Somali Tales

Loveless is a 2017 movie by Andreï Zviaguintsev. The Script is by Zviaguintsev and Oleg Neguin.

This post contains spoilers.

Introduction

You can find a full description of the theory of mimetic desire and scapegoating by René Girard, in my precedent post “violence in a fictitious world part 2.” Overall, the mimetic desire is a triangular relation dynamic: there is a subject, an object, and a mediator.

The mediator desire something (often because he has seen someone else desires it), then the subject mimetically desire the same object, creating a conflict. To resolve the conflict, there is the scapegoat mechanism, the sacrifice of an innocent victim who receives the blame, and this will release the tension outside of the group.

As previously mentioned, Girard used literature (for example the story of Don Quixote) to develop his theory or “uncover” the mechanism of violence.

To further illustrate this theory, it could be interesting to explore a very good Russian movie called “Loveless,” and use some of the themes developed by Girard.

I will spoil two central elements of the plot, which may or may not influence your movie experience (the main event and the “resolution”).

The movie offers a strong critic of modernity, which favors an individualistic and “always looking forward” society. Verbal and psychological violence are prevalent between the main characters, who are overtly abusive toward each other and their child.

Synopsis of Loveless (by Andreï Zviaguintsev) with a few spoilers

Parents of a 12-year-old boy (Alyosha /Alexey), Boris & Zhenya, are going through a bitter divorce. They are trying to sell the house and move on with their new lovers. After hearing another of their endless fights, Alyosha disappears. Since they were fighting about who will have to keep him, he chose to flee before ending up with the loser of the argument .

It took them days to realize. When they did, they were so shaken by the event, did not know where to find him. They tried to look for him, vaguely remembering one of his friend, and interrogating him but there was no lead. It is important to note that even in the roughest moments, their hatred is palpable. Instead of bringing the best out of them, the disappearance only brought the worst in them.

Meanwhile, through his absence, the young boy regains his rightful place as the center of their attention.

Where does it places everyone within the triad of the mimetic desire? Well, the subject is either Boris or Zhenya: the object is happiness (through love, high status), and the mediator is either Boris or Zhenya, and the society as a whole.

The Parents and misrecognition

Through the movie, we discover that Boris and Zhenya union was a « mistake », because they were already doubting each other’s ability to fulfill their needs in the beginning of their love affair. But a “mistake” is also how they call Alyosha. He was not wanted, and this fact has not changed a bit since he was born.

Right from the start, we understand that both Boris and Zhenya have found new lovers and they want a quick divorce.

Forced to search together and at their lowest, they could only bitterly say that Zhenya should have aborted « it » (this is probably due to the translation or a specificity of the language). Thus, the characteristic (and the fault) of Alyosha was to exist. He occupied some space, binding these two together forever and they were incapable of “thinking” of this presence as anything more than a nuisance.

Zhenya

In her youth, Zhenya hoped to find love with the family she would form with Boris. But for many reasons, they were not a good match.

Therefore, (Romantic) love is what Zhenya desires above all. But even her new lover find her cold. Having never received love herself, especially not from her own mother, she may simply be incapable of giving it. Even when he was only a baby, she could not love Alyosha. There was nothing he could do or be to please her; as a son who remind her of his father, he could not replace what was missing in Zhenya’s life. Too immature to be a mother and in need of someone taking care of her, Zhenya is still vaguely aware that whatever happens, she cannot seem to be happy.

As a central character, she shows mimetic desires. Romantic love is a recent development in human needs and her desires are filled with what is projected in social media, movies, literature, magazines, and so on. She is not looking for security, stability or even health, and a sense of belonging which are basic human needs.

She wants someone who will not need anything from her, thus marriage is barely good enough for her, as long as her new lover’s children are grown and far away. The older man she found has all the qualities she searches in a man; having a grown daughter in another country and being financially successful. The perfect catch.

Even the search for wealth may also be a mimicry, since Zhenya spends so much time on her phone, and on social media. Sometimes, Zhenya defies all expectations of motherly love, but also of womanhood. And as spectators, we are really challenged by our own judgments of her actions.

Womanhood

It all depends on how we look at the movie, but the director could be criticizing the liberation of women (example of the girls in the restaurants, Zhenya) while also kind of idolizing them. Emotionally independent, Zhenya is a working mother, and instead of investing some time in her child’s development, she chose to reinvest her free time in herself and her love life.

To please her new lover, she book a session in the salon where she works. They comb and cut her hair and wax her body, making her ready for her hot date. In the movie, before the child even disappears, she admits having never loved anyone, including her child, while sheepishly asking if her lover really “loves” her. He confirms he does and listens to her without judgment.

For him, she is the “loveliest bitch in the world,” and that is all that matters.

Zhenya is all power and presence on the screen. Never scared of Boris, she confronts him and insults him without any remorse or fear of retaliation. She despises any weakness and the only time she shows some type of vulnerability is when she meets with her mother or in the absolutely awful morgue scene. Mostly, her way of being is due to the behavior of her own mother, and instead of breaking down the pattern of family trauma, she reproduces it with added drama.

Boris

Boris is looking for stability, a high status, and a wife who will not emasculate him. He wants a new family: people who will impress his conservative boss, someone who endorses traditional values. A more presentable family life will help him climb the ladders to the top. In the movie, he has basically no relation with his son Alyosha. He rarely comes home and delay the research after his disappearance because he is at work.

Everything is about appearance and order. Boris is the typical “incompetent” father, who believes that a child needs his mother, and does not really know how to add something to a child’s life.

On the nights before Alyosha’s disappearance, Boris does not even come home: he spends his nights with his very pregnant girlfriend, in her apartment. Meanqhile, after her date finishes late in the night, Zhenya comes home, and does not even check on her son. If she did, she would have found an empty bed.

For 48 hours, both parents do not lay eyes on the 12-year-old. Having no idea where his parents were, the young boy took advantage of his lack of supervision, and ran far away from this loveless home.

Misrecognition

As theorized by Lacan, misrecognition is at the heart of Boris and Zhenya’s behavior. According to the psychoanalyst, misrecognition happens when we misattribute the elements at play in a situation. We are not conscious of the relation between something (a fact, an event, …) and our behavior or emotions and believe that something else is the real cause; both parents believe that their current familial situation is what makes them unhappy.

If they were more aware, they may see how responsible they are for their unhappiness, instead of blaming their sons, or the society. Misrecognition helps Boris and Zhenya avoid the uncomfortable truth of their own lack, which would make them unlovable themselves, from their highly perfectionist point of view. It would push their goal further because they would have to invest in their interior life, instead of their exterior life and it is potentially too painful, to hard to confront one’s own trauma. It may prove that their own unloving parents were right to discard them, through their own twisted view.

Both characters show more vices than virtue, while still being “normal.” They do not physically beat the child, they do not excessively drink or use drugs, they don’t play with the family’s money and so on. Their vices are insidious, and make them seem “normal” from the outside. They are a proof that regular people can truly be monstrous.

The Unloved Boy

The most important aspect of the movie is the boy. Alyosha represents the scapegoat, an innocent individual through whom all societies ills are projected. He is described as a “prick”, who “cries all the time”, and is even guilty of “ripping” the mother’s body through his birth…

In the movie, through scenes of honestly horrendous screaming matches, the couple shamelessly humiliates the child and each other. They never even lower their voice to not be heard when Alyosha is supposed to sleep. The boy watch these scenes like a ghost, haunting the space, unable to do anything except internalize the violence.

The spectator is completely immersed and suffer through the scene where we can see the face of the young actor just taking it all in, while his parents literally violate each other verbally and quietly go their separate way.

Character analysis

It is hard to analyze Alyosha’s character, because we do not see him a lot, but he is a typical child without any special attributes. He seems to have at least one friend and plays by himself on the way home, like a typical child. But what is really interesting and very telling about his character is that Alyosha is a very quiet child.

He never intervenes during his parents fights. He neither defends himself nor goes to see if his parents are about to murder each other, meanwhile home is the most insecure place. Most of the time, when he is home, he is powerless, head and shoulders lowered – the shame and sadness are palpable and unbearable.

Thus, I chose to believe that Alyosha finally “acts” out by disappearing, but that is only a guess. In the end, he could have runaway or been a victim of child trafficking or something just as dreadful, making his life one of victimhood and powerlessness, as the movie suggests both options.

The only symbol of power given to him is that by the end, after being their last worry for all his life, Alyosha ends up haunting his family. First, he was erased by willful neglect while being physically present in a space, but then later, he also physically disappears, which challenges the parent to really think of him. However, after his disappearance, the lack of resolution cements his absence as the mark of his existence.

The Sacrifice

In more general term, there is a look at a child’s place in a modern society and his future. Zhenya mentions that Alyosha will end up in the military, so why not send him directly to boarding school, so he can already be used to live by himself. By deciding for him and sending him away, Alyosha could have end up like thousands others, not being able to differentiate himself from the mass. The mass itself has no other choice but to look for structure and belonging in a solid group, or institution, like the army.

Thus, there are underlying themes of murder and suicide in the movie. Individuality is killed from the start. The destruction is not necessarily physical, but we can perceive an annihilation of the self, and the other, by words, power play, and refusal to accept one’s responsibility.

Representing the preparation of the “sacrifice” of the victim, the neglect of the parents is “proactive.” It is a refusal to act or to give more then they wish to, refusing to invest in an object they no longer want for it to exist.

Meanwhile, by not acting out in fits of rage, falling “ill” (headaches, fever and so on) to become the center of attention or by actively destroying his parents’ plans when they are exposing it, Alyosha accepts the inevitability of the “sacrifice” or in other words, of the abandonment.

Indeed, there are two ways to kill a goat: either by slaughtering and spilling his blood to “wash” the group sins, or the group can bring the goat to the woods, and let it be eaten by a predator or die of hunger. In the case of Boris and Zhenya, their plan was to led him into the woods (boarding school and the military). That is until the victim ran away, putting a stop to the sacrificial act.

The Scapegoat and the society

Both parents desire the same things (the object in the mimetic desire triangle): happiness, through love, freedom (financial, but also from the past) and high status. However, they are unable to be happy. They desire and fight for a new beginning without their son, going as far as claiming “equal right” to justify getting rid of the child.

Alyosha was their scapegoat. In the beginning, the parents blame him for their incapacity to move on (as well as the selling of the house), never considering their role in his perceived « shortcomings ». However, by letting the boy watch their humiliating fights, they make him understand what is about to come; an even more brutal life, where he will be even more unwanted, ignored and humiliated.

Thus, as we can expect, when Alyosha disappears, the couple takes time to realize it, being so absorbed by their own lives. When they really notice his absence, it is too late to find him.

Occupying space and myth construction

After a violent outburst in a society, a myth or a new social norms evolved from the situation created by the mimetic desire. When a victim has been sacrificed, the group invents a story about the victim, about the event to create a feeling of social cohesion and get closer to each other. The victim ends up being celebrated for its qualities, and even mystical powers.

However, the movie does not sacralize Alyosha. The group does not make him divine by reversing every bad thing said about him, or projecting some “mystical” qualities onto him. In the end, he is still perceived as a nuisance, a problem the parents must « resolve » before moving on.

Meanwhile, he is not a typical victim. His revenge is in his absence. No one knows what happened, and one can trick oneself into hoping the boy is in a better place, but that is without any evidence. Alyosha is gone, maybe kidnapped, maybe killed, or simply in another place.

The society wanted to sacrifice him and when he was present, he perfectly enacted his role of victim: he suffered endlessly through the hands of the group, but in the end, he took his revenge, by taking back control of the narrative. In a sense, only he knows what happened. By reappearing, he has the power to alleviate many people’s stress.

Now, without knowing what happened to him, they will all live with the failure. The victimization mechanism was brought to an end by Alyosha’s act, forbidding the couple from ever reconciling after their sacrifice, like it usually happens after the scapegoating mechanism.

A myth or even a new social norm are created after the death of the scapegoat, but since Alyosha took the matter into his own hands, Boris and Zhenya are unable to fulfill the mechanism and idealize their child, and find happiness in his absence.

Opinion

During the viewing, I was often distressed, and hoping that at least we, the spectators, would know where Alyosha was and what happened to him. Even knowing whether he is dead, or kidnapped would have made it more bearable. But we are looking at the events through the eyes of the parents, and I felt punished with them. They truly do not know where he is, and us neither.

In fact, it is a merciless aspect of the movie that makes it so powerful. It takes a stand through its look at the victim and the responsibility of « society » at large. It depicts indoor violence in such a brutal way, it was often really hard to watch.

The police, the grandmother, the people trying to help them find him are all guilty of being incompetent, complacent or cruel, shown by a few sentences, an additional neglect. In the end, our families are where some of us experienced our very first heartbreak, and they are often the most enduring ones.

Final words

To be appeased, violence needs to be transformed. The violent impulses, which are generally compact and wordless sentiments, need to be symbolized instead of “acted out”. When you feel rage, you need not only to contain it but to transform it – for example, through a coherent sentence and vivid mental image, a new way of seeing the problem. Or even by talking it through, creating a piece of art, finding someone who can empathize and validate your feelings.

The myth, a blend of all these, helps people evolved from their violent impulses, but that is only for the benefit of the society, and never the victim.

***

There are so many more critics, notably of society, it is a really well written (and visually beautiful) movie. I would love to discuss your own theories and perception.

What did you think?

***

Do you know any other movie where the main character is a scapegoat who “escapes” from his fate? Maybe in a less dramatic way?

I guess any movie with hermits, or lonely orphans, like Jane Eyre, and so on, contains a scapegoating mechanism. Most superheroes movies also contain some scapegoating, but how many escape, or regain a partial control of the subsequent myths?

Let me know if you have other examples.