Ok. I need to be honest. I need to go to www.wikipedia.org to completely understand certain happenings in this movie. But as my friend Mathi has made me realize that art needs hard work to understand with respect to its true content and obscure meanings, it is worth it. I felt enthralled after reading and understanding some of the facts about it. It is not that the substance got lost in not understanding but some of the holes which I thought were in the movie got cleared. It is kind of relieving and fulfilled when we associate the realized factor with the sequences in the movie.
Craig (John Cusack) is puppeteer finding it hard to live with his wife Lotte (Cameroon Diaz). Their marriage is uninteresting. Still bound by the commitment, Craig finds a job in a strange office which is situated in 7 ½ floor in a building. It has very low ceiling. There he meets Maxine (Catherine Keener) and he is instantly attracted. She becomes a strange weird obsession for him. He comes out of his marriage bound mind and asks her out. She is not attracted to him. When this is happening, Craig discovers a portal in his strange floor. Curiously he gets into it and gets suck in to some one’s mind. From the people talking to him or the person inside who he is in that it is the actor John Malkovich. In exactly fifteen minutes he is thrown out of the mind and lands some where outside the city. So when he tells something like this strange phenomenon to Maxine, she should freak out right? No. Instead, she proposes a business offer of charging people to be John Malkovich. This is the world of writer Charlie Kaufman.
The movie does not try to dwell in to this weird fantasy or super natural force. Instead it uses it as an opportunity to narrate a love story inter twined unimaginably. Being some one else is human instinct right from the child hood. When I was a kid in my school, I wanted to be a high school boy. When I was a high school boy, I wanted to be a college guy. But there comes a point wherein there is a confusion of who any one really wants to be. For Craig he wants to be a puppeteer but does not know the means of achieving it successfully. This frustration and confusion is amplified by the experience of being Malkovich. At that moment he is in love with Maxine for no apparent reason. And the experience kind of gets him hypnotized for her. The obsession is powered up enormously. And the jealousy creeps up when he learns that his wife is having a strange affair with Maxine through being Malkovich. For Maxine it is impulsive and controlling. Opportunity is everything and she is experimental. She feels an amazing unusual experience of making love with Malkovich knowing Lotte is inside. But she is also put into confusion when without realization learns Craig took over of Malkovich. Now she does not know what to opt for. These three characters are disassociated and connected through the world of Malkovich.
Kaufman’s imagination is impetus. It is overwhelming to see the originality in the screen. And his imagination is filled with obsession over the mechanics of human mind. While analyzing it so scientifically and methodically, emotions and senses are the catalyst for this strange experiment. What would it be to be some one else? Well, it is common in Hollywood about that. But how about being yourself in some one else’s body when they are being themselves? I guess it is tough to explain. The movie does give an idea of it. It is definitely a unique experience. The appeal is more out here since the mind dealt out here is a celebrity. It would not have been enough to handle a screenplay with a person who is a clerk. But it cannot be said for sure on how interesting it would have been. Whatever it is, the idea of projecting the identity into a different mould with a life for itself is an experience.
It is often referred human body as a “vessel” for soul. The movie is based on that. It elevates the immorality purely on the level of one’s own thought process. It enlightens on the issue of how physical the nature has been in to the life of humans under the skin. The representation of the 7 ½ floor is an indication of how small we are and how compressed in between the ground below by the nature and the above by our self. There are clues of existentialism and presence of metaphysical attractions. Craig is obsessed with Maxine purely on her physical aspects. There is no solid evidence in their connectivity. Yet Craig cannot stop thinking about her. He becomes a person so cruel and monstrous with minuscule sense of being human. Even after achieving what he wants in life, he is begging for the sole attention from her. The experience into John Malkovich got him stuck in that. His instance attraction towards her becomes this permanently disguised form of love.
But oddly enough Maxine appears to be the “witch” character. She controls Craig as he does with his puppets. It appears that she is controlling Lotte but we witness her transformation of falling for her. She is not ready accepting her sexuality. She considers it to be experimental but later in her life comes to realize it. Realizing and not deciding on it. She understands the stature of body and soul. I mean as “body” and as “soul”. She opts for the soul. It is multifaceted character depiction of her. For example the film delivers the irony in her not entering the portal that a character who is open for experimenting. May be it is her fear of knowing the truth.
Lotte is another funny little character of distraught. In a calculated way she is not sure on where her life leads or at least on where it is being taken by Craig. She is definitely sure of something terribly wrong with their marriage but does not confess it. As Craig, she is caught into the experience. And her experience is unique of all. Her deepest denial becomes her. And readily accepts it as opposed to Maxine. One character ready to be herself.
If it is noticed that I missed the main character in the movie, John Malkovich. I guess this is exactly the movie delivers. While we are shown on every one being him, his identity is lost in it. He knows he is being controlled and it turns him nuts. While every one experience being him, he never does it with himself. And when he does that by externally inserting him in to his mind, it is chaos. May be he is upset by the fact of being with himself. It is creativity at its best on depicting that sequence. This is a movie about imagination as it poses. But it has so much more to offer than that. It offers humanity. It offers the truth of being you. It offers John Malkovich.
10 comments:
>> art needs hard work to understand with respect to its true content and obscure meanings <<
I completely disagree!!!! What use is ART if it is not easily understandable? The two scenes that I could remember is that from "Unnal Mudiyum Thambi" and "Sindhu Bhairavi". If it does not reach the 'Common' man, art loses some of its lustre.
And regarding the movie itself, I saw that when I was in UMR and I was completely lost!!!!
Waiting for Ur comments.
Nagesh.
Hmmmmm ! May be I should have put it in more clearer form. It depends on peopele I guess. I like some time to be puzzled and get in to the reading. Once I realize the real content and connect it with the sequence, it is simply amazing experience. In this movie, the whole experience was excellent but I had some doubts on connecting some of the dots which I clarified in the net. Yeah, but what you are talking is different genre. "Common Man" as we term is how by definition? An art can interpreted in tons of ways and some times to fully grab it there should be some kind of effort from end receiver. If art needs to be fed into the laps of everyone and some times to invoke some it needs to be, but it dont you think it should not be always. The standards of "common man" should improve and the bar should be set high. We should not set a bar low for some one who can open the door and explore for sure. During some of the conversation I had with Mathi, you need to some times work to enjoy an art to its full capability. I am not sure whether I completely covered your concern. It is highly debatable one for sure.
As for the movie :-), I will ask you to watch it again and I am sure you will like it. I have never seen a better screenplay of originality in creation. Do watch the next one from the same writer "Adaptation" which I have posted review too.
Again, I would like to point the example of Illayaraaja. His songs appealed BOTH to the masses as well as the classes (Read Subbudu & other ppl). The Raaga's that he has used many of his songs are simply amazing and still he was able to touch a chord with the common people. That is how I look at art.
Take the example of something that is very close to Ur heart, "The Shawshank Redemption". A movie goer can enjoy it either as an ART that teaches something or as a gripping movie with an excellent screenplay. That I feel is the main reason for this movie to be so widely acclaimed.
U lower the standards initially to allow more ppl to 'Jump' over and then when there are enough ppl crossing the barrier frequently, U raise the bar. Setting a standard that is too high for many ppl kills the interest and eventually the artist & the art itself.
Yeah definitely and of coure I was thinking about "The Shawshank Redemption", but some movies need to come in those kind of levels too rite? All movies cannot be in the same manner and there needs to be now and then.
I guess it is a never ending one. Some art needs the right audience. Even in "The Shawshank Redemption", I do the work of watching it several times and each time, there is something new in it. So that is something to understand the true content too rite? So similarly any art for if you put some work, there is a new meaning every time.
Nagesh/Ashok,
I haven't watched the movie but certainly this dicussion talks on something that is quite close to my heart and on which i do have strong ideas :)
Picasso once said something like this " Art ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared",
which in my opinion(A humble one though) summarizes the stature of art in human lives.If easy understandablity becomes the sufficient condition to create Art we would only end up with Soap Operas and mega serials.
Unnal Mudiyum Thambi in my opinion has such a utopian,marxist and modernist ideas which can call for a separate debate in itself:).But talking abt the
"understandability" of art, I have never understood why a creative work should be so easily accessible,rather why accessiblity to a work makes it good.
Simplicity has its own beauty no denial,Hemingway wrote terse sentences that were remarakable and beautiful but then tatz not the only form of representation.
Complexity is such a admissible and appreciated deed in all other avenues.Men want to decorate the food they prepare in such a sophisticated fashion,
a sprint race timing these days is measured upto few thousands of a milli seconds,Car races have become an epitome of technical sophistication,
the same thing when applied to any form of creative art turns out to be an act of crime.(A lopsided relativist at work perhaps;) )
I think when a creative work comes out with so much of hardwork in it, the audience will have to (not necessarily but if required) come up
with certain degree of hardwork.Works can be challenging,taunting the audience and sometimes unintelligible to the majority.Don't we see that any
form of innovation was always dismissed only because the majority(the common man) felt it either unintelligible or inaccessible as a piece of work.
Galileo,Joyce,Kafka,Picasso.Common man was quite cruel i guess ,wasn't he?,he never spared anyone! :).
Talking about Shawshank Redemption,i dont think it is such a simple movie.Shawshank can be interpreted in numerous ways.I don't really see
Shawashank as just a prison,it is perhaps a Metaphor to any form of human condition where men will have to choose and the choice in naturally
resting on his or her reselience.I think Shawashank as a movie if the audience is ready enough can be interpreted to give serious philosophical
colours to it.Ialiyaraja,hhmmm..music is something really different i guess.Isn't music a bit more abstract than Movies and books.The latter depend
heavily on the imagery the audience is capable of coming up with,the former is quite different.Art forms exist just for themselves,and they are glorious
when they reflect all forms of human conditions.I seriously dont believe in the idea of art forms reaching the human mass and straightening their lives.
Our history only goes to prove that was never done.If Einstein is hailed a genius does that mean common man took pains to understand E=MC2.Creative artists
have always been given a raw deal.They have been forced to cater to the masses,as if that is the bottomline or the motto of any art form.I would love to deal
with works that taunts me and challenges me.
BRilliant discussion. !!.
Mathi/Ashok,
Sorry makkale for the delay in posting my response. As usual, got stuck at office!!! It is nice that we are discussing on something that is very close to Mathi's heart. I am sure that I would be able to learn a lot from his perspective.
Did Shawshank offer something new everytime U watched it? I believe it is just that the movie offers new perspectives depending on the experiences & incidents we faced during that period. We need a reference for all the things that we think and the movie becomes a frame of reference for our interpretations. Even the director would not have thought of all the possible interpretations we take out of that movie. It just shows that we have matured during that period.
Similar is the case with any art form. The more matured U become, the art offers more dimensions hitherto unthought of. But, why should the common man be denied of a chance to enjoy a blissful moment by making it the property of just the MOST learned?
The races or the meal would still be enjoyed even without all those complex technical details or the decorations. Think of a game like cricket or tennis. I feel that the beauty is lost because of the complex things that we try to think to improve it.
Einstein did affect the lives of a zillion people but in an indirect way. And if the common man was cruel to Galileo or Picassa, it was bcoz they never catered to their level. Is it a mistake of the artist's mistake? Not at all. But if they crave for the applause of the ppl, catering to their taste and then increasing the level is the only way out I think.
Oops........ I don't think there is any structure to my response!!!
Waiting for Ur comments,
Nagesh.
Nagesh,
You have a point there.Infact whatever you have stated is the idea behind the path breaking paper Death of the author by(Though a bit tangential here am quoting this as this proffered a fresh perspective in the literary world).Art's interpretation end of day lives only bcos it has an audience.But as i said earlier common man or commoner or masses is such an abstract term.In the real sense am still not sure who would really be termed a common man.And i wouldn't certainly accept that to cloak the artistic tastes of a simpleton either :).Infact talking abt interpretation i think the premise you are quoting exists only bcos art forms(some of them) are complex,esoteric and offers men for multiple interpretations.People would have never learnt to interpret had there been a supply chain mechanism just to manufacture soap operas.I think this common man issue also haunts every artist.He wouldn't really know who the common man is.It is so abstract because such an entity atleast doesn't exist for art.-Might be existent for indian budgets:).Creative works are not budgets they don't in my opinion function with such a constraint in place.As i said earlier simplicity is beautiful but Complexity is beautiful in its own ways.As you said men interpret because they are matured.I would go the extend of saying we are matured only because of certain art forms trying to be creatively reflective and we made it a practice to interpret them with our experiences.You watch only shawshank your perspective to interpret wouldn't be as rich as you interpreting shawshank after watching a 100 movies or after reading certain works of philosophy.So what you term is maturity is imbibed in us because of these art forms.The premise cannot be accused when we try to reap the fruits of the consequences of it.:)
Nagesh/Mathi,
Interestingly heavy discussion. Everything again comes down to my first question - "Common Man" as we term is how by definition? And it is how we define "normal" too. If group of people do certain things for being with the group. I guess thats how common man is defined too. Anyways, that would lead to a discussion of itself, but as Mathi said, I now have a totally different way of grasping a movie. I am able to enjoy it and as well identify the nuances of the art work involved in it. It is due to my work of watching lot of movies and hence "matured" as we term. Most of the values, philosophies, concepts I have learnt is through Movies. Ok this is still not answering anything !!!
Alright Nagesh brought out an interesting point "If Galileo or Picaso craved for applause...." which is right. But common man just cursed them for what they were, which I guess is what Mathi was trying to say, if I am not wrong. Their way of interpretations moved away from the views of "Normal" people. And the "Common Man" or "Normal People" out of fear in the disturbance in their equilibrium denied to see through their work. My point is, they denied to work through it and some of those should be worked to attain the pleasure of it. It cannot be bent for the convenience of "normal" people sometimes. These "sometimes" is what movies like "Being John Malkovich" or similar art forms like that emerge. The fun is the work. There is nothing more enjoyable than the tough "task" in work getting completed. Even though the work is hard, the pleasure of attaining the final element is the fun. And it is always great to work for it.
I have no clue what I started and what I ended !!!!!! Just typed whatever came into my mind.
This is a brilliant movie on any standards. Though it is tough to follow it at times. It left me spellbound. Well i came rushing to read your review on this as i had read only half the review before i planned to read the rest after watching it !!.. And reg the 7 1/2 floor explanation that you have given , well iam not really sure if the director meant it that way. I didnt find any relevance to the story line and the 7 1/2.
Post a Comment