#90
Post
by John Cope » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:25 pm
A truly confounding experience and one I will admit to going back and forth on throughout, often within individual scenes. I keep thinking that it will emerge with more clarity for me if and when I return to it but I also suspect that it might just as equally emerge as more clearly incoherent, an arrangement of conflicting intentions that may not complicate and deepen but simply obscure or distract and negate one another. Still, I would be be skeptical of anyone who came out of this picture with a resolved perspective. It seems to deny and frustrate that at every turn. Obviously a piece determined to be "ambiguous", its intentional vagueness is as detrimental to its ultimate impact and effects as it is an enhancement of them. And that's really the crux of the matter. It's a tremendously strange, frustrating experience not because its ambiguity is so inherently confrontational or obfuscating but rather because the actual application of that ambiguity seems poorly judged at times, counter-productively directed. That's why it's so difficult to think through as well because it genuinely is a work demanding of a moment by moment assessment. Much of the Big Climax, for instance, comes across as unjustified, absurdly overwrought, but the skill behind its enactment and delivery is undeniable--as is the clear conviction (that much is clear). The ending, too, is perfection; I was literally chanting, "End it, end it, end it," as we linger on Fassbender's face because ending it there is such a well considered move (that investment of consideration is another thing that seems undeniable). The location of the problem is in the mechanics, not the aesthetics. This isn't some Todd Haynes type problem of overly fixating on filmic devices. The surface expression is not the distraction here, the underlying mechanics are. And yet, in the midst of that, is the very real wonder associated with profoundly effective aesthetic accomplishment.
Fassbender's performance is, in a weird way, part of the problem. It's truly outstanding and certainly the best thing I've ever seen him do but it exists in strained relationship to McQueen's directorial approach. Fassbender is so great here that he virtually overwhelms many of McQueen's subdued set pieces. That may have been intentional but it doesn't always feel that way. Frankly, the performance seems miscalibrated for the film it is in with Fassbender's intensity burning holes through even the most clearly intentional sequences of matching measured excess. And yet, and yet. I don't believe for a minute that McQueen doesn't anticipate those kinds of objections, doesn't fully integrate them into his almost disturbingly intricate design. So while we may be troubled by the consistently distinct impression that the seeming moralism of much of this is just too pat we also can't dismiss any of it or shake the sense that it is we who are being too pat with this material, too glibly reductionist, and that McQueen has been trying to goad that recognition all along. We can accept that it's Sissy's presence that starts the ball rolling and forces Brandon to confront his inability to attain intimacy within a relationship and see that this in turn sets him off on his out-of-control spiral at the end (confused too much I think with a descent-into-degredation). But we can't understand enough about this character to be as hugely impacted by all this as McQueen must surely want. He's an intentional cipher and that stands at odds with, if not outright negates, our empathy or sympathy. We can only really observe what amounts to a fairly facile form of tragedy. And that lack of success is the real shame here because so much has so clearly gone into the effort to evoke our sympathies. Still, it's just undone by the underlying approach. Fassbender seems to understand his character all too well. That performace emanates from a place that just screams utter comprehension. But we don't get it well enough. The chasm of remove is kind of fascinating if it weren't in its way so tragic.
I admire any attempt to treat this picture's underlying subject and themes seriously as to do so is to constantly court being risible. And I won't deny that it had that effect on me at times (the scene in which Brandon's boss rattles off the list of porn found on his hard drive was particularly hilarious). I'd like to assume that McQueen anticipates these reactions, too. I keep thinking that he must as to not do so would not just be naive but quite profoundly naive. There are times when I'm very unsure though. The comedy (such as it is) sits pretty awkwardly here when it does appear and the picture comes off as having far more assurance with the dark, bleak ramifications of its central subject than any blackly comic, absurdist ones. My lingering problem with McQueen's treatment of Brandon's sex addiction as metaphor for vacant life keeps coming back to that whole issue of intentionally obscured backgrounds and the way that makes all the expressive demonstrations we see seem either trite or relatively minor. If there is no larger context that makes clear sense then the result must be one of pure demonstration and observation and on that level it seems only like the enactment of an admittedly hollow, unsatisfying life. But beyond that, if McQueen only wants to locate the source of Brandon and Sissy's distress in a vaguely defined history of abuse ("We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place.") then he's unduly limiting the resonance of his portraiture. Because it goes without saying that we live in an era saturated with sex and its easy satisfactions are unprecedented. To miss the way that shapes and effects an individual struggling with this subject is irony indeed, though I suppose one could say that it is the society's casual ease with sex that accommodates Brandon's own specific and personal pathology.
Part of the unique problem for me is that I kept thinking of Lodge Kerrigan's Claire Dolan and its similar themes, similar aesthetic style. It's another rigorous, mostly frigid piece that details the life of a sex worker as it equates to being an economic commodity, the way that mental attitude permeates all else and affects relationships throughout. There is a deep emotional element in that film as well but it is much more of a piece with the rest, carefully composed and restrained. It's more immediately impactful for me because of that; the fact that it all appears to take place in the same world--the continuity strengthens and re-inforces the effectiveness of those moments of emotional collapse. And it also helps that what is going on is clear enough to have that impact. Clarity by no means has to mean some kind of systematic reduction of possibility. In Kerrigan's film the narrative obscurity (and there is much of it) is handled with an adeptness that never causes distraction or an undermining of the ability for direct investment. McQueen wants Big Operatic Moments to co exist with his study in geometric minimalsim. There's nothing wrong with that and maybe even everything right about such an ambition but it can't come off if there is also such an adamant determination to keep all motives and backgrounds veiled. So I can't help but think that the picture may have been better served by tha approach of a Claire Dolan. Or a Claire Denis. But, once again, maybe the type of picture I'm describing was never the type of picture McQueen wanted to make. Maybe he wanted frustration and alienation to co exist with emotional catharsis, too.
Finally I want to point to an early scene which I believe contains some kind of elusive key to this whole thing (certainly it stayed in my mind throughout and I kept returning to it). It's the seemingly irrelvant establishing office sequence in which we're introduced to Brandon's boss and assorted co-wrokers around a conference table. I want to work through it briefly as I think it's a fit subject for analysis of the type I've been trying to do here and the deceptively irrelevant contents nag at me, making me think again that there may be a far deeper level of comprehension here than what sits on the surface. The scene begins on Brandon with a voice over we seem meant to think is directed at him. Quickly it is revealed that it is not and he is simply one of many seated around this table listening to the boss' speech. I'm going to transcribe all of it here:
"'I find you disgusting. I find you inconsolable. I find you invasive.' This is what the cynics used to say. Companies would refuse to look into the future. They would say, 'Can we stop this virus?' As if it was a negative progression. But it's growing. More and more, with a momentum that is unstoppable. Now some kid snorts the entire load of his mother's spice cupboard. Post that on Youtube. They would watch as that becomes the buzzword amongst high school students everywhere. Eventually, the cynicism is turning into awe."
Now, as I said, at first we think this is directed at Brandon and that initial dislocation lingers long enough to partially distract us from what is said. But if we are listening it seem like background patter, in some ways relevant to him and in others not. The scene is brief and not distinguished by much emphasis so I think the inclination is to blow it off. But in a film with so little dialogue of any kind it would be a mistake to blow this off. I'm still unsure of what to make of it as it could be, as with much of the rest, just an extension of the opening feint--a sub-Egoyan move made to speak to some pretty obvious not so sub themes. But if you look/listen closely to just what is said here it's much harder to think it rests in such a place. It may be referring to Brandon's "sex addiction" as signifier of secret source but it goes beyond that by complicating its metaphors in a bizarre way. Ostensibly it sounds like condemnation but it's actually a kind of tacit acceptance, a passive approval of cynical business ethics, perhaps then even as a way of life. The implications of that do speak to the sort of cultural source I mentioned earlier and proceeds to quite literally chill: "Eventually, the cynicism is turning into awe."