Enyedi's My Twentieth Century is an essay on social change at the turn of the 19th century. Despite of the fervor during The Belle Époque in Europe, due to the rush of inventions that revolutionized communication, transportation, and science; the biological producers are of course women. Enyedi takes the focus back towards the creating role of women with the birth of twin girls at the start of the film. Enyedi takes on a polemic edge because My Twentieth Century has its critical eye slanted towards the condition of women and the relationship between man and the natural world during this supposedly positive moment in history.
This enchanting golden age was also a transitional period, when Europe changed far quicker than the cultural comprehension process. Magical realism, which parallels the hypnotic displays of Edison's light bulb, is tinted with irony. We get a glance at the ills of modernity from the start with the two impoverished children selling toothpicks in the snowy urban street.
We hear of optimism from all fields--from the publication of Freud's work revolutionizing our understanding of the human psyche to Einstein's publications revolutionizing physics to the invention of the railroad and telegraph--the latter two having annihilated our classical understanding of space and time. But as we know today, among the many aftermaths of modernity (i.e. world war, the atom bomb, the Holocaust, etc.); the environment suffers greatly and women had no autonomy at that time. And of course, dregs of that moment are still very apparent today.
The narrative carries us along the time on and around New Years day 1900. Two babies are born and are later separated. Played by the same actress, we later see the women grown up living dichromatic lifestyles. Dora is a harlot and Lili is the other kind of libertine, active in political endeavors and somewhat of an anarchist. These two roles are a good fit into the transitional period, both adaptive in their own ways. Dora capitalizes on her femininity and she is quite the successful entrepreneur. Lili, the innocent half, after having been seduced by an oblivious former patron of Dora, transitions a bit herself into the terrorist, mirroring the destructiveness of a society in transition. The binary theme is a reoccurring suggestion throughout. But the narrative culminates in confusion and irony, which suggests that the film would rather subvert, not reinforce, the limited binary perspective of patriarchal society. The linear progress of scientific advancement is addressed with the cyclical structure of the film, beginning and ending with the birth of twins. The animals add an additional layer to the narrative, telling their stories of exploitation and echoing binary opposition: man versus animal.
The narrative style is non traditional, buoyant, and self-interrupting. Scenes of commentary are provided by the operatic stars in the sky, giggling and whispering about the world. The other statements made of the world are of a Hungarian speaking Edison, claiming that nature is at the service of man, who shapes it in his own favor. Even women, in some way, are shaped by man. In the fun house, the girls pose the question: Which one of us do you prefer? His response is both which suggests that society prefers both the innocent virgin and the whore. However, on the role for women in society seems to have some possibility for change, according to Enyedi. The last frame sores through a river ending in a big open lake or sea under a clear sky which suggests a return to the natural and the possibilities from which essential sublime from which beauty can spring.
2 comments:
Do you think Enyedi being woman has anything to do with her vision of the twins and their roles in society?
I don't think Enyedi being woman has everything to do with her vision of the twins and their roles in society necessarily and I've read several newish novels with a postmodern narrative structure, like My Twentieth Century, in which a male author writes a female protagonist who is faced with existential or grand questions about society and then the reader follows this interaction between the protagonist and the world (i.e. The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, Plowing in the Dark by Richard Powers, Pattern Recognition by William Gibson) and I asked myself the same sort of question. I think, though, in the film industry where tons of funding and effort is involved, women have a more complex interaction with society when making a successful film. (versus a writer who can simply pick up a pen and go for it, and more recently, get published instantly) So it’s rare to see a film by a woman. I think Enyedi is quite conscious of, and participating in, the fuck ups of the system with her film by responding to woman issues through the film. Since the film is about the downfalls of modernity, addressing the space for minorities in this new society is quite appropriate. I agree with what you are saying though, that being female is not a prerequisite to talking about exploitation and critique patriarchic western traditions; or that women share some sort of special lens through which they see everything differently and get exclusive rights flaunt it accordingly. However, in relevant situations, western business spheres being one, minorities wear a veil and have to speak to the majority and simultaneously preserve their own voice, and I think that is exactly what Enyedi is doing.
Post a Comment