Thursday, October 14, 2010

Being John Malkovich: All The World's a Stage...

Being John Malkovich is an undeniably odd movie.  It begins with an out of work, avant-garde puppeteer who takes a filing job with a company called Lester Corp. located on the Mertin-Flemmer Building's 7th & a half floor where the ceilings are only about 4 feet high.  One day, behind the filing cabinets in his office, he discovers a tiny door which leads to the inside of John Malkovich's mind.  The movie piles up such strange details, one after the other, until it seems like an exercise in random absurdity.  But absurd though it is, there is nevertheless a certain logic to it, a certain method to it's madness.  You just have to turn the film upside down and feed it through the projector backwards and it all becomes clear.

Let's begin with Malkovich himself.  In the story he is the "vessel body", a conduit which the characters enter and are able to see the world through his eyes for a brief period before being dumped out on the side of the highway.  In this sense they are able to "be" John Malkovich, as they call it, and it's generally assumed that this is the "being" to which the title refers.  However, I believe that the title has another much more direct and literal meaning.  What if the movie is just simply about what it's like to be John Malkovich?  What if it's all just an abstract study of one man's existence?  What if we've been looking at all in the wrong way?

Imagine for a moment, a realm populated by ghosts.  These are not the ghosts of the living who have died.  These are ghosts who have never lived.  They are ghosts by the virtue of their own non-existence.  There are merely the ideas of people, half-formed and without substance in reality.  One day, they find out about a man; a man that can give them solid shape and real existence for a brief time; a man who can portray them; a man who can be them, and so also, in a sense, they can be him.  What would such an experience be worth to them?  Consider the customers lining the halls of the 7th & a half floor, waiting to take the Malkovich "ride".  They hand their money over willingly.  They show no skepticism about the ridiculousness of the idea, and they find the experience of being Malkovich for five minutes while he eats toast exhilarating.  Why?  The characters in the movie themselves speculate that it's the stepping outside of one's self that gives these mundane experiences such a sense of wonder.  But I believe that it's the taste of reality that being Malkovich gives them that drives their obsession.

Now, think about what an actor does for a living and reconsider the description I gave of Malkovich's function in the story.  I said that he's "a conduit which the characters enter".  Isn't this a fairly accurate and concise description of an actor's job?  He portrays characters on the stage.  He channels the idea of a person who exists only on paper.  He allows this non-existent person to be him for a brief period until the curtain drops and he takes his bows.  But being an actor is more than just a job.  It's not a switch that can be turned on and off.  An actor is an actor even when he pays his bills or eats his toast.  Some have even suggested that it's a sort of psychological defect, and actors have no personality of their own, only pieces of a personality borrowed from the characters they inhabit.  They might even find themselves slipping involuntarily into character in the back of a taxi cab.

Given this unpredictable nature of their ability, it's conceivable that an actor could find themselves overwhelmed by one of their characters, locked into a performance that they can't control.  It's possible that the strong, aggressive, and compelling personality of the character could come to eclipse their own.  Haven't we seen actors who fall into a certain routine in the later years of their career, trapped in a self-imposed type-casting?  Couldn't an actor drop out of acting all together, grow a long beard, and declare that they want to become a hip-hop artist....or a puppeteer?

No, it's no mistake that John Malkovich was chosen as the title character.  He is specifically known, not merely as another movie star, but as a serious actor.  He appears to be the object of the movie, but he is actually it's subject.  He is the protagonist.  The other characters are just that, characters, existing only in Malkovich's mind and on the written pages of the script.  Turn the film sideways and they recede into two dimensions, mere optical illusions of depth and substance on a strip of celluloid.  Note that Charlie Sheen, the only other "real life" person, is also an actor.  The two of them are the only real people in the movie and beyond it's frame as well.  As I said, the movie is quite simply and quite literally just about what it's like to be John Malkovich.  In it's own strange and surreal way it explores the reality of being an actor.  At one point Malkovich goes through the door and descends into his own mind and finds himself in a hall of mirrors where everything and everyone reflects himself, an actor portraying himself portraying himself.  In a sense the entire movie is Malkovich going down his own hole.             
                  

5 comments:

  1. I've never heard that interpretation before. Not sure if I buy it, though. I have a hard time accepting Malkovich as the protagonist when he has (among other things) such comparatively limited screentime. A good chunk of the time he's on screen, he really isn't Malkovich at all, but Craig (or, later, Dr. Lester) using Malkovich's body. Malkovich is, as you noted, a vessel; as a dynamic character he isn't really that well developed, and I think this is intentional. He's a vessel; he's a pre-made mold into which Craig can inject his own personality. I don't see how the film can be literally about being John Malkovich, as you seem to be saying it is, when Craig asserts his own personality over Malkovich's and takes control of Malkovich's life and body.

    You say that Malkovich was chosen specifically, and I agree, but I don't think it's necessarily because he's well-known as a serious actor. It's because he is, or at least was at the time, such a malformed personality in the public consciousness. Isn't Being John Malkovich pretty much his most famous movie? All the characters mistake him for being in "that jewel thief movie" not because he's a serious actor, but because he's such an obscure actor. They know that there's an actor named John Malkovich, but they don't know anything about him or his films. I think Maxine at one points asks "Who the fuck is John Malkovich?" and that's the point.

    It doesn't really matter that these people are getting to see the world through Malkovich's eyes so much as that they're seeing it through anyone else's eyes. One of the customers asks if he can be anyone he wants, and when they tell him he can only be John Malkovich he's thrilled, because this wasn't his first choice but he's so fat and lonely he'll settle for anyone. It's the same reason Craig gives for why he loves puppeteering: it lets him escape the confines and his own life and identity and become someone else for a while, live inside their skin and move and see and think and feel differently. I'm really surprised that you don't think Craig has any depth as a character; in my view he's not only the protagonist but the most interesting character in the film. He combines our desire for escape with our desire for control, but he also shows us that you can't have it both ways, and he winds up damned for trying.

    But back to Malkovich being the main character, I just don't see it. At least, not if you mean Malkovich as Malkovich as opposed to Malkovich as anyone else. You say the entire movie is about Malkovich going through his own portal, and I wish you would elaborate on that more because I don't see how that's the case. Are you saying that all the other characters represent aspects of Malkovich's personality? How? I suppose you could read it that way, but that seems a little too obscure to function as the predominant interpretation. I will agree that this movie could be read as an exploration of acting, but if so, I think Craig's species of acting is more thematically important than Malkovich's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This sounds like such a weird movie. Nevertheless it's on my "list" and I suspect I will eventually get around to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Probably the optimum review of this movie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you. This was another one of those posts where I wasn't sure if I got my point across, especially since I felt like I got things a little out of order somewhere in the middle paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have always thought that the film was more about Lotte and Maxine than Craig towards the end. Where as Lotte accepts who she is and Max starts to accept others for who they are, and not trying to change and control them, the both end up happy, Craig is doomed to the classic "careful what you wish for" end for his inability to do the same.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...