For an interesting take on the film that might prompt some discussion among you see Steven Shaviro's blog essay (fleshed out later in a chapter in his book Post Cinematic Affect): http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=627
In the article that Dr. Abel linked, this part stuck out to me the most; “Boarding Gate presents prostitution, drug distribution, and murder for hire as the quintessential examples of the “affective labor” that makes up the distinctive and dominant part of contemporary “cognitive capitalism”.” Affective labor is work that is intended to produce an emotional response, and I think that describes a lot of the “work” that is done in this film. Sandra works for Miles basically as a prostitute so he has a chance to get ahead in his business. Since they are “together” in some nature (even though Miles is married at the time), this really affects their relationship. She is willing to do anything for him because they love each other, even getting drugged and raped for him. I think that this notion of affective labor is a sort of labor that we haven’t really looked at in this class. We have looked at a lot of hard labor, or labor that people are forced to do to survive, and I think affective labor is parallel to that kind of work as well. Sandra does this work because she wants to help Miles “survive” in his business ventures. She also starts dealing drugs because she needs money to move to China.
The idea of cognitive capitalism is also a major point in this film. Cognitive capitalism has to do with technology, financial, and business work. This kind of work is also very important and is highlighted in this film. Most of the things Sandra does in this film are some sort of business. When she works for Miles, it is for his business. When she works for Lester she is using his business as a cover for her drug deals because she really needs the money. She kills Miles because of money (I assume, I’m not really sure). Globalization relies on technology and businesses, and we see that in this film. Sandra travels across the world because she must flee from the decisions she made in order to make money. She is able to flee the trouble she has created because of globalization; Lester has business connections in China that are able to help her. I think the idea of globalization isn’t very prominent in this film. As in Babel, globalization makes the story possible, but the fact that it exists is not what is being focused on.
It will be interesting to compare this film with "Demonlover," which has the same director, later on in this class. I came across of review of this film in the online version of the magazine "The New Yorker," and it makes comparisons to "Demonlover." However, I think that this article has a very interesting take on the globalization in this film. David Denby, the author of this article entitled "Faraway Places," makes this observation: "The director has distilled a new genre—the vicious globalist thriller. In “Demonlover” (2002), starring Connie Nielsen, and now in “Boarding Gate,” the characters are rootless, friendless players in the world of corrupt international dealmaking...The way Assayas tells it, the real currency involved in the deals is not so much capital or goods as drugs and sex" (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/03/24/080324crci_cinema_denby). I believe this to be an interesting and accurate assessment of the globalization in this film. From country to country, the same currency drives the plot of this movie: drugs and sex. As in the other films seen in this class, the film deals with human exploitation. It shows very unfortunate and demeaning jobs that are engaged in for survival. Sandra wants to escape her sordid life and move to China, but she cannot without using sex and dealing drugs. She must murder, as well. This is a dark take on the effects of globalization. As the article states, the main currency seen in this film is drugs and sex, and I would argue that a similar argument can be made for "Import/Export." In both, humans must export their bodies in order to survive. The vehicle is the body, the currency is sex, and the goal is to be imported to a better life in a better world.
I think that Elsa's point about "affective labor" being parallel to the labor already seen in this class (as in "Workingman's Death") is very valid. Sandra uses sex to manipulate the clients into telling her bedside secrets. She is playing with their emotions to get what she wants. Elsa's parallel to Sandra's "love" for Miles and how her work affects their relationship also plays into this. This affective labor is also done for survival; because of this, it parallels the hard labor we have already witnessed. Sandra is putting her life at risk just as much as the hard laborers are and is just as dependent upon a job that she dislikes for survival.
I found the same concept of exchange that Daniel posted from La Promesse in the film, Boarding Gate. The same observation was made in the article posted by Dr. Abel. The article explains that, “everything seems to be interchangeable, or at least exchangeable: sex, money, drugs, clothing and other bulk consumer goods.” Throughout the film we saw numerous occasions where something was being exchange for something else. Sandra used her body in exchange for information to give to Miles. She also used her body to seduce and eventually kill Miles. The exchange and interaction through sex and drugs in this film is a prime example of how globalization works. Capitalism is built by the social goal of people trying to manipulate other to get themselves to the top. This is seen with Lestor, he used Sandra by means of deceit to try to get the most financial gain.
Steven Shaviro makes a great point in his book, Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales, on how Assayas’ direction of the film captures capitalism.
In contrast, Boarding Gate presents the world of global capitalism as a loose ensemble of lateral connections among contiguous but separate spaces. In the course of the film, the protagonist Sandra (Asia Argento) moves between corporate offices, loading docks, airports, swank condos, sweatshops, shopping malls, nightclubs, latrines and workrooms filled with computing equipment. She flees from the outskirts of Paris to Hong Kong; and by the end of the film, she is ready to move on to Shanghai. Some of the spaces through which Sandra passes are nearly empty, and others are filled with crowds. (41)
I noticed the constant camera movement through out the film. Just like the camera was in constant movement, the plot moved from setting to setting. I see that the settings represent aspects of capitalism for example when Sandra was in offices it represents business or at Miles’ condo representing sexual desire/frustration. There are many contrast in shots, at times the viewer gets very intimate shots of Sandra in her surroundings and others we can medium and wide shots to see her spatial relation. The camera work was great. I would say that this ultimately kept my attention throughout the film.
SHAVIRO, S.. Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales. Film-Philosophy, North America, 14, Apr. 2010. Available at: . Date accessed: 27 May. 2014.
Shaviro is certainly right to point out the affective element of labor that is presented throughout the film, but his essay points out an issue that adds to the complexity of the relationships in Boarding Gate. While today's discussion revolved around the reversal of influence in the economic and political realms, Boarding Gate shows a similar relationship between the economic and sensual. Or, as Shaviro puts it, “Passion is inextricable from the cold calculation of business deals.” Nevertheless, this notion is made problematic by examining the difference between how Sandra interacts with Miles and Lester.
Though both relationships hinge on and blend the divide between sex and money, I would argue that there is also a dialectical necessity by the parties in both couplings that is equally as important. Miles is more guilty of this blended divide than Lester, which can be observed both through Sandra's history with Miles—she was payed for sex with Miles and was whored out to business acquaintances—and the way in which sex is treated as both a pleasurable act and work by Sandra. The scene of her throwing herself off of Miles in disgust can be contrasted with the sensuous, typical sex scene with Lester, displaying a shift in kind in terms of attraction and approach to sex. Likewise, Miles derives more pleasure in planning out his sexual escapades like he calculates business transactions than actually carrying them out, and Lester's sex with Sandra appears to be more related to business given his cold indifference to Sandra's situation near the film's resolution. All of this plays into Shaviro's understanding, except that implicit in these relationships is another barrier that is founded on need. Miles needs Sandra because she has become the only woman he is attracted to; Sandra needed Miles originally for money, then because she might still be in love with him, and needs Lester in increasing fashion as the film develops; Lester needs Sandra in order to kill Miles and make money off of the murder.
More importantly for this course, this need is all together different from the need shown in the films screened in the first week. For the immigrants in La Promesse, or for Olga in Import/Export, their circumstances were ones of survival. In Boarding Gate, none of these characters start off in a place of survival. Miles and Lester are making great sums of money, and Sandra has a job that is willing to pay her more in order to keep her, yet she chooses to sell her body and drugs for money in order to finance the club in Beijing. We might also compare the countries from which the characters in these films are emigrating: one can imagine the average difference in situation between Olga living without running water and getting paid 30% of her wage versus Sandra living in a city like Paris. As a result, this inherit need that is established in transnational relationships appears to be Assayas' way of highlighting the greedy side of a certain type of necessity in the current global climate that inhabits (and is perhaps most observable in) the barrier between sex and money.
While watching Boarding Gate I also thought of the previous film that we watched Import/Export. The trade for the body is used as the currency in both of these films throughout all of the countries that are present. In Boarding Gate Sandra uses her body to help the men who she loves, and say that they love her back. However, she is just a mere pawn in their games and isn’t truly loved by these men.
In the beginning of the film I was lost and had to pay close attention to the words and actions of the actors. I didn’t know who the main character was or who Assayas wants us to connect with. I was drawn away from Sandra because of her status of dating a married business man who had young children waiting for him at home. I felt that she was the one who was causing all of the trouble. However, after watching more of the film I realized that she is the pawn of the two men who she loves.
Globalization is seen in different ways throughout the film. Yes, there are different countries in the scenes of this film but also the exchange between the people who are from these different countries show aspects of globalization. Sandra finds her escape from her murder by fleeing to a different country to avoid being arrested. While in Hong Kong, Sandra runs into many other pawns in her lover’s game and discovers that he is just working the business and trying to make money and keep himself happy.
Looking at an interview of the director Olivier Assayas done by Nick Pinkerton from Reverse Shot, Assayas states that the film Boarding Gate was a mixture of cultures. He states that he “decided that it was okay to mix genre, to mix cultures, and that movies sometimes could be experiments, that within the format of modern cinema, within the format of narrative, you could experiment by missing elements.” This mixture of cultures is a form of globalization that Assayas uses in Boarding Gate to explore different countries and their cultures and ways of life. He experiments by filming the film in different countries and by connecting these countries by the characters. He connects them through the escape that Sandra does, to the international business that both Miles and Lester do.
While this might have only been the three day weekend talking, like Emily, I too was at a loss for a majority of the film. For a while, I struggled to thoroughly put this film and the pieces together. It was only near the ending that I slowly began to piece together the puzzle. For the moment, this is something that I’d like to at least discuss. In a matter of speaking, the scattered nature of this motion picture could be viewed as a double edged sword. And, at least from a personal perspective, I felt like a bit of the engagement in the character was late in coming. It was this personal unattached nature that I felt with these characters that made it hard to identify with some of the underlying messages that the film might have been pushing. I found myself struggling in terms of trying to connect with a character and thus move further into the film itself. Although, this slowly changes as the story progressed, but nonetheless, the immediate engagement that one might find with a character is lost in this film at least from my point of view. On the other hand, this also might be taken as a positive in terms of having the audience unable to relate to one single character or any at all. For the most part, I myself was unable to come up with a suitable answer to these questions, but perhaps one of my peers could speak a little more on this topic.
Although on this same note, I think Shaviro does touch on this idea by stating that it is not a story of “What is happening” but instead “What is going to happen.” The camera is more focused upon that which is going to happen in the future, seemingly having a persistent obsession in following rather than leading the actors. In fact, while reading Shaviro’s article I once again began to tie in this film with the others which we have watched. As with the first week’s films, in terms an exchange and exploitation. The character that we become attached to later in the film is exploited for money and or sexual desire, in addition, during the opening scenes we find out equally powerful information. But, like before, I’d like to shift my focus to the point I made in the above paragraph in terms of why the director went about it such a way instead of instantly giving the audience a character in which the audience can relate to. By no means is such a technique wrong, as I don’t feel like the director wished to “spoon feed” the audience, but perhaps an explanation or outside thought could shed some light on this for me.
Although the “items” being exchanged in this film are less conventional or perhaps more dangerous than a lot of the other films we watched this is nevertheless a representation of globalization. Sandra is from Paris yet makes risky deals with people from other parts of the world such as China, which results in her having to relocate there. Sandra killing Miles for money and Lester “helping” Sandra get away with it by moving her to Hong Kong in exchange for money are two ways in which globalization is shown.
However, if you think about what was being exchanged in a lot of the other films we watched they weren’t that far off. Pretty Dirty Things showed people exchanging their own kidney for a passport and in one case a surgery going wrong and the body being secretly disposed of (the heart being flushed down the toilet). A death was covered up in La Promesse as well and Import/Export showed the dark world of prostitution. Maybe this film just felt a lot more “dangerous” because we never see any heartfelt moments. The only relationship we saw to be somewhat “loving” between Lester and Sandra turns out to be a lie when it’s revealed he manipulated and used her. In the other films we do get glimpses of light in the darkness such as Olga singing to her son or her relationship with Erich at the hospital in Import/Export, Senay and Okwe’s goodbye at the airport and Igor hugging Assida. Real human compassion is never shown in Boarding Gate. Everyone appears to be just a piece of one large manipulative game where they are each trying to win only to benefit themselves.
This film was hard to follow but I believe that was intentional. The audience is constantly wondering what will happen next which led to Boarding Gate being all the more suspenseful. Most of the scenes seemed to keep you on the edge of your seat showing Sandra running through the streets or climbing up the stairs trying to wait for the perfect moment to approach Lester. Like the blog post Professor Abel shared stated, this film very much gives us the feel we are just following Sandra around. In contrast, however, there are also painfully long scenes of dialogue between Sandra and Miles as opposed to these fast pace scenes. In fact the apartment scene between the two was so long I wondered if the entire film would take place here.
Globalization can be viewed in a very similar light as its spread is inevitable, and that for better or worse “ everything… depends on the the events not only within our borders, but half a world away” said Bill Clinton via Steger’s text (2003, p. 100). More simply, we must “adapt to the discipline of the market” or seize to be (2003, p. 100). Miles tried (unsuccessfully) buck the market so to speak and retire, Sue I’m not sure was ever fully aware of the rules of the game and Sandra who fought to survive is left with a fate unknown.
The same Steven Shaviro’s text, Film Philosophy 14.1, notes the “transnational flows of both people and money (2010, p. 35). This is a common theme as La Promesse, Dirty Pretty Things and Import/Export also express (to varying degrees) opinions on the subject Shaviro explains Olivier Assaya’s plight to appropriately portray “the space transnational capital” which is essentially impossible to “be ‘represented’ in any form accessible to the human senses” (2010, pp. 35, 36). Related to this is the idea of using what Marc Auge labels as “non-places” and the spaces they represent. These same non-places are arguably present (to some degree) in every movie we've watched thus far. Locations “which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity” and resultant from intense modernity, supermodernity (Augé, 1995, p. 78).
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso.
Shaviro, S. (2010). Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales . Philosophy 14.1, 1, 1-94.
Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Obviously, like any erotic-thriller, this film is about power and more specifically the exchangeability and fickleness of power. At one point, Miles physically stops Sandra from leaving his apartment, which shows his power. But, only a few minutes later, Sandra possesses all power. But, when Sandra kills Miles, whose power is she enforcing? Of course, she expresses her own power to a degree, and although it is unclear if she killed Miles because she actually wanted to (to get revenge) or simply because it was an opportunity for her to make money and move away. And if it was the later option, than this “opportunity,” she believes is a manifestation of Lester’s power. It was Lester who told her the plan and got her involved. She is in love with Lester and so one can say it is Lester and Sarah’s relationship that help the power over Mile’s life. But, at the end of the film, when we see Miles’ partner meeting with Lester, we see that it is that relationship that had been driving the plot throughout the whole movie, although we don’t get to see this relationship until the very end.
Power is never singular. Power is always a web. Miles’ partner pulled a string and Sandra kills Miles. But the all of the characters are affected by power, are part of the web, because every character wants something. Miles wants Sandra. Sandra wants to leave. Lester wants money. Lester’s wife wants Lester. And all of these characters have a certain amount of power. There is no one in this film without agency. Each has the power to make decisions. Miles invited Sandra over. Lester’s wife lies to Sandra. And Sandra, when she does have power, chooses not to kill Lester. And what is driving all of these decisions (which have economic consequences)? Passion. Miles is passionate about Sandra. Lester’s wife and Sandra are passionate about Lester. At the core of international espionage and eroticism itself, there are simply human motives: love, jealousy, regret, doubt.
As many of my classmates have stated what stood out the most was the idea of exchange. This representation of globalization is much different in this film than others that we have viewed up until this point. Sandra is a foreigner but deals in several illegal businesses; drug trade, murder for hire and prostetution. These two businesses are already dangerous but given her foreign status she puts herself at even a higher risk.
Though we never see Sandra participate in protestation a good amount of time is spent on it at the beginning of the film. It becomes very clear that Miles has been exploiting Sandra and her love for him. It seems to me that Sandra participates in the illegal businesses that I have previously stated not because she wants to but because she is constantly being manipulated by the men she loves.
This thought has lead me to think about gender and globalization. As pointed out in class, it seems that women have been negatively portrayed in all of the films we have watched up until this point. In Boarding Gate Sandra is portrayed as a puppet for the men in her life. Her only redeeming moment is when she kills the people holding her and escapes. This moment only lasts for a few minutes and is broken when she calls Lester for help even though he has clearly sent her to this awful place. The only other female character that really has a standing role is Sue. She is portrayed as "the crazy lady" who is willing to almost kill for her man. She is totally dependent on Lester and refuses to leave what is clearly an unhappy marriage. We have seen this portrayal of women in all of the movies we have seen thus far.
One of the more compelling ideas in this film is the issue of human agency, or to put this another way, the ability for individuals to "negotiate" (as Sarah points out via Shaviro) their world given very few options. The film creates a power hierarchy that has businessmen and women at the top, and essentially working class people (only women, in this case) at the bottom. As Chandler notes, we never see anyone whose initial circumstances force them into an unequal relationship; though we come to understand that Sandra, at one time, may likely qualified as such an individual.
I'm interested in that question of "what is going to happen to me now?"--this is ostensibly the question Sandra asks repeatedly in the film; the answer to which never truly materializes. Though, it's more accurate to say that Sandra is weirdly unsatisfied with any of the answers or options that present themselves.
She continues to resist her gradual contextual irrelevance throughout the film. If I understand the plot correctly, she had a specific role in what was ultimately a business deal, part of an economic transaction. Once she'd completed her objective she became a problem to be dealt with, but also fundamentally unimportant.
Boarding Gate presents shows us that in a increasingly globalized world of interconnected international transactions, human agency, in the sense of true autonomy, is in a constant state of flux. You are important and relevant, until you're not. Then the powers that be will discard you. You can choose to go quietly, or cause some sort of ruckus if you'd like. But ultimately, you'll fade into a blurred background while someone with more power, money, and connections then you, drives away in the Mercedes.
i think I can agree with Dylan that Boarding Gate does indeed present international business as a cold market. Humans in this new global market are only with keeping around for a little while. With Michael Madsen's character and Sandra being targets for deletion, we learn how the market gives no thought to human life or morality. If the market says someone should go, someone should go.
I think someone mentioned how the exchange in Boarding Gate is not too far off from the exchange in Dirty Pretty Things. On some levels no, we see some of the same transactions. Sandra mentions she was raped and uses her body to find her place in the world, just no organs are being dealt with. Though we see some of the same exchange, I think that is just the reality of the world. Coincidence, if you will.
Where Boarding Gate differs from the other movies is in its form. The film tries to be exciting and thrilling. I may be being too critical for the post, but... Boarding Gate seems to be trying to do too much with too little. The story is presented to us through the oblivious eyes of Sandra which shows us her limited view of the plot around her. This leads to us not sure what is happening either. The question would be then, "is this effective to the topic of globalization?" In some ways yes, and no. It seemed like the conversation between Sandra and Miles, before she killed him, went in circles and was a too long a lead up to the actual murder.
My question is, does this movie do what it set out to do? I am not quite sure. I suppose I am not quite sure what this movie was trying to get across. Betrayal in the global market has people played as pawns for money and power? I think so, I am just unsure at the stability of the screenplay.
For an interesting take on the film that might prompt some discussion among you see Steven Shaviro's blog essay (fleshed out later in a chapter in his book Post Cinematic Affect): http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=627
ReplyDeleteIn the article that Dr. Abel linked, this part stuck out to me the most; “Boarding Gate presents prostitution, drug distribution, and murder for hire as the quintessential examples of the “affective labor” that makes up the distinctive and dominant part of contemporary “cognitive capitalism”.” Affective labor is work that is intended to produce an emotional response, and I think that describes a lot of the “work” that is done in this film. Sandra works for Miles basically as a prostitute so he has a chance to get ahead in his business. Since they are “together” in some nature (even though Miles is married at the time), this really affects their relationship. She is willing to do anything for him because they love each other, even getting drugged and raped for him. I think that this notion of affective labor is a sort of labor that we haven’t really looked at in this class. We have looked at a lot of hard labor, or labor that people are forced to do to survive, and I think affective labor is parallel to that kind of work as well. Sandra does this work because she wants to help Miles “survive” in his business ventures. She also starts dealing drugs because she needs money to move to China.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of cognitive capitalism is also a major point in this film. Cognitive capitalism has to do with technology, financial, and business work. This kind of work is also very important and is highlighted in this film. Most of the things Sandra does in this film are some sort of business. When she works for Miles, it is for his business. When she works for Lester she is using his business as a cover for her drug deals because she really needs the money. She kills Miles because of money (I assume, I’m not really sure). Globalization relies on technology and businesses, and we see that in this film. Sandra travels across the world because she must flee from the decisions she made in order to make money. She is able to flee the trouble she has created because of globalization; Lester has business connections in China that are able to help her. I think the idea of globalization isn’t very prominent in this film. As in Babel, globalization makes the story possible, but the fact that it exists is not what is being focused on.
It will be interesting to compare this film with "Demonlover," which has the same director, later on in this class. I came across of review of this film in the online version of the magazine "The New Yorker," and it makes comparisons to "Demonlover." However, I think that this article has a very interesting take on the globalization in this film. David Denby, the author of this article entitled "Faraway Places," makes this observation: "The director has distilled a new genre—the vicious globalist thriller. In “Demonlover” (2002), starring Connie Nielsen, and now in “Boarding Gate,” the characters are rootless, friendless players in the world of corrupt international dealmaking...The way Assayas tells it, the real currency involved in the deals is not so much capital or goods as drugs and sex" (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/03/24/080324crci_cinema_denby). I believe this to be an interesting and accurate assessment of the globalization in this film. From country to country, the same currency drives the plot of this movie: drugs and sex. As in the other films seen in this class, the film deals with human exploitation. It shows very unfortunate and demeaning jobs that are engaged in for survival. Sandra wants to escape her sordid life and move to China, but she cannot without using sex and dealing drugs. She must murder, as well. This is a dark take on the effects of globalization. As the article states, the main currency seen in this film is drugs and sex, and I would argue that a similar argument can be made for "Import/Export." In both, humans must export their bodies in order to survive. The vehicle is the body, the currency is sex, and the goal is to be imported to a better life in a better world.
ReplyDeleteI think that Elsa's point about "affective labor" being parallel to the labor already seen in this class (as in "Workingman's Death") is very valid. Sandra uses sex to manipulate the clients into telling her bedside secrets. She is playing with their emotions to get what she wants. Elsa's parallel to Sandra's "love" for Miles and how her work affects their relationship also plays into this. This affective labor is also done for survival; because of this, it parallels the hard labor we have already witnessed. Sandra is putting her life at risk just as much as the hard laborers are and is just as dependent upon a job that she dislikes for survival.
I found the same concept of exchange that Daniel posted from La Promesse in the film, Boarding Gate. The same observation was made in the article posted by Dr. Abel. The article explains that, “everything seems to be interchangeable, or at least exchangeable: sex, money, drugs, clothing and other bulk consumer goods.” Throughout the film we saw numerous occasions where something was being exchange for something else. Sandra used her body in exchange for information to give to Miles. She also used her body to seduce and eventually kill Miles. The exchange and interaction through sex and drugs in this film is a prime example of how globalization works. Capitalism is built by the social goal of people trying to manipulate other to get themselves to the top. This is seen with Lestor, he used Sandra by means of deceit to try to get the most financial gain.
ReplyDeleteSteven Shaviro makes a great point in his book, Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales, on how Assayas’ direction of the film captures capitalism.
In contrast, Boarding Gate presents the world of global capitalism as a loose ensemble of lateral connections among contiguous but separate spaces. In the course of the film, the protagonist Sandra (Asia Argento) moves between corporate offices, loading docks, airports, swank condos, sweatshops, shopping malls, nightclubs, latrines and workrooms filled with computing equipment. She flees from the outskirts of Paris to Hong Kong; and by the end of the film, she is ready to move on to Shanghai. Some of the spaces through which Sandra passes are nearly empty, and others are filled with crowds. (41)
I noticed the constant camera movement through out the film. Just like the camera was in constant movement, the plot moved from setting to setting. I see that the settings represent aspects of capitalism for example when Sandra was in offices it represents business or at Miles’ condo representing sexual desire/frustration. There are many contrast in shots, at times the viewer gets very intimate shots of Sandra in her surroundings and others we can medium and wide shots to see her spatial relation. The camera work was great. I would say that this ultimately kept my attention throughout the film.
SHAVIRO, S.. Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales. Film-Philosophy, North America, 14, Apr. 2010. Available at: . Date accessed: 27 May. 2014.
Shaviro is certainly right to point out the affective element of labor that is presented throughout the film, but his essay points out an issue that adds to the complexity of the relationships in Boarding Gate. While today's discussion revolved around the reversal of influence in the economic and political realms, Boarding Gate shows a similar relationship between the economic and sensual. Or, as Shaviro puts it, “Passion is inextricable from the cold calculation of business deals.” Nevertheless, this notion is made problematic by examining the difference between how Sandra interacts with Miles and Lester.
ReplyDeleteThough both relationships hinge on and blend the divide between sex and money, I would argue that there is also a dialectical necessity by the parties in both couplings that is equally as important. Miles is more guilty of this blended divide than Lester, which can be observed both through Sandra's history with Miles—she was payed for sex with Miles and was whored out to business acquaintances—and the way in which sex is treated as both a pleasurable act and work by Sandra. The scene of her throwing herself off of Miles in disgust can be contrasted with the sensuous, typical sex scene with Lester, displaying a shift in kind in terms of attraction and approach to sex. Likewise, Miles derives more pleasure in planning out his sexual escapades like he calculates business transactions than actually carrying them out, and Lester's sex with Sandra appears to be more related to business given his cold indifference to Sandra's situation near the film's resolution. All of this plays into Shaviro's understanding, except that implicit in these relationships is another barrier that is founded on need. Miles needs Sandra because she has become the only woman he is attracted to; Sandra needed Miles originally for money, then because she might still be in love with him, and needs Lester in increasing fashion as the film develops; Lester needs Sandra in order to kill Miles and make money off of the murder.
More importantly for this course, this need is all together different from the need shown in the films screened in the first week. For the immigrants in La Promesse, or for Olga in Import/Export, their circumstances were ones of survival. In Boarding Gate, none of these characters start off in a place of survival. Miles and Lester are making great sums of money, and Sandra has a job that is willing to pay her more in order to keep her, yet she chooses to sell her body and drugs for money in order to finance the club in Beijing. We might also compare the countries from which the characters in these films are emigrating: one can imagine the average difference in situation between Olga living without running water and getting paid 30% of her wage versus Sandra living in a city like Paris. As a result, this inherit need that is established in transnational relationships appears to be Assayas' way of highlighting the greedy side of a certain type of necessity in the current global climate that inhabits (and is perhaps most observable in) the barrier between sex and money.
While watching Boarding Gate I also thought of the previous film that we watched Import/Export. The trade for the body is used as the currency in both of these films throughout all of the countries that are present. In Boarding Gate Sandra uses her body to help the men who she loves, and say that they love her back. However, she is just a mere pawn in their games and isn’t truly loved by these men.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the film I was lost and had to pay close attention to the words and actions of the actors. I didn’t know who the main character was or who Assayas wants us to connect with. I was drawn away from Sandra because of her status of dating a married business man who had young children waiting for him at home. I felt that she was the one who was causing all of the trouble. However, after watching more of the film I realized that she is the pawn of the two men who she loves.
Globalization is seen in different ways throughout the film. Yes, there are different countries in the scenes of this film but also the exchange between the people who are from these different countries show aspects of globalization. Sandra finds her escape from her murder by fleeing to a different country to avoid being arrested. While in Hong Kong, Sandra runs into many other pawns in her lover’s game and discovers that he is just working the business and trying to make money and keep himself happy.
Looking at an interview of the director Olivier Assayas done by Nick Pinkerton from Reverse Shot, Assayas states that the film Boarding Gate was a mixture of cultures. He states that he “decided that it was okay to mix genre, to mix cultures, and that movies sometimes could be experiments, that within the format of modern cinema, within the format of narrative, you could experiment by missing elements.” This mixture of cultures is a form of globalization that Assayas uses in Boarding Gate to explore different countries and their cultures and ways of life. He experiments by filming the film in different countries and by connecting these countries by the characters. He connects them through the escape that Sandra does, to the international business that both Miles and Lester do.
http://www.reverseshot.com/article/another_interview_olivier_assayas
While this might have only been the three day weekend talking, like Emily, I too was at a loss for a majority of the film. For a while, I struggled to thoroughly put this film and the pieces together. It was only near the ending that I slowly began to piece together the puzzle. For the moment, this is something that I’d like to at least discuss. In a matter of speaking, the scattered nature of this motion picture could be viewed as a double edged sword. And, at least from a personal perspective, I felt like a bit of the engagement in the character was late in coming. It was this personal unattached nature that I felt with these characters that made it hard to identify with some of the underlying messages that the film might have been pushing. I found myself struggling in terms of trying to connect with a character and thus move further into the film itself. Although, this slowly changes as the story progressed, but nonetheless, the immediate engagement that one might find with a character is lost in this film at least from my point of view. On the other hand, this also might be taken as a positive in terms of having the audience unable to relate to one single character or any at all. For the most part, I myself was unable to come up with a suitable answer to these questions, but perhaps one of my peers could speak a little more on this topic.
ReplyDeleteAlthough on this same note, I think Shaviro does touch on this idea by stating that it is not a story of “What is happening” but instead “What is going to happen.” The camera is more focused upon that which is going to happen in the future, seemingly having a persistent obsession in following rather than leading the actors. In fact, while reading Shaviro’s article I once again began to tie in this film with the others which we have watched. As with the first week’s films, in terms an exchange and exploitation. The character that we become attached to later in the film is exploited for money and or sexual desire, in addition, during the opening scenes we find out equally powerful information. But, like before, I’d like to shift my focus to the point I made in the above paragraph in terms of why the director went about it such a way instead of instantly giving the audience a character in which the audience can relate to. By no means is such a technique wrong, as I don’t feel like the director wished to “spoon feed” the audience, but perhaps an explanation or outside thought could shed some light on this for me.
Although the “items” being exchanged in this film are less conventional or perhaps more dangerous than a lot of the other films we watched this is nevertheless a representation of globalization. Sandra is from Paris yet makes risky deals with people from other parts of the world such as China, which results in her having to relocate there. Sandra killing Miles for money and Lester “helping” Sandra get away with it by moving her to Hong Kong in exchange for money are two ways in which globalization is shown.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you think about what was being exchanged in a lot of the other films we watched they weren’t that far off. Pretty Dirty Things showed people exchanging their own kidney for a passport and in one case a surgery going wrong and the body being secretly disposed of (the heart being flushed down the toilet). A death was covered up in La Promesse as well and Import/Export showed the dark world of prostitution. Maybe this film just felt a lot more “dangerous” because we never see any heartfelt moments. The only relationship we saw to be somewhat “loving” between Lester and Sandra turns out to be a lie when it’s revealed he manipulated and used her. In the other films we do get glimpses of light in the darkness such as Olga singing to her son or her relationship with Erich at the hospital in Import/Export, Senay and Okwe’s goodbye at the airport and Igor hugging Assida. Real human compassion is never shown in Boarding Gate. Everyone appears to be just a piece of one large manipulative game where they are each trying to win only to benefit themselves.
This film was hard to follow but I believe that was intentional. The audience is constantly wondering what will happen next which led to Boarding Gate being all the more suspenseful. Most of the scenes seemed to keep you on the edge of your seat showing Sandra running through the streets or climbing up the stairs trying to wait for the perfect moment to approach Lester. Like the blog post Professor Abel shared stated, this film very much gives us the feel we are just following Sandra around. In contrast, however, there are also painfully long scenes of dialogue between Sandra and Miles as opposed to these fast pace scenes. In fact the apartment scene between the two was so long I wondered if the entire film would take place here.
A review by J. Hoberman in The Village voices categorizes Boarding Gate as a “a mélange of suave jump cuts, confusing close-ups and light-smearing action pans,” which the reviewer assesses is a representation of “the routine discomforts of the new global order” (http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-18/film/the-one-reason-to-see-boarding-gate/). This would include the “intrinsically unrepresentable” financial market and the continual question of ‘“what is going to happen to me now?’ and ‘what can I do about it?”’ adds the blog’s author Steven Shaviro in the post provided by Dr. Abel. Shaviro’s assertions seemingly align with the Marxist theory to“devalue human free agency and downplay the ability of non-economic factors to shape social reality” as described in our text (Steger, 2003, p. 99). This can be see through Sandra’s fateful discovery that “one’s power to ‘negotiate’ the circumstances are extremely limited” (http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=627).
ReplyDeleteGlobalization can be viewed in a very similar light as its spread is inevitable, and that for better or worse “ everything… depends on the the events not only within our borders, but half a world away” said Bill Clinton via Steger’s text (2003, p. 100). More simply, we must “adapt to the discipline of the market” or seize to be (2003, p. 100). Miles tried (unsuccessfully) buck the market so to speak and retire, Sue I’m not sure was ever fully aware of the rules of the game and Sandra who fought to survive is left with a fate unknown.
The same Steven Shaviro’s text, Film Philosophy 14.1, notes the “transnational flows of both people and money (2010, p. 35). This is a common theme as La Promesse, Dirty Pretty Things and Import/Export also express (to varying degrees) opinions on the subject Shaviro explains Olivier Assaya’s plight to appropriately portray “the space transnational capital” which is essentially impossible to “be ‘represented’ in any form accessible to the human senses” (2010, pp. 35, 36). Related to this is the idea of using what Marc Auge labels as “non-places” and the spaces they represent. These same non-places are arguably present (to some degree) in every movie we've watched thus far. Locations “which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity” and resultant from intense modernity, supermodernity (Augé, 1995, p. 78).
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso.
Shaviro, S. (2010). Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales . Philosophy 14.1, 1, 1-94.
Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Obviously, like any erotic-thriller, this film is about power and more specifically the exchangeability and fickleness of power. At one point, Miles physically stops Sandra from leaving his apartment, which shows his power. But, only a few minutes later, Sandra possesses all power. But, when Sandra kills Miles, whose power is she enforcing? Of course, she expresses her own power to a degree, and although it is unclear if she killed Miles because she actually wanted to (to get revenge) or simply because it was an opportunity for her to make money and move away. And if it was the later option, than this “opportunity,” she believes is a manifestation of Lester’s power. It was Lester who told her the plan and got her involved. She is in love with Lester and so one can say it is Lester and Sarah’s relationship that help the power over Mile’s life. But, at the end of the film, when we see Miles’ partner meeting with Lester, we see that it is that relationship that had been driving the plot throughout the whole movie, although we don’t get to see this relationship until the very end.
ReplyDeletePower is never singular. Power is always a web. Miles’ partner pulled a string and Sandra kills Miles. But the all of the characters are affected by power, are part of the web, because every character wants something. Miles wants Sandra. Sandra wants to leave. Lester wants money. Lester’s wife wants Lester. And all of these characters have a certain amount of power. There is no one in this film without agency. Each has the power to make decisions. Miles invited Sandra over. Lester’s wife lies to Sandra. And Sandra, when she does have power, chooses not to kill Lester. And what is driving all of these decisions (which have economic consequences)? Passion. Miles is passionate about Sandra. Lester’s wife and Sandra are passionate about Lester. At the core of international espionage and eroticism itself, there are simply human motives: love, jealousy, regret, doubt.
As many of my classmates have stated what stood out the most was the idea of exchange. This representation of globalization is much different in this film than others that we have viewed up until this point. Sandra is a foreigner but deals in several illegal businesses; drug trade, murder for hire and prostetution. These two businesses are already dangerous but given her foreign status she puts herself at even a higher risk.
ReplyDeleteThough we never see Sandra participate in protestation a good amount of time is spent on it at the beginning of the film. It becomes very clear that Miles has been exploiting Sandra and her love for him. It seems to me that Sandra participates in the illegal businesses that I have previously stated not because she wants to but because she is constantly being manipulated by the men she loves.
This thought has lead me to think about gender and globalization. As pointed out in class, it seems that women have been negatively portrayed in all of the films we have watched up until this point. In Boarding Gate Sandra is portrayed as a puppet for the men in her life. Her only redeeming moment is when she kills the people holding her and escapes. This moment only lasts for a few minutes and is broken when she calls Lester for help even though he has clearly sent her to this awful place. The only other female character that really has a standing role is Sue. She is portrayed as "the crazy lady" who is willing to almost kill for her man. She is totally dependent on Lester and refuses to leave what is clearly an unhappy marriage. We have seen this portrayal of women in all of the movies we have seen thus far.
One of the more compelling ideas in this film is the issue of human agency, or to put this another way, the ability for individuals to "negotiate" (as Sarah points out via Shaviro) their world given very few options. The film creates a power hierarchy that has businessmen and women at the top, and essentially working class people (only women, in this case) at the bottom. As Chandler notes, we never see anyone whose initial circumstances force them into an unequal relationship; though we come to understand that Sandra, at one time, may likely qualified as such an individual.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in that question of "what is going to happen to me now?"--this is ostensibly the question Sandra asks repeatedly in the film; the answer to which never truly materializes. Though, it's more accurate to say that Sandra is weirdly unsatisfied with any of the answers or options that present themselves.
She continues to resist her gradual contextual irrelevance throughout the film. If I understand the plot correctly, she had a specific role in what was ultimately a business deal, part of an economic transaction. Once she'd completed her objective she became a problem to be dealt with, but also fundamentally unimportant.
Boarding Gate presents shows us that in a increasingly globalized world of interconnected international transactions, human agency, in the sense of true autonomy, is in a constant state of flux. You are important and relevant, until you're not. Then the powers that be will discard you. You can choose to go quietly, or cause some sort of ruckus if you'd like. But ultimately, you'll fade into a blurred background while someone with more power, money, and connections then you, drives away in the Mercedes.
i think I can agree with Dylan that Boarding Gate does indeed present international business as a cold market. Humans in this new global market are only with keeping around for a little while. With Michael Madsen's character and Sandra being targets for deletion, we learn how the market gives no thought to human life or morality. If the market says someone should go, someone should go.
ReplyDeleteI think someone mentioned how the exchange in Boarding Gate is not too far off from the exchange in Dirty Pretty Things. On some levels no, we see some of the same transactions. Sandra mentions she was raped and uses her body to find her place in the world, just no organs are being dealt with. Though we see some of the same exchange, I think that is just the reality of the world. Coincidence, if you will.
Where Boarding Gate differs from the other movies is in its form. The film tries to be exciting and thrilling. I may be being too critical for the post, but... Boarding Gate seems to be trying to do too much with too little. The story is presented to us through the oblivious eyes of Sandra which shows us her limited view of the plot around her. This leads to us not sure what is happening either. The question would be then, "is this effective to the topic of globalization?" In some ways yes, and no. It seemed like the conversation between Sandra and Miles, before she killed him, went in circles and was a too long a lead up to the actual murder.
My question is, does this movie do what it set out to do? I am not quite sure. I suppose I am not quite sure what this movie was trying to get across. Betrayal in the global market has people played as pawns for money and power? I think so, I am just unsure at the stability of the screenplay.