(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.
Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.
Exista o emigratie economica si alta psihogena. Emigratia economica se imparte si ea in emigratie coloniala si emigratie de avansare sociala. Emigratia coloniala e facuta de populatii mai puternice decat cele bastinase iar cea de avansare sociala este facuta de populatii mai slabe. Emigratia coloniala poate conduce la decimarea populatiilor bastinase asa cum s-a intamplat cu cea a imperiilor europene catre Americi. Desi autoritatile incearca din rasputeri sa ascunda adevarul, colonialismul european in Americi a fost una dintre cele mai negre pagini din istoria umanitatii. Bizonii, coiotii si populatiile amerindiene au fost practic eradicate in America de Nord intr-un macel multisecular. Acolo unde nu a existat decimare militara a populatiilor native, emigratia coloniala a adus decimare epidemica, prin bolile aduse de europeni in colonii. Dupa mai multe secole europenii au devenit imuni la unele dintre aceste boli, insa sistemul imunitar al nativilor a fost prins cu garda jos. Asa s-a intamplat desigur cu aborigenii din Australia sau cu nativii din Noa Zeelanda.
Pe de alta parte, imigrantul de avansare sociala provoaca frustrare populatiei locale in primul rand pentru ca accepta un salariu mai mic si practic strica „piata” muncii. Emigratia de avansare sociala face acelasi lucru pe care il faceau somerii industriali, punand presiune pe muncitori sa fie mai productivi. Daca o parte din populatia nativa isi pierde jobul in urma unui astfel de val de imigranti, si va ajunge marginalizata in propria comunitate, atunci imigrantul va fi pe drept cuvant vazut ca un pericol social. La fel ca in cazul tensiunilor dintre muncitori si vagabonzi din perioada industriala, tensiunea dintre imigrant si nativ e benefica pentru varful piramidei sociale care plateste mai putin pentru serviciile prestate de muncitor. Cei mai castigati sint, desigur, angajatorii care scot un profit mai mare. Insa, asa cum se intampla de fiecare data, profitul este parca o convertire a echilibrului social in buzunarele unei elite financiare lacome si risipitoare.
Exista si o emigratie de avansare sociala profitabila pentru intreaga comunitate in ceea ce priveste unele munci pe care nativii nu le mai doresc, ca gunoier, ingrijitor de batrani, agricultor, constructor etc. De data asta insa, frustrarea si sentimentul de inferioritate sociala se cuibaresc incet si sigur in sufletul imigrantului care incepe sa urasca comunitatea, transmitand urmasilor aceste resentimente. Frustrarile vietii intr-o economie hipercompetitiva, stresul capitalismului, este un pret pe care viata in linistea banala anterioara nu le-a putut inchipui. Viata aceasta este dificila si pentru nativii insisi (din aceasta cauza ei si evita aceste joburi) care au in spate o evolutie de cateva sute de ani de adaptare la viata occidentala. Atunci insa cand, de la un stil de viata traditional si patriarhal, se trece brusc la un stil de viata occidental, incep sa apara problemele.
Comportamentele antisociale, criminalitatea si dependenta de substante psihoactive sint mult mai mari in randurile urmasilor emigrantilor. Tulburarile sociale periodice de la periferia marilor orase franceze se datoreaza urmasilor imigrantilor africani. Ciclic, acestia fac prapad incendiind masini si devastand magazie si alte institutii. Bandele de infractori din metropolele nord-americane sint de regula formate din urmasii sclavilor negri si ai imigrantilor hispanici veniti via Mexic. Osama Bin Laden insusi a fost educat in stil occidental. La fel sint si cei ce comit atentate teroriste in numele Islamului. Terorismul amator ( http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/02/terorismul-ca-pilon-al-functionarii.html ) este pur si simplu manifestarea nuda a resentimentelor imigrantului fata de lume in urma conflictului psihic dintre zonele profunde ale memoriei transgenerationale si cele superioare ale memoriei filogenetice.
Dreptul la libera circulatie (art. 2 Protocolul nr. 4 CEDO) este recunoscut in carta drepturilor omului. Totusi libera circulatie nu poate fi chiar libera la fel cum este aerul sau lumina soarelui. Un numar prea mare de oameni stransi intr-o anumita zona a globului poate cauza blocaj de trafic sau suprapopulare. O trecere prea brutala de la un stil de viata la altul poate aduce convulsii sufletesti imigrantului si acestea se pot converti ulterior in convulsii sociale. In lumea animalelor nu exista o astfel de emigrare; leul de desert nu se poate lupta cu leul de mlastina care e mai puternic. Ursul brun nu se poate transforma peste noapte in urs polar doar pentru ca a vazut o balena moarta apetisanta pe o insula de pe langa calota glaciara. In acelasi fel nici ursul polar nu poate veni sa pescuiasca somonii pe raurile din continent. Niciunul nu e facut pentru asa ceva. Aceasta diferenta de mediu relativ la deplasarea animalelor trebuie sa conteze si in ceea ce priveste diferenta de mediu social relativ la emigratia umana.
Dincolo de asta, acest drept poate ascunde o capcana inimaginabila: noul sclavagism. Am aici in vedere nu numai deplasarea dintr-o tara din lumea a treia catre una civilizata ci si relocatia dintr-o zona saraca intr-una bogata a aceleiasi tari. Cel mai stringent exemplu este cel al Chinei care ruleaza intr-un mod ametitor forta de munca din zonele rurale in laboratoarele de dezumanizare ale unui capitalism de o ferocitate nemaiintalnita pana acum. Deocamdata sinuciderile in randul muncitorilor chinezi epuizati pot fi impiedicate cu plase de genul celor din fotografia de mai jos. Insa ma tem ca autoritatile chineze isi vor dori la un moment dat ca aceste plase sa nu fi existat…
Emigratia psihogena este un fel de etapa intre normalitate si ceea ce DSM IV numeste „Fuga disociativa”. Aceasta se manifesta „printr-o calatorie brusca, inopinata, departe de casa sau de locul de munca habitual, insotita de incapacitatea de a evoca propriul trecut si de confuzie referitoare la identitatea personala sau asumarea unei noi identitati.” (DSM IV pag. 519). Daca privim cu atentie, observam ca nevoia de a incepe o „viata noua” este foarte raspandita in mentalitatea comuna in ciuda unor manifestari conservatoare la fel de raspandite. De fapt cele doua tendinte sint principii generale ale vietii. Ele se pot vedea mai pronuntat sau mai sters in orice comportament normal. Fuga disociativa, Tulburarea de identitate disociativa, Amnezia disociativa, Mitomania (Minciuna patologica) sint manifestari ceva mai pronuntate ale acestei nevoi de evadare dintr-o realitate sociala perceputa ca inchisoare. Undeva, la originea ei transgenerationala, emigratia psihogena este tot una economica, arborele genealogic suferind frustrari de diferite feluri sau altfel de traume. Luand-o de la capat, imigrantul isi poate ameliora temporar cu speranta de mai bine problemele psihice. Insa, la un moment dat speranta aceasta paleste. La fel cum si-a urat locul de bastina de care vrea sa se dezica, imigrantul psihogen va dezvolta ura si pe noua lui comunitate.
Odata cu caderea blocului comunist, emigratia de avansare sociala a devenit compulsiva dupa ce, timp de aproape o jumatate de secol, granitele au fost aproape blocate. Instalarea regimurilor comuniste a adus si ramanerea in urma a economiilor aflate sub controlul lor. Multi isi doreau sa paraseasca tara in favoarea Occidentului, insa restrictiile au venit sa impiedice aceasta tendinta. De la sfarsitul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial si pana la ridicarea zidului Berlinului in 1961, peste 3 000 000 de estgermani emigrasera in RFG. Zidul Berlinului a ajuns astfel un simbol pentru lagarul comunist.
Daca ne uitam pe wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_emigration_and_defection ) vedem ca emigratia din tarile comuniste catre Occident a fost foarte restransa. Ea s-a intamplat doar in doua cazuri. Primul este cel al emigratiei etnice. De exemplu etnia germana, fie a fost vanduta la bucata din tari ca Romania sau URSS, fie a fost expulzata din tari ca Cehoslovacia sau Polonia. Evreii au fost si ei vanduti de Romania si URSS. Etnicii turci au emigrat in Turcia din Bulgaria. Celalalt caz este cel al emigratiei datorate unor evenimente politice. In urma invaziei sovietice din Cehoslovacia (1968) , 200 000 de oameni au parasit tara. Acelasi numar de oameni au emigrat din Ungaria in urma Revolutiei Ungare din 1956.
Exista insa o tara in fostul bloc comunist in care mersul peste granita era permis: Iugoslavia. Cetatenii din alte tari comuniste si-au dorit cu ardoare regimul din aceasta tara in perioada de dinainte de 1989. Tito ajunsese un personaj mirific pentru libertatea data iugoslavilor. Datorita banilor trimisi in tara de muncitorii sai de peste hotare, Iugoslavia a ajuns cea mai bogata tara din blocul comunist. Totul s-a dus insa pe apa sambetei cand, intorsi acasa, negura amintirilor de sclavi ai Occidentului s-a transformat in ura asupra celor de alta religie sau de alta nationalitate. Acest fenomen este manifestarea la scala sociala a deplasarii din nevroza, despre care vorbeste psihanaliza. Explozia tulburarilor etnice in aceasta zona s-a datorat si altor fenomene psihice ca, de exemplu, sublimarea sau transformarea in contrariu. Frustrarile acumulate zeci de ani prin pribegie au erupt in niste razboaie pline de atrocitati abominabile, nemaivazute in Europa de est dupa anii 1950.
A existat un singur razboi in tarile fostei URSS in aceasta zona pe criterii etnice, cel din Transnistria. Insa el a fost mult mai mic ca amploare decat cele din fosta Iugoslavie. Razboiul din Transnistria a avut maxim 1 500 de morti si maxim 2 000 de raniti in ambele tabere. Razboaiele din Iugoslavia au avut 140 000 de morti conform Centrului International pentru Justitie Transnationala, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars )
Razboaiele post-sovietice din zona Caucazului au avut si ele intr-adevar foarte multe victime, insa trebuie tinut cont ca in acea zona exista o populatie araba cu care Rusia a fost mereu in conflict. Apoi exista destule pareri care considera ca acea zona nu face parte din Europa ci din Asia. Factorul lingvistic sustine aceasta idee. Oricum ar fi, situatia tarilor caucaziene anexate de Rusia este cu totul alta decat cea a Iugoslaviei. Probleme etnice sau de separare a unor provincii artificial lipite s-au mai vazut (Cehoslovacia) insa ele nu au degenerat ca acolo. Nu se sustine ideea ca iugoslavii ar fi mai agresivi decat restul est-europenilor. Singura diferenta dintre ei si ceilalti consta in aceasta teribila experienta de imigranti. Pur si simplu tragediile anilor 1990 isi au radacina in aceasta presupusa libertate pe care Tito le-a dat-o cetatenilor Iugoslaviei, fara sa stie ca le ofera de fapt o cutie a Pandorei. Realitatea este ca suprabunastarea economica a Europei Occidentale facuta cu muncitorii iugoslavi a condus pana la urma la dezastru odata ce au ajuns acasa. E ca si cum ai satisface doar anumite instincte si ai inhiba pe altele. Organismul se va dezechilibra invariabil.
Din pacate, intre timp, odata cu caderea blocului comunist, si ceilalti est-europeni ajung incet si sigur noi sclavi imigranti ai Occidentului. Nevoia acerba de circulatie din timpul comunismului, astazi a ajuns pentru multi un blestem. Disolutia familiei est-europene, copiii crescuti de bunici apatici sau transformati in minge de ping-pong intre parintii separati prin tarile vest-europene va aduce consecinte teribile in cateva decenii, cand acesti copii ai nimanui se vor maturiza. Ei vor fi viitorii dependenti de droguri si alcool. Repetarea unor conflicte majore pe criterii etnice, de genul celor din fosta Iugoslavie, este un lucru foarte probabil in viitor daca lucrurile nu se vor schimba rapid.
Traim intr-o lume globala, e clar. Nu putem sa ne izolam ermetic unii de altii. Insa si unii si altii trebuie sa intelegem ca unii dintre noi nu sintem pur si simplu pregatiti pentru un anumit mediu social. Ai dreptul sa calatoresti cu magarul prin stepele salbatice insa nu prin orase cu zgarienori. De asemenea ai dreptul sa circuli cu o masina de superviteza pe autostrazile occidentale. Insa nu mi se pare insa corect sa te duci in nu stiu ce jungla si sa faci o autostrada care sa impiedice circulatia animalelor pentru ca ai tu pofta sa amesteci culturile. Acest postmodernism delirant al eclectismului neomedieval si-a aratat de fapt fata de gunoi. El a fost menit sa acopere un interes colonialist de tip economic, iar decesul lui teoretic va fi urmat cat de curand si de decesul sau politic. El este tipic pentru politicianul care declara un lucru si face cu seninatate psihoticista altceva. El este tipic pentru politistul care „iti respecta” drepturile constitutionale insa iti cauta motive pentru a te sanctiona in cazul in care ti le manifesti.
Este nevoie de cateva reguli in acest joc accelerat al globalizarii. Noi occidentalii ne permitem anumite excese (sexuale, alimentare, etc.) pentru ca mediul nostru a fost mai bogat si mai permisiv in suprapopulare. Arabii sau africanii au trait mii de ani in zone mai sarace si astfel au trebuit sa fie mai restrictivi, altfel resursele lor alimentare limitate s-ar fi putut epuiza si asta ar fi condus la foamete. Sunt de acord cu faptul ca intre civilizatii trebuie sa existe comunicare. Sunt de acord cu faptul ca unele elite stiintifice si culturale din tarile arabe si cele ale lumii a treia pot imbogati patrimoniul universal. Insa una este sa ai un artist sau un savant dezamagit de civilizatie, care isi traieste dezamagirea in mod productiv si alta e sa ai un om simplu care, in situatie de criza existentiala, face ce a facut si predecesorii sai, anume ataca atunci cand se simte amenintat.
Atentatele teroriste din lumea occidentala este pretul pentru ademenirea si exploatarea mainii ieftine de lucru din tarile lumii a treia. E mai usor sa ascunzi disperarea capitalismului in cazul muncitorilor occidentali, care refuleaza intr-un anumit fel, conform culturii nevroticiste europene. Ca si in cazul fostilor iugoslavi, occidentalul sublimeaza apoi in mod tipic, comportandu-se megalomaniac in trafic, sau comportandu-se tiranic in familie, sau comportandu-se razboinic pe stadioane, sau in altele asemenea, dupa ce a fost umilit la job. Asta e tipic culturii civilizate. Daca insa aduci un om cu o cultura razboinica medievala in zonele stresante ale civilizatiei occidentale, atunci vei suporta consecintele. Atacurile teroriste facute de astfel de dezradacinati social se vor intensifica daca nu se vor lua masuri de armonizare sociala.
Viceversa e si ea valabila. Nu e normal ca firmele occidentale sa se duca in tarile asiatice sau din lumea a treia si sa ademeneasca acolo mana de lucru ieftina, scindand comunitatile si punand astfel bazele unor conflicte sociale majore. In acest moment toti ne putem bucura de lucrurile ieftine venite facute in China, Indonezia si altele. Insa prin asta nu facem decat sa ii punem pe copiii nostri sa plateasca pentru comoditatea pe care noi ne-o permitem astazi, dupa cum si noi platim pentru faptul ca niste oameni care au trait in mentalitate medievala au fost inarmati cu arme moderne de catre generatiile anterioare noua si acum santem amenintati. Situatia Emiratelor Arabe Unite este una fericita pentru ca occidentalizarea accelerata s-a facut pe baza comercializarii resurselor lor naturale. O sa mai vedem ce se va intampla acolo dupa ce aceste resurse se vor epuiza sau un alt combustibil va inlocui petrolul pe baza caruia s-a creat acea civilizatie occidentala artificiala.
Fireste, rasele si culturile nu sint ermetice si nu sint facute pentru a ramane la fel. Globalizarea se intampla cu sau fara acordul cuiva anume. Schimburile de informatii, tehnologie sau persoane intre comunitati si culturi s-a realizat si se va realiza. Nu migratia in sine a oamenilor este este problema societatii umane civilizate. Dar controlul si reducerea ei rezolva pe termen scurt frustrarea dezradacinarii trate de imigrant. El crede ca bunastarea ii va aduce fericirea insa marginalizarea sociala urmata de relocarea in spatiile occidentale ii accentueaza angoasele. Mult mai bine pentru el este sa stea in zonele in care genealogia lui l-a format, contand pentru familie si comunitate, decat sa se trezeasca amenintat cu nonfiinta intr-un oras occidental indiferent si arogant.
Problema generala a valului de imigranti, care ajung ulterior sa aiba comportamente antisociale, este insasi ipocrizia civilizatiei occidentale, modul ei pervers prin care, sub pretextul unei iluzorii libertati si bunastari, ademeneste sclavi din alte locuri si de alte culturi. Problema este asadar stresul si conditiile discriminatorii de viata pentru acesti sclavi care ajung apoi sa regrete parasirea stilului initial de viata. Iata ca, la un moment dat ei se pot razbuna in acest fel, asa cum au tot facut sclavii de-a lungul istoriei societatii sclavagismului clasic. Si aici nu e vorba doar de imigranti. Nativii insisi pot raspunde cu un terorism mai mare sau mai mic la acest terorism obscur al autoritatilor. Agresivitatea in trafic, actele antisociale sau altele de acest gen sint realitati concrete ale claselor inferioare
Desigur, autoritatile pot condamna cu inchisoarea pe cei care gandesc altfel decat conform modelului dualist „teroristii = rai; autoritati = buni”. Am vazut recent absurditati de acest gen comise in numele unui ipocrit drept la libera exprimare. Cei care au declarat ca teroristii au fost indreptatiti sa faca ce au facut la Paris au fost condamnati la inchisoare. Prin aceasta practic autoritatile au raspuns cu aceeasi moneda cu care insisi teroristii au actionat. Cu alte cuvinte, asa cum teroristii (amatori) au aplicat o pedeapsa disproportionata si din registru diferit de vinovatie, respectiv moarte contra desen si text, la fel si autoritatile au aplicat o pedeapsa disproportionata si din registru diferit de vinovatie, respectiv inchisoare contra idee. Asta inseamna ca libertatea de expresie este respectata doar atunci cand ideile exprimate nu contrazic pe cele ale autoritatilor sau chiar pe cele ale majoritatii. Iata ca, la fel cu ipocrizia „dreptului la libera circulatie, avem si o ipocrizie legata de „dreptul la libera expresie”. Chiar daca nu sintem de acord cu ce spune cineva, atata tip cat acea persoana nu foloseste cuvinte jignitoare sau acuzatii lipsite de temei, ea are dreptul sa-si exprime liber ideile oricare ar fi acelea, conform drepturilor omului si a tuturor Constitutiilor tarilor occidentale. Ori, in cazul de fata, (din cate stiu eu) 2 dintre condamnatii la inchisoare nu au adus cuvinte jignitoare sau acuze nefondate nefericitilor jurnalisti ucisi sau publicatiei cu pricina. A existat un singur caz in care s-au folosit expresii jignitoare, insa respectivul nu au fost condamnat pe aceste acuzatii. Nimeni dintre cei pedepsiti cu inchisoarea conform declaratiilor nu a fost condamnat pe baza acuzatiilor de ofensa sau calomnie. Oricum ar fi, a face inchisoare in secolul XXI, intr-o tara civilizata pentru ca ti-ai expus ideile arata cat de medievali am ramas in unele privinte noi insine, cei care ne batem cu pumnul in piept cu civilizatia noastra occidentala.
Asadar, daca vrem sa nu mai avem evenimente de genul celui recent intamplat la Paris, atunci trebuie sa alegem intre doua posibilitati. Prima este si cea mai sanatoasa, si consta in relaxarea presiunilor economice si politice pe cei aflati la baza piramidei sociale. Cealalta, este un compromis pentru cazul in care lacomia corporatistilor si dezumanizarea celor deja convertiti la acest stil de viata au devenit obisnuinte greu de schimbat. Ea inseamna tocmai restrangerea acestei false libertati de libera circulatie pentru cei care nu au experienta stilului de viata capitalist. Terorismul practicat de extremistii arabi este cea mai stringenta astfel de anomalie a schimbarii radicale a stilului de viata a imigrantilor sau colonizatilor economic. Sinuciderile asiaticilor sau alcoolismul eschimosilor este pretul ascuns al acestei false „civilizari” ai "saracilor" primitivi sau medievali. Din punctul meu de vedere, aceasta falsa bunastare care scoate la iveala astfel de anomalii este un dezastru social.
Lumea medievala si primitiva contemporana are dreptul sa traiasca asa cum vrea, fara a fi „salvata” de la „saracie”, sau alte astfel de concepte iluzorii, de niste corporatisti ipocriti. Lumea salbatica are si ea dreptul sa traiasca pe acest pamant. La fel, si noi occidentalii civilizati avem dreptul sa traim cum traim atata timp cat nu distrugem celelalte culturi si civilizatii diferite de cea a noastra. Globalizarea trebuie sa se faca natural. E nevoie de niste etape care trebuie parcurse fluid, fara interventia artificiala a unor profitori care apoi lasa dezastru in urma lor si pleaca in alta zona pentru a o distruge-o si pe aceea. Protectia vietii salbatice, primitive si medievale din spatiile nonoccidentale trebuie sa se faca mai activ daca vrem sa avem o lume echilibrata. In locul unei maini de lucru ieftine, comunitatile occidentale mai bine ar investi in roboti care sa faca automat acele munci nedorite de nativi. Din pacate, cei care au dreptul de decizie in stat, politicienii, prefera sa dezvolte mai curand un inselator aparat de manipulare si ademenire a naivilor din tarile din lumea a treia. Acestia sint introdusi artificial in angrenajul social iar politicienii ii folosesc pentru a-si pastra puterea supraevaluata pe care o au. La asta se pricep ei foarte bine, cei drept. Insa, cei care sufera in urma razbunarilor imigrantilor sau urmasilor lor sint chiar oamenii simpli care nici macar nu inteleg aceasta inginerie monstruoasa a ademenirii imigrantilor in sistemul neosclavagist capitalist. Pana la urma, de acesti oameni, si de capacitatea lor de a intelege aceste resorturi sociale, depinde aceasta schimbare. Este nevoie de o noua alfabetizare ecologica in lumea occidentala iar reglementarile migratiei trebuie facute mai coerent.
From the very beginning I mention that the film must be seen before reading this text. I do not think that someone can understand anything from this text without seeing it before, maybe several times. A summary is impossible. Although I have described some actions from the film, I rather did it for recalling those facts that have must been actually seen in the film. As seen here, the text has already gotten quite long, so I can not make it any longer for something that, anyway, would not help much. In terms of length, I decided to split it into several sections that can be read independently, for those who get bored facing the entire text.
Introduction
The film is based on the story “All You Zombies” by Robert A. Heinlein published in 1959, after having been written in one single day, a year before.
The authors said that the film is based on the story "You ghosts" (All You Zombies) by Robert A. Heinlein published in 1959 just after being written a year before, in one day. This text can be very accessed here: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/303/heinlein_all_you_zombies.pdf. Obviously, it is only a draft script. The rest was completed by Michael and Peter Spierig, the multidisciplinary skills (twins) brothers who have worked on it further more. My guess is that the brothers were inspired by the 2012 "Looper". The "Predestination" looks to me much closer to "Looper" than it is to "All You Zombies". I think they wanted to make a reply to Bruce Willis’s movie, seeing the theme psychological opportunities, deploring its technicalist placidity. Well, this is just a suspicion of mine. I do not care too much to know where the Spierig brothers had inspired from.
These two films movie theme is very used in SF; turning back in time to change the past in a way that would become favorable to the present or future. The success of such stories comes with the sorrows and fears that many have towards their decisions taken in the past, and with the desire to go there and change them. Just like the flight theme, this one has a strong tradition in cultural history. The transmigration described by Plato has also this meaning, among other ones. The popularity of the 1990s "Terminator" series is an example. In the same manner, in this film, the main character, the temporal agent, travel back in time trying to prevent some terrorist, called “ the fizzle bomber”, to set bombs in various locations.
The ancient theoretical anxieties related to the destiny/ chance theory is very visible in this film. The theoretical ambivalence specific to our historical mentality level is immortalized in a simple sentence that is repeated several times throughout the film: "Some things are inevitable." Such a theoretical position is specific to the common philosophy that (contradictory) combines the fatalistic with the hazard theories into one single theory.
Good sides
The theme is a combination of elements from psychology, philosophy and physics related to time travel fiction. As a SF author, Robert A. Heinlein was not mainly interested by psychopathology or psychology and, of course, nor Spierig brothers, who developed his short story into a 90 min movie. None of them have solid psychology studies, although they are not experts in philosophy and physics neither. The psychological side of the story is treated from the author perspective, who observes and notices, but from the observer one, who copies its own mind symptoms. But if the story had been forced to overlap on some psychopathological models, the film would have been even richer in meanings.
As it will be seen in the last section of this article, the film has a lot of major technical drawbacks. However, due to its idea, for me it is one of the best I've ever seen. I always deplored that "Terminator" or "Quantum Leap" basically insisted on action, explosions and special effects, instead of seeing the physical and philosophical opportunities can be developed from the idea of time travel. The time travel paradoxes were even more interesting used in "Looper". But this movie was not able to reach even 1 % of the psychological and the philosophical sides devolved by “Predestination”. Only in terms of the SF theme, the two films are very close. It is possible that its authors might have seen "Looper" before, and tried to develop the subject some more, unsatisfied with its coverage. I was glad to see this in this film, when the circus was replaced with a philosophy of destiny.
In the film there can be seen some unusual situations resulting from long negotiations between the phantasmagorical imagination and the censorship coming from physical principles, ultimately leading to consistent consequences that come out from the time returning phenomenon. For example, the main character, the temporal agent, was sending recorded messages to himself with a recorder for the future to increase his chances to stop the "Fizzle Bomber". At one point, he needed a topcoat and a hat; it was enough to record the voice that he needs these things and they immediately appeared in the closet as a feedback consequence result from the future and then in the present time (min. 64, or hour 1:04). His smile after opening the wardrobe and observing these things there (since a few minutes before they were not there) is an assurance that the other person that he is keeps listening to his advice and continues his way. Such a simple command is a metaphor for forecasting the human technology over several hundred years, when robots will fulfill our desires just as servants do. The future anticipating in the present banal reality opens up a very interesting realities puzzle: the recorder that took the command looked in his hand just like the Flintstones’s imitating phone stone, in terms of such advanced technologies.
The film opens up a very fine philosophical interpretation (with psychological flavor), based on the androgyne myth flipped upside down: two lovers live a love story then a disaster occurs, the destiny of every love. The two lovers constantly seek each other, their lives meaning is to find one another. Frustrated by this loss, one of them becomes a terrorist, a blind murderer without a purpose. The abstract revenge over the world involves a vicious circle of terrorism and “war on terror”: the authorities respond with greater violence on the community that the terrorist come from, killing many innocents and creating new eager for revenge people. Although they boast to fight against terrorism, in fact, the authorities are the main source of terror to ordinary citizens, as I have shown here: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/02/terrorism-as-pillar-of-state.html . It is also suggested in the film by the desire to punish the "Fizzle Bomber" who eventually ends up in the transformation the justicer into a terrorist..
Although not mentioned in the film, it is easy to conclude that that person who destroyed Jane’s life, stealing her child, actually made it possible also; the child has not been kidnapped to be abused but to be sent back in time in 1945 and to become Jane herself. We can imagine what John would discover once being put in the position of completing his revenge. He goes for revenging on the one who stole his baby but, if he would prevent that from happening, then basically he would kill himself, unable to reach to the orphanage. This is what actually happens eventually: you let me live and we will be together or you kill me and you kill yourself. From here starts a no way out vicious circle: you kill your love just by the very indentation to preserve it. If he would not kill his partner, then the Temporal Bureau would use a lethal injection for him.
"Time catches up with us all. Even those in our line of work" ,
says the character at minute 07. Or, at minute 09, the movie rethinks the world origin, said in the form of a joke:
"What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Rooster."
Just like in "Matrix" or, "I, Robot" or Bin Laden (in reality), the own creation tool became independent and came to take control its own destiny, even threatening those who created it. The robots took power in those movies and the terrorism has become part of our contemporary fears. The common people are trapped between the amateur terrorism, made by a rebel, and the professional terrorism made by the authorities. The rebel person wants revenge on someone at random, representing the world that hates. He then has two options: either does it on its own way or does it organized. The first case results in the antiwestern culture terrorist, as authorities describe it. The second case is equivalent with the terrorist hided in soldier or policeman uniform, order maintaining force in general. The social system lures that person to join the army and fight against amateur terrorism. As he turns into a soldier, the latent terrorist has become a pawn in the global slave hierarchy, in which the war has a very important role, as I have shown here:
In this film, the Temporal Bureau recruits only girls to send them back in time, in order not to fall in love with Jane on the way, and not fertilize her with a child who would later become "the Fizzle Bomber". After a summary control (min. 28), the physician from the Temporal Bureau sees that Jane may be a man too and excludes her from the organization under a sentence pretext that came after a misconduct. In fact, after the story’s logic, such a measure is taken to prevent Jane to travel back in time and fertilize a woman. But, at the same time, it also opens the way to becoming a mother, while releasing from professional restrictions. Both choices lead to the same result. If Jane is sent back in time, then, the Temporal Bureau sends back in time a man, actually. He will meet Jane and both will conceive a child who would later become "the Fizzle Bomber". Conversely, if Jane is excluded, then it is John who would come after her, fall in love and still will conceive the child. Jane would give birth in both cases, and will have the uterus mutilated, thus becoming John, in a circle with no exit. Concerning to this situation, at the minute 56 there is a very touching dialogue between the temporal agent and John, which had just been initiated in time travel:
John „– – This life... Is it lonely? No family.?”
Agentul temporal „– – No. But, you do have a purpose.”
This dialogue reminds us the Sisyphus myth, the image of the person who finds purpose in the world’s absurdity, endlessly pushing the boulder to the top of the mountain.
On the other hand, in a world of isolation and differentiation, the individual togetherness as the same species remains a moral goal to be achieved. The philosophical side opens wide here. Each of us are in fact one and the same, we are part of the same family: the humanity. The abuse against one of our kind will eventually turn back against us ourselves. Our sex separation is meant for an effective reproduction control of our species. The sexuality permits reproduction when the environment is favorable. The male-female differences are not ontological radical ones. The reunion option of One into Everything is dialectically reflected in that of our individual splitting. Each of us would like to meet the opposite sex version of ourselves or our past and future versions of ourselves. How we would react to our opposite sex half? What advice we would have for our younger person we were? What advice would we ask from the older person we had become? Here are some mythical questions that the film knew how to exploit very effective!
Beyond this, the film is an invitation to reflection on life itself, taken in its banality and experienced by everybody. And this there is a way opened for a psychological analysis: we are born beautiful and loving, we grow and become unsatisfied by the world we live in, we fall in love, make compromises to protect our family and end up maimed and full of regrets. These are the same and different personalities that develop in time in film.
The psychological side of the film
As seen, although they are SF authors, the story developed by Spierig brothers is more psychological than the most SF themes. They have a pretty acute (although uncultivated) psychological sense. Without this ability, they would not have been noticed the androgynous splitting subject, from the Heinlein's short story. They didn’t imagine it, but kept it in their mind, developed it and made a remarkable film out of it.
a) Before going into analytical details, I want to clarify a few things about psychoanalysis working methodology for a cultural product. I've briefly spoke them to folks at the Café Gradiva meetings, were some movies were psychoanalytically interpreted. This time I want to get into more details on these methodological impediments of such approach. An involuntary mind product can always be psychoanalyzed, like any other psychical product. But when it comes to psychoanalyze a voluntary mind product, like the imagination or the art, then the things get more complicated. In this case, there is not the mind itself that is psychoanalyzed but a mind’s projection into an imagined reality. It is imperative not to consider this imagined reality as an objective exterior one (I do not retract my Kantian past). Unfortunately, the classical psychoanalysis, since Freud, is not taking it much into account. We remember the way that Freud interpreted Moses as if Michelangelo had made a three-dimensional picture of the moment when the biblical character prepared to throw the tables. It is a big mistake. Michelangelo did not make any photo to Moses but he just imagined him that way, projecting himself into the character. Freud could very well analyze Michelangelo but not the fictive Moses’s character. The analysis of some imagined gestures is less accurate than that of the real gestures. Our character does not exist. It is a fiction. The psychoanalysis of a fiction is itself a fiction and should be treated as such.
Then, like in any film case, the story is a team work. If psychoanalyze a film, we must take into account that there is a collective mind analyzed. The team has physical similarities of course, otherwise its members would not be able to coordinate themselves and would not find the communication points. But each team member brings its individuality and creates the cultural product ultimate details. Those who psychoanalyze the global culture need to take this into account. Even the individualistic arts, like painting or poetry, for example, are team products, and the painter or the poet are negatively or positively influenced by other contemporary artists or by other predecessors. Looking to the history of that art, especially looking to the artists who have influenced the author, this is imperative.
For the analysis rigorousness, when we analyze the details of a cultural product, we should know who is its author from this team, and explain them relating to the mind of this particular person. Under these conditions we might make a cultural psychoanalysis, meeting the cabinet psychoanalysis’s rigors. Of course, such a thing is almost impossible to be done today. In the film case, practically every team member should be analyzed separately, but not during their work time. This would not be possible because, first, there would not be time for that, if we consider the hard work required for making a movie. Then, the psychoanalytic intervention would consume the mental tension of creation in front of the psychoanalyst and not inside the cultural product, which would affect the artist’s work quality. However, an individual psychoanalysis for film team members would be possible after finishing it, and some artists really need it. But, if a film is made in 6 months of filming, then the psychoanalysis effect on the artists would be much the same to that made on an ordinary dream, analyzed not in the coming days after its production, but after 6 months or more later. In this case, the mental details would have been lost in the depths of the mind. In the painter's case, things are even more complicated; there must be analyzed that person who influenced its work and style. Most often this precursor may be dead already for tens or hundreds of years.
So the analysis of a cultural product is more complicated than the analysis of individual symptom inside the cabinet. This is what my friends from Café Gradiva must take into account. But, on the other hand, I also do not agree with the opposite attitude who claims that psychoanalysis could not be done since there is no patient to confirm or reject it. But the art is not made by the author only; it is made also by the audience that resonates with it. Given the public, we can say that we have half a "patient" so we can concretely analyze it. A group of people who resonate with the psychoanalyst’s interpretations are part of a "collective unconscious" sample that "participates" at that work of art. These "participants" have the same role that individual patient has inside the cabinet. Therefore I say that, this time in accordance with friends from Café Gradiva, we can play with the interpretations and with fictitious person diagnosing. We can play with the analysis, without risk of raving, as long as we do recognize that we make a cultural analysis with psychoanalytic flavor, but not a genuine psychoanalysis, at least not a cabinet one. The condition is not to mix up the planes, and have in mind that we do not analyze a real person but a fictional character to which the prudence must be twice stronger.
This film is a symbol and, like any cultural product (and psychopathological also), there are several meanings joined within it. As a collective product, the symbol does not need so much the individual confirmations of reality, as happens with the actual analyze inside the cure. It only takes some parallel interpretation which, however, the viewer makes anyway with or without psychoanalysis. Of course, I am referring here to the general elements of the symbol but not its details. The psychoanalytic work tools can not penetrate very deeply into the meanings core of the cultural product details. Then, a psychoanalytical interpretation brings professionalism to any nonpsychoanalytical interpretation which, however, any spectator makes it more or less aware of.
b) The first thing that stands in front of this film is the narcissism. The authors saw the psychological opportunities coming out of the idea of meeting with itself, unlike the "Looper" film team, who was quasi-total immune to that issue. From my point of view, the narcissism is the abused person reaction to improve its marginal social status. The conceiving of Jesus, as a human-God, acts as a narcissistic identification with Him, and that has the role of salvation fantasy that the slave develops, mentally defending itself from master’s threats. The film main character achieves this narcissistic level of Christianity becoming "the one without beginning and without end". At the min. 32, the agent Robertson describes it as a kind of "People without families. Without husbands and wives and children. No past. No ties to the future. ". Another interesting remark in this regard is made by the temporal agent at the 07 minute: "we were born into this job."
If, at this first moment of the film, the expression "People with no past" has the meaning of people dedicated to career, then, as story develops, it becomes increasingly narcissistic. Here, at this moment, we notice the person "dedicated to its profession" metaphor as originally abused person, like a workaholic and a victim of mental slavery. This humiliation is related with the "inferiority complex" that Alfred Adler was talking about. Inside the dynamic story, this inferiority complex is due to the degeneration caused by the self-fertilizing. The cycle returning repetition involves the no partner fertilizing repetition. If this "sin" would be possible in the real world, then it would be bigger than the traditional incest sin, genetically speaking. A child resulted from incest has a chance to be a normal person because the opposite sex 1st degree relatives could have some genetic differences. But the repeating self-fertilizing cycle by sex changing and returning in time is practically a kind of several generations repeated incest. This would result into a kind of polymultiplied Oedipus Complex, but we must consider that we are on the imaginary realm so the story is fictitious and not real.
The mental suffering caused by this fictional Oedipus megacomplex can exist if authors want. But, since nothing concrete is seen the film about that, then we can only summarize to consider this track only an exercise of imagination. However, the genetic inferiority is a logical consequence that can be deduced even if the authors do not clearly show it. The existence of an inferiority complex based on this genetic predisposition toward inferiority is something very possible. In favorable conditions, the inferiority complex can turn into a superiority one. In this story, the humiliation turns into narcissism, and in the beginning the subject becomes a God of his profession, and then it becomes God itself.
This phantasmal narcissism of Christian religious experience did not stop there, in this film, but moved on. The character comes to love and have sex with himself/herself due to time traveling and sex changing. This adventure will cause a child that will eventually become himself/herself. In Christianity, God turns into human, but remains God. Here, the human becomes God and constantly give birth to himself/herself. This fictitious reality is, in my experience, the highest imaginary point of narcissism in the culture history. The God-human and the virgin mother fiction are left behind, in terms of narcissism, by this story.
c) The classical psychoanalysis would visualize this film, of course, in a psychotic perspective; the main character turns into several distinct characters that keep only the long-term memory and hopes. It is known that, for the classical psychoanalysis, the narcissism is the very essence of psychosis. From my experience with friends at Café Gradiva meetings, I can infer a way of interpretation which overlaps on the psychoanalytic cure work. The psychotic splitting, the fall into psychopathological abyss, is followed by trying to heal itself ego through "hallucination" killing.
"What if I could put him in front of you? The man that ruined your life?... If I could guarantee that you'd get away with it would you kill him?"
That is the question with which the film begins and (obsessionally!) returns several times along the way. I think this obsessive sentence would provoke my friends from Gradiva to consider such a conclusion. The main character returns in time and live there the events that have marked his existence, as a spectator. This is, indeed, a very successful metaphor for psychoanalytic cure work. The icing on the cake, the final "Fizzle Bomber" shooting, looks indeed like the paradigm of healing (or maybe not, others would say !!!), completing the cure ...
As a matter of fact, there is a parallel metaphorical situation in the film referring to the psychoanalytic cure. At minute 65 (hour 1:05) there is a dialogue between Jane and John, in which John describes the intimate own repressed psychical contents to Jane as "envy" and "love". Hearing this, she soon develops frustration and denial defensive positions, like they happen in the cure. But this does not happen only in the cure. It is as a normal dialogue between two different mental stages of a person. These things are the realities of human psychological development in general. It is true that it happens in the cure also, but the mental development is not necessarily a psychoanalytic cure.
I always have grumbled at the Café Gradiva meetings about that kind of interpretation in similar contexts. From my point of view, the psychoanalytic cure repeates at a higher speed, and in a shorter time, this natural evolution. Expressing one's mental development similarities with those of psychoanalytic cure is meaningless in this context. I do not like that panpsychoanalyticism attitude. I find it as a cultural colonialism against other different spiritual evolution phenomena that come to the same conclusions but on different ways than those of the psychoanalysis.
Further on, I bring hre the objection towards Café Gradiva folks opinions concerning the film "Conversation" ( http://cafegradiva.ro/reflectii-pe-baza-filmului-conversatia-si-a-comentariilor-ulterioare-de-la-sedinta-aipsa/ ): the psychoanalytic cure has no effect on psychosis or, at least, not that on neurosis, where the effect is very visible. So, from this perspective, the parallel to psychoanalytic cure is also meaningless, since, for the psychosis evolution dynamics, it has no influence. Then what would be the connection between the psychoanalytic treatment and this story, since neither the characters nor the authors have experienced it? We couldn’t get along on this issue even after several years sessions so I doubt that things would be unanimously decided now, so I stop here with this topic.
One can see, however, that the psychotic narcissism that Freud imagined is quite different than that imagined by writers of this story, but overall, the ambiguous Freudian concept can include it also. I would not be surprised to find some refusal positions, concerning the classification in one or another concept, from classical psychoanalysis theorists, on the basis that the raw material, the subject to be analyzed, completely lacks. Without SF frame, something like this could not have been imagined, because, no matter how narcissistic could be someone, yet it could not possibly love itself at this scale. The analysis justification according to the above compromise, on the basis that it is actually analyzed the authors’ imagination itself, can not be sustained in this case. The gap between the product imagined by mind and the mind’s reality is the same as that between of the computer’s hardware and software.
Anyway, personally I do not find that the narcissism is the psychosis’s essence. Some nonpsychotic people are also narcissistic, like a schizoid one (here I refer to the "Schizoid personality disorder"), where the subject is much more careless regarding other people than is a schizophrenic person. Many schizophrenics seek affection from others, and this fact shakes the very foundations of Freudian concept of "narcissism" and his theory of psychosis as extreme narcissism. There might be found a psychosis constant in giving up the narcissism adjustment to the reality, however, but this giving up must be explained otherwise than by somatic conversion model of hysterical neurosis as Freud did.
And since we are in the SF zone, this type of narcissism could be explained rather by a hysterical, conversion neurosis, (SF itself, of course) than by a psychosis. Both own genitals atrophy (involving latent genitals development for traveling back in time) and self fertilization itself are actually some mental adjustments of (somatic) reality to the requirements of the "primary gain", which is the main photodynamic interest of the symptom. Regarding the psychosis’ field, this narcissism would not need so much the modeled reality like these (hysterical) "miracles", as are the sex changing and time traveling, but would choose the gross delirium. It is specific to hysterical strength only (typically non-psychotic) to coherently combine the reality with the symptom deep interests.
All these theoretical oddities are the absurd consequences of the unclear concept of "narcissism" that Freud has theorized. Beyond that, he and many others after him saw the neurosis and the psychosis as the base for normal psychical state. I am a radical adversary to such a psychopathologist vision. I see psychopathology just as the psychiatry sees it, namely as a (original) mental balance blackening stricare and not as a psychic incapacity to diminish this original psychopathological supposed state.
d) This film main character has not enough symptoms to meet any of the major psychiatric disorders. But, if we play a little and decide to analyze it under psychopathological criteria, this film can be interpreted both in the psychotic paranoid frame as much as in the neurotic-obsessional frame. The main argument for the first option is, firstly, the main character’s ego disintegration, and secondly, that of the spatial and temporal dimension dissolution; the time and space zigzag journey without tangible limits is causing an abyssal feeling, an existential uncertainty in a world that one don’t know where to grab from and can not control. And that is a psychotic sign. Here I agree with the classical psychoanalysis.
The main reason for the second alternative is the lack of hallucinations or delusions. The film producers give us absolutely no technical indication that the main character would experience a delirium, as happens, for example, in films like “Fight Club” or “Shutter Island”. In these movies, and many more, we gradually understand that the main characters have a psychotic perception of reality. The "Looper" has only one scene with some halucinoid aspect, somewhere after the 21 minutes when a character gradually disintegrates as a result of present actions that have implications in the future and then retroactively in the present, as a result of returning in time. But, as I previously mentioned, this scene has no intention of revealing any psychopathologistic purposes. It is a consequence of taking on next level the SF imagination of time travel paradoxes. However, "Predestination" has not at all such a scene, so that the hallucinations and delirium subject have no base.
On the other hand, breaking the main character’s ego apart into 3 or 4 different identities, each with its own interests and desires, is not specific to neurotic-obsessive constitution. This requires split between two forces only, i.e. between the compulsional ego and the compulsion inhibition obsessional ritual. On the other hand, in the film, there is also cooperation between some identities but not conflict only. For example, there exists only cooperation between the baby and the main character other stages of development. Then, the romance itself, involving character’s all 5 stages, is meant to show rather the linkage between them rather then division. The only visible conflict exists only between old disabled “Fizzle Bomber” and the agent. We mast have in mind that John was visible sympathizing with "Fizzle Bomber" in chat at the bar. There is no external cooperation between the two groups of forces involved in the compulsive obsessions, but the psychotic ego can very well have a friendly have a "dialogue" with its hallucinatory swarm.
Another reason for classifying the main character into the obsessional neurosis lies in the very idea of returning back in time to stop an event that was believed to be made by someone else, but actually finally proved to be made by oneself; the "killer" (ego) adaptation to the "authority" control (superego) is connected with the obsessional ritual itself which adapts to the compulsive diversity. This action is an obsessional neurosis "undoing" transfiguration into this specific SF theme. The concept of "undoing" was initiated by Freud himself. The phrase "some things are inevitable", that repeats several times in the film, looks very obsessional due to the obsession’ implacability seen in the subject’s inability to resist it. At minute 68 (hour 1:08) there is a hamletian dialogue:
" – That's the way it has to be. That's the way it's always been. You should understand that
better than anyone.
– The snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever."”
In this diagnostic game I would not agree with the main character disorder classification inside the hysteroid spectrum forms as " Dissociative Amnesia", " Mythomania" or " Dissociative Identity Disorder " (also known as “Multiple Personality Disorder”). In the first two cases the ego splitting would not be required; the subject remains the same, and only refuses to remember certain things or inserts fantasies in its biography. Further on, the “Multiple Personality Disorder” can not also be taken into account because the subject that has this disorder basically refuses to join its "personalities" into the same person; on the contrary, in the film, the characters are curious to solve the splitting mystery. The “Multiple Personality Disorder” person develops a new personality (usually totally different as the first one) and memory related to the previous identity is also suppressed. But in this film, the personality remains the same in the all four characters and the memories also remain faithful to past events.
Personally, however, I like more the psychotic-paranoid version due to the artistic consequences, richer in meanings in this case. The discussion between Jane and John from the minute 64 (hour 1:04) looks incredibly well with the psychotic discussion that a paranoid schizophrenic subject has with its hallucinatory alter ego, represented by its voices. Moving from admiration / love / joy to aggression / hate / sorrow is typical of this kind of dialogue that we can see at the lonely talking misunderstood psychotics on the streets.
So we can play with the diagnosis, if we mention that what we are doing it's just a game. But, in reality, if this would exist, the main character would be neither neurotic nor psychotic. He is a little bit schizoid due to the fact that does not stay too much in one place, traveling in time, and not having time to make friends. The schizoid side is more visible at the orphanage girl, but, since she has no parents, it's understandable to be introverted. We saw that, when he was offended, she responded with aggression, which is unspecific to schizoid personality. Therefore, there is no reliable diagnosis in this case.
e) Beyond the psychopathologist paradigm, as mentioned above, I think the concrete reality of romantic love paradigm has a very important role in strengthening this film symbol: we fall in love after a miraculous meeting, then we make mercantile compromises, then we lose love, then we come to hate the previously loved partner, and then die. This is the cycle of life, Jung’s mandala word-for-word described in the film in this sentence: "The snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever. "
Another very interesting track analysis is the neuroticism police repression. By punishing criminals on and on, the society gets into a repression vicious circle that continuously creates criminals, without in-depth solving the crime problem root, just like the neurotic patient itself does with its individual symptoms. The temporal agent goes back in time due to a police repressive impulse to prevent the crimes made by the “Fizzle Bomber”. But time traveling makes him himself sick also, so that he will become another “Fizzle Bomber”. The war on terror is itself a terror. The "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" syndrome, found in the American soldiers who commit suicide then after getting back home from wars, is the expression of this psycho-social reality. We take for granted that the police and the army protect us from criminals and terrorists but, in their haste repressive craziness for a patriarchal justice, we fall ourselves into their victims. The aggression, no matter how (apparently) justified, against someone else eventually returns, sooner or later, against us. "The snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever. ", a previously "Looper" idea that the authors probably were inspired from.
These "analytical play" tracks could be much more numerous. I will not insist on them now because that would require about 10 pages more in this article. I have exposed only those that I thought they are very important. Everyone who studied the psychoanalysis can find new ways of analysis like these. But, beyond this "playing", this film can be seriously psychoanalyzed, namely by analyzing the producers’ minds. This case is a lucky one because the Spierig brothers have multidisciplinary skills and were involved not only in the script development but also in the film production, direction and music. So, the film team "collective unconscious" actually centers pretty much on the Spierig brothers. No need so much to look after other team members to find some genuine psychoanalysis tracks in this film. Of course, that would be good for a detailed analysis, however, but they are not necessarily required for some general ideas. Personally I am not able to make this kind of work due to the lack of time or concrete analysis "material", concerning the two brothers or the other members. Nevertheless, I think this sketch bellow is the way for this film genuine psychoanalysis.
So, for me, the analysis core of this particular movie is the fact that its producers are (monozygotic) twins. I think we can start a genuine psychoanalysis from here on this film, as autobiographical one. The two brothers had always have the meeting with oneself through the other one, they loved each other, they argued one another, they split one into another and had rivalries. They might have loved each other more than they loved themselves, individually, taking the well-known Christianity sentence into an unimaginable fictional absurdity. The Oedipal triad became a quartet in their case. It should be also mentioned that they were German immigrants, so they must have or have had experienced the immigrant’s typical anxieties. The fact that this "Fizzle Bomber" has a central role in this movie can be explained by the resentment that immigrants generally have towards the world. The percentage of antisocial behavior among immigrants or their descendants is much higher than that of the native population. These fears were multiplied with the terrible Australian snakes and spiders threats (unlike the European ones).
The literal killing of "Fizzle Bomber" is a way to suppress this revenge that, as immigrants and socially marginalized, they want to point over the world. Returning in time and becoming "better" than the vengeful terrorist is a metaphor of civilization, of calming down the primitive warlike impulses and cultivating the values of forgiveness and tolerance towards others. This wisdom way is common to the natural course of warring communities, or to the individual enemies that eventually reconcile each other, but also to someone's individual personal development. The revenge is sweet at the moment, but it can bring long-term burden into soul; the avenger super-egowill eventually end up in questioning whether the "punishment" applied in the past to someone for correction was too high, becoming itself guilty and seeking punishment for cleaning this burden off of its mind.
Another trail for genuine psychoanalysis concerns their identical twins destiny who threatens one another their deep narcissism: if there is someone identical to me, then it means that I am not the best and only one as there is another one who is least my equal. From here these themes can be developed in relation to the analysis material. Since do not have it at the moment, I stop here.
Bad sides
The film is an exceptional one because the theme is an exceptional one. But it could have been much better if it would not have some negative things that I will enumerate below.
1. The film is helter-skelter arranged, starting from the middle of the story. Since the conclusions drawn from the time traveling idea are so diverse, there is no point in inserting another surprise within. Only an increased attention can help to understand the story after one single visualization, otherwise one have to see it again, after having the conclusions and answers to dilemmas that appear along the way. I am concerned about the fact that more and more movies use this arrangement, like a rebus, manipulating the spectator to go and see them again, thus paying another ticket to understand the story. The result is that there are a lot of people who did not understand it. Around the minute 66 (hour 1:06) the realities are mixed up like a salad; the discussion reality between John and Jane agent interfered with the discussion reality between temporal agent and Robertson. These dialogues overlap on another reality images. Of course, since so many find other ways not to pay the ticket for to see the movie, the money invested in it must somehow be recovered. But this strategy looks very much with dubious websites that get views by misleading buttons for viewer. For such a theme there is no need for such a hoax. This film could have record earnings if would have invested more in it, and anyway, I'm sure it has covered the costs from the very first month.
2. Concerning to the story’s consistency, there are some things that do not make sense. One of them is the lack of lover’s face recognition in his own person after she turned into a man. Since this man is her child’s father, a man who decisively influenced her, how can it be explained that she does not recognize herself as him after transformation? We remember that the temporal agent recognizes John at the bar, and lure him to be teleported in the past. We notice that sometimes the previous level memory is active but some other times it is not active and there is no explanation for that.
For redressing somehow this inconsistency, the authors introduced the dementia issue (wrong called psychosis) that is meant to explain the partial loss of memory. John says, at one point, that can’t recall how looked like when was a woman, from were we can deduce that, in the same way, he forgot his own figure. But that remark fails to explain how such a thing would be possible. Here the producers should had been working some more to find better explanation for that memory loss. This fictitious "dementia", that would increasingly get worse after each teleportation, can not resolve this inconsistency mismatch. Firstly, because the dementia, as neurological disease, does not affect long-term memory but the short-term one only (excepting the terminal period, when all the memory is affected). Then, the young man (freshly converted), had not done any teleportation until conversion, so the memory lost cannot be explained this way.
Such situation shows how uninformed are the authors regarding psychology matters (like most science fiction writers, in fact). A psychologist would had in mind the Gestalt psychology theories, that sustain (like many other currents) that memories are kept somewhere in a kind of mind archive, and so, no matter what kind of amnesia he might had had, John would have recognized himself with seeing himself (once more) in the mirror.
In fact, such an inconsistency is placed in the film because the producers wanted to just surprise us, the audience. They did not show us from the start the Jane’s lover figure, in the moment when they first met in that rainy evening, for the same reason that they started the movie with the story’s end, namely the marketing. Here is the very weak side of the story: it would have been more consistent that John would have a strong anguish, in one of the moments of introspection himself in the mirror, once he realized that the man she loves so much is he himself. Besides the Lacanian tracks what the story could launch, such a moment could be a modern remake of the Oedipus’s shock towards the (ancient) Sphinx. Such a triad formed by he John, she Jane, and his mirror, the Sphinx, would have been a remarkable cinematic detail that, unfortunately, the authors have missed it due to both lack of psychological documentation and also due to the marketing’s greed.
Instead of a bizarre confession before an unknown bar guy, the movie would have been more natural to start with a simple narration, for spectator, that could subsequently be transformed into narrative for himself in the future, concerning the life from the orphanage and reaching the bar during a possible alcoholism crisis. However, the producers could not get rid of such a scene which they superficially and exteriorly treated it, with John unnecessarily threatening its own mature version, the temporal agent, willing just to stay in love with his feminine version and refusing to go and stop the terrorist and to fulfill his mission [at the 63 minute (hour 1:13)].
Instead of those bar sterile dialogues, the producers should insert a more natural moment of anguish experienced by the woman when observed she had transformed into her lover. In this way, the authors would avoid that strange amnesia or that fiction dementia, wrongly called psychosis. The story could very well cover the separation anguish, after the love loss, but also the love fulfillment failure through literal joining together with oneself (as androgynous is described), which is the destiny of any great love. Moreover, in this way there could be found a logical motivation for the temporal agent to convince John to quit alcohol and to return to the past to change it instead. Many ways of interpretation could have been opened including, of course, the Sleeping Beauty myth.
And so, despite the fact that it is a remarkable film, the authors’ lack of professionalism has missed the chance to be even more remarkable one. All these could have been done in less than 40 minutes of film, eliminating the superfluous dialogues at the bar. And more than that, which matters a lot to me, in this way there would open the way for a conspiratorial final that the Temporal Bureau would have proved itself to be the "Fizzle Bomber" initiator, as happens to the counter-terrorism institutions which actually generates it instead. I will latter return to this subject.
Also, the authors would have had the chance of a nonfatalist vision of the world, as presented in philosophy modern trends, if the actors that played the main characters would be changed after the past reliving. Unfortunately, the authors have shown their limited ancient fatalism philosophical vision. For example, if they would have been started in the first part of the film, with the Jane and John meeting, as Jane played by Sarah Snook, and then they would have continued with another actress to play Jane, after child sending back in 1945 event, then they would have proved to have modern philosophy good knowledge. It is true that fatalism-chaos dilemma has not been resolved yet in philosophy. The chaos theory has no lesser inconsistencies than the fatalistic one. But the nonfatalist vision should also be represented by this possible characters appearance changing, as someone’s physiognomy itself changes over time. After sending messages to the future and looking for addition solutions to stop the "Fizzle Bomber", not only for a past sterile repetition, there must be a change in the physiognomy after the reliving cycle. Or, at least, such change should be visible at the clothes just as happened with the hat and the raincoat in the closet. So this detail shows the authors lack of documentation in terms of philosophy too, not just in terms of psychology. However lacks of depth the Bruce Willis movies might be, “Looper” took this into account and changed the characters physiognomy throughout the movie action, as scars or marks suddenly appeared on their bodies due to the present-future-present retroactive influence on their actions. Of course, this was not due to some kind of philosophical research made by producers, but to a more realistic and more physicalistic imagining of this paradox.
3. Another inconsistency is that of bomb handling; the action happens unnaturally: first we see the agent, hidden under a raincoat and a hat like a professional private detective and firmly going to the place where the bomb was placed. We can see the explosion damper device, looking like a fancy suitcase, and designed to absorb the explosion shock. We notice his determination to reach the bomb place, so we deduce the previously detailed information made relative to this bomb place and type. These details show us that he as the department in charged in this case are true professionals.
And yet, when he arrives on that area, he behaves like an amateur. Instead of straight taking the bomb and putting it inside the damper device, he starts to shoot a ghostly figure (later we find out that the figure is he himself who came from another time) which has briefly shown his presence in the area. Due to the precious time lost with shootings, the bomb is late placed in the device and explodes before closing its lid. After this explosion John had his face burned. The scene could have kept its consistency if the agent would have first defused the bomb, and only then, eventually in a shootout with that ghost, his face would have been ended up disfigured, and so the transformation mystery would remain.
Of course, the facial disfigurement has an important role in terms of suspense; if the agent would have been played by Leonardo di Caprio instead of Ethan Hawke, then we could easily surmise that the two characters are one and the same in different stages of his life. Leonardo di Caprio looks more like Sarah Snook (who played John and Jane). This strange situation later discovery increases the story’s mystery. This requires more attention for the audience, and involves more willing to sink into the story and possibly pay another ticket for a second viewing...
4. On the other hand, the physiognomic differentiation of Ethan Hawke’s characters from those played by Sarah Snook (actually one and the same) seemed too unnatural to me. His facial conformation is so different than hers and it did not convince me that the two characters were one and the same. Hawke's skull is elongated but Sarah Snook’s one is rounded. If previously I was disappointed that the characters are "too" identical in every cycle, in this case it seems to me that they are too different from the John to the temporal agent. I think they should find the same type of skull to the actors who play these characters. "Looper" is also superior concerning this point of view, the main character resembles quite well with Bruce Willis and even ironically mimics his smile and attitude (min. 16).
5. Another inconsistency is that of the organization focusing attention around this terrorist only. This film seems too space theatrical, too claustrophilic towards to the wide description possibilities that cinematography allows. Although it gives the impression that its activities are multiple and rescue missions are very numerous and diverse, still nothing comes from outside. I remember the thriller "Cube", which takes place in small rooms of 10 square meters, but still being able to make us imagine an entire universe outside the space that we saw. Nothing like this can be found in this film. At the minute 54, the temporal agent says there are 11 other agents like him at the Temporal Bureau but we weren’t told what they do. We remember the humanoids cocoons from the “Matrix” (Matrix 1 course, actually the only Matrix) that were arranged in a sort of huge illusions making factory; in this way, the “Matrix” managed very well to explain what happened to humanity after robots taking control. "Looper" also successfully induces the feeling that the mafia organization they work for is very active and diversified, always present through machines, agents, helicopters etc., all sent from the future to solve the present issues.
On the contrary, at the minute 75 (hour 1:15), a discussion between Robertson and the temporal agent shows that this terrorist has strengthened and developed throughout the organization, and the number of lives saved was a record because of his capacity to change things whiting the past and of finding information about it. That is why, there should be developed such an end that would show the organization as the terrorist origin in the spirit of this action natural consequences. The teenager girl (that lately became a terrorist) was recruited and trained by them. In reality, the social institutions fight against a particular social evil are, in fact, its survival promoters too. They become somewhat dependent on the opponent so that eliminating this evil is equivalent with eliminating themselves, since no job to be done.
6. Technically, this film looks like a low budget one. Many times there came into my mind the music that Hans Zimmer made for “Inception”: it would fit like a glove in this film but it was not meant to be... On the other hand, compared to the sophisticated “Star Trek” teleportation booths, or to the spaceship connected telephones from “Matrix”, our character has just an old box violin with a mechanical code that can set the date and place of time destination. "Looper" also had not a revolutionary scenography, but the special effects like transformations or appearances / disappearances happens a lot in this film.
7. The action is reduced to a few shots and an explosion that burned the main character’s face, leaving us to imagine more complex explosions outside this particular time and space. It did not bother me, though, instead of going haywire and start the story from the middle, the producers better should have been introduced some martial arts scenes and make it a more popular film. A real or a 3D graphics bomb explosion and several months of training with a martial arts guru would not cost that much. By making it more successful, the film could be more profitable without killing the audience’s time. Of course, as a Bruce Willis movie, "Looper" had that show.
8. The film’s name “Predestination" is a sterile redundancy in relation to so many potential meanings it has. This original name is much weaker than its philosophy. It sounds better to me the translation in other languages like "Fighting with destiny". Personally I would have called it "The Renaissance" or "Endless life" or "I'm my own grandpa". On the contrary, the "Looper" had an ideal title.
9. The authors superficially imagine a bizarre dementia caused by temporal jumps, as previously mentioned in the text. On the one hand they suggest that "Fizzle Bomber"’s behavior changed and became a dangerous terrorist due to teleportation. Yet he has the ability to negotiate, to show the good sides of his actions, about how he managed to save lives and how, in fact, somehow he has such a self-control and a sense of justice and of fairness so that he would be strong enough mentally to rein his criminal acts. In fact, as the film presents it, the "Fizzle Bomber"’s behavior is rather an antisocial psychopath one than a psychotic or caused by some neurological disease one. Such obscurities are caused to the SF writers’ weak knowledge about psychopatology.
10. Jane’s sex change reasons are not enough convincing after the uterus removal caused by birth complications. There was no need for a “male urinary tract” excision after this uterus removal because the woman's urethra is not a uterus extension; it has a separate anatomical organ. Instead of hospital scene, were the physician explains to Jane how she will become a man, the authors should have had another way to explain this metamorphosis. I would have inserted a dialogue between her and the physician were he tells her that she will never have children again as a woman but she could have children as a man, because she has a latent male organ. It would have been more credible than the weak story of uterus removal that destroyed Jane’s urethra.
11. As previously mentioned, the long discussion from the bar is totally unnecessary in the story’s economy. There is no need for temporal agent to recruit John because he was willing to do anything to get to the Temporal Bureau and have a better life. As said before, those 40 minutes from the start can be easily reduced to 10-15.
12. The child reaction after the jump into 1945 is inconsistent. If the first jump causes convulsions to John, then it should rather have killed the child. At least the authors should have been used a really hard crying child. It is very unnatural for the temporal agent to dizzy shake after the jump and the child not to show any symptoms.
13. The objects that are transported in time have an unclear status. We do not know what would be the detail that attaches them to the temporal agent and travel in time with him. For example, at the minute 72 (hour 1:12) the temporal agent makes a jump in time but the hat remains in place (in the car). Why should the shoes or the raincoat not stay there too, for example? Such oddities make the story unauthentic. There is not such a discrepancy in "Looper", the objects travels in time just because they are attached to characters.
14. 1) I was angry on the film for its sudden cut at the end, without extracting the consequences that the story dynamics itself converges into; the temporal agent attempts to stop some crimes were actually causing other bigger crimes. I found it very unnatural that the film introduction into its true theme takes about 40 minutes and the end is so sudden. The film ends abruptly without telling us more about the role of the organization, and without linking any terrorist acts by it, in the spirit of situations twists that occur starting from the minute 40. Such a conclusion can simply be deduced from the very main story; the secret organization began by recruiting an innocent person, and ended up by turning it into a terrorist. The politological consequences that would have emerged from such a film development are critical both for somebody's personal development and for the evolution of the society as a whole in which that person lives: the terrorism is a direct consequence of those who "fight" against it. The terrorism is created by the very State: the sentence “we were born into this job” said by the agent time can be interpreted in this light.
If this film would have been just an action movie, then the end would not look so sudden. The "Fizzle Bomber" is killed, the main character fulfills his mission and the film, naturally, ends. After previous attempt, at the beginning of the film (when they were "so close" to stop him), the temporal agent became better than his becoming so he succeeded to prevent him (himself) to revenge on the 11 000 victims. The mission would be accomplished. From this point of view the end makes sense. But our movie theme is a psychological SF one. The consequences can not abruptly stop here. The scenario avoided to use the infinite future symmetry toward the past infinity. In the film we are shown and told that the main character has no beginning but we are not told with the same measure if he is endless, as expected, after the idea of God from the Judeo-Christian religions. I think this avoiding was specially made so that the end would not look too abrupt to the audience.
If this film would have been just an action movie, then the end would not look so sudden. The "Fizzle Bomber" is killed, the main character fulfills his mission and the film, naturally, ends. After previous attempt, at the beginning of the film (when they were "so close" to stop him), the temporal agent became better than his becoming so he succeeded to prevent him (himself) to revenge on the 11 000 victims. The mission would be accomplished. From this point of view the end makes sense. But our movie theme is a psychological SF one. The consequences can not abruptly stop here. The scenario avoided to use the infinite future symmetry toward the past infinity. In the film we are shown and told that the main character has no beginning but we are not told with the same measure if he is endless, as expected, after the idea of God from the Judeo-Christian religions. I think this avoiding was specially made so that the end would not look too abrupt to the audience.
Such an exteriorist solution to this problem is nothing but a police state manner; brute force will never bring peace. The main character anxieties can not stop with his latter's suicide, after learning, like ancient Oedipus, that "Fizzle Bomber" is none else but himself. This suicidal act is just the police state desperate moment of hiding its own identity towards the crime’s cause. We have to imagine that somehow, after this point, the temporal agent will ask himself how he had come to make such abominable things. Why nobody told him that the "Fizzle Bomber" is he himself when would have got old? Why was it him to be sent in this mission? Wouldn’t have been easier for him to commit suicide from the very beginning and prevent himself from making other victims before the New York’s attack?
If we take the exterior consequences of this police state repression act of the crime, then we will see that, in fact, as previously said, and as psychoanalysis itself showed, the brutal repression of instinct leads to its strengthen. Socially, the police repression of crime leads to its multiplication just like the military repression of terrorism actually strengthens it.
Trying to create a big picture to the character statute, as it had before the moments that the film shown us, there would be two explanations: 1. either the vicious of character cycle of life cycles is given by a drug, by a genetic mutation or by something that a normal person (no matter if Jane, John or the baby) is caught in this temporal trap; 2. or the character is just a mutant, entirely created by the Temporal Bureau with is a strange given impression that it is human. There is not possible a different way to enter into this vicious cycle of being born from oneself for a natural living being. It is not impossible for a woman to have latent genitalia male organs. It is not impossible for a woman to fertilize herself by chromosome manipulation, using genetics. It is SF, indeed, but it is not totally impossible. But it is totally impossible that, from yourself, to give birth to yourself. The only logical explanations for such an absurdity are these two versions. In both cases, the result is one and the same just like in reality. These simply converge to the idea that it is the very government organization the origin of these attacks, as it created the main character, without beginning and without end. The Temporal Bureau Institution is responsible for terrorist acts that the “Fizzle Bomber" did. And that is what the film should have had shown.
2) Even if the subject would have been strictly a SF-detective, as in "Looper", the (oppressive) State involvement in story could still not be avoided. "Looper" also wants to convince us that the State would be not involved in using this invention for achieving its own goals, but it is alson unconvincing. It is almost impossible to believe that such a mafia organization from "Looper" would not be countered by the State. There is no organization like mafia, terrorist or even empire that does not have such a rival social organisms. Therefore, the State should also have been represented in this confrontation. Moreover, such a mafia organization can not be anything other than the State itself. Time travel would have been one of the most important inventions made by humanity, if it were possible. The State would have monopolized it just like the atomic weapons were monopolized after being invented. The time travel outlawing, and not using it, would be similar with not using these weapons. We know quite well what the State is, and "Looper" can not fool us. I am sure that the State would have many things to change / correct / adjust in the past, if such a travel would be possible ...
3) From my experience with Corruption Story (http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2012/08/institutia-electorala-un-nod-in-reteaua.html), I can say that the "conspiracy themes” are not so used today like they were used in the time of Reagan, for example. Movies like "The Matrix" or "Wag the Dog" are very rare in these days. Although the conspiracy themes are still very popular in movies, they no longer appear as before, as if the producers would not want the popularity. That makes me suspect an intrusion of political factors in their story’s dynamics. That suspect that this happened in this case. The first thought that has popped into my mind was, of course, the censorship by payment intervention made by the authorities, as I have argued here:
That means that, for the money, the "conspiratorial" end could have been replaced with some dialogues for 40 minutes at the beginning, which can be reduced to 10 minutes, as pointed before.
But after I researched some more, I saw that movie is made in Australia, although using American actors. However, the fact that the "Fizzle Bomber" existed only in film (and not in the Heinlein's original story) leaves enough loopholes for suspicion. With this world globalization there are no borders any more. In the original story, we find only at the end that there is indeed a bomb that exploded somewhere in 1972 or 1963, and that bomb is one among other things that should be fixed through traveling back in time. All these bomb issues are very briefly presented in one single paragraph, Heinlein leaving the reader to imagine scenarios for explaining this need for traveling back in time, with that volunteer recruitment office. Nothing is said in the original story about the 1975 New York attack that made 11 000 victims. But, in film, the explosions that cause victims and their prevention are central themes. And since the authorities insist on creating a devilish image to the amateur terrorism while painting in light colors their own terrorism, I think we can suppose their intervention firstly to emphasize the terrorist profile in the story, and secondly to suppress its logical conclusions.
But the reader who has covered this article’s psychological section also should remember the insertions made on the emigrants’ status, specific to the Spierig brothers, which could be involved in the film. It is possible that the role of such authorities’ positive censorship could have been taken by this cultural sublimation of the specific emigrant aggression on the world that the Spierig brothers probably have experienced. So the probability of such external influences on the story is somewhat lower than in other films of its kind.
Finally I post a song that this movie should have used:
Din start mentionez ca filmul trebuie vazut inainte. Nu cred ca cineva poate intelege ceva din acest text daca nu l-a vazut inainte, eventual de mai multe ori. Un rezumat nu se poate face. Desi am mai descris anumite actiuni din film, am facut-o mai mult pentru reamintirea unor fapte ce trebuie vazute pe viu, in film. Dupa cate se vede, textul a ajuns destul de lung, nu pot sa-l mai lungesc pentru ceva ce, oricum, nu ar ajuta prea mult. In ceea ce priveste lungimea sa, am decis sa-l impart in cateva sectiuni ce pot fi citite independent, pentru cei ce se plictisesc in fata intregului text.
Introducere
Autorii au spus ca filmul se bazeaza pe povestea „Voi strigoilor” (All You Zombies) publicata de Robert A. Heinlein tocmai in anul 1959, dupa ce fusese scrisa cu un an inainte, intr-o singura zi. Acest text poate fi foarte accesat aici: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/303/heinlein_all_you_zombies.pdf . Se vede ca el este doar o schita de scenariu. Restul a fost completat de fratii (gemeni) Michael si Peter Spierig, scenaristii multidisciplinari, care au lucrat la el. Parerea mea este ca cei doi frati s-au inspirat din „Looper”, care a aparut in 2012. Imi pare ca „Predestination” e mai aproape de „Looper” decat de „All You Zombies” Cred ca ei au vrut sa faca o replica la filmul lui Bruce Willis, vazand oportunitatile psihologice ale temei, sau deplangand platitudinea tehnicista a sa. Ma rog, asta e o banuiala de-a mea, nu ma intereseaza prea mult sa stiu cu siguranta de unde s-ai inspirat cei doi.
Tema acestor doua filme este una foarte des folosita in genul SF, respectiv intoarcerea in timp pentru schimbarea trecutului in asa fel incat sa fie favorabil prezentului sau viitorului. Succesul unei astfel de teme vine pe fondul regretelor pe care multi le au fata de deciziile luate in trecut, si a dorintei de a merge acolo si de a le schimba. Ca si cea a zborului, si aceasta tema are traditie solida in istoria culturii. Metempsihoza descrisa de Platon are, printre altele, si acest sens. Popularitatea filmelor din seria „Terminator” din anii 1990 este un exemplu. La fel, in „Predestination”, personajul principal, agentul temporal , se intoarce in timp in incercarea de a preveni un oarecare terorist, numit de presa „teroristul lunatic” (), sa puna bombe in diferite locatii.
Angoasele teoretice milenare legate de teoria destinului/hazardului se regasesc foarte bine in acest film. Ambivalenta teoretica ce ne guverneaza mentalitatea specifica nivelului nostru istoric este imortalizata intr-o propozitie simpla ce se repeta de cateva ori de-a lungul filmului: „Unele lucruri sint inevitabile”. O astfel de pozitie teoretica este specifica filosofiei comune care imbina (contradictoriu) teoria fatalista cu cea a hazardului.
Parti bune
Tema este o imbinare de elemente din psihologie, filosofie si fizica legate de fictiunea calatoriei in timp. Fiind un autor de SF, Robert A. Heinlein nu a fost interesat primordial de factorul psihopatologic sau psihologic si, desigur, nici fratii Spierig, cei care au dezvoltat scurta lui poveste intr-un film de peste 90 min. Niciunul dintre ei nu are studii de psihologie solide, dar nici in filosofie si fizica nu sint experti. Latura psihologica a povestii nu este tratata din perspectiva autorului, care observa si noteaza, ci din cea a observatului, a celui ce isi copiaza simptomele propriei minti. Daca povestea ar fi fost fortata sa se suprapuna peste anumite modele psihopatologice, filmul ar fi fost si mai bogat in semnificatii.
Dupa cum se va vedea in ultima sectiune a acestui articol, filmul are o multime de neajunsuri tehnice majore. Cu toate acestea, datorita ideii sale, pentru mine e unul dintre cele mai bune pe care le-am vazut vreodata. Am deplans mereu faptul ca „Terminator” sau „Quantum Leap” insistau atat pe actiune, explozii si efecte speciale, in loc sa vada oportunitatea fizica si filosofica ce se poate obtine din ideea de calatorie in timp. Paradoxurile intoarcerii in timp au fost folosite mai interesant in filmul „Looper”. Insa acesta nu a atins nici macar 1% din laturile psihologice si filosofice implicate de aceasta tema pe care le-a atins „Predestination”. Doar din punctul de vedere al temei SF, cele doua filme sint foarte apropiate. Este foarte posibil ca autorii acestuia sa fi vazut „Looper” si sa incerce sa duca mai departe aceasta tema, nemultumiti de tratarea ei. M-am bucurat sa vad asa ceva in acest film, care a inlocuit circul cu o filosofie a destinului.
Pot fi remarcate in film anumite situatii inedite, rezultate in urma unei negocieri lungi intre imaginatia fantasmagorica si cenzura venita din partea principiilor fizice, in final ajungandu-se la consecinte coerente ce decurg din fenomenul intoarcerii in timp. De exemplu, personajul principal, agentul temporal, isi trimitea singur mesaje inregistrate cu un reportofon pentru viitor, pentru a-si spori sansele de a-l opri pe „teroristul lunatic”. La un moment dat, el avea nevoie de un pardesiu si o palarie; a fost de ajuns sa inregistreze in reportofon ca are nevoie de aceste lucruri si ele au aparut imediat in dulap ca o consecinta retroactiva din viitor si apoi in prezent (min. 64 , ora 01 04). Zambetul sau urmat dupa deschiderea dulapului si observarii acestor lucruri acolo (dupa ce cu cateva minute inainte ele nu erau acolo) este o asigurare ca celalalt ii asculta sfaturile si ii continua drumul. O astfel de comanda simpla este o metafora de anticipare a tehnologiei umane de peste cateva sute de ani, cand robotii ne vor indeplini dorintele la fel cum o fac servitorii. Anticiparea viitorului in realitatea banala a prezentului deschide drumul unui foarte interesant joc al realitatilor: reportofonul care inregistra comanda pare in mana lui ca piatra ce imita telefonul in familia Flintstone, din punctul de vedere al unei astfel de tehnologii avansate.
Filmul recurge la o foarte frumoasa interpretare filosofica (cu iz psihologic), pe baza mitului androginului intors cu susul in jos: doi indragostiti isi traiesc o poveste de iubire apoi apare dezastrul, destinul dragostei. Cei doi se cauta neincetat, sensul vietii lor nu este decat acela de a se regasi unul pe celalalt. Frustrat de pierderea sa, unul dintre ei devine terorist, un ucigas gratuit, fara un scop anume. Razbunarea abstracta pe lume implica un cerc vicios, specific razboiului si terorismului insusi: autoritatile raspund cu o violenta si mai mare asupra comunitatii de unde a provenit teroristul, ucigand multi nevinovati si creand astfel noi doritori de razbunare. Desi se lauda cu lupta impotriva terorismului, de fapt autoritatile sint principala sursa de teroare a cetatenilor simpli, dupa cum am aratat http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/02/terorismul-ca-pilon-al-functionarii.html . Acest lucru este sugerat in film prin dorinta de pedepsire a „teroristului lunatic” care converge, in cele din urma, in transformarea justitiarului in terorist.
Desi nu se spune in film, e usor sa concluzionam ca acela care i-a distrus viata lui Jane, furandu-i copilul, de fapt a si facut-o posibila; copilul nu a fost rapit pentru a fi abuzat ci pentru a fi trimis in 1945 si de a deveni Jane insasi. Ne putem imagina ce va descoperi John odata ce este pus in situatia de a-si duce la capat razbunarea. El pleaca sa se razbune pe cel ce i-a furat copilul insa, daca il impiedica sa o faca, practic se sinucide pe sine, nemaiputand sa ajunga la orfelinat. Asta este cam ceea ce se si intampla de fapt: ma lasi sa traiesc si ramanem impreuna sau ma omori si te omori pe tine insuti. De aici pleaca un cerc vicios fara iesire: iti omori dragostea in intentia de a o pastra. Daca nu isi va omori partenerul, atunci Biroul Temporal va folosi o injectie letala pentru el.
„Timpul...ne ajunge pe toti din urma. Chiar si pe cei din domeniul nostru”,
spune personajul pe la minutul 07. Sau, la minutul 09, filmul prezinta o regandire a originii lumii, spusa in forma unui banc:
„Ce a fost mai intai, oul sau gaina? Cocosul.”
La fel ca si in cazul „Matrix” sau, „I, robot” sau Bin Laden (din realitate), unealta propriei creatii a devenit independenta si a ajuns sa ia controlul asupra propriului destin, amenintand chiar pe cei ce au creat-o. Robotii au preluat puterea in acele filme iar terorismul a devenit parte a fricilor noastre contemporane. Omul simplu este blocat in fata teroristului amator, reprezentat de un rebel, si teroristul profesionist reprezentat de autoritati. Rebelul vrea sa se razbune pe cineva la intamplare,ca reprezentant al lumii pe care o uraste. El are atunci doua optiuni: fie o face pe cont propriu, fie o face organizat. In primul caz rezultatul este terorismul antioccidental, asa cum il prezinta autoritatile. In celalalt caz, avem terorismul ascuns in uniforma de soldat, politist sau forta de mentinere a ordinii, in general. Sistemul social il ademeneste sa se inroleze in armata si sa lupte impotriva teroristului amator. Ajuns soldat, teroristul latent, a devenit un pion in ierarhia sclavagista globala, in care razboiul are un rol foarte important, dupa cum am aratat aici: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/03/razboiul-cea-mai-profitabila-afacere.html
In acest film, Biroul Temporal recruteaza doar fete pentru a le trimite inapoi in timp, in ideea de a nu se indragosti de Jane pe parcurs, si de a nu o face sa nasca copilul ce va deveni ulterior „teroristul lunatic”. La un control sumar (min. 28), doctorul de la Biroul Temporal vede ca Jane poate fi si barbat si o exclude din organizatie sub pretextul unei pedepse venite in urma unei abateri disciplinare. De fapt, in logica povestii, o astfel de masura este luata pentru a o impiedica pe Jane sa se teleporteze in trecut si sa fertilizeze o femeie. Insa, in acelasi timp, ea ii si deschide calea spre a deveni mama odata cu eliberarea de restrictiile profesionale. Orice alegere duce la acelasi rezultat. Daca Jane e trimisa inapoi in timp, atunci, de fapt, Biroul Temporal va trimite in timp un barbat. Acesta se va intalni cu Jane si amandoi vor concepe copilul ce va deveni ulterior „teroristul lunatic”. Daca, dimpotriva, Jane este exclusa, atunci John va fi cel care va veni dupa ea, se vor indragosti si tot vor concepe copilul. Jane va naste in orice alegere si isi va mutila astfel uterul, devenind John, intr-un cerc vicios fara iesire. Relativ la aceasta situatie, are loc la minutul 56 un foarte emotionant dialog intre agentul temporal si John, tocmai initiat in calatoriile temporale:
John „– Genul asta de viata...e singuratica? Nu ai familie?”
Agentul temporal „– Nu. Dar ai un scop.”
Acest dialog ne trimite cu gandul la mitul lui Sisif care isi gaseste un scop in absurditatea lumii, impingand la nesfarsit bolovanul catre varful muntelui.
Pe de alta parte, intr-o lume a izolarilor si diferentierilor, reunificarea indivizilor in fondul speciei ramane o optiune morala. Latura filosofica se deschide aici larg. Fiecare dintre noi sintem de fapt unul si acelasi, facem parte din aceeasi familie: umanitatea. Abuzul impotriva oricarui semen de-al nostru se va intoarce la un moment dat impotriva noastra insine. Impartirea noastra in sexe are rolul controlului reproducerii eficiente a speciei. Sexualitatea permite reproducerea atunci cand mediul ii este favorabil. Diferentierea masculin-feminin nu este una ontologica radicala. Optiunea reunirii Totului in Unu se reflecta dialectic in cea a dedublarii noastre individuale. Fiecare dintre noi am dori sa ne intalnim cu noi insine atat in varianta sexului opus cat si in variantele trecute si viitoare. Cum am reactiona in fata jumatatii noastre de celalalt sex? Ce sfaturi ne-am da noua insine mai tineri? Ce sfaturi am cere de la noi insine din viitor? Iata cateva intrebari mitice pe care filmul a stiut sa le exploateze foarte eficient!
Dincolo de astea, filmul este o invitatie la reflexie asupra vietii insasi, luata in banalitatea sa si traita de fiecare. Si cu asta se deschide drumul pentru o analiza psihologica a sa: ne nastem frumosi si iubitori, crestem si devenim nemultumiti de lumea in care traim, ne indragostim, facem compromisuri pentru a ne proteja familia si sfarsim schiloditi si plini de regrete. Acestea sint personalitatile identice si diferite care se desfasoara in timp, in film.
Latura psihologica a filmului
Dupa cum se vede, desi sint autori de SF, povestea dezvoltata de fratii Spierig este mai psihologica decat majoritatea temelor de gen. Se vede ca ei au un simt psihologic destul de acut (chiar daca necultivat). Daca nu ar fi avut acest simt, atunci nu s-ar fi oprit la tema dedublarii androgine, adica la scurta poveste a lui Heinlein. Nu ei au imaginat-o, e adevarat, insa le-a ramas in minte, au dezvoltat-o si au facut din ea un film remarcabil.
a) Inainte de a intra in detalii analitice, vreau sa clarific cateva lucruri legate de metodologia de lucru a psihanalizei unui produs cultural. Eu le-am mai amintit in treacat amicilor de la Café Gradiva la sedintele in care s-au interpretat psihanalitic anumite filme. De data asta vreau sa aduc mai multe detalii legate de aceste impedimente metodologice ale unui asemenea demers. Se poate oricand psihanaliza un produs involuntar al mintii, ca pe orice alt psihic. Insa atunci cand psihanalizam produsul voluntar al mintii, respectiv imaginatia si arta, lucrurile sint mai complicate. In acest caz nu psihanalizam o minte ci psihanalizam o proiectie a mintii intr-o realitate imaginata. Este imperios necesar sa nu consideram aceasta realitate imaginata drept una obiectuala, exterioara (nu ma dezic de trecutul meu kantian). Din pacate, psihanaliza clasica, incepand cu Freud, nu a prea tinut cont de acest lucru. Ne aducem aminte ca Freud interpreta pe Moise de parca Michelangelo ar fi facut o fotografie tridimensionala momentului in care personajul biblic se pregateste sa arunce tablele. E o mare greseala. Michelangelo nu a facut nici un fel de fotografie lui Moise, ci asa l-a imaginat el, proiectandu-se pe sine in acest personaj. Freud ar fi trebuit sa il analizeze pe Michelangelo ci nu pe personajul fictiv Moise. Analiza unor gesturi imaginate e mai putin veridica decat in cazul in care gesturile ar fi reale. Personajul nostru nu exista. Este o fictiune. Psihanaliza unei fictiuni este ea insasi o fictiune si trebuie tratata ca atare.
Apoi, in orice film, povestea este o munca de echipa. Atunci cand psihanalizam un film, trebuie tinut cont ca facem mai curand o analiza a unui psihic colectiv. Echipa are similaritati psihice, desigur, altfel membrii ei nu s-ar putea coordona, nu ar gasi puncte de comunicare. Dar fiecare membru al echipei vine cu individualitatea sa si creeaza detaliile produsului cultural final. De acest lucru trebuie sa tina cont cei ce fac o psihanaliza a culturii in general. Chiar si artele individualiste ca pictura sau poezia, de exemplu, sint produse de echipa, pictorul sau poetul fiind influentat negativ sau pozitiv de alti artisti contemporani sau predecesori. Recursul la istoria respectivei arte, in special la acei artisti care l-au influentat pe autor, este imperios necesar.
Pentru rigoarea analizei, atunci cand analizam detaliile unui produs cultural, ar trebui sa stim cine e autorul lor in aceasta echipa si sa le explicam in legatura cu psihicul particular al acestui om. In aceste conditii s-ar putea face o psihanaliza dupa rigorile celei de cabinet. Desigur, asa ceva este aproape imposibil de facut astazi. In cazul filmului, practic, fiecare membru al echipei ar trebui analizat in parte, dar nu in timpul lucrului. Acest lucru nu ar fi posibil deoarece, mai intai, nu ar fi timp pentru asa ceva, tinand cont de ritmul alert care se foloseste in film. Apoi, interventia psihanalitica ar face ca tensiunea psihica a creatiei sa se consume in fata psihanalistului si nu in produsul cultural, ceea ce ar afecta calitatea muncii respectivului artist. S-ar putea face totusi o psihanaliza individuala membrilor echipei unui film artistic in perioada de dupa terminarea lucrului, si unii artisti chiar au nevoie de asa ceva. Insa, daca un film dureaza 6 luni de filmare, atunci efectul psihanalizei ar fi cam acelasi pe care il are fata de un vis banal, analizat nu in zilele urmatoare producerii sale, ci dupa 6 luni sau mai mult. Detaliile se vor fi pierdut in abisurile mintii. In cazul pictorului e si mai complicat; trebuie analizat cel care l-a influentat pe pictor in lucrarea sau stilul sau. De cele mai multe ori acest precursor poate fi mort deja de zeci sau sute de ani.
Iata ca analiza unui produs cultural e mult mai complicata decat analiza unui simptom individual la cabinet. De asta trebuie sa tina cont amicii de la Café Gradiva. Dar, pe de alta parte, nu sint de acord nici cu atitudinea opusa dupa care psihanaliza nu ar putea s-ar putea face in lipsa pacientului care o confirma sau infirma. Insa arta nu este facuta doar de autor ci si de publicul care rezoneaza cu ea. Avand publicul, putem spune ca avem o jumatate de „pacient” pe care il putem analiza concret. Un grup de oameni care rezoneaza la interpretarile psihanalistului fac parte dintr-un esantion al unui „inconstient colectiv” care „participa” la respectiva opera. Acesti „participanti” au acelasi rol pe care pacientul individual il are in cabinet. De aceea eu sustin, de data asta in acord cu amicii de la Café Gradiva, ca ne putem juca cu interpretarile la fel ca si cu diagnosticarea unei persoane fictive. Ne putem juca cu analiza, fara sa ne fie teama de „fabulatii”, atata timp cat o facem recunoscand ca facem o analiza culturala cu iz psihanalitic, ci nu o psihanaliza autentica, cel putin nu una de cabinet. Conditia este sa nu se incurce planurile, si sa se tina cont ca analizam nu un personaj ci o fictiune fata de care prudenta trebuie sa fie de doua ori mai mare.
Acest film este un simbol si, ca orice produs cultural (si chiar psihopatologic), in el stau cuibarite mai multe sensuri. Fiind un produs colectiv, simbolul nu are nevoie atat de mult de confirmari ale realitatii individuale, asa cum se intampla cu analiza concreta din cura. E nevoie doar de niste paralele de interpretare pe care, oricum, spectatorul le face cu sau fara psihanaliza. Desigur, am in vedere elementele generale ale simbolului ci nu detaliile. Instrumentele psihanalitice de lucru nu pot patrunde foarte profund in miezul sensurilor detaliilor produsului cultural. Apoi, o interpretare psihanalitica aduce un plus de profesionalism la orice interpretare nepsihanalitica pe care, oricum, orice spectator o face mai mult sau mai putin constient.
b) Primul lucru care iese in fata la acest film este narcisismul. Autorii au sesizat oportunitatile psihologice ce se dezvolta din ideea intalnirii cu sine, spre deosebire de echipa filmului „Looper”, cvasitotal imuna la asa ceva. Din punctul meu de vedere, narcisismul este reactia omului abuzat pentru a-si ameliora starea de exclus social. Creatia unui Isus, ca Dumnezeu-om, are rolul unei identificari narcisice cu El, respectiv cel al salvarii fantasmatice a sclavului fata de amenintarile stapanului. Personajul principal din film atinge acest nivel narcisic al crestinismului, devenind „cel fara de inceput si fara de sfarsit”. La min. 32, agentul Robertson il descrie ca fiind un fel de „Oameni fara familii. Fara soti sau sotii si fara copii. Oameni fara trecut”. O alta remarca interesanta in acest sens este cea spusa de agentul temporal la minutul 07: „ne-am nascut in munca asta”.
Daca, la acest prim moment al filmului, expresia de „Oameni fara trecut” are un sens de oameni dedicati carierei, pe parcursul sau ea devine din ce in ce mai narcisica. Remarcam aici metafora omului „dedicat profesiei”, ca om initial abuzat de stapani, ca un refugiat in munca si ca victima a sclavagismului psihic. Umilinta aceasta are mare legatura cu „complexul de inferioritate” de care vorbea Adler. In dinamica povestii, acest complex de inferioritate se datoreaza tocmai degenerarii cauzate de insamantarea de sine. Repetarea ciclurilor reintoarcerilor implica repetarea acestei reinsamantari fara partener. Acest lucru, daca ar fi facut in lumea reala, ar fi un „pacat” mai mare decat incestul traditional, din punct de vedere genetic. Un copil reiesit din incest are o sansa la normalitate pentru ca rudele de gradul 1 de sex opus pot avea o oarecare diferenta genetica. Dar repetarea ciclului de autoinsamantari prin schimbare de sex si intoarcere in timp este practic un fel de incest repetat pe mai multe generatii. Am putea vorbi aici de un soi de Complex Oedip polimultiplicat, insa trebuie sa tinem cont ca ne aflam pe taramul jocului si ca povestea este una fictiva, imaginata si nu reala.
Suferinta psihica datorita acestui fictiv megacomplex Oedip poate exista daca vor autorii. Dar, din moment ce in film nu se vede ceva concret legat de asta, atunci putem sa ne rezumam doar la a considera aceasta pista drept un exercitiu de imaginatie. Inferioritatea genetica, insa, este o consecinta logica ce poate fi dedusa si daca autorii nu arata clar acest lucru. Existenta unui complex de inferioritate pe baza acestei predispozitii genetice spre inferioritate este ceva foarte posibil. In conditii prielnice, complexul de inferioritate se poate transforma intr-unul de superioritate. In povestea de fata, umilinta se transforma in narcisism, subiectul devenind mai intai un Dumnezeu al profesiei sale si, apoi, Dumnezeu in sine.
Narcisismul fantasmatic traditional al trairii religioase crestine nu s-a oprit aici, in acest film, ci a fost dus mai departe. Personajul ajunge sa se iubeasca si sa aiba o aventura amoroasa cu sine insusi/insasi ca urmare a calatoririi prin timp si a schimbarii sexului. In urma acestei aventuri se naste un copil care va deveni chiar el/ea insusi/insasi. In Crestinism, Dumnezeu se dedubleaza in om, ramanand totusi Dumnezeu. Aici, omul devine Dumnezeu si se naste constant pe sine. Aceasta realitate fictiva este, din experienta mea, apogeul de imaginare a narcisismului in istoria culturii. Fictiunea Dumnezeu om si a nasterii virgine este depasita, in materie de narcisism, de aceasta poveste.
c) Psihanaliza clasica ar interpreta acest film, desigur, in registru psihotic; personajul se dedubleza in mai multe personaje distincte, care isi pastreaza doar memoria de lunga durata si dorintele. Se stie ca, pentru psihanaliza clasica, narcisismul este insasi esenta psihozei. Din experienta mea cu amicii de la sedintele Café Gradiva, pot sa intuiesc un mod de interpretare care se suprapune peste travaliul curei psihanalitice. Dedublarea psihotica, caderea in haul psihopatologic, este urmata de incercarea eului de autovindecare prin uciderea „halucinatiei”:
„Daca l-as aduce in fata ta pe cel care ti-a distrus viata… daca ti-as garanta ca ai scapa , l-ai omori?”
Aceasta este intrebarea cu care filmul incepe si care revine (obsesional!) de mai multe ori pe parcurs. Cred ca aceasta propozitie obsesiva i-ar intriga pe amicii de la Gradiva spre o astfel de concluzie. Personajul principal se intoarce in timp si traieste acolo, ca spectator, evenimentele care i-au marcat existenta. Asta este, ce-i drept, o metafora foarte reusita pentru travaliul curei psihanalitice. Cireasa de pe tort, impuscarea la final a „teroristului lunatic”, ar fi paradigma vindecarii (sau nu, poate ar zice altii!!!), finalizarea curei...
Ce-i drept, exista o situatie in film care trimite la paralele metaforice la cura psihanalitica. La minutul 65 (ora 01 05) exista un dialog intre Jane si John, in care John ii descrie Janei propriile continuturi psihice intime reprimate ca „invidia” si „dragostea”. Imediat Jane dezvolta o pozitie defensiva de frustrare si denegare, asa cum se poate intampla in cura. Insa asa ceva nu se eu intampla doar in cura. Asa ceva este un dialog normal intre doua etape mentale diferite ale evolutiei unui om. Aceste lucruri sint realitati ale evolutiei psihice a omului in general. Ca se intampla si in cura, e adevarat, insa evolutia psihica nu este neaparat o cura psihanalitica.
Eu mereu am bombanit la sedintele Café Gradiva fata de genul asta de interpretare in contexte similare. Din punctul meu de vedere, cura psihanalitica repeta, la o viteza mai mare si in timp mai scurt, aceasta evolutie naturala mai lenta. Exprimarea similaritatilor evolutiei mentalitatii cuiva cu cea din cura psihanalitica este lipsita de sens in contextul de fata. Nu-mi place atitudinea asta panpsihanaliticista. Mi se pare un colonialism cultural fata de fenomene de evolutie spirituala diferite care ajung la aceleasi concluzii dar pe alte cai decat cele ale psihanalizei.
In acest moment, reiau obiectia exprimata fata de parerile amicilor de la Café Gradiva pe marginea filmului „Conversatia” ( http://cafegradiva.ro/reflectii-pe-baza-filmului-conversatia-si-a-comentariilor-ulterioare-de-la-sedinta-aipsa/ ) : cura psihanalitica nu are efect in psihoze sau, cel putin, nu acela din nevroze, unde i se poate vedea efectul. Si, din aceasta perspectiva, paralela cu cura psihanalitica este de asemenea lipsita de sens, din moment ce, pentru dinamica evolutiei psihozei, ea nu are nici un rol. Apoi, ce legatura ar avea o cura psihanalitica cu povestea de fata, in situatia in care nici personajul si nici autorii n-au experimentat-o? N-am scos-o la capat cu ei nici dupa cativa ani de sedinte de interpretare asa ca ma indoiesc ca lucrurile s-ar transa acum, si ma opresc aici cu acest subiect.
Se poate vedea insa ca narcisismul psihotic, imaginat de Freud, este destul de diferit decat cel imaginat de scenaristii acestui film, insa, per total, ambiguul concept freudian il poate cuprinde si pe acesta. Nu m-ar mira insa sa existe pozitii de refuz de incadrare intr-un registru sau altul din partea unor psihanalisti clasici, pe baza faptului ca lipseste materia prima, subiectul ce trebuie analizat. Fara factorul SF asa ceva nu ar fi putut fi imaginat, deoarece, oricat de narcisic ar fi cineva, totusi nu s-ar putea dedubla si iubi la asemenea anvergura. Justificarea analizei conform cu compromisul de mai sus, pe baza faptului ca s-ar analiza insasi imaginatia autorilor, nu se sustine in acest caz. Discrepanta intre produsul imaginat de minte si realitatea mintii insasi este aceeasi ca aceea dintre hardul si softul unui computer.
Oricum, personal nu mi se pare ca narcisismul ar fi esenta psihozei. Narcisici (in sens freudian) sint si unii nepsihotici, asa cum e un schizoid (ma refer aici la „Tulburarea de personalitate de tip schizoid”), unde subiectul e mult mai indiferent fata de semeni decat poate fi un schizofrenic. Pe de alta parte, foarte multi schizofrenici cauta afectiune la ceilalti, iar acest fapt cam zdruncina din temelii atat conceptul freudian de „narcisism” cat si teoria psihozei ca narcisism extrem. S-ar putea gasi o constanta pentru psihoza, respectiv in renuntarea de ajustare a narcisismului la realitate, insa, oricum, aceasta renuntare trebuie explicata altfel decat prin modelul conversiunii somatice din nevroza isterica, asa cum o face Freud.
Si, pentru ca tot sintem in zona SF-ului, acest tip de narcisism ar putea fi mai curand explicat de o nevroza isterica, conversiva (SF, ea insusi, desigur) decat de o psihoza. Atat atrofierea organelor genitale proprii (si dezvoltarea celor latente pentru intoarcere in timp) cat si fecundarea sinelui insusi sint de fapt niste ajustari mentale ale realitatii (somatice) la cerintele „beneficiului primar”, adica la interesul phihodinamic principal al simptomului. Daca am ramane in zona psihozei, narcisismul in cauza nu ar mai avea nevoie de atatea modelari ale realitatii, de atatea „miracole” (isterice), asa cum sint schimbarea de sex si calatoria in timp, ci s-ar multumi cu delirul brut. Numai puterea isterica (nonpsihotica in general) de a imbina coerent realitatea cu dezideratele profunde ale simptomului poate face acest lucru.
Toate aceste ciudatenii teoretice sint consecinte absurde ale neclaritatii conceptului de „narcisism” insusi, teoretizat de Freud. Dincolo de asta, el si multi altii dupa el au vazut nevroza si psihoza ca fiind constante ale psihicului normal. Aici eu ma delimitez radical de o astfel de viziune originar psihopatologista. Eu vad psihopatologia la fel cum o vede si psihiatria, respectiv ca pe o stricare a echilibrului psihic (originar) si nu ca pe o incapacitate a psihicului de a atenua aceasta psihopatologie originara.
d) Personajul principal al filmului nu dezvolta simptome suficiente pentru a fi incadrat la niciuna dintre tulburarile psihice importante din psihopatologie. Dar, daca ne jucam putin si decidem sa il analizam dupa criterii psihopatologice, acest film poate fi interpretat si in registru psihotic paranoid dar si in cel nevrotic-obsesional. Principalul argument pentru prima varianta este cel al dezintegrarii eului personajului principal si disolutia dimensiunii temporare si spatiale; calatoria zigzagata in timp si spatiu, fara limite palpabile, provoaca o senzatie de hau, de nesiguranta existentiala intr-o lume pe care nu ai de unde sa o apuci si pe care nu o poti controla. Iar asta este o constanta psihotica. Aici sint de acord cu psihanaliza clasica.
Principalul argument pentru cea de-a doua varianta este acela al lipsei halucinațiilor sau a delirului. Producatorii nu ne dau absolut nici un indiciu tehnic ca personajul principal ar trai un delir, asa cum se intampla de exemplu in filme ca Fight Club sau Shutter Island. In aceste filme, ca si in altele, treptat intelegem ca personajele principale au o perceptie psihotica a realitatii. In „Looper” exista o singura scena cu oarecare aspect halucinoid, respectiv pe undeva prin minutul 21 cand un personaj se dezintegreaza treptat, ca urmare a actiunilor care le face in prezent si care au implicatii in viitor si apoi retroactiv in prezent, ca urmare a intoarcerii in timp. Dar, dupa cum am mentionat, aceasta scena nu are intentia relevarii vreunui scop psihopatologistic. Ea este o consecinta a ducerii mai departe a imaginatiei SF privind paradoxurile intoarcerii in timp. In orice caz, in Predestination nu exista o astfel de scena, asa ca subiectul halucinatiilor si delirului trebuie inchis.
Pe de alta parte insa, ruperea eului personajului principal in 3 sau 4 identitati diferite, fiecare cu interesele si dorintele ei proprii, nu este specifica unei constitutii nevrotic-obsesionale. Aceasta presupune scindare doar intre doua forte, respectiv intre eul compulsional si ritualul obsesional de inhibare a compulsiei. Din alt punct de vedere, in film, intre unele identitati exista si cooperare, nu doar conflict. De exemplu, intre bebelus si celelalte stadii ale evolutiei personajului principal exista doar cooperare. Apoi, insasi povestea de dragoste, in care sunt implicate toate cele 5 stadii ale personajului, este in masura sa arate legatura, nu dezbinarea. Conflict exista doar intre batranul handicapat si agent. Ne amintim ca John simpatiza vizibil, in discutiile de la bar, cu „teroristul lunatic”. Nu exista cooperare exterioara intre cele doua grupe de forte implicate in obsesiile compulsive, insa eul psihotic poate foarte bine „dialoga” amical cu roiul sau halucinatoriu.
Un alt argument pentru incadrarea personajului principal la nevroza obsesionala consta in insasi ideea intoarcerii in timp pentru a opri un eveniment crezut facut de altcineva, dar facut de fapt de tine insuti; adaptarea „criminalului” (eului) la controlul „autoritatii” (supraeului) are legatura cu insusi ritualul obsesional care se adapteaza la diversitatea compulsiva. Aceasta actiune este o transfigurare intr-o tema SF a fenomenului „anularii retroactive” din nevroza obsesionala. Conceptul de „anulare retroactiva” a fost initiat de insusi Freud, asa ca exista premisa unei astfel de optiuni teoretice din partea unei viziuni teoretice freudiene. Expresia „unele lucruri sint inevitabile”, care se repeta in film, are o clara alura obsesionala datorita caracterului implacabil al obsesiei ce se manifesta prin incapacitatea subiectului de a-i rezista. La minutul 68 (ora 01 08) exista un dialog cu incarcatura hamletiana:
„–Asa e scris sa fie. Asa a fost mereu.
– Sarpele care isi mananca coada fara incetare...”
In aceasta joaca de diagnosticare nu as fi de acord cu incadrarea temei in spectrul formelor isteroide ca „amnezia psihogena”, „mitomania” sau „identitatea multipla”. In primele doua cazuri nu ar fi nevoie de dedublare a eului, subiectul ramanand acelasi, refuzand doar sa-si aminteasca anumite lucruri sau inserand alte lucruri in propria biografie. De asemenea, identitatea multipla nu poate fi luata in calcul pentru ca subiectul care are aceasta tulburare refuza principial sa puna „personalitatile” sale in acelasi individ; ori, in film, personajele sint curioase in a dezlega misterul dedublarii. In identitatea multipla, subiectul dezvolta o noua personalitate (de obicei antipolara), iar memoria sa legata de identitatea anterioara este si ea reprimata. Dimpotriva, aici personalitatea ramane la fel in cele patru personaje iar amintirile, de asemenea, ramanand fidele evenimentelor din trecut.
Personal, totusi, as inclina pentru varianta psihotico-paranoida datorita consecintelor factorului artistic, mai bogat in semnificatii in cazul acesta. Discutia dintre Jane si John de la minutul 64 (ora 01 04) seamana incredibil de bine cu discutia psihotica pe care un schizofrenic paranoid o are cu alterego-oul sau halucinatoriu, reprezentat de vocile sale. Trecerea de la admiratie/iubire/veselie la agresiune/ura/tristete este tipica acestui gen de dialog pe care il putem vedea la psihoticii neintelesi ce vorbesc singuri pe drum.
Iata ca ne putem juca cu diagnosticul, daca mentionam ca e doar un joc. Dar, in realitate, daca ar exista, personajul in cauza nu ar fi nici nevrotic nici psihotic. E un pic schizoid din pricina faptului ca nu sta prea mult in acelasi loc, tot calatorind in timp, si nu are timp sa-si faca prieteni. Schizoidia se vede ceva mai bine la fetita de la orfelinat, insa, in situatia in care nu are parinti, e de inteles sa fie introvertita. Am vazut ca, atunci cand era jignita, ea raspundea prin agresiune, lucru nespecific personalitatii schizoide. Asadar, nu exista o diagnosticare sigura in acest caz.
e) Dincolo de paradigma psihopatologista, dupa cum am spus mai sus, cred ca are un rol foarte important in consolidarea simbolului acestui film si paradigma realitatii concrete a dragostei romantice: ne indragostim printr-o intalnire miraculoasa, facem compromisuri mercantile, pierdem dragostea, ne uram partenerul pe care l-am iubit initial, si apoi murim. Acesta este ciclul vietii, mandala lui Jung descrisa mot-a-mot de filmul insusi prin expresia „Sarpele care isi mananca coada fara incetare...”, idee existenta deja in „Looper” din care autorii probabil s-au inspirat.
O alta pista foarte interesanta de analiza este cea a nevroticismului represiunii politienesti. Pedepsind la infinit criminalii, societatea realizeaza un cerc vicios al reprimarii care creeaza criminali continuu, fara sa rezolve in profunzime problema criminalitatii, la fel cum insusi pacientul nevrotic face cu simptomul sau la nivel individual. Agentul temporal se intoarce in timp pentru a preveni crimele facute de „teroristul lunatic” dintr-un impuls politienesc represiv. Dar calatoria in timp il imbolnaveste pe el insusi in asa fel incat va deveni si el tot un „terorist lunatic”. Razboiul impotriva terorismului este el insusi un terorism. Asanumitul „sindrom posttraumatic”, cu soldatii americani care se sinucid apoi dupa ce ajung acasa, este expresia acestei realitati psihice. Consideram ca fortele de ordine si armatele ne apara de infractori si teroristi insa, in goana lor represiva nebuna dupa o dreptate patriarhala, ne trezim noi insine victimele lor. Agresiunea, fie ea si (aparent) justificata, impotriva altcuiva se intoarce pana la urma, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, impotriva noastra. „Sarpele care isi mananca coada fara incetare...”
Aceste piste de „joaca analitica” pot fi multiple. Nu insist acum pe ele pentru ca ar trebui sa mai scriu vreo 10 pagini. Eu le-am expus doar pe cele care mi se par mie mai importante. Cine a studiat psihanaliza poate gasi noi piste de analiza. Dar, dincolo de aceasta „joaca”, se poate face o psihanaliza serioasa a acestui film, respectiv prin analizarea mintii producatorilor. Acest caz este unul fericit deoarece fratii Spierig au formatie multidisciplinara si s-au implicat nu doar in dezvoltarea scenariului ci si in productie, regie si muzica. Iata ca, „inconstientul colectiv” al echipei de lucru a filmului se cam centreaza in jurul fratilor Spierig. Nu e prea mare nevoie sa cautam dupa alti membri ai echipei pentru a gasi cateva piste de psihanaliza autentica in acest film. Desigur, acestia ar fi necesari in cazul unei analize detaliate, insa nu sint neaparat necesari in cazul unor directii generale. Personal nu am cum sa fac o astfel de munca din lipsa de timp si de „material” de analiza concreta, atat in ceea ce-i priveste pe cei doi frati cat si pe ceilalti membri. Ce vreau sa arat cu aceasta schita este doar ca aceasta cred eu ca este calea pentru o psihanaliza autentica a filmului.
Asadar, pentru mine, nucleul de analiza al filmului este faptul ca producatorii sunt frati gemeni (monozigoti). Cred ca de aici putem incepe o adevarata psihanaliza a filmului, ca film autobiografic. Cei doi frati identici au avut mereu intalnirea cu sine, s-au iubit, s-au certat, s-au dedublat unul in celalalt si au avut rivalitati. S-ar putea sa se fi iubit unul pe altul mai mult decat s-au iubit pe sine insusi, individual, ducand maxima crestinismului intr-un absurd fictiv inimaginabil. Triada oedipiana a devenit quartet, in cazul lor. Trebuie, de asemenea, mentionat ca ei sint imigranti germani, ca trebuie sa aiba sau sa fi avut angoasele tipice ale imigrantilor. Faptul ca acest „terorist lunatic” are un rol central in film poate fi pus pe seama resentimentelor pe care imigrantii le au in general fata de lume. Procentul de acte antisociale venite din randurile imigrantilor sau urmasilor lor, este mult mai mare fata de cel venit de la populatia nativa. La acestea s-au adaugat amenintarile teribililor serpi si paianjeni australieni (spre deosebire de cei europeni).
Uciderea literala a „teroristului lunatic” este un mod de reprimare a acestei razbunari pe care ei, ca imigranti si marginalizati social, vor sa o abata asupra lumii. Intoarcerea in timp si devenirea „mai bun” decat teroristul razbunator este o metafora de civilizare, de domolire a tendintelor primitive razboinice in favoarea iertarii si tolerantei fata de ceilalti. Acest drum al inteleptirii este atat drumul firesc al comunitatilor razboinice, sau dusmanilor individuali care s-au impacat, cat si drumul evolutiei personale a cuiva. Razbunarea e dulce pe moment, insa ea poate aduce povara in suflet pe termen lung; razbunatorul va ajunge sa isi puna la un moment dat intrebarea daca nu cumva „pedeapsa” aplicata cuiva pentru corectie a fost prea mare, devenind ea insasi ceva de pedepsit si cautand pedeapsa ca supapa de ispasire a acestei crime.
O alta pista de psihanaliza autentica este destinul lor de gemeni identici care isi ameninta unul altuia narcisismul profund: daca exista cineva identic cu mine inseamna ca eu nu sint cel mai cel si ca exista un alt cineva care este egalul meu. De aici incolo se pot dezvolta aceste teme in raport cu materialul de analiza. Cum nu-l am in acest moment, ma opresc aici.
Parti slabe
Filmul este unul exceptional pentru ca tema este una exceptionala. Insa el ar fi putut deveni mult mai bun daca nu ar fi existat anumite lucruri nereusite pe care am sa le enumar mai jos.
1. Filmul se prezinta oarecum alandala, incepand cu mijlocul povestii. In situatia in care concluziile ce se desprind din ideea de calatorie in timp sint atat de diverse, nu are nici un rost sa mai intervii tu ca producator cu surpriza asta. Doar o atentie marita te poate ajuta sa deslusesti din prima povestea, altfel trebuie sa-l mai vezi odata, dupa ce ai concluziile si raspunsurile la dilemele de pe parcurs. Ma ingrijoreaza faptul ca din ce in ce mai multe filme se prezinta astfel, ca un fel de rebus, manipuland spectatorul sa mai mearga odata sa le vada si sa mai plateasca odata biletul pentru a le intelege. Rezultatul este ca sint foarte multi spectatori care nu au inteles filmul. Pe la minutul 66 (ora 01 06) se face un adevarat ghiveci de planuri; planul discutiei dintre John si Jane amestecat cu cel dintre agentul temporal si Robertson. Se pot vedea dialoguri care se suprapun peste imagini din alt plan. Desigur, in situatia in care multi gasesc alte cai pentru a vedea gratis filmul, trebuie recuperati cumva banii investiti in el. Insa strategia seamana cu aceea site-urilor dubioase care obtin vizualizari prin butoane inselatoare pentru navigator. Pentru o astfel de tema nu ai nevoie de o astfel de pacaleala. Filmul ar fi putut fi unul cu incasari record daca s-ar fi investit mai mult in el, si oricum, sint sigur ca si-a scos banii inca din prima luna.
2. In ceea ce priveste coerenta povestii, sint cateva lucruri care nu se leaga. Unul dintre ele este lipsa de recunoastere a figurii iubitului in propria persoana dupa ce s-a transformat in barbat. Din moment ce acest om este tatal copilului sau, un om care a influentat-o decisiv, cum se poate explica faptul ca, nu se recunoaste pe sine ca fiind el dupa transformare? Ne aducem aminte ca agentul temporal il recunoaste pe John la bar, pe care il ademeneste spre a-l teleporta in trecut. Iata ca uneori memoria stadiului anterior exista, alterori nu exista si nu ni se explica de ce.
Pentru a mai carpi oarecum aceasta incoerenta, autorii au introdus tema dementei (numita gresit psihoza) ce ar explica pierderea partiala a memoriei. John spune, la un moment dat, ca nu-si mai aminteste cum arata cand era femeie, de unde noi putem deduce ca, in acelasi fel, el a uitat propria lui figura. Insa o astfel de remarca nu reuseste sa si explice in ce mod ar fi posibil asa ceva. Aici producatorii filmului trebuiau sa mai lucreze, sa gaseasca o alta explicatie pentru pierderea memoriei. Aceasta fictiva „dementa” care s-ar instala procentual dupa fiecare teleportare nu poate rezolva incoerenta acestei nepotriviri. Mai intai pentru ca dementa, ca boala neurologica, nu afecteaza memoria de lunga durata ci doar pe cea de scurta durata (exceptand faza terminala cand toata memoria este afectata). Apoi, barbatul tanar (proaspat transformat) nu facuse deja nici o teleportare pana in momentul transformarii ca sa-si piarda memoria.
O astfel de situatie ne arata cat de neinformati sunt autorii in materie de psihologie (ca majoritatea autorilor SF, dealtfel). Un psiholog ar fi avut in minte gestaltismul, curentul care sustine (ca si alte curente) ca amintirile se pastreaza undeva intr-o arhiva mentala, si ca, indiferent ce amnezie va fi avut, John s-ar fi recunoscut pe sine odata cu (re)vederea pe sine in oglinda.
De fapt, o astfel de incoerenta e plasata in film pentru ca producatorii au vrut sa ne surprinda tocmai pe noi, spectatorii. Nu ne-au aratat de la inceput figura iubitului lui Jane, in momentul in care s-au intalnit in acea seara pe ploaie, din acelasi motiv din care au inceput cu sfarsitul, respectiv din ratiuni de marketing. Aici este veriga slaba a povestii: era mult mai coerent ca John sa aiba o angoasa puternica, intr-unul dintre momentele de autoobservare in oglinda, odata ce ar fi inteles ca omul pe care il iubeste atat de mult este chiar el insusi. Pe langa pistele lacaniene ce s-ar fi putut lansa, un astfel de moment ar fi putut fi o reeditare moderna a socului lui Oedip in fata sfinxului (din antichitate). O astfel de triada formata din el John, ea Jane, si oglinda sa, Sfinxul, ar fi fost o scriitura cinematografica remarcabila pe care, din pacate, autorii au ratat-o atat din cauza lipsei de documentare psihologica cat si din pricina lacomiei marketingului.
In loc de o confesiune bizara in fata unui barman necunoscut, ar fi fost mult mai natural ca filmul sa inceapa cu o narare simpla, pentru spectator, ulterior transformata in narare pentru el insusi din viitor, a vietii sale incepand de la orfelinat si ajungand in bar dupa o eventuala criza de alcoolism. Oricum, producatorii nu au putut scapa de o astfel de scena pe care au tratat-o insa superficial, exteriorist, cu John amenintandu-si inutil varianta matura, pe agentul temporal, dorind doar sa ramana impreuna cu varianta sa feminina in interiorul dragostei si refuzand o implinire a misiunii de oprire a teroristului [min. 63 (ora 01 13)].
In locul unor dialoguri sterile la bar, producatorii ar fi trebuit sa insereze acel moment natural de angoasa trait de femeie in momentul in care se va fi transformat in iubitul sau. In felul acesta autorii nu ar fi mai fi avut nevoie de acea amnezie deloc si nici de fictiva dementa numita gresit psihoza. Povestea ar fi putut foarte bine acoperi angoasa de separatie, odata cu pierderea dragostei, dar si esecul implinirii dragostei prin contopire literale cu sine (asa cum este descris androginul), destinul oricarei iubiri mari. De asemenea, in acest fel s-ar fi gasit o motivare logica pentru agentul temporal de a-l convinge pe John sa se lase de alcool si sa se intoarca in trecut pentru a-l schimba. Acest lucru ar fi deschis multe cai de interpretare, printre care, desigur, cea a mitului frumoasei adormite.
Iata ca, in ciuda faptului ca e un film remarcabil, neprofesionalismul autorilor i-a ratat sansa de a-l face si mai remarcabil. Toate acestea s-ar fi putut face in mai putin de 40 minute de film, eliminand balastul dialogului de la bar. Si, ceea ce conteaza foarte mult pentru mine, in felul acesta s-ar fi deschis calea unui final conspirationist in care Biroul Temporal s-ar fi dovedit initiatorul „teroristului lunatic” asa cum se intampla in realitate cu institutiile de combatere a terorismului care de fapt il genereaza pe acesta. Voi reveni la acest subiect.
Mai mult decat atat, autorii ar fi avut sansa unei viziuni nefataliste asupra lumii, asa cum se prezinta curentele moderne din filosofie, daca ar fi schimbat actorii ce interoreteaza personajele principale, odata cu retrairea trecutului. In caz contrar autorii si-au aratat limitarea la o antica viziune a fatalismului. De exemplu, daca ar fi inceput in prima parte a filmului cu intalnirea dintre Jane si John cu actrita Sarah Snook, si apoi ar fi continuat cu o alta actrita care sa o joace pe Jane, dupa evenimentul de ducere a copilului in 1945, atunci ei ar fi dat impresia si de o buna cunoastere a filosofiei moderne. E adevarat ca dilema fatalism-haos nu a fost rezolvata de filosofie pana acum. Teoria haosului nu e mai lipsita de incoerente decat cea fatalista. Insa viziunea nefatalista trebuia si ea reprezentata prin schimbarea infatisarii personajelor, la fel cum insasi fizionomia cuiva se schimba in timp. Dupa ce iti trimiti mesaje in viitor si cauti solutii in plus pentru stoparea „teroristului lunatic”, nu doar pentru repetitia sterila a trecutului, trebuie sa existe o schimbare in fizionomie odata cu reluarea ciclului. Sau macar in haine sa existe o astfel de schimbare la fel cum s-a intamplat cu aparitia palariei si pardesiului in sifonier. Aici se vede limita de documentare si in materie de filosofie, nu doar de psihologie, a producatorilor. Oricat de lipse de profunzime ar fi filmele lui Bruce Willis, in „Looper” s-a tinut cont de asta iar personajele isi modifica fizionomia pe parcursul filmului, aparandu-le subit cicatrice sau diferite semne pe corp ca urmare a influentei retroactive prezent-viitor-prezent a actiunilor lor. Desigur, asta nu s-a datorat vreunei cercetari in materie de filosofie a producatorilor, ci a unei imaginari mai realiste, mai fizicaliste a acestui paradox.
3. O alta incoerenta este cea a manevrarii bombei; actiunea se desfasoara nenatural: mai intai il vedem pe agent, ascuns sub un pardesiu si o palarie ca un detectiv particular profesionist, mergand cu pasi siguri spre locul unde se afla bomba. Ii putem vedea dispozitivul de amortizare a exploziei, facut in forma de diplomat, si menit sa absoarba socul exploziei. Ii vedem determinarea cu care se indreapta spre locul bombei, de unde putem deduce informarea detaliata facuta anterior relativ la locul si felul bombei. Din aceste detalii putem intelege profesionalismul sau si al departamentului care se ocupa de acest caz.
Si totusi, atunci cand ajunge la fata locului, se comporta ca un amator. In loc sa ia direct bomba si sa o bage in dispozitivul de amortizare, el incepe sa impuste o silueta fantomatica (ulterior aflam ca silueta este tot el insusi venit din alt timp) care si-a facut pentru scurt timp prezenta in zona. Din cauza timpului pretios pierdut cu impuscaturile, bomba este plasata cu intarziere in dispozitiv si explodeaza inaintea inchiderii capacului. In urma acestui accident John s-a ales cu fata arsa. Scena si-ar fi putut pastra coerenta daca agentul ar fi dezamorsat mai intai bomba, si abia dupa aceea, eventual intr-un schimb de focuri cu naluca, si-ar fi desfigurat fata, pentru pastrarea misterului transformarii.
Desigur, desfigurarea fetei are un rol important in ceea ce priveste suspansul; daca in locul lui Ethan Hawke (in rolul agentului) ar fi jucat Leonardo di Caprio, care seamana mai mult cu Sarah Snook (care l-a interpretat pe John si Jane), atunci puteam banui mai usor ca cele doua personaje sint unul si acelasi in diferite etape ale vietii sale. Descoperirea mai tarzie a acestui fapt creste misterul povestii. Acest lucru il face mai atent pe spectator, mai dispus sa se afunde in poveste si, eventual, sa mai plateasca odata biletul pentru o a doua vizionare…
4. Pe de alta parte, diferentierea fizionomica a personajelor lui Ethan Hawke fata de cele ale lui Sarah Snook ( personaje care sint unul si acelasi) mi s-a parut prea fortata. Conformatia faciala diferita a lui fata de cea a ei nu convinge in nici un caz ca cele doua personaje ar fi unul si acelasi. Craniul lui Hawke este alungit iar cel al lui Sarah Snook este rotund. Daca mai sus deplangeam faptul ca personajele sint „prea” identice la fiecare ciclu, in cazul asta mi se pare ca ele sint prea diferite odata cu trecerea de la John la agentul temporal. Cred ca trebuiau macar sa gaseasca acelasi tip de craniu la actorii ce interpreteaza aceste personaje. Si din acest punct de vedere „Looper” este superior, personajul principal semanand destul de bine cu Bruce Willis si chiar, imitandu-i ironic zambetul si atitudinea (min. 16).
5. O alta incoerenta este cea a centrarii organizatiei doar in jurul acestui terorist. Filmul pare prea teatral ca spatiu, prea claustrofilic fata de posibilitatile largi de descriere pe care le permite cinematografia. Desi se da impresia ca increngaturile sale sint multiple si misiunile de salvare sint foarte numeroase si diverse, nimic nu se vede in afara. Imi vine in minte thrillerul „Cube”, a carui actiune se desfasura in camarute de cate 10 metri patrati, dar care a reusit sa ne faca sa ne imaginam un intreg univers in afara spatiului pe care il vedeam. Asa ceva ii lipseste acut acestui film. La minutul 54, agentul principal spune ca mai sint inca 11 agenti ca el in Biroul Temporar insa nu stim cu ce se ocupa ei. Ne aducem aminte de coconii umanoizi din Matrix (desigur Matrix 1, de fapt singurul Matrix) care erau dispusi intr-un soi de fabrica uriasa de creat iluzii; in acest fel, Matrix a reusit foarte bine sa explice ce s-a intamplat cu umanitatea dupa preluarea controlului de catre roboti. De asemenea, in „Looper” se reuseste inducerea sentimentului ca organizatia mafiota pentru care lucreaza e una foarte activa si diversificata, mereu facandu-si prezenta prin masini, agenti, elicoptere etc., toate trimise din viitor pentru a rezolva situatii in prezent.
Dimpotriva, la min 75 (ora 01 15) , o discutie intre Robertson si agentul temporal arata ca acest terorist a intarit si a dezvoltat intreaga organizatie si ca numarul de vieti salvate a fost unul record datorita capacitatilor sale de a schimba lucruri din trecut si de a gasi informatii despre el. Cu atat mai mult, dezvoltarea unui final in care insasi organizatia era originea acestui terorist se impunea in spiritul consecintelor firesti ale actiunii. Adolescenta (devenita terorist) fusese recrutata si formata chiar de ei. In realitate, institutiile sociale de combatere a unui anumit flagel social devin, de fapt, si promotoarele supravietuirii acestuia. Ele devin cumva dependente de adversar, eliminarea lui fiind echivalenta cu eliminarea lor insele, lipsite de obiectul muncii.
6. Din punct de vedere tehnic, filmul pare asa un unul cu buget redus. De multe ori mi-a venit in minte muzica lui Hans Zimmer din Inception: ar fi mers ca o manusa in acest film dar n-a fost sa fie... Pe de alta parte, fata de sofisticatele cabine de teleportare din Star Trek sau telefoanele conectate catre o nava spatiala din Matrix, personajul nostru are doar o cutie veche de vioara cu un cifru mecanic pe care se poate seta data si locul destinatiei temporale. Nici „Looper” nu are o scenografie revolutionara, insa efectele speciale ca transformarile sau aparitiile/disparitiile sint constante.
7. Actiunea se reduce la cateva gloante trase si o explozie care ii arde fata personajului principal, lasandu-ne pe noi sa ne imaginam alte explozii mai complexe in afara timpului si spatiului in cauza. Pe mine nu m-a deranjat, insa, decat sa te scarpini cu mana opusa si sa incepi povestea de la mijloc, mai bine ai introduce ceva scene de arte martiale si il faci un film mai popular. O explozie reala sau simulata intr-un program de grafica 3D si cateva luni de antrenament cu un guru in artele martiale nu ar fi costat atat de mult. Facand filmul mai de succes acesta s-ar fi putut scoate profit fara sa se atenteze la timpul spectatorului. Desigur, fiind un film cu Bruce Willis, „Looper” nu putea sa nu aiba spectacol.
8. Titlul „Predestinatia”, (Predestination) este un pleonasm steril in raport cu multitudinea de sensuri potentiale ale filmului. Titlul este sub nivelul filosofiei filmului. Mai bun mi s-a parut traducerea in romana: „Luptand cu destinul”. Personal l-as fi numit „Renasterea” sau „Endless life”, sau „I'm my own grandpa”. Dimpotriva, „Looper” a fost un titlu ideal.
9. Autorii imagineaza superficial o bizara dementa rezultata in urma salturilor temporale, dupa cum am mai amintit in acest text. Pe de o parte ei ne lasa sa intelegem ca „teroristul lunatic” si-a schimbat comportamentul si a devenit un megacriminal ca urmare a acestor teleportari. Cu toate astea el e prezentat ca fiind in stare sa negocieze, sa arate partile bune ale actiunilor lui, cum a reusit sa salveze vieti si cum, de fapt, undeva are un control de sine si un simt al dreptatii si al corectitudinii destul de puternic incat sa-si infraneze actele criminale. De fapt, dupa cum il prezinta filmul, comportamentul „teroristului lunatic” este mai curand unul de psihopat antisocial decat unul suferind de psihoza sau de vreo boala neurologica. Astfel de neconcordante tin de lipsa de documentare a autorilor SF fata de domeniul psihopatologiei.
10. Schimbarea sexului lui Jane nu este necesara doar dupa extirparea uterului cauzata de complicatiile de la nastere. Nu era nevoie de crearea unui „tract urinar masculin” in urma acestei extirpari de uter pentru ca uretra femeii nu este prelungirea uterului, avand organ separat. In loc de scena cu medicul de la spital care ii explica lui Jane cum va deveni barbat, autorii ar fi trebuit sa explice altfel aceasta metamorfoza. Eu personal as fi inserat un dialog intre ea si medic, in care acesta ii spune ca nu va mai putea copii ca femeie dar ca ar fi putut avea copii ca barbat, avand un organ masculin latent. Era mai credibil decat povestea cu extirparea uterului care i-ar fi distrus uretra lui Jane.
11. Dupa cum am mai mentionat, lunga discutie de la bar este total inutila in economia povestii. Agentul temporal nu are nici un fel de nevoie sa-l racoleze pe John deoarece acesta e dispus sa accepte orice pentru a ajunge la Biroul temporal si a avea o viata mai buna. Dupa cum am spus, cele 40 de minute de la inceput pot fi reduse la 10-15.
12. Reactia copilului dupa saltul in 1945 e incoerenta. Daca primul salt al lui John ii provoaca acestuia convulsii, atunci pe copil ar cam fi trebuit sa-l omoare. Autorii ar fi trebuit macar sa fi folosit un copil ce plange foarte rau. E foarte nefiresc ca agentul temporal sa se clatine ametit dupa salt iar copilul sa nu manifeste nici un fel de simptom.
13. Obiectele care sint transportate in timp au un statut neclar. Nu stim care este detaliul care le face sa se ataseze de personaj si sa calatoreasca cu el in timp. De exemplu, la min 72 (ora 01 12) personajul tocmai face un salt in timp insa palaria ramane pe loc (in masina). De ce n-ar ramane si pantofii sau pardesiul, de exemplu? Astfel de bizarerii dau o aura neautentica povestii. In „Looper” nu exista o astfel de discrepanta, obiectele calatoresc in timp doar pentru ca sint atasate de personaje.
14. 1) Pe mine cel mai mult m-a iritat taierea brusca a filmului, fara extragerea consecintelor catre care dinamica povestii insasi convergea de la sine; incercarile agentului temporal de a opri o crima se soldau cu alte crime si mai mari. Mi s-a parut foarte nefiresc ca introducerea in adevarata tema a filmului sa tina aproape 40 de minute iar finalul sa fie atat de brusc. Filmul se sfarseste subit fara sa ne spuna mai multe despre rolul organizatiei, eventual fara a lega actele teroriste de ea, in spiritul rasturnarilor de situatie care apar incepand de pe la minutul 40. O astfel de concluzie este foarte coerenta cu povestea filmului: organizatia secreta a inceput prin recrutarea unui om inocent, si a sfarsit prin transformarea lui in terorist. Consecintele politologice care s-ar fi desprins dintr-o astfel de dezvoltare a filmului sint cruciale atat pentru evolutia personala a cuiva cat si pentru evolutia societatii in care traieste: terorismul este o consecinta directa a celor care se „lupta” cu el. Terorismul este creat de statul insusi: remarca „ne-am nascut in munca asta”, spusa de agentul temporal poate fi interpretata si in aceasta lumina.
Daca filmul ar fi fost unul strict politist, finalul n-ar parea atat de brusc. „Teroristul lunatic” a fost ucis, personajul principal si-a indeplinit misiunea si filmul, in mod natural, s-a terminat. Dupa incercarea anterioara, cea de la inceputul filmului (cand fusesera „aproape” de a-l opri), agentul temporal a devenit mai bun decat devenirea sa si a reusit sa il (sa se) impiedice sa se razbune pe cei 11 000 de victime. Misiunea a fost indeplinita. Din acest punct de vedere sfarsitul acesta are sens. Numai ca tema filmului nostru este una de SF psihologic. Consecintele nu se pot opri aici in mod brusc. Scenariul a evitat sa foloseasca simetria infinitului viitorului fata de infinitul trecutului. In film ni se arata si ni se spune ca personajul principal este fara inceput dar nu ni se spune ca ar fi si fara sfarsit, asa cum ne asteptam, dupa modelul lui Dumnezeu din religiile iudeo-crestine. Cred ca o astfel de evitare s-a facut tocmai pentru a nu ni se pare prea brusca aceasta taiere de final.
Insa spectatorul atent nu se lasa pacalit de aceasta stratagema. Mai intai pentru ca, dupa filosofia noastra actuala, orice este lipsit de inceput este lipsit si de sfarsit. Ceva trebuie sa continue si dupa uciderea „teroristul lunatic”, chiar daca acel ceva este continuarea infinita a ciclului. Apoi, ne aducem aminte ca, conform datelor din filmul insusi, „teroristul lunatic” a ajuns criminal datorita salturilor in timp care l-au imbolnavit neurologic. Prin urmare, inclusiv agentul care l-a impuscat va deveni „psihotic” (sau dement sau ce boala va fi fost asta) pentru ca si el a facut astfel de salturi in timp. Mai mult decat atat, el a facut chiar mai multe astfel de salturi in timp decat cel pe care l-a ucis, surprinzandu-l pe acesta tocmai cu experienta sa superioara. Astfel, el va ajunge la un stadiu si mai avansat in boala asta si, prin urmare, el va deveni un terorist si mai periculos decat „teroristul lunatic”. Avem motive sa credem ca respectiva boala se va fi instalat chiar mai devreme decat la celalalt. Din aceasta cauza, perspicacitatea in planuirea atacurilor si puterea lor distructiva va fi mai mare decat la primul „terorist lunatic” pe care l-a ucis. Asa ceva se intampla in realitate nu doar cu teroristii amatori ci si cu criminalii pe care sistemul social represiv mai mult ii creeaza decat ii starpeste prin opresiune sociala de tip nevroticist.
O astfel de rezolvare exteriorista a problemei este doar una politieneasca; forta bruta niciodata nu aduce pace. Angoasele personajului principal nu se pot opri la sinuciderea lui tarzie, dupa ce a aflat, la fel ca si anticul Oedip, ca „teroristul lunatic” este chiar el insusi. Aceasta sinucidere este doar momentul politienesc de ascundere disperata a propriei identitati relativ la cauza crimei. Trebuie sa ne imaginam ca, cumva, dupa acest moment, agentul temporal se va intreba cum de a ajuns sa faca niste lucruri atat de abominabile. De ce nimeni nu i-a spus ca „teroristul lunatic” este chiar el insusi ajuns batran? De ce a fost tocmai el trimis in aceasta misiune? Nu era mai usor sa se sinucida din start si sa impiedice alte victime inaintea atacului de la New York?
Daca ducem consecintele acestui act de reprimare exterioara, politieneasca a crimei vom vedea ca, de fapt, dupa cum am mai spus, si dupa cum a aratat insasi psihanaliza, reprimarea bruta a pulsiunii duce la intarirea ei. In plan social, reprimarea politieneasca a crimei duce la multiplicarea ei si, la fel, reprimarea militara a terorismului duce la intarirea lui.
Incercarea de a crea o imagine de ansamblu a statutului personajului de dinaintea momentelor prezentate de film are doua explicatii: 1. fie cercul vicios al ciclurilor vietii personajelor este dat de un medicament, de o mutatie genetica sau de ceva cu care un om normal (fie Jane, fie John sau fie bebelusul) este prins in aceasta capcana temporala; 2. fie personajul este un mutant, creat in intregime de „Biroul temporal” si caruia doar i se da impresia ca e om. O altfel de posibilitate de intrare in acest cerc vicios al nasterii din sine insusi nu exista pentru o fiinta vie naturala. Nu e absurd ca o femeie sa aiba organe masculine latente. Nu e absurd ca o femeie sa se fecundeze pe sine prin manipulari cromozomiale, cu ajutorul geneticii. E SF, intr-adevar, dar nu absurd. E insa total absurd ca din tine insuti sa te nasti tot tu insuti. Singurele explicatii pentru o astfel de absurditate sint aceste doua variante. In ambele cazuri, consecinta e una si aceeasi ca si in realitate. Acestea converg simplu catre ideea ca insasi organizatia guvernamentala a creat aceste atacuri, dupa cum l-a creat pe personaj principal, fara inceput si fara sfarsit. Institutia Biroul Temporal este raspunzatoare de actele teroriste produse de „teroristul lunatic”. Ceea ce filmul trebuia sa arate.
2) Chiar si daca subiectul ar fi fost strict unul SF-politist, ca in „Looper”, tot nu s-ar putea evita implicarea statului (opresiv) in poveste. „Looper” vrea sa ne convinga ca statul nu s-a implicat in manipularea acestei inventii in scopul atingerii propriilor interese, insa nici el nu reuseste. E aproape imposibil sa credem ca o astfel de organizatie mafiota din „Looper” nu ar fi contracarata de stat. Nu exista nici o organizatie mafiota, terorista sau chiar imperiu care sa nu aiba astfel de organisme sociale rivale. Prin urmare, statul trebuia si el reprezentat in aceasta confruntare. Mai mult decat atat, o astfel de organizatie mafiota nu poate fi altceva decat insusi statul. O astfel de inventie a calatoriei in timp, ar fi una dintre cele mai importante facute de umanitate, daca ar fi posibila. Statul ar fi pus monopol pe ea la fel cum a pus monopol pe armele atomice dupa ce au fost inventate. Presupusa scoatere in afara legii a calatoriei in timp, si renuntarea la a fi folosita de el, ar fi similara cu neimplicarea sa folosirea acestor arme. Stim noi destul de bine ce este statul, iar „Looper” nu ne poate prosti. Sint sigur ca, statul ar avea multe lucruri de schimbat/corectat/ajustat in trecut, daca o astfel de calatorie ar fi posibila…
3) Din experienta mea cu Corruption Story (http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2012/08/institutia-electorala-un-nod-in-reteaua.html ) , pot spune ca temele „conspirationiste” nu mai sint utilizate astazi asa cum erau pe timpul lui Reagan, de exemplu. Filme ca „Matrix” sau „Wag the dog” sint mai rare in ultimul timp. Desi temele conspirationiste fac filmele populare, ele nu mai apar ca altadata, de parca producatorii nu si-ar dori popularitatea. Asta ma face sa banuiesc o intruziune a factorului politic in dinamica povestii lor. Asta banuiesc ca s-a intamplat si in acest caz. Primul gand are mi-a venit in minte a fost, desigur, cel al interventiei cenzurii prin recompensa facuta de autoritati, dupa cum am sustinut aici
Adica, in schimbul unei sume de bani, finalul „conspirationist” a fost inlocuit cu niste dialoguri de 40 de minute la inceput, dialoguri ce pot fi lejer reduse la 10 minute.
Insa, dupa ce m-am documentat mai mult, am vazut ca filmul este facut in Australia, desi foloseste actori americani. Totusi, faptul ca „teroristul lunatic” a existat doar in film (el neexistand in povestea originara a lui Heinlein) lasa destule portite de banuiala. Cu globalizarea asta nu mai exista granite. In povestea originala, abia pe final aflam ca exista intr-adevar o bomba ce a explodat pe undeva prin 1972 sau 1963, ea aflandu-se printre alte lucruri ce ar trebui indreptate prin intoarcere in timp. Toate astea sint tratate sumar intr-un singur paragraf, Heinlein lasand cititorul sa-si imagineze scenarii pentru explicarea acestei nevoi de intoarcere in timp, si a unui birou de recrutare de voluntari. Nu se spune nimic in povestea originala despre cele 11 000 de victime din atacul de la New York din 1975. Ori, in film, tema exploziilor cu victime si a prevenirii acestora este una centrala. Cum demonizarea terorismului amator si cosmetizarea terorismului propriu este o manevra specifica autoritatilor, cred ca se poate presupune o interventie din partea lor mai intai pentru accentuarea profilului teroristului in povestea filmului, si apoi, pentru sugrumarea concluziilor sale logice.
Dar, cititorul care a parcurs si sectiunea psihologica a acestui articol isi aduce aminte de insertiile pe care le-am facut cu privire la statutul de emigranti pe care fratii Spierig il au si care s-a regasit in film. Se poate ca rolul unei astfel de cenzuri pozitive a autoritatilor sa fie luat de aceasta nevoie de sublimare culturala a agresiunii pe lume specifice emigrantului care s-a manifestat la fratii Spierig. Asa ca probabilitatea unei astfel de influente exterioare asupra povestii este ceva mai redusa decat in cazul altor filme de aceeasi factura.
In final postez o piesa care ar fi trebuit pusa in filmul asta:
Postări
