Two images are embedded in my childhood memory of horror, and they are both from the film The Golden Child. One is the image of blood coming to the surface of a bowl of porridge, which has always stayed with me for its grotesque combination of textures. The other is a scene, which last no longer than 30 seconds, in which a demon from hell pursues the protagonist from the depth of a cave into the blazing light of a Californian highway, the demon’s flapping wings swirling high above the brown car. Thankfully, my attachment to these two images is not the side-effect of some insidious 1980’s nostalgia, all scattered remnants of which are now consigned to the flames. Instead, what fascinates me about these scenes is the visual sight of horror within the banality of natural light. There is indeed something truly horrific about a dark entity—fictional or otherwise—that is caught in the cloudy rays of a Wednesday afternoon. When the demon ascends from the subterranean world of the caves, then we seem to be confronted with an accident in reality. It is as though a force of the unconscious has unlocked the invisible screen linking the night with the day.

This synthesis of the otherworldly and the banal was reignited last night, when watching Pascal Laugier’s truly disturbing but somehow captivating Martyrs. Amongst the library of recent French horror, this is surely yields the most artistic merit. There a coldness to this film that is matched only by frostiest region of repetitive, droning black metal. True, Frontier(s), Haute Tension, À l'intérieur were all unflinching in their brutality. But in all of these films, the standard horror gestures are simply augmented through the prism of gender reversal. Which however culturally interesting, often amounts to nothing more than a device. Incidentally, I have not seen Antichrist yet (I seldom go to the cinema due to an intolerance to other people making noise), but I sense that Martyrs will likely be a thematic counterpart. Alongside the visual and spatial aspect of Martyrs—which I’ll touch upon in a second—there is an overt presence of Bataille in this film.
A summary of the plot can be found here (although if you plan on watching the film, then you’d be advised not to follow the link). The theme of martyrdom refers to the idea of bearing witness to the transcendental. Indeed, the basic theme of the film is the relation between suffering, eroticism, and testimony. The “disturbing” aspect of the film is less the visceral gore, but the lurching sadness at the heart of the film for a “lost continuity.” The presence of Bataille in this exploration is evident in several ways. Notably, in the transitional stage of the film, where Anna discovers the underground chamber, a wall of horror reveals itself. Various photographs of dying people with their eyes seemingly transfixed in ecstasy become the focus. One of these images is the famous “ling chi” photograph, which Bataille was purportedly obsessed with and would later feature in his Tears of Eros (cf. this probing analysis by Darren Jorgensen of the role the ling chi plays within Bataille’s thinking).
This scene is a portentous warning for the character. As the film’s core unfolds, it becomes clear that the “justification” for this glorification of suffering is an existential craving for a vision that sees beyond life. The onus on vision is central, as one of the central motifs of the film is the role of the eye in its expressive response to suffering and redemption. As one of the characters says when she sees this redemption embodied: “I’ve never seen an expression like that. She’s liberated. Completely liberated….She doesn’t see what’s happening around her. [But] she is still alive.” At this point, the character has been skinned alive save for her face.
Implicit in this thesis is the idea that sustained, systematic torture and suffering degrade the empirical ego, thus putting the lived body in contact with the transcendental realm beyond appearances. The link between Schopenhauer’s asceticism and Bataille’s eroticism is weirdly aligned here, inasmuch as both seek the reclamation of a lost continuity through the modification of the body. Only, Schopenhauer seeks redemption via dissolution whereas Bataille pursues a trajectory of excess. And the ambiguity of the word “dissolution” here is what binds them both, as Bataille says: “Dissolution—this expression corresponds with the dissolute life, the familiar phrase linked with erotic activity” (p. 17). The ecstasy of the film is thus very much orientated toward a Gnosticism, in which the self departs the flawed shell of the body, in the process sacrificing individuation for cosmic wisdom. “Here,” writes Bataille, “life is mingled with death, but simultaneously death is a sign of life, a way into the infinite” (p. 91). The Catholicism in Bataille’s thinking is crystallised in the final scenes of the film. The first, we find the Mademoiselle responsible for the project bearing to witness to the martyrdom of Anna: “Did you see it? The other world?” And then in a final scene, the victory of Anna’s martyrdom is announced to a gathering of like-minded people, dressed in expense suits and driving vintage cars: “Her ecstatic state lasted for 2 hours and 15 minutes. It was not a near death experience. What she experienced was an authentic martyrdom.” The civility of this meeting and of the clinical, cold feeling of the film more broadly reinforces Bataille’s point that: “We have to imagine a sacrifice as something beyond nausea” (p. 92).
This post-nausea violence returns me to the use of light in the film. Truly, this is a visually striking film. Like the seminal scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where we first see Leatherhead lurching from the darkness of a doorway into the light of the hallway before then Dionysiacally rampaging in the searing sun at the end of the film. Especially notable to Chainsaw Massacre is the literally haunting confrontation with the trucker at the very end of the film. At this point, the female victim has escaped and is on the threshold of escape. In order to stop her, Leatherface must pursue her beyond the house. Journeying through farmland, the scene reaches its apothesois on a neaby road. A truck, "Black Maria," emerges in the distance, running over one of the killers before stopping to assist the girl. Meanwhile, Leatherface has caught up and the three of them are frozen in this surreal meeting at the side of the truck. The scene no longer becomes about otherwordly horror, but the sublimity of placing disparate objects beside one another in the self-conscious glare of daylight.
Martyrs is an exemplary treatment of this liminal realm between domesticated light and the “dark entity of the house” (to quote Bachelard) which resists and refuses that domestication. The film persistently explores the genuinely nightmarish realm, in which the objects of our dreams long repressed to the basement return to haunt our waking life. The outbreak of violence in the film amplifies this violence by disjoining the domestic drama of breakfast with the murder of the family. Throughout this and other scenes, natural light is used in such a way to cast a banal, realist hue upon things. The result of this is the sense that the viewer has accidently stumbled behind the scenes of a nightmare being rehearsed. Yet the rehearsal proves to be a reality, and however much banality suffuses with reality, “the unconscious,” as Bachelard says, “cannot be civilised.”
5 comments:
It's nice to see you've updated your stuffs with a wee tendency towards the lighter things in life, such as film, for the moment... new books and interests.
So rarely do I see a comment here. One must wonder, is everyone intimidated by this nexus of your huge intellect and your intense and seemingly dark persona? Or do you simply elect not to post comments?
Lovely and brilliant (HANDSOME) Dylan, please rethink your photo. Please embrace the beauty in life-- let it reach you. Your mind is so open, so big-- what about your heart?
In fact, no need to post this either, to my mind.
presumptuous well meaning lurker
Dear Anonymous Lurker,
Thanks for getting in contact. Your remark has been very thought provoking, not least because there is some debate as to exactly what you mean.
In the first instance, I’m glad you approve of my new “stuffs,” though I’m not sure I’d class Blut Aus Nord as an example in the “lighter things in life.” Silvestrov is hardly a barrel of laughs either.
To clarify one critical misinterpretation on your behalf: I do not have a comments policy. That would presuppose I have a large enough readership to merit one, which is obviously absurd. No, I am quite happy with small but steady regular band of phenomenological brothers and sisters. I do not require fame by the blogosphere. *Not* being found is very underrated.
Now we come to the most ambiguous part of your message. Do you (a) think I ought to adopt a photo that is more fitting to the supposedly “dark” aspect of my writing? Perhaps one where I am assuming a portentous stare? Such as:
here
Or (b) adopt a photo, in which, despite the pink t-shirt, I am supposed to look more “happy”? Perhaps where I gave smiling a bash? Such as:
here
In your decision making process,would it help you to know that both images are as contrived as one another?
I’m afraid your final sentiment ends on a moot note. “Please embrace the beauty in life-- let it reach you. Your mind is so open, so big-- what about your heart?” This sounds like a densely value laden sentence, involving questions of mind-body dualism, aesthetic theory, and poetic experience, which would require too much time to unpack with the attention it deserves. As such, I will overlook it.
Your friend,
Dylan
Quel guignol!
My relief become regret as I somehow knew it would... I will address your rebuke. I certainly meant no offense, but can see I've offended. I apologize. And yes it became quickly obvious upon clicking that you don't screen comments. I hope I'm not the impetus for a change in that decision.
I am not an idiot, thanks. Yes all photos are contrived in some manner are they not? Save those taken by pure accident, such as when a camera is dropped on one's foot. One neither means to take the snap nor damage delicate equipment nor self injure one's extremities. And the result is usually a blurry mess. Heavy sigh.
No, I'd not classify the bulk of your interests as "light" to be sure-- not since the removal of "Somewhere in Time". But showing interest and showing one's interests is certainly "lighter" seeming than for example the opposing extreme, cloistering in stasis. So a relative observation. I did truly love your Kancheli post, however, and the cello.
Thanks for considering (with gritted teeth perhaps?) my "decision process". First, that stare does not come across as portentious. Second, I have no problem with pink shirts, (I think I have that blue cardigan, actually-- vintage 80's Benetton by any chance?) Nor with moody or candid or "contrived" shots. Merely stating a preference. Probably has something to do with angle and eyebrows. It doesn't show you off to advantage. Mere opinion; as they say, everybody's got one. Third, a smile can be disarming. (Often in a lovely way) But hell, what do you need that for. You're disarming enough, aren't you.
"This sounds like a densely value laden sentence, involving questions of mind-body dualism, aesthetic theory, and poetic experience, which would require too much time to unpack with the attention it deserves. As such, I will overlook it." Exactly my point. The advice is not to unpack it, but merely to do it. So seemingly you will continue to overlook it. Moot. Agreed. Not everything requires analysis and cross reference. Life is to be lived. My well meaning foolhardy advice in observing your tremendous dominating intellect was to with intent, let go of the weighty things of your mind and allow something of value to reach you by other means. And please don't attack or analyze this statement. I'm full aware of the lack of purity to my words, and how they can be philosophically and otherwise torn to shreds. And I have a feeling you know exactly what I mean and intend or near enough, without doing so.
Ah "friend" (more tooth grit, I imagine), I will not mix my oil with your water again, and will strive *not* to find you as you wish. (I would have given you oil, and me water, but oil floats.)
Please forgive any and all resulting abreaction. Sincerely.
pwml
What if I never find the words to articulate experiences so similar to yours but never the same? Perhaps I am doomed to the disillusionment of a young man, lost on an island and unable to build a peaceful navy between fellow man.
An aesthetic sensitivity which covers over the topics I could never express in mere conversation with those obsessed avec military genius and artistic failure.
A predisposition to find violent scenes interesting and yet simultaneously I seldom go to the cinema due to an intolerance to other people making noise. Other people's noise is alays so vulgar, it never quite reaches that disconnection between being and reality I seek. It is somewhere admist nothingness, perhaps, but nothingness has to be filled, or else it is something. And that is the biggest vulgarity of them all, is it not?
These words must mean something, for they are typed, and yet I cannot help but feel each syllable is an insult to you and I and we as a race.
My friends tell me I think too much. I look at their chart music and their branded clothing and cannot help but feel they see too little.
There is something here and it is based around the irrelevance that violent topics can bring connection between blood and flesh, some scarred cleft palate who brought sight and unforgivable sin upon those he happened to shoot. Blood splattered upon a white wall. Eyeballs floating atop the broth of a bat's soup, stirred in a rusting metal pot and served with a desperate anticipation of enjoyment. The ambiguity of every action, of every press upon plastic, the fact we can never truly connect and yet are irrevocably condemned to do so anyway because that is what nothingness doesn't want.
To hold an object up against an image and capture it with a finite flash. What is that? What is the need to capture our perceptions in fake visual representations. Those who look upon our images, dart their eyes in directions upon the surface of colour in ways we never did. Like a book, interpreting meaning as we never intended. Did the decay of communication begin with society, or with my my way of looking upon reality?
Are we all doomed? Or is sinking back into nothingnessnessness a blessing in disguise? Surely not, it would insane to think so, and indeed, it should be. Because it is. No?
Essentially, to write is to heal.
Dear Lurkers,
Owing to some debased narcissism on my behalf, I have decided to update my profile photo - if only because the previous one depicts a hairstyle that is now obsolete.
Sleep well,
Dylan
Post a Comment