"Insanity on film...Insanity on film..." (a la Duran Duran yeh bad joke)
January was just cold enough, just dark enough to make the study of insanity on film bearable, for in these dark times "comes a rush of inhabitance worth of everyday living, madness and cold flesh upon them, lay it on of hands so may it be, the mouth of madness!..." and of what did I learn in these depths of insane triviality and frivolity and of larger universals that could exist in the mind of God? the mind of madness? the White Sound? the paths to enlightenment? the onset of broken mind from the likes of biology, the onset from the likes of megalomania, of the ego got out of control, the likes of identity, and the confusions and permutations thereof, asking the question "who are we?" and "who am I?", from the transcendence of social known boundaries resulting in those who reside behind them in safety and comfort, to award labels such as insane to those desperate few for meaning, those who transgress, those who step beyond, willingly, to gather for themselves some form of new truth, those who cannot be labeled as such, those who deconstruct by being, those stereotypes and contextuals that bind our identities together, leaving those who want to understand lost in their labeling paradigm, unwilling to cope, unwilling to broaden their narrow perspectives, the want of ignorance over newfound hope or ways of being, this is fear, the unknown, this is madness...
The Dark Knight, (2008), the Joker and his "evil", his uncaring, his desperation unapparent and non-existent, he is chaos embodied, the destructive force in nature, embodied, much to Gotham's chagrin, much to their, again, want of ignorance, chaos and destruction as means of change, agents of it, in the natural cycle, in more balanced times, your yang (or yin?) your dark, destruction comes at the hands of ones who have minute amounts of sympathy at least for themselves and their power mongering egos, but yet what do you do with one who will not stop? who wants not the treasures of regular men, the money, the fame, the power, the gold, the women...all they have akin to them is the greed, (an overindulgent and overpowering id perchance?) what does the world do with one who just wants to "watch it all burn?" as Alfred told Bruce Wayne...and so, in speaking, this attitude would be seen as "insane" this want for destruction, this greed for abandon, fire, apocalyptic nothingness, burning, ash, suffering, pain, this is all seen as dysfunctional for if twas seen as commonplace and regular, civilization would have a harder time keeping itself together, would be the fundamental breakdown of civilized society, the glue would reap and tear and falling bits of all-known would be lost to man and memory, however, this force is apparent and real, only to be embodied in one man (some would call monster) in this film, the Joker, and his rivaling opponent Batman, the force of "good", the Right, the stability, of sanity, of Order in the universe...in the universe this force is real, black holes, stars erupting into supernova, decay, entropy, death, these are very real forces in our universe yet seen as criminable in our society, but mustn't they? for how would society function, an orderly system, if destruction were allowed its abandon? how would chaos function, an inorderly system, without order? doesn't this happen every moment of our existence? tiny black holes surround us, caught at the quantum level, but from the bush fire comes the evergreen wood that seems alive interminable, and once its time hath come, there shall it burn again, this cycle, although seen as incriminating, destruction and chaos are as true and as fearful a reality as anything, for it to be embodied into one man, one character, is existence on PCP yet they are strong symbols for true forces in our universe..."what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" as so quoteth the Joker, this paradox is existence, as is existence is seen as this conflict
Europa 51 (1952) (also known as The Greatest Love) a socialite turned Mary herself in ways...this story exemplifies what I mentioned earlier about transgression, she, through her upper class estate and living, "reduces" herself to the common ground, the working class, the poor, and, at first, uses her stately origins to help those in need, she begins to experience this other way of living (after such a traumatic episode as losing her son from complications of an almost suicide) could it have been guilt that drove her? she claims in the movie it was self-hate, that it was her self-hate that drove her out to be amongst the others, the others "below", it drove her to seemingly love all, to be open to All...so sayeth the Priest, who could not understand her, neither could the Politician (leftist/communist) neither could the Husband, or the Mother, all of these social institutions, all of these social constructs could not fathom her actions, none but the People, the commoners, the working class, our "heroine" did not agree with the beguilings of the Priest or Politician, seemingly saying without doing so, "it is much larger than what you claim to believe!" it is not what you think, what you apparently preach to others in order for them to save themselves, tis not a political system or religious belief, already prescribed in books and lecture, it is connection, it is help, it is understanding, it is empathy and sympathy, sacrifice, what these institutions proscribe yet fail to exemplify through its adherents, those who gorge in their power (stereotypically) others are lost to this...our heroine works in the factories, visits the sick, helps the prostitute, nurtures the children all for what? for what? is this reward system or question even valid? a result of capitalism? reward-based living? based on biology? is it an essence of our living? and is this why she seemed transcendent? for she neither seemed to be ascribed to, nor motivated by this system of give and take, she just was, an emblem of enlightenment, short-changed when she was ultimately charged as problematic and insane and put into the mental ward for therapy, for there is no way this could could be of value to her nor to anyone else, value of good...she had transcended her boundaries of what it meant to be an urban female socialite (through the self-sacrifice of her son, she was born again, ah the Jesus rears its head) into a being those around her could not understand nor label, she had transgressed a social line in the sand, and what do we do with those who transgress? we punish. that is social law, that is majority rule, and in ways that is democracy
The Tenant (1976) and Persona (1966) both deal with the complexity of identity, and the assumptions thereof...what does one do when treated as someone else? when you are seen as another? and not just another, but someone of the different sex, gender, class, or sexual orientation? does this mean that everyone else defines you? where are your own limits? your own boundaries of what one would call self? how were these implemented? layed down? how could it be that this all happened? seems natural enough but we are not born as these "selves" at least not wholly, only in part with room to grow...this tenant became that who came before him, a woman, he a man, or was he? it is the psychosis of pressures dealing with what it means to be a self, Polanski treats this as well in Repulsion (1965) (first part of the so-called Apartment Trilogy) with like-minded motifs it seems...and these pressures were so great that he caved, he/she could not withstand the pressures of society to be what he thought he was, and so he caved, so much so he broke himself upon the concrete ground, suicide was his answer to all this, the destruction of self, and as is shown in the movie, a vicious cycle, a loop is there, waiting to snare, for what began, ended, him/her in cast and screaming from the release of this illusion...
Bergman also dealt with identity in Persona breaking up the figures into parts of the self, mainly in two parts, the healer (true self) and the actress, the actress being our mask that is worn to the world great, what we show the world, what we want to show and therefore showing what we want to hide beneath as well, another paradox, the actress says our lines for us, so we don't have to, she motions us through the grieving world, so we can stay in shadowed corners and mull or cry or mope or be afraid, or try and cope, but, and as portrayed in this film, the actress sometimes breaks and falls silent, our creation snaps and will not go on speaking her lines, will not motion us anymore through the world, and it is left to the self to break through to gather its strength if any it has and shut up the actress forever, in this case, through much introspection, the actress is felled silent and left with only one line "Nothing." which could mean for her an existential quiet. Silence. We create the actress to cope. Yet it is ultimately unsatisfactory in existence to have that cover, although masks have their place, the sun must shine upon our faces at least part of the time, the light without dark is just that and is nothing, one defines the other, right? masks and self, self and masks, like good and evil, creation and destruction, here at the bottoms we find these paradoxes apparent and alive and they call this madness? and so as it turns, the actress had her own actress inside of her, and could not even reveal her true self, possibly a systemic problem with the art of theater? the habitual loss of self within created characters, so much so one becomes them? loss of self is never bad, how could it be? for self is not a stagnant thing, definable not by staunchly held grounds, but is more free as the wind, blowing ethereal, wispy, ephemeral. A sense of self lost is only a foray into a wider world (?)
The White Sound (Das Weisse Rauschen) (2001) was respectably a great film in regards to its realistic portrayal of paranoid schizophrenia, from the perspective of the main character, that brings the viewer into a first person account...aesthetically at first, it seemed a bit "student-filmy", but this gave way to a greater story, and I think, by the end of the film, the home video quality certainly adds to the realism of the portrayal, as if it were indeed a reality tv episode worth watching...this film was interesting in that, on a superficial level, it seems to claim that the character's eating of the mushrooms was the determining factor, was indeed the cause of his onset of schizophrenia, but his outburst at the movie attendant, and his seeming confusion at trying to get registered for classes at Uni, not to mention his mother's state of mental health and suicide, goes to show that the mushrooms were only a catalyst, something that amplified what was inherent, potential turned kinetic, the releasing of a wild boar or monster upon the unwilling, a caged one who was there all along. This film reminded me of Shawn in many different aspects, namely, his mental and emotional condition under the influence of the psychotic drugs, how Lukas felt numb and diluted under the weight of the drugs, they calmed his speaking mind, his paranoia, yet he did not feel alive, only living in haze, as a zombie, much like Shawn did since he started his prescription regimen...tis a sad occurrence, for anyone with sympathy for life could relate to Lukas' want to get out from underneath the huge weight of mind-numbing drugs, would want to live his life in freedom and clarity, even if it meant living the way he did, which ultimately, the first time around, ended with him throwing himself out the window....tragic in either case...one is instantly faced with the paradoxical dilemma of a schizophrenic when it comes to these situations of drugs therapy, or does one live just to be alive and a productive citizen? or does one face the elements of that "altered" state of mind and face potential disrepair?...The Naturals (a la Hippies) got him out of the urban landscape,which is probably not ideal for a paranoid schizophrenic, suffering from delusions of conspiracy and power control, more people = more agitation? which brings to mind the idea of the urban landscape being a reflection of man's mind, as a creation of man, therefore men living inside his creation, inside his mind, and man living solely in his mind is a definition of insanity, and i think this especially true in larger megalopolises, where nature can rarely be found and if it can be, is man-organized, manicured, and safe, still not the natural world...there is a definite dichotomy here, one that may or may not be real, for, as I am sure, the way to manage such "altered" states of mind, so that it is not all-consuming, is not beyond the borders of self-control and analysis, varies with every case, i just wonder this, the natural versus the man-made in this instance of mental illness, does it contribute in any way?are there factors rooted in this difference?
which brings one to question: did his rural lifestyle actually serve to dampen what was already festering there? in his mind? or harboring?, to what extent did nature, or the Natural Way actually help Lukas? well one could argue that the Natural Way was not a panacea, for it was the mushrooms (all natural) that broke open loose the floodgates, right? Either way the hippies traveled him to Spain, to this place to that, but even this idyllic way of life, this small-in-number-commune was still not healthy for his altered mind, it seemed at times that Lukas was on the verge of physical violence (Taxi Driver being an allusion in this regard), violence that would leave physical scars of severe damage, although he does have some altercations with his sister, he does not lean this way in dealing with his newfound condition, it leaves us plaintively, on the shores of some beach in Spain, where the hippies have left him, with his consent, watching as the waves crash repeatedly against the shore, and Lukas' monologue about the White Sound, the movie's namesake, about how it is the culmination of all things, and if one were to see/hear it it would drive the sane insane and the insane, sane...an obvious path is laid out before him, will he try to find it? will he walk backwards on the path, to reach sanity again? the voices are not given prominence in the movie in Act III, after he throws himself from a bridge--in his hippie quietude, were the voices silent? did the beach calm him? all alone is he along this trek, not his parents, grandparents, sister, friends, doctors, are there, no one is there in the end but man and nature, and his search...what will he find out on the brink?
Harvey (1940) twas a quaint tale about a man with a supposed hallucination, a 6'3 1/2 inch tall rabbit (which turned out to be a pooka, a mythical creature from Celtic mythology)...Elwood is seen as an outcast to those who do not understand his relationship with his pooka, Harvey, and, according to wiki, pookas are fond of social outcasts, and through the movie we are given details such as Elwood's fancy to drink, which could lead a narrow mind to assume and conclude that his alcoholism is the reason for his hallucinations, and yet he is thrivingly personable, friendly and charming, does not hurt anyone and is not malicious in any way, yet when the rabbit is introduced, there stems the wall from the ground, forever and anon with most, society is quick to judge these kinds of episodes as insane and delusional, society is not equipped, at large,on the streets, to deal with this kind of behavior that is inherently out of the norm, and is indicative of the conservative nature of the social structure and hierarchy, as in Europa 51, he is judged for we do not understand, and when there are those who cross the boundaries of understanding, they must be pent up, put away, therapy is the only way, therapeutics to revive this man back to "sanity" whatever that means...the "serum" of therapy, of injecting in this man all social norms and codes, would therefore permanently change his perceptions forever, who knows? without Harvey, maybe he would be a raving lunatic or a disagreeable man, or a binge-drinker alcoholic with real problems that we can see and treat, but a seemingly charming man with a unseen rabbit friend? that is just too bizarre, too outlandish! treat him! treat him! for we suffer from the curse of ignorance! Elwood was actually a kind gentle man who was very sociable and willing to meet everyone, inviting them to his house, even perfect strangers whom he had just met were invited to come and enjoy a dinner with him, yet he was deemed insane, he was more socially acceptable than most who wold deem themselves "normal"...the travesty! and through all this, we come to realize that even though those who do not understand: family, institutions, the social norm, that although we "accept" Elwood the way he is, (although it is only just a hallucination) the writers have given us the truth: that Harvey does indeed exist, and that Elwood truly does have a 6 foot 3 1/2 inch tall rabbit friend...who is crazy and why?
Aguirre, Wrath of God (1972) is a great study in megalomania, the obsessive want of greatness, to find none other than the lost city of gold, El Dorado, the metaphoric obsession end-goal of anyone seized by such tantalizing prizes...he was driven insane by it, this want, to be famous, renowned, down in the jungle complete, lost and without food, nothing to sustain them or he, exceot this want for notoreity, the want for the seemign All. He sacrificed the lives of all in his shabby band of loyal followers, and those who took to his stead, even the monk was corrupt, his innocent daughter was even sacrificed, he did seem to love her, but did not cease to save her life as he sailed on down the river in search of the lost city, attacked by natives in a strange land, picking them down one by one, almost in a calculated way, the horse they left behind for death, probably in a better state of being than those left on the raft, the appointed leader of the party, taken off the boat to the mainland to be murdered, his early death was proabbly a welcome cure, it was a portrayal of madness and how it corrupted them and him, Aguirre, saw how it deconstructed the party one by one, showed the typical loyalists who for whatever reason always side with madness, giving them approval and a source of power, for without the Nazi party, Hitler would have been nothing, another mouth to feed, yet Aguirre had his cronies, had his men who would do all that he asked, even those who did not want to follow,had to, for fear of incurring the wrath of Aguirre or his men, and it so happens often in the story, it was almost as if they were all mad or dead by the end of it, even whist alive they all seemed mad by a certain look of it, even his plaintive daughter seemed straight out of a fairy tale, clothed in renaissance garb and long flowing hair, giggling at this and that, she seemed unreal and a point of sanity for Aguirre, or at least, a point of loving security, hunger drives the devil or is it the other way around? hunger was a problem after a while, hunger and sheer fatigue, but madness needs not these things to survive, just a want to find, to be, to become great, that search for greatness that never comes only makes the madness worse, deepens it for all, to where it is entrenched and can never be removed, for once the taste is there, tis hard to resist...even the setting was perfect for the story, the "undiscovered" Amazon, the raging river and rapids, the cannibals, the death, destruction, hunger (which makes one wonder would any have stretched themselves to such lengths, given they had run out of food, but i suppose that is beyond the movie's scope, but interesting nevertheless, they earlier condemned it, coming across a deserted camp with evidence of cannibalism all around...would they have resorted to it too? given the desperation?) Yeah, its that type of movie...depicts the sheer will of pure madness, the incredible endurance and vision of another scope, another field entirely, where gods are met and heroes formed, for tis the double blade of insanity, walking that fine line, will one fall into greatness? or will thou fall into the deepened darkness, that greater depth of chasm beheld, that of inscrutable and uncontainable madness...
Hour of the Wolf (1968) Another classic by Bergman, a horror jaunt for him, in this case, a horror classic, Gothic horror piece to be exact, Johan is an artist and acrazed, he sees personifications of his guilts and traumas throughout his life, embodied in old ladies, royalty and little boys by the sea on an island that he and his pregnant wife are staying, he is obsessed with a past love and seems to never have gotten over her, his guilt and or his obsession about her seems to come to climax with a humiliating scene of him in drag being exposed, the Bird-Man was intense, his hallucinations come to life, and leaves the wife to question the idea of being so close to your lover as to be incorporated with his/her traumas, the question being, if that had not happened, would she have been better equipped to help him when embroiled within his madness? questions of division in love and the idea of both being ever so close, being detrimental in this case, empowering the idea of independence IN dependence, having space as Gibran hath said, a critique of marriage as one union, melded in romance, a romantic view, could be deadly in madness
And last but not least, The Madness of King George (1994)
