Sleeping Beauty (Leigh, 2011)

[Izzy Black]

I just watched this most excellent film from Aussie newcomer Julia Leigh. The film positions itself in a long tradition of cinema that deals with the sexual politics of female embodiment and objectification, but what has impressed me with Leigh's film is its thoroughly cinematic approach. I do think the early comparisons to Stanley Kubrick are apt. Leigh's aesthetic is very clinical and rigorous in terms of composition, staging, and framing. What's more, the general approach to the material lends itself to the eerie, otherworldly unnaturalness of Kubrick's films. This inherent discomfort established through the mise-en-scene seems crucial for Leigh.

At its core, Sleeping Beauty is a film about surveillance. I don't think Leigh is aggressively political in her approach to this theme, however. She seems to be more interested in the visceral, psychological, and philosophical implications of surveillance - the overwhelming sense of discomfort and unpleasantness that is associated with it for both the seer and the agent, and more importantly, the epistemic uncertainty and existential vulnerability of a subject that is ignorant of their surveillance. Hence, we have the interest in sleep. This unconscious activity for which we are most vulnerable - both physically and emotionally - can be contrasted with the kind of surveillance we experience when we have conscious awareness of our observer and his observational behavior.

This becomes important because the unknowing subject becomes the blank canvas by which we may project our inner most secrets and desires. Thus, the vulnerability persists not only for the unconscious subject, but also the conscious observer. Lucy in Leigh's film acts as this subject for bourgeois old men that find various ways of coping with their own insecurities (sexual or otherwise) by way of her nude sleeping presence. Throughout the film Lucy is cast as an active, perverse participant in these solicitations, among other risky encounters, but when she recognizes that the literal inactivity of unconscious sleep exposes a profound sense of lacking self-knowledge, we catch glimpses of a character who begins to question the deceptive confidence of her reckless attitude toward the world.

[Boner M]

This sounds fascinating. I'll have to check it out.

[Boner M]

I will say, I thought the ending was pretty effective at showing that Lucy does end up finding out what goes on when she's unconscious, albeit in a roundabout way; the footage of the corpse that she watches representing the venality that we've already been privy to w/ its implications now made literal.

Even then, I thought it was too little, too late.

[Izzy Black]

I will say, I thought the ending was pretty effective at showing that Lucy does end up finding out what goes on when she's unconscious, albeit in a roundabout way; the footage of the corpse that she watches representing the venality that we've already been privy to w/ its implications now made literal.

I agree, but of course she never finds out exactly what goes on. The footage she sees is the peaceful slumber of a man that dies next to her as she sleeps. She never witnesses the gratuitous fondling of her body that usually occurs. It suggests that, like her alcoholic friend, she is the beautiful morbid object by which men wish to die near. I think this has an unexpected consequence for her character, one that in effect is far more disturbing and unsettling than any devious fetishistic sexual act that she more likely had assumed was taking place. It's a very poetic form of irony that I think Leigh poignantly empoys here.

[Ezee E]

Is this the naked one?

[Izzy Black]

Is this the naked one?

That's the one. I suppose.

[Melville]

I thought it presented too simple and hard a line from the protagonist's sex work to her general submissiveness and servitude (sleeping with random guys who introduce themselves by tossing a coin for her, taking whatever drugs people hand her, constantly working multiple jobs, some of which again involve giving her body over to other people's purposes, providing for her mother even while slaving away at all those jobs). It just put that at the forefront and never did much with it, never really providing much insight or exploring the character's psychology with any depth. But the whole thing is very elegantly composed, Emily Browning gives a solid performance, and pale, slim, naked, and asleep is an excellent look for her.

[dreamdead]

Yeah, this film doesn't really work. It's got the cold and clinical look down all right, and its fetishistic explorations are welcome, but there is so little attention given to Browning's character that she never rises above the calculated distance that the film affords the sleeping job itself. There is no real psychology to her character, nothing motivating her choices on screen. I was excited in the one scene where she gets out of her bed naked and puts on underwear and returns to bed, since there's an implied sense of insecurity that's now been inculcated, but that kind of follow-through is so seldom here. She is almost a creature whose fate has been naturalistically determined, but there's so little depicted that this sense is more of a projection to defend the lack of choices.

In reality, she becomes the same empty construct that the film seeks to interrogate in terms of voyeurism and surveillance. As a result, Leigh's project doesn't add up to anything of consequence. Shame that the final product is so underwhelming since Browning is so lovely in this.

[Spinal]

I was excited in the one scene where she gets out of her bed naked and puts on underwear and returns to bed, since there's an implied sense of insecurity that's now been inculcated, but that kind of follow-through is so seldom here.

I'm glad you explained this scene, because I never could understand what that was about.

[Izzy Black]

Some of the concerns raised here are I think addressing an intentional aspect of the film. This fact may not resolve your worries any, but I do think that, at some level, Leigh intends for Lucy's motivations and desires to be ambiguous and even undeveloped. One is right to claim that we end up projecting our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on to Lucy, but this reveals that Leigh implicates the viewer in this activity of projection that she is interrogating. Does this mean that Lucy is nothing more than a blank canvas, or a mere cipher for Leigh's manipulations? To the contrary, really. Her motivations seem largely unclear, but what is clear is her discomfort, her false sense of confidence, glimpses of insecurity that is actually revealed in several scenes. There's an important insight here that we needn't invent an emotionally rich character in our minds, one that meets our emotional desires and ends, in order to identify and relate to the injustice here. A richer, complex psychology would presumably help either exempt her from responsibility on the one hand, or further implicate her of wrongdoing on the other, neither of which Leigh seems very interested in. Both results are actually rather boring, which Lucy, as a character, seems rather aware of. It's precisely her insistence on emotional distance that preserves the facade of intrigue, she's perhaps far more confident in how interesting she is than either Leigh is or the audience is.

We do get an idea of what motivates her then, but we don't get anything in the way of back story and history. Again, though, filling in the blank spaces is a form of possessing her, and it's this dialogue of distance, projection, and unfulfilled desire that Leigh intentionally wishes to investigate. You might rejoin, "Well, that makes for a rather unengaging character and story." And you would be right. This isn't that kind of film. Maybe not your cup o' tea, but this film is neither character study nor a drama, nor does it seem much interested in being that, so much as it does as questioning some of the expectations and implications that go along with it.

[Izzy Black]

She is almost a creature whose fate has been naturalistically determined, but there's so little depicted that this sense is more of a projection to defend the lack of choices.


The question of autonomy is very explicit, but I think Leigh wants to shift the emphasis of the traditional feminist conversation of agency and control to a more specific context. In other words, the film isn't merely asking the general question, "Is Lucy in control?" That's the conversation that, perhaps, Lucy wants people to have about her. It's a controversial question, a classic feminist problem. What are we to make of a woman who willingly submits herself to this form of objectification? Is she really making her own choice freely, and if so, is she right to? Is she authentic and autonomous? These are the perennial questions typically associated with this type of character and film. Lucy takes on this postfeminist persona presumably for the very reason that it's controversial. But Leigh's take is interesting because she presses the question of her autonomy further by relocating the problem in the act of unconscious submission. This act goes beyond merely forfeiting bodily control, but forfeits consciousness and awareness. That is, if an agent can be authentic and autonomous while still forfeiting temporary control over her body, how can an unconscious agent claim to have any autonomy whatsoever? It's a startling question. A prostitute can still presumably claim self-ownership and personal identity when she gives her body up for sex, but how can you claim ownership over events you aren't even aware are occurring? This epistemic crisis is what leads to the breakdown of confidence in one's cognitive power. When you realize that you unwittingly commit yourself to any and all potential circumstances, no matter how heinous (i.e. a ploy for someone's suicide), you find all your pretensions of control break down right in front of you. It's this reveal that allows Lucy to emerge as a more emotionally penetrable and vulnerable character, exposing her unconvincing resolve. Although the film isn't a character study, since we never really know or learn who Lucy is, we still come to terms with Lucy and are forced to confront her person, as a person who cannot use her mystery, unknowability and emotional distance as a means of establishing power, identity, and control, and as a subject that's as confused and uncomfortable with her circumstances as the rest of us.

[B-side]

Nicely put, Izzy. Thanks for delineating my thoughts in a much more eloquent fashion than I could have. :P

[Yxklyx]

I liked this more when it was The Girlfriend Experience - especially Grey's performance. I'm not saying that the actress in this one was not good.

[Izzy Black]

??????

[Boner M]

The Comatose Girlfriend Non-Experience?

[B-side]

Yeah, I don't really see the similarities beyond hired accompaniment.

[Rowland]

There are common threads, some more superficial than others. I like this film more though.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah and I liked The Thin Red Line better when it was Saving Private Ryan, especially Tom Hanks' performance.

[dreamdead]

I really enjoyed reading your defense, Israfel. I don't find the power and interrogation here that you do, but I appreciate all that you do see in it. While reading your defense, I was reminded of two other female-directed projects--Bette Gordon's Variety and Andrea Arnold's Red Road.

Gordon's project is essentially an inversion of Vertigo, with a woman projecting all of her fears and anxieties onto a man (rather than Scotty's projection onto Judy), informed by the feminist theory of Laura Mulvey's then-groundbreaking "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" essay. There, too, the theoretical underpins the film more so than the emotional, exploring woman as sexual object directly vis-a-vis Christine's job at a porn theater. The film is so static that it, to me, undercuts much of the film's structural and theoretical power.

Similarly, Arnold's Red Road explores the complexities of voyeurism as it relates to the operators of CCTV, again undercutting the phallocentrism by having a woman, Jackie, control the mechanisms of the camera. There is again sexual exploration, issues of deviance, and a hidden past that slowly is revealed.

Neither of these three films are altogether successful projects. To my eyes, they each have such theoretical interests in circumventing convention that they lose elements of what makes those conventions fundamentally work. With Leigh, I think the interrogation of autonomy is there from the start visually, by having her submit to having objects invade her body. And the rest of the film is about trusting the subjectivity of others who could take advantage of that submitted body. But she's so barren of identity or purpose that I cannot find life in Leigh's project. It was critical weight and I suspect academics will find meaningful issues to study, and almost want to keep looking for those elements myself, but it is decidedly absent of the kind of material that I look for in the films that mean something to me...

[Dukefrukem]

Emily Browning was awful and completely unconvincing in her role. She ruined what should have been a disturbing and awkwardly interesting movie.

[Izzy Black]

Gordon's project is essentially an inversion of Vertigo, with a woman projecting all of her fears and anxieties onto a man (rather than Scotty's projection onto Judy), informed by the feminist theory of Laura Mulvey's then-groundbreaking "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" essay. There, too, the theoretical underpins the film more so than the emotional, exploring woman as sexual object directly vis-a-vis Christine's job at a porn theater. The film is so static that it, to me, undercuts much of the film's structural and theoretical power.

Similarly, Arnold's Red Road explores the complexities of voyeurism as it relates to the operators of CCTV, again undercutting the phallocentrism by having a woman, Jackie, control the mechanisms of the camera. There is again sexual exploration, issues of deviance, and a hidden past that slowly is revealed.

Neither of these three films are altogether successful projects. To my eyes, they each have such theoretical interests in circumventing convention that they lose elements of what makes those conventions fundamentally work. With Leigh, I think the interrogation of autonomy is there from the start visually, by having her submit to having objects invade her body. And the rest of the film is about trusting the subjectivity of others who could take advantage of that submitted body. But she's so barren of identity or purpose that I cannot find life in Leigh's project. It was critical weight and I suspect academics will find meaningful issues to study, and almost want to keep looking for those elements myself, but it is decidedly absent of the kind of material that I look for in the films that mean something to me...

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I personally do not think Leigh's film prizes the theoretical over the emotional. I simply think that the emotional punch of the film doesn't come from dramatic characterizations. I also think that while Lucy's purpose and identity is mysterious, that doesn't mean that she's without one. Part of the film's charm is the manner in which it attempts to evoke it and make gestures at it. In any case, I understand that this is not a film for everyone.

[Izzy Black]

Emily Browning was awful and completely unconvincing in her role. She ruined what should have been a disturbing and awkwardly interesting movie.

Well at least this is a unique opinion.

[Dukefrukem]

I just didn't feel like she fit the role. As I said, her most unconvincing line? "I want to show you something. I would really love to suck your cock." You could hear the discomfort in her voice as she tried to get that line out with a flat, unemotional face.

[Boner M]

"I want to show you something. I would really love to suck your cock." You could hear the discomfort in her voice as she tried to get that line out with a flat, unemotional face.
That's the point.

[Dukefrukem]

That's the point.

I'm not buying it.

[Derek]

I'm not buying it.

You not buying the truth doesn't make it any less true. ;)

[Winston*]

This is a film that I feel I more or less understood, but at the same time made me think that art is pretty ridiculous. "Oh man I'm getting so many insights from watching this naked old man lick this young girl's face.".

[Idioteque Stalker]

At first it was weird to me how much attention this movie was getting considering how few people actually liked it. Then I read the synopsis. :queued:

[Izzy Black]

I just didn't feel like she fit the role. As I said, her most unconvincing line? "I want to show you something. I would really love to suck your cock." You could hear the discomfort in her voice as she tried to get that line out with a flat, unemotional face.

What was unconvincing to you about this line? What did you need to be convinced of? That she wasn't uncomfortable as she forced out a flat, unemotional advance? But she was.

[Izzy Black]

This is a film that I feel I more or less understood, but at the same time made me think that art is pretty ridiculous. "Oh man I'm getting so many insights from watching this naked old man lick this young girl's face.".

I really don't think this is the right approach. I believe Leigh's intention is to achieve something far more visceral and direct than this. Don't let theoretical insights after the fact obscure the emotional realities here. What could be more unsettling, discomforting, and awkward than watching an old man lick a pale, nubile naked girl? Her complete stasis and lack of sexual activity or even conscious awareness of the proceedings only makes things all the more unnerving, pathetic, and strange. You don't need to be reflective or thoughtful to be feeling this way. The moment itself isn't intellectualized. Something is simply off here.

But, yes, art is pretty ridiculous.

[Boner M]

The film reminded me more of what would happen if all the regulars of match-cut set out to make a 'Spinal film'.

[Winston*]

I really don't think this is the right approach. I believe Leigh's intention is to achieve something far more visceral and direct than this. Don't let theoretical insights after the fact obscure the emotional realities here. What could be more unsettling, discomforting, and awkward than watching an old man lick a pale, nubile naked girl? Her complete stasis and lack of sexual activity or even conscious awareness of the proceedings only makes things all the more unnerving, pathetic, and strange. You don't need to be reflective or thoughtful to be feeling this way. The moment itself isn't intellectualized. Something is simply off here.

Sure, but why do I want to feel that way? What have I gained from the visceral experience of that scene? I often feel that way when watching these kinds of movies these days. Why am I doing this to myself?

[Skitch]

This is a film that I feel I more or less understood, but at the same time made me think that art is pretty ridiculous. "Oh man I'm getting so many insights from watching this naked old man lick this young girl's face.".

Bingo.

[Boner M]

This is a film that I feel I more or less understood, but at the same time made me think that Australian Government-funded 'art' is pretty ridiculous.
Fixed.

[Izzy Black]

Sure, but why do I want to feel that way? What have I gained from the visceral experience of that scene? I often feel that way when watching these kinds of movies these days. Why am I doing this to myself?

Well I mean art is all about feeling. It's particularly about exploring the whole range of human emotion and experience. If you just want to feel good, there are plenty of outlets for that.

And as to the question of "Why art?" That's certainly a question I can't answer for you. For me, I can hardly imagine anything greater. It's at once inspiring, therapeutic, enlightening, dazzling, fascinating, moving, and so much more. Some art can draw attention to our pain, discomfort, and sadness, and much of its power lies in its capacity to do so.

[Winston*]

I just don't know anymore, Israfel.

[Izzy Black]

:sad:

[Boner M]

Hey guys

Are movies 'art'

or are they

ESCAPISM

:eek:

[Izzy Black]

If only mocking a stubborn question would make it go away :P

[Dukefrukem]

You not buying the truth doesn't make it any less true. ;)

I'm not buying that one scene can make her insecure but she has no problem doing blow, picking up men in bars and continue to take the sleep medicine. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Spinal]

The film reminded me more of what would happen if all the regulars of match-cut set out to make a 'Spinal film'.

I appreciate the effort guys, but you should know that I like less talking.

[Raiders]

I appreciate the effort guys, but you should know that I like less talking.

Yeah guys, Spinal likes his films like he likes his women.

[B-side]

Yeah guys, Spinal likes his films like he likes his women.

Bloated and depressing? Old and homophobic? Boring and apolitical?

Help me out, guys.

[Pop Trash]

Hey guys

Are movies 'art'

or are they

ESCAPISM

:eek:

Are we human?

Or are we dancer? :eek:

[Izzy Black]

:eek:

[B-side]

haha