Un Chien Andalou (An Andalusian Dog)

Film poster

Un Chien Andalou (1929) - Luis Buñuel

A landmark of early cinema, An Andalusian Dog was a surrealist film directed by Luis Bunuel with involvement from Salvador Dali. Although it was only about 15 minutes long, many images from the film still have cultural relevance today and are immediately recognizable. Combining elements of Freudian psychoanalysis and bizarre imagery, the film is an abstract exploration of the director's subconscious. There is no clear plot or message to the film, as it instead focuses on creating a purely visual experience. 

Signs without ideology?

On the surface, the various images in the film seem to be totally meaningless and nonsensical, grouped together at random. However, within the film itself there is a consistent internal logic that governs the events within. While physical space and material reality can bend and be altered without much effort, the internal logic cannot be opposed as easily. Essentially, the only eternal and unifying aspect of the film is that it is pure ideology: the product of the subconscious mind itself. 

The film's opening scene is that of a man sharpening a razor, then cutting open the eye of a sitting woman. This scene thus sets the tone for the rest of the film by demonstrating the truly visceral power of ideology. Ideology can render violence and destruction completely meaningless by simply refusing to acknowledge that it even occurred, as the woman shows no signs of the incident later on in the film and no other references are made to the opening scene. This physicality is reflected throughout the film in the overarching tone of death and decay. 

This foreboding atmosphere is the consistent ideology throughout the film. It mediates the various social relations between all characters: they can only communicate through violence, lust or fear, but nothing more emotionally complex. Like many other films, ideology has an infantilizing effect on its subjects, forcing them to be animalistic and rudimentary in their modes of interaction. The film ends on an ever more somber note, as the only hope for freedom is crushed with the last image of the two lovers buried in sand and frozen like statues. Life itself is thus secondary to the ideological apparatus. Instead of emerging from the material conditions around it, ideology in An Andalusian Dog is truly idealist in nature: it transcends all time and space, godlike in its power over mankind. 

Semiotic entanglement

Semiotics, the philosophical study of signs and symbols, can explain why An Andalusian Dog is so strange for the viewer. When signs become entangled and interlaced in ways foreign to our understanding of them, they thus take on new meanings and we have to cope with the juxtaposition of the two separate and distinct meanings to the same sign. This can be seen with the man in the nun's outfit, as the contextual meaning of the signifier is radically different than the viewer's understanding of it. This is a constant throughout the entirety of the film, demonstrating two possibilities. The first is that all ideologies are internally consistent in their semiotic relationships, but from the outside they are incomprehensible to any other ideology. The second possibility is much more sinister: ideology is essentially parasitic, transforming existing material conditions into semiotic relations that bear no connection to the original and subjugating society to its simulacra.

Conclusion

While the film may be unorthodox in many respects, it is a wholly unique experience that has deeply resonant commentary (intended or not) on the nature of reality, symbols and society. Its dreamlike nature is the result of its surrealist origin and the means by which it challenges the audience is something to be lauded. When viewed as an exploration of a parallel ideology with its own internal logic, the film's meaning becomes much more clear. The ultimate result of the film is an intended confusion, one that forcibly makes the viewer question his or her understanding of the authenticity of their own experiences in the ideology they are immersed in. 

They Live & The Matrix

Film posters for They Live (left) and The Matrix (right)

Comparing and contrasting They Live and The Matrix - What does it mean to "see" ideology?

Our reality is not always what it appears to be, but is structured by the ideology that surrounds us. Both films explore this concept in similar ways and thus are excellent examples for the power ideology holds over us. They Live (1988) and The Matrix (1999), despite being released over a decade apart, tell the same story: a man is taught about the true nature of reality and is thus forced to struggle against the overwhelming power of ideology with the hope of possibly liberating his fellow subjects. Simultaneously, the differences between the two are significant, especially in how they handle the role of the revolutionary subject and the nature of overcoming the control of ideology.

The revolutionary proletarian subject - They Live and the struggle against ideology

The plot of They Live is essentially a proto-Matrix that reflects both the director's political leftism and the social climate of the late 80's. The protagonist is John Nada (played by Roddy Piper) is a homeless drifter forced to travel from city to city in search of work. For the first act of the film, the only known characters are of a distinctly impoverished status. This sets the stage for the resulting elements of class struggle, in which the proletarian Nada struggles against the powers that secretly control society. 

This is the first aspect of differentiation between the two films. While The Matrix positions its protagonist as a sort of middle-class office worker, They Live is unequivocal in its political convictions. The police, instead of being just another means of suppression, are the primary means of disciplining the working class, as they demolish the shantytown and attack those who speak out against the controlling ideology. 

Essentially, the struggle against ideology is not something that is happened upon, as it is portrayed in The Matrix, but instead is the necessary result of the proletarian condition itself. Although a "spark" is needed to ignite the flame of revolution, the ultimate instrument of change comes from within the margins of the system, not from the "enlightened outsider" that is emphasized in The Matrix. 

The sublime nature of ideology

One of the most enduring scenes from the film is its portrayal of reality "sans ideology." For a film like The Matrix, there is essentially nothing to see when ideology is removed, as everything is illusory, but for They Live, ideology is wholly entwined with daily life.

The impact of ideology, therefore, is almost entirely subliminal and operates below the surface of our conscious understanding. We are lulled into a state of passivity because all aspects of our society encourage a set of values that promote docility: obedience, consumerism and conformity. The subject of ideology thus is unaware of his or her position within the ideological structure itself, as behavior is conditioned and reinforced consistently, with the only disruptions coming from rebellious factions and being physically painful to experience. The moment of severance from ideology, like in The Matrix, is not pleasant, but instead violent and completely alien to one's normal experiences. 

Both films are also similar in their portrayal of the oppressive force behind the ideological shift as being alien (either literally or more figuratively) and having interests completely counter to that of the human race as a whole. For They Live, the oppositional force are aliens that have come to exploit the people and resources of Earth, an allusion to the predatory behaviors of multinational corporations in their dealings with the third world. As is discovered by Nada, the aliens themselves are the masters of the world, but not fully removed from, instead walking among us as the physical enforcers of the illusory ideological apparatus.

The chosen one - individual and collective struggle against ideology

While both films essentially center around one single person whose actions bring down the ideological apparatus that governs society, the differences in character between them make the various perspectives on ideology all the more apparent. For The Matrix, the ability to resist ideology is something that is almost solipsistic on Neo's part: he is enlightened and knows the truth, thus can bend the world to his will. For Nada, there is no real power to his newfound knowledge, in fact, it alienates him from his former friends and forces him to become a criminal, but his resistance comes from a general spirit of necessity: things cannot keep going as they are now. 

 

The Matrix's hero is positioned as the subject of a grand, historically inevitable narrative: as the chosen one, Neo will bring down the reign of the machines and destroy the matrix, but yet in the film his mortality and agency are emphasized more than ever. On the other hand, there is no grand destiny in store for Nada, yet he is stronger and more invincible than interstellar imperialism. This dissonance can only be resolved through a synthesis of both perspectives, in which the inevitable collapse of ideology is the result of contradictions within ideology itself, yet still the result of the historically necessary subject's own free will. 

The conclusion of both films places Nada's actions as ultimately in contrast to Neo's. Nada dies with his (and the viewer's) faith that change will occur with the collapse of the ideological apparatus into its constituent contradictions, but Neo's position at the end of The Matrix is one of almost ironic acceptance of ideology. On one hand, Neo continues to struggle against the current ideology, but not ideology itself, as he has essentially mastered it and is using it as a tool. This is a far cry from the early Neo who had neither the knowledge to fight the matrix or the skills to use it to his advantage. In many ways, Neo has adopted the ideas of the machines, believing that he himself is the chosen one and that the ordinary person has no real capacity for understanding the broad ideological underpinnings of society. 

This ultimately leads logically to examine the famous "red pill / blue pill" scene in which Neo is forced to choose between reality and illusion. Neo's choice of the red pill shows the result of a complete loss of ideology, especially when ideology itself structures the reality one is used to experiencing. Without ideology, Neo is reduced to an infantile state in which everything he knew must be discarded and reconstructed from the ground up. This is the power of ideology.

Conclusion

The greatest source of unity between the two films is an underlying and pervasive sense of hope. Hope in the power of knowledge, hope in the power of resistance, hope of revolution in the face of immense power. For the disenfranchised subject, the metaphorical red pill or sunglasses is only the first step, the second being action. Knowledge of the problem is not enough the bring about change, but the raw, physical pain of being disassociated from the reality one knows -- and being thrust into a new, post-ideological state -- is enough to make anything but resistance impossible, as one cannot hope to return to their original state of ignorance. The death of ideology in both films is thus a new rebirth, but a chaotic rebirth. Instead of the security and certainty provided by the ideological structure, both protagonists must simultaneously struggle against the now revealed ideological apparatus while also adapting to a new reality that is free from the ideological considerations that made life prior comfortable and familiar. 

Dogtooth

Film poster

Dogtooth (2009) - Yorgos Lanthimos

Dogtooth is an award-winning Greek film that explores themes of the arbitrariness of language, the power of parental figures, and the totalizing effect of ideology on current society. It mostly takes place in an isolated home in rural Greece in which a husband and wife keep their three children isolated from the rest of society, allowing only minimal contact with the outside world. They often go to great lengths to maintain control over their children, who, despite being biologically adults, still act immaturely and naively. 

The film itself offers many scathing critiques of both contemporary society and those who wish to change it. One of the most crucial points posed is on the nature of rebellion itself: are we forever doomed to be constrained in our actions by the current ideological apparatus in society? Can we ever penetrate the vale that ideology constructs around us? 

Language as a tool of oppression

The film opens with a tape recorder teaching the kids the meanings of words like "sea," "carbine" and "motor-way." These ordinary, mundane words are given meanings that initially seem bizarre; a sea is a leather chair, a carbine is a bird, a motor-way is a strong wind. However, the meaning of this lesson soon becomes clear, as the parents redefine and reincorporate words that are objects or phenomena that exist outside the compound so the words instead describe things that exist within the house or garden. 

In this way, language itself is not something neutral or free from ideological consideration. The way issues are framed, discussed and conceived of operates completely within the current logic of the ideological power apparatus, so for the children, it is impossible for them to express themselves in a way separate from their imprisonment. For them, their prison is not just something physical, but it's something linguistic and universal experientially. They are so totally trapped that they not only know nothing but their prison, they could not even express their desire to be free if they wanted to. 

The implicit acceptance of the children in regards to their father's lessons is indicative of how much they view everything around them as normal. Reflecting a somewhat Lockean tabula rasa, they all accept the internal logic of the ideology that surrounds them: they are obedient to their parents, trusting their every word because they know no one else to look to as a teacher. Facts, laws of nature and even reality itself seems to be constructed around maintaining their prison, which can be seen in how their parents make them think that airplanes are just small toys because it would otherwise imply a world outside the fence or how they are taught that it is physically impossible to leave the premises unless they are in a car.

 Power and the father

Much like a stereotypical Stalinist dictator, the father of the household censors and revises everything the children are exposed to in order for him to remain in his position of absolute authority. As seen earlier with the manipulation of language, all aspects of house life are structured and regimented in a way in order to encourage obedience. For example, the children are often bored and forced to invent their own games because they are rarely given toys and never allowed to leave. This is done to make them more obedient, as they are rewarded for "performing well" and especially loyal kids get special privileges. 

Disobedient children, on the other hand, are violently beaten.

Additionally, for the first half of the film there is a "fourth child" who "lives outside the fence." This sibling does not actually exist, but instead serves as a way for the children to vent their frustrations or feel some sort of comfort, as they talk to their "brother" like he's just as real as anyone else, even though they cannot see him or know he is there. His existence is ended with the arrival of a stray cat, which, despite being harmless and ordinary, poses a massive threat to the ideological constructs created by the father, as it is something wholly alien and foreign to the inhabitants of the compound. 

"Your brother is dead"

The cat's arrival sends everyone into a panic and results in the father having to scramble to fit the event into the narrative he created for his offspring. He describes cats as dangerous monsters that are extremely deadly; in fact, their brother outside the fence was killed by the same cat they encountered. To protect themselves against cats, their father makes them bark on all fours like dogs, paralleling an earlier scene in which the father visits a dog-trainer in order to get a guard dog. The trainer gives a quote that accurately reflects much of the film itself: "Every dog is waiting for us to show it how to behave." This quote is so crucial because as the children become more and more obedient toward their father, they become more and more doglike. Conversely, freedom is only achieved by smashing one's dogtooth (canine). The motif of dog embodies the father's need for obedience and loyalty, but also comments on the nature of power; the slave-master is human while the slave is little more than an animal. 

Rebellion - Can one ever truly escape ideology?

One of the most terrifying aspects of Dogtooth is its political implications: if one cannot even think outside the ideological boundaries set in place by those in power, how can there even be any means of fighting against it? The answer is somewhat ambiguous. 

For the film, the first inklings of freedom come not from within, but from outside. Initially, the father brings in a woman named Christina to have sex with his son to satisfy his urges. The sex itself is awkward, stiff and filmed in a way to convey the overall level of discomfort experienced when intimacy is reduced to little more than a scheduled dictate. Regardless, Christina gives the eldest daughter two VHS tapes (one is Rocky IV and the other is Jaws), which she watches and gets her first real exposure to the outside world. This both shocks and inspires her, as she constantly quotes from the movies and wants everyone to call her "Bruce," signaling an intention to forge her own identity that is distinct from the one forced upon her by her parents. 

As a result of viewing this strictly forbidden and corrupting material, both the daughter and Christina are violently beaten by the father, who recognizes the danger of allowing his daughter to see the films. Despite this, she continues to quote from the films and says that she feels as if her "dogtooth is loosening" (the context for this is that the father teaches the children that for a person to be able to leave the compound, they need to loose their dogtooth). This coincides with her parents' wedding anniversary dinner, in which the children are supposed to perform a song and dance for their parents.

She dances normally, but soon her rebellious spirit takes over and she dances a frantic, albeit stiff, rendition of "Flashdance" until she exhausts herself. She then goes into the bathroom and smashes her dogtooth out, bleeding profusely and grimacing from the pain. She then walks though the garden and climbs into the trunk of her father's car, hiding there. This act is her violent, concrete rebellion against ideology, yet she still is fully confined within the rules and constraints of the ideology itself. Even though she is trying to leave the compound, she knows that she cannot leave without the car, almost as if it was a law of nature or a simple fact of reality to obvious to be questioned. 

This is how the movie fully relates to our own experience. We cannot hope to experience any sort of post-ideological revolution, but we can hope to break free of ideology and fight against it, even if we are still operating within our current modes of thought. Yes, our perspectives are limited by our own society's ideology, but by successfully fighting against it we can cause it to collapse in upon itself. 

Conclusion

The ultimate ideological perspective of the film reflects a sort of Foucauldian, post-structuralist conception of ideology as something that we are wholly immersed in and can only be challenged within its own internal logic. In a sense, we are all prisoners in our own compounds, some of which have the same authoritarian father as Dogtooth, yet for others the oppression has taken on a much more immaterial character. Regardless, the film seems to accurately reflect the contemporary climate from which it was born; Greece was (and still is) in a time of economic uncertainty and collapse, a period of turmoil and uncertainty. It seems as if the film is asking us a final, very ideological question: will we bark like a dog or will we smash the dogtooth?