irresolvables

it is indeed tempting to gather together certain films that have "family resemblance". perhaps it is a modernist drive to classify, or perhaps fetishistic fascination to collect. yet at the same time when we bring together films that explore similar themes, their differences make it possible to articulate something entirely new.

for instance, there is a family resemblance among the following films.

douglas sirk | all that heaven allows | 1955
douglas sirk | imitation of life | 1959
john cassavetes | shadows | 1959
rainer werner fassbinder | ali: fear eats soul | 1974
todd haynes | far from heaven | 2002

even though the last one fails to achieve the masterpiece quality that the other three so effortlessly embody, it is important to include it for it tells us something not only about the period of its production, but also about the other films. todd haynes, introducing the criterion's edition of fassbinder's ali: fear eats soul, mentions that both fassbinder and sirk (esp.,all that heaven allows) as his inspirations.

it is possible to trace a line that passes from imitation of life and shadows. to say the least, this is a line which is parallel, if not entangled with the line that passes through all that heaven allows and ali.

in far from heaven, haynes substitutes rock hudson's white working class gardener with a black gardener played by dennis haysbert. in ali, the morrocan gastarbeiter will assume the role of the lover. through the reiterations, we see a matrix emerging. perhaps, this is why fassbinder was such an important director. without doubt, sirk is an excellent director. he introduces these antagonisms, irresolvables into seemingly fluffy, glossy, soap opera narratives. but fassbinder is an exceptional director because he turns what sirk announced in his handful of hollywood movies (or, weepies, as they were called then) into a matrix, a universal matrix of how social antagonisms/irresolvables constitute an overdetermined ensemble.

in these films, antagonisms are everywhere. without doubt, most "visibly", we find racial antagonisms in these films. but as in the case of sarah jane in imitation of life the antagonism is not necessarily between the white subject and the black subject but rather within the subject as such. what is primarily at stake is sarah jane's identity. moreover it is not only a question of racial identity. it is also her identity as a daughter of a woman who occupies the position of a feudal serf. on this point, perhaps it may be worthwhile to mention that a very convincing case has already been made that the class structure of antebellum south had a rather accentuated feudal aspect to it. (see, susan feiner, 1988. “slavery, classes and accumulation in the antebellum south.” rethinking marxism 1, no. 2: 116-41.) annie acts and serves, all her life, as a serf to miss meredith. as we see in the end, this has not been her entire life, for she had another life with her black community, but the movie deliberately conceals that life from the audience until the final scenes. interestingly enough, the movie was a hit in us south among blacks.

similarly, it is not that ali is a morrocan but also that he is a member of the working class below the working class. just like ali, brigitte mira's emmi is a middle aged cleaning lady who is also a member of the working classes. her and her neighbors difference from ali is not simply racial/ethnic. the racial difference becomes the modality in which the class position of the german working classes can be codified as middle class. in other words, the location of antagonism is once again under the identity of german working classes. it is the german working classes, the neighbors, who cannot identify with the immigrant working classes. it is the german working classes who "other" the immigrants as the wretched of the earth so that they can see themselves as belonging to the middle classes and distance themselves from their working classness.

equally tempting is to juxtapose cassavetes' shadows with sirk's imitation of life. even though they were shot in the same period, they have radically different epistemologies. sirk is a very calculated hollywood director. whereas cassavetes is the first "independent" director. imitation of life is a very glossy film with serious "acting". shadows is entirely improvised. but both films overlayer racial antagonisms with non-traditional (or more accurately, non-oedipal) family antagonisms. in imitation of life, we are dealing with mother-daughter relationships; in shadows, we are dealing with siblings.

in shadows, class is less present, except perhaps early on, when we see hugh struggling not to sell his soul, while his agent rupert is trying his best to convince hugh to take a rather crappy job of introducing showgirls. when the producer of the show reminds (threatens) the showgirls that there are thousand of girls out there who can dance much better than they do, we realize that this is a class structure where the showgirls and the musicians are exploited.

to be continued...