In the Realm of the Senses: Brazen Eros and Thanatos
Abe and Kinchizo
If one could pluck erotic tragedy from the vine, my guess is they would have a copy of In The Realm of the Senses (1976) in their fingers. What an audacious feast of carnal desires and social taboos. I dare say this film is meta: Not only do we see the actions within the film as taboo, we ourselves engage in societal taboos as we view a film. It still hasn’t been seen in its entirety in Japan, where it was made. In the Realm of the Senses was directed by Nagisa Oshima, who’s know for films that challenge society’s rules and standards.
In the Realm of the Senses is based on a true story in Japan of folk hero Sada Abe, who, after accidentally killing her lover, Kichizo Ishida, cut off his genitals and carried them around in her purse. Several films have been made about Sada Abe. In the Realm of the Senses is not a biography, nor does it explore Abe’s motivations for the death of her lover. What we have is a film that depicts themes of raw sexuality and tragedy.
Visually we’re witnesses to a tragic, yet erotic love affair that crosses social taboos not only of the time in the film, but to the real word’s censors. Make no mistake. This is a very explicit film, and the sex is real. It has a sublime effect as I went from spectator to voyeur multiple times. Often I felt as an intruder, watching people release their inhibitions.
Part of looking back at In the Realm of the Senses allows us to see where and how far censorship and depicting sex and sexuality in films progressed. This film definitely blurs the line between narrative and titillation with real sex scenes. Director Oshima makes it clear by the content this film, that there would be confrontations and daring even by today’s standard. In many films where the sex is faked and depicted as real, as much as the same manner as violence in film is depicted. In the Real of the Senses dares to break one taboo after another. The film has pornographic aspects, but it’s taken seriously with a strong narrative and tells a story, which doesn’t really happen in typical porn. We also have a tragic ending which is a far cry from XXX features. Even at the end of this film with tragedey and lose, Abe manages to cement her commitment to her lover for Kenchizo. With In the Realm of the Senses we, the viewers face the question of what it means to be sexual beings in a world set with limits and taboos.
Abe and Kinchizo have a lot of conversations during lovemaking that's a bit more than the typical pornspeak.
With In the Realm of the Senses we have an unflinching portrait and cautionary tale when Kichizo and Abe indulge in and are lead by their ID and libido. In fact I dare say the film functions as our ID, allowing us to see a world with explicit details. I applaud the frankness laid out before the viewer. The tragedy and havoc wrecked by this couple is not without consequence, neither is this film. If this is eroticism explored to dark and unsavory levels, I am curious about a film that could express a brighter theme with the use of unsimulated sex.
I admire the unflinching desire to capture graphic sex and sexuality on film while maintaining a narrative. I cringe where the passions of the couple lead the viewer to see how unrestrained a level sex brings to the fold. This is a film that is much more than what is seen on the surface. It’s not a film for everyone. It pushes the limits of what censorship, and the dangers of unleashing the ID, and reflecting actions that do happen in multiple societies. With this film, sex becomes the ultimate expression of love, as does death.
Sex works like an addiction for these two.
There is a willingness to explore penetration, the act of penetration as a skill and as a function of biology/sexuality. There’s also a willingness to be penetrated and explored sexually. Women brandish phallic objects as well. Abe threatens with a knife as wel as fantasizes about murdering Kichizo’s wife. Not all phallic tools are for killing. A group of women explore their own pleasures with a phallic shaped object. Ultimately Abe takes the source of pleasure from her dead lover. This tragic mix of mutilation and sexuality leaves a disturbing resonance of a destructive love.
One of the cooler aspects of seeing this film via the Criterion Collection are the essays in the film booklet. The cinema studies student that I am can’t resist reading them and exploring the discussion of said film. If you get a chance give them a peep. I also suggest Criterion’s website where you can see several of the essays. Oshima’s thoughts are printed in the booklet as well. In one section he speaks the insecurities of many of the actors looked at for the role of Kichizo.
There is a poetic elegance tied to the film, as sexuality is the main theme, but not the only aspect of the film. To label it as simply “pornographic” is a disservice to the material and offers only a limited understanding of the film. Yes it does push boundaries and yes if watching graphic sex is not your cup of tea in a film, I’d sincerely advise against seeing it. Likewise if you’re looking for a straightforward porn film, you may be dissatisfied.
There is a dark side to passion that’s explored here as well. As liberated as the characters, they are also in a toxic love affair. Our hero is married to another women and she; our heroine is a servant of lower standing. Still the fires ignite, that the sexual dependency and liberation clashes against the culture and possibly all the viewers’ sensibilities.
The desire to explore sex and attraction only intensifies from here.
The film’s tragic elements appear when the couple neglect to use restraint and set boundaries for their sexual passions. Had such limitations been part of their regiment, perhaps the tragedy could have been avoided in the first place. As I stated earlier, the ID is unleashed with no checks and balances. Passion became too much of a good thing. Sex does have thrills and exploring can be a healthy between two consenting adults, however there is a limit to surrendering to one’s passions. This is a cautionary tale as relevant as when the film was made in 1976.
The bodies encompass more than sexual desire. They are part of process of identification, and loss. There is vulnerability, aesthetic qualities, and frankness to the body. Sexual roles and identification cannot be hidden or restrained by society’s norms or our own inhibitions about viewing the nude and/or sexualized human body. Still, we live in worlds where there are norms and rules. We have a film where taboos broke down for our entertainment.
As tragic and explicit as this film is, I think it’s an amazing story that doesn’t sacrifice the narrative for the sake of depicting sex. Again, if this is not your kind of movie, I won’t recommend it. If you think the explicit scenes won’t bother you, give it a try.
What’s My CINEs, or I Have CINEd Against You
Many people ask me all the time “what is Cinema Studies?” My response is as simple as the name says, the study of cinema (or “film” as most people like to refer to). Some people still remain skeptic. I tell them then, “think of it as an English degree, but the emphasis is on films as opposed to works of literature.” This is when their eyes light up, and it makes sense. I write about films. It’s more than that. Studying film history is also a study of culture. Also learning terminology, theories, and watching periods of films while contextualizing the text with said theories. It’s been quite the learning experience. I’ve never thought of or viewed films in the way I do now.
When I write papers on films I’m making arguments based on theory(ies) and what’s in the film. For example I once argued that a couple films addressed what it means to be human. This is a topic that has come up in several times within my papers. On my blog the doppelganger has appeared as one of my main interests. I note these because when writing out favorite topics and themes emerge. This really helps me too understand who I am as a writer. Its certainly worth the effort of discovery. Sometimes we have to listen to ourselves and actively access our skills.
Another familiar topic of mine is the theory of psychoanalysis. I’ve read information based on Freud, Lacan, and Jung. All three are great, and can be taken separately. Psychoanalysis theory also informs feminist film theory, gender studies, and queer theory. I’m learning more and more to appreciate the narrative, and the narrative structure, which is also part of film form. Film form is how we address the films we watch and discuss. I hope to look at other theories more and more to used them better. For example, I like elements of Structuralism, post-modernism, should read more on deconstructionism, and reception theory. I need to know more on multiculturalism as well.
Contributing Rocks!
I wrote this post about Pan’s Labyrinth for Tastes Like Comics, and I’m very proud of it. I want to share it here, but feel a repost would be a little too much. Visit TLC. While the theme of our get together is comics, its so much more. I love the articles my friends wrote. We in turn love the work we do. Labors of love can be a worthwhile treasure.
Melodramatic Vampire Adventures
Louis wants his story told.
In 1994, there was this darling of a film called Interview With a Vampire directed by Neil Jordan and based on a novel by Anne Rice of the same name. Interview starred, Tom Cruise as the Vampire Lestat, Brad Pitt as Louis emo vampire extraordinaire, and Kirsten Dunst as Claudia, the child vampire. Damn if vampires don’t look decadent, somewhat mysterious (alluring), and downright lethal killers. This film masks a potent vision that immortality is not without a high amount of tragedy.
“Decadent” is a key word here, as vampires in this world are very indulgent, and embody the dark fantasy powers that make immortality both exciting and disgusting. To live forever one must kill living beings. It’s pretty nasty. The allure fades quickly. These creatures don’t seem sensual or magnificent, but dark twisted beings. In this respect they are shadows of the human psyche.
The framing narrative is interesting. Louis is so calm and sedate as the world passes him by. Telling his tale to a stranger appeared to bring him some peace. He was resigned to his fate as an immortal to an extent. Let’s talk about the biting for a moment. This seriously has a sexual aspects going here as fangs penetrate skin with a mix of pain and pleasure. There’s a plenty of biting going on for victims and converts .
Lestat fails to understand what Louis meant by "personal space."
This is a world filled with a bit of melodrama, and about the pain of losing a child, which is not fully thought or acted upon until the child is gone. Rejection seems to be a silent theme here as well. Lestat is rejected, as is Claudia, and Armand at different points in the film.
Like many people back in the day I scoffed at Cruise playing Lestat, a true bastard of a vampire. Well he did a good performance. I’m not here to knock it. Granted this film isn’t for everyone. If you like Anne Rice novels, you may or may not even cared to see it adapted to the big screen. I’ll say Cruise does put some energy and charm behind Lestat. Clearly the character is meant to enjoy his actions and that comes through here. Every act is meant to tease and amuse Lestat in some cruel, inhuman way. He’s elitist, arrogant, and evil. He delights in killing and teaching Louis the ways of vampirism.
Claudia's hunger is only beginning.
While Cruise impressed as Lestat, I think Pitt and Dunst stole the show here. As Louis, Pitt is melancholy, super emo, and somewhat annoying. He cannot enjoy being a vampire because he is still too much like his former human self. While Lestat promised Louis that his transformation to a vampire would “pluck out the pain,” it only seems to intensify his misery. Louis remains at odds with the world around him. He takes little or no pleasure from anything around him. Where vampire films may bring about a doppelganger effect to the character’s persona, it does nothing for Louis. He’s still brooding. He resists the urge to give into his need to kill humans for blood/food.
Dunst’s performance is interesting as Claudia. She’s an efficient killer and her wrath is immense as she feels the pain of not being able to grow past a child’s age into a woman (even though she is thirty). Her anger and revenge is swift and cruel, and only highlights the tragedy that will befall her.
The Electra/Oedipus Complex comes to mind when one thinks of Claudia. It is her separation from her two fathers that sends her down the tragic road she leads. Lestat can be seen as her father as he did turn her. Louis is the mother figure since he does nurture and care for Claudia. To Lestat she is a means to control Louis. Claudia in effect kills her dark father, and knows her mother will abandon her soon. Louis is so wishy washy that Claudia has to die before any emotion can be pulled from him. His revenge on the theater of vampires is without pity. For Armand’s (Antonio Banderas) part in Claudia’s demise, Louis rejects him.
Washing that hair must be a bitch, Armand.
The makeup and effects by Stan Winston are wonderful. Lestat’s death at the hands of Claudia, and back from the swamp after Claudia’s failed assassination attempt was creepy as hell. Claudia’s own ashed body was haunting. Fire comes into play a few times in this film. Louis’ manor, Lestat’s home, and the theater where the vampires dwelled. Perhaps it suggests that it is the only element the immortals fear, as it kills them. Fire can mean passion, and passion can destroy the strongest of beings (or redeem them).
I wondered where Lestat was all this time. He was so pivotal at the beginning of the film, but is barely there when Louis and Claudia leave the States for France. When Lestat finally pops up again in what appears to be a chance meeting with Louis, he’s lost his impact as a mentor to Louis and as the monster he truly was. Mind you, Lestat still proves that life is merely a game to him.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Sublime Power of Eros and Thanotos
There used to be a time when vampires didn’t fake their way through high school to seduce a mopey teenager. They were quite evil, selfish, and got what they wanted with little care or consequence in the world. Your virginity be damned, like your soul. People didn’t come back from this nightmare, or they were so changed one wondered what happened after the film ended.
Dracula represents Christianity vs the Turks in the prologue
So in 1992 a film was released, and boldly called, Bram Stoker’s Dracula. One of its key slogans was, “love never dies.” Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, starring Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Ryder (Mina/Elizabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing/Priest), and Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), this film does its best to give us gothic horror mixed with fairy tale motifs, and angst for the centuries.
Doppelgangers are abound in this film. You will see so many of them. Look for Van Helsing twice in the film, as well as Dracula, Mina, and Lucy. Each displays the other self that compliments and damns them. It’s quite a vicious site to behold. As we know the other self can be a sight to behold. More importantly, being a vampire seems to suggest that a person looses their inhibitions, and their humanity.
"Love never dies," yet it did. Bye, bye Elizabeta.
Religious themes cannot be ignored here, as God is brought into question. After all, when Dracula was human, he fought on behalf of the church. It is the tragedy of his beloved’s Elizabeta (who commits suicide), that causes him to question his faith and his “reward” for fighting on God’s behalf.
Eroticism plays a sly and sometimes disgusting part in this film. Dracula seduces Mina, then rapes and kills her friend Lucy. This visitations to Lucy are brutal, and Dracula does not keep his charming, young form he uses on Mina. Instead he looks bestial, deadly, and terrifying. By contrast, he looks young and studly when he visits Mina. When Jonathan encounters him, Dracula appears as creepy old man whose shadow does stay in place and often reveals what the count is feeling at the time. The shadow is a classic Jungian archetype, and the other self and unconscious desires do come to the surface.
To say Dracula represents all the aspects wrong with our psyches is a fair statement. He is the id (switching from Jung to Freud here), and boy is he ugly. There is a reason we as humans suppress and repress our desires. Not all of them are fit for the material world.
As an adaptation goes, the film doesn’t stay as faithful as one would like to believe to the source material, however I will say that Coppola went for a different route than most Dracula films I saw before it. This go round, Dracula knows love, and ultimately love can redeem him, as it was love that cause him to spite and curse God, resulting in his transformation into a creature of evil. This film definitely goes for the artistic, emotional side of storytelling with some commercial concessions. Bram Stoker’s Dracula cannot be accused of lacking style or ambition. Noter the use of the old school Pathé camera when Dracula comes to England. It’s a street scene that again emphasizes the techniques, which reinforce the atmosphere.
The prologue sets the stage well with who Dracula was before he became a creature of evil. Here the fairy tale motifs come alive: We have a warrior prince, a princess, love, yearnings, and one ugly curse. Lucy’s buried in a glass coffin that is straight out of Snow White. The fight scene in the prologue is a little odd as it takes place in shadows against a reddish-orange sky. The scene reminds me of stage plays where color could be used to show emotion.
Poor Lucy get's "turned out" just cause Dracula wanted it to happen.
Much is made of blood and contamination in the film. If it reflects society, AIDS became a major issue. Its not surprising someone who needs blood to live is at the war with the world around him who has no real idea he exists.
Note several of the editing and special effects in the film. When Lucy is revisited by Dracula t some point the film is reversed. Her moves appear unnatural. Likewise when Van Helsing confronts Lucy as a vampire, and she backs into the coffin, the moves again appear unnatural. The cut away scenes from circular and round shapes add a distinct, otherworldly feel to the world.
While this film makes a strong connection to love and redemption, make no mistake Dracula is very evil. He and his wives suck the blood of babies, he kills and kidnaps Jonathan in order to seduce Mina (whom he believes to be reincarnated version of his lost love, Elizabeta). He rapes, then murders Lucy out of spite of Mina’s rejection of him for Jonathan. Being a vampire is gory, unholy, and to a great extent ugly. Dracula has many brides, but he only has eyes for Mina. Sadly love can’t make him whole, just make him see the error of his existence. Also turning Mina is something of a bitter struggle as Dracula confesses to Mina, it’s not pretty.
Is this what they mean by "short end of the stick?" Ouch.
Color is abound in this film as it takes on multiple energies. Note Lucy’s colorful and somewhat outlandish outfits (in fact several of the outfits are more artistic that historically accurate). The night outfits Lucy and Mina were to bed are sublime but out of place for the era.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula’s score, composed by Wojciech Kilar, plays a key part in providing the atmosphere with some extra demented, gothic emotions. The music moves from serene, elegant, to sublime. There are simply moments where the one realizes there is danger in the score itself. Such heartbreaking melodies with somber elements to emphasize the romance and tragedy.
There are a lot of downers in this film as well so don’t think this is all a love-fest. Keanu’s accent is terrible. I wish someone told him to keep his American accent. It would have fit him (and the film) better. Instead when I hear it, I laugh. I love Oldman’s accent, but not everyone falls for it. A friend suggested it’s overplayed, and his hairdo and get ups are so over the top you may laugh (be warned Jonathan Harker laughs at Dracula and gets a sword in his face for his amusement).
The ending could have been, much, much, stronger because it’s clear that Mina is in love with both Jonathan and Dracula. I thought Jonathan and Mina’s confrontation was weak considering he fought so hard to get back to her, and she turned Dracula away to be with Jonathan. Mina plays both ends of the fence here. She may need the closure like Dracula, but she half-asses it.
If you purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray, the commentary and extras were worth it for me, as Francis Ford Coppola and his son Roman Coppola discuss the visual effects for the film. There is talk of the screenplay, director’s commentary, and some behind the scenes goodness I enjoyed. If you like your vampires evil and with a touch of redemption, then this the film for you. Mind you, nobody gets what they want but Dracula in the end, and the accents are grating.
