Edging on Kinds of Kindness

In a more just world, some might argue that Kinds of Kindness is a masterpiece. It is a strong expression of the surrealist impulse, skillfully joined to the antique traditions of medieval art, and combined with Hollywood’s realist aesthetic by visual and textual threads so thin at times that they may as well be the result of a magic spell, or so obvious, at other times, that they compel the viewer to delight, disgust, or some exciting combination of the two. It is a remarkable film. Too bad, then, that this dazzling work is twisted into sad, disappointing shapes by the scalp-numbing banality of the Hollywood bankrollers and the professional creative class they’ve cultivated to reliably convert money into more money. Instead of a masterwork of surrealist cinema, Kinds of Kindness offers a masterclass in the contradictions of capital. What a shame.

First there is the merchandising. About three days after I watched Kinds of Kindness, I began to see the ads on Facebook. The first one that caught my eye was a plastic model of a severed thumb suspended from a keychain—$28 before shipping costs–floating atop an image of the movie’s logo. I tapped the image of the severed thumb keychain and found other oddball ephemera from the film at the link. A water bottle labeled “Contaminated” glows in the dark and costs $24. A sweatshirt—$80 before shipping–features the film’s logo on the front breast and the words “Take life from my hands” on the back. A glow-in-the-dark T-shirt—$42–reads “Contaminated” on the front. Whoever designed this merchandise had one idea they simply cannot not give up. Maybe some vertical marketing intern at Searchlight Pictures fed the script into a chatbot and asked it to produce ideas for obscure merchandise. Maybe these are the best examples of the insane tchotchkes the video cards at the data center could dream up.

This merch should not exist. Imagine, for a moment, that you could buy a Salvador Dali clock, or a Rene Magritte tote bag. Oh, wait, you can buy those things? That doesn’t make them any less fucking stupid than the merch associated with this film. What irritates me is that all of this, and all of us, are so utterly predictable. People often think Facebook and other data brokers tailor adverts to users by spying on them. Did Facebook know, from other data on my phone, that I had seen the movie? Maybe! But it is also all-too-sadly plausible that Facebook’s advertising placement algorithm can wager that I am the type of person who would like this movie, and who would like pointless and overpriced movie-themed merchandise. It’s not a bad bet for the algorithm to make.

Kinds of Kindness, with its 165-minute runtime, its playful subversion of power relations, and its careful deployment of colors, costumes, locations, and shots for maximum ironic affect, seems to want me to believe it is above this banality. It isn’t. It’s down in the shit with the rest of us pigs.

There are products associated with the film, and then there is the film as product. I watched Kinds of Kindness at an AMC Theater, where they screened the film last Tuesday in one of the smaller rooms, way in the back of the building past the MacGuffins Bar and the second bathrooms. There was me and my date and about ten other people in clusters of two and three scattered around the upper part of the room, decadently reclining in plush red faux leather seats where we dropped popcorn between the cushions while the film worked its magic on the screen. This experience happens in a material context we should not ignore. My AMC Theater is the only part of the old Tallahassee Mall that still feels like a shopping mall, carved like a holy relic of the 1990s from the claustrophobic maze of state government offices that used to be Bath & Body Works, Old Navy, and Aeropostale. This, or something very much like it, is how most Americans who see the film in a theater will watch it. They will be reclined in a seat they selected from an app, nestled deep within a massive multiscreen complex attached to a shopping center or mall. Almost everyone else will watch it on their couch at home, scrolling occasionally through feeds on their phone while their streaming device decodes an insanely long string of ones and zeroes into moving images on the screen.

Is it possible to experience transcendent art in a space like this? Those of us who saw the film in Tallahassee’s AMC 24 last Tuesday sat through a thirty-minute block of trailers and three advertisements for Coca-Cola which informed us to stay quiet and embrace cinematic enchantment following the introductory messages. At home, IMDB or Amazon beckon; emails, texts, and information feeds demand attention. Is any of this capable of leading the viewer to communion with the unconscious?

Let’s take off our materialist philosopher costumes and put on our hipster art-critic glasses.

Get past the advertising, the merchandising, and the distraction, and you will find in Kinds of Kindness an alluring, beautifully-rendered, sometimes disturbing, darkly comic triptych of interconnected short films featuring the same cast in different roles. The first tale features a man longing to be free of the total influence exercised upon him by his all-powerful employer and mentor. The second tale is focused on a police officer who questions the identity of his wife when she is rescued from a prolonged ordeal marooned on a desert island. The third featurette follows a woman from a sex-and-water cult seeking a spiritual leader who can heal the living and raise the dead. Each tale is interleaved with the others through visual and verbal cues, unified by a common style and a shared set of preoccupations. These generic unifying elements offer us a glimpse at the film’s beating heart.

First, style. The film is a triptych because it really wants to be a painting. Look at the painterly strokes throughout: the long focus on lips locked in a kiss, the lingering gaze on food, the absurd decor and serenely sinister landscapes. Lanthimos is clearly inspired by surrealism, but this is not a surrealist painting. Instead, Lanthimos approaches the subjects here with a medieval sensibility. The tales end on ironic notes, like vignettes in the Decameron or The Canterbury Tales.The first tale details the fall from grace and dark redemption of a wicked king’s favored knight. Maybe you’ve read something like it in a medieval fantasy. The second tale toys with themes developed in The Return of Martin Guerre, a 16th-century case of assumed identity. The third tale, with Emma Stone’s renunciation of her family and Jesse Plemons’ ascetic wardrobe, recalls monks and pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem.

What this film wants to be, then, is a medieval panorama, a Hieronymous Bosch allegory of absurd delights and tantalizing terrors doing their work under the discursive cover of moral instruction. However, the goals of this surrealist triptych and the medieval work it emulates diverge at the most basic level. Both triptychs and motion pictures are made for public display. The medieval tryptich turns the lens outward from the self, instructing the viewer in the many ways of the world and urging them to seek salvation through Righteous Action and Righteous Belief. Similarly, a Hollywood movie urges viewers to examine themselves by watching others. Absent the Church, however, or the personal and social imperatives of modernity which followed the Reformation, the instruction ends there. The lens points inward at the self. What you should do with the knowledge is up to you.¹

So far we have peered at Kinds of Kindness through two interpretive lenses: surrealism and medievalism. Together, these constitute a dialectic worth exploring. Medieval art was dedicated to active contextualization: placing things in a narrative of meaning; breaking situations down to constituent parts or lessons; instructing and enriching the viewer. Figures point to where we should focus our attention. Beams of light shine down from heaven on meaningful people, places, and things. Surrealism is the antithesis of this contextual ideal. Surreal artists attack narrative and context at the root by refusing to grant them any supremacy. Nothing follows from anything; anything follows from everything. Thereby, the dual existence and non-existence of all things is revealed.

Why surrealism, though? In a seminal 1936 essay, the polymath physician, hermeticist, and surrealist writer Pierre Mabille argued that surrealism is interested in what he called the “unconscious of forgetting.” Separate from the indidivual and the “visceral unconscious” of social norms, the unconscious of forgetting is a sort of natural history shaping the self and society, from which ideas form like “islands which emerge from the ocean of forgetting…. They are the natural and normal protrusion of lands elaborated slowly by the ages and the corpses.” The unconscious of forgetting is not the self, and not the set of unconscious rules guiding our behavior, but something older, an often inchoate thing slithering deep in the recesses of human minds. This theoretical construct—the idea that dark and true things writhe deep in the recesses of culture and the psyche—unifies the three tales in the film. Without it they are just three short films.

Kinds of Kindness achieves neither the contextual ideal of medieval art nor the unsettling of oppressive norms by illuminating the unconscious through surrealism. Instead, the film attempts achieve these goals by serving up the empty calories of postmodern irony and self-absorption, sex and spectacle. These are its preoccupations. Go watch the movie and think about the scene where Margaret Qualley plays the little Casio keyboard. Think about John McEnroe’s broken tennis racket, the group sex film in the second tale, Emma Stone’s dancing, the masturbation scene on the beach. Think about the long, close, painterly zoom on the juice being squeezed from the orange, the eggs frying, or Willem Dafoe’s lips locked on Emma Stone’s face. Each of these leaves an indelible mark, but rather than informing or unsettling they are irritating, tantalizing, like riding the edge of an amazing orgasm but never falling into it.

That orgasm is the synthesis of context and consciousness. Setting up this strange dialectic, and then failing to synthesize its urgent questions, leaves the audience hot and bothered.

This failure to synthesize is not limited to Kinds of Kindness however, but in the system which produced it. Orange juicers, Casio keyboards, John McEnroe’s broken tennis racket, muscle cars, the massive spa at the cult mansion in the third tale: these are specific products, commodities if you’re so inclined, and they do hard work in the film. Revisit the key surrealist moments and you’ll find in almost every case a commodity at stage center or very near it.² This is characteristic Hollywood irony. Billion-dollar studios excel at delivering viewers to these postmodern lacunae, as if by design. Every “artistic” film which makes it through the major Hollywood system in the past few years seems to ask viewers whether meaning is even possible or desirable. To what end? While this feels like the sort of cool detachment which has characterized the American counterculture since the 1950s, the question these films really ask is whether capitalism itself is desirable or undesirable.

Underlining the question with postmodern irony and detachment while partnering with the Walt Disney Company or Mattel Toys, Hollywood ponders on the screen whether anyone could ever truly know the answer to these fundamental questions while on the balance sheet answering in the affirmative again and again. Considering the cosmic formations of capital underwriting these films, and the commercial imperatives they must satisfy to be successful, this question might be better read as a taunt. Is capitalism bad, you ask? You will never know, Disney’s Searchlight Pictures says by bankrolling this dazzling but frustrating work of art, but it sure is good for us.

Kinds of Kindness hasn’t yet turned a profit, but its journey as a commodity is only just beginning. As it makes its way through the world realizing the immenseness of surplus value, it is certain to delight and inflame. It does this by juxtaposing the opposing contextual tendencies of medieval and surrealist art. Instead of synthesizing the dialectic these opposites create, however, it falls back on the forty-year-old playbook of postmodernism to avoid answering their urgent philosophical questions. Those questions remain. Maybe someone working outside of Hollywood can help us answer them.

---

1. If postmodernism is, as Fredric Jameson argues, “an attempt to think the present historically in an age that has forgotten how to think historically in the first place,” the self and its observations of others through media are the only archives available to the postmodern subject.
2. Where commodities fail, sex picks up the slack. As the principal interface of consumption, however, the body is a synecdoche of all commodities, and therefore the most important construct in capitalist culture. Capitalism routinely problematizes the body, driving people to consume more: more and better food, more space, more clothing, more makeup, more skincare, more pleasure. As its most psychologically acute pressure point, sex is the most effective way to problematize the body and drive this consumer growth. So when you see a hard nipple on the screen, instead of a sleek SUV, the image merely cuts closer to the bone in its effort to manipulate you.