jadesliver

I happen to be taking a class in college right now that deals with literary interpretation, and all the different theories of how to go about analyzing language. One theory is called deconstructionism, in which it is stated that language as a whole is slippery and unstable, forever contradicting itself, falling in on itself, and revealing its binary oppositions, the polar opposites of life. Light/dark, happy/sad, etc. In other words, each text, when deconstructed, has not one meaning, not even two meanings. But multiple meanings depending on the reader. Language is always changing, shifting meanings. A kaleidescope of interpretations. The reason I have gone into all this, is because it's very relevant to the study and understanding of why Gus Van Sant decided to remake Hitchcock's classic. Since the 1960s, so much has changed socially, culturally, and in other ways of interpreting situations, people, words, innuendoes. And within an art form such as film, it's very intriguing to explore this dynamic to its potential. And it's something you don't see done very much at all, which is why I believe people were so weirded out by the approach to remake, shot for shot, Psycho, including using the original script. This aspect especially is the most intriguing to observe: same dialogue, same story, same setting, same characters, but DIFFERENT actors, which means altogether different interpretations, different approaches. The best example is Julianne Moore's portrayal of Lila Crane: watch Vera Mile's very good performance, and then turn around and watch Julianne Moore say the same exact lines, but bring to it a whole other attitude sexually, aggressively, even politically. Julianne Moore decided to play her Lila Crane as a lesbian, and even though this was not a significant aspect of her character - at least to the extent of making it verbally known - it is an underlying layer that completely spins the character on its head, reversing its role in the film completely. She's much more aggressive, which actually makes more sense given the things she does once she's at the Bates Motel: peering boldly into the cabin her sister stayed in when Bates is right behind her, going into the Bates house and stepping right into almost guaranteed danger with Norman right upstairs, etc. While Vera Miles did an excellent job, it's not as believable within her interpretation of the character that she would do all those things. With Julianne Moore's bold, sharp, confrontational Lila, it's much more plausible. That is just one example of how the remake of Psycho offers a whole new insight into a classic story, giving it wholly new undertones to today's societal climate. Certain lines that, because of today's poltical correctness, take on whole other context within the scene; the very nature of the character of Marion Crane and her death - in the early 60s it was much more of a shock that a woman would steal, leave her job, to run off, UNMARRIED. But now it's not such a shock, which then leaves the question, is her seemingly punishable death as shocking now? Maybe so. And the masturbation Van Sant added shows the psychology of Norman Bates: as soon as the thrill has left him after orgasm, he's left with the shock and shame that he gave into his desires, which propells him into Mother Mode, killing the object of his forbidden, suppressed desires. These are just some examples of how the remake of Psycho makes perfect and creative sense, and how it should have been much more exciting to artists, who should have realized the thrill in reinterpreting a work of art that takes a great story and gives it whole new meanings. There are so many possibilities within this method, stylistically and story-wise. It just seems to me that most audiences missed the point.

I had a dream last night of the sequence in this film where Catherine Deane (Lopez) falls upward from a box in Stargher's world, then frees herself from the tether and falls down through a hole and into the Roman Pantheon. I absolutely am in love with the shot of her slowly falling into the Roman house of the Gods. It's beautiful. The whole film is beautiful.

Too many people do not understand that dementedness and derangement can in a way be just as beautiful as anything else. Everything in life has beauty simply by being. But we're taught through morals and ethics to think that things are "ugly" and "not beautiful". And while I'm not saying that being a serial killer is by any means beautiful, what I am saying is that "The Cell" takes a beautiful and artistic look into the sadistic and complex, highly splintered mind of a killer. Everyone's psyche is a treasure trove of their past, their present, and their future, their thoughts, ideals, feelings, desires, repressions, EVERYTHING. It's ALL stored in there. So like director Tarsem says, it's an open canvas. Anything goes. So right off the bat we know this film can and does go anywhere. By its nature it would. That's why I don't understand all these people who like to cut the film down because of its leading visuals. Yes, it's about a serial killer. But everything has been done by now, so it's all how you do it. Has there been another film where a psychologist literally goes into the killer's mind and explores his psyche to locate his latest victim? And since when can there only be ONE serial killer movie? Is there just one war movie? Lord knows there are more than enough of those kind, but you don't hear people complaining about that. Or ghost films. You can never make enough of those. There are subjects that are eternally open for exploration and expansion. And the subject of serial killers is one of those. We're fascinated by the dark side of human nature that resorts to taking other's lives. That's a fertile subject to deal with in film, and "The Cell" takes it to a whole new level, visually, psychologically, and cinematically. There is no other film like it. Some of my favorite films are those that do actually get into my head and seep into my dreams. As of this morning I can say "The Cell" has become one of those films. I loved the dream I had last night. And it just goes to serve my point further: this film is about the psyche and all the richness therein. And it's gotten into mine.

I generally dismiss any Lifetime TV movie. Can you blame me, what with titles like "Mother May I Sleep With Danger", "Danger In Blue Sky Country", and my personal favorite: "Baby Monitor: Sound of Fear"? However, I was flipping through the other night and it was on, and it actually caught my attention and held me. It was very interesting and well done for a television movie. I think Angie Harmon saved it, she's very good to watch. The script wasn't bad. But overall it was the fact that this was a true story and that I learned from watching it that only FIVE states in the US have laws against video voyeurism!! I couldn't believe it!

So, this was pretty good. The first Lifetime Movie I actually watched and could say I liked. I just watch Lifetime for Golden Girls and Nanny - both shows you should watch if you don't already, by the way!