Skip to main content

"You Were Never Really Here," a review


In "You Were Never Really Here," we're ostensibly being given a film that is sensitive to all those who've experienced terrific traumatic experiences in their lives. We have a sense of fidelity to the traumatic experience, that this is a film which really cared to explore how it affects the mind/future behaviour, and so to perhaps be trusted as almost instructive for the rest of us. Watching this film, we become sensitive to how ostensibly fragmented the mental state of someone experiencing PTSD can be; how intrusive past-horrifying memories can be; how they can't be repressed, are always free-floating; how it regularly brings one to thoughts past that of sadomasochism towards self-extinction, as a means of total escape. 

Yet while the film leans us this way, towards seeing it as "awoke," a participant in our blossoming expansion of sensitivity and respect for others, what brought them to become the ostensibly less-than-pleasant people we see before us, we note that otherwise the film fits in with a lot of films we're seeing lately of simply gruff, somewhat discombobulated people -- for example, Logan (especially similar, in that the victimized girl seems actually "advantaged" by the whole experience, in becoming an alpha survivor), Logan Lucky, Big Short, Hell or High Water -- who remain incredibly good at heart, and which always posit other people in the film where any extended reach into understanding them empathically is completely denied: they're evil, actually TRULY ugly to look at, because they're arrogant, evil assh*oles. 

In this film it's aristocrats and pedophiles. For the film to be consistent in its purposes, it would have surely given us a glimse of how pedophilia ostensibly restores -- like a hit of opium -- the fragmented psyche of a pedophile, so we would understand that the PTSD "hero," Joe, in the film who ventured into drugs and criminality -- perhaps replay of a war setting, where he always conquers? -- to keep himself normalized, other trauma victims might have had to venture into other perversities. It might have argued that there's a link, that is, between the perversities we may even actually are well along the way to glorifying and ones that remain completely outside our current reach of empathic understanding. It might have argued that if we really are sincere in our effort to be awoke, then, yes, absolute interest in our hero and, yes, absolute involvement in how the film suggests a PTSD victim encounters simple day-to-day living as a constant effort to keep his/her psyche together -- something he also does by insisting on encounters with potentially aggravating people he loves, namely, his mom, where he times his comings and goings; where he's got the control -- but also an effort to make it seem logical that that same effort on our part ought to be extended to more genuinely surprising categories of people as well. (Can you imagine a moment where we're suddenly in the pedophile's head, with him experiencing a flashback to a memory of abuse that gets settled as he gets prepared for a pedophilic act with his -- as actually shown in the film, but only for purposes for setting him up as grotesque -- fussing with a dollhouse?)

The film so skirts on expanding understanding towards damaged people towards cementing virtue in people whose "damage" has already become a social signifier FOR their virtue, that it's insouciant in its applying what really are remarkable similarities between the hero and the villains, things like how they're both "involved" in stabbing mothers with knives (one pretends, the other actually executes), and how they're both obsessed with predatory acts done to kids (one, as him as a stranger giving sweets to kids, without expectations, the other in the standard predatory mode of that stereotype). (Yes, he and the dying hit-man have a moment, but it's done only when it's clear the hit-man serves to magnify our understanding of the extent of the rot and uncontested reach of higher powers, and of how hapless the state servant is to do other than comply -- when the hitman is just the average everyday man, powerless in a corrupt society.) Somehow it becomes easier and easier to imagine that what films like this are bringing us to is a situation where all of us imagine ourselves as banged up, as suffering from terrible hurts, but that we yet remain our country's last best hope, and that we need to collect ourselves together and combat the aristocratic perverse assh*oles that have made such easy sport of our country for far too long. That is, a conservative-populist, alt-right narrative of the world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...