Other than "The Tree of Life" and "The Interrupters", the film I keep coming back to from 2011 is "Take Shelter". It's a penetrating and humanizing portrait of a small town family man who is swiftly being debilitated by mental illness due to paranoia and fear regarding a nightmare of an impending storm that invades his sleep. In his wake, he "irrationally" decides he needs to expand his underground storm shelter - paralyzing his family's finances to do so.
For all the various levels of symbolism that can be drawn from the film, it is the last scene that wraps up the film tightly, then drops a fantastically ambiguous bomb that leaves us a little hazy and wounded from the shrapnel. Initially frustrating - the ending allows us to contemplate and question the film on a deeper level. One angle from which to approach the ambiguity is through the lens of marriage. What levels of love and trust are needed to interrupt disconnection, fear, and mental instability? Like with "Blue", we must ask ourselves if we legitimately "exist" or matter, apart from loving and being loved?
Indiewire - "A lot of what makes "Take Shelter" such an incredible watch is the mystery behind Curtis' visions. In the same way movies like "The Exterminating Angel" use a fantasy construct to explore humanity, Curtis' visions find him desperately preparing to protect his family from something that might not even be real. Through this, Nichols explores the nature of love and family. However, the final scene, which finally addresses the visions directly, will be a make or break moment for some audiences. Nichols spoke to the closing note the film ends on, saying "I don't expect everyone to like it, appreciate it, or be fulfilled by it.. but the theme of marriage really developed as I developed the storyline. And I knew from the beginning that I had this ending, and now the important part of the ending is these two people looking at each other at this moment, and they're finally on the same page. Whatever is happening around them doesn't really matter, it's up for debate or can be left ambiguous, so long as they make this connection and I make this one point."
Chastain also added her two cents. "That look, I don't think it resolves the anxiety, but it's the answer to that loss of control. The only thing real is the family, that connection we have to each other. It's hard to talk about, but the idea that you can lose everything, if tomorrow isn't here or if someone ends up going to the hospital, all we have is our relationship with each other."
"Look" - "Connection" - "Relationship"
Our eyes give us away. While the sclera of most primates is a similar color as their pupil - in order to camouflage their intentions - our sclera is white - leaving us without a choice, except for awkwardly looking/turning away so that we can hide our eyes - our intentions - our emotions - our shame - our frustration. In contrast, intentional eye contact is on the same level as touch, regarding neuron flow and neural connections in the brain. When we can sustain a "look" towards one another - there is a strong non-verbal indication of trust, love, and respect. We feel safe - feel that we don't have to fear the impending storms anymore - that we can face them together.
This is further illustrated in the film with their daughter, who is deaf. Throughout the film, the family is learning together (in a classroom) to communicate via visual signals and sign language - which, of course, demands eye contact as the exclusive means in which to listen and "speak".
...
After having four children, only our one year old still maintains significant eye contact just out of curiosity - which is the element that I will miss most about not having infants/toddlers. Eye contact is crucial for brain development (attachment) in their first few weeks of life while breastfeeding - and it is the first thing to go when shame enters into their consciousness as a toddler. However, eye contact is something we demand from our children when discipline/teaching is necessary. And visual intentionality, along with affection, is something that we offer to them daily - in order for them to know that we recognize their humanity and their worth. It's safe to say that we (humans being) are not fully communicating, if we are not speaking visually. As adults, we require "holy moments" (deep connecting moments) with one another, but we seem to have so few of them - which is why it's so subversive that it's the Holy Moment that offers salvation in "Take Shelter".
...
Soldiers have walked away from wars after making eye contact with the "enemy". In the same vein, if a soldier kills an enemy at "sexual range" (up close and personal), he/she is more likely to develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which is exclusive to visual perception and processing). Also - all sorts of conflicts have been diffused when people were brought together to confront each other in a safe space - which is the basis of victim/offender dialogue that often provides healing for the victim and redemption for the offender. How is it that empathy and respect are more likely to be offered, in various levels of conflict, when people have to confront each other visually? Is human interaction literally "life-giving", life sustaining unto itself?
"The individual neuron or a single human brain does not exist in nature. Without mutually stimulating interactions, people and neurons wither and die. In neurons this process is called apoptosis - in humans it is called depression, grief, and suicide (Cozolino)....In response to the spreading of infectious diseases (at an orphanage)...physicians attempted to keep the children safe by separating them from one another and ordering that their handling be kept to a minimum. Yet they died at such alarming rates that admission forms and death certificates were signed at intake for the sake of efficiency. It was not until the children were held, rocked, and allowed to interact with one another that their survival rate improved (Blum)."
...
No comments:
Post a Comment