2007103688

A Cinephilic Approach to the Issues in Todd Haynes's Safe (1995)

Todd Haynes's conundrum-like film Safe (1995) handles political and social issues such
as racism and femininity via a multi-dimensional perspective although the film does not appear to
impose any kind of ideology. The film embraces an unusual combination of genres with which
the audience witnesses a body horror where the protagonist catches a mysterious disease that
distorts her body in an unstoppable, inevitable pattern, and a melodrama that emerges from the
typical use of mise-en-scène (Elsaesser, 1972) although Haynes “reworks” the genre (Doane,
2004) . In this essay a social and political examination of the film, Safe will be held with a
slightly more focus on the matters and transformations of identity. The cinematographic
technique of Haynes bears a crucial functioning in the plot while interpreting the symbols such as
a mirror and a black couch. Therefore the adoption of a cinephilic approach in terms of the use of
genre will further contribute to the understanding and commentary of the film.

Whiteness is one of the most dominant themes throughout the film. The color gives strong
references to the issues of racism and identity that was emphasized through the protagonist's
surname as White. From a racial politics perspective, white -as opposed to black- represents the
wealthy suburban White family and the pure, naive housewife Carol living in an
internally/externally big white house that preserve their whiteness from "the outer black" (Davis,
2000; Kawash, 2000). In the first two minutes of the film, we see a big white door, opening to a
big white house and the entrance of a black car as if signaling the upcoming danger for the
contamination of pure whiteness. Subsequently, the white house delivers an unordered black
couch set that "doesn't go with anything" the White family has. Indeed, the house is decorated
with all pale colors and whiteness is always there, prominently. Therefore the black couch
represents a great threat to the harmony of the house. In his article Safe House? (2000), Samira
Kawash emphasizes the intentionality of "white" house as a sign of safety "to paint away the
darkness" (p.186). One theme of darkness in the film is "the other" as a race. The film overruns
the social/political condition of "the different color" through TV news on the background, a short
essay by the stepson and the silenced domestic workers of the White family as Kawash (2000)
also exemplifies. This is why the house is open to question about its safety against the "dangers"
of colorful out considering the inevitability of Carol's milk-white health falling apart.

Further implications of the color white lie beneath the identity deficiency of Carol. Todd
Haynes's cinematographic mastery presents itself throughout the film while Carol's identity is
destructed and reconstructed gradually. Glyn Davis (2000) metaphorizes the color white
[colourlesness] with the absence of identity. In line with the metaphor, Haynes drowns Carol in
her white world up to the point that she gets lost among her surroundings. Although not perfectly
fit due to the film's hybrid structure as genre, the setting of mise-en-scène manages to build an
ambiguous female identity as an indicator of melodrama (Elsaesser, 2000). Throughout the film,
Carol is almost indistinct among the household furniture due to her perfect match with the
surrounding colors, lost in long shots due to Todd Haynes's minimalistic approach while
presenting the character (Potter, 2004). Carol's persistent expressionless face observed even while
having sex contributes to her ambiguous, almost non-existent presence in the film. She barely or
not at all finishes her sentences and in most of the scenes her voice is shadowed behind the TV
news, radio commercials or domestic work chores. Rune Gade (2002) points out the importance
of lingual representation among the formation of identity. He suggests that especially women
create their lives by telling stories about themselves. It is not a coincidence that Haynes depicted
Carol as a female devoid of verbal expression. The audience never gets to know her stories,
feelings or ideas, that is, for the audience, Carol is disidentified. However, her disidentification
does not exactly correspond to Munoz (1999) definition in which the disidentification is
considered to be a minoritarian tool to fit in the major society. Rather, her existence as an
ordinary bourgeois woman -which also has controversial points in itself that will be discussed
further- underlies the implications of disidentification. Davis (2000) allegorizes Carol with a
"tabula rassa" on which the audience attaches some affection and understanding. Similarly, the
film ends up with Carol's emotional statement that was actually imposed to her by the director of
Wrenwood Institute where she seeks help for her illness.

Carol’s identity as a wife, housewife and a woman also bear significance in the structure
of the film. Kawash (2000) draws attention to the feature of suburb houses as “housewife-killing
entities”. Likewise, the house becomes such an important concern for Carol that just a little
unexpected interference to her house gives her a shock as observed in the scene of unordered
black couch set. When asked her occupation, with her weak verbal expression ability, she
answers that she designs, but only her house. Also as stated earlier, the big house with the wide
shots and pale colors seem to swallow Carol into its domestic sphere. However the domestic
sphere does not reflect itself upon Carol as in the case of Stepford Wives (1975). Rather, the
character is identified with the big, white, expressionless house itself. She is not involved in
household chore at all, we cannot witness her neither cooking nor cleaning. Carol is not a typical
representative of a maternal woman since she does not have any kids and has a very weak
connection with the stepson. Her disidentification reveals itself upon her almost sexless presence
as well. Although Carol reflects a strongly passive image, she fails to be the “raw material” of
male gaze as offered by Mulvey (1975). Still, Haynes does not avoid of using the mirrors but
with different intentions.

Emerging as a typical feature of female melodrama in the case of Carol, helplessness of

her disease becomes a part of her identity (Elsaesser, 2000). During her initial symptoms, she is
very self-insufficient about handling the illness. Her husband tells her to see a doctor. Her
husband tells her to stop the fruit diet since it is not good for her health. The way she describes
her illness such as, "a little rundown", "have a touch of something" depicts how inadequate she is
for herself. She cannot tell about her illness in the health conference where her husband explains
instead. However among the process of the illness, Carol starts to gain at least "some" control
over her condition and learns what chemical is toxic for her or not. During a conversation with
her friend in a cafe, her knowledge of the illness gets confirmed by the friend who considers the
illness as an advantage to be "knowledgable". Carol concludes the conversation with "Anyway,
it's just made me more aware than I used to be." Further, this awareness seems to serve for her
identity formation later on starting with her departure for the Wrenwood Institute. As Haynes also
states, the illness appears to be the best thing that happens to Carol specifically while dealing
with the matters of identity (Davis, 2000). Marcia Landy (2003) emphasizes the revolutionary
aspect of the illness against disidentification and quotes Foucault “…in the extreme, life is what
is capable of error.” (p.135). The illness leads Carol to unleash herself from the male hegemonic
understanding of beauty while disabling her from make-up materials, and conventional
understanding of marriage that underlies having sex with the husband as if it is a duty. Carol’s
husband does not even want to talk about her illness when she rejects having sex with him, as if
her being only is to serve to her husband’s sexual pleasure.

Building up a controversy, the mysterious illness of Carol evokes several questions in

mind, most popular one being the AIDS metaphor. Until the appearance of Wrenwood Institute
with its “chemically sensitive” founder with AIDS, one may consider Carol’s illness as a
metaphor for AIDS which can also be a heterosexual female disease, and conclude that Haynes is
drawing a slight criticism for the opponents of LGBT AIDS activism. However, after the
appearance of the founder with AIDS, Carol’s mysterious illness remains as an “environmental
illness” as referred throughout the film. Besides AIDS metaphor, the reason that is adopted by the
Wrenwood Institute as an explanation for the illness is remarkable. Peter, the founder of the
institute, blames individuals of their own illnesses and offers a positive thinking method to deal
with it. Wrenwood Center is the place where the film’s political focus shifts from race issues to
the socially isolated minority of ill people. Although the isolation seems to follow Carol from San
Fernando Valley to the institution, latter environment as well as the progress of the illness
manages to provide her some sense of identity. Carol gives her first speech after joining the
“chemically sensitive” people. Although she shuffles a kind of word salad during her speech, she
states the institution’s help for her as follows: “I’m trying to see myself, hopefully, more as I
am.”. The audience witnesses her genuine smile, a noteworthy expression, first time in the
institute. Her disidentification appears to dissolve in the Wrenwood Institute. However, is it due
to the friendly environment of Wrenwood or her providential illness? Davis (2000) considers the
illness as an “enlightenment” for Carol and interprets her refusal to participate in group therapy
discussion as a desire to keep the illness. Indeed, Carol’s illness serves as an identity builder
through her journey to ostensibly near death. After the sequence in which Carol is having a
seizure in the dry-cleaner, we see her on a litter geared to an oxygen tube. Although it has a
survival importance, Carol resists keeping her head aside. This scene appeared to me as a suicidal
attempt in which the unconscious, drone Carol is trying to gain some identity or bring some
authenticity to her being. Following the American musician Jerry Garcia's claim "I mean,
whatever kills you kills you, and your death is authentic no matter how you die.", one may
interpret the resistance as an unconscious yearning for authenticity. In addition, another scene
depicts Carol having her routine milk while watching TV news. Only hearing, audience gets to
know that Carol is watching news about euthanasia. After the news is over, the camera zooms
Carol in with a deep, tense background sound. These two scenes bring a different, more of a
pessimistic approach to the identity analysis of Carol since they signal that her identity
construction will be completed by her death. Likewise, the last scene, where Carol’s illness is at
its maximum throughout the film, she looks at herself in the mirror and says “I love you.” for
several times although none being truly convincing. The camera closes up to Carol’s face while
she is uttering the words, the audience sees her face not through the mirror, rather the camera acts
as a mirror reflecting the question of identity to the audience. Doane (2004) interprets the mirror
scene as a “regained subjectivity” (p.10) in a way that she is finally returning to her real self.
Unlike Kawash (2000), I consider the igloo as a “womb-like space of rebirth” in terms of identity
formation.

According to my point of view, Todd Haynes builds up a story of identity formation with
his unusual combination of genres, where he slightly mocks the obscurity and shallowness of
American suburban family life and inserts a defection to the disidentified woman’s body which
finally sets her closer to the freedom from the male hegemony and stereotypical patterns of
conventionality.
 References

Davis, G. (2000). "Health and safety in the home: Todd Haynes´s clinical white world".
Territories of Desire in Queer Culture, Manchester: UP, pp. 183-201.

Doane, M. A., (2004). “Pathos and pathology: the cinema of Todd Haynes.”. Camera
Obscura,19(3), pp. 1-21.

Elsaesser, T., (1972). “Tales of sound and fury: observations on the family melodrama.”

Gade, R.O., (2002). "Talk & Show: Kutlug Ataman and oral visuality ". Kutlug Ataman: Long
Streams , Copenhagen Contemporary Art Center, København, pp. 6- 11.

Kawash, S., (2000). “Safe house? Body, building, and the question of security.” Cultural
Critique 45,pp. 184-221.

Landy, M., (2003). “The dream of the gesture: the body of/in Todd Haynes’s films”. Boundry 2,
30 (3), Duke University Press, pp. 124-140.

Mulvey, L., (1975). "Visual pleasure and narrative cinema". Screen, 16 (3), pp. 6–18

Munoz, J. E., (1999). “Performing disidentifications”. Disidentifications: Queers Of Color

And The Performance Of Politics (Cultural Studies of the Americas), University of
Minesota Press, pp. 11-34.

Potter, S., ( 2004). “Dangerous spaces: safe”. Camera Obscura, 19(3), pp. 125-151.