You don't think 'bringing out empathy and care' in another person is a positive quality?
I do. I said it was the exception.
Like PTA's
The Master, this film is cryptic, which is what fundamentally motivated me to pursue answers. You have done a great job presenting your stance, not only to defend your take on it, but to directly address and shed light on what I found frustrating in the first place. Phantomalpha, thank you for your thoughts as well. Here is what I have concluded:
Ali is a man that cannot care for or connect with others. He is not a good person, but he has good in him. The film's narrative is lined with a series of careless actions that demonstrate emotional detachment, which lead to the poignant climax of his pivotal "leg-losing" moment in his own life. It is only then that he embraces others and is able to connect. We are told this in a direct way, an indirect way, and an abstract way.
- Audiard delivers his
direct message by displaying the near-tragic event's immediate impact on Ali. His breakdown on the phone shows life finally finding a path to his heart. This directly demonstrates that he is lowering his barriers.
- His injured hand tells us that that channel to his heart will remain open whenever he feels pain. This
indirectly demonstrates that although he may not have "evolved" into a good person, he will always be able to access that wisdom inside of him every time he strikes. Since fighting is now his profession, this can be considered a long-term resolution to his character, because he is now prevented from forgetting the incident and regressing to his previous state.
- The
abstract message lies in the contrast between his negativity and sadness throughout the film vs. the abrupt positivity and glow immediately following the drowning incident. From this, we are forced to assume that everything is different
because of the accident. This draws a growth bridge between emotional
detachment and emotional
attachment. Thus, Audiard finds it unnecessary to display the specifics of the character growth on-screen if he can already show the product.
It is this last choice that I found particularly unsettling on my first viewing, because in skipping the growth stage in an effort to show us the product, one can just as easily assume that Ali
imposed their relationship to fulfill his own needs and narcissistically continue to pursue his own lifestyle and interests. However, naturally, vagueness leaves a film vulnerable to interpretation. I'm all for subtleties and nuanced performances, but I do wish Ali's spiritual resolution wasn't so rushed and understated. Ending on logical assumptions works better when the puzzle pieces are left to construct an
ending (i.e.
Shame or
Inception), not the
path to the ending.
In sum, Ali and Stephanie could not truly be compatible until he underwent his own "whale accident," which was the missing element inside both of them when they first met as two naive individuals.
Of course, this is only half the film. It does not even touch the surface of their actual relationship (though phantomalpha opened it up nicely), which I believe to be the true backbone of the story.
____________________________
My Top 250 Films:
http://www.imdb.com/list/AlZrHbQge2s/
reply
share
PoppyTransfusion
11 years ago
Ali is a man that cannot care for or connect with others. He is not a good person, but he has good in him. The film's narrative is lined with a series of careless actions that demonstrate emotional detachment, which lead to the poignant climax of his pivotal "leg-losing" moment in his own life. It is only then that he embraces others and is able to connect. We are told this in a direct way, an indirect way, and an abstract way.
Yes! I agree with every word of this and appreciate you likening the near drowning of his son to Stephanie's loss of leg.
The abstract message lies in the contrast between his negativity and sadness throughout the film vs. the abrupt positivity and glow immediately following the drowning incident. From this, we are forced to assume that everything is different because of the accident. This draws a growth bridge between emotional detachment and emotional attachment. Thus, Audiard finds it unnecessary to display the specifics of the character growth on-screen if he can already show the product.
I'd have to think about this for a while because I haven't approached the film in this way before. My immediate thoughts are that Ali's character is approached symbolically because his inner world is more difficult to communicate; his character would not have words to describe himself and his experiences. It would be acted out more. Stephanie by contrast has a level of verbal articulacy and the language of her whale training with which to communicate. However, my sense of Ali was a visceral one; most of how I felt and still feel about the character comes from my gut and I found him to be emotionally primitive and atavistic.
In sum, Ali and Stephanie could not truly be compatible until he underwent his own "whale accident," which was the missing element inside both of them when they first met as two naive individuals.
This reminds me of another poster on this board who suggested that the tattooes Stephanie has etched upon her legs represent the change in her from a 'gauche' person to one who is 'adroit' as a result of her growth post-accident. The same symbolic words could apply to Ali after the near drowning accident.
One final thing: I felt the son's accident to be too much when I saw the film as in 'oh another melodrama'. I was quite impatient with it. But of course it was the way to show Ali's shift and resolve something within himself and his relationship with Stephanie. Their relationship was the most interesting aspect of the film. I've wondered what the rust in the film's title referred to for a while. Perhaps it is the rust around Ali's heart that prevents it from working properly until lubricated by tears that break his detachment from others and himself ..?
Away with the manners of withered virgins
reply
share