It might be a little while before we get another feature film from Steve McQueen. He’s currently at work on his HBO pilot, “Codes Of Conduct,” and only after that will he get cracking on his all female heist flick, “Widows.” So, perhaps it’s time to take another look at “Shame,” and this time from a slightly different angle.
A new video essay by Kingdom Of Shadows argues that “Shame” is actually a critique of the modern metropolis, and that Michael Fassbender‘s sexual addiction in the movie is a metaphor for the bigger theme at play. Using clips from film, along with context from Woody Allen‘s “Manhattan,” Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver,” and interview footage with McQueen, the eight-minute look at the movie is a compelling, well-reasoned alternate theory about the picture. It’s sure to spark some debate, so watch below and leave your thoughts in the comments section. [35MM]
This critic has missed the point of shame. Brandon chooses NYC to fit his lifestyle. In the clip that quotes Steve he expresses this, the critic has put cart before the horse and missed the subject matter
Shame was a horrible movie who\’s only critiqueing it did was show how horrible a film maker steve mcqueen is.Don\’t read to deep into that movie for free of falling down the rabbit hole
I think Andy Kaufman is still alive and is behind this video essay. Kind of reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall with Marshall McLuhan.
This is a well thought out description of how the city giveth and taketh away in equal portions and in being so equal it can ravage the romantic individual looking for order and comfort ultimately. But the film is also about addiction pure and simple. TO be fair it does not explore the layers of construct that make up addiction, it instead is a poetic expression of the state of being that is the life of an addict. But the video is true, perhaps just not complete. But what truth ever is.
Pretty freakin\’ thin. It\’s kind of like how people make songs about whatever it evokes for them, this video isn\’t aiming to tell us what McQueen was really after, just that, in the right light, you can see an metaphor taking shape…but this is merely his personal inference.
This is quite dull and shallow view of things. The film does not putt the city per ce as a character. City symbolizes here our cultural medium in general. City is the only place where vertually everything is man-made, this is literally and figuratively a cultural place. The story of Shame cannot possibly be told in isolated town or countryside, with "nature" around. Besides, this stupid strive to natural and nature does not have any meaning. We, as cultural beings, do not know the distinction between natural and not natural – nature appeals to us only through our cultural vision and understanding.
Interesting essay. Enjoyable watch.
I am on the fence about this. Including the proposition in the title of this article, that "Shame is a critique of the modern metropolis"… That\’s not exactly what the man is saying. He is saying that the film is about the corruption of the natural by the cultural… Which is redundant since, if you think about it, is the only thing any corruption can be about. And this whole commentary is a sort od redundancy that describes abundantly what is fairly obvious. It also sheds no light on the fact that this loop of observation has no real arc or trajectory… things never evolve in Shame. They spin, like this discussion: The commentary is eloquent but it offers a reading of the "dehumanizing city" which is mostly the projection of the commentator.
Comparing this vision of New York as "lit artificially from above" and "seen at night" with accompanying footage of TAXI DRIVER may make for some compelling edits but it\’s all smoke and mirrors… Manhattan looks like it does in Taxi Driver, certainly below 14th street and West of 6th Ave on 46th street and that\’s all there is to it. (More so in 1975, even.) Manhattan is Manhattan, and although some directors have subjectively transformed a city, this ain\’t Blade Runner.
I appreciate the attempt to make the movie SHAME into more than it is, and this man with the Danish accent "sounds" erudite and all, but laying an intellectual "Cahiers du Cinéma" trip on a film is not the film – at least not necessarily.
Steve McQueen speaks for himself at the end and tells you everything you need to know about why he chose New York… The symbols hidden in the images can arguably be just that, (like the Jacques Tati windows peering into lives) but can just as often be simple clichés seen in any movie, like using the camera as a voyeur, peeping through open doors and windows – every film maker with a bit of savvy does that anyway (since Polanski) to make the audience feel unsettled.
Brandon goes to the Hudson to get in touch with his emotions because it is the only remnant of nature? No. There\’s Washington Square Park, Central Park, The cloisters, etc.
You could just as easily argue that walking to the river under the rain is a nice Hollywood cliché because in film, Art Directors love to "wet down" the streets and see water running someone\’s face to show a catharsis…
Shame is what it is. A pretty film by a guy who comes from photography.
Let\’s not get too religious about the symbols. He\’s not a Tarkovsky, a Bunuel or a Kubrick. And he\’s not David Lynch either.
You want to blow people\’s minds? Tell them what Mulholland Drive is REALLY about.
Sorry, \’neither particularly profound nor insightful.\’ + \’also\’. (Not an easy site to post on!)
I don\’t think that this is particularly profound nor profound.
It posits an opposition of \’cultural\’ and \’natural\’, without
really exploring what is meant by the latter. \’natural\’ is a,so
a construction. Give me Zizek or Mark Cousins for more
skillful
film analysis.
As someone who lives in New York, I can say that this analysis is very insightful to the film and to the nature of life here. I know people very similar to the main character in Shame who attribute their sexualized lifestyle to the influence of the city, which is insidious and takes years to get under your skin, but inevitably happens. I myself have recently become aware of the warping influence on my own psyche and sexuality it has, precisely because of the access that McQueen refers to–it is mostly a function of population density and the fact that one is exposed to a lot of young beautiful people constantly.
No American Psycho?
Well I do live in NYC & I\’m a little bit taken aback by how accurate this is especially for weak-minded starry eyed individuals who come here seeking fame & fortune & don\’t understand how much energy strength & will it takes to succeed here!!!!
Fantastic exploration of another of the many, many layers of this incredible film. This view echoes half-formed thoughts of my own as I watched it from my perspective of a small-town resident. I do not live in NYC, and I often wonder about stories set there and the problems that the characters face that could easily be eschewed by living elsewhere.
Bunch of hot air, nothing new is to be gained from this waste of time video.