MovieChat Forums > Dans ma peau (2002) Discussion > Marina de Van's explanation

Marina de Van's explanation


Marina de Van herself says that the film is more about the suprise you feel when you have discovered something new. It's not in an erotic way, more like in a childish exploring joy. She doesn't feel any pain in her leg until she discovers her wound and that becomes like a catalystor for her. She is bothered by the lack of pain when she fell and starts thinking about what her body is and what the relationship between her body and herself is. The focus is not mutilation, but more a fascination over how much the body can take.

reply

Bump.

reply

Wow. A succinct, sensible explanation of what this film is about, without the usual Film and Media Studies 101 buzzwords.

"What about the deconstruction of her feminine identity in the face of the bourgeois capitalist consumerist symbolism that delineates and mediates between our constructions of race, femininity and violence?"

Just add water, instant opinion.


reply

I'm glad I could help. : )

reply

Make that two people you've helped, palvall. Just saw it last night for the first time -- very impressed with how de Van chose to show so little of the actual cutting, but plenty more in her character's reactions and determination to pursue her new "thrill." I thought it was a very powerful film about a very real horror.

reply

I am going to finally get to watch this movie tonight.... I'm definitely looking forward to it.

reply

@spork

*snickers* i like your reading of the film too.

reply

Super overly simple answer:

So she was just cutting herself, because she didn't feel pain, like the rest of us would. Almost like a super power?

reply

No. The rest of us feel and experience nothing as well. Everything IS mediated, removed, and intellectualized (which is but another form of mediation and removal). Human behavior is codified into market data. We're defined by cohabitation in bought houses rather than rented flats, the consumption of fine wine over everyday wine, status and envy in the workplace, and the selling of empty trinkets. Film is another obvious form of mediation, a mediation which de Van attempts to destroy as the character she portrays also discovers her body anew, as if for the first time. Maybe de Van is just showing us the lengths to which most of us have to go to cut through and actually have immediate access to our corporeal senses--not to feel pain, specifically, but merely to see what it is to feel and experience at all.

All the scenes surrounding her character's self-mutilation are important, if not more significant, than the mutilation itself. My sense as to why this escapes so many people's notice is that our sense of feeling and our immediacy of experience is just as dull and empty as those of the characters we see.

reply

A hat, a snake eating an elephant... whatever.

reply

Nicely put. I can scarcely tell the difference between the two interpretations either.

reply

I was mesmerized by the leading actress' eyes. They are so big - like Gollum/Smigolm in The Lord of the Rings if I may make that comparison. When she is at the hotel room, crawling like a worm, hiding from behind the bed, then blowing her nose with her bloodened toes, then crying! - In a way, she makes it all with her eyes!!!

If there were any serious aim from the Oscar Academy Awards, Marina de Van should be competing for the best actress award, because man! how could anyone doubt that what they were seeing was real? And she made it real, not the special effects.

Her eyes, staring at herself, scrutinizing her skin and her body... man, those eyes! will give me the creeps forever and ever. The way she stares at herself and towards the lens is as though she were looking to the audience's very soul.

reply

[deleted]