Assayas used confusion throughout the three films we watched. Whether it was because of the plot or another reason, the movie Boarding Gate was intentionally ambiguous. I picked up on this with a filming technique he used in the beginning of the film and the ending.
In the beginning, Sandra goes to the office to talk with someone she has a history with, which was obvious by the conversation they had. The filming technique Assayas is quite different. He had Sandra in the foreground with the focus on her, but the man was talking in the background and his image was out of focus. This was throughout his entire few lines of dialogue at this part. Most films will put the focus on the person who is doing the talking. At this point in the film, this shows that Sandra’s past is hazy to us. This helps provide the feeling of confusion.
At the end of the movie, the image of Sandra is shifted to out of focus when she decides not to kill Lester. This filming technique helps give off the feeling that Sandra could finally disappear and her future is uncertain. I like how the movie started with this filming technique and then didn’t really use it until the very end. It helps the audience try to piece together what to be confused about.
P.S. Did anyone else get the feeling that this film started a chapter early?
I agree with you on Assayas's use of confusion, I would like to add though other ways he used this technique in Boarding Gate. One of the more obvious ways is the reoccurring drug use. This movie is another classic example just like the other two films we have watched, where the main character drinks or takes something and is drugged up and barely able to stay conscious. I think that Assayas must really enjoy portraying drug culture because it seems some form of drug use/aftermath has appeared in each of his films.
The second confusion technique I found interesting is the conversation between Sandra and Sue when they are discussing when Sandra will finally be able to meet up with Lester in Hong Kong. In this scene Sandra is asking many questions to Sue about where she will go, who she will stay with etc. but Sue answers none of these questions and instead just keeps repeating how mistaken Sandra was for getting involved with Lester. I found it bizarre how even though Sandra was speaking to Sue, it was almost like Sue could not hear anything Sandra was saying. I believe this added to the element of confusion. Good post!
I didn't really think of the drug use or of that conversation, but I'm glad you brought them up because I think you're right. Those moments do help add to the confusion in the story.
Drug use is used throughout Assayas' films probably because it's a more extreme way to show his ideas, which after watching his movies, we know that Assayas really likes to be extreme when conveying his ideas.
With our ongoing theme of love and economy, Boarding Gate (2007) has a scene that is worth examining. Of course, I am referring to the long scene where Sandra and Miles are arguing about their relationship in Miles’ home. What seems like Sandra going in circles with her emotions, “I don’t love you, I desire you” has an important message that Shaviro asserts, “Under such conditions, passion is indistinguishable from economic calculation, and our inner lives are as thoroughly monetized and commodified as our outward possessions” (48-49). The film elaborates on this point by Sandra mocking Miles about his business ventures with the Japanese. Indeed, she attacks the essence of his worth as a man and lover. Sandra draws on his failures indicating repeatedly that she does not love him anymore, yet still has a desire for him. What aspect does she desire? She herself does not know, but we can certainly make a connection that she desires the capital ventures, but it is simply not within Miles any more.
The audience is also presented with love and economy intersecting through the “non-spaces” which we discussed in class. The “economic calculation, and our inner lives” is illustrated, greatly when Sandra is trying to get away from Lester’s men in Hong Kong. Images of the busy city displays the constant mobility of the economy. We receive a sense of how tightly the population operates due to the close spaces. For instance, a very interesting operation with camera movement, as Sandra is trying to escape, we see her running through a warehouse and as she heads through a door, suddenly, she is in a restaurant where people are just having their meals, as if nothing is wrong. All of these different types of events, separated only by walls.
Shaviro touches on this as he expresses, “In this world, everything is interchangeable, or at least exchangeable: sex, money, drugs, business trade secrets, personal identities, and clothing and other consumer goods” (46). The camera pans back and forth between hotels, then clubs, then markets, and then the Hong Kong streets. As such, Sandra never receives a sense of belonging (to anyone or anywhere) because she is constantly moving. Even at the end of the film, I get the sense that she will not root herself in Shanghai, rather, there is an ominous feeling, to me, that she will find another man and continue with her desires and economic flow, as the scene blurs out.
So far, our musing of—can love be possible without money—is complicated within the worlds we have viewed so far. It seems as though within these films, love is possible without money, but it does not last long. We have seen Laura’s story with Thomas, Yella’s mode of capitalism failing in her fantasies, Johannes choosing Sarah over Ana, and now, Sandra’s break up with Miles. To me, she did not kill Miles, but she killed the very notion that love is possible without money.
Khoi, I typed my blog post before reading yours, but I think they relate on two points 1) the role of money in establishing our desires, and 2) the "exchangeability" of personal identities mentioned by Shaviro, and how this affect our relationships:
Since the beginning, the characters in Boarding Gate (2007) are introduced as questionable and unreliable—creations and illusions. They are non-existent in the non-places they inhabit. The opening close-up shot of a pointed gun at the audience gives the viewing a sense of hesitation and distrust. The web of lies is presented through the order of the narrative structure that is set to disclose events and dismantle the lies only after they have been engaged with. That is to say, we learn they are lies after having believed them. In one example, we are presented with Lester and Sandra in the car. He expresses his love to Sandra, and the next morning when he leaves, a jump cut reintroduces him in a different setting where we discover his relationship with Sue. Consequently, there is no reliability, or sympathy with any character. The relationships are based on lies and deceit. Another example occurs with Sandra and Miles’ sexual relationship, which is one of role playing—a game of lies that carries into the real world. The paradoxical “transparency” displayed in the business environment represented by windows, clear doors, and glass walls is one that works with the contradictions inherent to a capitalistic system. It displays a welcoming and inviting exterior that only contain lies and deceit—just like the beautiful characters. The passport and money Sandra receives, for example, are hidden in plaid sight from where the businesswoman casually grabs them. The deceit is present in plain view, and it upholds the illusion of “transparency” by holding what it hides in the peripheral vision. Like in demonlover (2002), the illusion seems to break with the realization that the imaginary when put into action—like shooting someone—is incompatible with “real” life and has “real" consequences—much more at play in this film. In theory, it seems shooting their abusers would eliminate the problem, but in practice Diane and Sandra are both frightened and shaken by their actions. Nevertheless their reactions to these “real” actions are in turn illusions onto themselves. In another narrative reveal, the audience realizes the deceit of Sandra’s reaction since Miles’ murder was premeditated, and therefor there should have been no reaction. With Diane, there is not even the luxury of knowing what happened to Hervé. Increasing deceit seems like a result of capitalism and the power of money to corrupt and distort. This is further problematized by the fact that it is not only characters’ actions that are lies. Their very selves are an illusion. Individuals only exist as a construction of the capitalistic society of the films, which benefits from self-gain mentality and competition. Like discussed in class, across the board there is no "real" variety—just minor differences that create the appearance of variety, like with the car models. Assayas’ characters are not individuals. They are a mere repetition of another archetype, a pretense, a creation, a construction that puts of the illusion of what it wants to be, but that is something completely different. This is present in Clean (2004) when Emily is told she will have to alter her appearance to sell the product. In Boarding Gate, it is present through Sandra’s escape to Hong Kong and the creation of a new self as part of the illusion. This is thematized in the film by the recurring mention of disappearing and starting over.
Individuals are for sale, and individualism has a price, but it is deceitful because the visibility has been taken away from human beings and given to corporations. There is no “us,” just an “I” that prevents the the individual from becoming a threat to capitalism through numbers and unity. Sandra nicely summarizes how ingrained this has become when she observes that “I am not crying for you. I am crying for myself.” The deceit is rooted to the point of self-deceit. Love’s connotations with time, devotion, connection, and commitment (or investment from a capitalistic approach) is incompatible with the new structure, which can't afford to stop. Love is too much of a risk investment. Desire, however, is an emotion that can thrive in the immediacy of supply and demand. It can be satisfied, purchased, and quickly exchanged in the target desired. It is sellable. It is an emotion more akin to go hand in hand with capitalism. The ending shot of Sandra stepping back into blurriness eliminates her sense of individualism and reduces her to an indistinguishable figure that creates the illusion of Sandra, but seen through a blurred reality.
I'd also like to expand on this idea of exchange becuase Assayas has a dominant presence of sexuality, sex, rape, and prostitution in Demonlover and Boarding Gate. Beyond character building, I questioned this. Boarding Gate opened with dialog involving prostitution, there were intense sex scenes throughout, and later there was more dialog between Miles and Sandra involving a story when she was drugged and raped. There is no love involved with Sandra’s sexuality, no romance, just exchanges. Someone mentioned this absence of love about Demonlover and it holds true with Boarding Gate as well. These realistic, yet disturbing concepts do play a larger role in Assayas’ films.
In the presence of these “non-spaces”— places of transition and transactions as Khoi mentioned—that Assayas creates, everything is exchangeable, including sex. This contributes to his idea that everything is a potential medium for exchange in these spaces and every exchange is always regulated by a contract or person. In Boarding gate, Sandra uses her body for exchange when Miles asks her to, and she then reports back to him with business information. Miles says something to the effect of “and you were compensated quite well if I remember”. Sandra’s character connects quiet well with the concepts that Shaviro mentions on contemporary capitalism. Essentially, Shaviro parallels Sandra’s prostitution, for that matter her sexuality in general, with affective or immaterial labor, meaning labor that produces no material good. Assayas clearly shows us with Sandra’s sexuality in Boarding gate, that in excess, we start to manage our personal lives like businessmen manage the enterprises they control. (Shaviro 47-49)
Jess, I really like your outlining the differences of love and desire. I've never looked at it from such a perspective because I always think the two as synonymous. This illuminates many things for me now with the film!
Jason, approaching the notion of commoditization, this social construction that Assayas presents is certainly transpiring in contemporary society. I think Dr. Abel brought up an interesting point with capitalism that it is arguable the operation is no long an individualistic one.
I'd like to add to the last comments you made about capitalism really not allowing much individualism. Jessica, you really nailed this part in your comment. I think it was obvious throughout these three films that none of the characters really had a say in what happened. I just wanted to quickly outline how it played out in each film.
Demonlover: Diane was being pushed around by many different sides to fulfill their ultimate goals. She was always being forced to do something.
Clean: Emily had really no money because the music producer had to work out the deal after Lee's death. If she wanted to see her son, it had to be on the grandfather's terms. That was the only reason she tried to get jobs she didn't enjoy. Really, throughout the film, the grandfather dictated what she did.
Boarding Gate: Sandra always had her boss telling her what to do. Even in the beginning of the film, MIles kept telling her she liked being with him because he told her what to do. Lester dictated how Sandra acted because she thought he was her safe haven after it was all said and done. Even though that wasn't the case.
The bigger picture I could possibly see is, could this idea that the main character never really acts for themselves be Assayas' signature in his movies? I know we would have to watch more of them, but for the three we watched none of the main characters really acted on their own. Someone above them was controlling them like a puppet in a sense. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this could be Assayas' signature in his movies.
The thesis of this class, and also that of Jerichow, was explained on the first day as "One cannot love without money." Although i think that this sentiment is present in Boarding Gate, i do not believe it to be the best thesis possible for this film. Rather than having love be dependent on money, I'd say that in some fundamental ways, love IS money. In the scene where Sandra and Miles first dialogue in his office, their conversation outlines a brief history of their relationship. Sandra would sleep with other businessmen under the guise that she was doing it to ascertain information. Miles would pay her to do it because it turned him on to pay her to do it. It is revealed that Sandra's financial motives throughout the movie is his goal to finance a club in Beijing. It was implied that Sandra did these sexual things at Miles' bidding because he would eventually give her enough money. I believe that what Assayas is trying to show with this is how erotically charged money has become.There's an Oscar Wilde quote that comes to my mind. "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." Money is able to preform a similar function as sex. Money allows people to dominate others and people will give themselves up and submit to those who have it. I think Assayas thinks of capitalism as one giant, complex S&M club.
I agree and disagree with you on some level about your propositions about the ideas of capitalism and desire in the film. While I agree that the thesis for the film isn’t “one cannot love without money,” I’d disagree that the message is that “love is money.” Rather, I would say that the integration of capitalism, sex, and love results in the impossibility for a solid foundation of love. Gina Telaroli in “Anywhere and Everywhere” in Kent Jones’ book explains, “Sandra does what her partner requires [. . .] while earning the necessary capital to survive” (Jones 174). We can see from this that Sandra’s view of her sexuality is a transaction in itself, which we can, on some level, parallel to the ideas from Demonlover that “alienation from the body is the starting condition for its characters” (Jones 150). However, while Sandra’s sexuality is, to her, an object in a transaction (thus alienating herself from her body), her relations with Miles lead her to fall in love with him (and later she simply desires him). When she falls in love with Miles, she entangles love and capitalism, which ends in disaster. Later, she also falls in love with Lester, but capitalism is so intertwined in their relationship, that “Sandra realizes that her new love isn’t much better than her old” (Jones 178). These are the reasons that I think the thesis of the film should be more along the lines of “love is not possible when capitalism is involved.”
Assayas uses the "non-spaces" such as in the car to effectively convey the films heavy exposition. The idea of love=money seems to be tied very closely with the heavy male gaze that rests upon this film. Sandra seems to come from the school of romantics, where love stands as a greater force than economics. As she says to Lisa (if i remember correctly) when they are talking about love being equal to money "I don't think that's how it is" or something of that ilk. Every man in the film is consumed with the transactional nature of love. Even when Miles is professing his nostalgia of their tumultuous romantic history he still brings in the idea of ownership. In contrast Sandra (and Emily from Clean) have a strong desire to own their own actions, yet they rely heavily on others for this idea of safety. Yet, as the films show, they must bow to the wishes of others before getting what they want. Even when it seems like Sandra has taken some of the control back when she kills her aggressor its really all a transaction. She is not naieve to the idea that she is seen as a commodity. As Telaroli points out in her essay "She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to" (175). I don't think she is alienated by her actions. I think she uses her sexuality knowing full well the power she wields. I think she uses her power to alienate the male gaze from the male characters minds. Miles is clearly an intelligent individual, in an economic sense, but he clearly has an exploitable weakness in his obsession with Sandra. As he points out, she often knowingly allowed herself to be put in these situations because it got her what she needed to survive. However, she alienates his animalistic desires from his more logical body, creating an opening in his guard that she exploits. To me this movie examines a lot of the frailties of men in regards to sexuality. If sex is transactional and money is truth, then one assumes they will get what they paid for. As I mentioned before, Sandra sees sex on a spectrum from love to money, whereas the men are only concerned with what they can own. This creates a weakness that is all too easily exploited. And yet there is no shining victory for Sandra. She is left confused, torn between the emotions and the economics.
What interested me in this week’s films was how women were portrayed and casted in very unique roles. In Clean, Maggie Cheung won the Best Actress award at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival for her role as Emily Wang. Asian-American women are the most underrepresented actors in the business. I also noted that every punk band that was featured in Clean was headed by a female lead-singer. In demonlover, it was initially hard to understand the feminist agenda of Diane and Elise, whether their sexualities were objectified or glamourized, or if they had their own agency.
Boarding Gate was by far my least favourite film that has been screened in this class so in order to properly write about it without making it about my opinion, I’ll examine it in the context that Ken Jones provides "Boarding Gate is the third in an unofficial trilogy of Assayas films, with demonlover and Clean that focus on the lives of non-traditional women who live their lives outside of socially prescribed gender roles.” “…Assayas has chosen to focus on a female protagonist who wields her sexuality as a weapon in order to explore the economic, aesthetic, and political issues of his time” (pg 176)
When comparing the roles of women in the other Assayas films we watched this week, Sandra is a very replaceable character as in she is not special or unique. She doesn’t mean anything to anyone, nor does she grow as a character. Her character runs in a pattern of being explicitly sexual and teasing for the male gaze and then pulls away as a “fuck you” and then sticks around people far too long that are most definitely going to get into trouble. We, as the audience, don’t really have anyone in the film to identify with or empathize with. Sandra, as described by Jones on page 172 is just “a fairly average player in the cinematic game of women for sale” and it proved not enough to make Boarding Gate an interesting movie.
Nonetheless, I still find the film interesting because the three main women that was in the movie hold three different rankings in businesses. Kay (blonde woman) holds the highest rank followed by Sue and then Sandra. We can clearly see the amount of control and power each of these characters hold. Although we may not know much about Kay, but we can see that she pulls alot of strings. She practically got Sandra a new identity to flee the country. She doesn't need to use sex or love to gain control. We had another glimpse of Kay's control when one of thugs in Abacus Import tried to fight back with her by saying that he is the one in control but he still lost to her and all she needed to do was say that she was the one in control in a more stern voice.
Then we have Sue. Sue was an interesting character to me because she could still kept her cool when she knows about her husband's affair. She even went on to say that "he needs me". She may not be on top of the "control train" but she was more aware of her surroundings as compared to Sandra. She may also not have much control over everything, but she had control on what matters (contacts). She's also more independent as compared to Sandra.
And finally we have Sandra. Unlike Sue, she needs a man in her life (Miles and Lester). She is very dependent on someone to take care of her and have to use unethical means to gain control. Sue and Kay does not need sex to gain control.
I wouldn’t say that Sandra never grew as a character. In the beginning she discusses her former relationship with Miles quite a bit and it echos back to Emily’s relationship with Lee in the way that it was self-destructive. Sandra apparently has moved past that point in her life, and then as the Jones says, “…Sandra’s masturbation is less relevant than the fact that she does it after her former lover has embarrassed her. She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to.” (175)
For Sandra her power against the male dominance is her sexuality and its not to make others angry. Sandra uses this as a protection from a world that seems to have been cruel to her over the years. It is a different form of power than most people might be used to, but it has been her money source for a while. I do agree with you when you say that it was teasing, but I don’t think that it is because she needs someone to take care of her or as a joke.
The other part where you said “she doesn’t mean anything to anyone” doesn’t add up because Lester does apparently love her. He has left his wife for her and broken all connections he might have had from her. Sue knew he had affairs before, but this one must have been different if it meant that Lester left her.
When we watched the beginning of Boarding Gate when Sandra is in Mile's office and later in his home, I thought this was unusual for Assayas because typically the women roles in the his films were very strong characters and it seemed like Sandra was just a girl who was only willing to sleep her way to the top, which is the exact opposite of DemonLover and Clean. As the film progressed however I began to see how intelligent Sandra really was. The way she is able to manipulate Mile's and Lester clearly shows this. One thing that Assayas has done well with all 3 of the films we have watched so far is showing the struggle of a strong female character. Whether it be a physical or emotional struggle. He has a tendency to cast tough-girl actresses, these girls look invincible to the world, but then Assayas is great at showing their vulnerability. At first I was wondering how Sandra would fit in the strong female character role, but by the end of the film it is clearer. She is able to outsmart others avoid being killed numerous times, while her friend Kay was not so fortunate. By the end of the film, when Sandra is following Lester to his meeting with Andrew and she has the knife in her hand. There is a sense of control. Finally the tables had turned and Sandra is able to gain some ground in her situation. It may have happened late in the film, but I feel like Assayas did a great job of making Sandra a strong female character.
I agree with Andrea that Sandra is a dynamic character indeed. Here I'll argue that Sandra has quite a unique role in Boarding Gate that we have not seen Assayas use before: the role of an antihero.
In the beginning of the film, we start out with two characters, which at that point, we presume to be our leads and protagonists. When Sandra is brought up among these two men (Miles and Andrew), she is cast in a terrible light, and because these two are our main characters at this point, we are inclined to believe them. Andrew says he prefers Miles' ex-wife. We infer that Sandra is Miles' crazy ex-girlfriend. When we meet Sandra for the first time, she does not give off a good impression. She is sexually explicit and her emotions seem to run in circles. In this way, we, as viewers, are inclined to dislike Sandra from the get-go.
As the film goes on, Sandra becomes our main character, but certainly not a protagonist. She steals drugs, participates in S&M (generally an act looked upon in poor taste), murders Miles, has an affair with a married man, and doesn't make any attempt to gain control over her situation until she is in the midst of trouble in Hong Kong. But still, we feel some pity for her. We know that she is a victim; someone unknown's pawn in a large scheme crime.
Jones says, "What Assayas does so brilliantly is take that very real story and build it around the character who is neither the obvious victim nor the heroine" (176), and this is true. Towards the end of the film, Sandra begins to at least try to get out of her bad situation by fighting with Sue, deciding to turn herself in to the police in Paris, and then deciding to lay low in Shanghai. We can't help but hope these things work out for her. At the same time, she goes about it slowly and changes her mind frequently; she nearly kills Lester.
We may not like Sandra at the end of the film, but we do want to see her win. Thus she is an antihero.
I think that this is a really interesting chain of posts, because I think that one of the leading forces in this film is the development of the characters. Or I guess development isn't the exact word, but the more the audience learns about the three main female characters (not including Lisa of course).
I disagree with the statement that Sandra never grows as a character because I think that she does. An example I think displays this is how Sandra is so ambiguous about her true feelings for Miles. In the office with him and also in his house that night, I couldn't shake the feeling that she never really loved him. I think part of me thought that she was only with him for the money, and that is why she did all of those things for him. She goes back and forth about really loving him. I think we see the growth in her character when we see her in the car with Sue and Sue asks her if she ever loved him. Immediately, Sandra says no. However, shortly after that she says yes and her motivations seem to shift. This whole time it seemed like she killed Miles partially for the money to buy the club, but after this she decides that she wants nothing to do with the money for killing Miles, even though she was the one that pulled the trigger.
So even though, she may not be viewed as strong or independent as Sue or Kay for that matter, I think that she does develop a certain power of her own. I don't think that it is a hugely critical part of the film, but I do think it is worth mentioning.
I definitely agree with elements of both Amanda and Nata’s statements. I think that Sandra is by far the least impressive female lead character so far in Assayas’s films. To be frank, I found her mumbling, indecision, and tendency to snap into fits of anger to be annoying. But I feel as though that may have been intentional - we’re usually made to like and sympathize with the main character. I actually kind of enjoy the fact that I don’t like Sandra. I’d like to add one more thing about her character - I found it interesting how her physical appearance and demeanor perfectly mirrored her internal state. She looked like an absolute mess for 90% of the film, with her hair amok and her clothes sometimes literally falling off of her. She also had very loose, limp movements, even when she was panicked and moving quickly. She just seemed malleable and unable to stand on her own, which was true of her emotional wellbeing as well. Overall, while I didn’t like her character, I like the way in which she was presented and developed. I was a tad underwhelmed by this film, but that’s probably because I enjoyed Clean so much and it was still on my mind even as we watched Boarding Gate.
Having read Telaroli's essay on "Boarding Gate," I had a certain set of expectations coming into this film. Specifically, I was expecting the dialogue to be, in a sense, unimportant.
"Nothing they discuss is specific," she said (Jones 171). This was in reference to the opening dialogue between Miles and Andrew. They discussed their business in only the most broad of terms. In many ways, this is characteristic of most of the dialogue in the film. What's important is the fact that the characters are interacting with each other, and how they're doing that. If you only read the script, one's experience would be worse.
Of course, this is a pretty general statement about acting as a profession. What I got to thinking about as a result of this was "what were some of the film's main tropes?" There were a few plot devices, camera techniques, and other things that stood out to me.
Like "Clean," this was a film that followed a generally linear plot progression (although less so than "Clean." As such, it was decently easy to keep up with what was going on in the film, even if we lack much exterior context for it. More so than any other movie that we've watched thus far, no other film captured the importance of travel in the modern world and its neoliberal capitalist conventions.
As mentioned in class today, the difference between Petzold and Assayas' use of transit spaces (airports, planes, cars, trains, etc.) is that Petzold depicts the spaces' effects on the characters, and Assayas does the opposite. I was especially interested in the 20 minute-or-so scene where Sandra goes from killing Miles to being locked in the room in Hong Kong. That entire part was her in transit one way or another.
At the beginning of all of this, she was likely still in shock from having killed Miles. She hadn't had time to really think about what she did. By the time she found herself in that room, she had a much better understanding of the tricky situation she was in. In "Boarding Gate," transit spaces act like the "nowhere places" that we discussed, because there's nothing in "nowhere" except time to think.
I found your comment about the "unimportance" of the dialogue interesting. I suggest that this is due to the fact that, despite its plot complexities, "Boarding Gate," as well as the other Olivier Assayas films we have viewed, is a work of realism. Specifically, they all seek to realistically describe life in the capitalist system. The dialogue is kept to a "bare minimum" (Jones, 171) so that the conversation mimics that of everyday life.
The realism of the film was also apparent in two particular physical movements. These two moments in the film also happened to be humorous, so they could be called "sight gags." The first occurred after Sandra escaped from police custody. As Lester pulls up in his car, she rushes to the car, but trips and falls as soon as she comes close to it, forcing her to get up and try again. The second took place on the streets of Hong Kong when a car nearly collides with the taxi that Sandra has just gotten into. There is a slight pause before either of the vehicles move again, indicating a hesitancy on the part of the drivers to accelerate again. Perhaps this is similar to the hesitancy that occurs at four-way stops in Nebraska (particularly rural Nebraka).
Instances such as these usually occur in film for one of two purposes, depending on the genre. First, in a comedy or melodrama, "sight gags" are included simply because they are funny and will generate more laughs. On the other hand, in a horror, action or drama, moments like these serve the purpose of pushing the narrative forward. For instance, when a woman on the run trips and falls in a non-comedic film, her pursuer is often able to catch up to her in the time it takes her to get up. Also, in a non-comedic film, a near-accident often causes drivers to become distracted from a more serious threat from a different angle.
However, "Boarding Gate" is not a comedy, so it seems unlikely that they were included for mere laughs. In fact, these moments were so brief and unexpected that they took me by surprise, so I did not laugh immediately, likely because I was expecting something more sinister to happen. However, these moments have no effect on the unfolding of the narrative and when the physical movements were not succeeded by some sort of dramatic event, I was perplexed as to their purpose.
However, both of the scenes are scenes of realism. In real life, people trip over nothing when they are in a hurry, near-collisions happen on an almost constant basis and, more often than not, villains are not lurking behind them waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Fortunately, the readings provide some context for understanding these split-second events. Perhaps Kent Jones said it best when he noted that in Assayas' films, "there is a persistent feeling of life as a succession of dislocations and displacing shocks" (Jones, 27).
Although this interpretation is easily applied to international travel, it can also be applied to more limited experiences, such as the "dislocation" of falling to the ground and the "shock" of almost being in an accident. In fact, for Assayas, including these incidents symbolically reinforces his effort to show that the "liquid phase of modernity" (Bauman, 1) is made up of "dislocations and displacing shocks" (Jones, 27).
After watching all these three films by Olivier Assayas, I began to notice a few of his distinct style and signature in his films in terms of the film’s setting, message, and cinematic qualities. I noticed that in all these three films the setting used was somewhat similar but are from different parts of the world. Just like what we discussed today in class about “non places”, most of the scenes were shot there – airport, carparks, office and clubs. There are all constant in all three films. However, what happens in them are different. They all show different emotions and message in all the films but the settings are still the same. All these settings rarely holds meaning for a country in terms of showcasing its culture just like how it is stated in the readings, “…You’ve been there two days and you still never see anything remotely connected to what the country is about, what the country has been about…” (Jones 170). This also explains why we would never have figured out where the characters were going unless it was stated because these non places that Assayas uses are the somewhat similar all around the world.
I presume this was why Assayas concentrates more on the interior setting of a place to give us more depth on that message (stated above). We rarely see the outside of the club or hotels that the characters live in, unlike Petzold. Petzold concentrates more on the surrounding shot of the setting. For example, we can barely see how Thomas’ or Ali’s house looked like in Jerichow but we have clear shots of how their houses looked like on the outside. We not only have clear shots of how the house looked like, but we also have clear shots of the environment surrounding the settings. There were more long shots of the surroundings in Petzold films as compared to Assayas. Also, speaking of the film’s settings, the settings in Petzold’s films were usually empty looking. It is as if the place that the character’s live had no people or were low in population but that was not the case. It was more focus on the character’s individualism. Assayas’ films, on the other hand, had a more realistic approach. There were more citizens in the scenes walking around but the focus was still on the characters. I guess this also gives a slight insight on the culture of the place or country since Assayas’ films are usually taken in multiple places and countries.
Moving on to the message of the films, the power of love and sex was broadly used in all three films. However, they all had different interpretations of it. “Assayas, like Fassbinder, has chosen to focus on female protagonist who wields her sexuality as a weapon in order to explore the economic, aesthetic and political issues of his time” (Jones 172). Sex and love was a form of weapon to get what they wanted. All three films had different wants. For Demonlover, the “want” was control whereas, “Clean” was redemption. However, in Boarding Gate, sex was used to gain power. In the earlier scene of the movie in Miles’ office, Sandra was being demeaned by Miles. Before this Miles was in control and had power by telling her: “You liked it, you liked being mine”. He was telling her how to feel and think, indirectly. She then uses sex to turn the tables and had control over Miles. This was proven when she asked him to repeat the word “slave” to her and he abided. Then during the scene in Miles’ apartment, I noticed a repetition. He told her to repeat the word “yes” to him and she abided. The power and control between them is constantly on a shift and whenever this happens, she uses sex to turn the table. This scenario repeated twice in the move between Sandra and Miles.
When it comes to the films’ cinematic qualities, all three films had shaky camera effects and camera angles that was taken through glass windows and reflections. Among the three movies, Boarding Gate had the most scenes that was shot through a glass window. Just like Kent Jones stated in the book, “Windows are looked out and into – yet another screen” (Jones 170). The glass window not only acts as a barrier but it is also a way to expose something. For example, when Sandra was masturbating on top of Miles’ office desk. She is indirectly letting the world know what was going on. She was letting everyone know about the power she had. At one point of the film, when Sandra was trying to escape from the room in Abacus Import by hitting the chair against the door, I noticed that the newspapers that were pasted on what looks like a glass panel on the door did not crumble from the attacks. Was that done intentionally? Or maybe it was just me.
I'd definitely say that would be intentional, there's a great amount of emphasis on the windows, just like you said. Overall, the use of windows has been in most of the films we've seen so far in class, because windows are just barely barriers, superficially so. This ties into our discussions about globalization, which is particularly relevant to Boarding Gate.
In the beginning of Liquid Times, Bauman mentions Milan Kundera's idea that Globalization leaves us with "nowhere that one can escape to" (Bauman 6). If we think of globalization as a factor changing brick and stone walls of old into sleek, glass walls that bear everything, than it starts to make sense. In that scene, the only thing stopping someone from peering in is just a flimsy piece of newspaper. Not even the goons of Abacus Import can stop the world from intruding in on them.
The window references continue even further, starting with Miles' office and home (which give Sandra and Miles' activities a new context once one realized everything can be seen between them), the windows of the vehicles (airplanes, cars and taxis), the aforementioned Abacus Import windows (which Sandra actually escapes from), Sue's club in Hong Kong, the office where Sue and Lester speak, and finally the woman's home where Sandra wakes up in. Each location has an abundance of windows where the characters and the audience gaze out. Ironically enough, everyone commits their deed in full view of these windows, as if they've never known that the windows were there in the first place, as if globalization has taken place right under their feet, and they didn't even notice it. Sandra, desperate to escape, seems to smash or crawl her way through the windows, dragged along by the plot.
In short, yes, the windows do matter. More than just set dressing, they imbue vulnerability in characters who are unaware that they're vulnerable. Even in the darkest, dankest criminal operation in Hong Kong, there's still a window for others to peer both in and out.
Ironically enough I am having a harder time understanding these films that are predominately in English than the films in German from last week! But I suppose that is Assayas’ style, one of confusion. The film takes place almost midway through the story, which is something his previous films have been notorious for. All of his films lack any sense of exposition and this one in particular. But what I found interesting was the use of sexuality in this film. “…She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to.” (Jones p. 175) Sandra is a woman that allows her self to become fetishized and objective in order to have the upper hand in life, thus taking the power away from the man. And yet through out the whole movie you never get a sense of Sandra being quite successful at anything. At one point while Sandra was in Hong Kong I felt like she was just as confused about this situation as we were watching it. If I had a few more times to watch the movie and digest this for a few days I could perhaps write a better analysis of this but because the plot (this week in particular) have been so confusing to me I can only go off my first assumptions. I don’t understand why Sandra had to kill Miles, and moreover why Lester had anything to do with it. However what I did notice with that action is that Sandra has become a pawn, much like Diane in DemonLover is used as a pawn in a higher scheme of global capitalism. It is interesting how Assayas paints a picture of the global market with the same regard that Francis Ford Coppola painted The Godfather (1972). This world is very mob like, and this mafia is one that is full of confusion. However by this mob like group using these women as pawns (Diane and Sandra) these women, who are shown to be so strong in the beginning to the film end up become these weak victims of betrayal. While my first thought is to label Assayas a misogynist I realize from the films he is creating with amazing female roles that is not the case. I believe that he is creating these stories to show the world how we treat strong women, we attempt to control them and in the end punish them. Sandra was unable to kill Lester a man that has screwed her over the entire movie, and why? Because the movie broke her down. What might help this movie over all is a sense of direction and the great answer of “Why” why is any of this happening. From the three films we have watched this week I feel as though exposition or rather lack thereof is the perpetrator of our utter confusion of these films.
I want to talk about sex and power. I just feel throughout the whole thing Sandra had this overwhelming need to control, everything. She was a boss in the situations where I thought she was going to be totally vulnerable. She controls most sex situations on the basis of what I call womanpower. She keeps this stature throughout the film and leads to outside the bedroom. Her ability to create a situation to her advantage is smart and creative. A scene that pops into my head is in Hong Kong when she switches clothes with Lisa in order to get away.
To be honest the whole characterization that Assysas has left us with is completely different then Petzold films in that it’s solely about the characters and their development. Along with the character arc that she creates, it seems to be a common theme that women have a strong role in the films. Women are the ones who change and conqueror the situations. Although it isn’t a smooth ride to success like a James Bond film it is a success in its own. Sandra didn’t have to stab Lester in order to feel complete and that was a win in itself. I as a female really enjoyed the struggle to success that was portrayed in all of Assysas films. Allowing her to struggle with being drugged and raped are things normal people don’t have to deal with, but in certain cases I feel as though she handled things that happened to her as sort of a back burner to what was happening at the time. To me that showed strength and determination to succeed against all odds is inspiring.
Confusion is a big part of his films as well and I find it somewhat refreshing to see that the film isn’t so clean cut. There are parts where the audience doesn’t understand and that’s okay. Like Assysas a young viewer like this class is able to interpret and roll with what is happening.
The creation Assysas has left us with is something untouched and I enjoy the realness he brings to cinema.
Interesting perspective on Sandra's character. I viewed her character in a completely different light so it is fascinating to read your post about how strong and empowered you viewed her. I felt that she was mostly a pawn to Miles and Lester and eventually used up to the point where she was completely void of feelings and sense of value. I quoted Bauman in my post that focused on 'assets' being 'stripped' in the world of global capitalism and thought that related very much to Sandra's story. However, I think you raise great points on the contrary.
As we discussed in class today, yesterday’s film that we watched, Clean, left us wondering what the future held for Emily, considering the film never had a set or happy ending. The same scenario occurred in today’s film, Boarding Gate. As I thought about the ending of the film, we all of our assumptions and opinions about what was going to happen in the future for Lester and Sandra but we will never know. I liked that Assasyas leaves the ending of his films (the ones that we’ve watched) in a way that the audience has their own image of what could have happened. In my opinion, the ending of the film is the most important part of the movie because it’s what wraps the whole movie together and it is usually what determines if someone likes the film or not. In this case, Assasyas leaves it up to the audience to have their own ending to the films.
After talking about non places in class I started to notice non-places in the film, for example; the club that Sandra and Sue are at, where Sue drugs Sandra. The warehouse that Sandra works at along with Lester and Sue is a busy work enviroment. Also, the busy city life and all of the traffic moving made the film feel like it was a fast paced film, whereas Petzold’s films were sometimes slower. That beings said, both film directors made their films to where they had their audience anticipating what would happen next, regardless of whether or not it was a thriller. The suspense after she finds her friend was killed and the sound effects as the guy is going into the room with the gun is one example of what kept the movie wondering what was going to happen next. At first, I thought they were going to kill Sandra as well, but as I kept watching the film I realized that they just didn’t want her friend to join. Also, the music after Sandra kills miles and is in the car is another example of the suspense in the film.
Once again, Boarding Gate is another film that ventures into more than one country. Also, it seems that there are more people casted in Assasyas’ film and you get a variety of diversity when it comes to race. Compared to Petzold’s films where there wasn’t a lot of people nor was there a lot of diversity in his films. In my opinion, it seems that Assasyas’ films give the audience more of what the real world is like, not arguing that Petzold’s films aren’t real life scenarios but that Assasyas’ shows more of the city life and how it never sleeps.
Finally, what I noticed about Assasyas’ films is how he portrays power and control. Capitalism is all about individualism and in each of Assasyas’s film; his characters show how they are able to control their power. In Clean, Emily couldn’t control herself after the death of her husband, whom she depended on. The loss of control that Diane had in Demonlover shows who had the power in that film in the end. In Boarding Gate, “Sandra is a casualty of a male-dominated world in which men imagine that women want, indeed as, to be sexually assaulted and degraded” (176) Miles degrades Sandra because knew he had the control of Sandra, which is why he said that he didn’t want to give the money to Sandra because he knew that she would never come back. He used his money to control Sandra because it was the money that Sandra wanted to start up her own club. Lester is also another character that is an example of control and power as he convinces Sandra to kill Miles and also cheats on his wife Sue knowing that Sue will stay with him.
Thanks for the insight in your post. That is really interesting to know how Chinese audiences disliked the film because they found it dull. I do agree with you that Assayas uses what you refer to as Eastern Complex. Also, I didn't know Maggie Cheung was ever married to Assayas. Was that before or after Clean?
One part of your comment that I'm just a little confused on was whether or not Hong Kong was the right spot for the setting. You said it was reasonable, but then said, "Hong Kong is not a large place with many ports, western background, black trades, and large populations." In watching the film, I got the feeling that Hong Kong was all of those things.
'Assets' that are 'stripped' are the outcome of other producers' labour - but as those producers are deprived of their assets and so gradually yet relentlessly eliminated, a point is bound to be reached when there are no assets left to be 'stripped' (Bauman 27-28).
I feel this quote best exemplifies Sandra and how she is nothing more than an asset to first Miles and then Lester. Although there may be physical attraction and desire on the surface, once one really dissects the relationships between Sandra and these other 2 characters it becomes clear that without Sandra serving a use for them to advance their businesses she wouldn't be in the picture at all. Miles uses her to gain business insights until he realizes that she isn't providing enough information to make it worth his while and then he cuts her out of the picture and marries. Sandra then moves onto Lester who uses her to kill off Miles so he can collect Miles' shares of his business.
Before Sandra kills Miles she is seen with Lester multiple times and it appears they have a connection and love for each other. This culminates with a sex scene immediately before Sandra is sent to kill Miles. After she accomplishes her task Lester is cold towards her and they are never seen together again after she is shipped to Hong Kong.
I feel the final scene really magnifies Bauman's point that 'assets' are gradually yet relentlessly 'stripped'. We see for over an hour and a half Sandra being used up until she wants nothing more. She doesn't want her share of the money. She doesn't want to stay in Hong Kong. She never wants to see Sue or Lester again. She has been completely used up. And even in the final scene she has a chance to exact revenge on Lester with her switchblade but instead fades into the background which signified to me the exclamation point on her being 'stripped'.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAssayas used confusion throughout the three films we watched. Whether it was because of the plot or another reason, the movie Boarding Gate was intentionally ambiguous. I picked up on this with a filming technique he used in the beginning of the film and the ending.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, Sandra goes to the office to talk with someone she has a history with, which was obvious by the conversation they had. The filming technique Assayas is quite different. He had Sandra in the foreground with the focus on her, but the man was talking in the background and his image was out of focus. This was throughout his entire few lines of dialogue at this part. Most films will put the focus on the person who is doing the talking. At this point in the film, this shows that Sandra’s past is hazy to us. This helps provide the feeling of confusion.
At the end of the movie, the image of Sandra is shifted to out of focus when she decides not to kill Lester. This filming technique helps give off the feeling that Sandra could finally disappear and her future is uncertain. I like how the movie started with this filming technique and then didn’t really use it until the very end. It helps the audience try to piece together what to be confused about.
P.S. Did anyone else get the feeling that this film started a chapter early?
I agree with you on Assayas's use of confusion, I would like to add though other ways he used this technique in Boarding Gate. One of the more obvious ways is the reoccurring drug use. This movie is another classic example just like the other two films we have watched, where the main character drinks or takes something and is drugged up and barely able to stay conscious. I think that Assayas must really enjoy portraying drug culture because it seems some form of drug use/aftermath has appeared in each of his films.
DeleteThe second confusion technique I found interesting is the conversation between Sandra and Sue when they are discussing when Sandra will finally be able to meet up with Lester in Hong Kong. In this scene Sandra is asking many questions to Sue about where she will go, who she will stay with etc. but Sue answers none of these questions and instead just keeps repeating how mistaken Sandra was for getting involved with Lester. I found it bizarre how even though Sandra was speaking to Sue, it was almost like Sue could not hear anything Sandra was saying. I believe this added to the element of confusion. Good post!
I didn't really think of the drug use or of that conversation, but I'm glad you brought them up because I think you're right. Those moments do help add to the confusion in the story.
DeleteDrug use is used throughout Assayas' films probably because it's a more extreme way to show his ideas, which after watching his movies, we know that Assayas really likes to be extreme when conveying his ideas.
With our ongoing theme of love and economy, Boarding Gate (2007) has a scene that is worth examining. Of course, I am referring to the long scene where Sandra and Miles are arguing about their relationship in Miles’ home. What seems like Sandra going in circles with her emotions, “I don’t love you, I desire you” has an important message that Shaviro asserts, “Under such conditions, passion is indistinguishable from economic calculation, and our inner lives are as thoroughly monetized and commodified as our outward possessions” (48-49). The film elaborates on this point by Sandra mocking Miles about his business ventures with the Japanese. Indeed, she attacks the essence of his worth as a man and lover. Sandra draws on his failures indicating repeatedly that she does not love him anymore, yet still has a desire for him. What aspect does she desire? She herself does not know, but we can certainly make a connection that she desires the capital ventures, but it is simply not within Miles any more.
ReplyDeleteThe audience is also presented with love and economy intersecting through the “non-spaces” which we discussed in class. The “economic calculation, and our inner lives” is illustrated, greatly when Sandra is trying to get away from Lester’s men in Hong Kong. Images of the busy city displays the constant mobility of the economy. We receive a sense of how tightly the population operates due to the close spaces. For instance, a very interesting operation with camera movement, as Sandra is trying to escape, we see her running through a warehouse and as she heads through a door, suddenly, she is in a restaurant where people are just having their meals, as if nothing is wrong. All of these different types of events, separated only by walls.
Shaviro touches on this as he expresses, “In this world, everything is interchangeable, or at least exchangeable: sex, money, drugs, business trade secrets, personal identities, and clothing and other consumer goods” (46). The camera pans back and forth between hotels, then clubs, then markets, and then the Hong Kong streets. As such, Sandra never receives a sense of belonging (to anyone or anywhere) because she is constantly moving. Even at the end of the film, I get the sense that she will not root herself in Shanghai, rather, there is an ominous feeling, to me, that she will find another man and continue with her desires and economic flow, as the scene blurs out.
So far, our musing of—can love be possible without money—is complicated within the worlds we have viewed so far. It seems as though within these films, love is possible without money, but it does not last long. We have seen Laura’s story with Thomas, Yella’s mode of capitalism failing in her fantasies, Johannes choosing Sarah over Ana, and now, Sandra’s break up with Miles. To me, she did not kill Miles, but she killed the very notion that love is possible without money.
Khoi, I typed my blog post before reading yours, but I think they relate on two points 1) the role of money in establishing our desires, and 2) the "exchangeability" of personal identities mentioned by Shaviro, and how this affect our relationships:
DeleteSince the beginning, the characters in Boarding Gate (2007) are introduced as questionable and unreliable—creations and illusions. They are non-existent in the non-places they inhabit. The opening close-up shot of a pointed gun at the audience gives the viewing a sense of hesitation and distrust. The web of lies is presented through the order of the narrative structure that is set to disclose events and dismantle the lies only after they have been engaged with. That is to say, we learn they are lies after having believed them. In one example, we are presented with Lester and Sandra in the car. He expresses his love to Sandra, and the next morning when he leaves, a jump cut reintroduces him in a different setting where we discover his relationship with Sue. Consequently, there is no reliability, or sympathy with any character. The relationships are based on lies and deceit. Another example occurs with Sandra and Miles’ sexual relationship, which is one of role playing—a game of lies that carries into the real world.
The paradoxical “transparency” displayed in the business environment represented by windows, clear doors, and glass walls is one that works with the contradictions inherent to a capitalistic system. It displays a welcoming and inviting exterior that only contain lies and deceit—just like the beautiful characters. The passport and money Sandra receives, for example, are hidden in plaid sight from where the businesswoman casually grabs them. The deceit is present in plain view, and it upholds the illusion of “transparency” by holding what it hides in the peripheral vision.
Like in demonlover (2002), the illusion seems to break with the realization that the imaginary when put into action—like shooting someone—is incompatible with “real” life and has “real" consequences—much more at play in this film. In theory, it seems shooting their abusers would eliminate the problem, but in practice Diane and Sandra are both frightened and shaken by their actions. Nevertheless their reactions to these “real” actions are in turn illusions onto themselves. In another narrative reveal, the audience realizes the deceit of Sandra’s reaction since Miles’ murder was premeditated, and therefor there should have been no reaction. With Diane, there is not even the luxury of knowing what happened to Hervé. Increasing deceit seems like a result of capitalism and the power of money to corrupt and distort.
This is further problematized by the fact that it is not only characters’ actions that are lies. Their very selves are an illusion. Individuals only exist as a construction of the capitalistic society of the films, which benefits from self-gain mentality and competition. Like discussed in class, across the board there is no "real" variety—just minor differences that create the appearance of variety, like with the car models. Assayas’ characters are not individuals. They are a mere repetition of another archetype, a pretense, a creation, a construction that puts of the illusion of what it wants to be, but that is something completely different. This is present in Clean (2004) when Emily is told she will have to alter her appearance to sell the product. In Boarding Gate, it is present through Sandra’s escape to Hong Kong and the creation of a new self as part of the illusion. This is thematized in the film by the recurring mention of disappearing and starting over.
DeleteIndividuals are for sale, and individualism has a price, but it is deceitful because the visibility has been taken away from human beings and given to corporations. There is no “us,” just an “I” that prevents the the individual from becoming a threat to capitalism through numbers and unity. Sandra nicely summarizes how ingrained this has become when she observes that “I am not crying for you. I am crying for myself.” The deceit is rooted to the point of self-deceit.
Love’s connotations with time, devotion, connection, and commitment (or investment from a capitalistic approach) is incompatible with the new structure, which can't afford to stop. Love is too much of a risk investment. Desire, however, is an emotion that can thrive in the immediacy of supply and demand. It can be satisfied, purchased, and quickly exchanged in the target desired. It is sellable. It is an emotion more akin to go hand in hand with capitalism. The ending shot of Sandra stepping back into blurriness eliminates her sense of individualism and reduces her to an indistinguishable figure that creates the illusion of Sandra, but seen through a blurred reality.
Really great comments Khoi!
DeleteI'd also like to expand on this idea of exchange becuase Assayas has a dominant presence of sexuality, sex, rape, and prostitution in Demonlover and Boarding Gate. Beyond character building, I questioned this. Boarding Gate opened with dialog involving prostitution, there were intense sex scenes throughout, and later there was more dialog between Miles and Sandra involving a story when she was drugged and raped. There is no love involved with Sandra’s sexuality, no romance, just exchanges. Someone mentioned this absence of love about Demonlover and it holds true with Boarding Gate as well. These realistic, yet disturbing concepts do play a larger role in Assayas’ films.
In the presence of these “non-spaces”— places of transition and transactions as Khoi mentioned—that Assayas creates, everything is exchangeable, including sex. This contributes to his idea that everything is a potential medium for exchange in these spaces and every exchange is always regulated by a contract or person. In Boarding gate, Sandra uses her body for exchange when Miles asks her to, and she then reports back to him with business information. Miles says something to the effect of “and you were compensated quite well if I remember”. Sandra’s character connects quiet well with the concepts that Shaviro mentions on contemporary capitalism. Essentially, Shaviro parallels Sandra’s prostitution, for that matter her sexuality in general, with affective or immaterial labor, meaning labor that produces no material good. Assayas clearly shows us with Sandra’s sexuality in Boarding gate, that in excess, we start to manage our personal lives like businessmen manage the enterprises they control. (Shaviro 47-49)
Jess, I really like your outlining the differences of love and desire. I've never looked at it from such a perspective because I always think the two as synonymous. This illuminates many things for me now with the film!
DeleteJason, approaching the notion of commoditization, this social construction that Assayas presents is certainly transpiring in contemporary society. I think Dr. Abel brought up an interesting point with capitalism that it is arguable the operation is no long an individualistic one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKhoi and Jessica,
DeleteI'd like to add to the last comments you made about capitalism really not allowing much individualism. Jessica, you really nailed this part in your comment. I think it was obvious throughout these three films that none of the characters really had a say in what happened. I just wanted to quickly outline how it played out in each film.
Demonlover: Diane was being pushed around by many different sides to fulfill their ultimate goals. She was always being forced to do something.
Clean: Emily had really no money because the music producer had to work out the deal after Lee's death. If she wanted to see her son, it had to be on the grandfather's terms. That was the only reason she tried to get jobs she didn't enjoy. Really, throughout the film, the grandfather dictated what she did.
Boarding Gate: Sandra always had her boss telling her what to do. Even in the beginning of the film, MIles kept telling her she liked being with him because he told her what to do. Lester dictated how Sandra acted because she thought he was her safe haven after it was all said and done. Even though that wasn't the case.
The bigger picture I could possibly see is, could this idea that the main character never really acts for themselves be Assayas' signature in his movies? I know we would have to watch more of them, but for the three we watched none of the main characters really acted on their own. Someone above them was controlling them like a puppet in a sense. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this could be Assayas' signature in his movies.
The thesis of this class, and also that of Jerichow, was explained on the first day as "One cannot love without money." Although i think that this sentiment is present in Boarding Gate, i do not believe it to be the best thesis possible for this film. Rather than having love be dependent on money, I'd say that in some fundamental ways, love IS money.
ReplyDeleteIn the scene where Sandra and Miles first dialogue in his office, their conversation outlines a brief history of their relationship. Sandra would sleep with other businessmen under the guise that she was doing it to ascertain information. Miles would pay her to do it because it turned him on to pay her to do it. It is revealed that Sandra's financial motives throughout the movie is his goal to finance a club in Beijing. It was implied that Sandra did these sexual things at Miles' bidding because he would eventually give her enough money. I believe that what Assayas is trying to show with this is how erotically charged money has become.There's an Oscar Wilde quote that comes to my mind. "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." Money is able to preform a similar function as sex. Money allows people to dominate others and people will give themselves up and submit to those who have it. I think Assayas thinks of capitalism as one giant, complex S&M club.
I agree and disagree with you on some level about your propositions about the ideas of capitalism and desire in the film. While I agree that the thesis for the film isn’t “one cannot love without money,” I’d disagree that the message is that “love is money.” Rather, I would say that the integration of capitalism, sex, and love results in the impossibility for a solid foundation of love. Gina Telaroli in “Anywhere and Everywhere” in Kent Jones’ book explains, “Sandra does what her partner requires [. . .] while earning the necessary capital to survive” (Jones 174). We can see from this that Sandra’s view of her sexuality is a transaction in itself, which we can, on some level, parallel to the ideas from Demonlover that “alienation from the body is the starting condition for its characters” (Jones 150). However, while Sandra’s sexuality is, to her, an object in a transaction (thus alienating herself from her body), her relations with Miles lead her to fall in love with him (and later she simply desires him). When she falls in love with Miles, she entangles love and capitalism, which ends in disaster. Later, she also falls in love with Lester, but capitalism is so intertwined in their relationship, that “Sandra realizes that her new love isn’t much better than her old” (Jones 178). These are the reasons that I think the thesis of the film should be more along the lines of “love is not possible when capitalism is involved.”
DeleteAssayas uses the "non-spaces" such as in the car to effectively convey the films heavy exposition. The idea of love=money seems to be tied very closely with the heavy male gaze that rests upon this film. Sandra seems to come from the school of romantics, where love stands as a greater force than economics. As she says to Lisa (if i remember correctly) when they are talking about love being equal to money "I don't think that's how it is" or something of that ilk. Every man in the film is consumed with the transactional nature of love. Even when Miles is professing his nostalgia of their tumultuous romantic history he still brings in the idea of ownership. In contrast Sandra (and Emily from Clean) have a strong desire to own their own actions, yet they rely heavily on others for this idea of safety. Yet, as the films show, they must bow to the wishes of others before getting what they want. Even when it seems like Sandra has taken some of the control back when she kills her aggressor its really all a transaction. She is not naieve to the idea that she is seen as a commodity. As Telaroli points out in her essay "She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to" (175). I don't think she is alienated by her actions. I think she uses her sexuality knowing full well the power she wields. I think she uses her power to alienate the male gaze from the male characters minds. Miles is clearly an intelligent individual, in an economic sense, but he clearly has an exploitable weakness in his obsession with Sandra. As he points out, she often knowingly allowed herself to be put in these situations because it got her what she needed to survive. However, she alienates his animalistic desires from his more logical body, creating an opening in his guard that she exploits. To me this movie examines a lot of the frailties of men in regards to sexuality. If sex is transactional and money is truth, then one assumes they will get what they paid for. As I mentioned before, Sandra sees sex on a spectrum from love to money, whereas the men are only concerned with what they can own. This creates a weakness that is all too easily exploited. And yet there is no shining victory for Sandra. She is left confused, torn between the emotions and the economics.
DeleteWhat interested me in this week’s films was how women were portrayed and casted in very unique roles. In Clean, Maggie Cheung won the Best Actress award at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival for her role as Emily Wang. Asian-American women are the most underrepresented actors in the business. I also noted that every punk band that was featured in Clean was headed by a female lead-singer. In demonlover, it was initially hard to understand the feminist agenda of Diane and Elise, whether their sexualities were objectified or glamourized, or if they had their own agency.
ReplyDeleteBoarding Gate was by far my least favourite film that has been screened in this class so in order to properly write about it without making it about my opinion, I’ll examine it in the context that Ken Jones provides "Boarding Gate is the third in an unofficial trilogy of Assayas films, with demonlover and Clean that focus on the lives of non-traditional women who live their lives outside of socially prescribed gender roles.” “…Assayas has chosen to focus on a female protagonist who wields her sexuality as a weapon in order to explore the economic, aesthetic, and political issues of his time” (pg 176)
When comparing the roles of women in the other Assayas films we watched this week, Sandra is a very replaceable character as in she is not special or unique. She doesn’t mean anything to anyone, nor does she grow as a character. Her character runs in a pattern of being explicitly sexual and teasing for the male gaze and then pulls away as a “fuck you” and then sticks around people far too long that are most definitely going to get into trouble. We, as the audience, don’t really have anyone in the film to identify with or empathize with. Sandra, as described by Jones on page 172 is just “a fairly average player in the cinematic game of women for sale” and it proved not enough to make Boarding Gate an interesting movie.
Nonetheless, I still find the film interesting because the three main women that was in the movie hold three different rankings in businesses. Kay (blonde woman) holds the highest rank followed by Sue and then Sandra. We can clearly see the amount of control and power each of these characters hold. Although we may not know much about Kay, but we can see that she pulls alot of strings. She practically got Sandra a new identity to flee the country. She doesn't need to use sex or love to gain control. We had another glimpse of Kay's control when one of thugs in Abacus Import tried to fight back with her by saying that he is the one in control but he still lost to her and all she needed to do was say that she was the one in control in a more stern voice.
DeleteThen we have Sue. Sue was an interesting character to me because she could still kept her cool when she knows about her husband's affair. She even went on to say that "he needs me". She may not be on top of the "control train" but she was more aware of her surroundings as compared to Sandra. She may also not have much control over everything, but she had control on what matters (contacts). She's also more independent as compared to Sandra.
And finally we have Sandra. Unlike Sue, she needs a man in her life (Miles and Lester). She is very dependent on someone to take care of her and have to use unethical means to gain control. Sue and Kay does not need sex to gain control.
I wouldn’t say that Sandra never grew as a character. In the beginning she discusses her former relationship with Miles quite a bit and it echos back to Emily’s relationship with Lee in the way that it was self-destructive. Sandra apparently has moved past that point in her life, and then as the Jones says, “…Sandra’s masturbation is less relevant than the fact that she does it after her former lover has embarrassed her. She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to.” (175)
DeleteFor Sandra her power against the male dominance is her sexuality and its not to make others angry. Sandra uses this as a protection from a world that seems to have been cruel to her over the years. It is a different form of power than most people might be used to, but it has been her money source for a while. I do agree with you when you say that it was teasing, but I don’t think that it is because she needs someone to take care of her or as a joke.
The other part where you said “she doesn’t mean anything to anyone” doesn’t add up because Lester does apparently love her. He has left his wife for her and broken all connections he might have had from her. Sue knew he had affairs before, but this one must have been different if it meant that Lester left her.
When we watched the beginning of Boarding Gate when Sandra is in Mile's office and later in his home, I thought this was unusual for Assayas because typically the women roles in the his films were very strong characters and it seemed like Sandra was just a girl who was only willing to sleep her way to the top, which is the exact opposite of DemonLover and Clean. As the film progressed however I began to see how intelligent Sandra really was. The way she is able to manipulate Mile's and Lester clearly shows this.
DeleteOne thing that Assayas has done well with all 3 of the films we have watched so far is showing the struggle of a strong female character. Whether it be a physical or emotional struggle. He has a tendency to cast tough-girl actresses, these girls look invincible to the world, but then Assayas is great at showing their vulnerability.
At first I was wondering how Sandra would fit in the strong female character role, but by the end of the film it is clearer. She is able to outsmart others avoid being killed numerous times, while her friend Kay was not so fortunate. By the end of the film, when Sandra is following Lester to his meeting with Andrew and she has the knife in her hand. There is a sense of control. Finally the tables had turned and Sandra is able to gain some ground in her situation. It may have happened late in the film, but I feel like Assayas did a great job of making Sandra a strong female character.
I agree with Andrea that Sandra is a dynamic character indeed. Here I'll argue that Sandra has quite a unique role in Boarding Gate that we have not seen Assayas use before: the role of an antihero.
DeleteIn the beginning of the film, we start out with two characters, which at that point, we presume to be our leads and protagonists. When Sandra is brought up among these two men (Miles and Andrew), she is cast in a terrible light, and because these two are our main characters at this point, we are inclined to believe them. Andrew says he prefers Miles' ex-wife. We infer that Sandra is Miles' crazy ex-girlfriend. When we meet Sandra for the first time, she does not give off a good impression. She is sexually explicit and her emotions seem to run in circles. In this way, we, as viewers, are inclined to dislike Sandra from the get-go.
As the film goes on, Sandra becomes our main character, but certainly not a protagonist. She steals drugs, participates in S&M (generally an act looked upon in poor taste), murders Miles, has an affair with a married man, and doesn't make any attempt to gain control over her situation until she is in the midst of trouble in Hong Kong. But still, we feel some pity for her. We know that she is a victim; someone unknown's pawn in a large scheme crime.
Jones says, "What Assayas does so brilliantly is take that very real story and build it around the character who is neither the obvious victim nor the heroine" (176), and this is true. Towards the end of the film, Sandra begins to at least try to get out of her bad situation by fighting with Sue, deciding to turn herself in to the police in Paris, and then deciding to lay low in Shanghai. We can't help but hope these things work out for her. At the same time, she goes about it slowly and changes her mind frequently; she nearly kills Lester.
We may not like Sandra at the end of the film, but we do want to see her win. Thus she is an antihero.
I think that this is a really interesting chain of posts, because I think that one of the leading forces in this film is the development of the characters. Or I guess development isn't the exact word, but the more the audience learns about the three main female characters (not including Lisa of course).
DeleteI disagree with the statement that Sandra never grows as a character because I think that she does. An example I think displays this is how Sandra is so ambiguous about her true feelings for Miles. In the office with him and also in his house that night, I couldn't shake the feeling that she never really loved him. I think part of me thought that she was only with him for the money, and that is why she did all of those things for him. She goes back and forth about really loving him. I think we see the growth in her character when we see her in the car with Sue and Sue asks her if she ever loved him. Immediately, Sandra says no. However, shortly after that she says yes and her motivations seem to shift. This whole time it seemed like she killed Miles partially for the money to buy the club, but after this she decides that she wants nothing to do with the money for killing Miles, even though she was the one that pulled the trigger.
So even though, she may not be viewed as strong or independent as Sue or Kay for that matter, I think that she does develop a certain power of her own. I don't think that it is a hugely critical part of the film, but I do think it is worth mentioning.
I definitely agree with elements of both Amanda and Nata’s statements. I think that Sandra is by far the least impressive female lead character so far in Assayas’s films. To be frank, I found her mumbling, indecision, and tendency to snap into fits of anger to be annoying. But I feel as though that may have been intentional - we’re usually made to like and sympathize with the main character. I actually kind of enjoy the fact that I don’t like Sandra. I’d like to add one more thing about her character - I found it interesting how her physical appearance and demeanor perfectly mirrored her internal state. She looked like an absolute mess for 90% of the film, with her hair amok and her clothes sometimes literally falling off of her. She also had very loose, limp movements, even when she was panicked and moving quickly. She just seemed malleable and unable to stand on her own, which was true of her emotional wellbeing as well. Overall, while I didn’t like her character, I like the way in which she was presented and developed. I was a tad underwhelmed by this film, but that’s probably because I enjoyed Clean so much and it was still on my mind even as we watched Boarding Gate.
DeleteHaving read Telaroli's essay on "Boarding Gate," I had a certain set of expectations coming into this film. Specifically, I was expecting the dialogue to be, in a sense, unimportant.
ReplyDelete"Nothing they discuss is specific," she said (Jones 171). This was in reference to the opening dialogue between Miles and Andrew. They discussed their business in only the most broad of terms. In many ways, this is characteristic of most of the dialogue in the film. What's important is the fact that the characters are interacting with each other, and how they're doing that. If you only read the script, one's experience would be worse.
Of course, this is a pretty general statement about acting as a profession. What I got to thinking about as a result of this was "what were some of the film's main tropes?" There were a few plot devices, camera techniques, and other things that stood out to me.
Like "Clean," this was a film that followed a generally linear plot progression (although less so than "Clean." As such, it was decently easy to keep up with what was going on in the film, even if we lack much exterior context for it. More so than any other movie that we've watched thus far, no other film captured the importance of travel in the modern world and its neoliberal capitalist conventions.
As mentioned in class today, the difference between Petzold and Assayas' use of transit spaces (airports, planes, cars, trains, etc.) is that Petzold depicts the spaces' effects on the characters, and Assayas does the opposite. I was especially interested in the 20 minute-or-so scene where Sandra goes from killing Miles to being locked in the room in Hong Kong. That entire part was her in transit one way or another.
At the beginning of all of this, she was likely still in shock from having killed Miles. She hadn't had time to really think about what she did. By the time she found herself in that room, she had a much better understanding of the tricky situation she was in. In "Boarding Gate," transit spaces act like the "nowhere places" that we discussed, because there's nothing in "nowhere" except time to think.
I found your comment about the "unimportance" of the dialogue interesting. I suggest that this is due to the fact that, despite its plot complexities, "Boarding Gate," as well as the other Olivier Assayas films we have viewed, is a work of realism. Specifically, they all seek to realistically describe life in the capitalist system. The dialogue is kept to a "bare minimum" (Jones, 171) so that the conversation mimics that of everyday life.
DeleteThe realism of the film was also apparent in two particular physical movements. These two moments in the film also happened to be humorous, so they could be called "sight gags." The first occurred after Sandra escaped from police custody. As Lester pulls up in his car, she rushes to the car, but trips and falls as soon as she comes close to it, forcing her to get up and try again. The second took place on the streets of Hong Kong when a car nearly collides with the taxi that Sandra has just gotten into. There is a slight pause before either of the vehicles move again, indicating a hesitancy on the part of the drivers to accelerate again. Perhaps this is similar to the hesitancy that occurs at four-way stops in Nebraska (particularly rural Nebraka).
Instances such as these usually occur in film for one of two purposes, depending on the genre. First, in a comedy or melodrama, "sight gags" are included simply because they are funny and will generate more laughs. On the other hand, in a horror, action or drama, moments like these serve the purpose of pushing the narrative forward. For instance, when a woman on the run trips and falls in a non-comedic film, her pursuer is often able to catch up to her in the time it takes her to get up. Also, in a non-comedic film, a near-accident often causes drivers to become distracted from a more serious threat from a different angle.
However, "Boarding Gate" is not a comedy, so it seems unlikely that they were included for mere laughs. In fact, these moments were so brief and unexpected that they took me by surprise, so I did not laugh immediately, likely because I was expecting something more sinister to happen. However, these moments have no effect on the unfolding of the narrative and when the physical movements were not succeeded by some sort of dramatic event, I was perplexed as to their purpose.
However, both of the scenes are scenes of realism. In real life, people trip over nothing when they are in a hurry, near-collisions happen on an almost constant basis and, more often than not, villains are not lurking behind them waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Fortunately, the readings provide some context for understanding these split-second events. Perhaps Kent Jones said it best when he noted that in Assayas' films, "there is a persistent feeling of life as a succession of dislocations and displacing shocks" (Jones, 27).
Although this interpretation is easily applied to international travel, it can also be applied to more limited experiences, such as the "dislocation" of falling to the ground and the "shock" of almost being in an accident. In fact, for Assayas, including these incidents symbolically reinforces his effort to show that the "liquid phase of modernity" (Bauman, 1) is made up of "dislocations and displacing shocks" (Jones, 27).
After watching all these three films by Olivier Assayas, I began to notice a few of his distinct style and signature in his films in terms of the film’s setting, message, and cinematic qualities. I noticed that in all these three films the setting used was somewhat similar but are from different parts of the world. Just like what we discussed today in class about “non places”, most of the scenes were shot there – airport, carparks, office and clubs. There are all constant in all three films. However, what happens in them are different. They all show different emotions and message in all the films but the settings are still the same. All these settings rarely holds meaning for a country in terms of showcasing its culture just like how it is stated in the readings, “…You’ve been there two days and you still never see anything remotely connected to what the country is about, what the country has been about…” (Jones 170). This also explains why we would never have figured out where the characters were going unless it was stated because these non places that Assayas uses are the somewhat similar all around the world.
ReplyDeleteI presume this was why Assayas concentrates more on the interior setting of a place to give us more depth on that message (stated above). We rarely see the outside of the club or hotels that the characters live in, unlike Petzold. Petzold concentrates more on the surrounding shot of the setting. For example, we can barely see how Thomas’ or Ali’s house looked like in Jerichow but we have clear shots of how their houses looked like on the outside. We not only have clear shots of how the house looked like, but we also have clear shots of the environment surrounding the settings. There were more long shots of the surroundings in Petzold films as compared to Assayas. Also, speaking of the film’s settings, the settings in Petzold’s films were usually empty looking. It is as if the place that the character’s live had no people or were low in population but that was not the case. It was more focus on the character’s individualism. Assayas’ films, on the other hand, had a more realistic approach. There were more citizens in the scenes walking around but the focus was still on the characters. I guess this also gives a slight insight on the culture of the place or country since Assayas’ films are usually taken in multiple places and countries.
Moving on to the message of the films, the power of love and sex was broadly used in all three films. However, they all had different interpretations of it. “Assayas, like Fassbinder, has chosen to focus on female protagonist who wields her sexuality as a weapon in order to explore the economic, aesthetic and political issues of his time” (Jones 172). Sex and love was a form of weapon to get what they wanted. All three films had different wants. For Demonlover, the “want” was control whereas, “Clean” was redemption. However, in Boarding Gate, sex was used to gain power. In the earlier scene of the movie in Miles’ office, Sandra was being demeaned by Miles. Before this Miles was in control and had power by telling her: “You liked it, you liked being mine”. He was telling her how to feel and think, indirectly. She then uses sex to turn the tables and had control over Miles. This was proven when she asked him to repeat the word “slave” to her and he abided. Then during the scene in Miles’ apartment, I noticed a repetition. He told her to repeat the word “yes” to him and she abided. The power and control between them is constantly on a shift and whenever this happens, she uses sex to turn the table. This scenario repeated twice in the move between Sandra and Miles.
(continuing on..)
DeleteWhen it comes to the films’ cinematic qualities, all three films had shaky camera effects and camera angles that was taken through glass windows and reflections. Among the three movies, Boarding Gate had the most scenes that was shot through a glass window. Just like Kent Jones stated in the book, “Windows are looked out and into – yet another screen” (Jones 170). The glass window not only acts as a barrier but it is also a way to expose something. For example, when Sandra was masturbating on top of Miles’ office desk. She is indirectly letting the world know what was going on. She was letting everyone know about the power she had. At one point of the film, when Sandra was trying to escape from the room in Abacus Import by hitting the chair against the door, I noticed that the newspapers that were pasted on what looks like a glass panel on the door did not crumble from the attacks. Was that done intentionally? Or maybe it was just me.
I'd definitely say that would be intentional, there's a great amount of emphasis on the windows, just like you said. Overall, the use of windows has been in most of the films we've seen so far in class, because windows are just barely barriers, superficially so. This ties into our discussions about globalization, which is particularly relevant to Boarding Gate.
DeleteIn the beginning of Liquid Times, Bauman mentions Milan Kundera's idea that Globalization leaves us with "nowhere that one can escape to" (Bauman 6). If we think of globalization as a factor changing brick and stone walls of old into sleek, glass walls that bear everything, than it starts to make sense. In that scene, the only thing stopping someone from peering in is just a flimsy piece of newspaper. Not even the goons of Abacus Import can stop the world from intruding in on them.
The window references continue even further, starting with Miles' office and home (which give Sandra and Miles' activities a new context once one realized everything can be seen between them), the windows of the vehicles (airplanes, cars and taxis), the aforementioned Abacus Import windows (which Sandra actually escapes from), Sue's club in Hong Kong, the office where Sue and Lester speak, and finally the woman's home where Sandra wakes up in. Each location has an abundance of windows where the characters and the audience gaze out. Ironically enough, everyone commits their deed in full view of these windows, as if they've never known that the windows were there in the first place, as if globalization has taken place right under their feet, and they didn't even notice it. Sandra, desperate to escape, seems to smash or crawl her way through the windows, dragged along by the plot.
In short, yes, the windows do matter. More than just set dressing, they imbue vulnerability in characters who are unaware that they're vulnerable. Even in the darkest, dankest criminal operation in Hong Kong, there's still a window for others to peer both in and out.
Ironically enough I am having a harder time understanding these films that are predominately in English than the films in German from last week! But I suppose that is Assayas’ style, one of confusion. The film takes place almost midway through the story, which is something his previous films have been notorious for. All of his films lack any sense of exposition and this one in particular. But what I found interesting was the use of sexuality in this film. “…She knows that in this situation her power is in her body and she wields that power when she has to.” (Jones p. 175) Sandra is a woman that allows her self to become fetishized and objective in order to have the upper hand in life, thus taking the power away from the man. And yet through out the whole movie you never get a sense of Sandra being quite successful at anything. At one point while Sandra was in Hong Kong I felt like she was just as confused about this situation as we were watching it. If I had a few more times to watch the movie and digest this for a few days I could perhaps write a better analysis of this but because the plot (this week in particular) have been so confusing to me I can only go off my first assumptions. I don’t understand why Sandra had to kill Miles, and moreover why Lester had anything to do with it. However what I did notice with that action is that Sandra has become a pawn, much like Diane in DemonLover is used as a pawn in a higher scheme of global capitalism. It is interesting how Assayas paints a picture of the global market with the same regard that Francis Ford Coppola painted The Godfather (1972). This world is very mob like, and this mafia is one that is full of confusion. However by this mob like group using these women as pawns (Diane and Sandra) these women, who are shown to be so strong in the beginning to the film end up become these weak victims of betrayal. While my first thought is to label Assayas a misogynist I realize from the films he is creating with amazing female roles that is not the case. I believe that he is creating these stories to show the world how we treat strong women, we attempt to control them and in the end punish them. Sandra was unable to kill Lester a man that has screwed her over the entire movie, and why? Because the movie broke her down. What might help this movie over all is a sense of direction and the great answer of “Why” why is any of this happening. From the three films we have watched this week I feel as though exposition or rather lack thereof is the perpetrator of our utter confusion of these films.
ReplyDeleteI want to talk about sex and power. I just feel throughout the whole thing Sandra had this overwhelming need to control, everything. She was a boss in the situations where I thought she was going to be totally vulnerable. She controls most sex situations on the basis of what I call womanpower. She keeps this stature throughout the film and leads to outside the bedroom. Her ability to create a situation to her advantage is smart and creative. A scene that pops into my head is in Hong Kong when she switches clothes with Lisa in order to get away.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest the whole characterization that Assysas has left us with is completely different then Petzold films in that it’s solely about the characters and their development. Along with the character arc that she creates, it seems to be a common theme that women have a strong role in the films. Women are the ones who change and conqueror the situations. Although it isn’t a smooth ride to success like a James Bond film it is a success in its own. Sandra didn’t have to stab Lester in order to feel complete and that was a win in itself. I as a female really enjoyed the struggle to success that was portrayed in all of Assysas films. Allowing her to struggle with being drugged and raped are things normal people don’t have to deal with, but in certain cases I feel as though she handled things that happened to her as sort of a back burner to what was happening at the time. To me that showed strength and determination to succeed against all odds is inspiring.
Confusion is a big part of his films as well and I find it somewhat refreshing to see that the film isn’t so clean cut. There are parts where the audience doesn’t understand and that’s okay. Like Assysas a young viewer like this class is able to interpret and roll with what is happening.
The creation Assysas has left us with is something untouched and I enjoy the realness he brings to cinema.
Interesting perspective on Sandra's character. I viewed her character in a completely different light so it is fascinating to read your post about how strong and empowered you viewed her. I felt that she was mostly a pawn to Miles and Lester and eventually used up to the point where she was completely void of feelings and sense of value. I quoted Bauman in my post that focused on 'assets' being 'stripped' in the world of global capitalism and thought that related very much to Sandra's story. However, I think you raise great points on the contrary.
DeleteAs we discussed in class today, yesterday’s film that we watched, Clean, left us wondering what the future held for Emily, considering the film never had a set or happy ending. The same scenario occurred in today’s film, Boarding Gate. As I thought about the ending of the film, we all of our assumptions and opinions about what was going to happen in the future for Lester and Sandra but we will never know. I liked that Assasyas leaves the ending of his films (the ones that we’ve watched) in a way that the audience has their own image of what could have happened. In my opinion, the ending of the film is the most important part of the movie because it’s what wraps the whole movie together and it is usually what determines if someone likes the film or not. In this case, Assasyas leaves it up to the audience to have their own ending to the films.
ReplyDeleteAfter talking about non places in class I started to notice non-places in the film, for example; the club that Sandra and Sue are at, where Sue drugs Sandra. The warehouse that Sandra works at along with Lester and Sue is a busy work enviroment. Also, the busy city life and all of the traffic moving made the film feel like it was a fast paced film, whereas Petzold’s films were sometimes slower. That beings said, both film directors made their films to where they had their audience anticipating what would happen next, regardless of whether or not it was a thriller. The suspense after she finds her friend was killed and the sound effects as the guy is going into the room with the gun is one example of what kept the movie wondering what was going to happen next. At first, I thought they were going to kill Sandra as well, but as I kept watching the film I realized that they just didn’t want her friend to join. Also, the music after Sandra kills miles and is in the car is another example of the suspense in the film.
Once again, Boarding Gate is another film that ventures into more than one country. Also, it seems that there are more people casted in Assasyas’ film and you get a variety of diversity when it comes to race. Compared to Petzold’s films where there wasn’t a lot of people nor was there a lot of diversity in his films. In my opinion, it seems that Assasyas’ films give the audience more of what the real world is like, not arguing that Petzold’s films aren’t real life scenarios but that Assasyas’ shows more of the city life and how it never sleeps.
Finally, what I noticed about Assasyas’ films is how he portrays power and control. Capitalism is all about individualism and in each of Assasyas’s film; his characters show how they are able to control their power. In Clean, Emily couldn’t control herself after the death of her husband, whom she depended on. The loss of control that Diane had in Demonlover shows who had the power in that film in the end. In Boarding Gate, “Sandra is a casualty of a male-dominated world in which men imagine that women want, indeed as, to be sexually assaulted and degraded” (176) Miles degrades Sandra because knew he had the control of Sandra, which is why he said that he didn’t want to give the money to Sandra because he knew that she would never come back. He used his money to control Sandra because it was the money that Sandra wanted to start up her own club. Lester is also another character that is an example of control and power as he convinces Sandra to kill Miles and also cheats on his wife Sue knowing that Sue will stay with him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuobing,
DeleteThanks for the insight in your post. That is really interesting to know how Chinese audiences disliked the film because they found it dull. I do agree with you that Assayas uses what you refer to as Eastern Complex. Also, I didn't know Maggie Cheung was ever married to Assayas. Was that before or after Clean?
One part of your comment that I'm just a little confused on was whether or not Hong Kong was the right spot for the setting. You said it was reasonable, but then said, "Hong Kong is not a large place with many ports, western background, black trades, and large populations." In watching the film, I got the feeling that Hong Kong was all of those things.
Good Post!
'Assets' that are 'stripped' are the outcome of other producers' labour - but as those producers are deprived of their assets and so gradually yet relentlessly eliminated, a point is bound to be reached when there are no assets left to be 'stripped' (Bauman 27-28).
ReplyDeleteI feel this quote best exemplifies Sandra and how she is nothing more than an asset to first Miles and then Lester. Although there may be physical attraction and desire on the surface, once one really dissects the relationships between Sandra and these other 2 characters it becomes clear that without Sandra serving a use for them to advance their businesses she wouldn't be in the picture at all. Miles uses her to gain business insights until he realizes that she isn't providing enough information to make it worth his while and then he cuts her out of the picture and marries. Sandra then moves onto Lester who uses her to kill off Miles so he can collect Miles' shares of his business.
Before Sandra kills Miles she is seen with Lester multiple times and it appears they have a connection and love for each other. This culminates with a sex scene immediately before Sandra is sent to kill Miles. After she accomplishes her task Lester is cold towards her and they are never seen together again after she is shipped to Hong Kong.
I feel the final scene really magnifies Bauman's point that 'assets' are gradually yet relentlessly 'stripped'. We see for over an hour and a half Sandra being used up until she wants nothing more. She doesn't want her share of the money. She doesn't want to stay in Hong Kong. She never wants to see Sue or Lester again. She has been completely used up. And even in the final scene she has a chance to exact revenge on Lester with her switchblade but instead fades into the background which signified to me the exclamation point on her being 'stripped'.