In Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Steger offers a notion
that appears to align with how the Dardenne brothers wish to convey the
mixtures of worlds for Igor in La
Promesse. By recognizing how the brothers combine the choppy, chaotic shots
of the illegal immigration realm with the steadier, freer shots of Igor alone, they
create an ultimately pessimistic rendering of globalization through the lens of
transportation and motion that simultaneously removes the impact of agency from those
subjected to it.
La
Promesse is fundamentally a film about movement. It begins
and ends with rather ominous sounds of transportation—gas being pumped in the
beginning; trains arriving and departing in the ending—and all the action
revolves around the desire to move
between places: from Assita’s wishes for transportation to Italy to the
climactic confrontation with Roger revolving around Roger’s inability to escape.
This is particularly the case with Igor, whose only semblance of childhood resides
in the will to interact with the go-cart. In the brief moments of motion in
which Igor is seen—actually riding the go-cart or his motorcycle—there is a
marked difference in both his demeanor and the way he is captured by the camera.
In order to fully appreciate this change, the preceding tendency can be
observed from the film’s opening.
In the first glimpse of
the apartment in which Roger and Igor house illegals, the visual expression of
the “apartment” world is characterized by fast cuts and off-screen noises. The continuous
employment of shaky camera can be observed throughout the entirety of the introduction
to this space, and it remains unsteady through all of the shots inhabited by
Roger, Assita, or any other occupant of the apartment world. In this sense, the
Dardenne brothers establish this world as singular, distinct one from the rare
observations of Igor’s freedom. These shots not only display Igor’s transition
in behavior, but also allow for a different view of Igor because they are shots
of just his countenance with his hair blowing, instead of shots comprised of
the daily tasks associated with the apartment. More apparent, though, is the
change in camera steadiness that accompanies these shots. Though technically
there be no easy way to apply a shaky camera technique to such a fast moving
shot, it nonetheless achieves the effect of creating a second space kept apart
from the one previously introduced and often reencountered.
As a result, the
witnessing of these two realms clash fits into Stegers understanding of how two
cultures meet in the current globality in terms of social interaction. Though
Steger is largely interested in the breakdown of barriers between cultures, he also suggests that “language,
music, and images constitute the major forms of symbolic expression” (74). Both
the illegal world of the apartment and the one of free motion is characterized
by two distinct expressions and, as a result, these two realms created by the
Dardennes are congruent with Steger’s notion in terms of an expression that is
significant for any particular “sphere.” I would agree with Steger in the sense
that one of the elements of globalization is an increase in the acceleration of
this kind of hybridization (6), and so motion in Le Promesse enters the conversation of the modern globality.
Once this step is
taken, it would appear that La Promesse boarders
on a dystopian understanding of globalization in terms of its universality and
impact on agency. The shots of Roger and the van transporting illegals through
the city allow one to infer the size of similar processes occurring at
different scales around the world, and even a country the size of Belgium
swallows up emigrants from numerous countries. Likewise, though Igor and Assita
valiantly attempt to combat this trend of illegal transportation, they
ultimately are returned into the mass of crowd in the metro station. This
futility of opposition renders agency meaningless because of the power and
scale of globality the film portrays.
In this sense, I agree
with Monica’s suggestion of a cyclical element to the film, and I would even
extend that idea to a greater emphasis than just location. Though exchange of
money and people certainly plays into this conception, I wonder if the Dardennes
have in mind a much more pessimistic and cyclical notion of globalization that
renders all actions, not just movement, irrelevant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to you Chandler, I was interested in the way the Dardenne Brothers negotiated the idea of agency and motion in their film. Your assertion that the film is fundamentally about movement makes a good deal of sense to me. Especially when read through a lens tinted by the concept of globalization--defined at least in part by the exchange and transgressions of borders, currency, and other aspects of culture which inevitably break down barriers (as you note)--movement is undoubtedly a central theme, although, I’d be even more specific and call it the limitation of movement.
ReplyDeleteConsider the opening sequences of the film: We are unceremoniously thrust into the Igor’s small working class world without any exposition; we don’t receive any shots of the surrounding environment free of Igor—indeed, the vast majority of the scenes in the film are framed in medium and close ups shots that put Igor at or near the center of the frame; the height of the camera is roughly equal to his eye level. As a viewer, we are actively restricted to Igor’s POV.
Just as we as viewers are thrust into this world with little explanation, forced to catch on quickly or get left behind, with little time for questions, and even less for thought on the moral murkiness of our environment, one gets the sense that the same was largely true for Igor. But this speaks to a general truth right? The circumstances into which we are born, predetermine to an extent, the paths our lives take. There’s a sobering pragmatism that guides the actions of the central characters—no one talks about dreams, or hope, or for a different life. Mostly, we see them negotiating the lives they have, making choices based on the circumstances, not wasting time pining for different ones.
Ultimately, this isn’t about pessimism or optimism—I think it’s more about possibility, hope, and the potential for transformation of self through interactions with people who are marked as totally different from you. What’s more, the film also argues that you don’t necessarily have to go anywhere for that transformation to occur.