Skip to main content

Parenthood Horror: Lynne Ramsay’s “We Need to Talk about Kevin” (2011)



The end of 2011 belonged to serious, confrontational cinema. Lynne Ramsay’s We Need to Talk about Kevin and Steve McQueen’s Shame (read my review of Shame here: http://ed-is-a-stranger-on-earth.blogspot.nl/2012/02/true-fiction-steve-mcqueens-shame.html) shocked art-house audiences everywhere by revealing to them the most candid portraits of contemporary society. It is telling that both films were ignored by the fuddy-duddy fogies at the Academy Awards. This embarrassing blunder should say more about the Academy than the two films, which are made of much weightier (and therefore more relevant) stuff than any of the 2012 Oscar-winners.   

Ramsay’s We Need to Talk about Kevin is relentless in the way it broaches its subjects. Are all mothers naturally maternal? it asks us to consider from the get-go. We see Eva (a stellar Tilda Swinton) struggle with motherhood, trying to come to grips with a new addition to her carefree life with her husband. The fact that the new addition is an autistic(?) sociopath in the making does not lighten the mood. Eva catches on that there is something awfully wrong with Kevin – an insidious, manipulative child who embodies a whole nihilist universe. And yet her maternal obligations – imposed on her by society – tell her that she must accept and love the child for who he is. The ending of the film is no surprise to the viewer, as it has already been made clear from the start that Kevin, as a teenager, has done something monumentally monstrous. We follow Eva’s attempts to jumpstart her life after the incident, but at the same time the director continually interrupts the present flow by showing us snippets of the past, those crucial, irreparable moments which will haunt Eva for as long as she lives.   


The viewer experiences the same frustration as Eva: he asks himself if it is possible to continue loving a “monster” as a parent - when the love before had not even come naturally and had to be simulated. This is where the film’s “shock value” lies. In the end, the viewer is shown that Eva DOES in fact still see the “monster” as her son (she remains in the same town, risking ostracisation, just to be close to him), as their last embrace in the film demonstrates. The message here is loud and grating: maternal love has nothing to do with rationality.

Another subject the film takes by the horns is that of born evil - a favourite among the religious and the teleologically inclined. The film itself does not serve up a rambling view of it. Its approach to the subject of born evil is as straight as an arrow: as far as the screenwriter is concerned, it is simply there, and there is no explanation for its being there. To put it in a more contentious way, evil cannot be explained through religion, highbrow philosophy or science. It is there because human nature is where it inhabits. A handful of viewers have found this unsatisfactory, labelling it a “cop-out.” But I say on the contrary. It needs no explanation because evil in itself is already self-explanatory.

Anyone who is thinking of starting a family should first sit down and watch every frame of this film, preferably with a glass of red wine in hand.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Comments are always appreciated! Do feel free to leave them or start a discussion.

Popular posts from this blog

What is Freedom?: Jean-Paul Sartre’s “The Age of Reason” (Part 1)

The first instalment of Jean-Paul Sartre’s trilogy Roads to Freedom , The Age of Reason ( L’ Â ge de Raison , 1945), compels the modern reader to re-define the idea of freedom, conventionally worded as “the condition of being free of restraints” (The Free Dictionary). “Free of restraints” is murky waters when it comes to Mathieu and Daniel, the two main characters of Sartre’s soul-searching work.  Sartre’s characters are primarily “for-itself beings,” existentially free persons who act according to the choices that have moulded them. The words “existentially free” are oxymoronic, and the phrase “free persons who act according to the choices that have moulded them” is painfully paradoxical. This is classic Sartrean paradox: it tells you that as an individual you are “free” to make choices, but these choices are pre-determined by a whole other set of choices beyond your control or manipulation. Mathieu Delarue has made the mistake of impregnating his mistress of seven ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Approaching Haruki Murakami’s “Kafka on the Shore” the Jungian Way

“The world of gods and spirits is truly nothing but the collective unconscious inside me.” – Carl Jung, On the Tibetan Book of the Dead What appears to be supernatural and surrealistic in Haruki Murakami’s Kafka on the Shore  does not have to remain that way once we accept that in Murakami’s fictional world, the natural and the supernatural often cross paths and become one single unity. In the previous three entries on the novel, I have extensively discussed its relation to Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex . But here I intend to explain why the supernatural should in fact be deemed natural, and how this reasoning is a direct reference to the theories of Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung and German philosopher G.W. F. Hegel, both of whom are mentioned in the novel. Carl Jung’s psychological theory on the “collective unconscious” (the notion positing that all humans – regardless of race and culture – share a psyche containing “latent predispositions towards identical reactions” [1...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Sound of Alienation: Rainer Maria Rilke’s “The Voices”

In the nine “Voices” poems (“Die Stemmen,” 1902), we find Rilke speaking out for those who have suffered pain and injustice. He insists that in order for them to be heard, they need to “advertise” themselves, and this should be done through singing, or songs – like the castrati (referred to as “these cut ones”) who sing to God and compel him to stay and listen. This message is found in the “Title Leaf” – an introduction of sorts to the nine songs. It is tempting to read the nine songs (“Beggar’s,” “Blind Man’s,” “Drunkard’s,” “Suicide’s,” “Widow’s,” “Idiot’s,” “Orphan Girl’s,” “Dwarf’s,” “Leper’s”) as a collection of poetic pleas for social awareness. This is due to Rilke’s “casting choices”; he has selected society’s most conspicuous outcasts as the main speakers of his poems. When, for instance, the beggar in “The Beggar’s Song” says, “I go always from door to door/rain-soaked and sun-scorched,” we are induced to sympathise with his downtrodden fate. The same can be said for...
Post a Comment
Read more