Some different MGFs

After reading Thomas Elsaesser’s the MGF (Mind-Game Film) article and re-thinking the movies that he has mentioned, I consider some other movies that whether they can be included MGF categories such as K-Pax (2001) by Iain Softley, Contact (1997) by Robert Zemeckis and the Double life of Veronique (1991) by Krzysztof Kieslowski. Actually, the main point which makes me think that they can be sub-categories of MGFs is their ending rather than their complex narrative or “productive pathologies”  that Elsaesser’s has mentioned. Their endings can open the new understanding of MGFs in addition to Elsaesser’s points. Moreover, what they’d like to do is to make us believe whatever we want. In other words, the meaning that the movie would like to give is based on spectator’s point of views. For instance, as many of us know the plot of K-Pax (2001), the protagonist, Prot, is a patient in mental hospital and claims that he is coming from the other planet called K-Pax. Also, he is believed that he is mentally-ill person and thus his psychologist decides to treat him and then learns that he has dramatic history related to a man called Robert Porter. As long as he stays in hospital, he always mentions he’ll leave in a few days. In this sense, we see what Elsaesser’s mentioned in the article. We can regard this movie as simply in the category of “productive pathology” since Elsaesser points that “…pathologies are often connected to personal past: mostly traumatic incident that keeps returning or insists on manifesting itself in present…”(p.25) Thus, it can be said that his “deluded mind” makes him “alien” coming from K-Pax. He can be regarded as a deluded person in an isolated place by being isolated from the world and then Foucaultian criticism can be done in the sense of Madness and Civilization. Also, Elsaesser puts it like “Read ‘politically’ in the light of Foucault, the MGFs would show how perceptual or somatic faculties released or manifest by illness are equally ‘socialized’… or illness is made to work, fitting a body (through its mind no longer ‘in control’ around new social tasks and political relations” (p.32) The movie, simply, says that he is mentally ill even he is genius having unearthly knowledge of astronomy. However, I do not think it is not the only classical thing that makes movie one of the instance of MGFs. The different perspective that I’d like to indicate is about its ending: the movie makes the narration to be forked in its ending and it means that each path can go by being based on different narration. Whether he is alien or not is left to spectator’s own perspective. Thus, as a kind of MGF, K-Pax makes spectator to be in purgatory. K-Pax is going on its linear way, namely, in its 120 minutes, however, the ambiguity cannot be solved; it can only be solved in the ending of the movie depending on belief of spectator. Its narration is based on spectator’s mind and also its mind’s ‘game’ categories. Thereby, in addition to rules of the game, ”to leave spectator in ambiguity and then to leave her free to choose whatever way ‘game’ goes on”, should be one of the added motif to the MGF genre (at least I think that) and so K-Pax should be a kind of the MGF depending on its forked ending.

As regards to Contact (1997), based on Carl Sagan’s book, in reality, the main story tries to indicate difference between theology and science and their understanding of the universe. As for some aspects or interpretations, the movie criticizes understanding of dominant scientific community. However, what regards us is the ambiguity – about humanity which will be only defeated by the spectator. When, the protagonist, Ellie, who listens the signals coming from extraterrestrial intelligence, travels to investigate outer space by the machine constructed by them (people who work with Ellie in Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), the camera placed inside of the machine already records the time.  When the connection between machine and NASA was broken, the face to face communication with Ellie couldn’t be made but the camera continued to record the time. It means that the time passes wherever she “goes”. Although she is known to be in the machine, at the same time, she travels and meets her dead father in her dream or her “heaven”. I think that, in the sub-narration, the movie mentions parallel universe and aliens. Moreover, Ellie seems that she does not mistake about her imagination and reality. However, what creates ambiguity and then what defeats it is Ellie’s “adventure” in another universe. It is made just by showing recorded time of tape. To believe or not believe “she” is in there, her body in there or “she” is in her own “adventure”, namely, her “heaven” depends  on spectator’s outlook (also, other dynamics of world such as politics do not let her cause a Gestalt-Switch so politicians and some NASA guys do not believe her and do not let her make people believe w/o evidence). Thus, the spectator is the one who interprets the movie by whatever s/he has in its mind.

Actually, I expected that the writer also expands the some main concepts used in the MGF such as parallel universe, ontology, and epistemology. For instance, if I consider the Double life of Veronique (1991) regarding writer’s comments, I can easily say that yes, it can be a MGF since it indicates parallel universe and its protagonist does not know she has twin in other universe until a puppeteer makes her recognize some photos. Then, she realizes and understands why she sometimes feels different like she is not alone in this world in the way of searching the truth. In fact, since Elsaesser has mentioned Kieslowski, Polish excellent director graduated from Lodz Film Academy in 1969, and his Blind Chance (1987), I don’t understand why he does not mention the Double Life of Veronique (1991). If anyone has watched it, please s/he re-thinks this movie whether it is a MGF or not, too.  I think that the Double life of Veronique (1991) does not have hierarchical or complex narrative or there is no mistaken cognitive or perceptual promise and also it does not seem that it fits “A list of Common Motifs” then what is it? Is it just European art film with its mysticism?

As to Caché (2005), one of Michael Haneke’s really fabulous job, yes it doesn’t seem like Memento, The Sixt Sense, etc. but is it a MGF since its protagonist is played and he has traumatic childhood memories that makes his present delusional in some respects?

Let me ask my last question:  Can it be really possible to think a movie as MGF genre by searching for some motifs that Elsaesser has mentioned? I asked it since I think that there are other movies cannot be placed under his common motifs about MGFs. Thus, I think that the movies I mentioned above having different kind of ambiguity can be regarded as kind of  MGFs in addition to Elsaesser’s sayings.

Sinem Aydınlı