INTRODUCTION
Luca
Guadagnino’s “Suspiria” is a remake of the classic psychedelic horror film of
the same name directed by Dario Argento in 1977. Due to the affection for both
the original film and Argento himself, Guadagnino crafted (a sometimes literal)
spellbinding film that both honors the original, updates the themes, and deeply
explores the diversity of the female experience and the power of female unity
in what Adrianne Rich calls the lesbian existence. It is through these themes,
cinematography and Foley art that casts Suspira
as a modern horror masterpiece. It is unfortunate that regardless of the
brilliance of this hewed piece of artful cinema, this film has yet to catch on
with audiences; critics and audiences alike citing the run time ( a hefty
151min) and pacing problems as some of the chief complaints with many a review
calling the movie dull. The film’s tepid
reception is not a reflection of the quality of the film, instead it is
indicative of a culture that has become addicted to spectacle[1],
and more acutely, unaccustomed to dark disturbing tales of femininity and the
ascendency of women through a matriarchically hierarchy, as they vie for power.
In short, this is a film completely about women and their relationships with
themselves that has nothing to do with men, and for those with fragile
masculinities, reinforces deep seeded cultural fears of female empowerment.[2]
PLOT
Set
in 1977 against the backdrop of a hostage crisis in a still divided Germany, Suzie
Bannion (Dakota Johnson) auditions for The Markos Company a prestigious, yet
mysterious modern dance troupe in Berlin. Once accepted she is taken under the
wing of choreographer Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton) to be groomed as one of the
group’s star dancers. As Suzie becomes deeply entrenched in the inner workings
of the Markos house, she discovers a hidden world of Occultism, magic and
witchcraft, fracturing from a power struggle between the organization’s top two
matriarchs.
FILM ANALYSIS
Guadagnino’s Suspiria is a masterclass in filmmaking. Every aspect of this film
is painstaking and meticulously planned out, there is nothing here that seems
accidental. Guadagnino has stated that as a soft remake of the Argento film, he
made choices about color, light music and mood that would separate the film
from the much beloved Argento classic. Where Argento was colorful, Guadagnino
was muted, Where Argento was blackly comedic and gonzo in the zeitgeist of the
time, and Guadagnino was introspective and subtle. In fact, Guadagnino worked
tirelessly to separate his film from the original in hopes to reducing
comparisons due to the films specific diversions. Suspiria (2018) is not
Argento’s film and Guadagnino knew that any imitation would not be welcome. So
he decided to make the film his own.
Unfortunately, we seem to still be stuck in the gravitational pull of
popular nostalgia and the form of comfort that it can provide a mass audience.
Thus, it is clear that many people were looking for an Argento update rather
than the rich, layered, allegorical narrative that Guadagnino provides through
the Cinematography, sound and soundtracks art and film directing, and a
trifecta of performances by Tilda Swinton makes this version of Suspiria
superior to its predecessor.
Cinematography
It is though the film’s cinematography that Guadagnino
solidifies the differences between this rendition of Suspiria and Argento’s vision.
As mentioned above, Argento’s film is full of bright neon and psychedelic
colors that is more invoked by Panos
Cosmatos’ Mandy than its own remake whereas
cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom subdues the gonzo
maniacal intensity into something grimier and grainy that is far more evocative
for a film about ethereal supernatural forces. Guadagnino’ s film seems to tap
into a different style of the Post Civil Rights Zietgiest before the era of
Reganist excess thus being more reminiscent of 1970’s crime thrillers[3]
than the original film. The use of shadows and dark browns gives the audience a
feeling of constant dread. It is this look that gives texture to the backdrop
into which the story unfolds; adding to its bleak perspective. The harsh
reality of an economically shattered and divided Germany weighs on the film and
intensifies the story before us. Mukdeeprom and Guadagnino give us no respite
and nowhere to hide. That results in a nail biting psychological tension that
grips the audience like the taunt muscles of someone being drawn and about to
be quartered.
Foley Art
The other constructive style of this
film that intensifies the atmospheric tension that Mukdeeprom creates is the
use of sound. The music for Suspiria was composed by Radiohead
singer Thom Yorke and while his contributions to the films soundtrack and music
are important in keeping the tone of the film, the more awe-inspiring work that
adds to the distinctive ambiance is the work from the Foley team of Nicolas
Becker, Olivier Guillaume, Carsten Richter, Hanse Warns and Olga Pasternak. Foley is
the film term for the sound effects of everyday life named for sound effect
artist Richard Foley. It is their job to
recreate the ambient sound within the film. Therefore, the Foley artist is
attempting to create and or maintain a film’s mood through ambient noise. However, the Foley team on Suspiria is not only integral in
maintaining the bleak haunting texture of the film, but adding to the social
commentary of the film’s prose.
One of the best examples of the
impact of the Foley art on the overall film is during Susie’s dance audition
for the company. Guadagnino smartly strips all of the sound out of the scene
which emphasizes the work of the Foley artists.
In the scene, the creaking and groaning of the wooden floor as Susie
moves through her routine with a force that epitomizes the strength in her
body. We hear her deliberate and
controlled breath as she strikes each pose hearing the twisting of her body,
the whipping of her hair, and the magnitude of the density of her body as she
crashes upon the floor. The result of the Foley’s work is the reinforcement of
the power and athleticism of ballet dancers and the female form in general.
While this power is on display throughout the film in other small ways (I am
thinking of the “jumping” scene) none compare with this first scene.
The other example that takes this inherit
power of the female form and takes it into the realm of the Supernatural is the
scene of Olga’s destruction. Here the power of Susie’s dancing is displayed through
the violence upon Olga’s body. The scene
of Susie’s dancing of the lead of the new piece called “Volk” is intercut with
the destruction of dissident and disillusioned dancer Olga. With each movement,
Susie systematically breaks down Olga from the inside; until she is nothing but
a contorted heap upon the floor. The Foley art on full display echoes each
break of Olga’s bones and heightened screams as she is mangled through Susie’s
movements. Through this Foley work the power of Susie and the power of the
coven is on full display.
SOCIAL ANALYIS
Laying the Ground
work
This
film is dense and rich with distinct content that is ripe for Sociological
analysis. There have been many reviews that reinforce the film’s social
importance. Some comparisons to holocaust analysis and the parallels to the Alt-Right
to a repudiation of masculinity. That being said, the major criticism that is
levied against the film is just how feminist it is. There have been some
arguments leveed against the film it is misogyny masquerading as feminism that,
as one review noted:
[There is an] unintended,
undercurrent of misogyny, epitomized not only by the theme of witchcraft (a
manifestation of men’s fear of women’s power, if ever there was one), but in
the film’s frequent nudity and violent objectification of women’s bodies. Two
scenes feature female characters being grotesquely contorted by supernatural
forces. There’s a thin line between indicting the male gaze, as Guadagnino
claims to have intended, and reveling in it.”[4]
In social analysis, especially about gender,
it is difficult to parse out whether the use of the male gaze and sexist
troupes are subverting it or reinforcing it. This all comes down to individual
interpretations on the execution of that theme. For instance, Luca Guadagnino, in an interview
with Jezebel outlines his feminist intent
for the film[5],
but that does not negate the fact that most of the individuals behind the
scenes, the architects of the film are men. This then leads into the basic and
fundamental questions of how well can men tell female stories, and can those
stories be feminist?
Generally, if I could make a crude
summation of the literature that I have head and been privy to, the answer is
complicated. Yes, men can tell stories about women, and those stories can be feminist,
as long as they involve women behind the scenes, making them integral to the
process with the understanding that there is no one singular female voice. One
of the most important roles of this collaboration is to make visible the
internalized masculinity and or misogyny that the male creators have been
socialized to. It is important for any male creative to be self-reflexive about
their understandings of gender and be able to be challenged by others allowing the
piece of art to be as egalitarian as possible.[6] This is in addition to having a whole host of
racially, economically and ability diverse female creators of new content. But if men want to create, they also need to
be inclusive. However, it is unfortunate that regardless of this increase in
inclusivity, there are some, (granted a loud and vocal minority) that the feminist
fundamentals of a film like Suspiria
terrifies them; and this is where I believe the movie shines.
Witchcraft, Feminism and Rich’s Lesbian Existence
There has been a long
history of Witchcraft being a feminist allegory in media The current
resurgence of pagan attitudes and feminism can be traced back to fallen
feminist ally Joss Whedon and his use of Witchcraft to not only reinforce
feminist sentiments but also as an allegory for Queer identity. There is an attraction to these pagan beliefs
for any marginalized group, but especially for women. Witchcraft provides an independence
and power to women that is often denied them in oppressive male dominant
structures like the patriarchy. To that
end, actual witchcraft, has positioned itself as
a trending alternative to more traditional and historically masculine
religious institutions. Witchcraft has a collective component that is less emphasized
or absent in those systems and plays on the strength of what Adrianne Rich
calls “The Lesbian Existence”. In her article, Rich exclaims:
“Lesbian existence comprises both the
breaking of a taboo and the rejection of a compulsory way of life. It is also a
direct or indirect attack on male right of access to women. But it is more than
these, although we may first begin to perceive it as a form of nay-saying to
patriarchy, an act of resistance. It has of course included role playing,
self-hatred, breakdown, alcoholism, suicide, and intrawoman violence; we romanticize
at our peril what it means to love and act against the grain, and under heavy
penalties; and lesbian existence has been lived (unlike, say, Jewish or
Catholic existence) without access to any knowledge of a tradition, a
continuity, a social underpinning. The destruction of records and memorabilia
and letters documenting the realities of lesbian existence must be taken very
seriously as a means of keeping heterosexuality compulsory for women, since
what has been kept from our knowledge is joy, sensuality, courage, and
community, as well as guilt, self-betrayal, and pain”
As the term "lesbian" has been
held to limiting, clinical associations in its patriarchal definition, female
friendship and comradeship have been set apart from the erotic, thus limiting
the erotic itself. But as we deepen and broaden the range of what we define as
lesbian existence, as we delineate a lesbian continuum, we begin to discover
the erotic in female terms: as that which is unconfined to any single part of
the body or solely to the body itself, as an energy not only diffuse but, as
Audre Lorde has described it, omnipresent in "the sharing of joy, whether
physical, emotional, psychic," and in the sharing of work; as the empowering
joy which "makes us less willing to accept powerlessness, or those other
supplied states of being which are not native to me, such as resignation,
despair, self-effacement, depression, self-denial[7]
Rich
identifies in this stitched together passage, (as in the article as a whole)
that in a patriarchal system women are taught to see other women as a source of
contention and competition for male attention (Thus making heterosexuality
compulsory through socialized behaviors, reinforced by rewards from social
structural institutions (Marriage, family, Military economy etc.)), and denying
the reality of the power women have among and with each other by placing undue
emphasis on the type and nature of a relationship rather than what that
relationship provides for the individuals involved. Thus, women are socially
trained through compulsory heterosexuality and patriarchal oppression that the
most important relationships that they have are with men, and that all other
relationships are secondary within this structure. This is fundamentally the
opposite of what Witchcraft is, and the very thing that Guadagnino’s Suspiria challenges
in its story and character representation.
In the story, we find out that the coven was
created as a refuge for women after WWII and the Nazi regime. This places the
coven in direct opposition to war which is an obvious thinly veiled allegory for
masculinity. Additionally, the only male character Jozef Klemperer in the film
doomed his wife by not listening to her protests and prophetic statements about
the spread of Nazism and in the story he only functions as a witness to the
unbridled power of the coven, doomed to forget everyone, including his wife. As
Klemperer, is being dragged down to bear witness to the final ritual, the coven’s
feminist thesis is succinctly spoken. Miss Huller (Renée Soutendijk) states “When
women tell you these things, you don’t believe them. Instead, you call them
delusional.” Additionally, Guadagnino’s
remake has no principle male actor’s in any major role. All of the roles, are
played by women including Klemperer played to perfection by Tilda Swinton (in
one of three roles in the film: the others being Madame Blanc and Madame
Markos) thus it is a feminist story portrayed entirely by women[8].
Male Panic disguised
as Criticism
There have been critiques of this film,
usually by men, that attempt to use feminist thinking to “out”
this work as being offensive and antifeminist. This technique is called “Abstract
Liberalism”. A technique that is often
associated with a critique of Anti-Racism, it is when individuals invoke a
liberal idea as a way to justify the dismantling of a behavior, policy or
action that would eliminate oppression. A famous example is from Sociologist Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva’s book White Supremacy and
Racism in a Post-Civil Rights Era where he identifies abstract liberal
language as such “I am for equality that is why I am against affirmative action.”
When we apply this notion to the critique of feminism in Suspiria the issues that are often invoked are shallow
understandings of feminism (such as people critiquing the female on female
violence in this film) or feminist understanding still steeped in a
heterosexual male gaze perspective.
One
such instance was when the aforementioned male reviewer believes that the
amount of female nudity in the film is offensive and oppressive. This is only
offensive and oppressive because, due to the male gaze, the writer cannot see,
because our society has not taught him, to see female nudity as anything but exploitative.
The writer does not recognize the possibility that female nudity could be
empowering, and that his distaste for it, is not a feminist ally critique, but
a representation of oppression. He didn’t like the nudity in the film because
it wasn’t sexualized in the context of the film. By displaying female nudity as
not only something powerful, but also to have nothing to do with men shatters
the construction of fragile masculinity that our culture pieces together; Thus,
by lashing out at a depiction of the female body that is not designed for sexual
titillation of men, reinforces the patriarchal structure rather than dismantles
it. Additionally, this male panic was legitimized, and validated in the way
that many of the promotional materials for the film visually depicting a source
of power in the film as vaginal was later obfuscated in the final film.
Anecdotally,
I saw this disguised male panic
happen in every screening I went to. As I would exit the theater, there would
be one of my fellow male audience members that would be complaining about the
film, (initially citing the film’s length or pace) and as the complaint
continued is very quickly shifted into a thinly veiled sexist rant. However, if
this film illicit such a visceral response in insecure mediocre white men, then
it must be doing something right.
CONCLUSION
In his article The Globalization of Nothing[9]
Sociologist George Ritzer defines nothing
as anything that is general mass produced and which ultimately is devoid of
distinct and rich content; conversely he identifies “Something” that is
uniquely created and that is rich in content and structure. The problem that
people have with something is that usually it both has a built in audience that
may or may not include a specific individual’s tastes and that it is making a
particular statement. Thus, Ritzer concludes that most people believe that they
want something rich and distinct, but in reality, based upon consumption
patterns, we instead want a large variety of nothing. The variety of nothing gives the illusion of
something while retaining a mass market appeal, and making those products
impermanent so they can be replaced. It is a process that supports continuous
capitalist consumption and commodification.
To this end, those who were just looking for a carbon copy, updated
version of Argento’s film were looking to be satisfied with Nothing. However,
it was through the cinematography, art and film direction to the Foley work and
casting coupled with rich and dense themes that accompany it, Guadagnino’ s
film makes a statement about feminism, women’s relationship with other women
and its inherent power. It is the embodiment of Something over so many other
films that disappointingly turn out to be nothing.
[1]
The only movies that are making money anymore are the big superhero tent poles.
This causing an overall reduction of the numbers of films being
made from original content.
[2][2] Thus, if men find that they cannot relate to
what is happening on screen, they assume that it is a fault of the film, rather
than their own fallibility, and the oversaturation of male stories within our
culture.
[6] Though
if you listen to the cheeky brilliance of Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg,
she believes the only way to have equality on the Supreme Court is if you have
an all-female court structure for as long as there was an all-male supreme
court. J
[7] Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Existence
by Adrianne Rich
[8]
This of course means that is also passes the Bechdel test with flying colors,
in terms of representation.
