Let me start my answer by noting that Bad Influence is built around doppelganger obviousness. By obvious I don't mean that's how everyone reads it (though the comments to the latest post suggest many do), but that the film evacuates other interpretive possibilities. One thing I find interesting about dopperganger narratives is that the "evil" double never gets psychological depth. The same holds true for Bad Influence, even when the editing positions a series of point-of-view shots from Alex.
What's particularly striking - and why I call this obvious - is that unlike some other doppelganger narratives (Strangers on a Train, say) Alex hardly seems to have a psychology at all. "The cops won't believe this guy even exists." I don't believe he exists!
The thematic obviousness is in many ways a nod to noir, where Big Ideas got expressed in pulp form. However, neo-noir does not fully sum up this film. Certain moments of pastiche are there, particularly in the directional lighting, the slow tracks, and the costuming/makeup of the fiancee...
(remarkable how a Veronica Lake look comes across more as Color Me Beautiful...)Rather than retro-noir, I'm inclined to say the film owes much to the film gris - films like Body and Soul or Force of Evil, which allegorized capitalism as criminal activity. That said, when pressed, it's hard for me to figure out what the film is saying exactly about business or what its target is. Office politics unfettered from morality? High finance? Consumerism? Credit economy? Is Michael the bad guy with his Sharper Image loft and credit card debt? Or Alex with his Armani suits and nightclub hookers-and-coke dissolution? I'm interested in possible interpretations film clubbers might have.
Finally, I should note that all this allegorization comes at the expense of women. There's a long-standing feminist critique of noir, particularly the femme fatale. But here the women are not even interesting characters, but rather pawns for the screenplay. And am I right to say a subsidiary theme is that carpe diem means men should not get involved seriously with women? In other contexts, that might be welcome libertinism, here it soured for me.
Posts
4 comments:
Wow Chris. There is a bunch of interesting points here. I am most fascinated by your points on the female pawns. What does it say about me that this didn't even cross my mind?!?!
It got me thinking about the Claire character. Initially she starts out as a "test" for Michael -can he land her with a line? That scene in the club is presented with only ambient sound. We don't know what is said. This would normally signify that the woman in this scene is insignificant; that she will not be seen again.
But she is. She is used as a test again, in her next scene - Can Michael lie for Alex?
Then she is given as a sexual gift to Michael, which results in her use as a tool to break up Michael's unwanted engagement. And then finally she is taken away by Alex, almost as punishment for Michael's reaction to Alex's "help".
When thought of in this way, it could almost be said that she too "doesn't exist"; she almost seems like an illusion steaming from the greater illusion that is Alex; quite literally existing simply as a tool, a gift or a punishment.
Claire exists, because she appears on videotape, and someone other than Michael (or one of his potential doppelgangers) sees her - that's how we know that Michael exists, too! I think the film's manipulation of evidence for what exists and doesn't, what happens and doesn't, is quite fascinating - and quite canny. I want to make the argument with more care - but I think the film does quite a few things to explore the nature of reality, and evidence for reality. As a few people have mentioned - its treatment of on and off screen space is very interesting; and, given the importance of video and photographs in the film - specifically, on and off screen....
I think it is silly to discuss these character's literal existence in the reality of the film. I didn't mean to imply that I think this is a ghost film. I was speaking on an allegorical level; that Alex is a demonic manifestation steaming from Michael's inner struggles, and Claire is the "devil's tool". On this allegorical level, they perhaps exist differently than Michael,Pismo, Patterson, etc.
No, I'm not really saying that either - what I find fascinating is the way the film raises the issue (the possibility that Alex is Michael, basically), and then never really resolves it. That ambiguity, the manipulation of information is what I am interested in. I put up a new post to that effect - again - not to argue that Alex isn't real, but to look at how the film handles information about him....
Post a Comment