Skip to main content

The Beast Confronts the Overwhelming Power of Desire and Fear

How do we quantify our deepest feelings? They are enigmatic and instinctive -it’s difficult to say what exactly motivates them. All we know is that our feelings are very powerful, to perhaps an underwritten degree. Powerful to the point we can’t resist them, and yet they can frighten us too, in that prospect of acting on them.
In The Beast, director Bertrand Bonello has the task of conveying both the longing and fear of the sheer visceral power of emotions, and why they are fundamental in that dichotomy -and I think he does a pretty excellent job. With particular respect to that arguably greatest of human emotions, few movies so potently illustrate the primal draw of true love, but also an equally primal horror that may live on its flip side. The meanings are not always acute but they are raw. And this surely, the film contends, is better than the alternative in their theoretical absence.
The movie’s core pretense is based loosely on Henry James’ The Beast in the Jungle, from which it gets its title -referring to the dread of an unknown future calamity that prompts its protagonist to live in a state of fear. It’s not quite so overt for Gabrielle (Léa Seydoux) as for her literary counterpart -but she is haunted by the spectre of some tragedy she firmly believes will befall her. And this is true of three incarnations of Gabrielle across the span of more than a century. In 1910, she is a famed pianist in Paris, in 2014 she is a struggling actress in Los Angeles, and in 2044 she is a disenchanted drone in a world run by A.I., mulling over a "purification" process that would cleanse her DNA of strong emotions to equip her for better job opportunities -and in which capacity she observes these prior two lives and her relationship with a soul called Louis (George MacKay). 
It's a relationship that takes very different shapes over the successive lifetimes. First he is an elegant old acquaintance with gallant affections towards her that she returns cordially but chastely; then he is a depressed and disturbed incel stalking her with violent intent while she sees him as merely a peculiar neighbour -though one to whom she feels a strange kinship. Lastly, that mysterious connection is present too towards a shy fellow innocent lured into purification and fearful of the effect it will take. Connective details cross each life -in 1910 Gabrielle owns a doll-making factory and in 2044 she identifies the people who have undertaken purification, like her vacant 'nanny' Kelly (Guslagie Malanda), as dolls. In 1910, she meets a clairvoyant about her premonition, whose enigmatic predictions flash-forward into the next life, where they are echoed by a sketchy internet medium to the Gabrielle there. Bonello layers in certain recurring actions, phrases, motifs -the movie opens on actress Gabrielle rehearsing a scene in front of a green-screen (a sly commentary on the impersonal nature of much of modern filmmaking -more broadly representative of society and thus the starker importance of its central tenet): she looks about her fearfully, creeps backwards towards a table and grabs for a knife -a moment we will see again twice more before she actually discovers this true beast she is preparing herself for.
The way that these things recur, are edited together in foreshadowing and allusion, there’s a sense of interconnected fate along the lines of Cloud Atlas. But Bonello’s canvas isn’t nearly so broad, and is entirely personal to the fate of this single soul navigating sharp feelings and instincts  and anxieties with no reference point, until that future Gabrielle becomes cognizant of their realities. The prevailing thread for her is subconscious -which Bonello and Seydoux do a fine job illustrating- these base notions of desire and apprehension that drive her and confine her. In that 1910 segment especially, we can feel that pang of romantic and sexual longing that she is so resistant to -a sting as powerful as that in David Lean’s Brief Encounter, clearly a significant influence on this portion of the movie. And Louis calls her out on it openly at a couple points, naming love as her great fear, to which she evades, continuing so even after she makes the leap of leaving her husband for him. Their love is not consummated, it exists only in glances, an embrace, a sensual holding of hands.
Her next life pronounces her emotional solitude against the backdrop of a large modernist Beverly Hills mansion she is renting, and the preoccupation she has with web-surfing (and not very safely, her computer ultimately crashes under severe malware infection). In auditions, at a club, there is no connection she can form, however much she desires one. Opposite here we do see the absence of love embodied as a Beast, and yet Louis (Louie) in spite of everything invites a certain level of pity -a victim of violent patriarchal social expectation where he can only see himself as a victim of women; exactly the sort of guy vulnerable to the Andrew Tates and Jordan Petersons of the world. Just how much capacity for empathy he's left with is ambiguous -but we see it through the lens Gabrielle sees him, wanting him to be someone she can relate to, someone she can love.
Of course it's unclear how much of this comes from 2044 Gabrielle supplanting her own soon-to-be-extinguished desire onto the visions she sees. Bonello obscures any solid reading on the matter by cutting sometimes between seemingly unrelated contexts across the timelines -though the first two are played mostly chronologically. What's indisputable though is the strength of attraction radiated through each circumstance and Gabrielle's missed chances to act on them in each life before unfortunate ends. Bonello intelligently doesn't ever attempt to explain it, just that it carries considerable power for both. But Gabrielle is preoccupied by her dread, Louie is blinded by self-loathing and preconception, both reject the chance of connection. And in this future where the opportunity to even be moved by such things is threatened, the stakes on following through on these profound age-spanning feelings are incredibly high. And if you know the James story, you have the sense where it's heading.
In channelling this complexity, Seydoux gives one of her greatest, surprisingly most versatile performances yet. A lot of it is characterized by subtlety, but that deep raw emotion breaches the surface terrifically at paramount junctures. Gabrielle epitomizes dual sides of fear and longing, and Seydoux naturally articulates both through all versions of this character whilst also honing in on their distinctness of manner, era, and situation. And MacKay is permitted an excellent demonstration of range, performing in two languages and three accents across characters with an even wider disparity of personality, and yet who share fundamental traits -most notably a certain motivating resolve and directness. 
Bonello reflects the thesis of his film in his very feeling-oriented direction, emotional necessity rather than plot points driving things such as the inter-timeline juxtapositions. And he's keen to emphasize those beats of emotional power and their effect on Gabrielle and Louis, gestures or comments, the motif of Roy Orbison's "Evergreen" -itself a symbolic statement for this love across lifetimes- and the curious effect it has. The mood of any given sector of the movie is reflective of Gabrielle's perception, whether it be warm and romantically tempting, isolated and afraid, or disillusioned and vacant. In 1910 the environment is rich and ornate but claustrophobic, in 2014 it is comfortable but revealing and vulnerable. And 2044 is just cold. Bonello's future is very sterile and almost entirely empty -his own prediction of a calamity of an entirely tangible kind. Even for those humans who have not undergone purification, there is no passion -and his great warning seems to be that this is what the advancement of A.I. promises. This overwhelming power of human feeling that so much of the movie is concerned with exploring is even in its haunting qualities immensely valuable -and therein lies the tool of the Beast.
For as much as I've stressed this movie's romantic and provocative conceptual bona fides, it acts the part of a pretty captivating horror movie and grim dystopia as well, as Bonello crosses genre and teases experimentation of form in pursuit of his vision. It's ultimately a very enthralling vision, if a tragically pessimistic one. The Beast conveys the daunting power of attraction, and of love, with appropriate magnitude, shines a spotlight on its complexity and inequivalent virtue through an epic cautionary tale. The most fascinating cinematic meditation on the subject in years.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...