web
counter
 

I Like to Watch

By Drew Morton | Posted Under Underappreciated Gems | Comments (10)



peepingtom.jpg

French film theorist AndrĂ© Bazin thought that cinema was unique from any other art form thanks to its ability to represent reality. In his seminal essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image,” Bazin wrote that “Photography and cinema…are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism.” To clarify, Bazin did not believe that the cinema is reality. Rather, cinema provides a representation of reality that satisfies certain psychological desires of the viewer and the artist. As he begins the essay, “If the plastic arts were put under psychoanalysis, the practice of embalming the dead might turn out to be a fundamental factor in their creation. The process might reveal that at the origin of painting and sculpture there lies a mummy complex.”

Years later, when film was put under psychoanalysis thanks to the work of theorists like Laura Mulvey, Bazin’s hypothesis took an uncomfortable turn. If the essence of cinema is in its ability to represent reality and representation provides the artist and the spectator with the fulfillment of a certain psychological need, how can we best describe it? For Mulvey, cinema (especially that of the Hollywood variety) fulfills pleasure via the visual or “scopophilia” by providing a viewpoint that is often aligned with male protagonists who look upon passive females. In other words, cinema turns us into voyeurs whose pleasure in the visible can have sexual consequences.

It’s fitting, given the seminal status of her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” that Mulvey provides a commentary for Michael Powell’s psychological thriller Peeping Tom (1960). Powell’s film is about a filmmaker whose main interactions with women involve a camera and a phallic knife concealed in the tripod. The film, given its embrace of the horror genre, invites us to look on to the women being murdered. Yet, it does not do so without forcing us to acknowledge its psychological side effect. If you indulge film’s ability to fulfill those repressed desires, you run the risk of letting your own id out of the box.

The film begins on a lower-class, London street. We’re stuck in a POV shot of a 16mm Bell & Howell (eerily, the same camera I shot 16mm on while enrolled in film production classes at UW-Milwaukee). We watch as the camera approaches a hooker (Brenda Bruce), who states her price, and we follow her to her bedroom. As she undresses, a bright light is reflected off of her face. As she notices the light, her eyes meet the lens of the camera. She becomes frightened and begins to scream just as Powell cuts to a projector, screening the film for our protagonist Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm).

The next day, Mark, camera in hand, stalks the police outside of the hooker’s apartment as they wheel her body out. He’s a handsome man, which is fairly surprising. Even more shocking is that, as the film progresses, we feel sympathetic towards Mark. He may be a killer, but he’s a haunted killer who has been “created” thanks to his overzealous, psychiatrist father (Powell himself). His father, hoping to author the ultimate study on the effects of fear on children, repeatedly tortured his son, on camera, never giving him a bit of privacy. His father took a sadistic pleasure in watching the young boy, passing the torch to Mark with a noteworthy birthday present: a movie camera.

While Powell’s film is undoubtedly a horror film, he complements the stalker plot with a romantic subplot. Mark has fallen in love with one of his tenants, a young librarian named Helen (Anna Massey). Helen is outgoing, wanting to know more about her elusive landlord. She pursues him, arriving at his flat on the evening of her 21st birthday in order to invite him down for a piece of cake. Mark, his viewing of the previous evening’s snuff film interrupted, allows Helen into his screening room. He tries to relate to her, drifting uncomfortably onto the subject of his relationship with his father, but her curiosity overlooks these initial, awkward interactions. The relationship between Mark and Helen is reminiscent of that between Norman Bates and Marion Crane in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (released just a few months after Peeping Tom). There’s an endearing awkwardness and, despite everything Mark has done, we want Helen to cure him of his scopophilia.

Carl Boehm and Anna Massey’s performances are essential to making this aspect of Peeping Tom work. Boehm, a German born actor, is unable to feel at home in the English language. This, however, is not a criticism; rather, it completely works in favor of his character. There’s a thrill seeker in Mark, but he’s also someone who is overly contemplative and insecure when he’s not behind the camera. Massey, particularly in the use of her eyes, portrays both a curiosity and sympathy for Mark that escalates the horror of the film. After all, if Peeping Tom was simply the story of a sociopathic filmmaker, hiding in the shadows between the murders of thinly defined female characters (including Moira Shearer, who also starred in Powell and Pressburger’s The Red Shoes twelve years earlier), it would only work on one level. By making Mark a sympathetic murderer who was formed by the destructive interaction between psychology and cinema, Powell alludes to the possibility that you, too, can become Mark. In the end, the horror of the film isn’t the product of the women’s faces we see, it’s in the self-realization that we enjoy watching it.

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. His criticism and articles have previously appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the UWM Post, Flow, Senses of Cinema, and Mediascape. He is the 2008 and 2010 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



We're Going to Run This Bitch Down | Unstoppable Trailer | Samuel L. Jackson Career Assessment | Still Tryin' Real Hard To Be The Shepherd









Comments

I love old school trailers. Sorry I don't have more to add to the discussion.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at August 6, 2010 2:08 PM

Pretty fascinating stuff Drew...

There are so many questions about whether our attention creates monsters in our culture, whether feeding our eyes on people 'ruins' them, and how apathy is a part of (or even generated by) choosing to passively absorb our entertainment...

I wonder if our eyes became the dominant sense simply because it became easy to make emotional feedback from it, without the risk of physical interactivity. And this carries forward to a society that has trouble with physical interaction now that so much has been sacrificed to this overwhelmingly visual assessment of each other. It's like - nobody can even date well anymore...isn't that weird? How many single people are out there that are extremely frustrated that they can't find a suitable partner? Strange.

I have a small bit of experience in how a camera can affect how you form your identity from a young age - and frankly it's really frightening how powerful that lens is. It's both an extraordinary symbol that makes people act in insane ways, and an actual threat in that it captures flaws, errors and missteps forever.

For celebrities, it must be like having the most judgmental person they ever knew watching their every move. Think how awful it'd be to have the mother-in-law (or equivalent) on your case twenty-four-seven. Ugh!

For everyone else a camera is a chance at redemption, celebration, fame, infamy. Or reveals far too much truth. Like those poor unfortunates that become youtube celebs - how easy is it to get past that captured and consumed moment in time? Or Gary Coleman, say, trapped at a point where he was loved and people wanted him to stay that way, and had reference material to prefer forever over the real deal.

And the power of holding the camera - girls gone wild happens. But so does high art. Hard to tell what will be made of the film - because even GGW could be made into high art if assembled in certain ways.

Anyhow - sorry for blabbing. I always found these ideas/concepts super compelling.

Posted by: replica at August 6, 2010 3:34 PM

Sometimes when I read your reviews, Drew, I feel like Grandpa in The Lost Boys: "I just like to read the T.V. Guide. Read the T.V. Guide, you don't need a t.v."

Posted by: Brenton at August 6, 2010 3:46 PM

Replica,

I would never say that media (video games, film, etc.) make people commit violent crimes but I would argue that the media can shape our perception of the world around us in more subtle ways. If a person just happens to be emotionally/psychologically screwed up on top of that, then there's the potential for some fireworks...

Brenton,

So does that mean it's more fun to read about media than watching it or that you prefer TV Guide's simplifications? ;)

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 6, 2010 3:55 PM

Excellent film and interesting essay, but:

"Powell eludes to the possibility that you, too, can become Mark."

Surely it should be ALLUDES?

God I hate myself now.

Posted by: Mmm Strawberries at August 6, 2010 4:04 PM

Strawberries,

Thanks for the note. I've gotten sloppy with my proofreads lately. Revised and fixed!

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 6, 2010 4:07 PM

Nice review, Drew.

It's worth noting that Peeping Tom was so far ahead of its time -- i.e., audiences and critics were so repulsed by how the film affected them -- that it essentially killed Michael Powell's career. He worked on a few low-profile projects in the '60s and '70s, but by and large, Peeping Tom made him persona non grata in Hollywood for the rest of his life.

Posted by: Quiet Wyatt at August 6, 2010 5:23 PM

One of my favourites. I went on to check out Powell's previous work with Pressburger. The DVD collection has some amazing titles by the two of them (the Red Shoes for one, which featured the 'dancer character', from Peeping Tom, Moira Shearer).

Posted by: Somnopolis at August 6, 2010 8:36 PM

Wow, this review is quite timely, as I saw this movie not even three days ago! Excellent review; the Bazin-Mulvey angle is quite ingenious. Comparisons to Psycho are also inevitable whenever one talks about it, but I think I like this one a bit more. Not just because it's less exposed (not that this really diminishes Psycho's effectiveness), but it just seems more satisfying, and less deliberate somehow.

An interesting tidbit you may have come across if you watched the featurette on the Criterion DVD: Not only is Powell himself in the film playing the diabolical father, his own son plays the young version of Mark, and his wife plays the mother in the old films! An interview with Powell's son showed that he bore his father no ill, actually finding it pretty funny. I wouldn't have thought Powell had such a perverse sense of humor from his earlier films like The Red Shoes (although there is Pressburger's input to consider), but in retrospect, there is a sharp, daring quality to those movies that seems to be derived from it. Somehow. Can't explain without rewatching them.

And Brenton, forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I think you're being extremely unfair if you think that this review will somehow ruin your experience of watching the movie. Drew did not ruin the ending or even how the movie really plays out. What's more, it really draws in the viewer by involving them in the events on screen in a way, so whoever watches it has their own reaction to what's going on. I say you should watch it yourself. Like Drew, I highly recommend.

Posted by: vic at August 7, 2010 4:06 AM

vic, I think you missed my point. I loved the review, and wasn't making any comment on the movie-watching experience. I am an avid reader, and appreciate discussions about the form and function of media (in this case film). I simply don't have time nor access to many of the movies that are reviewed here, but still feel that by reading the reviews I am still experiencing them in a meaningful way, especially Drew's, as they are wider-ranging and relevant to me despite my not seeing the movies. The quote was a little tongue-in-cheek. Grandpa, in the Lost Boys, is a great character whose pronouncements to the boys are funny and cantankerous.

Posted by: Brenton at August 7, 2010 1:18 PM