevin kills a lot of people including his father and sister.
The thing to keep in mind is that he does not kill his mother who he hates more than anybody. I first thought it was because he wanted her to live a shitty life where everybody hates her. I thought Kevin planned it that way, but in the end, I was left unsure.
In the last scene of the film, Eva asks Kevin why he did it. Kevin’s replay is telling. He says he doesn’t know and that he thought he did at the time. The two of them share a hug and despite everything a mother will always love their child.
Red
The film uses color really well, and I personally love when a movie utilizes colors. Though it only uses one color, red. At the beginning of the film, Eva is having a dream about a tomato festival in Spain. Everybody is drenched in red tomato juice. The imagery is supposed to invoke a correlation with blood, foreshadowing that this film is about murder.
Red in this film means danger and violence (both physical and psychological).
Random people throw red paint on Eva’s house. When she hides in the convenience store she hides behind some stacked red cans. Red is ever-present in the film.
Conclusion
We need to talk about Kevin is a film exploring the age-old idea of nature vs nurture and how a person’s identity and personality are actualized. I do not think the answer is simple. I see arguments going both ways on the topic. While it feels like a copout to say I would think the answer lies in the middle of the two. I think a combination of nature and nurture is what formed Kevin.
Overall The film is heavy and not exactly pleasant to watch, but the atmosphere and structure of the film makes it a fantastic watch never the less. It is further enhanced by some amazing performances by the lead actors.
I definitely recommend it.
Character relatability is overrated
Relatability is a tricky concept. It means “to easily form a connection or an understanding with someone else”. The concept is appealing because humans are social creatures who require social interaction. Everybody wants to be understood in this big strange world we all live in. Seeing someone else you relate to overcome challenges can be
Relatability is a tricky concept. It means “to easily form a connection or an understanding with someone else”. The concept is appealing because humans are social creatures who require social interaction. Everybody wants to be understood in this big strange world we all live in. Seeing someone else you relate to overcome challenges can be both motivational and life-affirming.
……..That is great and all, but that is not what this post is about. This post is about the weaponization of relatability along with relatable characters in fiction.
We all see these millionaires and politicians who try their hardest to appear relatable to the everyman, so they get a good massive appeal. It is all smoke and mirrors made by marketing people to sell a person as anything other than a creep or an idiot.
The argument is that if you come from a poor working background then the hardships of life have made your character stronger.
The problem with this statement is that it is entirely down to the individual. Who cares if a politician is relatable? Can they solve the problem? Surely it is better to be competent than relatable.
Who cares if an actor is not relatable, are they good in the film?
Some people don’t enjoy art as much as they should and one of the reasons is the need for relatability.
Common criticism like “I could not relate to anyone” is thrown out a lot in online criticism and I simply do not get it. When a character does something counterintuitive to what you would have done instead of being mad, think instead that is what this character would do. The great thing about art and especially reading is that you learn to see things from different perspectives, but one of the biggest problems today is that people are having a hard time relating with one another. The goal is not to accept another viewpoint but to understand it and if we can’t even read another perspective than our own then how are we ever going to make the world better?
I like a lot of different characters, but I don’t feel I relate to most of them. It is simply not a measure of quality that matters to me. I am not saying that there isn’t value in relating with someone, but blindly liking someone because “they are just like me” is going down the wrong path, the lesson for today’s society is to try and engage with other people’s viewpoints and try and understand them. Don’t accept or reject other ideas out of hand, but think about them a little more, ideally, talk them over with someone holding that view.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle.
How to enjoy art (More)
Have you ever read a book, watched a movie/series, finished a game, and thought “That was really good, it just wasn’t for me”. This kind of sentiment happens a lot and I think it’s a healthy way to explore art, but why do some things click with us and others do not? Why do I
Have you ever read a book, watched a movie/series, finished a game, and thought
“That was really good, it just wasn’t for me”. This kind of sentiment happens a lot and I think it’s a healthy way to explore art, but why do some things click with us and others do not?
Why do I like these kinds of stories and not those?
First of all, before going into the main idea I would like to say that Art resonates with different people at different times.
After a heartbreak, some music resonates differently.
Some films might hit harder after the loss of a loved one and so on.
Other examples can be a bit more mundane. Your mood when you consume something plays a vital part in you getting the most out of it. You don’t sit down and dissect a great piece of art after a long day at work. If you just had a shit day and you feel mad as hell odds are you are not going to like the thing you are about to consume.
Have you ever sat in the theater with a full bladder waiting for a good moment to go pee?
You might as well go straight away, for it is nearly impossible to focus on the film with a full bladder.
You are also controlled more by your surroundings when you might think. If the majority of your friends like a film chances are you might view that movie a little more favorably.
On the other hand, if the HYPE gets out of control you might think the movie is overrated and view it less favorably, however, if that is the case then you are still affected by other people and your surroundings.
Humans are not automatons, and we don’t experience art in a vacuum.
With those points out of the way let’s explore what humans can do to enjoy art a bit more.
Labels
If there is one thing humans do well it’s putting things into categories and boxes. This is in part also why genre is a thing. We put things and people into different categories to make sense of the world.
Humans are storytelling animals there seems to be a part of the brain specifically for storytelling. Storytelling is key, and how people make sense of the world and each other. This explains why we consume things that are story-driven like movies, books, series, and even games have to have a good story these days. The way we explore stories is through art.
Not only do we consume a lot of stories, but we also tell stories. We tell stories about almost everything and everyone.
Ever had that coworker who loved to gossip and couldn’t keep their mouth shut? Well, the reason is on the deepest level a love of story and a telling on what is going on in the tripe (the workplace).
We tell stories and are told stories about ourselves as well. The stories we have been told about ourselves from us in our adolescence. That is why it’s so damaging for a teacher to say to a child “You will never amount to anything”. You set that child up for failure, for they believe the story about themselves.
I am a person who has always said “I am just not a math person, I simply do not understand it”. I think a lot of people feel that way. The point is, I could properly learn math the story about myself doesn’t have to be true, in fact, sometimes the story is false.
The stories we tell ourselves don’t have to be imposed on us at a young age, they can manifest through other means. Say you watch a bad crime movie where the acting is bad, the direction is all over the place and the story sucks. If you watch 2-3 bad crime movies in a row you might form the story:
“I am not a person who likes crime movies”
sure this can be true, but odds are you are just unlucky.
Humans are exceptional when it comes to labels. We all use them, especially in today’s hyper-political climate.
If you are on the political right then you are automatically against people on the left.
The wish to be free of labels is in itself also a label, so it looks like we are stuck here.
If you are a Christian you are in opposition to the other religions.
Again, sometimes we put labels on ourselves based on prior experiences and the stories we and others tell about us.
This brings me (finally) to how to enjoy art more.
I have made a lot of observations online and I have by no means any solid empirical data to support my claims here, but this is what I have noticed.
When I was part of the anime community I would often see people say something like: “I don’t usually like sports anime, but I like Haikyuu”. It was always Haikyuu too by the way, which is strange since that show is overrated to an upsert degree and not at all a very good representation of good sports anime, but I decrease.
It was always weird to me that people believed that sports anime was not for them. They tell themselves
“I am not a person who likes sports anime”,
Yet they like Haikyuu of all things, which is a show that is not special or subverts anything within the genre, in fact, it is so much like other sports anime.
When it comes to books and especially on fantasy booktube (the youtube corner dedicated to books) we see a similar sentiment regarding Robin Hobb and her trilogy Liveship Traders. Most people love Robin Hobb and for good reason, but I have seen a lot of people echo the same sentiment, that of “I don’t normally like nautical fantasy, but this is pretty good”. This too is very puzzling, even more so than the love for Haikyuu.
I can’t actually think of that many nautical fantasy books. In fact, I can’t think of that many nautical books in general. It seems to me unlikely that people have read so many nautical books, to the point where they know it’s not for them.
The only real reason I can come up with is that those people were forced to read Moby Dick in school and thus grew to hate stories on a boat. If this is indeed true then think about how little it requires to form a part of your identity based on one bad experience.
People form their identities based on the stories they tell themselves. That is why a professional athlete suffering a game-ending injury can make for an identity crisis because now that person has to invent a new identity for themselves.
That is also why so many are having a hard time giving something new a chance, for new things are scary.
“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”
– HP Lovecraft
My point is merely that in those two cases, both thought they did not like something for weak reasons.
The power of saying “I am a person who likes/dislikes X” is very embedded in us.
I was always the kind of guy who said “I like Anime ” and thus I watched a lot of different genres. Every time I watched something I did not like I took it as that specific anime wasn’t for me instead of a whole genre.
This doesn’t mean you can’t have preferences, we all have preferences in some way or another. I am simply saying that you should not build your identity on something like “I don’t like nautical fantasy” when so little of it exists.
Carl Schmitt and politics
German philosopher Carl Schmitt talked about the concept of “the political”. He says the political is the conflict between friend and enemy.
The friend is the person who holds the same position as you, it being political views or values.
By having an ingroup you belong to a relationship is created against everyone who doesn’t hold that view.
Now, what does some Nazi philosopher have to do with what we are talking about?
Like what Schmitt talked about when we label ourselves as people who like x we might fall into the trap of identifying as someone who doesn’t like y. It is not always the case that the things you like and dislike are connected, but people have a tendency to view themselves and their values as the only thing that matters.
Forcing your values
I have a friend who did not like L.A. Confidential, the movie from 1997.
His reasoning was that the main character went to a prostitute. That action made a cliff between him and the character. He told me he could not relate to the character and thus he did not enjoy the film all that much.
This criticism rubbed me the wrong way. Surely relatability is irrelevant when it comes to the merits of a story. I like a lot of stories where I don’t relate to the characters at all.
I am not as heroic as Aragon, or as brave as Sam, but I still like Lord of the Rings. I am not like Batman at all yet I still like the Dark Knight. I am not as psychotic as Arthur Fleck yet I still like the Joker.
I could keep going with examples like this and I am sure you came up with some of your own.
The problem is that most people have that kind of requirement when it comes to consuming stories. Maybe not that specific, but we have certain barriers that are hard to cross.
I think that is why so many people dislike The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger. Having to read pages and pages about Holden’s thoughts can be difficult if you don’t like him, which you won’t because he is very unlikeable.
A similar thing can be seen in the Prince of Nothing trilogy by Mark Lawrance, where the main character is a particularly nasty individual.
I don’t have to be a person, it can be a subject matter like “slavery” or a theme like oppression, or even an action like going to a prostitute.
If the values we possess are too different from what the story represents, then a disconnect happens.
The problem is ego plain and simple. When you say I did not like that because it was about this character that I hated, or I did not like this because it showcased all the things I hate about x. Instead, focus on the work or art as a whole and try not to force your own views, values, or morals on it.
If we go back to the example of L.A confidential. Watch the film and instead of seeing the scene with the prostitute as something you might find wrong, just watch the scene as something that the character you are watching would do.
If you read The Catcher in the Rye and hate it because Holden is an annoying little shit, then think of it more as someone different than you, with another perspective.
I also think it is beneficial to separate the art from the artist. Just because the artist is not a nice person doesn’t mean the art is bad. It also doesn’t mean people who enjoy that art are bad people. In the end, it is entirely up to the individual and sometimes the artist is redeemable.
The secret is about separating yourself from the art.
It can be difficult and sometimes downright impossible.
But if you succeed then you might start to enjoy stories a lot more.
The Case for and Against Gatekeeping
A term often used online is gatekeeping, but what is it? Why do people use it? Is it always bad? In this post I am going to make the argument both for and against gatekeeping, but first a definition. Gatekeeping can be used in many different contexts. This post is concerned with fandoms and how
A term often used online is gatekeeping, but what is it?
Why do people use it?
Is it always bad?
In this post I am going to make the argument both for and against gatekeeping, but first a definition.
Gatekeeping can be used in many different contexts. This post is concerned with fandoms and how some people in fandoms policies what determines a fan in a particular field.
Gatekeeping essentially means someone who controls access to something. It can be the mainstream media gatekeeping the news and the flow of information while keeping detail a secret. Again, for the purpose of this post, it is about fandoms.
I understand that all fan bases have their own degree of gatekeeping. It is hard to make a one size fits all argument concerning gatekeeping, but I will do my best.
What is it?
Gatekeeping is when a person or community controls axes to something.
Gatekeeping online takes a slightly different form. Online gatekeeping is about controlling who can and can not identify as a fan of something.
Why gatekeeping can be a good thing
Everybody wants gatekeeping to some degree. Say someone is giving away concert tickets for a famous band. These tickets are for fans only, and they only give away a hundred tickets.
As it happens a hundred die-hard fans are ready to receive these tickets. However, 50% of the tickets are given to people who just “like” the music and listen to the band once in a blue moon. Whereas the rest of the die-hards have listened to all the albums and know all the members of the band.
Would it not make sense for the people who are the most enthusiastic to be invited to such an event? Wouldn’t the concert be better off with people who love the music and the band dearly?
suppose the 50% who gets invited doesn’t even like the band, but only uses the concert as a ploy to get late or get some cloud. In that case, we would say that it would be unfair to the people who actually love the music not to be invited.
Whichever side you fall on will determine how much gatekeeping is needed.
In the above example you take a spot from someone else, someone who is much more enthusiastic, this is not the case online where fandoms are more of an abstract thing.
We all agree that people should actually be into whatever they claim to be into to be called a proper fan. If you lie you are simply not a real fan and thus it is okay to gatekeep you.
What people disagree on is the degree of engagement one has to have to call themselves a fan.
We all know that super fan, the one who can tell you everything about a musician from their favorite foods to what year they bought their first guitar. The super fan who has gone to 100+ concerts and who owns all their albums on vinyl. Then there is the other kind of fan who doesn’t care about all the personal stuff, but who has listened to all the albums, but has yet to go to a concert.
Then there is the casual fan who only listens to the 10 most popular songs and nothing else.
I would argue the first 2 people are fans, but the third one is not. There is nothing wrong with saying this and there is nothing wrong with being a casual enjoyer of things, but don’t call yourself a fan.
My personal opinion is that you also need to be well-versed in a fandom. This is the case for large fandom more so than one musician.
Consider the following:
A film lover who loves all films including Ghibli films. Now, that person can be a Ghibli fan. However, that person can not be considered an anime fan. The medium of anime is too big to only consider Ghibli films. When you have seen a plethora of series and films, can you be considered an anime fan.
In my personal opinion, I would consider a person who has seen a lot of different shows spanning different genres and different decades a “real” fan. A person who sees a lot of different things independent of what is popular is considered more of a fan.
Intentions matter. If you only watch stuff because everybody else does, well then you are just a follower, and your love of something is born out of a desire to fit in rather than a love of the thing itself. There is nothing wrong with liking popular stuff, but you have to make sure it is authentic.
People connect their fandom with their identity. This is why you see a lot of toxic fanbases who will defend their fandom with anger and hatred. They see an attack on what they like as an attack on themselves.
Some people just want to fit in whereas other people want to feel unique and special. When you follow an underground band and they suddenly become famous it is only natural to express disappointment.
“I knew them before they were famous”
Is a common hipster phrase, but I get the annoyins.
Finding hidden gems today is both hard and easy at the same time. It is hard because there is so much crap being produced, and no one knows where to look for hidden gems.
On the other hand, the mass production of stuff is also securing that some niche art that you like is going to be made the hard part is hiding it.
Let’s take another example, consider anime fans.
Today Anime is mainstream. There is no stigma connected with watching anime, whereas when I was a teen and watching anime it was something you had to keep to yourself with the danger of ridicule hanging over your head if anybody found out.
I realize I sound like a bitter old man here, but so be it.
It is easy to be a fan of something when everybody else is approving it in the social arena that is society. I have no problem with old anime heads like myself gatekeeping some newer fans. They have to have seen more genres from more decades to be considered a proper fan (in my opinion).
People want to craft a unique identity by associating with niche art. The internet has made this very difficult. Thus I think it is understandable that people who truly like something underground get angry and disappointed when that thing becomes mainstream, being a band or a whole genre like anime.
The case against Gatekeeping
We indeed want gatekeeping insofar as the people in fandom have fans of that particular thing. Otherwise, the fandom becomes inauthentic and fake with people only liking something for optics or cloud.
The problem arises when trying to narrow down what constitutes a fan.
Say the two people where one is more considered with the music and the other is more considered with the singer and their personality. You could say one is more of a fan than the other, yet the singer and the music are connected. There is more than one way of being a fan and there are more “gates” to enter into a fandom. More entry points if you will.
There is also no point in which you become a “true” fan. If we take a fan of a band: if you like their music and listen to it you are a fan of that music. If you are a super fan who knows everything about the band even trivial details and have been to 100+ concerts then you might be “more” of a fan, but both a still fans since fandom should grow out of the love of art.
Besides there simply is no point in which we can say “Okay, now you are officially a fan of X”. By setting up rules like you need to have listened to all their albums and been to at least 50 concerts, you only create weird and arbitrary goalposts that you (as the super fan) can move on a whim since you have a head start.
If someone said “You need a tattoo of the band to be a real fan” well, then everything breaks down, for that has nothing to do with the appreciation of the art. Fandoms are about the love of art and it is impossible to measure such things. Most gatekeeping is thus about made-up rules and restrictions with nothing about the actual art.
As for the person who creates their identity by listening to niche stuff.
You are not entitled to anything. You are not the only fan in existence, you will always have to share art with everyone else (unless you make it yourself, for yourself).
You might be the biggest fan of the smallest band ever, but if your brother introduced you to them, then how much do you deserve credit? You did nothing. Some people get into stuff at a later time.
We all get into different things at different times. At the time of writing this post, I have gotten into Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire). I am reading the books and liking them a lot while watching a bit of the series to compare. It is fun, but am I, not a fan because it took me this long to get into it?
Conclusion
Gatekeeping is a weird man, most of the time people are just trying to police others’ enjoyment based on their own situation. The “rules” people set up for other fans are truly arbitrary and no good at all.
HOWEVER! I do understand some forms of gatekeeping.
You want to keep out people who are not real fans.
If you have only read Lord of the Rings and those are your favorite books you can call yourself a fan of the series, but to be called a fantasy fan you need to have read a little more within the genre.
The Banshees of Inisherin: Myth, Death and Friendship
In Bruge is one of my favorite movies. It’s a dark comedy that is both simultaneously hilarious and clever. The dialog is well-crafted and sharp, the characters are well-rounded and the acting is top-notch. The director of the film Martin Macdonald and the stars Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell are back with a new film
The Banshees of Inisherin: Myth, Death and Friendship Read More »
In Bruge is one of my favorite movies.
It’s a dark comedy that is both simultaneously hilarious and clever. The dialog is well-crafted and sharp, the characters are well-rounded and the acting is top-notch. The director of the film Martin Macdonald and the stars Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell are back with a new film called The Banshees of Inisherin.
The film might not be as funny as In Bruge or as rewatchable, but it is just as good. The film is so simple, yet it has layers upon layers of meaning while being rich on a thematic level. I had to take a long walk after the film, reflecting on everything I just saw. This is truly the hallmark of a great film.
Summary
The story is about two men living on the fictional island of Inisherin. They live in a very small community where there is nothing to do except going to the local pop.
The story follows two men the stupid, but kind man named Pádraic Súilleabháin played by Colin and the more thinking musician named Colm Doherty played by Brendan Gleeson.
One day Colm decides he doesn’t want anything to do with Pádraic and he ends the friendship. Not because he is mad or anything, he has simply had enough. This is where the story starts.
That’s it…. No seriously, that is kind of it. It’s a film where the premise sounds doll and incredibly boring and it might seem like not an awful lot is happening, especially at the beginning, but the film lays the groundwork early on, and the story unfolds masterfully over time.
Colm gets so frustrated that he threatens to cut off his own fingers if Pádraic keeps talking to him. A threat he follows through with.
Analysis
See, It was not exactly true when I said nothing happened. Small stories at up and become this rich tapestry. The movie takes place on a fictional island called Inisherin. The film is filled with shots of Irish nature. The slow-moving camera and long shots further enhance the feeling of this being a very small, quiet, and isolated place.
Gunfire and canons can sometimes be heard from the mainland. This creates a contrast between the “real world” and Inisherin. Inisherin is not troubled by anyone else, they live in their own little piece of the world. Where a conflict between friends is the most noteworthy thing to happen.
Colm is getting old and he has woken up and realized that he doesn’t have infinite time on this earth. He has spent too much time in the pup drinking and talking to Pádraic. He feels this life has gotten away from him.
I think we have all felt that at some moment or another. When you think back to another time and realize how much time has passed from then til now. It is a scary prospect.
Colm can’t keep talking to Pádraic about boring stuff.
He would rather dedicate his life to making music, for music and art will stand the test of time, unlike any man. Halfway through the film, the two men have this exact argument. Colm claims that music, art, and poetry will stand the test of time. Pádraic thinks it is much more important to be a good person, and that being a nice person is the highest level one should aspire to.
Colm rebuttals saying that you can’t remember anyone from the 17th century because they were nice, but you remember Mozart. At the end of the argument, Pádraic’s sister Siobhan (Kerry Condon) correctes Colm by telling him that Mozart lived in the 18th century and not the 17th.
Later on, Siobhan and Colm talk about the situation. Colm only wants to talk to people who are smart and whom he respects. Siobhan is one of those people since she already corrected him on Motart. Throughout their conversation, it becomes clear that Colm is suffering from a Fear of death or Thanatophobia. (Thanatos being the greek god of death).
Terror Management Theory (TMT) is a theory exploring this exact thing. It says that humans are an animal that is primed to survive while simultaneously having the ability to contemplate their own demise. This contrast creates a state of terror.
People deal with this terror in different ways. Some people don’t think about death at all while other people try to create a legacy, something that will be here long after they are gone. Colm is the latter and Pádraic is the former.
Colm is trying to create a legacy. His fear of death has reshaped his whole existence.
I think most people can relate to Colm in some way or another, yet I think he misses some key things.
First of all, there is simply no way of securing that people will listen to your art after you are gone. It is true that most people know about Motaz, but how many know his music, how many go to a classic concert and listen to his works? A few indeed.
While most people know of Motaz few people know him as a man. The art he made and the man become both connected and separated over time.
Motaz is known for making music, his art stands alone and almost apart from him.
When we create something in the world we separate it from ourselves.
Thinking about death can be scary yet, contemplating death is not necessarily a bad thing and it can be a great help to prioritize and give you a new appreciation of life. The problem arises when it takes over your life and you feel powerless, unable to do anything, for what does it all matter in the end?
According to TMT, people who contemplate death are more likely to form ingroups and reject other people who don’t hold the same values as them. Under the fear of death, we fall back to a tribal tendency.
The funny thing is that Colm has no tripe. He is alone with his thoughts and fears, no one else is having the same thought as him. Siobhan is not thinking the same way he does and neither do the others on the island. Colm is thus alone and he decides to exclude Pádraic since he can’t include anyone else.
Is it better to be dump and happy, or smart and sad?
Studies show that having a higher IQ is associated with developing depression and anxiety.
The question the film raises is:
What is best? To be dumb and happy, or smart and sad.
Pádraic might be dumb, but he is a nice person and a good man.
Colm is smarter, but also anxious.
Is ignorance bliss? or is the act of accumulating knowledge more important despite the cost?
At one point Colm talks to a police officer who is going to the mainland to hang people who have committed crimes. He is not sure if it’s the IRA who is to be hanged or someone else. Colm is somewhat shocked about this statement asking how he can hang people even if they are innocent. The police officer says that for the money they give him, he would hang him.
This is important. For the person you are matters. How you act and treat people matters in the world. A whole branch of philosophy is dedicated to this exact thing namely ethics and more specifically virtue ethics. Sure you can have a lot of money, fame, and glory, but those things will disappear. After a funeral of a loved one, everybody talks about the kind of person he was and not how much money they made.
It’s hard being happy, especially in today’s world so many people are battling with depression and anxiety. I think a lot of it can be traced back to a fear of death. Knowing you have limited time on earth and at the same time the ability to compare yourself to everybody else. Is a cocktail of disaster.
Colm is comparing himself to Mozart, which is also a losing battle. Comparing yourself to anyone else is not a good way to be happy.
I think being happy and a little slow is preferred over being a smart asshole.
The Banshee, Religion, And Mythology
A banshee is a creature from Irish mythology that means “woman of the fairies”. The creature is a pale woman, with an unnaturally high scream. Legend has it that if you see a banshee or hear her scream it means that death is near and that you or someone close to you will die soon.
In the film, Colm works on his music and he calls his sonnet The Banshees of Inisherin. He says that he doesn’t have a good reason to call it that other than he likes how it sounds. Which to me seems like a valid reason, but let’s continue.
Colm talks about how he believes a banshee is different on the island than in myth. They are creatures sitting back in the dark and watching, Instead of them being a creature who makes themselves known. A silent symbol instead of a bombastic myth.
A mysterious woman appears throughout the film named Mrs. McCormick. The other characters try to avoid her, maybe because she is odd or because they sense something about her. She talks of death and is overall creepy as hell. When a death happens in the film she can be seen. Not in the foreground talking, but in the background, watching.
The film also deals with religion and it has a very clever critique of religion.
We are introduced to religion when the characters attend church. Colm goes to confession afterward. Colm confesses that he suffers from despair, which is also why he feels he has to make something that can live on after him. The funny thing is that despite him attending both church and confession it doesn’t seem to help at all. It feels more like the church is only for show. It does not provide any guidance or ease of mind.
At one point the local police officer (who is violent toward both his son and Pádraic) starts talking shit to Pádraic. Colm knocks him out and the priest says afterward that hitting a policeman is one of the greatest sins one can do. Colm is rightfully puzzled by this statement. It all adds to this feeling of the church providing little to Colm. At one point the priest is furious with Colm because he indicated that he likes men.
Colm also says to the priest that he doesn’t think Pride is a sin which is ironic for it is precisely because he is so prideful that he ends up with no fingers at the end and in turn no way to play music.
Pádraic is also pushed to the edge. After his sister leaves and his donkey dies he decides to burn Colm’s house down. This shows that even Pádraic can be pushed to do something bad despite him being the nicest person in the film.
Conclusion
The film is a masterful example of subtle storytelling. A film that weaves complex characters and themes together in the most beautiful way.
There are so many things to say about the film that I didn’t include. I didn’t include Barry Keoghan’s amazing performance as Dominic along with the complicated relationship he has with his father. I could also have talked a lot more about the idea of a small community.
As a person who has been jaded by the overall quality of films coming out today, this film has given me hope that good art can still be made. In that way, a film about hopelessness was exactly what I needed to feel hope for the future.
“The Void” a feeling not easily defined
No, “The Void” is not about existential dread, heartbreak, or any of that sort. The feeling of “The Void” is one of melancholy. It’s a feeling of having something missing inside you like a……Well, like a void. This happens after finishing a particular piece of art. Have you ever finished a Series, Game, or Book
No, “The Void” is not about existential dread, heartbreak, or any of that sort. The feeling of “The Void” is one of melancholy. It’s a feeling of having something missing inside you like a……Well, like a void. This happens after finishing a particular piece of art.
Have you ever finished a Series, Game, or Book only to walk around with an empty feeling inside you? That my friend is “The Void”.
The feeling is a strange sensation for it can only really occur if you liked something. It’s a combination of satisfaction over the art itself, sadness that it is over, and emptiness since you don’t have anything else to replace it.
Every Time you get the feeling it becomes that much harder to achieve again. That is why I always sit in the feeling for as long as I can. The normal instinct would be to find something to replace it with as fast as possible. This is a mistake, since the thing you replace it with dosent stand a chance. You are better of wating till the feeling has passed or weakend.
In the times we live in where everything is being consumed so fast it is hard to achieve “The Void”.
I was first introduced to the concept via the ancient anime podcast PodTaku (episode 15). Where the hosts talked about exactly that feeling. The episode made a big impact on me since I knew the feeling they were talking about, yet it is so hard to articulate what the feeling is. One of the hosts of the podcast name Holden said it like this:
“It is like a void inside of you that can only be filled with that show” I am paraphrasing here.
When does it happen?
In my opinion, I think you need to dedicate a large amount of time to it. Maybe some people can get the feeling from a film or an Album, yet I find that in my life I usually get it from longer form of Art.
When you consume a long story with a humble beginning that spans years and where the characters go on an adventure. Where they grow and experience so much. I think that is where the feeling is most likely to come out.
I imagine people who have read the wheel of Time or watched all of Naruto would feel “The Void”.
Once you dedicate that much time to a cast of characters “The Void” is going to be unavoidable.
I remember the feeling of “The Void” on several occasions mostly in anime and gaming.
AC Odyssey, FMA Brotherhood, Legend of Korra, and Cowboy Bebop are some examples of me getting the feeling.
I am sure it varies from person to person and that is what’s so great about it. It shows that diffrent things speak to diffrent people.
So, if you have finished something and instead of being happy, you feel sad and empty fear not! That feeling is normal. It is something we all experience, at some point or another, or at least I hope people do. Even Though the feeling is bittersweet, “The Void” springs out from a feeling of deep love and appreciation. Don’t ignore it. Try to sit in it, for you have no idea if that feeling is ever coming back.
Three colors of life
A brief review of the three colors trilogy by Krzysztof Kieślowski Blue Navigating life despite it all Three colors: blue is the first part of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s trilogy. The movie is about Julie (Juliette Binoche) who loses her husband and daughter in a tragic car accident. We follow Julie as she tries to navigate her
A brief review of the three colors trilogy by Krzysztof Kieślowski
Blue
Navigating life despite it all
Three colors: blue is the first part of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s trilogy.
The movie is about Julie (Juliette Binoche) who loses her husband and daughter in a tragic car accident. We follow Julie as she tries to navigate her new existence.
The movie has an almost dreamlike quality to it at times with blue being present throughout most of the film. It’s always nice to see films utilize colors in interesting ways, instead of the generic stuff in most big blockbusters. However, the use of blue is not exactly a gimmick, it never feels as if the filmmaker is trying to be profound.
Blue is not a film where an awful lot of things happen. We see Julie go through her emotions in an effort to live on with the immense burden of sorrow that rests in almost every frame of the film. Julie is a stern and strong-willed character. At first, she comes off as almost too stoic and indifferent to everything; this is partly justified due to her having just lost her family. Yet throughout the film, we see her make connections with other people. She forges friendships and bonds with strangers and helps them along their journey. A very interesting juxtaposition is thus created between the way Julie represents herself and the way she acts.
The film is full of moments that will stay in your mind long after the film is over. The film takes its time and lets these moments sit, this creates a slow pacing that fits and further enhances the film. The slow pace is never a problem since the film is only 90 minutes long. The cinematography and direction are both top notch like when Julie is told of the ascendant at the hospital, the doctor is reflected in her eye and we do not see her. Juliette Binoche delivered a performance for the history books with a powerful yet underplayed performance.
White
White is a film that had a lot to live up to. Being the sequel to such an amazing film as Blue expectations were rightfully raised high. Did the film meet them? No, but is it still a good film? Let’s find out.
The film is about a polish immigrant named Karol Karol who has recently divorced his wife Dominique. Just like its predecessor, the film is a slow-moving character piece about a man with financial problems struggling to get over his ex-wife. Dominique is not in the movie a lot, but she inquires in every scene, hunting the narrative. Karol befriends a man named Mikolaj who helps him get back to Poland.
The film is about perseverance and how important it is to keep going. There is a beautiful scene between Karol and Mikolaj concerning a gun and the will to live. I found the film captivating and inspiring. Karol’s journey from a man who fights his way back from financial and emotional despair was brilliant. Even after he gets beaten multiple times he still gets up and continues on.
The movie is definitely good, but I do think the first film Blue was outstanding and better overall. The performance by Juliette Binoche is still something that haunts me. I do think White works, but as an overall experience, It is not as good as the first.
Red
Red is the last of the three colors trilogy and what a conclusion. The film follows a model named Valentine who meets a former judge who spies on other people through a radio system. This is both unethical and illegal, but Valentine is unable to stop him. The two people meet when Valentine accidentally hits the judge’s dog in her car. The Judge is totally indifferent to the fact that his dog is gone. In fact, he seems totally indifferent to anything. However, he starts to open up again due to his friendship with Valentine.
Red is like Blue and white a slow-moving character study. The color red is of course connected with the theme of love. We follow a man named August in his romantic endeavors. August and Valentine never meet, but they live close to each other. Even though they do not know of each other’s existence they often share the frame with one of them being in the background. One of them will leave the shot only for the other to appear and pick up the story again.
Red is a perfect conclusion for the trilogy. The three films don’t have anything to do with each other except for a cameo here and there. Yet the ending scene wraps up all the other films along with giving the viewer some closure.
Appeal
You enjoy slow-moving character pieces that showcase the beauty of everyday life.
Dogtooth (2009) The decay of family
Dogtooth is a strange case. The movie is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos who also directed “Killing of a sacred deer” and “the lobster ”. If you have seen any of those films then you would know what you are in for. His films are not strange in the traditional way. Where absurd imagery and a
Dogtooth is a strange case. The movie is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos who also directed “Killing of a sacred deer” and “the lobster ”. If you have seen any of those films then you would know what you are in for.
His films are not strange in the traditional way. Where absurd imagery and a dreamlike state are created as you see in a David Lynch film. The only word I can come up with is “stiff”. His actors talk, move, and act very stiffly compared to normal humans. They talk in a monotone voice without much inflection. They move like stilted and with every motion exacerbated, but still with a locked body. The characters also act strange and I don’t mean the acting in the film, I mean the fact that characters act, unlike any human being in the world.
His films feel otherworldly like they take place in a parallel world where norms are different. Yet his films feel mundane, showcasing a lot of everyday activities.
I am a fan of arthouse films, but I haven’t been able to get into his films before. I saw “Killing of a sacred deer” and thought it was absolutely dreadful. I liked the first half of the Lobster, but after they escape the facility the film loses all momentum. Dogtooth was still on my radar since it was one of his first films and instead of being in English, it is in his native tongue of greek. I decided to watch and…… Well, let’s talk about it.
Summary
The movie is about a dad who shelters his 3 children (1 son and 2 daughters) from the rest of the world….. That’s it, the summary ends here. The film is not about how the children muster the courage to escape or how they rebel against his tyrannical rule, no the film is a slice of life showcasing the family’s daily routines and how they live their lives.
Also, I am incapable of spoiling the movie. I could in theory say what happens, but it won’t do much of anything. If I told you that at one point the oldest daughter cuts her brother with a knife, you might think that it is confusing without context. However, the scene is confusing even with context. Most of the film is confusing, for nothing is explained at all.
Analysis
This section is also going to be lackluster since the movie is about small pieces of the family’s life instead of a cohesive narrative.
Everything feels unnatural in this film. As stated before, the way they walk, talk and act are all strange. It is like the uncanny valley of human behavior. It’s close enough yet so different that it feels off-putting. This might create a barrier between the work and the viewer, this is also why I did not care for “Killing of a sacred deer” the first time I saw it.
In Dogtooth, the characters act strange. The first instinct is to blame their circumstances. They have been sheltered all their life. However, at a certain time, the father goes to his job and the characters outside the house also act weird. The tone of his films is consistent if nothing else. I do think it is a mistake to have all characters act unnaturally. By having everyone act weird you create a world where the kids don’t act that different from the rest of the world and I think that is a mistake. I would be more powerful to create a bigger contrast between the house and the rest of the world. That would enhance the theme of sheltering and how it is bad to do, yet I have no other choice than to abandon this point since the contrast is not sufficient enough.
By the way, I call them kids, but they are in their twenties.
The kids also learn the meaning of words and we see they get taught the wrong definition of words.
Examples:
A zombie = little yellow plum
Shotgun = Beautiful Bird
The Phone = salt
It makes sense to not teach them about phones since that is a way to reach the outer world.
The movie starts with the father of the family paying a female security guard named Christina to have sex with his son. What follows can only be described as the most awkward sex scene in all of cinema.
The children are drawn to Christina and on her latter visits, she trades normal things for oral sex with the oldest daughter. Christina is being used for sex yet is using others for sex.
The father is using what can only be described as questionable parenting strategies.
The first thing is that if the children come too close to the border of the house in the form of a giant fence. The son has to drink bleach and keep it in his mouth until the mom says he can spit it out. The parents want the children to stay at home. That much is clear, but why?
Let’s come back to that question later.
At one point a cat has made its way into the garden. The children freak out and the son kills the cat with a manual hedge trimmer. The father sees this as an opportunity, he rips his own cloth and puts fake blood onto his face. He says a cat is the most dangerous animal in the world and to keep it away the children and mom have to be on all four legs and bark like a dog.
Seeing the father coach the children on how to act like a dog has to be another example of the movie’s weirdness. It is a particularly strange image.
The father has a dog who is being trained by some people. The paradox is that he is training his children like dogs to be dogs, but he can’t train an actual dog, the irony is heavy indeed.
Every time a plane is above them in the sky the father throws a toy plane into the yard and says it fell. The children all rush to get it, they push and trip each other to get the fake plane. The plane represents the outside world, by making it into a game and a form of a bird that can fall down, the father creates another illusion to hide the children.
The parents also discipline the children with violence. Both are violent in the traditional sense, but they also use fear as a punishment. We have already talked about how the son is forced to drink bleach. The daughter is hit by the mother after she cuts her brother with a kitchen knife.
It is time to touch open the question of why
Why do the fathers of the family choose to keep them isolated from the rest of the world to such a degree?
At some point, he talks about how the world is a dangerous place. Men are able to handle it when they are between 20-30 years old and for women 30-40.
He clearly has a need for protecting them. He frightens them with the story of the cat being the most dangerous animal. It is clear he has a fear of the world, not so much that the world is going to do something bad to him, but to his children.
We do not get a lot of clues as to why he chooses to do what he does. There is no evidence that the world should be a dangerous place. We are shown very little in the outside world. However, the bits and pieces we are shown do not show any danger at all.
See the movie is doing a very subtle art of satire. Where the message is hidden in plane site.
The movie is commenting on the danger of being too cautious and wanting to protect your children too much.
It takes the idea of the overprotective guardian to an upsert degree. Yet we know of so many parents who are overprotective of their children wanting them to shield them from the rest of the world wanting to solve all their problems, paying others so they can get laid, so they do not have to face rejection on their own.
Many new parents experience a form of anxiety when they get children for the first time. Because the love is so great that the fear of missing them is equally as great, and thus a form of angst is born. So maybe, just maybe the father’s need for keeping the children at home is his twisted way of showing he cares.
The second most important question is why they lick each other so much.
This might now seem important, but the amount of people who lick each other in the film is above average. Sometimes it’s in a sexual context like when the parents lick each other doing sex. Other times it’s more casual like when the daughters lick each other.
Animals lick each other when they clean themselves and others. By having the characters lick each other Yorgos is depicting man as a mere animal like all others. But it also shows how a lack of society is making humans go back to their primitive ways.
homeschooling is dump
I also can’t help but see the whole film as a critique of homeschooling. If you homeschool your child you could in theory teach them all of these things depicted in the movie. You could teach them the wrong meaning of words. The fact that cats are the most dangerous animal and so on.
Is it worth watching?
The final question is simply “is the film worth watching”. and to that my answer is a resounding yes. Not because it is good in the traditional way, or even in an untraditional way, but because no other film is like this.
It’s a strange feeling watching the film and I can’t say I enjoyed watching it. However, I have caught myself thinking about it many times, it has a special feeling and mood. You do not watch it to know what happens, but to peer into a strange world.
Plus the ending is so ambiguous it makes Inception look like nothing.
House of Gucci Sucks
Ridley Scott started his career in the perfect fashion (see what I did there) he has undoubtedly made some of the best movies ever, but apart from The Martian he has not made a good movie since 2001. He is on a giant losing streak, so is the house of Gucci a return to form?
Ridley Scott started his career in the perfect fashion (see what I did there) he has undoubtedly made some of the best movies ever, but apart from The Martian he has not made a good movie since 2001. He is on a giant losing streak, so is the house of Gucci a return to form? No………….. No, it is not
The worst thing about the movie is the casting. Most of the cast is not Italian at all. If you make a movie about Italians in Italy doing stuff they should at the very least speak Italian. I am sick and tired of this trope where you have the actors talk with an accent and then we all just pretend it’s another language. All because Americans can’t/won’t read subtitles.
Adam Driver is doing his best and I find him and Jeremy Irons to be the best part of the film.
Lady Gaga had success in A star is born and now everyone is under the assumption that she is a good actress, but she is not. She is so out of her debt in this film it’s incredible. She plays a Femme fatale role and she doesn’t have what it takes, she falls flat and is not convincing at all. The scene where Jeremy Irons takes his son in his hands with tears in his eyes showcases more acting chops in one scene than Lady Gaga had in the whole film.
Al Pacino is also in the film, he does nothing. Whether he plays Aldo Gucci or Jimmy Hoffa he does the same thing. He might be a legend in Hollywood, by don’t have to like the acting.
Jared Leto plays Paolo Gucci and he isn’t convincing either. Why would you take a good-looking man and dress him up as an ugly one, why not just cast another actor that looks the part as well? The character of Paulo is also terribly written, with a joke about eating shit and chocolate being so unfunny I almost walked out of the film.
Normally I would never talk so much about the casting and the actors, but there is nothing else to this movie worth talking about. It is just a bit of mediocrity and blandness.
The story is not interesting and did not need to be told, it is also overly long clocking in at almost 3 hours. There is foreshadowing so thick it almost hits you in the face.
Would not recommend it at all, stay clear.
Being John Malkovich: WHAT?!?
Being John Malkovich is a film from 1999 directed by Spike Jonze and written by the always original, if not slightly neurotic Charlie Kaufman. The duo would later go on and make the movie Adaptation starring Nicolas Cage twice. Being John Malkovich is a strange movie, and I don’t mean it in the sense that
Being John Malkovich is a film from 1999 directed by Spike Jonze and written by the always original, if not slightly neurotic Charlie Kaufman. The duo would later go on and make the movie Adaptation starring Nicolas Cage twice.
Being John Malkovich is a strange movie, and I don’t mean it in the sense that the film itself is strange even though it is. The movie is strange because it feels strange, yet it isn’t as surreal as other Kaufman films and it is not as focused as other Joneze films.
Putting into words what makes Being John Malkovich good is difficult. So, I will start with a summary and see where we end up.
Summary
The movie stars John Cusack as Greg, a struggling puppeteer. Yes, he is a puppeteer meaning he makes dolls and performs with them. Greg is struggling with finding a job because as he puts it no one is looking for a puppeteer in today’s economy. Now, this movie was made in 1999 yet I sense the need for puppeteers hasn’t grown since then, but I could be wrong.
The film could in theory be viewed as a critique of modern culture, where pencil pushers are valued more than artists. The film’s themes go way deeper than that though.
Greg is in a relationship with Lotte, a veterinarian played by Cameron Diaz. They live in an apartment full of animals. Lotte convinces Greg to find a placeholder job he can hold while he finds a job as a puppeteer.
Greg gets a job for Lester Cop, a strange entity that is located on the seventh and a half floor. The siling is incredibly low since the department is located between two floors. Everyone is walking around hunched over. This is a very funny visual and the people almost look like puppets….. Thematic isn’t it.
Greg meets a woman named Maxine played by Catherine Keener who Greg instantly is drawn to. He lusts after her like a horny schoolboy. Now, if I made the movie
and I wanted to show Greg lust after another woman, I would properly have cast another actress than Cameron Diaz for his Girlfriend.
Greg Later discovers a portal that leads “inside” the head of famous Actor Brad Pit…..
I mean John Malkovich. They decided to charge people for “entering” his head and from that point on hilarity ensues.
Greg and Maxine make the portal into a business where they charge money for someone to be John Malkovich for 15 minutes.
Summarizing the film is easy enough, but it’s hard to convey exactly how weird it is. Watching all these people walk around with their heads down in the smallest office space ever is super strange.
The characters don’t think it’s that odd and thus a contrast is being made between something absurd and the characters’ reaction to it.
It’s more effective to have something weird and then having the characters think it’s the most normal thing in the world.
Where the mind at?
The movie delves into an accent philosophical discussion called the Mind-body problem. The problem is about the relationship between thought and consciousness in the human mind, and the brain as part of the physical body.
To oversimplify it to an absurd degree: The problem is that everyone has a subjective experience of what it is to be them. This is called consciousness and we have no idea where it is located in the brain (if it’s located there) or even what it really is. Is the part that makes you, you located in the brain? or somewhere else?
Famous French philosopher Rene Descartes is credited with inventing the problem, even though discussions similar to the mind-body problem can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece. Descartes believed in what is known as substance dualism, which means there are two kinds of categories:
Physical stuff and mental stuff.
Physical stuff has things like height, mass, color, and so on, whereas mental stuff doesn’t have all these properties. The mental stuff is not located in time and space.
Humans are the only animal to combine the two states in what is known as interactionism. Which means the mental and the physical state interact with each other. Stress, anxiety, and anger can all manifest in the body. Thus one interacts with the other.
But how can a purely physical phenomenon interact with a purely mental phenomenon?
This my dear reader is called the Mind-Body problem.
Descartes said that the mind was located within the Pineal gland in the mind and that it filters mental experience through some kind of portal….. I know, it’s not that convincing, wouldn’t the Pineal gland be part of the physical body too, since it is in the brain?
Why do you spend so much time on this problem? Because the movie deals with exactly that problem.
At the beginning of the film, Gregs explains to a monkey that he is suffering because he has consciousness and that the monkey doesn’t have that problem. Yet, the monkey becomes clinically depressed throughout the film. Greg is also saying in this scene that having consciousness is a bad thing.
When people go through the portal and enter John’s head they perceive the world through him, but as themselves. Furthermore, their body disappears when they enter. It is not clear where the body goes. The important part is that they do not need it to perceive the world through Malkovich.
Maxine and Greg sell the experience as “you get to be John Malkovich for 15 minutes”, but this is not true. They get to be themselves, inside John’s head. They still have their own thoughts and Malkovich still has his own thoughts. The visitors are not in control of John, so in a sense, they are merely passengers.
At some point, Maxine starts a relationship with John Malkovich. Whenever Maxines is having sex with John, Lotte is a passenger in his mind. Maxine can sense Lotte inside him and is turned on by this. Maxine is not attracted to Lotte in the real world. Maxine is not attracted to John, she wants John’s body with Lotte as a passenger. Maxine is attracted to her soul and not her body.
At some point, Greg takes over Malkovich for good, and he learns to control him fully. Maxine and Greg get married and Greg is becoming famous as a puppeteer.
It is clear that Greg is only getting famous because he occupies John’s body. People don’t care about Greg’s art, they care only for Malkovich’s art. If the art was important Greg would be famous before he took over Malkovich.
At one point Greg performs his puppet dance as Malkovich. The metaphor is clear as day, he is using Malkovich as a puppet. Greg is the one pulling the strings, he is not the puppet. Greg is still Greg even when he is acting as John.
The movie contains some trippy imagery and sequins. We have already talked about the low ceiling and how that looks, but there is plenty more weird stuff.
At one point John goes through his own portal, which leads him to an existence where everybody has his head and the only thing they can say is “Malkovich”
Lotte chases Maxine through John’s subconscious and that sequence feels like it’s straight out of “eternal sunshine of the spotless mind”, another Kaufman movie.
The movie is a well-written, thematically deep experience that is both thought-provoking in its themes yet funny in its absurdity.