Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read

Gateway Cinephile

Appreciation and Criticism of Cinema Through Heartland Eyes
Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read
Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.29.07 PM.png

The Cause Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed: The Master and the Inadequacies of Ideology

[Note: This essay contains spoilers. My original September 12, 2012 review of The Master for Look / Listen can be found here.]

Last month The New Inquiry published an incisive essay titled “American Saints,” the subject of which is, in author Rohit Chopra’s phrasing, “the fetishization of the entrepreneur” in American cultural and political life. Overall, the piece is a trenchant slice of social criticism, but it is this early paragraph in Chopra’s essay, highlighted by Andrew Sullivan, that zeroes in on a phenomenon that has long needed a name:

The obsession with the figure of the entrepreneur reflects what may be called the “evangelical imagination,” in American society. I use the term broadly to refer to a style of thinking in which the act of adopting a set of beliefs and attitudes is seen as profoundly transforming both the individual and the state of the world. The term also invokes the missionary fervor with which the advocates of particular ideas, beliefs, or products seek to persuade others about the value of these notions or objects…

 

Chopra employs this idea of the evangelical imagination as an explanatory framework for what he perceives as the culture’s monomaniacal lionization of “Homo entrepeneuricus”. However, the concept is a useful one for understanding a distinctly American approach to all manner of ideologies, whether they are economic, political, religious, or philosophical. The evangelical imagination has a particular relevance for cinephiles at the present moment, as the phenomenon is one of the foremost thematic preoccupations of writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson’s brilliant, divisive new feature, The Master.

Moreso than any other American feature released in 2012, Anderson’s film has provoked a bumper crop of deep-focus critical assessments. In the past three months or so, a staggering number of words have been generated in an attempt to suss out The Master’s plot, themes, style, and various perceived strengths or weaknesses as an art object. Thus far, however, there has been little discussion of the prominent place of ideology in the film’s dense thematic landscape. In particular, The Master’s acidic criticism of the American zeal for a transformative, receivable Truth is one of its most enthralling aspects, and one that deserves serious attention.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.03.53 AM.png

One could hardly imagine an individual in greater need of a transformation (any kind of transformation) than World War II Navy veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), who exhibits a host of compulsive, destructive behaviors. Freddie is a raging alcoholic with a predilection (and apparent talent) for concocting eye-opening elixirs from ingredients ranging from Cutty Sark to paint thinner. He will, however, swig straight Lysol in a pinch. His addiction routinely results in all manner of first- and second-order troubles. The booze keeps him snoozing through a dinner date with a lovely department store model, Martha (Amy Ferguson). It goads him into a pointless, adolescent scrap with a customer (W. Earl Brown) at the photography studio where he works for a time. Eventually, it finds him sprinting across a fallow field in California’s Central Valley, chased by Filipino cabbage-pickers who believe that Freddie’s homemade hooch has poisoned a fellow worker (Frank Bettag).

Boozing is just the most prominent of Freddie’s innumerable bad habits, however. He is routinely seized by a sexual mania that overwhelms his senses, not to mention his already-marginal social graces. During the War, when his fellow sailors construct a sand sculpture of an anatomically correct woman on a South Pacific beach, Freddie doesn’t just hump the effigy for a few seconds to elicit a laugh. He proceeds to finger the sand-woman’s vagina in detached silence, while the appreciative smiles of the gathered sailors gradually slacken in discomfort. (Phoenix adds a superlative physical flourish to this scene by offhandedly shaking the grit from his hand.)

Within every inkblot presented to him by a Navy psychologist, Freddie detects a pussy or cock or some combination of the two. Even his more poetic romantic outbursts are streaked with sexual frenzy. About to depart for China on a sea freighter, he whispers a dawn goodbye at the bedroom window of Doris (Madisen Beaty), the sixteen-year-old object of his desire, and then abruptly rips through the wire screen to embrace her. (The moment evokes William Hurt’s lust-crazed glass-shattering in Body Heat, albeit without the subsequent sexual release.) Freddie’s characteristic stance—crooked back, sunken chest, arms akimbo, hands resting on his bony hips—highlights his satyriasis. He seems to be ready to direct an animal thrust at anything that crosses his path, or perhaps straining (unsuccessfully) to keep his urges leashed.

Freddie’s gargantuan impulse-control problems appear to have been exacerbated by his wartime experiences. These are ambiguous, although sufficiently scarring that he is committed for a time to the care of Navy hospital for what was is euphemistically referred to as his “nervous condition.” Later in the film, he confesses to having slain an unspecified number of “Japs” during the War, and although he claims that he feels no guilt for these murders, it’s plain that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, shell shock (as it was then called) is not the only explanation for his erratic, violent tendencies, which the film traces back (in part) to a family history of alcoholism, mental illness, and emotional and sexual abuse.

Like all addicts, Freddie is in deep denial about the extent to which his actions are problematic, preferring to project the persona of a hard-working, easy-going fellow with no particular troubles. Questioned by a Navy doctor, he exhibits little remorse for past “incidents,” such as a drunken attack on an officer or a sobbing breakdown provoked by a letter from Doris. Freddie’s reaction when confronted with any accusation is to first refute and then minimize. “There’s no problem” is his mantra, but anyone with eyes can see that there most definitely is a problem.

It’s clear that Freddie desperately needs to change his ways or he will soon meet a violent, booze-soaked end, but it’s less obvious how such a change might come about. For some individuals, the day-to-day structure provided by military life serves as a much-needed organizing principle that nurtures self-discipline, but Freddie is not that sort of individual. Even threats of imprisonment or hospitalization have evidently done little to curb his drinking, libido, or rage. He’s as untamable as a mad rattlesnake, prone to lash out at anything that grazes him.

Freddie’s dissolute behavior positions him as the potential hero in a classic Conversion Story, in which a lost soul is transformed by exposure to a Truth (usually religious in nature). In such tales, the convert is snatched from the talons of self-destruction and blessed with a new sense of completeness and purpose. However, while The Master relies in part on the conventions of the Conversion Story, the film is eventually revealed as a bloody-minded refutation of the very notion of conversion. Far from offering a boilerplate portrait of Augustinian repentance and zeal, The Master depicts Freddie’s attempt to reform himself through ideological devotion as a futile and even catastrophic endeavor.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.25.23 PM.png

Bottoming out for the umpteenth time, Freddie stows away aboard the Alethiea, a luxury ship moored in San Francisco Bay. Upon awakening blearily the next morning, he is led into the stateroom of "The Master." This is Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a self-described "writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, and theoretical philosopher," who also presents himself as the commander of the vessel. During their first conversation, Dodd observes that Freddie is a “hopelessly inquisitive man.” This phrase does not seem to describe the volatile drunk and sexual obsessive that the film has thus far depicted. However, the longing for answers to questions (and for solutions to dilemmas) proves to be one of the fundamental forces that propels Freddie’s Conversion Story—and ultimately derails it utterly.

From the moment of their initial encounter, the complex relationship between Freddie and Dodd becomes the dramatic centerpiece of the film. Freddie’s stance towards Dodd’s pseudo-religious self-help movement, the Cause, is informed to a large extent by his stance towards the Master. This is unsurprising, given Dodd’s status as the Cause’s first and only prophet. However, Dodd also develops an affinity for Freddie that goes beyond the normal dynamic of a high priest and his acolyte, with Dodd exhibiting behavior that is faintly paternal, fraternal, and homoerotic. Both men are eventually disillusioned by the failures of the other, and those failures become a part of the film’s broader criticism of ideology gone haywire, and of the evangelical imagination’s stark limitations.

To the skeptical eye, Dodd’s Cause appears to be a mish-mash of past-life regression, positive-thinking gobbledegook, and laughable snake oil claims. In its outlines, the Cause bears some similarities to L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics movement and its religious descendant, the Church of Scientology. Likewise, Dodd’s biographical details and personality traits partly resemble those of the historical Hubbard. The dramatic heft of The Master relies to some extent on the evocative power of such similarities, permitting the film to exploit the prominent position of Scientology within the American religious, economic, and cultural landscape. (Undeniably, Scientology is a profoundly American faith in both its origins and character, with its pay-to-play system of spiritual advancement and institutional reverence for celebrity and financial success.)

However, the fictional nature of the Cause is essential to The Master’s success as a bleak rebuttal of the zealous advocacy that characterizes the evangelical imagination. Anderson’s centering of the film’s events on an invented cult shifts the focus away from the creeds or rituals of any particular real-world faith. This enables the film to preempt accusations of sectarian motive and circumvert slogs through digressive theological mires. Instead, The Master takes as its theme the phenomenon of ideology, and in particular the ways in which ideological systems are intrinsically incapable of confronting and addressing their own failures. In revealing the weaknesses of a non-existent religious movement, the film thereby confronts all the -isms that promise a sweeping transformation of the self and society.

This sort of transformative power is strongly associated with American evangelical Christianity; hence Chopra’s appropriation of the movement’s terminology for his essay. For Americans who were raised in the evangelical subculture, the holistic character of Biblical truth—its alleged applicability to every aspect of life and every problem one could potentially confront—is a familiar concept. One’s Christian faith, and specifically a non-literal “literal” reading of the Bible, provides a yardstick by which all judgements can be assessed for righteousness, from the most banal consumerist choices to legal interpretations of the United States Constitution.

To those Americans who stand outside the evangelical Christian bubble, the all-encompassing reach of its worldview can be difficult to fully comprehend and appreciate. Occasionally, the flitting sunlight of YouTube will illuminate a prominent true believer who takes the evangelical imagination to its logical endpoint: cultural hegemony enforced at the point of a sword (or at least a bureaucrat’s pen). Such a moment was recently highlighted when video emerged of Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) extolling the Bible before a like-minded audience:

What I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it... It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

As Broun’s words illustrate, the evangelical imagination approaches Christianity not merely as a set of principles for confronting day-to-day ethical dilemmas, or as a source of personal fortitude in the face of adversity. The church is, rather, a cultural force that can and must be implemented in every facet of human life. Such hubris is hardly the exclusive domain of Christianity, nor is it limited to religious movements. It is the common thread of every ideological system when it imagines itself at the End of History and subsequently becomes infected with sweeping self-importance.

Just as all ills—whether personal or social—are rooted in the absence of the ideology, there are no problems that can stand before the ideology’s gleaming truths. This stripe of grandiose, magical thinking creates space for truly ludicrous claims. In The Master, Lancaster Dodd insists that the Cause’s “de-hypnosis” methods can achieve aims as grand as establishing world peace and curing leukemia. (“Some kinds of leukemia,” Dodd helpfully clarifies.) Such statements directly evoke Scientology’s claims that its pseudo-scientific hoodoo can heal all manner of psychiatric ailments. However, one is also reminded of the remarkable assertion of George W. Bush’s neo-colonial Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer that right-wing laissez-faire economic policies were the cure-all for the post-Saddam, U.S.-instigated chaos in that country. How exactly a flat tax rate would have blocked the bullets that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians is a mystery on par with how Dodd’s interrogation exercises can abolish cancer.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.06.25 AM.png

Were The Master especially concerned with highlighting the silliness of the Cause’s self-help claims and quasi-mystical newspeak, then one might justly accuse Anderson of fashioning a ideological scarecrow to pummel into submission. However, while the film presents the Cause’s beliefs as almost laughably wobbly at times, Dodd is hardly portrayed as a failure. He has, after all, amassed a nationwide assemblage of followers, many of whom sincerely believe that his methods have helped them overcome physical and psychological challenges. The Master is, if nothing else, a consummate pitchman and manipulator, capable of convincing his devotees that his Victorian parlor tricks are providing dramatic results in their daily lives.

The vacuousness of the Cause plays a vital narrative role in The Master, but the film’s dramatic focus rests on characters’ reactions and counter-reactions to that vacuousness. This is crucial to the film’s grace and sophistication: its criticism of the evangelical imagination is discreetly expressed through the experiences of its characters. Specifically, the film employs the person of Freddie Quell to illustrate the paradox of a zealot who does not see the divine light that fellow believers claim to sense. Fundamentally, The Master is the story of how Freddie responds when confronted with this alienating situation, and how Dodd in turn responds to the presence of a stillborn apostle in his flock.

Approaching The Master in this way permits a strikingly clear division of the film’s scenes into chapters, with significant shifts in Freddie’s relationship to the Cause serving as narrative breakpoints. The scenes that precede Freddie’s first encounter with Dodd aboard the Aletheia function as a prelude, establishing significant facts about the former man’s character and past (although some revelations are held in reserve for later). In the chapters that follow, the film creates a sense of expectation through the promise that Freddie will experience a “profound transformation,” in Chopra’s phrasing. This epiphany never arrives, resulting in a story that is characterized by repeated episodes of aimlessness and fizzled potentiality. The viewer, like Freddie, expects that the burning bush will eventually speak, but The Master is utterly ruthless in its silence.

The film’s setting encompasses a sequence of localities that are not revisited (save in flashback), conveying the sensation of trudging towards an ever-lengthening horizon. The action drifts to San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Arizona, Massachusetts, and England, as though a moment of clarity lies just over the next hill. (The South Pacific of Freddie’s war memories, meanwhile, seems to exist outside of time, bookending the film with its churning turquoise waters and sandy mother-lover.) The rootlessness of setting is an outgrowth of Lancaster Dodd’s itinerant nature. Recalling Christ, he is a holy man without a temple, dependent on the largesse of well-heeled, more sedentary benefactors in order to sustain himself and preach his gospel. Of course, in contrast to Christ’s asceticism, Dodd appreciates the finer things in life, and has no compunctions about borrowing a wealthy follower’s stately pleasure ship for his daughter Elizabeth’s (Ambyr Childers) maritime wedding.

I. Aboard the Aletheia

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.05.35 AM.png

Having discovered that he is the guest of an enigmatic self-help author who answers only to the title “Master,” Freddie is understandably guarded. Even when confronted with Dodd’s disarming observations regarding his alcoholism and anger—apparently gleaned from a single off-screen night of misbehavior—Freddie repeats his Navy hospital tactics and simply denies that he has any problems. The wedding of Elizabeth and Clark (Rami Malek) and the following days at sea expose Freddie to the Cause’s strange jargon and rituals, albeit offhandedly at first. During the wedding reception, Dodd’s son Val (Jesse Piemons) asks Freddie whether he has performed any “time-hole work,” a question to which the latter man responds with his characteristic grinning uncertainty. Playing along and telling people what he suspects they want to hear proves to be a favored strategy for Freddie when he is on unfamiliar ground.

Freddie is generally captivated by Dodd’s self-assured charisma, and pleased by the man’s appreciation for his mixology talents. (Dodd, who is a guilt-wracked sensualist at heart and loves mystifying the mundane, coyly refers to Freddie’s alcoholic concoctions as “potions”.) Where the Cause’s bizarre beliefs and practices are concerned, however, Freddie exhibits a blend of mild curiosity and eye-rolling disbelief. During a strange group session, Dodd’s wife Peggy (Amy Adams) explains in hushed tones that the Cause’s methods allow subjects to revisit formative in utero experiences, and even regress through countless past lives. “We record everything,” she declares, hands on her pregnancy-swollen stomach, and although Freddie nods in agreement, he doesn’t seem to know what to make of this statement. Spiritual matters don’t hold much attraction for him. Confronted with a bank of headphones that pump a recording of a droning, anti-carnal diatribe read by Dodd, Freddie defiantly scribbles a crude proposition to the woman sitting across from him.

Perhaps sensing Freddie’s growing frustration, Dodd asks him to participate in the Cause’s signature sacrament, a marathon of repetitive, confounding, and deeply personal questions referred to as Processing. Freddie’s Processing is one of the film’s pivotal scenes: Dodd succeeds in cracking open the man’s shell of stiff-lipped denial, and exposes the core of raw pain underneath. The ease with which the Master does this, and Freddie’s eagerness to please him by “succeeding” at the Processing, convince the latter man not only of Dodd’s wisdom, but of the ideological merits of the Cause. The silliness of past lives and time-holes aside, Freddie is unable to deny that Dodd has access to some secret way of seeing the world, enabling him to quickly discern a subject’s most private shames.

To a skeptical observer, standing outside the emotionally heightened Processing experience, Dodd’s methods seem mundane, comparable to the cold readings performed by strip-mall psychics and cable-show mediums. His questions are so generalized as to be pointless: Do your past failures bother you? Do you care how others see you? Is your life a struggle? Is your behavior erratic? Dodd creates false familiarity with such inquiries, priming Freddie to answer other, more specific questions with unthinking frankness. Furthermore, by asking the same questions repeatedly and staging the entire Processing as a kind of endurance test, the Master creates a sense of disorientation that invites non-rational responses. Freddie becomes wholly caught up in the Processing, going so far as to strike himself violently as punishment for repeatedly “failing” the rite.

The tone of Freddie’s Processing scene is ferociously intimate, one part confession and one part psychoanalysis. It also possesses a strikingly erotic undertone. After excavating all of Freddie’s secrets and declaring him “the bravest boy I’ve ever met,” Dodd shares a cigarette and a turpentine cocktail with his new devotee. (Dodd’s moaning exultation after a swallow of Freddie’s potion is nakedly orgasmic, and will be echoed later in the sounds Peggy’s bathroom sink handjob elicits from her husband.) However, the sexual dimension to Freddie’s Processing ultimately proves compelling not so much for its intimations about the Dodd-Freddie relationship as for its reflection of the Cause’s supposedly transformative qualities. Like the virgin freshly awakened to the secret world of sexuality, Freddie sees his surroundings through new eyes. (There will, of course, be eventual disappointments when the lover’s blemishes and aggravating habits become more evident with time.) He has witnessed the light on the road to Damascus, and has submitted himself to the ideal of the evangelical imagination: The Truth having (allegedly) enacted a profound change on him, he is compelled to venture into the world to participate in the dispersal of the Good News.

II. New York City

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.26.44 PM.png

For Freddie, however, the afterglow of his Processing—and any attendant positive effects on his self-destructive behavior—is short-lived. He willingly accompanies the Master and his entourage to New York City, where Dodd is received like an honored guest by an elderly, well-to-do patron, Mrs. Drummond (Patty McCormack). It is almost immediately apparent that Freddie’s ways have not been mended by the dubious miracle of Processing. Introduced to Mrs. Drummond, he gauchely fingers the dowager’s necklace, sizing its value with reptilian listlessness. Thereafter he slips away to a nearby room to swipe knick-knacks. The rationale for this kleptomania is not apparent, but is consistent with Freddie’s impulsive, anti-social pre-Processing behavior. Likewise, the Cause has evidently not deprived Freddie of his taste for alcohol, as he orders a scotch from the bartender. Later, perhaps after imbibing a few more fingers of whiskey, Freddie laughingly hurls food at John More (Christopher Evan Welch), a writer who dares to question Dodd’s methods.

Freddie’s failure to be dramatically remade by Processing and his rapid regression to negative thoughts and actions are stark expressions of a pattern that will be repeated throughout the film. Presented with a wooly promise of personal transformation, Freddie submits himself to the Cause’s ministrations, only to quickly slip back into his characteristic ugly behaviors. While he now directs a measure of his aggression outward at the perceived enemies of the Cause (such as More), that aggression has not subsided in the least. New Freddie does not embody a tamed animal, but a mere redirection of snapping jaws towards heathen “attackers,” in Peggy’s self-righteous phrasing. Eventually, Freddie takes the initiative to counter-attack in the name of the Cause: calling upon More during the wee hours, he forces his way into the skeptic’s apartment under false pretenses and subjects the man to an apparently brutal beating.

As will be illustrated later in the film, Freddie is a poor proselytizer, as he lacks the person-to-person charisma and unflappable demeanor that such a task demands. In addition to lacking the profound transformation of the evangelical imagination, he is comically ill-suited for the missionary aspects of such thinking. His hair-trigger temper and rattling furies, however, make him an effective religious enforcer, a junkyard dog who can be unleashed for the purposes of a kind of inverted advocacy. While rank-and-file members of the Cause woo lambs into the fold, Freddie prefers to prowl the perimeter in search of wolves (and wolves in sheep’s clothing). Freddie’s assumption of the legbreaker-in-chief role is startling, in part because of its rapidity, but also because it contrasts with the apparent disingenuousness of his conversion. One generally expects inquisitors and conquistadors to be true believers, not secret apostates.

Dodd, for his part, makes a grand show of scolding Freddie for the assault on More, and of emphatically declaring his follower’s actions to be subhuman. However, the sincerity of Dodd’s outrage is questionable. His disapproving scowl quickly melts into a grin, and he warmly repeats an earlier claim of deja vu, a suspicion that he and Freddie have met somewhere before. Dodd’s disapproval at Freddie’s bad acts is rendered toothless by his reassertion of intimate familiarity. This creates confusion for Freddie, a confusion that will only be compounded by subsequent dissonances in Dodd’s responses to his behavior. For now, it is sufficient to observe that the teacher’s reaction to moral stumbles pantomimes disapproval while drawing the convert closer. This two-step will become more difficult to achieve as Freddie becomes more agitated at the Cause’s shortcomings.

III. Philadelphia 1 - Freddie Stumbles

The Master and his entourage soon depart for Philadelphia, where they are are welcomed by another devoted follower and benefactor, Helen Sullivan (Laura Dern). In contrast to Mrs.O’Brien’s ritzy Gotham apartment, Helen’s home is a picture of tree-lined middle-class coziness, and proves to be far more accommodating to long-term occupancy by the Cause faithful. Freddie's uncertainty about the movement at this point in the story is highlighted by a surreptitious thigh-grope from Elizabeth. (The inconsistencies are accumulating: Is lust to be discouraged or not?) Later, Freddie watches drowsily from a corner as Dodd heartily belts out a bawdy song to the delight of assembled Cause aspirants. From Freddie’s alcohol-soaked viewpoint, the women in the room suddenly appear to be unclothed: laughing, applauding, and shameless in their nakedness. Peggy Dodd, partly concealed by her armchair, turns to glare at Freddie with what resembles mingled pity and fearfulness. She seems to sense the latent mischief that bubbles as Freddie’s lazy, licentious eye wanders over the revelries.

Theat night, after aggressively asserting her power over Dodd with the aforementioned bathroom sink sex act, Peggy awakens a slumbering Freddie to demand that he stop his boozing ways for good. Still half-asleep and three-quarters-drunk, he thickly assents to this request, but by the next day he can already be observed nipping from a flask. Not coincidentally, it is this moment that Freddie chooses to reprimand and threaten Val for his faithlessness. “He’s making all of this up as he goes along,” the visibly bored Val observes regarding his father, “You don’t see that?” Of course, Freddie has harbored suspicions regarding Lancaster Dodd’s charlatan character from his first encounter with the man, but the convert’s craving for pragmatic solutions to his woes has thus far been trumped by his desire to belong. For Freddie, this latter need is expressed by the fulfilment of his enforcer duties. Rather than confront the hollowness of Dodd’s teachings (or his own failure to self-improve), Freddie retrenches his devotion by policing his fellow converts for thought-crimes.

Unfortunately for Freddie, this is also the moment when Philadelphia’s Finest appear to arrest Dodd for his larcenous schemes. Emboldened by his own guilt, Freddie leaps to Dodd’s defense with bestial fury. He becomes uncontrollable, flailing and squirming like a feral animal while he is handcuffed and hauled away. Later, Master and student are placed in adjoining jail cells, and the partitioned space (captured in the same shot) sharply contrasts the two men. Dodd slouches passively, regarding Freddie with disgust as the younger man engages in a frothing, self-destructive frenzy: slamming his hunched back into the hanging cot, writhing out of his shredded shirt, kicking the toilet into a porcelain ruin. (The latter echoes’ Phoenix’s destruction of a bathroom sink as a drug-crazed Johnny Cash in Walk the Line.) “Nobody likes you but me,” Dodd observes sneeringly. He also asserts that Freddie has not yet defeated the supposed eons-old spiritual ailment that is the cause of his alcoholism and violent rage. The profound transformation promised by the Cause is not yet complete.

Dodd’s jailhouse admonishments to Freddie provide a striking illustration of the ways in which the purveyors of the evangelical imagination address moments of crisis in believers' lives. Dodd chastises Freddie for his aberrant behavior, painting a picture in which Freddie’s self-destruction is fueled by external (and extra-temporal) forces, but can also be attributed to his own lack of will. Dodd’s remedy for Freddie’s recidivism is vague: He must, apparently, redouble his efforts, get serious about reforming his ways, and really try this time. There are no specific prescriptions other than a need to affirm the ideology’s Truth and submit to it more completely. (That the Cause’ exact doctrines are hazy, at best, serves to underline that the film’s criticisms are directed at the phenomenon of creeds rather at than their specific content.)

The focus on an individual believer’s failure of will—as opposed to the failures of the ideology itself—is a recurring preoccupation of the evangelical imagination. It is not, needless to say,  limited to religious movements. Political blogger Matt Yglesias famously articulated the “Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics” in reference to the neoconservative obsession with “will” and “resolve” in American foreign policy:

...[The Green Lantern ring] lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that... what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. Consequently, the main criterion for becoming a Green Lantern is that you need to be a person capable of "overcoming fear" which allows you to unleash the ring's full capacities.

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower...

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will.

This succinctly describes the conundrum facing Dodd and all those who champion a universally applicable ideological framework. The Cause can never be wrong, so any obvious failures that it appears to birth—for example, a man who has been Processed by the Master himself, and yet continues his thieving, boozing, lecherous ways—must be the result of a lack of individual resolve (or else a sinister plot). This remorseless logic is demonstrated in a scene that follows Freddie’s jailhouse fit, where Dodd, having presumably been freed on bail, dines with his family. Peggy, Elizabeth, and Clark all tentatively raise the subject of Freddie’s out-of-control behavior, suggesting that the man might be a nefarious agent dispatched to discredit the Cause, a venal thief seeking to swipe the Master’s unfinished manuscript for a tidy profit, or simply a madman who is beyond any kind of mental or spiritual salvation.

Dodd, in contrast to the bristling annoyance he displayed with Freddie in jail, hears these suspicions out with calm attentiveness. However, he responds by matter-of-factly asserting that Freddie is not unreachable, and that his bad acts are the result of the Cause leadership’s own ministerial deficiencies. The failure of will actually belongs to Dodd, and to every member of the Cause who has given up on Freddie. In this way, Dodd slyly reverses the characteristic criticism of the flaccid will in the evangelical imagination, appearing humbled by his own deficiencies rather than scolding towards his acolyte. However, as the film later demonstrates, even Dodd has his limits. A wayward follower must be reformed or expelled, lest their continued existence serve as a demonstration of the ideology’s inadequacies.

IV. Philadelphia 2 - Freddie Reborn

Freddie’s brief exile in the custody of the Philadelphia police is the only significant narrative breakpoint that does not correspond to a shift in geographic setting. When the wayward convert returns to Helen’s home, Dodd embraces the man warmly and laughingly, their hug devolving into an adolescent wrestling match on the lawn. This horseplay manages to tear the leg of Freddie’s trousers, with both echoes his earlier clothes-shredding frenzy and foreshadows the upheavals to come. (Despite the Prodigal Son kabuki that Freddie and Dodd play out, there has been no true repentance or rehabilitation.) The Master’s jocular paternalism serves to assert his authority and solidify his earlier dinner table statements. The matter is not up for discussion: Freddie will be permitted back into the fold.

Such forgiveness comes with conditions, however. Much of the remaining time that the film spends in Philadelphia is devoted to the Cause’s elaborate efforts to bring about Freddie’s tardy profound transformation. Dodd subjects his black sheep to a series of bizarre exercises supposedly intended to urge him “toward existence within a group, a society, a family.” As has been noted, Freddie’s desire for acceptance within a social group is one of the primary motivations that drives him towards Dodd and the Cause. However, mere tribal identification with the movement is not sufficient: the Cause demands that its devotees also exhibit behavior that validates its ideology of personal improvement. The drunk must walk a sober path, the satyr must become chaste, and the violent criminal must transform into a peaceable emissary. Freddie’s place within the Cause is threatened by his failure to achieve an epiphany, and Dodd is determined to bring one about by any means necessary.

Examining Dodd’s motivations with a cynical eye reveals the cunning in his strategy. Having attributed Freddie’s failings to the Cause’s lack of pastoral will, Dodd is now obligated to demonstrate significant effort in the mission to reform his follower. If Freddie backslides yet again after such a campaign, then his misbehavior can be justly blamed on his lack of will rather than Dodd’s. It does not bode well for Freddie, then, that the Master’s rituals (“applications,” he calls them) are perplexing and opaque. They seem to be designed not to spark enlightenment within Freddie, but to break his will. In other words, they resemble a kind of psychological torture. Underlining the point, the film repeatedly cuts between the exercises to which Freddie is subjected, jumbling time’s passage and mimicking his increasing disorientation as Dodd’s ministrations wear him down. It is ultimately unclear whether Freddie’s marathon rehabilitation takes place over the course of a few hours or several days.

In one application, Dodd has Freddie and Clark face one another while seated, and orders each man to exhibit “no response” to the other’s statements, no matter how agitating their words might be. Clark goes for the jugular: he repeats the name of Freddie’s lost adolescent love, Doris, revealing that Dodd has shared the most intimate revelations of Freddie’s first Processing with the other members of the Cause’s leadership. Freddie, when his turn comes, merely asserts himself through his veteran status and childishly expresses a desire to fart in Clark’s face, calling back to a joke he and Dodd once shared.

Freddie is also observed seated across from Peggy, although there his challenges are different. At one point she reads pornographic literature out loud to him. At another, she orders him to “make” her eye color change. (Will, once again, is claimed to be the means by which the believer achieves change.) Reflecting Freddie’s aspirational point-of-view, Peggy’s irise do in fact dissolve from bright blue to inky black on command, providing the subtlest of the film’s handful of magical realism flourishes.

In the most harrowing application, Dodd commands Freddie to walk back and forth, eyes closed, between a wall and window, touching each and describing the sensation. This exercise is at first conducted in front of an assembled throng of rapt Cause followers, but Freddie is also observed repeating his ping-pong path in solitude. To Freddie, the rite seems monumentally pointless at first, and his attitude appears to swing primarily between dull half-attention and violent irritation. In some shots, however, he seems to be lost in an ecstatic reverie, and his verbal renderings of wall and window take on a hallucinatory quality. (At one point, he describes the window as a Ferris Wheel.) The psychological effects of Freddie’s mental endurance tests have begun to reflect the collapse of time and space that the Cause asserts is the means to rectifying aberrant behavior. Yet when Dodd finally—and arbitrarily, it seems—declares “end of application,” Freddie’s response upon opening his eyes is incredulity. “You gotta be kidding me? That was it?” If Freddie has had a profound transformation, it is invisible to the viewer’s eyes.

Later, Peggy appears before the Cause devotees to deliver a beaming announcement: Dodd’s second book is at last ready for publication, and the movement will hold its first annual conference in Phoenix, Arizona to mark the momentous event. Unable to allow a metaphor to dawdle without a little shove, Peggy predicts that the Cause, like the flaming bird of myth, will be reborn following the setbacks experienced in New York and Philadelphia. The unmentioned phoenix in the room is, of course, Freddie, who should by all rights be enjoying a second, more enlightened life thanks to Dodd’s close attentions. However, the straying sheep, as usual, proves to be a problem that the Cause cannot solve, and Freddie’s ability to fake his way through that coveted “existence within a group” begins to crack.

V. Phoenix

With the Cause’s pilgrimage to Arizona, the relationship between Freddie and Dodd superficially appears to have been restored to its past levels of warm interdependence. Freddie serves as the photographer for the Master’s new publicity shots—posing him in kitschy Western surroundings—and their exchanges are full of joking camaraderie. However, the fissures in the apostle’s faith are becoming visible. Although Freddie exhibits childish enthusiasm (and talent) when recording a radio advertisement for the Cause’s conference, his ambivalence and frustration are palpable when he is tasked to hand out fliers to disinterested and hostile Phoenicians. Proselytization isn’t Freddie’s wheelhouse, and when confronted with such duties, he is reminded that his own reformation is incomplete, his epiphanies are fraudulent, and his bad habits crouch nearby like stalking predators.

In a scene bubbling with indefinite tension, Freddie accompanies a gun-toting Dodd on a enigmatic trek into a narrow desert canyon. The purpose of the quest is unclear at first: Is this some new, menacing application, or perhaps a purifying wilderness exile akin to those undertaken by Christ and John the Baptist? Eventually, Dodd and Freddie unearth a strongbox, which is revealed to contain the Master’s unpublished manuscript. Like the golden plates from which Joseph Smith supposedly transcribed the Book of Mormon, Dodd’s wisdom represents a kind of buried ideological treasure, waiting to be delivered to the world. The air is briefly electric with menace, as Dodd silently surveys the horizon for threats—an Apache war party or swarm of flying saucers seem equally likely. Clark’s earlier dinner table accusation floats in the air: Did Freddie actually ask about the monetary value of Dodd’s unpublished work? Does Dodd secretly believe that Freddie cannot be reformed? Are the guns loaded? Then the men suddenly set off back to civilization, the awful potential of the moment passing.

The doubts linger, however, and as the conference kicks off in a modest theater space—all linoleum and sad party streamers and tent revival piano tunes—both Freddie and Dodd betray a crumbling confidence. Dodd seems more anxious than usual, and his prefatory remarks on his second book, The Split Saber, have a slipshod, rambling quality has thus far been absent from the Master’s spiritual pontifications. When Helen asks about a single word change in the book's description of Processing, Dodd explodes, “WHAT DO YOU WANT?!” This moment of exasperated rage not only echoes the Master’s own profane outburst at More earlier in the film, but it also highlights the stress that Freddie’s very presence as an unrepentant, unreformed believer is placing on the Cause’s credibility.

Freddie, meanwhile, is outwardly calm but seething within. In one of the film’s singularly great shots, he paces slowly in a wide back room where copies of Dodd’s latest tome are piled on tables. Eyes closed, he lazily retraces his old route between the (now-imaginary) wall and window. Visiting New York disciple Bill William (Kevin J. O’Connor) wanders in from the right, and Freddie’s metronome path is smoothly diverted. He imposes himself between Bill and the hubbub in the front of the building. Signals abound that Freddie’s enforcer duties are about to boil over into violence, even before Bill injudiciously declares that The Split Saber “stinks”. Freddie passes a cart laden with bottled chemicals, recalling the link between his alcoholism and his temper. Bill limply carries a plate spattered with half-eaten red food that foreshadows bloodshed, and also clutches his hat, exposing his bald pate for a pummeling. When Freddie leads Bill around back and unleashes a savage beating on the man, it is unsettling but thoroughly unsurprising.

The assault on Bill proves to be the moment when the bitter reality of Freddie’s situation becomes apparent: he is completely incapable of reform, and therefore will inevitably be cast out of the Cause’s embrace, lest his presence embarrass the Master. Freddie seems to sense this fact clearly at last, as he collapses in defeat on a bench, sobbing into his hands. He will never achieve his profound transformation. Perhaps this is due to the severity of his spiritual wounds, which run too deep to ever be healed by any ideological palliative. Perhaps it is due to some incompatibility between the nature of his trauma and the Cause’s curative methods. Or perhaps it is merely because Dodd’s wisdom is a sham, and his techniques do not provide anything but a mumbo-jumbo-wrapped placebo. Ultimately, it does not matter. In his desperation to alleviate the pain of his life’s dread pattern, Freddie has hitched himself to an ideology that has proven inadequate for that purpose. The lords of that ideology will not suffer to have their deficiencies paraded before them in human form.

Dodd later accompanies Freddie out onto a gleaming desert plain for yet another outlandish, ad hoc exercise, with Elizabeth and Clark tagging along. The Master explains that the objective of “Pick a Point” is to ride a motorcycle a high speed in a rigorously straight line, and then demonstrates by rocketing across the wastes with boyish whoops of glee. When Dodd returns, dust-coated and grinning in satisfaction, the anticlimactic pointlessness of this latest ritual is depressingly apparent to both the viewer and Freddie, and only highlighted by Elizabeth’s vapid cheerleading (”Whoo! Go, Daddy!”). Dodd dismounts and offers the motorcycle to Freddie, who rides it in the opposite direction, diminishing to a wavering speck on the sun-baked horizon. “He’s going very fast,” Dodd observes with dry anxiousness. Then it is dusk, and Freddie has not returned, and it is clear that he is not going to.

Superficially, Freddie’s flight seems a childish response to the intractable spiritual position in which he finds himself. Bereft of the transformation that the Cause has promised, and unable to face the scrutiny of his fellow believers (or the disapproval of his Master ), he turns on his heel at an opportune moment and simply runs. Yet the abruptness of Freddie’s departure denies Dodd and the others the opportunity to subject him to further enticements and rituals. Given Freddie’s apparent susceptibility to the siren call of social acceptance, his sudden escape illustrates an uncommon self-awareness, a perceptive recognition that his break with the Cause must be swift and sharp or it will be no break at all. In contrast to his looping, fruitless path in Helen’s parlor, Freddy’s motorcycle trajectory is a vector: unidirectional and infinite (or so he hopes).

VI. Massachusetts

Freddie’s impulsive departure from the Cause’s ranks (or clutches) is sparked in part by his realization that Dodd will not tolerate his failures indefinitely. However, while the Cause’s dogma might contain little but psychological buzzwords and half-baked spiritual hand-waving, the personal agonies that Freddie’s Processing uncovered are not phantasmal. In particular, the regret and shame Freddie feels regarding his abandonment of Doris are still acute, still pumping poison into his heart. Paradoxically, tethering himself to the Master’s wanderings has prevented Freddie from seeking a face-to-face resolution of this painful chapter of his life. Now that he has fled the Cause, he is free to return to his native Massachusetts and visit the spawning ground of his more potent personal demons.

Freddie’s pilgrimage leads him to Doris’ childhood home, but as both A. E. Housman and Thomas Wolfe observed in their way, the dewy past and hard-edged present lie in separate hemispheres. The reunion that Freddie envisioned is not forthcoming. He only encounters Doris’ mother (Lena Ende), who with wringing hands and quavering voice explains that her daughter has long since married a local boy, moved south, and sired three children. Freddie takes this crushing news far better than one might expect, politely taking his leave while marveling that his beloved’s married name is now Doris Day. (Freddie’s return to Massachusetts is, at best, described by the title of Day’s first hit recording: “Sentimental Journey.”) Freddie could pursue Doris to Alabama and points beyond, but his New England homecoming acts like a bucket of freezing water on his need for closure. Unshackling himself from the Cause might have freed him from daily spiritual torment, but for Freddie self-improvement appears to be just as much a fool’s errand when it is pursued in solitude as with an ideological cabal.

Underlining the fact that Freddie’s ways are carved in stone, he is soon observed slipping into a drunken stupor in an otherwise unoccupied cinema while a Casper the Friendly Ghost short rolls on. This proves to be The Master’s most defiantly ambiguous scene, for after Freddie seems to fade into a deep sleep, he is awakened by an usher carrying a telephone that trails an absurdly long cord. “You have a call.” The nagging questions that might trouble a sober patron seem to slide past Freddie: Who knows that he is at the theater? How does the usher know who he is? Freddie answers the phone to find, improbably, the voice of Lancaster Dodd emerging from the handset. The Master, evincing no trace of anger towards his fugitive acolyte, asks Freddie to join him in England, where the Cause has established its own school. Dodd claims that he has, at long last, recalled the specifics under which he and Freddie first encountered one another, and that he wants to share this revelation in person. (Freddie is also tasked with restocking Dodd's supply of a favored vice, menthol cigarettes, reminding the viewer of the shared taste for pleasure-seeking transgression that once bound these two men.)

Freddie’s response is primarily one of drowsy amazement: “How did you find me?” However, Dodd’s call seems to abruptly end with the sleeper awakening again, this time to discover a theater without usher or telephone. The surrealism of the scenario points to its unreality: a message from a strangely jovial Dodd in a distant country, delivered to Freddie as though it were a cocktail on a tray. Imagined or not, Dodd’s communication provides a dose of mysticism to the film at a critical juncture in the narrative, re-establishing the well-worn Conversion Story outlines that have generally receded as Freddie’s alienation from the Cause has grown. The phone call fills the role of a divine message, a missive directly from the source of holy wisdom to the wayward lamb, conveying that all sins are forgiven and that his return will be greeted with rejoicing.

Despite the panicked character of Freddie’s flight from the Cause, his reaction to Dodd’s call seems welcoming, as though it were a message he had secretly been hoping to receive. Having fled the movement that once counted him as a brother, and then failed to discover a more personal resolution to his deep-rooted miseries, he has already begun to slide into aimless self-destruction. (Peggy’s speculation that Freddie might be “beyond help,” has begun to look fairly perceptive.) Disillusioned by the unfavorable contrast between gauzy memory and present-day reality in his old stomping grounds, Freddie allows his time with the Cause to to take on a nostalgic glint, forgetting all the anguish that he so recently fled. His frustration with Dodd (and himself) is easily set aside when he sees the prospect of re-awakening that coveted sense of belonging. Where Freddie errs is in assuming that acceptance will be as forthcoming now as it has been in the past. Unfortunately, a personal testimonial that is streaked with recidivism casts a shadow over a faith’s legitimacy, and therefore must be expunged from the evangelical imagination.

VII. England

Despite the dearth of identifying information in Dodd’s dream-call, Freddie makes his way to England and to the threshold of the Cause’s thriving new school. He strides through the door with the confidence of a long-lost scion whose return has been eagerly anticipated, but the faces that he encounters do not recognize him. Indicating a photo of Dodd on a mass-produced flyer, he lamely asserts, “I took that picture”. A faintly Orwellian odor clings to the building’s dark wood and lingers in its echoing halls: The history of the movement has already been rewritten, and it does not include Freddie. A slightly more spit-and-polish iteration of Val appears to usher Freddie into the school’s inner sanctum, where Lancaster Dodd awaits in a cavernous hall that has apparently been converted into his private office. With its towering, gothic windows of frosted glass, this magisterial chamber conveys the power and wisdom that Dodd has long craved. He is, at last, no longer an itinerant holy man, but a pontiff with his own enclave and throne.

Freddie has brought the Kools that Dodd covets, but neither the poker-faced Master nor glaring Peggy seem to be pleased to see him. Peggy in particular views Freddie’s departure from the Cause as an act of betrayal, and Dodd seems to have finally accepted his wife’s suspicions, as he is resistant to allowing Freddie to return to the movement. Indeed, Dodd exhibits no acknowledgement that the bizarre phone call to Massachusetts even occurred, leaving Freddie to wonder if he conjured the transatlantic message from his own subconsciousness.

However, one element from the call appears genuine: Dodd does in fact recall the circumstances under which he and Freddie first encountered one another. The men were friends in a past life, serving as French messengers who employed hot air balloons during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. In the worst winter on record, Dodd explains with unconcealed wistfulness, he and Freddie lost only two balloons. Dodd may be spinning a fanciful story in order to ornament the emotional bond between the two men. However, the fondness for Freddie that he displays appears so authentic, and his longing for this dream of wartime heroics and camaraderie is so naked, it is hard to dismiss it as a mere cynical ploy.

Dodd’s reluctance to embrace his Prodigal Son a second time is rooted not in some newfound personal antipathy for Freddie, but in the danger that his habitual straying represents to the Cause. The inability to square specific failures with the general Truth of the ideology is the fundamental dilemma of the gatekeepers who peddle the evangelical imagination. In 2006, left-wing political blogger Digby turned an old Bolshevik adage on its head to draw attention to the almost Stalinist manner in which contemporary American conservatism was prepared to transform George W. Bush from a conquering saint into persona non grata:

Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)... In this I actually envy the right. When they fail, as everyone inevitably does at times, they don't lose their faith. Indeed, failure actually reinforces it... The Republicans are smart enough to rid themselves of failure by always being able to convince themselves that the failure had nothing to do with their belief system.

Similarly, Dodd must be rid of Freddie, or he risks a catastrophic loss of faith within his flock. The Master offers an ultimatum: Freddie may return to the fold, but only if he is willing to remain there permanently, to never again backslide or wander in search of false prophets. Reluctantly, Freddie demures, acknowledging for the first time that he cannot make such a promise: “Maybe in the next life.”

For Dodd, who views history as a continuum on which the same struggles are played out over and over, there will not be another occasion for reconciliation. He vows that when he meets Freddie again, even if if their souls are housed in different bodies, they will be sworn enemies. The wavy ritual daggers glimpsed earlier on Dodd’s desk seem permeated with potential menace, as though either man might suddenly rise and seize a weapon in order to slash the other's throat. The grand guignol bowling pin assault that caps Anderson’s There Will Be Blood hovers over the scene as well, reinforcing the ominous atmosphere and creating an expectation that Dodd and Freddie’s reunion, like that of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday, will end in carnage.

Dodd offers a sarcastic bit of wisdom to Freddie that succinctly summarizes the ideologue’s certainty that submission is a fact of the human condition: “If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know.” Perhaps sensing that their farewell should not occur on such an antagonistic note, Dodd suddenly breathes out a slow, mournful rendition of the pop standard “Slow Boat to China”. It is a sublimely odd flourish, one that permits the pseudo-romantic subtext of Dodd and Freddie’s relationship to be stated openly and with a level gaze. (Peggy, having departed the room in irritation, is not privy to this intimate moment.)

In the context of the master-disciple relationship, “Slow Boat” articulates Dodd’s dream of devoting himself solely to Freddie’s redemption: to get his student “all to himself alone” and “leave all the others waitin’”. Together, “out of the briny,” with all the time in the world, they might at last discover the profound transformation that has so long eluded Freddie. Dodd might be a charlatan, but in this moment, his wish seems as genuine as any romantic’s longing that life had turned out differently. For Freddie, the song not only ironically recalls his cowardly flight from Doris (aboard, as it happens, a ship bound for China), but also directly echoes his beloved’s long-ago a capella rendition of “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree,” which expresses similar, utopian dreams of exclusivity. Strange as his choice might seem at first, Dodd could hardly have selected a more affecting song with which to serenade his former apostle.

His heart unexpectedly broken, Freddie takes his leave of the Cause for the last time, and proceeds to drown his sorrows in the pints poured at a local pub. There he makes eyes at a blonde English nymph, Winn (Jennifer Neala Page), and before long the two are engaged in a sweaty, lingering, face-to-face coupling. “What’s your name?,” Freddie asks, repeating the question five times as Dodd once did during his Processing session. Here the question is posed in a moment of comparable intensity, one as sensually joyous as the Processing was brutal and cathartic. Both Freddie and Winn giggle in delight, and he declares “You are the bravest girl I have ever met.” Methods that were once implicitly sexual have becomes explicit, repurposed as a shortcut to romantic intimacy (rather than pastoral intimacy).

The temptation to regard Freddie’s "Processing-lite" pillow talk as exploitative is undercut by the ecstatic tone of the sex that he and Winn share. For the first time, Freddie seems somewhat at peace, his anger and restlessness calmed. Yet while his body might be entwined with that of a comely woman, his mind is elsewhere, as the film illustrates with its final shots. On a South Pacific beach, Freddie again lays down next to his sand-matron, nestling himself between her breast and arm, as though preparing for a long-awaited and blissful sleep.

Everything that the viewer knows of Freddie’s past behavior suggests that any reprieve from his demons will be temporary at best, and a messy demise by booze or a bloody-knuckled foe may still await him. Yet Freddie’s final exit from the Cause frees him of the torments that the ideology’s inadequacies wreaked on him. No longer will he yearn for the acceptance of a group whose anti-carnal commandments he is congenitally incapable of observing. No longer will he be deafened by the hollow clang of muddled spiritual wisdom ringing in his ears. And no longer will his failures belong to anyone else. He will be his own animal.

***

The Cause’s failures in contending with Freddie’s myriad problems—alcoholism, sexual mania, violence, impulsiveness—throw into stark relief the deep incompatibilities between his stuttering, stumbling progress towards self-improvement, and the absolutist demands of the evangelical imagination. The manner in which an ideological system confronts its own shortcomings represents a test of its flexibility and resilience. A system that permits space for intellectual modesty can limit its culpability for the fallen character of the world. The Master provides a dramatic illustration of the eruptions that inevitably occur when a system permits no limits for itself, and insists on the perfectibility of the individual and the world through the universal application of its doctrines. The presence of self-evidently imperfect believers such as Freddie denies the profound transformation that is the promise of the ideology, and thereby undercuts the missionary fervor that is needed to propel the system outward into new segments of society. Such walking imperfections cannot be tolerated indefinitely, and must eventually be either reformed by force or else expelled and denied.

A reading of The Master that foregrounds its criticisms of ideological inadequacies is, naturally, not the only analytical angle that the film permits. The sinuous, arid character of Anderson’s marvelous film allows many possible points of entry, none of them mutually exclusive: the thorny psychological terrain (and abundant twinning) in the Freddie-Dodd relationship; the problematic transition of the veteran from wartime bloodshed to peacetime domesticity; the pivotal role played by nostalgia and by what Magnolia’s Earl Partridge calls “the goddamn regret” in shaping Freddie’s actions and choices. However, one cannot neglect the role of ideology in The Master without ignoring the fundamental conflict of its narrative: the collision between the unstoppable force of an evangelical movement and the unmovable object of an unreformable soul.

PostedNovember 5, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
MadMenGrab01.jpg

Project Android and the Involuntary Santa Claus: A Superficially Off-Topic Prelude to The Cabin in the Woods

[This essay—part personal storytelling, part appreciation of a Mad Men episode—was first presented on October 1, 2012, as an introduction to Drew Goddard's 2011 film, The Cabin in the Woods. Posed an experiment in "ultra-spoiler-free" writing, the essay introduces the themes of the film without any direct reference to its story. Indeed, this piece makes no mention of The Cabin in the Woods at all.]

I'm sorry, I always forget that nobody wants to think they're a type.

—Faye Miller, Mad Men Season Four, Episode 2: "Christmas Comes But Once a Year"

Nightmare the First: A Sinister Experiment

When I was a child, I occasionally contemplated the possibility that other human beings were evil robots. I can’t say at what age this idea took hold of me, because I frankly can’t remember with any precision. Nor can I say exactly when the notion finally diminished from an unlikely-but-still-conceivable scenario to a mere silly fantasy that I had once entertained. Indeed, I'll concede that a mischievous sliver of my mind still ruminates on the evil robot hypothesis, if only as a dime-store thought experiment. Like a Rubik’s Cube, it's good for thirty seconds of exasperating self-amusement before it is inevitably cast aside.

The idea was fairly impressive in its sinister complexity, perhaps too elaborate to have sprung from the imagination of a child without some manner of outside influence. But if there was a specific inspiration for the sinister scenario I imagined—some work of fiction, say, or the words of a particularly perverse adult—I have long ago forgotten it. The idea itself, meanwhile, is stubbornly resistant to the erosions of memory, and I can recall it to this day with tremendous clarity.

This is how my child-mind postulated it: What if, beneath their apparently human skin, everyone around me were nothing more than steel pistons and electrified circuitry? If the construction of these androids were of high enough quality, if the illusion were sufficiently skillful, how would I be able to tell the difference between a real human and a false one? What if everyone only seems to be going about their routine, but is, in actuality, following a cold-hearted program? What would the purpose of that program be, one might reasonably ask? Why to trick me, of course. To deceive me into living out the role of a normal Midwestern white male, to follow a path that had been predetermined by a bevy of malevolent researchers hidden somewhere just out of sight.

It’s notable that this robot-suspicion extended not only to deserving targets of childhood scorn, such as the strict teacher or the playground bully, but to everyone whom I encountered on a daily basis. Everyone: The girl for whom I harbored a desperate crush, the learning disabled boy in the back of the class, the clerk at the corner convenience store, the bus driver, my little brother, even, yes—horror of horrors—my own parents. Absolutely every individual was an accessory to this conspiracy, which I at some point mentally labeled Project Android.

That this secret suspicion was unbiased in its application seems the clearest indication that it was not born of petty resentments, but of pre-adolescent alienation, as well as a fairly sophisticated recognition of the limits of my own knowledge. Sophisticated for a grade-schooler, at any rate. For even the most cursory follow-up questions revealed the flimsiness of the whole notion. Why would such vast effort and financial resources be brought to bear in order to deceive an ordinary if bookwormish boy from South St. Louis? Who would fund such a diabolical yet profoundly pointless experiment? Who were the hidden, presumably white-coated chess-masters who were nudging me this way and that with their cybernetic creations? What exactly was the point of tricking a child into doing the things he very likely would have done anyway, had he been surrounded by flesh-and-blood parents, teachers, and schoolmates?

Ah, but that was the fiendish genius of it all: Because the experiment was perfectly seamless, there was no way to determine which of my own behaviors and thoughts were normal and which were the result of robotic manipulation. That Project Android permitted such ever-deeper rabbit holes of paranoia was not a bug, but a feature. It permitted me a way to pass the time as I endured the weekly school chapel or lay in bed at night waiting for sleep. However, it doesn’t speak much of my creativity or sense of self-importance that this scenario never led to more fantastic conclusions. Why would manipulating a child into a relatively banal existence be so vital to the experiment’s creators? Was I special in some way, perhaps a superhuman being who had to be kept docile? A cluster of extraordinary potentiality who must be never allowed to blossom to his true purpose?

In a word: No. In my young mind, the deception was the motive, and so Project Android was my crude version of Descartes’ Evil Demon, a malicious, omnipotent entity that manipulates the thinker’s perceptions because it can. Which often feels like the point of modern philosophy: Providing a credible academic framework for the insomniac musings of an elementary school student.

Nightmare the Second: A Very Uncomfortable Christmas Party

A couple of years ago, I found myself ruminating on Project Android for the first time in what seems like ages. This revisitation of a ludicrous childhood fantasy was prompted by, of all things, an episode of Matthew Weiner’s television drama Mad Men, which is set in a Madison Avenue ad agency in the 1960s. The episode in question is the second of the show’s fourth season, entitled “Christmas Comes But Once a Year,” and is, as one might deduce, a Holiday Episode.

As with any installment of Mad Men, quite a bit happens in the space of the episode’s forty-five minutes. The office of fledgling agency Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce scrambles to organize a deliberately “wild” Christmas party for the benefit of their most valued client, the president of Lucky Strike Tobacco, Lee Garner, Jr. (Darren Pettie). Copywriting wunderkind Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) weighs whether to concede to her boyfriend’s whining regarding their stalled physical intimacy. Dr. Faye Miller (Cara Buono), a consulting psychologist who studies consumer behavior, introduces her work to SCDP and receives a doubtful reception from creative director Don Draper (Jon Hamm). Don himself spends an unhealthy chunk of the episode drinking to excess and brooding about his first post-divorce Christmas. This leads to a downward spiral that culminates in an ill-advised couch-screw with his capable yet naive assistant Allison (Alexa Alemanni), after which he heartlessly tosses the woman aside.

The episode is admittedly one of the lesser lights in a strong season of a phenomenal show, but it is memorable for exploring one of Mad Men’s most significant themes in a quite forceful and characteristically multi-pronged manner. That theme is pointedly expressed in Dr. Miller’s pithy summary of her work: “It all comes down to what I want versus what’s expected of me.” The struggle between the desires of the true self—if there is such a thing—and the demands of others is one of the foremost preoccupations of Mad Men. And it’s a theme that strangely summoned memories of Project Android when I first viewed the “Christmas” episode in 2010.

If there is an adult, non-fantastical version of the manipulative robot anxiety, it is the fear that one’s real identity will be swamped by the expectations and demands of external parties. The self-conscious dread of contemporary life is that there are no thoughts or actions which are free from the influence of others. At every turn are currents that pull us to and fro: the command of the authority figure; the approval of the parent; the request of the lover; the preference of the taste-maker; the dictate of the advertisement that shrieks CRAVE and CONSUME. Where, one can justly ask, does my true self begin? Where is the real me amid all the roles I am asked to play, all the identities I am required to assume? This is the nightmarish reality that is repeatedly insisted upon throughout Mad Men: We are playing out a complex script that is being inked in real-time by a committee of writers.

This reality is embodied in a scene in “Christmas” that is among the most absurdly unsettling in the entire run of the show. Roger Sterling (John Slattery), the silver-haired tomcat who is both a founding partner of SCDP and its head of accounts, is urged to don the office Santa suit by prize client Lee. Never mind that the acerbic, sharp-dressed Roger is perhaps the most ill-suited member of the agency to play the Jolly Old Elf. In the space of about thirty seconds, Lee’s joking request gradually and remorselessly evolves into a domineering command. Roger, who is irreverent to a fault but loathes being told what to do, slowly realizes that Lee is dead serious. To Roger's dawning horror, the future of the agency at that moment depends on him playing a dancing monkey for the amusement of this contemptuous creep.

The fact that this extremely uncomfortable situation is thrust upon Roger is less terrifying than the punchline: He of course, does put on the Santa suit, because he believes that refusal is not an option, given the agency's precarious financial position. The result is a sight as oddly horrific as any slasher film massacre: A dapper late-middle-aged man sweating and grimacing beneath a crimson suit and white polyester beard, forced to pose for photos as his employees take turns sitting awkwardly on his lap, all the while straining out pained bellows of “Ho Ho Ho!”

PostedOctober 2, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
TakeShelterGrab02.jpg

My Own Private Apocalypse: The Dream Terrors and Waking Terrors of Take Shelter

[Note: This essay contains spoilers. It is an expansion of my original October 2011 post on Take Shelter.]

When suddenly / Johnny / gets the feeling / he's being surrounded by / horses, horses, horses, horses / coming in in all directions / white shining silver studs / with their nose in flames / he saw horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses...

—Patti Smith, "Land"

Once in a great while, a horror film emerges that seems to crystallize an exact moment in the American experience, turning over rocks to expose the squirming maggots that were hitherto unacknowledged. Take Shelter is that sort of film, a work of cinema that seems to perceive the fears of 2011 almost intuitively and give them a vivid, disturbing expression. George Romero achieved a similar feat in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead, and Tobe Hooper did it again in 1974 with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like a young Romero or Hooper, writer-director Jeff Nichols operates outside the confines of the Hollywood studio system, and like his predecessors he seems remarkably attuned to the anxieties that lurk in the American consciousness. While Take Shelter is a much more polished film than the gritty Living Dead or Chainsaw Massacre, and a much more understated kind of horror story, it possesses a similar, disturbing genuineness.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Take Shelter is the elegant operation of its story on two discrete levels that mingle and reinforce one another. One the one hand is what might be termed the Dream Reality of Curtis' nightmarish visions. In that reality, the threats are fantastical and attuned to fairly classical horror film conventions. On the other hand is the Waking Reality of Curtis' daily life, where the threats are of the everyday variety that anyone might confront. The brilliance of Nichols' script rests on how it employs the particular strengths of each of these realities to create a very powerful, emotionally resonant story.

At the most rudimentary level, horror films function by giving form to everyday human fears: our fear of sexual violation becomes a vampire; our fear of uncontrolled rage becomes a werewolf; our fear of nuclear annihilation becomes a colossal mutant reptile. If a horror film can be said to have a function beyond mere entertainment, it is to provide catharsis for these fears, a safe space where they can be unleashed and subdued. Through the horror genre, the viewer experiences a world in which their worst anxieties are allowed to run rampant, only to be defeated in the end. There are endless variations on this formula—and, of course, in the current cynical era, the monster often wins—but in general, this is the template according to which horror films operate.

The Dream Reality of Take Shelter hews to that template, and it is very effective at evoking old-school, spine-tingling scares. Granted, there is no specific monster in Curtis’ visions, no vampire or werewolf. The threat is a force, an oncoming apocalyptic storm. The nature of the storm is mysterious—there is no explanation as to whether it represents a scientific or supernatural phenomenon—but Curtis knows that it is Bad with a capital "B". He can feel in his bones that something terrible is going to happen when the storm arrives, and based on what the viewer witnesses in his visions, it's hard to disagree. Those visions feature vivid and haunting imagery: thick, oily rain; arcs of lightning; flocks of birds; warping gravity; funnel clouds reaching down from the sky. The film is relatively restrained about the use of this imagery, and as a result the emotional effect it elicits is very potent. That said, the most frightening aspect of Curtis' dream-storm is the effect it has on living things. The family pet turns into bloodthirsty beast, townspeople transform into a frenzied mob, and a beloved spouse becomes a psychotic killer.

TakeShelterGrab03.jpg

The fear of apocalypse is an old subject in horror cinema, but an apocalypse doesn't necessarily point to a literal physical destruction of the Earth or of human civilization. It can denote a traumatic upheaval or the re-alignment of society into something unrecognizable and frightening. It's no accident that Night of the Living Dead came along in 1968, when America was seized by a pervasive fear of open race war and of a strange counter-culture that set itself in direct opposition to the dominant ideology. There was a sense that the country was on the cusp of a violent transformation.

In the same way that Living Dead gave expression to the fears of its era, Take Shelter offers an apocalyptic scenario that seems eerily fitting for a twenty-first century of rising extremism, diminishing resources, and environmental devastation. Proximally, Curtis fears that the approaching storm from his visions will harm his family (or change them). However, beneath the surface, the storm represents a swirling mass of contemporary horrors: suicide bombings, regime changes, oil shortages, global epidemics, changing climate, tainted food. It is every looming upheaval that is beyond an ordinary American's ability to control. Moreover, given that Nichols quite deliberately sets his film in a small-town Heartland setting, the storm carries an undercurrent of Red State anxiety about the racial, religious, and cultural composition of the country. The apocalypse becomes a demographic one: What will happen when we wake up one day and discover that They—the Muslim, the immigrant, the liberal, the gay—outnumber Us?

The film's Dream Reality is so successful at evoking these anxieties precisely because it does not overstate them. Curtis' visions function first and foremost as a source of sensory terror. They have a weird vagueness about them that seems to suggest a bad dream. There is that dream-like sense of beginning in media res, and a heightened awareness that something is wrong. There is a plausibility to the surrealism: I dreamed that I was standing in the kitchen. And you were there. And you were soaking wet. And you didn't say anything. And there was a knife on the counter. And you turned towards the knife... The design of Curtis' dream sequences creates a very disturbing psychological effect, as it taps directly into the viewer's first-hand experience with nightmares. There is no need to evoke any of the specific fears noted above, because the Dream Reality contains all of them. Curtis' visions are simply about the World Going Bad. The normal becomes abnormal, and chaos reigns.

If Take Shelter were merely a story about an evil storm that strikes a small town, it would likely still be an effective horror film. What makes it a great film is how Nichols relates Curtis' Dream Reality to his Waking Reality. The storm is not a threat that roams about physically menacing the characters, as a normal horror movie monster would. Instead, it is locked inside Curtis' mind, a phantom threat (although it feels all-too-real to Curtis). This returns the film to the territory of a mundane small-town American drama, and something closer to reality, where fear itself is the enemy. It's not the storm that tears Curtis' family, work, and life apart, but his own fear, and the succession of poor decisions he makes when he tries to confront that fear on his own.

While the terrors of the Dream Reality are apocalyptic in nature, the terrors of the Waking Reality are more intensely personal. Take Shelter is in large part a tragedy about a person who is losing their mind... and is perfectly, horribly conscious of it. This is a fairly unique thing in cinema. There are numerous films featuring unreliable protagonists whom the viewer follows down the rabbit hole of madness, but most of these hapless characters are not aware of what is happening to them. Moreover, in most instances, there is some horrible trauma or stress that is the cause of the character's break with reality. Darren Aronofsky's recent film Black Swan provides an interesting contrast. That film presents a portrait of a mind cracking under the colossal pressures of rivalry and perfectionism at the most elite levels of professional ballet. Needless to say, those are pressures that most viewers will never experience. In comparison, Curtis in Take Shelter appears to be an easygoing working-class family man. He has no particular strains beyond those experienced by just about every member of America's Ninety-Nine Percent. Which is, of course, part of the genius of Nichols' script: It uses Curtis' mental illness to delve into a host of everyday anxieties that are all-too-familiar. The threat of the evil storm in the Dream Reality is still present, but layered over it are the much more immediate and relatable threats of the Waking Reality.

TakeShelterGrab04.jpg

Curtis fears that his own mind has become a kind of runaway genetic locomotive, barreling towards a future in which he is transformed from a provider into a burden. Suddenly, everything that was good and decent in his life, everything that his friend Dewart claimed to envy, is under threat. If he is indeed losing his mind, how long will he be able to keep his job? If he loses his job, he loses his health insurance, and his daughter Hanna loses her chance at hearing. If his mental condition gets bad enough, if they find him wandering the streets like his mother, will his wife Samantha be able to support him? Curtis' psychiatric crisis throws into relief the instability just beneath the surface of the American Dream, taking the film beyond the shapeless fears of the Dream Reality and into to the more urgent fears of being one paycheck away from calamity.

And yet despite Curtis' awareness that his frightening visions are most likely the product of chemical imbalances in his brain, he can't stop preparing for the storm. He knows that building a shelter for a storm that is not real is the textbook definition of crazy, he knows it makes no sense, but he still feels compelled to do it. This, ultimately is the primal fear at the root of the Waking Reality: the fear of the disintegration of the rational mind, of losing one's identity to biological forces that are beyond one's control. It's the fear of madness, but also the fear of addiction, the fear of dementia—any condition which in which the mind is in revolt, in which we cannot explain why we do the things we do. It's the terror of becoming That Guy, the one who used to be so normal... Take Shelter provides us with a rare reverse-shot glimpse of That Guy. It is the untold story behind the gossip that most people in town will hear, about the night that Curtis lost it at the Lion's Club supper.

The essential tragedy of Take Shelter is that Curtis' behavior is both perfectly reasonable and utterly foolish, often at the same time. If one examine Curtis' actions dispassionately, they make a kind of pragmatic sense in light of his visions. He reacts reasonably to the information he has at his disposal. When he dreams that the family dog attacks him, he responds in the waking world by fencing the dog up in the backyard, and then eventually giving it away. Although Curtis' visions are probably a figment of his own diseased mind, his behavior is not erratic. He's not running around with tinfoil on his head and his pajamas on backwards. He's preparing as best he can for a storm he doesn't fully understand. It's hard to argue with his logic. To wit: His dreams suggest that something about the storm will drive people to homicidal madness. Maybe it's something in the air? Better get some gas masks.

However, even assuming that Curtis' visions are real omens, and not just short-circuiting neurons, his is a pitiable situation. Nichols is an Arkansas native, and both this film and his first feature, Shotgun Stories, reveal that he has a keen grasp of the small-town milieu and all its corresponding psychological baggage. He depicts a good-natured but essentially blinkered and reactionary society that is ill-prepared for one of its own to suddenly begin behaving in a way that falls outside accepted norms. The film observes a rural America with little infrastructure for people suffering from mental illness, a feeble safety net for families suddenly hobbled by an incapacitated breadwinner, and zero patience for dealing with anyone who strays outside a narrow range of tolerated behavior.

Curtis's isolation from those around him marks Take Shelter as part of a larger tradition of independent American films about people with an intense, fearful worldview that separates them from loved ones and members of the community. Other entries in this sub-genre include: Bill Paxton's Frailty, about a blue-collar single father who believes he must slay demons concealed in human form; Todd Haynes' Safe, about a housewife who is obsessed with the idea that environmental chemicals are eroding her health; and Michael Tolkin's The Rapture, about a woman whose fanatical belief in Armageddon leads her to reject both life and God. All of these films share a mood of intense alienation, where a Cassandra-like character finds themselves the lonely steward of a terrible truth.

TakeShelterGrab05.jpg

No matter how unfortunate Curtis' situation is, no matter how unsympathetic the townsfolk who surround him are, some of the blame for his plight rests with Curtis himself. He permits his own dumb Midwestern pride to overrule his common sense, and as a result he stubbornly (and disastrously) conceals his fears and his plans from his wife and friends. He refuses to explain himself, to admit to the diagnosis that he freely makes to the psychologist at the clinic, or even speak the word: schizophrenia. Admittedly, he's been dealt a lousy hand, in the form of a genetic predisposition to mental illness. However, he allows his fear of that illness to cloud his judgment, and makes some spectacularly bad decisions that reverberate and cause even more hardship for him. The viewer sympathizes with Curtis, because they have seen the horrifying visions he's seen, but they cannot excuse his mistakes: his deceptions, his abuse of trust, and his systematic alienation of everyone around him. This, of course, is why fear is the mind-killer: It makes a bad situation even worse.

And what of the film's final scene? What does it mean? Were Curtis' visions real prophecies all along? Was he ever really insane? Does this mean that he's been proven right in the end? Digging too deeply into the intellectual meaning of the film's final moments upsets what is essentially a perfect emotional conclusion to Curtis' story. The true narrative climax of the film occurs earlier, in the storm shelter. Curtis finally confronts the crippling fear inside him with Samantha's help and opens the door to face whatever is on the outside. The tornado may not have done any significant damage, but that's beside the point: The intensity of the storm shelter sequence stems from the viewer's shared terror with Curtis down there in the dark. At that moment, it's unclear which would be worse: To find an apocalyptic landscape behind that door, or nothing unusual at all? By the final scene on the beach, the film has already offered that essential moment of narrative tension and release. Curtis has changed, because he's let Samantha into that most shameful place and faced his fear with her aid. He's no longer alone. There's horror in the realization that the apocalypse actually is coming, but there is also relief and resolve. David Wingo's magnificent, rising score in that final scene reveals as much. It's a moment of power and perfection, reflected in the simple fact that Samantha only has to utter one word, "Okay." That one word says so much: “I see it too. I believe you. I'm with you. We're ready for what's coming.”

PostedFebruary 29, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
2 CommentsPost a comment
RedRidingEssayGrab01.jpg

A Howl For This Fallen World: The Exquisite Despair of Red Riding

[Note: This essay contains no significant spoilers.]

We drive up the motorway, the M1, listening in silence as the stories eventually change, as they move on to two and a half million unemployed, a job lost every two minutes, on to H Blocks and the Eastern Bloc, to a local woman who cut her own throat with a pair of electric hedge clippers.

"Jesus," mutters Murphy as we approach Leeds. "What a fucking place."

—David Peace, Nineteen Eighty

Every now and again, one comes across a film in which genuine aesthetic greatness might be thwarted by various defects in story or style, but which nonetheless works a curiously potent voodoo on the mind.  Such a film bores deep into the brainstem, filling one's subsequent hours, days, and weeks with its unsettling visions and vibrations.  Such a film may not be a masterpiece under any levelheaded assessment, but that is precisely what renders its profoundly affecting character such a mystery, lending it a touch of the sublime.  Now that 2010 is drawing to a close, one work from this year's relatively drab offerings stands out as a superlative example of this phenomenon, wherein a film's peculiar emotional frequency resonates to a degree far out of proportion to its cinematic consequence. That work is Red Riding, a sprawling, perplexing 295-minute excavation of an earthbound Hell.  It is a film that has left me hollowed and haunted, unable to right my emotional life after months of cogitation and revisitation.

The Hebrew Scriptures refer to a place for the departed called Sheol, a chthonic region that the Psalmist describes as forgotten by God and cut off from His hand.  This is an apposite characterization of the setting of Red Riding, where a spiritual darkness pervades each sad little basement pub and lonely moorland hillock.  It is a place without hope: cruelty falls like the gray, ceaseless rain, while corruption seeps into every dwelling and every heart.  Netherworlds of such unrelenting bleakness are usually confined to the realms of fantasy, but this particular Sheol is terribly real, and its miserable adornments are all too familiar to anyone over thirty years of age. For Red Riding is a grim tale of 1970s and 1980s Yorkshire, and while the names and faces are slightly fictionalized, the feeling—the atmosphere of the North in this era of mortal terror and broken promises—is chillingly pristine.  This is the beguiling paradox that throbs at the heart of the film: Its towering, nearly overpowering mood of desolation transcends time and place, and yet to evoke this mood the filmmakers rely on a setting that is ruthless in its specificity.

RedRidingEssayGrab05.jpg

David Peace knows this setting well.  Born in 1967 and raised in Ossett, West Yorkshire, Peace penned the four Red Riding novels on which Channel 4's film adaptation is based, giving dread form to the woes that scuttled through the landscape of his childhood and adolescence. The novels are murky and rambling things, a fusion of crime thriller conventions and flashy modernism that never quite finds full-throated success in either sphere. Deep within this strange amalgamation, however, Peace unearths a mood as evocative and unsettling as anything in contemporary fiction, literary or otherwise.  The Red Riding quartet quivers with a despair so acute that submitting to Peace's prose is an oddly exquisite experience, a plummet into an abyss whose dismal splendor and sheer scale can only be cherished from within.  The potency of the saga's atmospherics is exceeded only by their remarkable endurance: across seven protagonists, nine years, and over 1,400 pages, Peace conveys an unremitting abhorrence for the world and everything it contains.

Screenwriter Tony Grisoni takes copious liberties with the narrative details of Peace's desolate epic, above and beyond excising an entire novel (Nineteen Seventy-Seven, the second work in the quartet). Grisoni trims the cast significantly, although his adaptation retains ample characters to suit the film's portrayal of widespread corruption and conspiracy. Roles are amalgamated or written out altogether, while events are rearranged, relocated, and repurposed. The elaborate alterations to the story provide ripe opportunity for an obsessive side-by-side comparison of novel and film, but such evaluation is wholly unnecessary.  To be sure, narrative detail is essential to Peace's novels, as its accrual serves to convey the enormity and obscurity of the series' malevolent world, amplifying the reader's sense of vulnerability and powerlessness. However, Grisoni's shrewd and outstanding adaptation comprehends that while the occurrence of complexity is essential to Red Riding, it is feasible to tinker with that complexity without diminishing the work's power.

RedRidingEssayGrab07.jpg

It is no shame to lose one's way in the labyrinth of Red Riding, a dim realm cobbled together from muddy construction sites, dank bedrooms with peeling wallpaper, and gray corridors that buzz with fluorescent sickness.  In Peace's novel Nineteen Eighty, a recurring line hints that the story's density is not an obstacle course to be negotiated: On the dark stair, we miss our step. If our ankle turns on Red Riding's countless sins--the bribes and blackmail, the blowjobs and betrayals, the rapes and murders, and the lies upon lies--we can take cold comfort in the fact that it is by design.  In imitation of our Virgils—Eddie Dunford (1974), Peter Hunter (1980), John Piggott, Maurice Jobson, and BJ (all 1983)—our expanding comprehension of this world's dark contours requires that we lose our way, that we stumble and scrape our palms raw.  In its affection for a flurry of often bewildering detail, Red Riding echoes the stratagem of two late American masterpieces about real-world crimes, Oliver Stone's JFK and David Fincher's Zodiac.  The crucial thematic concerns of those films are not evident from a dry reading of the facts, but emerge only when the facts swirl about in an esoteric true-crime maelstrom (with a liberal dose of fiction). However, where JFK aims to give cinematic form to the conspiratorial mindset of modern American politics, and Zodiac offers an uneasy reproach to our collective need for concrete conclusions, Red Riding's timbre is not political or psychological but fiercely existential.  It poses a world replete with madness and wickedness and asks: What can we do but scream?

Such angst-laden queries sprout with distressing ease in Peace's Yorkshire, a land where the damp newspapers bleat of backhand deals, hunger strikes, and bloody ball-peen hammers.  Grisoni and the film's three directors—Julian Jarrold (1974), James Marsh (1980), and Arnand Tucker (1983)—are all British natives or emigrants, and they are vigorously aware of the distinct, fearsome aura that Peace's setting demands.  Indeed, the novelist is, in a sense, the film's ambivalent, fearful auteur, and the success of Red Riding is due in no small part to how superbly the filmmakers translate the trappings and essence of Peace's world to celluloid (or pixels, in Tucker's case).  The Yorkshire of Red Riding is an exaggerated vision of the North—uglier, meaner, more rotten in its teeth and heart—but the amplification is slight. Within Red Riding's warped boundaries, the jagged malaise of the Wilson and Thatcher years feels uncommonly genuine and urgent, bestowing on the film a formidable transporting quality that few period pieces can boast.  Sinking into the film's abyssal folds renders the past decades of real-world history as little more than a dream.  Here, the Devil still cruises the M1 in a rusty Transit van, and the future is still awash in Soviet-born nuclear fire.

RedRidingEssayGrab03.jpg

Setting is the central component of Red Riding's dread spell, and the film's sustained and persuasive attentiveness to place is all the more striking given that the three chapters employ distinct production designers (Christina Casali, Tom Burton, and Alison Dominitz) and cinematographers (Rob Hardy, Igor Martinovic, and David Higgs). The film's spaces are familiar: sitting rooms, offices, pubs, restaurants, garages, holding cells, hotel rooms, hospital wards, alleyways, vacant lots.  More than mere backdrops, these spaces comprise a visual vocabulary of menace and desperation. "All great buildings resemble crimes, they say," Yorkshire Post reporter Barry Gannon (Anthony Flanagan) muses provocatively, but in Red Riding every building seems to be a transgression wrought in cheap laminate, linoleum, aluminum, and concrete.  Every room is drained and shabby, yellow with cigarette smoke, full of worn, chipped furnishings to accommodate worn, chipped souls.  Fissures—visible and invisible—run through everything, even Shangri-La, the lavishly designed abode of construction magnate John Dawson (Sean Bean).  Hideous, modern buildings loom over the landscape, monolithic testaments to the foolish sanguinity of humankind's optimism. Rain-slick motorways snake over the lonely moors, stitching together grimy cities and shitty little towns, while in the distance nuclear cooling towers belch Christ-only-knows-what into slate skies.  In surveying these sights, one gradually becomes sensitive to the peculiar black magic of Red Riding: the cruel fidelity of its vision establishes that we are in a real place, and yet the stench of Purgation is everywhere.

RedRidingEssayGrab06.jpg

Nearly as essential are the visages of the vast ensemble cast.  Many of the performers seem to have been tapped solely on the basis of their expressive eyes, brows, or lips. Critics might justly dismiss the casting of the film for its reliance on expedient shorthand in lieu of deeper characterization, but given the vast and multifaceted character of Red Riding's tale, the faces and voices provide a vital means of orienting the viewer.  They are landmarks in a sea wracked by confusion and alienation: Dawson's menacing smirk; Bill Malloy's (Warren Clarke) bullfrog scowl; Jack Whitehead's (Eddie Marsan) splendid sneer; Michael Myskin's (Daniel Mays) doughy countenance and slack grin; Martin Laws' (Peter Mullan) twinkling eyes; Bob Craven's (Sean Harris) oily mustache on a weasel mug; BJ's (Robert Sheehan) uneasy scoffs and glances. Then there are the women, who all wear the same expression of apprehension and simmering bitterness, the look that eventually settles over the faces of all Yorkshire lasses after hearing the same hissed words—"cow," "slag," "bitch," "whore"—relentlessly, day after miserable day, year after miserable year. Observing the women, one can see how such a place could birth the Ripper: the way Paula Garland (Rebecca Hall) pulls her thin sweater over her thin frame; the way Helen Marshall (Maxine Peake) is perpetually averting her eyes; the way Libby Hall (Julia Ford) inclines her head and smiles a little too quickly.  Red Riding is too immense and impressionistic to qualify as a "performance film," and yet every one of its performers seems remarkably attuned to the tale's dense, pungent miasma. Every sideways look and nervous swallow, every heaving sigh and spitting retort contributes to the verisimilitude of the setting, if not the story.

What of the story, then? It is a dizzying thing, resistant to the sort of forensic scrutiny that the Yorkshire detectives might apply, where they not complicit in the tale's ghastly crimes.  Like the policemen in David Simon's episodic urban tragedy The Wire—whose glacial, accretive narrative and moral ambiguity mark it as a cousin to Red Riding—one might sketch an organizational chart for the film and populate it with names, places, dates, crimes, even tidbits of evidence in tiny plastic bags.  No earth-shattering revelation would be forthcoming from such an exercise, however. By the conclusion of Red Riding, one knows (with some uncertainty) who extorted whom, who molested whom, and who murdered whom, but there is no shock or outrage, merely a vague sense that what has come to pass is terrible, just as everything that happens in this forsaken Yorkshire is terrible. Even Christmas, it turns out, is full of raging fires and moldering corpses.

RedRidingEssayGrab02.jpg

Moreover, should one persist in sketching those lines of connection and then take a step back, one would discover that the arrows and names have encompassed the whole hideous world. Somewhere, an arrow will point to each of us.  As Barry Gannon declares, "Everything's linked. Show me two things that aren't connected." Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield), evincing the sort of naïveté that is the singular province of the hot-blooded and the ambitious, claims that he cares about the murder of children, not shady real estate deals and political corruption. ("If it bleeds, it leads.")  Spotlessly clean Manchester copper Peter Hunter (Paddy Considine) goes to Leeds with crystal-clear mission parameters: expose the Yorkshire police blunders that have permitted the Ripper to butcher thirteen women.  Each of these men suffers form the delusion that their search for the truth can be constrained by boundaries, even as Red Riding proves time and again that borders are mutable and porous.  On the dark stair, we miss our step, stumbling across borders without even realizing it.

Eddie and Hunter are too heedlessly zealous and too convinced of their own righteousness to penetrate Yorkshire's bulwarks.  It is no accident that the truth is finally cracked open by defeated, self-loathing lawyer John Piggott (Mark Addy), a man the North has ground down to a wad of sweaty nothing, and by crooked detective Maurice "The Owl" Jobson (David Morrissey), who sold his soul so long ago that its fresh stirrings seem like the slurred rumblings of a drunken enemy. Piggott and Jobson—and poor, wounded BJ—understand what Eddie and Hunter cannot. All of Yorkshire's sins are connected, and they all sprout from the same place: the Red Riding, a spiritual wasteland not found any map of the county, ancient or modern.  It leaves its traces on greasy takeaway wrappers and sticky skin magazines. It bubbles up wherever a weary mother catalogs fresh drywall dents and bruises; wherever unlucky hustlers taste concrete and broken teeth; wherever wicked men gather to raise glasses to their venality and greed, as though such failings were gleaming medals.

RedRidingEssayGrab04.jpg

Viewers with little patience for unrelenting gloom may be skeptical of Red Riding's worth as a work of entertainment. The films relies upon the tropes and patterns of crime thrillers, but nothing in its formal or thematic character suggests a whodunit gewgaw unfolding for our pulse-quickening titillation. This is not cinema as diversion, but a five-hour hymn to the awfulness of the world, with little in the way of nuance or qualification.  What distinguishes Red Riding from the thickheaded nihilism embraced by most contemporary horror films (or, for that matter, underlying most Hollywood fare) is the sheer poetry of its grim vision.  It is the most engrossing and haunting kind of art, in which loveliness is not a conspicuous surface feature but an emergent phenomenon, the product of foul raw materials that do not suggest such potential.  Admittedly, Red Riding's loveliness is the blackest sort conceivable, but it is loveliness just the same.  Grisoni's adaptation alters the unbearably bleak conclusion of Peace's novels, providing some semblance of release and salvation for the characters, but the message of Red Riding is not that happy endings can still occur in this fallen world. Rather, the film's meaning is revealed by the very existence of the film: even in Sheol, there is splendor.

PostedDecember 15, 2010
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
3 CommentsPost a comment
ASeriousManGrab04.jpg

Not Doing Anything: The Theology of A Serious Man

The sublime brilliance of Ethan and Joel Coen's A Serious Man hinges on how seamlessly the brothers blend the film's absurdist comedic elements with its grave, even despairing ruminations on sin, mystery, and revelation. It's a film in which the broad silliness of a stoned bar mitzvah can co-exist comfortably alongside a devastatingly affecting moment of brotherly love. A Serious Man's spirit is distinctly comical, but the dense, perceptive script favors moments that are funny because they hurt, with the pain often resulting from an emotional mangling. Larry Gopnik's velvet steamrolling by his wife Judith and her creepy-avuncular paramour Sy at the ludicrously incongruous Ember's (not the forum for legalities) is hilarious in the way that a grand piano landing on Donald Duck is hilarious. Both contain a glimmer of self-satisfied relief: "Thank God I'm not so stupid as to let something like that happen to me!" Unlike most comedies, however, A Serious Man presents questions that are genuinely vexing, and shares with us pains that are profoundly felt. It is a story, contra our confidence that we are more assertive and discerning than Larry, about the universality of calamity and the philosophical and spiritual agonies that often flow from personal ruin. [Spoilers below.]

Most explications of the film's story have taken note of its similarities to the biblical story of Job, and, indeed, the film includes a few overt allusions to that tale (more on that later). However, in the original story, Job was an exceedingly prosperous and righteous man, and the momentum for Satan's wager with God was his cynical suspicion that a man would abandon the latter if deprived of the former. Larry Gopnik, as the Brothers themselves have pointed out, is neither especially prosperous nor especially righteous. His middle-class success, although it represents the sort of sweeping absorption into the majority culture that would have been unthinkable to the shtetl-dwellers in the film's prologue, is purely middle-of-the-road in the context of 1960s America. Meanwhile, Larry's faith is strictly of the "only-on-holidays" stripe, a cultural marker rather than a way of living. Prayer never crosses his mind, and he has to be prompted by a family friend to even seek out the temple's rabbis for advice when troubles start to swallow his life.

ASeriousManGrab06.jpg

Like the characters in the film, we have no knowledge of what, if any, cosmic bets are driving Larry's travails. (There are no privileged scenes of gods playing chess as in Clash of the Titans, or of angelic exposition as in It's a Wonderful Life.) Larry's sheer ordinariness and the absence of any God's-eye view leaves us to wonder, as our hapless protagonist does, just what his misfortunes mean. This, of course, is the tension that powers the film, and A Serious Man is, in essence, the Brothers' theodicy piece. It confronts what theologians term the Problem of Evil: If God is all-good and all-powerful, then why do bad things happen? The dilemma would more accurately be described (with a Buddhist spin) as the Problem of Suffering, as it is concerned not only with malevolent acts, but also the panoply of Bad Stuff that can befall us, from root canals to tsunamis. Monotheistic theology generally forestalls a karmic rationale for misfortune: not every stubbed toe and dribble of bird shit on the car can be traced back to a particular sin. Larry's mantra--"I didn't do anything!"--is therefore somewhat misplaced. As his conversations with the rabbis make clear, the salient question is what, if anything, God is trying to communicate to him through his miseries.

Catholic priest Robert Barron points out in his video commentary on A Serious Man (hat tip: Jim Emerson) that the characters in the film dwell in a world where the existence of God and his involvement in humanity are accepted as foregone conclusions. Larry's quest is to discern the presumed meaning in his misfortunes; no one suggests to him that his misfortunes have no meaning and that God is not behind them. Put less delicately, no one remarks that shit just happens. The film is thus a piece about people of faith and how they confront adversity, although it is by no means a film solely for them. In this, A Serious Man reveals itself as a religious companion to No Country For Old Men. The latter film pulls a stunning fake-out in its third act, as what seemed like a pitch-perfect thriller centered on Llewellyn Moss abruptly diverges into a harrowing lament by Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Through the lawman's despair, the film confronts the problem of how a world filled with unfathomable evil and terrible injustice can be navigated without God. A Serious Man is the religious reverse of this coin, focused instead on a man for whom faithlessness is not feasible (it's not even within the universe of possibilities presented to him, really). In contrast to No Country's absence of meaning--that film ultimately rejects Ed Tom's "signs and wonders" and Chigurh's destiny--A Serious Man assumes the significance of earthly events, although it is never clearly asserts whether the meaning of those events can be divined by mere humans.

I'm not religious, and I'm still struggling with why exactly A Serious Man had such a profound effect on me. I think it's because Larry's plight resonates as a truly universal experience, one that should be familiar to all viewers, whether devout, apostate, or indifferent. We've all had days (or weeks, or months, or years...) when it seems as though the universe is taking a colossal dump on us, when we feel like we're getting kicked while we're down. There's a natural impulse, whatever our beliefs, to ask "Why?" when misfortune lands with a thud on our heads. (Although not so much when positive things come along; curious, that.) Fundamentally, A Serious Man is about the search for answers. Not in the abstract manner of greybeard philosophers, but the raw need of someone who has been bloodied and battered by one calamity after another. Whether that search for answers is pointless, misguided, or underlain by erroneous assumptions, that doesn't detract from the film's potent evocation of the sensation of that all-too-common crisis state.

ASeriousManGrab02.jpg

Still, my approach to A Serious Man is predominantly an irreligious one, and from such an angle I regard the film's recurring motif to be failure: the failure of Larry's beloved physics or his neglected faith to provide answers; the failure to accept that there may not be an answer; the failure to hear or heed messages; the failure to act to prevent calamities big and small. To my eye, the film possesses a palpable cynicism regarding the utility of that "deep well of tradition" so glowingly described by Larry's friend, as our poor schlemiel protagonist ultimately discovers that the rabbis (the ones who will even deign to see him) only answer his questions with airy quips and more questions. Most films portray religion as a character trait that signifies uprightness, sincerity, or, more rarely, bigotry. Few films are willing to call out the broader phenomenon of religion out as a big pile of nothing, sucking up its adherents' money and time in return for worthless bromides.

That said, the Coens obviously have a lot of nostalgic affection for Jewish traditions and sensibilities. Despite the film's flabbergasted stance towards the rabbis and the apparent uselessness of their advice, Father Barron is correct in that the Coens also include moments that seem to validate (or at least call back to) that advice. As hollow as Rabbi Scott's parking lot sentiments might be, it's undeniable that a "change in perspective" plays a significant role in the film at select points.  It's evoked literally in Larry's rooftop aerial adjustments--an attempt, pointedly enough, to pick up an incoming message--which provides him with a glimpse into Mrs. Samsky's libertine world. Larry's and Danny's pot-smoking also represents a kind of chemical change in perspective. And in one of the film's most emotionally potent moments, Larry is gobsmacked with the realization that his brother regards him as a profoundly blessed man. (Was there an actor's moment in 2009 more devastating that Richard Kind's blubbering wail, "Hashem hasn't given me shit!"?) This isn't to say that Father Scott is "right"; his advice is so bland and obvious that Larry could just as easily have arrived at it himself. It's just that the Coens, in their inimitable way, are loathe to dismiss the words of any of their characters, no matter how repugnant or foolish. (Look at how easily the Dude picks up words and phrases from those around him in The Big Lebowski, whether they are friends or enemies, intellectuals or lackwits.)

The ambiguity regarding the rabbis--are they empty vessels or founts of wisdom?--of course reflects the film's emphatic preoccupation with mystery and uncertainty. Physicist Larry, who "understands the math," knows that we can't ever really know anything, but he has failed to internalize the lesson of Schrödinger's cat and apply it to his everyday reality. Most of us, like Clive, can wrap our heads around the alive/not-alive cat (sort of), but would quickly become lost in Larry's voluminous, arcane equations, which serve as his own secular kabbalah, only slightly less obscure than Arthur's Mentaculus. Larry, meanwhile, admits that he doesn't understand the cat's dual state, just as he can't accept that Clive both did and did not attempt to bribe him ("You can't have it both ways!"). Larry has been agitated by the mystery of his own misfortunes, and unlike Dr. Sussman, he can't just let go and get back to his life.

ASeriousManGrab05.jpg

Larry might crave answers, but we repeatedly see that he is willfully deaf to messages. His secretary hands him messages from Sy and Columbia Records, but he disregards them until the consequences come home to roost. He seems to have had entire conversations with Judith that he barely recalls, and is only vaguely aware of the overwhelming signals that she has evidently been broadcasting for some time ("I begged you to see the rabbi!"). Even his television aerial is unable to pick up the one program that his son obsesses over, F-Troop. (That show, incidentally, featured the advice-dispensing Chief Wild Eagle, who, echoing the rabbis of the film, was full of vague Indian sayings that he rarely understood himself.) When Columbia Records finally track Larry down, he at first denies his identity, then hotly rejects the monthly selection, Santana's Abraxas. Knowing that "abraxas" is a Gnostic title for a god or other primeval entity renders Larry's vehement refusal all the more stinging: "I do not want Abraxas, I do not need Abraxas, and I will not listen to Abraxas."

This refusal to listen highlights Larry's most essential flaw: his lack of attention to his own life. At first glance, the film presents Larry as a pathetic victim, on whom a spate of terrible misfortunes are inflicted through no fault of his own. However, many aspects of Larry's situation stem from his own inaction and lack of assertiveness. He permits those around him to step all over him, and his feeble attempts to resist only render him all the more pathetic, a milquetoast who practically asks for others to shove him aside. Time and again, he is presented with opportunities to take command of his situation--with his wife, children, Arthur, Clive, Mr. Brandt, and particularly Sy--only to let such openings slip through his fingers. Larry's statement of blamelessness, "I didn't do anything!," becomes one of inaction, "I didn't do anything!" This shift in meaning is hinted at by Larry himself when he admits that he has not published or performed any research as a professor. And, as the Columbia Records fellow explains, one can, in fact, incur debts by doing nothing. The infernal dybbuk is invited into one's house by a lapse in the duty to sit shiva for a departed soul; similarly, Larry invites all kinds of terrible things into his life by his sins of omission, by his negligence towards the integrity of his own life.

ASeriousManGrab03.jpg

The final scenes of the film invite an inevitable question: Is the phone call from Larry's doctor, intruding at the very moment that he changes Clive's grade, a message from God, a indirect punishment for his trespass. Is the tornado bearing down on Danny an extension of God's retribution, a cruel instance of the sins of the father being visited upon the son? Despite the link the Coens establish between Larry's actions and his (presumably) dire medical news, I think the Brothers are playing with us a bit. Elsewhere, the film makes it clear that the juxtaposition of an action and an event has no particular significance (or perhaps simply a significance that is forever beyond our ken). Again, Larry does not live in a karmic universe. We should draw no inferences between his decision to accept Clive's bribe and the phone call / tornado. (One could even argue that Larry is indeed "helping others" as Rabbi Nachtner urged, in that he is helping Clive avoid the loss of his scholarship, a probable expulsion, and deep family shame.) The arrival of a grim prognosis, just after Larry's happiest day in weeks, is not a divine sign, but merely an unfortunately timed example of the cosmos' random indifference. Cancer doesn't care whether we're having a good day or a bad day. It simply is. Like a tornado, it is one the "evils" that theodicy must account for in this world. As Danny stands outside his school, his determination to do the right thing and pay his debt to Fagle (and thereby avoid a beating, not incidentally) fades at the sight of nature's fury. Moral duty diminishes in the face of such uncanny chaos, and we are reminded of God speaking to Job from within a whirlwind. If God truly exists in the world of A Serious Man, he is speaking to Danny through the tornado. It is not a direct communication, but a stark demonstration that Danny's preoccupations--money, weed, television, his radio, even the Torah--are paltry in the grand scheme of things. For all the harrowing despair roiling in those final images, it in fact represents a mellowing of the film's indictments. Larry is responsible for much of his plight, but what we can control in our lives is far outweighed by that which we cannot control. That fearsome funnel cloud epitomizes the universe at its most capricious and destructive, and highlights the fragile character of human life. The threat of the tornado urges us, paradoxically enough, to relax. It's out of our hands.

PostedMarch 25, 2010
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
2 CommentsPost a comment
InglouriousBasterdsGrab01.jpg

That's a Bingo!: Thoughts on Evil, Fame, and Badass Women in Inglourious Basterds

It took about forty-eight hours for me to tumble to the fact that Quentin Tarantino's superb Nazi-stomping fantasy, Inglourious Basterds would occupy a niche similar to Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York and the Coens' No County for Old Men did in 2008 and 2007, respectively. That is, while it may not be the best film of the year, it has prompted me to a greater quantity and deeper quality of reflection than any other cinematic offering of recent vintage. Happily, it took only a week or so for me to discover that Basterds has also provoked a comparable level of deliberation from just about every American film writer and blogger worth a damn (not that I count myself among that number.) The poobahs of my favored haunts—GlennKenny, Tim Brayton, Jim Emerson, Kevin J. Olson, Charles Bowen Jr., Sam Juliano—and their commenters are all in fine form, whether their assessment is positive or negative. However, a particular shout-out needs to go to Dennis Cozzalio of Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule and Bill R. of The Kind of Face You Hate, who have offered up a meticulous, marathon exchange about the film (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). The tone of their back-and-forth has been unabashedly gushing (as it should be), but the conversation has nonetheless been vigorous, enlightening, and often pointed, especially where the film's lonely detractors are concerned.

In that spirit, I want to expand on some thoughts that have been rattling around in my cranium since I authored my review, particularly since I've now had a chance to view Basterds for a second time and also to peruse a fraction of the excellent commentary that's been pouring forth from the Internet's tubes. [SPOILERS BELOW]

***

Many pixels are being expended on the topic of Inglourious Basterds' morality, or lack thereof. Interestingly enough, the furor seems to be as much about the response of some critics (*cough* Jeffrey Wells *cough*) to the film's violence as it is about Tarantino's own notorious inscrutability on the matter. I find myself mostly sharing Dennis Cozzalio's stance on this, which is to say that my own feelings about Basterds' violence are comprised of a heaping helping of giddy enthusiasm with a twinge of nagging discomfort. However, while I can't say that I share Bill R.'s full-throated enthusiasm for the film's violence, his commentary on the topic has prompted me to examine my own reactions to Basterds more carefully. I still stand by my assessment that the gleeful bloodthirstiness of the Basterds' "work" (and Shosanna's revenge scheme, to a lesser degree) has an undercurrent of moral ambiguity. I can't deny that I feel some uneasiness at the prospect of reveling in the execution and mutilation of German enlisted men and civilians. Is it telling that I never had so much as a twinge of remorse for the eighty-eight (or so) ninja bodyguards that The Bride mercilessly hacked her way through in Kill Bill, Volume 1, even though many of them were guilty of nothing more than fervent loyalty to their mistress? Perhaps this distinction depends on the particular cartoonish quality to Kill Bill's violence in the House of Blue Leaves sequence, but I think there's something else going on.

InglouriousBasterdsGrab02.jpg

Nazi stories seem to have a particular capacity for evoking considerations of violence, culpability, and racism. I suspect that when confronted with the swastika in either a historical or fictional context, any person will dwell, however briefly, on their own morality, and how easily human beings set aside decency in the name of tribalism, jingoism, and pure sadism. Of course, in a film like Inglourious Basterds, this has the effect of prompting second thoughts about wishing violence on the very monsters that prompted those second thoughts in the first place. Tarantino equivocates quite a bit about this in the film. He coaxes us to whoop with delight as Nazis are machine-gunned and roasted alive, even as he presents us with a Nazi audience cheering as on-screen Allied soldiers are picked off like rabbits at the Nation's Pride premiere. It's hard not to feel a little sting at the comparison. On the other hand, there's Shosanna's fate, wherein her momentary pity for Zoller gets her brutally murdered. This suggests that whatever hesitation we feel for dishing out punishment to the deserving is softhearted folly, and likely to have nasty consequences for us. No doubt some authoritarian-minded Neanderthal will latch onto this as a validation for contemporary American warmongering and torture, but Tarantino has never been so overtly political. His provocations are far deeper, striking at the intersection of pop culture and unexamined social values. Bottom line, I don't think that Tarantino is offering any easy messaging in Basterds, certainly nothing in the vein of Death Proof's rather uncluttered (yet still misconstrued) indictment of misogyny and male entitlement.

***

One thing that struck me square between the eyes on a second viewing is how much Inglourious Basterds is interested in celebrity, as a plot point, motif, and theme. Consider that nearly every major character in the film—with the conspicuous exception of Shosanna—is well-known in certain circles. Aldo Raine, Donny Donowitz, Hugo Stiglitz, Hans Landa, Fredrick Zoller, Bridget von Hammersmark, and even Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich are all celebrities in one way or another, and much of the film's intrigues are related to their identities and reputations. And, of course, the film also includes the real-world figures of the Third Reich. This current of celebrity is consistent with Tarantino's filmography, which has often been concerned with identity, and especially with its capacity to bestow power on the one hand and to confine and suffocate on the other. Tarantino's exploration of identify achieved its pinnacle in Kill Bill, wherein a wronged woman's road to vengeance becomes an exploration of the self, but it can also be observed as a major component of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

InglouriousBasterdsGrab03.jpg

While Tarantino's characters have always been larger than life, he's never before trafficked in a cast of characters that is consistently renowned within their own universe. This is more than appropriate, given Inglourious Basterds' conspicuous fixation on cinema. Andrew Dominik's casting of Brad Pitt in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a self-consciously clever feat that paid significant dramatic dividends, and Tarantino seems to be playing a related game here by tapping the tabloid darling to portray Aldo Raine. Yet, consistent with his prankster spirit, the director casts Pitt not as the steely man of war, but as a broadly comical good ol' boy, and not even in the lead at that!

Few commentators have observed that the Basterds' questioning of their Nazi captives in Chapter 2 is a callback to Hans Landa's interrogation of LaPadite in Chapter 1, and moreover that both confrontations hinge on the characters' reputations and infamy. Landa seems genuinely interested in whether LePadite knows of him, and specifically whether his moniker, "the Jew-Hunter," is known to the dairy farmer. Likewise Aldo Raine asks his Nazi prisoner if he has heard of Donny, Hugo, and Aldo himself. Both scenes also hinge on the subject giving up some vital piece of information, although the threat of violence is much more explicit for the Nazis the Basterds have under their thumbs. It's a bold twinning, as it overtly links the menace that Landa cultivates about himself with the fear that the Basterds aim to inspire among the Germans ranks. While Tarantino is drawing a line of connection between Landa and Raine, and therefore critiquing his own (and our own) glee at the Basterds' brutal methods, he's not really posing the comparison as a moral equivalency. This is made clear late in the film, when Landa expresses a kind of professional respect for Raine, and seems crestfallen when the American lieutenant fails to exhibit a reciprocal admiration. Raine won't, of course, because he's a practical sort, and not preoccupied with abstractions like honor. More significantly, Raine regards Landa as a moral monster, and therefore he is undeserving of any respect at all.

***

InglouriousBasterdsGrab04.jpg

Mélanie Laurent has received a lot of attention—and deservedly so—but can we talk for a moment about the luminous Diane Kruger and her portrayal of Bridget von Hammersmark? Kruger was colorless eye candy as Helen of Troy in Wolfgang Petersen's 2004 swords-and-sandals epic, and apparently she's been a recurring character in those National Treasure films, which I've studiously avoided. Certainly, I had seen nothing that prepared me for her deliriously captivating performance in Basterds. Tarantino deserves credit for scripting Bridget as one of the most fascinating and most precisely drawn characters in the film, and also for his well-established ability to bring out the best in his performers. Let's not short-change Kruger, however. She slips effortlessly into the role of a 1940s screen diva, right down to the poised yet relaxed way she perches on her chair with cigarette and coquettish smirk. Kruger is the picture of Teutonic sparkle, but the allure of Bridget isn't simply due to the actress' appropriation of the Marlene Dietrich look. Watch the whirl of emotions that Kruger permits to peek from beneath Bridget's mask of droll, eager-to-please sweetness. Listen to her carefully during the now-notorious tavern scene, and you'll see how cunning and fearless Bridget is, and also how apparent it is that Archie Hicox and the Basterds, not her, are the ones who let their anxiety get the better of them. Every step of the way through that scene, Bridget attempts in vain to keep the Allied spies from panicking, to maintain a sense of calm and even warmth. It's not so much that Bridget is a good liar (she isn't), but that she knows how to use her looks, her charisma, her fame, and her audience's expectations to her advantage, to smooth out things that might otherwise look suspicious. And, good Lord, what a death scene! If any viewer harbored a speck of sympathy for Landa, surely his unusually graphic strangulation of Bridget banished it? (The slaughter of the Dreyfus family should have, but no matter...) Forget the film's later re-writing of history: Tarantino exhibits epic chutzpah in presenting an act so violent and overtly misogynistic without flinching from it. Only the brutal daylight stabbings in Fincher's Zodiac have come close in recent memory to banishing the sex appeal of fictional violence.

***

InglouriousBasterdsGrab05.jpg

Wandering outside the film blogging world for commentary on recent releases is always an enterprise fraught with peril, but Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon has long been providing consistently enlightening insights into pop culture from a feminist perspective amid her postings on reproductive rights and other issues. It was Amanda's take on Death Proof that got me to appreciate its sexual politics, and has had a strong influence on the way I approach the film. Her assessment of Inglourious Basterds is no less enlightening, and while her writing at Pandagon is in the conversational style of political blogging, she uses the mode she's familiar with to raise some interesting points. Most fascinating in my mind is Zoller's embodiment of the Nice Guy archetype that has long been an object of discussion among socially-minded Third Wave feminists. Tarantino addressed the Nice Guy phenomenon with a gentler hand in Death Proof, but Zoller represents a much more frank repudiation of the obsequious, resentful sexist. The Shosanna-Zoller subplot seems designed to resonate with any woman who has ever had to parry a sycophant who refused to take "No" for an answer. The rather unfair characterization of Tarantino as a purveyor of a hyper-masculine sensibility has also been a stubborn one, to the point where four (or five) consecutive films featuring assertive female protagonists have been insufficient to dispel it. Although not all of these films pass the Bechdel Test, I suspect it's Tarantino's obsession with genre and his awestruck attitude toward female sexuality that ultimately hinder him being taking seriously as a male ally of feminism. That said, notice how sympathetic Basterds is to Shosanna's utterly no-nonsense stance towards Zoller. She never gives him an inch, and Zoller's frustration builds until his underlying entitlement boils over into violent rage. The viewer never really trusts Zoller either, and not just because he's a Nazi and a Goebbels protege. It's the false modesty during his early scenes that made my Spidey-Sense tingle, if only because it's so unusual to see a character take such a stance in a Tarantino film. The trait that seems to hold for almost all of Tarantino's characters is their swagger, whether warranted or not. Who was the last modest Tarantino character? Poor Marvin from Pulp Fiction? This more than anything signaled to me that Zoller's initial humility about his fame was a disingenuous strategy to impress Shosanna. And, again, what does Shosanna's momentary softening for the schmuck get her? A brutal, agonizing death. As much as Shossana's ugly demise seems an affirmation of the film's merciless Nazi-snuffing, it equally represents a warning never to let your guard down around your creepy wannabe-boyfriend.

PostedSeptember 3, 2009
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
4 CommentsPost a comment
Newer / Older
RT_CRITIC_TM_BADGE.jpg
The Take-Up Podcast

Twin Peaks: The Return

2007 - 2016: A Personal Cinematic Canon

download.png

Recent Posts

Blog
New Reviews at The Take-Up
about 7 years ago
Miles to Go Before I Sleep
about 7 years ago
Delete Your Account: 'Friend Request'
about 7 years ago
Feminine Mystique: 'mother!'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - 'Twin Peaks: The Return,' Parts 17 and 18
about 7 years ago
Send in the Clown: 'It'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 16
about 7 years ago
Fetal Infraction: Prevenge
about 7 years ago
You Don’t Know Why, But You’re Dying to Try: The Lure
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 15
about 7 years ago

© 2007 – 2025 Andrew Wyatt