You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Dec 16

A violent metaphor on burden, trauma and guilt.

Presentation:

This is exactly the type of film you’d expect Joaquin Phoenix to star in because of his manic depressive personality. This is very fitting as trauma, guilt and burden are the main themes this film so competently portrays. Unfortunately for many, the film will feel detached, confusing and unsatisfying because that is exactly what the message of the film tries to portray. Whether or not that is enough to make you appreciate the thematic greatness of this film will be open to your interpretation.

Analysis:

The film’s primary focus is on trauma as evidenced by the abusive father clearly causing mental instability in Joaquin’s future self, whom asphyxiates himself as a coping mechanism. It’s an interesting choice as there could be some sexual suggestions open to interpretation by the end, but I don’t find enough evidence to support this. Choking, suffocating and drowning are all very similar and become a recurring motif especially in the murders, highlighted by the climax of Nina cutting the throat of her abuser. What’s truly special about the cinematography is the camera doesn’t really show us the act of violence, but rather the aftermath of it. This is a powerfully executed visual metaphor to illustrate the guilt and trauma Phoenix’s character feels from murder, with the act of violence being a repressed memory piling on top of his mountain of trauma. It does get a bit too ridiculous with him lying next to the agent he murders though. For him, murder is a burden he must bear so that others don’t, fully acknowledging he will become the evil anti-hero for the greater good. Violence is gruesome and deeply unsatisfying for the predator, which is why the director chooses not to glorify it like so many other films do. He wants to commit suicide several times in the film, but doesn’t because he has a mission and lives to protect children whom he associates with his past childhood, metaphorically saving himself. This is because he knows now he is past salvation, but perhaps he can still save children from going down his same path. This is why I believe he fantasizes about killing himself. He could have drowned but ultimately doesn’t because he knows his death also means the death of the girl. This rationale is different in the diner scene. There are many ways to interpret it, I don’t agree with the freudian sexual theory, it makes more sense that his job is finally over so he can now rest. Or possibly that he ultimately failed to protect her from trauma, but I don’t agree with this because she seems to be pretty communicative so the film suggests that taking matters into your own hands to severe the emotional trauma (cutting her abusers throat) is the best way to deal with trauma. In some ways I think this perspective is realistic as ordinary people can’t just murder people with their bare hands without having some emotional blowback. That’s how even police officers can get trauma when it’s their job to ise lethal force. But police mental health isn’t the purpose of this film, it’s about channeling trauma and guilt to do good despite your scarred history and violent vengeance is the medium in which the director chose to present this visceral burden.

Conclusion:

From its conception, this film immediately falls into the art house category conceived around a visceral metaphor. There’s just no way such a psycho-traumatic film could reach mass appeal. That makes this a very special film for a specific moviegoer, albeit very narrow appeal. For those that it speaks to, it will speak volumes. For the casual viewers it will be an unrewarding mess. As for me, the topic is quite touchy as I always feel uncomfortable around movies about child sexual abuse. I have yet to see one film that is able to escape the exploitative nature these movies try to expose. But it did leave a lasting impression on me and if you are into these kinds of introspective psychological movies it could do the same.

more rotten chilis