The Accountant
Autism usually is taken now as something that
owes to genetic mix-up; you're born with it. The Accountant offers
dutiful fidelity to this now core assumption but dramatizes it as actually a
kind of retreat of the mind -- the older conception of the mental illness
-- in face of a consistently undependable childhood environment. Christian Wolff, aka "the Accountant," his brother and sister, are children of a
military officer, who requires them to move maybe as much as five times a
year. He and his wife aren't dependable either: there is discord in their
relationship, which eventually leads to divorce, just before the children have
reached adolescence. When you can barely count on the fact that the place
you've settled into will last as home beyond a month or two, and when you're
just beginning your epic life journey into adulthood and one of the two pillars
you're absolutely dependent on falls off the grid for good, no wonder you have a
panic attack when you fail to communicate to yourself that some potential
to wipe out a frustrating environment exists by your succeeding in completing
a jigsaw puzzle.
There is a sense, though, that the truest
way to account for the behaviour of "the Accountant," as an adult, is
not actually to explore his autism, because what we see of him in his adult
life is made to seem more about how about how key role models responded to him
just before his beckoning adolescence. One of them -- a kindly,
sweater-wearing, "cozy" therapist -- encourages the father to let his
son stay with him, where he will be treated respectfully in an unchanging chateau environment geared not to frustrate him in the way the normal outside
world surely would. The other, his father, a stern, grimaced man, staunchly
resists the advice, arguing, essentially, that for his son to have a chance of
being a full person he's going to have to figure out ways to manage the full
maelstrom of adult life, even as he must come at it with a "kick me"
placard taped to his back.
The way it plays out in the movie is not so much
therapist vs. parents' will, or Democratic tenderness vs. Republican
hard-love, but really as if your home-redolent mother (therapist = mother), seeing you about to begin your turning away
from family as you become an adolescent, finding ways to construe you
so that you can be an exception, someone who will never escape dependence,
and finding her blocked by the will of the father, who is militant in
making sure his sons sure as hell get out there. Every child's life up to about
the age of twelve, all its empowering (being cherished and loved; knowing
the body-heated coven) and restricting (dependency and minimized challenges -- the leash)
is in encapsulated in what the therapist offers. And the future,
scary (it might pummel the shit out of you) but thrilling (you can
discover whole unknown realms of yourself, by yourself), with the father.
He is required to take the father's way, and it
is really the result of this that explains "Christian Wolff," not so much his
autism. For the Christian Wolff we see in the film is, yes, an isolated
bachelor -- no wife or children -- with daily rituals required to keep his mental
equilibrium in order, but mostly someone who has succeeded as an adult. Someone
who has chosen a career that reflects his passions -- in his case, being
an accountant -- and is capably living independently. Someone who
enjoys the life he has made for himself.
This is not to say, though, that the man who had
stepped in to help him -- the therapist -- is de facto entirely maligned in
this film. Not at all, actually. Before Wolff had a chance to morph into his
adult form, the therapist represented a threat, for his
philosophy encouraging a dependency no longer appropriate for him.
But with this managed it seems he can be fair, that the film can be fair, to
what he also represented: namely, someone truly from outside (so not just
"mom" projected out) who makes an effort to show genuine
appreciation for you: what good qualities you possess. Whenever Wolff
encounters people like this, people who delight in him rather than shun him, he
wants to give back, even if in some cases he is rather inexpert at how best to
do it. We appreciate it as a gesture of respect, but how does revenge really help his deceased prison-cell roommate, who while delineating
for him how he did business, is shown in wonderful interchange with Wolff,
teasing him into stretching his limited understanding of people's
gesture-communicated meanings, for instance?
We appreciate it as a gesture of respect, but how much does his feeding guaranteed major criminal
busts to Ray King, future head of the Treasury Department, who he wanted to
thank for remaining a loyal parent to his two boys even while being lousy at everything else at life, encourage a dependency, a sense of unearned
achievement, that he himself was spared from? Maybe if Anna Kendrick's Dana
Cummings finds her way back into this life, she could help him out with this.
As is, his heart, at least, is in the right place.
No appreciation is however granted to Lamar
Black, the head of major Robotics company. There was reason to assume it
possible: he's guilty of ordering assassination -- and of people like the
sweet, completely decent Cummings, no less -- but he also quite genuinely started
up his company, which builds robotics to assist people who've lost limbs,
to help others who suffered what his sister had suffered from. Wolff is very
family loyal, and for good reason. And with them, his family, the film
encourages us to see that any malignancy in their adult form (Wolff's
ever-loyal brother goes bad, and through almost all of the film is ostensibly only the restrained but full of
dark dominance he knows he can instantly deliver, dark villain who will
test Wolff's superhuman capacities to the limit) is not so much their fault as
owing to early childhood trauma and neglect, something that can and should be
repaired, so why not Lamar?
I wonder if it might have something to do with
Lamar's class... part of an understated attack in the film on those who've
lived the easy life, that was a bit in play in how the kindly, New
Englandish, preppy therapist was ultimately quitted by the military father's
preference on proper fathering. Lamar's life has been affluence and of
Cambridge degrees that were pretty much guaranteed him: he could be kindly,
even a bit faltering and of weak oversight -- trust people too much -- as CEO of a Robotics company -- the
version of him we see throughout until his reveal as far more menacing --
because someone of his pedigree could get away with it. With him the film
communicates its one sour note: resentment. And sadly it does have you
wonder if the film is an advocate, not just for getting past mental illnesses
and traumas, but also at some level for their incurrence: there's
something bad, the film argues, about those who have no need of someone else's speaking up for them; for those who knew no real damage. Behind this is a mentality that wants to
keep people categorized and owned for their own management. Narrativize yourself as one of the neglected 99%, or else.
Comments
Post a Comment