the night before going to see this film, I had been rewatching "Pan's Labyrinth" and therefore could not help comparing between the two male leads. I am referring to the evil officer character in "Pan," compared to Jaime in this film. Both are very much representations of a paternally structured society, where men are not allowed to show weakness, and everything is about "who is boss" and one's actions are determined by the fear of punishment and the fear of losing power. in "Pan" the evil officer punishes everything that is intuitive or seemingly irrational or superstitious, creating an icy paranoid environment where the little girl has to escape into her imagination. likewise in this film, Jaime punishes anything in his son that is feminine and therefore considered by him to be "weak." notably the first 20minutes were told from the son's point of view, which accentuates Jamie's harsh parenting. then gradually it makes a full switch to Jamie's point of view. an interesting choice, though it did throw me off. I suppose in the Theosophist's view "everything is one" so it would make no difference whether it's the father's story or the son's story, it is all one story which is the human story, something like that.
in "Pan" the officer was pure evil right to the end, but Jodorowsky naturally takes a more complex view. as the years pass more is revealed about Jamie who turns out to be more than a two-dimensional brute. he joins underground political movements, puts his life on the line to help the sick, and becomes an undercover assassin. after experiencing a crisis of conscience, he goes through a brief religious phase before returning to his family. the problem is that all of this time, his brain is still running the same operating system of a fear- based, authoritarian hierarchical mindset. even the seemingly noble deeds are motivated by fear not love, that is fear of losing face or being seen as a coward.
to an extent it is true that "fear is a motivator." Jodorowski makes this point repeatedly through his portrayals of anti-semitism. the Jewish fear of being ostracized drives them to achieve more and prove their worth to society. however this fear-based way of thinking ultimately leads Jamie to an unthinkable place, betraying his comrade in pursuit of vain glory and killing a man in cold blood. this ties into another difficulty with the film, it is supposedly a comedy but the main character is entirely unlikable, he is introduced as a monstrous father and subsequently it is hard to care what happens to him. but if one can let go of issues like this, the film turns out to be fairly rewarding.
in the end Jamie cures his own paralysis by symbolically destroying the images of his political idols. by recognizing his own potential for evil, he gains a new perspective.
Jodorowsky seems to be saying that it doesn't matter which political party you join, or whether you happen to be on the winning side or if you're the guy with the big gun or the little guy begging for crumbs. we are all part of a very sick society that has become outwardly sophisticated but nevertheless governed by the same brain circuits as the great apes. really it is not that one person is more evil than the other, as we are all ruled by the same animal circuits if we happened to be in Stalin's situation we are likely to do the same thing. that may be an extreme way of putting it, but I believe he has a point.
in "Pan" the officer was pure evil right to the end, but Jodorowsky naturally takes a more complex view. as the years pass more is revealed about Jamie who turns out to be more than a two-dimensional brute. he joins underground political movements, puts his life on the line to help the sick, and becomes an undercover assassin. after experiencing a crisis of conscience, he goes through a brief religious phase before returning to his family. the problem is that all of this time, his brain is still running the same operating system of a fear- based, authoritarian hierarchical mindset. even the seemingly noble deeds are motivated by fear not love, that is fear of losing face or being seen as a coward.
to an extent it is true that "fear is a motivator." Jodorowski makes this point repeatedly through his portrayals of anti-semitism. the Jewish fear of being ostracized drives them to achieve more and prove their worth to society. however this fear-based way of thinking ultimately leads Jamie to an unthinkable place, betraying his comrade in pursuit of vain glory and killing a man in cold blood. this ties into another difficulty with the film, it is supposedly a comedy but the main character is entirely unlikable, he is introduced as a monstrous father and subsequently it is hard to care what happens to him. but if one can let go of issues like this, the film turns out to be fairly rewarding.
in the end Jamie cures his own paralysis by symbolically destroying the images of his political idols. by recognizing his own potential for evil, he gains a new perspective.
Jodorowsky seems to be saying that it doesn't matter which political party you join, or whether you happen to be on the winning side or if you're the guy with the big gun or the little guy begging for crumbs. we are all part of a very sick society that has become outwardly sophisticated but nevertheless governed by the same brain circuits as the great apes. really it is not that one person is more evil than the other, as we are all ruled by the same animal circuits if we happened to be in Stalin's situation we are likely to do the same thing. that may be an extreme way of putting it, but I believe he has a point.