{"id":4316,"date":"2018-06-28T23:38:11","date_gmt":"2018-06-28T18:08:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/?p=4316"},"modified":"2018-06-29T11:46:54","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T06:16:54","slug":"abel-voyeur-netherlands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/abel-voyeur-netherlands\/","title":{"rendered":"Silhouette Recommends \u2013 Abel (Voyeur)"},"content":{"rendered":"

(dir: Alex van Warmerdam, Netherlands, 100 min.)<\/h2>\n
\"van

van Warmerdam\u2019s Abel<\/em> (Voyeur), 1986<\/p><\/div>\n

Recommended by:<\/strong>
\nAmitava Nag, Anwesha Deb, Partha Sarathi Raha, Sambaran Sarkar, Subhadeep Ghosh<\/span><\/p>\n

Things that worked:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The most noteworthy part of the film is its treatment which elegantly combines apparent weirdness with a comedy that turns out to be a commentary on the social constructs underneath. Amitava pointed out that the inherent comedy has a satirical tone rather than it being a black comedy since Abel, the protagonist included himself as an object of satire. Subhadeep observed that the weirdness inherent in the plot did not lead to an overt melodrama surprisingly. It remained realistic with its narrative grounded in banal events of day to day life. The \u2018abnormality\u2019 treated \u2018normally\u2019 is a key strength of the film in terms of both content and form.<\/p>\n

For Anwesha, the opposites of normality vs abnormality got blurred. Through the turns of events it became increasingly difficult to identify who were \u2018sane\u2019 in reality. Abel, regarded as insane initially, revealed more of his wisdom through the mockery to the world. The world, that had concluded Abel as insane, turned out to be \u2018insane\u2019 itself with all its obsession and typical middle class values \u2013 observed Sambaran.<\/p>\n

\"van

Abel in his weird posture<\/p><\/div>\n

Partha pointed out how the role of the observer (or the voyeur) and the subject got interchanged as plot progressed \u2013 establishing sanity as a relative perception determined always from the observer\u2019s perspective. As the observer became the subject, the perception of sanity reversed. Like Abel (the subject) regarded as insane and forced to treatment by his parents (the observer) eventually catalyzed the revelation of his parents\u2019 absurdity, hypocrisy, disordered relationships and fragility.<\/p>\n

Amitava and Subhadeep pondered that the film probed the western family value system and probably the universal outlook of the modern world. Abel, being agoraphobic, had not been out of house for several years. He developed voyeuristic tendencies which were his window to world. At the age of thirty, he was not self dependent and mature in normal terms. Nevertheless he was wise, enough to understand people\u2019s inherent eccentricities.<\/p>\n

\"van

Abel with his parents when psychologist visited<\/p><\/div>\n

Sambaran found his wisdom explored excellently throughout the story \u2013 in his interaction with his tyrant father, his overprotective mother, the obsessive Cathrine (the actress) or the psychologist. All of them, who try to make him change, were the representatives of so-called ‘normal’ society.<\/p>\n

Amitava emphasized the intrinsic irony of the society which values the outward growth and conformity to its norms rather than valuing inner wisdom and human individuality. Abel found his home when he met Sis (Zus), the performer in peep show and an estranger to society herself. Quite strikingly, Sis, not a blonde, had to wear a blonde wig in order to be an object of desire for the deprived ‘white’ society. It betrayed that need for uniformity rooted so deep in common human psyche. Sis accepted Abel as he was. Probably, both are rebels, Subhadeep pointed out, Sis rebelled from outside while Abel did same from inside and they got unified within this identity<\/p>\n

\"van

Abel at his room with his mother<\/p><\/div>\n

The cinematography brilliantly sets the emotional tone of the film reflecting the mysteriousness of human mind and its ambivalence between sanity and insanity. The claustrophobic indoor and a surreal cityscape over the window was captured well through an intricate play of light and shadow. The outdoor shots likewise captured the realistic frames contradicted with unusual perspectives and distortions blending the absurdity and normalcy seamlessly.<\/p>\n

Things that didn\u2019t work:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The group found some excesses and logical incoherence in the film which could be done without – although not ruining the overall experience as such. For example the last scene was redundant, as Amitava commented, when Abel finally cut the fly with scissor.<\/p>\n

\"van

Abel with scissors struggling to cut a fly<\/p><\/div>\n

Subhadeep observed missing of balance sometimes especially during the acting workshop while Partha found the subtleties lost in over doing of the chase scenes of Abel and his father to make a comic impact. Sambaran found the character play of Abel\u2019s mother not so impressive.<\/p>\n

Parts of the film that will be remembered:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For Subhadeep, the scenes of New Year eve were extremely hilarious. He also liked the scenes at peep show when Abel\u2019s father climbed to the top of the well breaking the voyeuristic gaze pattern of the audience. Sambaran remembered the scene as a cinematic climax when audience started knocking at the windows as Sis stopped performing. While for Amitava the overall impression of the perspectives created through binocular views made more impact than any specific moments, Anwesha found the last scene when Abel and Sis smiled at each other in particular as worth remembering.<\/p>\n

The other texts (films or otherwise) which come to mind watching this:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Sis

Sis performing at peep show<\/p><\/div>\n

Amitava and Anwesha found a lot of references to Hitchcokian treatment with mother\u2019s get up, staging of staircase scenes, the cityscape looked through window, building of suspension and mystery through both visual detailing and plot, dramatizing the dark psychologies of human mind. However due to use of satirical elements as core building blocks and as critic of modern world, Amitava was inclined to conclude that content wise it could be closer to Woody Allen\u2019s films while form wise it was Hitchcokian. Partha found a visual parallel with the Hollywood musical Chicago <\/em>in its design of the stage at peep show, dominated with a metallic and lustful red. Sambaran recalled a thematic connection with Edward Lear\u2019s limericks in its use of nonsensical humor combined with innocence of Abel. Subhadeep arugued that a hint of reference to Oedipus complex present in Abel\u2019s relationship with his mother, although so vague and sublime that it cannot be concluded for sure – like the mysteries of mind itself.<\/p>\n

Silhouette rating: 7\/10<\/span><\/h2>\n
Content: 3.5\/5<\/span>
\nCinematography: 3.5\/5<\/span>
\nSound: 3.3\/5<\/span>
\nOverall Appeal: 7\/10<\/span><\/h5>\n