Search This Blog
Sunday, October 6, 2013
"Gravity" and Alfonso Cuarón's Great Below
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Future Room: Derek Cianfrance’s “Blue Valentine”
A young married couple is having a difficult time. Some absentmindedness has resulted in an accident, which accelerates long running tensions and unease. It's further exasperated by how the woman runs into an ex-boyfriend on the way over to a getaway romantic hotel. They've dropped their six-year-old daughter off with grandpa. The woman doesn't want to do this; she's an on-call nurse. But the man is insistent. This hotel has fantastically themed rooms – Atlantis, Cupid's Cove, etc – for the guests, in which to revamp their nubile passions and persist in feeling young. They've landed in "The Future Room," a science fiction environment with futurist designs, no windows, and a revolving bed underneath a picture showing an outer space-eye view. The teasing, showering, and foreplay derail into little fights, and ultimately the sex is cut off and denied fulfillment. The woman walks away from the man, now drunk. She locks herself in the other room, or rather, maybe locks him out. He stumbles to the door, and repeats, again and again, "Open the door! Open up!" She won't.
There is no connection, no discussion, no empathy, and no calm. This is a dead relationship, or if not dead, then mechanical as the designs and references within this, the "Future Room," which the man, after all, described as "a robot's vagina" when they first entered.
Derek Cianfrance's Blue Valentine cannot help but to evoke in the watchful viewer's collectively cinematic mind Stanley Kubrick. Certainly Eyes Wide Shut comes to mind, the great dream odyssey into a young married couple's unconscious, not only because of the story of a marriage, but in the beautiful mix of colors with diffuse lighting, particularly blue and red. But the scene of the Future Room evokes 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the guise of a spacecraft, Dean Hiller's (Ryan Gosling) pounding on the door, demanding that his wife Cindy (Michelle Williams) open up, calls to mind poor David Bowman in 2001, repeating to the HAL-9000 computer, "Open the pod-bay doors, HAL," a request that the governing machine will not at all comply with. But beyond that incidental allusion, it also drives into a larger issue when we think about Kubrick's picture, and the context of the Future Room in Blue Valentine. The Future Room is supposedly the Future, not quite different from the Future imagined by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke in 2001; they made their prediction in 1968, and as we watch 2001 in the year 2011, we will note how far different the dreams of Kubrick’s Future are from Reality. We see Dean and Cindy's relationship from the moment their eyes first meet until the end, more than six years later, when Dean walks away in a haze of fireworks down a cruddy block. The hope, expectations, ideals, and monuments to the marriage have all shrunk to disappointment. Perhaps the final reflection we would have in comparing Blue Valentine and 2001 is how the lack of empathetic communication and discourse between Dean and Cindy is a microcosm of the disconnect from nature we see in Kubrick's human beings, so distant from their ape-like ancestors in the film's "Dawn on Man" prologue: "robot vaginas" and men asking, out of fear, "What's it mean to be a man?" Blue Valentine goes further, I suspect, in being just the story about a specific couple, however. There is a running motif throughout the picture indicating that Cianfrance sees their romantic decline as being symptomatic of an entire national mindset: America after 2001.
The places that Blue Valentine takes us are, like with Kubrick, uncomfortable ones. This is not a date movie any more than Eyes Wide Shut was, and it can give a rocky marriage with its unspoken discontents the same sort of awkward ride home that a 19th century couple may have had after viewing a stage production of Ibsen or Chekov, with their portrayals of normal and respectable households weeded with decay. It's even a little horribly unnerving to think that the couple's rotten core and unbalanced foundation is seen so lushly in the film's opening image, their daughter walking through the tall grass. The girl is so beautiful and seemingly innocent, and yet the viewer comes to learn how she came about, and how this pregnancy of dubious origins put two unprepared adults in a place for which they weren't prepared. The circumstances of this marriage's malfunction should give us a bit of hope – Dean and Cindy are not "everymarriage" or "everycouple," and so we have no obligation to identify. But this does not make Blue Valentine any less excruciating to watch. Both the big picture and the small details contain fragments that many will find relatable, and it does not help that Cianfrance is very frank with his sexual politics, which in my experience have never been agreeable to either traditionalists or countercultural radicals: men, who work hard and keep a cool posture, are in fact more needy and romantic; woman, who read romance novels for escape, are often more cold and distant – the sexual quandary of dogs (men) and cats (women), and the sad love that such a see-saw slices into mercilessly.
When we first meet Dean and Cindy, it's on the eve of that Future Room experience, as the child wakes up her daddy to tell him that Megan, the dog, has gone missing. Together they wake up Cindy, desperate for any sleep before beginning her hospital shift. The dynamics of the disproportionate relationship are plain to see: Dean is a man-child, more of a friend to his daughter than a father, eating cereal on the table like an animal with her, playing with a toy horse to which they've added a unicorn's horn. Cindy, on the other hand, administrates, preparing breakfast, driving their daughter to school, and presumably being responsible for a good deal of the income; Dean's job is house painting, which affords him to have a beer or two before going to work, and then having some more when he finishes. But we should also notice that Cindy, though bearing the mantle of responsibility, is not interested in the details. She sees the big picture very clearly, and is geared towards accomplishing that. But she is also careless with the little things: she forgot to lock in the dog; she barely stirs her daughter's instant oatmeal; and she needs to be reminded by Dean to make sure that their daughter's seatbelt is fastened. Her sloppiness incurs Dean's chiding. Fights and hostility ensue.
Many of the responses to Blue Valentine will have much to say about "who is to blame?" It's a problem in a lot of busted relationships, where one party bears more guilt than the other in taking the blame for the detritus, and I think most perspectives will be taking Cindy's side over Dean's (I was while watching the film). But thinking of the details, and Cindy's carelessness in some matters, to say nothing of a kind of gross selfishness we will see later on, it's difficult to see this in terms of black and white. Both individuals go through their flaws as if against their better natures, unable to prevent their instincts from overwhelming their egos, which is the negative flip side of all love stories. I think that ultimately we may have to bypass our ingrained sense of having to assess blame onto people in watching this movie, which may be one of the lessons of this piteous explosion.
We flash back to these two people before they knew each other, much younger, more hair on Dean, less weight on Cindy, when they were first wondering about Love. They're drifting through their young lives in expectation for it, whenever it comes. Cindy's not sure if she's had it yet. She's dating a good looking and virile wrestler at college, but still asks her grandmother for counsel. The old woman is candid about the truth; she admits that she probably never loved Cindy's grandfather. Cindy's torn, because she imagines about Love, and cannot think that the virtues of such an emotion would have anything to do with how her own parents treat each other, as we flash to a moment when her father throws his plate on the table to criticize the "shit cooking" of Cindy's desperate-to-please mother. "You just have a feeling," the grandmother says about Love to the granddaughter. "But how do you trust your feelings when they just disappear?" Cindy has to ask.
Young Dean comes from a different background. He has no education, is a high school drop-out, and has very limited knowledge of his parents, particularly a mother that left his musician father when Dean was a boy. Working for a moving company, he asks his coworkers about Love, and states that he feels men might be more romantic than women. He has his own elderly counterpart in Walter, a war vet he helps move into a nursing home. With care (again, notice his attention to the details at the detriment of doing his job, as we notice his coworkers constantly telling him to stop and get in the truck), Dean has taken all of Walter's photographs and accoutrement from the military and designed a homey environment for the old man, also paying particular close attention to a wedding picture. He asks Walter about this relic, and the now passed-on woman within it. Walter can't really answer coherently, but Dean has scripted his own romantic interpretation in his mind: a sort of peace in love.

The volatile combination in these two principal characters is simmering. Cindy is looking for a kind of security in love, a knowledge that whomever she's with will be kind to her in a way that differs from her aggressive father and pitiful mother. Dean, meanwhile, is motherless and so then is needy in his pursuit for that maternal figure to take care of him intimately.

Their eyes finally meet when Dean leaves Walter's room. Cindy, in the room across the hall, had been reading her grandmother a romance novel. Dean sees her, and then we cut to her vantage of Dean, an American flag figuring predominately behind him. His failed flirtation does not deter him from talking about the girl to his coworkers. "I felt like I knew her. It's a feeling," he says. The coworker tells him, "But actually you really don't know her," and says that some "pussy" would cure that longing. It does not matter to Dean, because upon seeing Cindy, he's written her in his mind, which is not unusual for anyone considering their lovers. Dean admits that maybe he's "seen too many movies," but he's too eager to live out his own love story that he sees (or interprets) in Walter's photographs, and his Jungian anima has projected his "Eternal Mother" archetype onto this unknown girl. He knows her as much as he will need to know her. The projection is all that is needed. As Carl Jung himself had said about such a grappling pull, it is useless to resist the anima, because wrestling against it is to wrestle a god. Or, as Dean tells his coworker, "The song comes on, and you gotta dance."
Love here is about self gratification, driven by basic instincts that demand to be fed, plunging the needy child into a state of infantile helplessness. And luckily for Dean, he's got Cindy in a vulnerable spot. A promising med student who dreams of being a doctor, she is having problems with her wrestler boyfriend, Bobby. As Bobby has unprotected sex with her, he irresponsibly ejaculates inside, which sets her off angrily to the bathroom to clean up. He insists that he didn't mean to; it just "happened." This is one of the pitfalls of a very libidinous male carried away with desire (Bobby makes it clear that he wants all the sex he can get from Cindy), and we have this kind of sociobiological subtext opening up in Blue Valentine, where instincts trump reason. We also notice how passive Cindy is as a sex partner, seeming to carry minimal amorous interest as she's taken from behind here, and later on by Dean in the Future Room, her body lying in a kind of corpse-like submission. Bobby is certainly responsible for his act, but Cindy should not be so passive in her position as a girlfriend and simply allow it to happen (details again). She closes herself off from Bobby, first in the bathroom (as will be repeated with Dean in the Future Room), and then entirely as a girlfriend. He is rendered a needy puppy at her doorstep, bearing flowers and pleading, and finally to jealous rage (the cycle repeats during the entropic stages of her relationship with Dean).
Bobby, for all of his faults, is part of the real world. He's a very tangible person, seemingly down-to-earth, though one can see him being not too unlike Cindy's father someday – a man's man who wants to be pleased. Dean is another sort of creature. Again, maybe he's "seen too many movies," and he's more romantic than most Danielle Steele-reading women, with his artistic temperament and rebel's heart. He finds a leftover locket that belonged to Walter, and goes to the nursing home to return it. But Walter has died. He stops by Cindy's grandmother's room and asks for information about "the girl that was here last week." We next see him on the same bus as Cindy and, seeing how the song comes on, he dances.
He flirts with her in a brutally honest fashion, knowing that the best way to flirt with a girl is to compliment her in a back-handed way that puts her on the defensive. "The prettier a girl is, the more nuts she is," he tells her, "and you must be completely insane." This assertion, by the way, is not necessarily untrue and we'll discover that Cindy probably has as many issues as National Geographic. She plays along with his flirtation though, and we also gain insight into Dean's character. When the issue of Walter the vet is brought up, Dean is disappointed. "He's dumb for dying. Death and getting old is for suckers." Dean says he's not getting older, and when we think of the man-child six years later, he's right – to a tragic extent. This philosophy of Dean, so idealistic and built up from the world of the Romantic and Filmdom, to say nothing of countless romantic comedies (Say Anything being a definitive example: Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court find their possible outcome in Dean and Cindy Hiller), would be alluring to a young woman struggling with Bobby’s harshness. They're an even match: in Dean, Cindy sees someone who wants to please her. In Cindy, Dean sees a maternal figure from who he will be seeking constant approval. For better or for worse, indeed.
Their first date revels in the unfortunate though playful operation of the subsequent relationship. Dean directs Cindy where to stand, and how to dance as he plays a song on his ukulele, singing "You always hurt the ones you love" in a goofy voice. He even tells her how to place herself, "there, under the heart" hanging on a store window. "Now slow dance to this part."
I've been in such a place. I imagine many young people have. Love has a kind of established architecture courtesy of movies and books, from the troubadours and Tristan through Dante through Shakespeare, and so forth up to Say Anything and finally Twilight. But the imposition of a script upon reality is tough to carry out, requiring a lot of strenuous work, and usually amounting to nothing. The magic moment here in Blue Valentine is, while not a manufactured magic moment, an aesthetically drawn one. Shakespeare, obsessed with performance, was mindful of Love’s ironies. The Hopeless Romantic sometimes takes a little longer to get in on the rouse. The question is whether one wants the Moment or the Relationship, and we will see that Dean is a man dedicated to a string of moments instead of a deep relationship, when his remedy for domestic unrest is to simply book the Future Room at a romantic getaway.
Cindy's flaw is in passively going along with it. The early sex scenes between Cindy and Dean are notable for how Dean does not penetrate, but instead performs oral sex on her, a striking contrast to how Bobby aggressively fucks her earlier on. Dean is too focused on pleasing Cindy, who seems to make no movement towards gratifying him. This is a sexual problem that Dean can't stand in the Future Room. He wants sex when she doesn’t, and we could interpret what happens as being a form of rape. While he has sex with her and she lies placidly underneath, he stops and says, "No, stop it. I don't want your body, I want you." But she can't do that for him, even to the extent that she almost masochistically insists that he hit her (something she doesn't want for sexual pleasure, but rather to probably further infuriate and frustrate him).
The sexual politics of Blue Valentine are much like the dialogical politics. The woman submits both discourse and sexuality to the man, whether it's Dean or Bobby. Dean understands one half of the problem, but his problem is that whenever Cindy tries to engage in a conversation with him, he has to turn it around on her and begin an interrogation ("Shut your beautiful mouth," he tells her during foreplay). However, as with the sex, Cindy's passivity may be seen as an almost unconscious maneuver to belittle Dean: dialogue brings up his lack of fulfilling his potential, which is injurious to him as a sensitive man confused about gender labels ("Be a man? What does that mean?!") An earlier scene has a similar quandary, when Cindy tells Dean that she ran into Bobby at a liquor store. At this point, the audience does not know Bobby's historical relationship to either Cindy or Dean, but in time we will know that whereas Dean is the kind of sensitive, intelligent (however undereducated) man of a post-feminist era, Bobby has no qualms about embracing the stereotypes of his gender, a rollicking and potent man's man – or ladies' man – who only knows how to fuck or beat the hell out of other men. By introducing Bobby into any kind of conversation, Dean has to deal with his own male identity and responds defensively.
We see how the Hillers' daughter was conceived. Soon after Dean starts seeing Cindy, she discovers that she's pregnant. What more, we can almost be sure that the father is not Dean, but Bobby. When Dean asks if it's his, the audience's kneejerk reaction is to dismiss his question, being that we've only seen Dean go down on Cindy, whereas we've seen actual penetration – and ejaculation – with Bobby (we can also count on the detail-oriented Dean being more responsible with his sperm). Dean will stand by Cindy, though, and goes with her to an abortion clinic. This is one of the film's most difficult scenes to view. The nurses and doctor counsel Cindy, who is often seen in close-up when the procedure begins. We also learn more about her previous intimate life; she lost her virginity at the age of 13, and has since had about 25 sexual partners.
At the last moment, she declines the procedure and the doctor stops. She leaves the office in tears, and Dean is there to hold her. "It's okay," he tells her. "We'll be a family." They tell each other "I love you," and their new life begins. Dean has so given himself in totality to this other person that he will be a parent to someone else's child. This Romantic who never before felt he would be a husband or father takes on both roles with steady dedication, even though this may not be what his partner wants. The circle's ends meet in the Future Room, where a drunken Dean says to Cindy that he wants to make another child, something we at first can only feel as being stupid, until the truth about their daughter's origins comes to light. Dean has been waiting to pass on his own genes – a primal longing that could only have been reinforced after receiving the news that Cindy saw Bobby at a liquor store. Even though Cindy told Dean that Bobby was "old and fat" (which he wasn't) and that he was far from desirable (though I don't think Cindy would trust herself to be alone with him), Dean has to be troubled. Bobby's genes have passed on into Dean's house, and even if Dean loves the child with more compassion than Bobby could ever provide (and probably Cindy), it doesn't change the cold truth. We learn that a vengeful and jealous Bobby kicked Dean's ass in a fit of rage, an attack that Cindy couldn't prevent. This is why Dean is hurt when he is told to "be a man."
That masculine rage backfires with Dean after the Future Room experience. In a drunken stupor, he wakes up to find Cindy missing. She's gone to the hospital. Though she left a note, Dean is too enraged and selfish to be empathetic to it. He goes to find her, hounding her at her clinic with a few interruptions from a fellow nurse ("Don't let him brainwash you!") When the doctor, Cindy's boss, arrives to break up the argument, Dean transfers his frustrations onto him. The doctor is the calm administrator who threatens to take Cindy away from him (indeed, the doctor has his own selfish and sexually driven motives). He punches the doctor in the face, an act of unchecked aggression that perversely doubles for Bobby's more sustained and practiced assault on Dean years earlier. Whereas Bobby can get away with his aggression, Dean – like Shakespeare's sexually inadequate and gender-confused Macbeth, the definitive poor performer who over-analyzes what is happening around him – cannot. The moment his rage is emptied, he understands what he's done. Cindy is fired because of it, on the spot.
After the demands of his ego are fulfilled and Cindy makes it clear that everything's over, he pleads for her, saying that he's "fighting for his family," asking her to tell him "how I should be." Such pathetic neediness will never be answered with gratification, and we're left with the blankness of two people, who have devotedly given themselves up to time in a way so as to sacrifice their dreams. Having the baby, marrying Dean, and starting a family, Cindy's hopes of being a doctor have dwindled. She devotes herself restlessly to her nursing practice, compartmentalizing her work life in a fashion separate from her family life (the offer for an out-of-town promotion is never brought up at home). Dean has given all sense of his individuality to his role as husband and father, being a minimal provider with talents. What's left between them were the promises of their marriage vows – for better or worse – the kinds of things that jilted and dumped partners always bring up as the world collapses around them. That's only the script, the words, the assignment of roles. She's similarly devoted to the assignment of roles, in terms of social markers and success. He's picked their song, "You and Me" by Penny and the Quarters, and while she dances and smiles along with the melody, it's Dean who assumes the female chorus in the tune. At the end, he leaves the script, leaves the movie, walking into the fireworks on the Fourth of July.
The Movies are Heaven, after all. When the Hillers discover that Megan the dog has been hit by a car and killed, Dean consoles the daughter by saying, "Megan's gone to Hollywood to be a movie dog." The real world may not be big enough for the ideals of film. This goes back to the brutal sense of scripting love affairs, when someone may address the Wuthering Heights problem. Women dream of Heathcliff, but they typically end up with Edgar. Kate Winslet can have ecstasy with Leonardo DiCaprio in Titanic, but he’s at least polite enough to die, so that she can marry rich and have several children, living happily with her memories tucked away and waiting for her in death.

Maybe that strikes some people as sounding bitter, but maybe it's also calm and humored restraint, in perceiving the spidery relations between women and men. In Eyes Wide Shut, it's Dr. Bill (Tom Cruise) who is insistent at the end that their now-conscious enlightenment leads to a "forever." Alice (Nicole Kidman) is the one who shakes her head. "No. Don't say that word. It frightens me." The Harfords in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut may be awake from the unconscious dreamworld at the conclusion, but the knowledge they have courtesy of hidden carnal desires does not necessarily reflect an enlightened growth, or ensure security in the future. In fact, it seems to promise a thinner wire of stability, hanging above a cesspool of volcanic lava and uncertainty: Love has no Fail-Safe.
Bringing up Kubrick before directly launching into my thoughts on Blue Valentine is appropriate, not only because Eyes Wide Shut is one of the definitive pictures about relationships, but because Kubrick was always interested in the problem of the future, of planning, of expectations and ultimately the problem of contingency, something of which a chess master like Kubrick was very conscious, whether in a perfect heist (The Killing), nuclear war (Dr. Strangelove), or a good marriage. This is the haunting resonance of the Future Room hanging over every Valentine's dinner. The arms of Love are not as secure as we would hope.
The theme is universal, though Kubrick is admittedly from another time. His marriage to Christiane Harlan was apparently a very happy one of nearly 40 years. However, it was also his third marriage, her second, and he first had the inclination to make a movie about the problems of marriage – Arthur Schnitzler's Dream Story – at around their seven-year-itch period in the mid 1960s. The material was familiar to both of them, and hit an intimate nerve, as Christiane has said that she did not want him to enter Schnitzler's world (reading Frederic Raphael's Eyes Wide Open, a memoir about Kubrick, one gets the sense that Kubrick's imposed isolation outside of London and far from Hollywood, was to continue having a successful marriage away from the orgiastic and debaucherous temptations in the entertainment world, just as much as it was to create his own production facilities far from the studios).

Derek Cianfrance, Michelle Williams, and Ryan Gosling are from another generation, one perhaps even more confused. These are the children of the first divorced generation (when the percentages hit well above 40%, I think), who simultaneously were no less nourished on ideals of romance and love, perhaps even more so. The expectations have not been lowered by history, but there is a sense that history, the flaws of our parents, may be corrected, just as history may be corrected on a sociocultural level by nations. There is another subtext in Blue Valentine, the American one, perfect for reflections on the “future” in that hallmark year of 2001, which gave us 9/11. The color scheme seems to be predominantly blue with some red and white thrown in, and there are several American flags decorating the background at important instances. In the present day, Dean is wearing a bald-eagle shirt. Their song we hear at their daughter's recital is "Yankee Doodle Dandee" along with “America the Beautiful.” On their first date, we see them walk past a US flag, and Cindy sings a song that showcases her memorization of all the American presidents. And then there are those fireworks into which Dean walks at the conclusion.
Cianfrance makes nothing declarative about this subtext, though it is unavoidable and we should probably take particular note of it when thinking about these characters. They represent the last ten years, an American youth that is bold, believing it will never die, headstrong and idealistic to a fault. Dean's sensibility of "never getting old" is not unlike any number of prosperity preachers, while Cindy's devotion to work at an almost apathetic expense to her family seems to reference a kind of popular economic sensibility. These are lost children to a post-revolutionary period, struggling to swim on the promises of freedom and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead of freedom, there is hostility, blame, coldness, apathy, nitpicking, resentment, confusion, neediness, and a kind of emotional imprisonment that is irresistible, so invested are our emotions and ideals. Both performers, Gosling and Williams, have already made two of the greatest portraits of this hopeless generation in a world becoming more mechanical and estranged from its dialogical ideals (Gosling in Half Nelson; Williams in Wendy and Lucy). In Blue Valentine they are the marriage of that brave new world of reckless abandonment, blurred love, and selfish melancholy. Maybe this is a kind of sad love that the world shouldn't see, and it certainly doesn't want to see, particularly when that sadness goes beyond the intimate microcosm, and extends to the social sphere of American flags and the intergalactic Future Room. Our own movie-love leads us to the Cupid's Cove of countless other kitschy romantic comedies starring Jennifer Aniston and Matthew McConahey, year after year. Perhaps that kind of easy-way-out, Cianfrance is indicating, mirrors the actions and mentality leading to the social and political entropy in our nation, and the technological informatics of this global age. We're looking for escape in the future room, which is ultimately nothing but a simulation of our love dreams, "a robot's vagina": to once more recall 2001: A Space Odyssey, Life Functions Terminated.

Friday, December 31, 2010
A Pandora's Box: Performance and Technology in “The King’s Speech”
It's an odd thing, hearing yourself, and sometimes unpleasant. The voice I hear in my head is completely alien from the voice I've heard recorded on video, audio, or presently broadcasted over the radio airwaves. My first sense of hearing myself on the air some months ago was how strange that voice was, though it may have been because I was suffering from a cold. Regardless, the voice was uncannily disconcerting, and I've noticed that it even alters when I'm on the radio hearing its transmission performance while wearing headphones, from when I'm not wearing the in-studio headphones. A kind of puzzling self-consciousness sets in. My padrone, T.D. Mischke, recommends listening to the shows later, and in effect work away on chiseling out the character of my voice. That's what one is doing behind the microphone – assuming a character. I still don't think I've found a stable radio persona just yet, but it's a fascinating process to wonder how the elements of one's presentation shift in accordance to whatever given platform. This is basic Goffmanian performance in everyday life: one acts differently towards a parent than one acts towards a friend, just as there's another compartment for lovers, pets, bosses, co-workers, doctors, dentists, baristas, and the IRS.
But there's something about the microphone. In preparation for a show, I would at first draw out many elaborate notes. But the moment the light goes ON by the mic, and the host asks a question, those notes are essentially drivel. As often as the notes are there, I find that I almost never really turn to them for any substantial commentary during a show. By thinking too much, pauses creep in along with uncertainty. The best I can do is marry myself with what I know in my subconscious and hopefully a rhythm of words will flow. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Listening to a show, my sentence breaks, cadences, and basic patterns of sentence structure will pester me to no end. My prep for new shows includes a listen to an old one hours before, somewhat to deflate my ego and influence me what not to do or say.
I have performance anxiety, which is one of those weird contradictions of character because I suppose I want to perform. I've been in plays, I've modeled, I post these blogs, I have my facebook (which is a form of masked performance, as far as I'm concerned), and if I had a video camera, I would tirelessly show stuff of YouTube. I may feel bad about it afterwards; performance can be exposure, and as such I feel vulnerable afterwards. When playing Tartuffe, I was having a ball. When I saw the tape afterwards, I wanted to throw up. Though I now regard it with much fond humor, one of the low points of my childhood was stepping out on stage during the final scene of a play. Beforehand, I had eaten a bacon double cheeseburger, onion rings, some beef jerky, and then hours before that I had a pepperoni pizza. To use Rodney Dangerfield's euphemism, as I walked on stage to deliver the closing lines, I stepped on a duck. Everyone noticed. I screwed up my lines, and the other actors, trying hard not to laugh, screwed up theirs. Rumors of the unfortunate bout of gas would filter into the school halls and my 7th grade crush, the choir teacher's daughter, would be in on my flatulent reputation. Worst of all, this was the performance my dad attended, and seeing how young men are fixed on making their dads proud, this was a detrimentally shameful setback for me.
Some people have anxiety dreams deep into their adulthood having to do with college finals. I have anxiety dreams about performing.
Somehow, for some reason, I keep on coming back though, and have consistently done so since the 7th grade fart attack. Anxious as I may be subconsciously, public speaking is something that does not petrify me as it does some other people. This brings me to poor Prince Albert, "Bertie," the Duke of York and future King George VI in Tom Hooper's film The King's Speech, played by Colin Firth. Bertie has a stammer to his speech which has been with him since childhood. The opening moment of this fine film is a highly detailed account of how Bertie must address the nation on the king's behalf. The year is 1924. We see Bertie nervously prepare. We also see his antagonist, who will remain his antagonist throughout the whole picture: a microphone. The microphone handily defeats Bertie in this opening prologue.
Bertie’s struggle is fatefully unfortunate. Kings and princes never really had to deal with this kind of vocal address before. The sardonic irony of his situation is that in the 20th century, the Royal Family has no political power. They cannot make laws or declare war. They are merely figureheads, symbols communicating things. As such, once they could communicate simply by virtue of their visual iconography. The Crown alone would convey the message. But this has ended because of social change, and the main gear moving social change is technology. Radio has revolutionized the world, not simply in handing over a new convenience to the masses for entertainment and information, but that avenue of information and communication has altered the way human beings exist. Like writing and then the printing press before it, and television and Facebook after it, Radio bends Royalty to its mechanical will.
It would seem that poor Bertie could simply be held at a distance from public discourse. After all, though George V (Michael Gambon) is aging, it is his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) who is next in line for succession, and Edward's a fine and debonair communicator. Though he stammers, Bertie is no idiot. He is richly intelligent and able to convey humor through storytelling. We see him lured into telling stories for his two daughters (including the future Queen Elizabeth II), and though he struggles with words at first, he is able to complete the story while eliciting laughter from the girls upon delivery of punch lines. The stammer works fine for fairy and childrens' stories, but that is a different paradigm from the symbolism of patriotic addresses.
His wife Anne (Helena Bonham Carter) has been trying to find Bertie a cure. She's used up the most respected of possibilities and treatments, and finds herself enlisting the help of a commoner, Lionel (Geoffrey Rush), who has a sympathetic and almost psychoanalytical method of reaching his patients. Lionel understands that there is no ready-made miracle cure, and that the patient must descend into his own past and the roots of the impediment in order to make any kind of change. Bertie goes along with it, after some hesitation. Lionel reveals that Bertie's biggest obstacle is his own self-consciousness. With headphones blaring classical music from a phonograph, Bertie reads from Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech. A recording reveals that Bertie barely stammers here, as he's unable to hear himself.
The remainder of The King's Speech is a moving, though sometimes too repetitive, story where Bertie and Lionel argue back and forth towards mastering the stammer and acquiring mutual respect. After George V dies, Edward soon abdicates the throne, and Bertie has no choice but to be the king. Meanwhile, the regal interests in the king's cabinet look upon Lionel with disdain for a number of reasons: he is an Australian (and as such, kind of a second class citizen), he is a commoner, and he has no formal education or degree in speech related matters. He's a failed actor who has merely found a minor niche. Then there is the loom of war leading to the film's climax, where Bertie has to go back to the microphone and address the nation as King, a rally cry of morale to combat Hitler.
But the given historical incidents of the story are to me of little consequence when compared to the subtler things The King's Speech offers. For one thing, this is a story about the art of performing, which is demonstrated in the ironic contrast between Bertie and Lionel. One of them doesn't know how to use words, but is forced to act because of his station; the other is master with words ("you have great diction," he is told) but as an actor he cannot get a job. Lionel has the great parts of Shakespeare completely memorized, but no theatre troupe will touch him because of the strains of Aussie in his accent ("Richard III was not the king of the colonies," a casting director remarks). The way one talks on a public platform, be it a stage or behind a studio microphone, is more important than the words one uses. During his failed audition, Lionel is told, "We're looking for someone more regal" (interpretation: more English). Bertie, meanwhile, is pressured by his father to adapt to the microphone because, as the old man puts it, "we've become actors." As such, this is a big Theatrical Company, resembling a "firm" more than a "family," where biological relationships are secondary to dictated role playing. The mechanics of presentation, such as in Westminster Abbey, are at odds with the content buried beneath it: Chaucer, Dickens, and Handel, all of whom Lionel knows well, stand in substantial contradiction to the tired linear process of a coronation; and yet the Archbishop (Derek Jacobi) would not have an Australian commoner – without a degree – like Lionel present at the coronation.
This civilization of masks where natural relationships are secondary to utilitarian ones is attached to the grander theme of The King's Speech, technology, which makes it in many ways a kind of sibling to this year's best film, David Fincher's The Social Network. The methods of performance have changed because the medium has changed, and the microphone – technology – is altering how human beings acclimate to their world professionally and personally. The Radio Microphone may help humanity, but it also threatens to control humanity. Throughout the picture, Bertie is told to "let the microphone do the work." We see some other examples of technology creating complications just as they are supposed to be convenient. Notice how Bertie has problem with his cigarette lighter, or how Anne is confused by the elevator connected to Lionel's office. One of the major inconveniences of machines is
that they cannot be reasoned with.
At another place in the film, I think Churchill (Timothy Spall) refers to the microphone as a "devilish device," indicating that there's a kind of antagonistic consciousness in the machine. The red light is like an evil eye, seen in close up as a signal that one is on the air, and can only make one think of Kubrick's HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, the most important example of technology antagonizing humanity in the cinematic canon. Yet we definitely see the positive side of the technology, such as the "new invention from America," the Silvertone, which Lionel uses to record Bertie speaking Hamlet, or the vital necessity of radio and cinematic images in combating the coming danger of fascism, to say nothing of Bertie's fascination for planes as he tinkers with models.

Recently while talking about Chaplin's The Great Dictator, I noted how the Hitler character in that film uses the microphone as an oppressive tool. He has mastered the technology, even being able to bend a microphone by coming nearer to it. Chaplin was nervous about technology, particularly as a silent era filmmaker threatened by the new wave of Sound. He saw the conveniences of this technological development as a threat to the poetic capabilities of cinema, and so it had to be handled carefully. He also understood, via The Great Dictator, that in the wrong hands (where "Might Makes Right") such a tool would be easily conformed to a particular ideology. In The King's Speech, Bertie's antagonist, the microphone, has its double in the newsreel footage of Hitler. "What's he saying?" young Elizabeth asks her father of the ranting Fuhrer. "I don't know," Bertie admits, "but he seems to be saying it rather well." During the 1930s and 1940s just as in our own time, the angry rhetoric of the right wing, whether it be that of Hitler or the more seemingly benign fascism of J. Edgar Hoover in America, always has gotten along well with the tools of communicative technology (right wing radio at the present time is a present example; nuances of communication are eliminated for simplistic notions of good and evil; Fox News is much more popular than its cable competitors). Churchill admits that 'the wireless' is a kind of "Pandora's Box," and now unleashed, may collaborate with the wrong hands in being harmful to humanism. But it must also be the arena where statesmen of the Humane fight back.
During the final speech, beautifully executed by Firth and Hooper, we see the value of genuine human friendship along the wires as Lionel counsels Bertie to "say it to me, like a friend," friends being a thing that Bertie has not really been allowed throughout his life. The historical significance of the speech is secondary to the subtexts involving how technology affects us, right now, in a time where the budding grove of tiny red light microphones has become overwhelming. The whole visual design that Hooper has given his film has a sense that takes it away from what we expect from most pretty English period films, as he constantly uses extreme wide angle lenses, often from Bertie's point of view, which slightly distort the image and give an off-kilter and comical flavor to several moments. The feeling is closer to dystopian science fiction, particularly Terry Gilliam's Brazil, than to Merchant Ivory or Richard Attenborough. The microphone itself is often framed in such extreme lenses, making them grossly imposing as they stare down Bertie or anyone who approaches it. The King's Speech, extremely touching in how it juggles its relationships, may console us in how we played the technological politics of the last World War, which was a struggle for what we believe is humane to endure. And yet, relating the story to our own time, we may be uneasy, seeing how those same tools in the politics of communication may have stamped out the same common sympathy we then worked to preserve. That microphone, succeeded by movie and television screens, online networking and a new syntax of communication, wields much more power today. As we LOL and ROFL and OMG, it becomes clear that we've bended to the devilish apparatus' impersonal will.