Table of contents:
- Scene 1. Men without women
- Scene 2: Right Side of the Gun
- Scene 3. The world of nature and the world of people
- Scene 4. Did the survivor survive?
- Scene 5. A portion of the poison from Fitzgerald
- Uncompromising finale
Video: The Survivor: A Look Into The Abyss - Reviews
Well-fed spectators sit in warmth and comfort and watch a film about how a person survives in extremely difficult conditions; about the vulnerability of the flesh, about the threats to which people are defenseless. Maybe the world has become stable and predictable? Or is the audience fed up with spectacles? Is it really necessary to invent more and more sophisticated plots in order to take us out of our comfort zone and make us feel at least something?
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Donal Gleeson, Will Poulter
Scene 1. Men without women
The characters, the energy of the film, its plot - everything is abundantly filled with animus and clearly suffers from a lack of anima. This makes the world unstable, torn apart by aggression and destruction and, at the same time, yearning for comfort and safety.
And it's not that there are almost no women among the characters. There is practically no anima in the characters of the characters. When Captain Henry says that he has forgotten what his wife looks like, it seems that he will soon die. And this is not a conversation about his wife or their relationship, but about him, about the fact that he has become defenseless. The female image is unshakably stored only in the soul of Hugh Glass. In the most difficult moments, this image appeared to him, becoming the cornerstone that holds him back when everything else collapses. “When there is a storm and you are standing in front of a tree, if you look at its branches, you are sure that it will fall. But if you look at its trunk, you will see its stability."
Scene 2: Right Side of the Gun
Indicative is the episode at the beginning of the film, when Fitzgerald provokes Glass into a direct collision, but Glass is restrained and patient. Only in the finale does he calmly say: "Anyway, I'm on the right side of the gun." Both heroes have previously experienced traumatic events. Both know how to survive. They are rivals of comparable strength. What makes them different? Why does the gaze test, like the subsequent fight, win Glass?
Various Gods appeared to these people after the experienced test. Fitzgerald appeared his "god" and ordered to eat his comrade. Glass sees a wife urging him to fight for life while it is possible to at least move. Fitzgerald's survival instinct is extremely powerful, but it is aimed at "selfish" saving himself at any cost. The limit of his dreams is his ranch in Texas. The inner world of Glass is filled with wife and son. He has principles and a desire for justice.
In psychology (primarily L. S. Vygotsky and B. G. Anan'ev) it is shown that in society natural selection is replaced by the law of morality. A person survives not by adjusting to the environment, but by changing it to please himself. And he gets it through joint activities with the established rules of cooperation. Morality and concern for one's neighbor allows humanity to survive as a species. In this sense, Fitzgerald's ideology is not adaptive. This is how animals survive, and even then not all.
Scene 3. The world of nature and the world of people
A special occasion for thought is the dynamics of the film, musical accompaniment and landscapes. The story is unhurried, the story of the characters is interspersed with beautiful landscapes. And in this opposition it is clear that nature is more merciful - it freezes, blows with winds, carries along the river rapids, but this is easier to withstand than people's aggression. Why are they killing each other? Isn't there a little space? Few skins? Resources?
After all, the film is about the confrontation between Indians and settlers. And the main character is a man lost between these two worlds. He loved and lived with an Indian woman, having given birth to a son with her, adopting the language and, in many ways, the culture of the Indians. Was it because he irritated Fitzgerald aggressively because he was so tolerant of people with a different skin color?
Scene 4. Did the survivor survive?
The title of the film seems to predetermine the ending, but this is just an element of intrigue from its creators. In the most desperate moments, you console yourself with the fact that, judging by the name, the hero will survive. But when it seems that everything is over, it suddenly turns out that not everything is so simple. Perhaps Glass will fall face down in the snow and die, if only because he has already reached the goal? With the same probability, he can reach people and survive again. Will he be able to build a quiet family happiness and rejoice in the fate of a farmer or a hunter? People who have survived the experience of transcendental trials, in a "peaceful" life, often do not find application and bear the stigma of a person with a mental wound, restless and not finding comfort.
What, then, is the meaning of Glass's actions? Is the power of the spirit visible in such examples? Maybe it's worth the risk, and I, too, will have enough strength for what I dream about? And, most importantly, how will I finish my film: will my Glass get up and walk or fall on its face in the snow?
Scene 5. A portion of the poison from Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald's hatred stems from what he experienced at the hands of the Indians. Perhaps he was a good worker. A ranch in Texas is a good incentive to work tirelessly. And considering that the experience made him hardy, we can assume that he "plowed" for ten. He is capable of a lot and in opposition to most others, except Glass, would win. Maybe under different circumstances, he would not be so bad? How about even a villain needs understanding and mercy? Perhaps the circumstances were such that his worst features were exacerbated. Or is it all about how the writer presented this character to us?
And if you look at the situation more broadly, and at each character - as a subpersonality of one person? In almost every personality there is a noble part that is the bearer of morality (Glass); there is a block personified by Captain Henry - superego, rule of law, caretaker and regulator; there are dark forces, passions and passions, selfish and unsightly (Fitzgerald); there is a growing part and therefore unstable (young Bridger); there is a purpose, meaning, motivation (Hawk). And external circumstances largely determine which side of the personality will receive the impetus for disclosure.
If so, then watching a movie gives you the opportunity to safely meet and deal with your Fitzgerald in the shower. It is known that Rasputin regularly took poison, which made his body immune to poisoning. To be able to survive like Glass, you need to take long and regularly feasible portions of threats to life. Long-term confrontation with hostile, both physical and psychological, agents, prepare a person for survival in extreme conditions. So, paradoxically, people like Fitzgerald are also a factor in the survival of humanity as a species.
The difficulties created by nature are already familiar to us. The external environment is not a threat. Under these conditions, it is likely that humanity will not get a "portion of the poison" that maintains the immune (survival) function in a working state. That is why villains appear in the population who pose a real threat to everyone else. And in confrontation with them human nature is polished.
The episode with the bear attack actualizes the audience's own fears. The psychosomatic complex of manifestations of fear is very diverse; the look, depth and content are always highly individual. Thanks to the skill of the authors, this episode awakened the beast in the soul of the audience and made it possible to meet their own bear - with the fear of being like Fitzgerald. The easiest way is to condemn it and reject it. It's terrible to touch closer - what if you feel similarity ?!
How many of the spectators are those who, in the face of a direct threat to their lives, would forget about everything and everyone and save their skin in the most shameful way? Easy to judge in warmth and safety. But the situation of danger is ruthless and uncompromising and can "creep out" what you do not know in yourself.
At such a moment, a person passes the exam for his entire life and everything that he has experienced, thought and worked out will matter. It makes no sense to think: “if this happens, it will be necessary to do so”. If this happens, it is too late and useless to persuade yourself to do anything. The share of the unconscious in the psyche is large, and it is this that will determine the behavior in an extreme situation to the greatest extent. Moreover, enough long-term dissatisfaction of vital needs (hunger, cold, pain), and a person finds himself in an altered state of consciousness, where completely different laws operate.
What does emergency behavior depend on? From attitudes and principles? What is left when everything is falling apart? From those laid down in childhood? From the main meaning? From the experience of passing previous tests? From having an incentive to live?
Where to look for answers to these questions, the final look of the protagonist suggests - the insane look of a man who has looked into the abyss, who has experienced what few people succeed in, who has realized what is unknown to the well-fed man in the street. Look into the abyss, look beyond the edge. What he saw caused him the most terrible horror, greater than anything that he had experienced before. But he is looking at us - at the audience …