Enter the Void presents us with a perspective rarely utilised in film—the first person perspective (in part 1). This immediately challenged the preconceived notion of identifying with a film’s protagonist. However I in fact felt rather alienated by the perspective; instead of it feeling like a seamless immediate identification of being ‘in their head’ I felt pushed away from being able to really understand our character.
This perspective contrasts heavily with what comes later in the film where we, still from the character’s perspective, experience an out-of-body third-person view on the life which both followed and lead up to the film’s opening (let’s call this part 2). What is especially interesting here is that part 2 shatters many established rules which generally aid in identification, it fragments time to mix childhood and present while following a large number of characters—these are both far from the arguable ‘reality’ established by the long-take POV opening of the film.
In short, part 1 deals with a continuous reality-as-lived from a first-person viewpoint while part 2 takes an out-of-body perspective tied to memory, providing a fragmented version of the past mixed with a ghost like exploration of the present.
But then why was I more alienated by the POV rather than the fragmented viewpoint of our character? Let’s break it up into chunks.
· Convention: It is obviously an unconventional decision to base a film in the first person making me less well-adjusted to empathising with a character through this camera style. However I feel that this explanation is too simplistic, simply disregarding instead of analysing the true reasons why.
· Emotional understanding: Instead, I feel that the POV deprives us of the fundamental ability to mimic emotions/responses. However this inability to mimic emotions of our protagonist is also carried into the second phase of the film that provides deeper levels of identification, so this can’t be the entire story. However it is worth noting that one emotion carried through the POV perfectly, and potentially even stronger than you would get from another perspective—shock. These primal responses of shock, fear, and the trauma which lies in the aftermath, are phenomenally crafted throughout the film and leave a lasting impact. However the impact is strong both in part 1 and 2, thus I would accredit this to outstanding filmmaking (all elements, editing, sound, pacing) rather than simply the effect of the perspective.
· ‘Relatability’: I feel this might be the reason I was so distant from the character, simply because the way he acts, speaks and the things he does are far from my everyday life—generally to the point that I openly disliked many of his traits. Here I think the first person perspective plays a huge role, as if you are that character (for example in a video-game) it is easy to accept or even craft the POV viewpoint because the separation between you and the character as 1) you are in control and 2) you can easily craft an alter-ego into this character without having to accept their autonomous acts. While if you are watchingthat character it is much simpler to separate yourself and assess your reasons for not connecting with or being unable to understand the character—however as we spend more and more time in this perspective we begin to craft our own story of our character (I say ‘our’ character as I feel he is both a character within the film, and a character we are crafting in our heads). In this way the POV acts to force you into an extremely uncomfortable perspective whereby we are forced to watch through unknown eyes, forced into places and positions we are unfamiliar with as if we were this character. This decision is fascinating, especially due to its alienating effects.
· Problems with cinematic first person: There are a number of alienating issues with presenting a first person perspective on a cinema screen. Firstly the image doesn’t take up your full field of vision (FOV), you are still able to see the edges of the screen, the auditorium and other spectators. Thus the first-person perspective you are receiving is not being accessed as if it were true first person. Instead most of your vision remains your own POV while only a fragment of that field of vision is taken up by the secondary (filmic) POV. This creates two POVs within a single act of looking, meaning you must reject one and accept the other—and of course you accept your own and reject the secondary (especially due to our above thoughts). Here it is interesting to consider VR filmmaking, as if Enter the Void were presented in a VR format I believe this identification would be much stronger as you are instead only provided with one visual POV as it encompasses your sense of sight. Therefore instead of choosing a perspective from a primary and secondary POV you are forced to take on the secondary as your primary POV. I believe this would provide the perfect viewing experience to identify with such an alienating character as Oscar in Enter the Void. The second main problem with cinematic first person is that it varies hugely from the first-person perspective we live with, as in the cinema you cannot effect or control the body who’s perspective you have. Here it is interesting to again consider gaming, which frequently utilises a first-person perspective (again a secondary first-person perspective) but provides the player with control over this perspective’s actions. This shift in control, from creator to player (viewer), is another way the secondary POV can overwrite the primary, providing the perfect out-of-body perspective through control alone. Thus it is easy to understand the attraction that is VR gaming, as it perfectly combines both factors to create an exciting alter-ego POV by encompassing the visual field and giving the viewer control over this alter-ego. Yet this gaming perspective obviously strays far from conventional film, as it is generally interactive rather than set—an exact divide that interestingly occurs within Enter the Void whereby Oscar can interact via his first-person perspective but is powerlessly detached when he moves to an out-of-body phase.
It would be truly fascinating, and traumatic, to experience Enter the Void in a VR format—as I believe it would aid in the seamless transition required between the self and the character. However in the cinematic format it remains quite alienating. Comparing it to Aronofsky’s recent film Mother! we find many similar emotions of trauma and the inability to effect the on-screen space, however the key difference is that we experience Veronica’s struggle by examining her face while we embody Oscar’s struggle.
Personally I felt closer to character’s struggle in Mother!, however I’ll simply state that Enter the Voidhas left a much larger impression on me both emotionally and technically—pointing to something important, character’s aren’t necessarily what makes a film.
~Leo
Enter the Void (2009)
2/5/2
9/13