a post-post-modernist film devoid of message
Except for the message of how the victim becomes the victimizer and the victimizer becomes the victim, and the message is the struggle for survival, and victims, real victims, are victims confronted with a massive global power (Nature, Military) they cannot overcome or defeat, and the victims are reduced to acting like animals, doing anything they need to do to survive in an indifferent and unpredictable and lawless environment.
He didn't rape her or try to rape her. He drank her breast milk to avoid starving to death. It was done through force because breasts are no longer filled with the milk of human kindness.
The film meticulous and unwavering objectiveness and neutrality (emphasized by the lack of background information) refuses to provide viewers with univocal meanings and answers. Instead, the film invites viewers to search for and discover meaning
s from within their own reality(s).
I saw a man in a cave, a man who looked perfectly natural in the cave, as if it was his home, defending his country from people who had no right to be in his cave or country. I saw a man acting in desperation to uproot the invaders from his country in order to protect a vanishing way of life he cherished, memories of which came to him later in his wanderings. He blew up soldiers in self-preservation, and the military subjected him to [implied off screen] torture in retaliation. Nature interrupted and a convoy tumbled over when the driver veered to avoid killing animals in the road. The protagonist, victim of a military invasion turned victimizer of soldiers turned victim of imprisonment, escaped, and was forced to not only shed his skin, but shed his very existence, as he crossed into another country, still a victim but now also an invader on foreign soil and also once-again a victimizer in his struggle for survival.
Victim and victimizer, we're both at the same time, it's inescapable, and there are victims being being reduced to animals in the quest for survival because of other victims with all the power who really aren't victims but play the part to protect their power. It's essential to kill any person who resists our military presence because we're fighting a war to end all wars, a war to preserve humanity, and this essential killing is forcing people to kill right back in order to survive, people are being reduced to animals to survive, and because they've been reduced them to animals to survive, people say, see, it's justifiable to kill them because they're animals.
Emmanuelle Seigner appears in the last segment of the film (woman who drags Mohammed into her kitchen), and her husband, Polanski, is the master of the victim-victimization plot construct. Essential Killing is also filled with Polanski's own directorial trademarks, it's hard to believe he did not direct it.
Essential Killing is brilliant because it opens the door to objective critical discourse about the human condition, and the effect wars (among other things) are having on the human condition.
One of the best films of 2010, and Vincent Gallo delivered one of the best male performances of 2010. Purely animalistic and raw. 10/10
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
duolian
13 years ago
"Again, we have NO IDEA if this guy is from Afghanistan. He could be from Pakistan, for that matter, or any number of Islamic countries from where he could have volunteered."
Skolimowski himself has said that he deliberately made it non-specific if the opening was meant to be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern Iraq or elsewhere.
You are correct on that but are jumping to the conclusion that he volunteered. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know. We don't know that he was a militant at all.
"Here is what we know: In the beginning of the movie, the guy killed three men. It wasn't as if these men were torturing someone -- they were getting high on some opium. So what does he do? He lurks in a cave and kill them with an RPG."
But he only did so after they decided to investigate the cave and he had nowhere further to run.
reply
share
rhezdekus
13 years ago
Skolimowski himself has said that he deliberately made it non-specific if the opening was meant to be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern Iraq or elsewhere.
You are correct on that but are jumping to the conclusion that he volunteered. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know. We don't know that he was a militant at all.
Right. I think the character was really just a thumbnail sketch more so than anything else. We know what he did -- the RPG scene -- we know he was from some Middle Eastern or Asian country. We know that he probably had a wife and child . . . maybe. Wasn't there a scene where he was in a room with a flashlight, just for a momentary flashback, with the women lying in bed? Could she also have been another person's wife, or did I miss something?
Otherwise, the audience instills what they believe into the character, like an empty vessel, or a white board.
But he only did so after they decided to investigate the cave and he had nowhere further to run.
He probably didn't have to do that. He could have kept scurrying, retreating further down the canyon. It was weird circumstances, though, because they guys were just walking along, obviously going place, but not really ready for a firefight, and this guy is lurking around with a dead guy nearby.
All signs point to not-so-innocent intentions.
Now, of course, all insurgents aren't evil Talib, and people do join to fight for many reasons. Maybe I missed a scene or something, but was there any suggestion about the women and child being killed or anything? Usually, with these sort of scenarios, there's something in a character's past, usually in reference to "unintended consequences," that causes any radicalization in their behavior.
reply
share
duolian
13 years ago
You're right about the whiteboard aspect. This can seem cheap and hollow or provocative and profound depending on who the viewer is. Or simply frustrating. The movie does seem to have ambiguity at it's core.
On the flashbacks, I don't recall anything to suggest they had been killed though I might have missed some detail. I read it more as memories of home and what was motivating him to try to stay alive.
"He probably didn't have to do that. He could have kept scurrying, retreating further down the canyon."
Remember there was the helicopter(s) overhead so there was a certain logic to hiding as he did. Once he did, his options were *very* limited. It was an odd construct that there happened to be a body with a convenient weapon in that cave. As was mentioned before, he didn't have any weapon of his own when it starts out - in a part of the world where even goat-shepherds might carry an AK47.
reply
share
keithgordon
10 years ago
Very well written, Temporary. I totally agree with your view. Others on this thread have said how much they hate the main character. Because he is Taliban and has just killed three Americans! Well, you have to look at it from his perspective. If he is Taliban, that is probably the only thing he knows, so of course he's going to be Taliban.
He kills three Americans? Well, they are in HIS country. He's not in THEIRS. They are pointing rifles at him and he is cornered. When he's in Belarus, he's not killing everyone---only those he needs to, to survive. He doesn't touch the fisherman when he steals the fish.
The movie doesn't give you the meaning, but leaves it up to the viewer.
reply
share