I think a lot of my post is in accordance with
Elaina’s in terms of both the morality called into question by the film and the importance
of the camera work in the heart scene.
Stephen Frears’ Dirty Pretty Things creates a
conversation regarding immigration into England by juxtaposing the situation
with the threshold between life and death. In addition to constant references
to spirituality and life beyond death, Dirty
Pretty Things cements this relationship with a scene that showcases the
importance placed on a human heart found in a toilet. Through a discussion of Slavoj Žižek’s understanding of
the importance of otherworldly elements and excrement, Dirty Pretty Things not only situates itself within a tradition of
similar scenes, but also welcomes the viewer to choices concerning the
interaction with the limit.
Though Žižek is infamously
interested in toilets and what they mean for ideology, his fascination is
extended to film in The Pervert’s Guide
to Cinema. The following clip shows this understanding (using the gaze as
his starting point) as he provides commentary over Coppola’s The Conversation and Hitchcock’s Psycho:
I agree with Žižek
that the explanation for this fear—which I would argue is rather ubiquitous—is grounded
in our inability to comprehend the return of matter from a “netherworld” back
to ours. More importantly, it is hard to miss the resemblance between the
scenes of The Conversation and Dirty Pretty Things. Though the
intention of both characters and their interaction with the bathroom space is
different, both not only display the flowing of blood into the clear water as
matter is brought to the surface, but also “return the gaze” onto the
characters to reveal their looks of horror. For Dirty Pretty Things especially, there is a point of view shot from
the toilet as the blood begins to rise. In this way, organs inhabit the role of
the threshold that teeters between life and death, just as desperate immigrants
rest precariously on the same limit. If Okwe’s encounter with the toilet is
indeed based within this understanding, it creates the opportunity to view the
remaining characters in a similar context because of the magnitude of the
discovered heart as the catalyst for the film’s action.
Guo Yi and Ivan are depicted as two
options for threshold crossers. Though Guo Yi and Ivan have their individual
methods for dealing with this limit—Guo Yi explains his motives for the
pocket-stitching scene and Ivan converses with Okwe about the need to ignore
the illegal activity of the hotel—their relationship is cemented with their
discussion of Charon’s obol. Indeed, Cynthia Lucia suggests a similar
understanding by stating “Both men ferry others to subterranean worlds - the
hotel is the last stop on the way to the morgue - either literally or
figuratively - for those forced to venture there” (9). In both cases, the role
of these characters is attached to their relevance for the barrier to the
underworld. Though other contrasting views certainly occur between characters—namely
the clashing religious views of Okwe and Senay about God and love—the interaction
with the underworld makes a startling claim about the nature of the immigrant’s
lives.
This claim, however, appears to be
left somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, as Okwe suggests to Senay, their goal is
to simply survive. Immigration into England—along with the absurdity of the
situation into which immigrants granted asylum are placed—is focused less on
the ability to gain access to work than it is access to life itself. On the
other hand, Okwe and Senay successfully operate on Juan and are able to achieve
their respective goals. In the Lucia interview with Stephen Frears, however, this
resolution is complicated:
“Cineaste:
What have [the characters] learned?
Frears:
Ivan has learned a sort of cynicism that will get you through. If you
understand all these things, you can keep your head down and survive. The other
two, Okwe and Senay, get trapped by it, though I suppose they learn that they'd
rather operate on Sneaky…than get operated on themselves. They've turned the
tables on the system. Of course, it would be much better if it weren't
necessary for them to do that.
Cineaste:
Do they become tainted by their experience?
Frears:
No. They're strong people who can deal with it, but the fact that Senay doesn't
break down and crack, doesn't mean that something awful hasn't happened” (12).
Part of the illusion of
the resolution is this realization that Frears offers: that actions lose their
morality due to the constant interaction with the limit between life and death. This is driven home
when Juan is trying to coerce Okwe into performing procedures by suggesting
his actions are going to help a little girl in need of a kidney.
Thus, Okwe’s speech about
worker invisibility pertains to the greed and exploitation associated with
capitalism, but it is simultaneously a condition of simply being alive. In
other words, if the immigrants inhabit the same space as the heart, the exploiters
take the place of Okwe and gasp in horror when they actually see what should belong to
the netherworld.
There also seems to be
a great interaction between this film and Giorgio Agamben’s homo sacer and bare life, but this post is long enough as it is.
Cynthia
Lucia and Stephen Frears, “The Complexities of Cultural Change: An Interview
with Stephen Frears.” Cinéaste, Vol. 28, No. 4 (FALL 2003),
pp. 8-15
Very rich--nicely done :)
ReplyDelete