LIVING DOLL
Regarding the presentation by Weizhi and Cathy this afternoon, I am taking the liberty to discuss this at length because many students who are in the ESL class are also in the film class, so it's an issue worth discussing.When analyzing a movie (or, in this case, a teleplay) one tries to account for all the elements, including dialogue, mise-en-scene (staging: including acting), shots, etc.
The idea that the doll represents Christine's thoughts is reasonable; and it works for the words spoken to the mother too. But it doesn't account for all the elements in the film; moreover, other elements seem to contradict this "reading" of the show. But the idea that the doll represents the father's thoughts seems to be a better "fit."
First, except for the scene in her bed, when her doll is taken away, the child shows no real signs of hatred towards her father. One would think there would be at least a single close-up of an angry child (for example, a cutaway shot from the father to the child looking angry).
Second, the child seems happy most of the time: she feeds her doll; plays with a playmate outside, etc.
Third, the child actually apologizes to her stepfather early in the teleplay.
Fourth, the father apologizes to the child (=doll) by removing it from the trash. Now even the most evil or rebellious child would be satisfied with an apology. After all, the parent is much stronger than the child; so a sign from the parent of peace would be greatly appreciated by the child.
The child, for example, wants to go to Disneyland and would be happy if the father relents and takes her. She doesn't want to see her (step)father dead if she can go to Disneyland instead! A dead father is not as much fun as a live Mickey Mouse!
These are four reasons. On the other hand, there are reasons for believing the child is a "projection" of the father's thoughts.
First, the psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud taught us that nobody can punish us like we ourselves can. One has only to think of famous stars like Karen Carpenter, Marilyn Monroe, and so many others.
Even our worst enemies are more likely to forgive us than we can forgive ourselves. If a sibling injures her sister in an automobile accident, the sibling may torment herself for the rest of her life no matter how many times the sister sincerely forgives her.
Hence the stepfather hears the doll say, "I will not forgive you." Because he cannot forgive himself.
What happens is a vicious cycle is set up: the stepfather hates the child/doll; he projects that hatred on the doll, and receives it back again (called "introjection") against himself: it is now no longer he who hates Christine, it is Christine who hates him.
In this way he cleans his conscience and punishes himself at the same time. This relationship with Christine is then "displaced" onto the doll.
This "reading" also accounts better for the fact that the father cannot kill the doll. Seeing the doll as a symbol of Christine, rather than a projection of her, does not fully account for why the stepfather cannot kill the doll. Surely the stepfather can kill Christine if he wishes to. But he cannot kill his inner (unconscious) thoughts.
Freud spoke of "the return of the repressed": that is, the more we try to keep antisocial thoughts away from us, the more furiously those thoughts fight back; so that defenses against them must become stronger and stronger; until, in the end, the person uses all of his or her mental energy to keep those thoughts away.
This applies only if the thoughts are "repressed" and not available to conscious control. Obviously one can control conscious thoughts. If one resents one's son interfering with one's life, one can sit down and reason that resentment away: "After all: he's my son. I'm responsble for him. I'll send him to a babysitter on Saturday night and enjoy myself then."
But if the thoughts/emotions are unconscious, they cannot be control; they control oneself instead.
This answers to the puzzle of why the father cannot kill the doll: the same reason he cannot defend against his hatred and sense of guilt for not being able to father a child. The stronger means he uses, the stronger the doll (his thoughts) become, in the system called the return of the repressed (hidden ideas/emotions).
For example: one wants one's sibling dead. To deny this thought, one takes even better care of one's sibling. One follows him wherever he goes. One phones one's mother to warn he is playing in front of traffic.
Soon not even this is enough, as the wish becomes more conscious, pushing through one's consciousness and making one feel more guilty. So one begins to check the kitchen gas, to make sure one's sibling is not poisoned when he sleeps. One wakes up at every hour to check on one's brother as he sleeps, to make sure no robber creeps into the bedroom to kill the child.
The mother says, "What a sweet boy. See how much he cares for his brother."
But in truth, it's the other way around: the boy is "compensating" for his unconscious wish to see his brother dead.
We see this at work in the doll's indestructibility: it cannot be killed because the stepfather's thoughts cannot be quieted.
The final puzzle is why the doll threatens the mother at the end. One can say that's just a neat (and ironic) way to close the show. Not every moment has to make sense in terms of the main reading of the film. A gunfight in a movie may just be there to show a gunfight.
Still, one looks for deeper meanings. In that case, the mother has some resentment towards the child too. No mother loves a child 100% (for the reasons given above: the child interferes with the parent's life to some degree, especially in a second marriage).
Moreover, the doll/child is to some degree responsible for the mother losing her husband (even if the relationship was strained, or troubled). He was still a part of her life and a means of financial support too. (One must also consider the period in which the teleplay is written: the 1950s, when women had fewer options than they do today; so they would more strongly cling to a husband than today.)
After all, the daughter is the cause of the mother's difficult relationship with her husband. If it were not for the daughter, the relationship between husband and wife would be much better. (Children are always a problem when parents seek new partners, because they usually come between the couple in some way.)
So at the end of the teleplay, a sense of resentment has awakened towards her daughter: "It's because of you that I lost my husband! I could have had a happy life were it not for you coming between us." Of course, this is only a first awakening of that thought; hence the doll's threat is milder than the ones she made to the stepfather.
Finally, there's no sense of satisfaction in the mother's discovery of her husband's dead body. The best "reading" of a film includes all elements, including music, what other characters say, the expression on a character's face while speaking words or reacting to a moment. I don't think any viewer would "read" the mother's reaction as satisfaction; rather shock.
Of course, one may still hold to another reading of the film, perhaps finding other clues to justify that reading. Besides this doesn't detract from our students' excellent and original insight into the teleplay.
No comments:
Post a Comment