She's Gotta Have It - The Failing Of Photogénie
Thoughts On: She's Gotta Have It (1986)
Drama swirls around a girl with three boyfriends.
What Spike Lee constructs in She's Gotta Have It is, thematically, impenetrable. She's Gotta Have It is a blend between ideological posturing and narrative investigation. It circulates Nola Darling, a woman who loves sex and who cannot be with one man. She constructs for herself one partner out of three men: a man-child, an embodiment of pretence and pompousness and a spineless romantic. With each man juggled through her bed sheets, Nola is seemingly satisfied; she is pined after and taken good care of, she is joked around with, she is intellectually challenged and she is spoilt. She wants everything and is willing to sacrifice little. The only burden she endures is the drama that must inevitably erupt from using and being used by three men - all of whom are entirely conscious of their situation. Alas, it appears that this drama is, in and of itself, a source of perverse pleasure for our four figures. And thus this narrative is a whirlwind of psychological complexes that we are told, by a psychologist, are normal.
This is where a line is drawn for me. Whilst the ridiculous drama that we're made to endure throughout She's Gotta Have It is undoubtedly human (I'm sure most of us could list off some people in somewhat similar situations), I am uncomfortable with the consequent definition of normal.
In one sense, it is only sensical to associate to 'normal' average behaviour. The behaviour demonstrated in She's Gotta Have It is undoubtedly atypical on the surface, but the purpose of its narrative investigation is to reveal the ways in which we may see ourselves, our own humanity and weakness, in certain characters. This explains why a psychologist must tell us that our main character is not an addict and is, indeed, normal. Alas, implicit in the concept of normal is often an element of standard. That is to say that the normal life, whilst it may be full of mistakes and stupidity, it characterised by an overall virtue. In such a sense, normalcy is, indeed, a virtue. And such is what all genuine realist cinemas, in my estimation, pay tribute to. The life of the normal person is not easy. One could argue that it is far easier to be atypical than it is to be typical - and the reason for this is precisely because 'normal' comes with inset ideals, one in the romantic context being monogamy. She's Gotta Have It argues against the idea that monogamy is a virtue, that normalcy is a virtue, hence breaking one of the foundational elements of a realist cinema - which so often presents a character struggling towards normalcy and away from atypicality, exuding a virtue of normalcy even if they fail. (Neorealist films such a The Nights of Cabiria, Umberto D and Bicycle Theieves may be considered here). She's Gotta Have It has this key movement between the normal and the atypical life at its centre. However, its assignment of virtue breaks down in the final stages. Instead of seeing our character disengage solipsism, she only falls further into it, living her life her way, her main goal being to understand herself. In my estimation, such is only a mask of virtue; there is no depth in this. In some respects, this is what aligns She's Gotta Have It with what is now a very defined feminist philosophy concerning freedom and choice. Such an ideological argument has been presented to us rather consciously since the late 90s and early 2000s on film and in television - a great example being Sex and the City - but, of course, this idea-structure is pre-existent of the 90s; She's Gotta Have It demonstrates just this.
Implicit in this philosophy of freedom of choice is an imperative defamation of social dictatorship, which is to say, this philosophy confronts the consequences of existing outside of 'the normal'. It is imperative for consequence to be questioned if it is not to become socially customary to, for example, maim, incarcerate and kill adulterers. Alas, a philosophy of freedom of choice should not be destructive to the essence of custom and inset philosophies, for, under them, there is truth. I do not then see why virtue should be assigned to non-monogamy if, in the same breath, non-monogamy is presented as destructive and an extension of certain neuroses. The narrative journey we are taken on through She's Gotta Have It presents just this: our main character, despite it clearly not being good for her life, involves herself in multiple relationships at one time. In the ending, it is made implicit that she will confront the presented neuroses by concentrating on herself, her body, her mind, but this is all too shallow and her grip on herself and reality all too questionable.
With all of this said, what is not important here is, singularly, my moral judgement of this ending and of this character. I outline the ways in which I could not see sense and virtue in this narrative as to emphasise the one key assertion: there is humanity in this film. So, whilst I may not, in essence, agree with the sentiments of this narrative, I can see into its realist underpinnings (these are, however, due to quite clunky, too-conscious writing and caricaturing, threatened by the foundational melodrama). In the realism of this film is humanity, is truth. The ill-logic and faulted philosophy in this truth, however, dictates form. We are then told the truth of stupidity by characters who have not fully overcome their stupidity - in fact, the ending signifies their incompletion as thinking people.
Spike Lee directs this with a consistent search for photogénie; images that allow this humanity to emerge. However, whilst, taken out of their narrative context, his images may be photogénic, they fail if understood in regards to narrative. There is then particular focus on capturing photogénie in sex scenes. Images of skin, nipples, belly buttons and more are not merely vessels for spectacle, but, with a certain (moral) ugliness, they reveal truth: who characters really are; the ways in which they are, at their core, conflicted and weak in face of sexual desire and opportunity. It is at the base of this photogénic effort, however, where I disengage; where I see no virtue. This is due to the overall structure of the narrative and in spite of fleetingly evocative imagery.
There is particular brilliance in Jean Epstein's definition of photogénie. He does not simply suggest that images that emit humanity are photogénetic. He wanted to describe images of great impact, a core source of cinema's affecting abilities. He then understood that, hand-in-hand with the capturing of humanity has to come 'moral enhancement'. Spike Lee's imagery and narrative facilitate an evocation of truth and humanity, but without morality.
One may argue here that Lee then reveals ugly truths like Béla Tarr and Lars von Trier mean to. However, these three directors ultimately fail, in my estimation, for their neglect of morality. Absolute truth is not found without moral fortitude. There is a realm of Dionysian transcendence, but this is below a realm of moral transcendence in my estimation. What Lee, Tarr and Trier are then doing with the realist elements of their cinemas falls short of lyrosophy; for Lee, exists in a Dionysian heaven, but falls short of the moral firmament. They all investigate humanity, true. However, without moral fortitude, the truth and humanity they find fails to affect. Thus, we do not come to experience truth and knowledge. We stare without empathy, without knowing.
Epstein speaks of art's highest functions as lyrosophical in that they take what science can teach us and give it a soul - which is to say that great art lets us experience truth. Morality is the hinge of great art and affection. It is only through moral expression that presented truths resonate through our consciousness and down to some deeper place in tune with absolute truth beyond subjectivity. Because Lee fails to generate a morally convincing narrative in She's Gotta Have It, his photogénic efforts consistently fail.
It is in my estimation that Lee's failed photogénie presents the dead end in his work. One may argue, however, that new philosophical ground can only be breached when photogénie fails. This argument may be based on a scepticism of the unconscious and its understanding and projection of absolute truth into the psyche. I then leave this topic open to you. Do you think photogénie fails in She's Gotta Have It? What do you think the consequence of this is; is it positive or negative; destructive or constructive?
Previous post:
Illang: The Wolf Brigade - Tragic, Hero
Next post
End Of The Week Shorts #83
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
Drama swirls around a girl with three boyfriends.
What Spike Lee constructs in She's Gotta Have It is, thematically, impenetrable. She's Gotta Have It is a blend between ideological posturing and narrative investigation. It circulates Nola Darling, a woman who loves sex and who cannot be with one man. She constructs for herself one partner out of three men: a man-child, an embodiment of pretence and pompousness and a spineless romantic. With each man juggled through her bed sheets, Nola is seemingly satisfied; she is pined after and taken good care of, she is joked around with, she is intellectually challenged and she is spoilt. She wants everything and is willing to sacrifice little. The only burden she endures is the drama that must inevitably erupt from using and being used by three men - all of whom are entirely conscious of their situation. Alas, it appears that this drama is, in and of itself, a source of perverse pleasure for our four figures. And thus this narrative is a whirlwind of psychological complexes that we are told, by a psychologist, are normal.
This is where a line is drawn for me. Whilst the ridiculous drama that we're made to endure throughout She's Gotta Have It is undoubtedly human (I'm sure most of us could list off some people in somewhat similar situations), I am uncomfortable with the consequent definition of normal.
In one sense, it is only sensical to associate to 'normal' average behaviour. The behaviour demonstrated in She's Gotta Have It is undoubtedly atypical on the surface, but the purpose of its narrative investigation is to reveal the ways in which we may see ourselves, our own humanity and weakness, in certain characters. This explains why a psychologist must tell us that our main character is not an addict and is, indeed, normal. Alas, implicit in the concept of normal is often an element of standard. That is to say that the normal life, whilst it may be full of mistakes and stupidity, it characterised by an overall virtue. In such a sense, normalcy is, indeed, a virtue. And such is what all genuine realist cinemas, in my estimation, pay tribute to. The life of the normal person is not easy. One could argue that it is far easier to be atypical than it is to be typical - and the reason for this is precisely because 'normal' comes with inset ideals, one in the romantic context being monogamy. She's Gotta Have It argues against the idea that monogamy is a virtue, that normalcy is a virtue, hence breaking one of the foundational elements of a realist cinema - which so often presents a character struggling towards normalcy and away from atypicality, exuding a virtue of normalcy even if they fail. (Neorealist films such a The Nights of Cabiria, Umberto D and Bicycle Theieves may be considered here). She's Gotta Have It has this key movement between the normal and the atypical life at its centre. However, its assignment of virtue breaks down in the final stages. Instead of seeing our character disengage solipsism, she only falls further into it, living her life her way, her main goal being to understand herself. In my estimation, such is only a mask of virtue; there is no depth in this. In some respects, this is what aligns She's Gotta Have It with what is now a very defined feminist philosophy concerning freedom and choice. Such an ideological argument has been presented to us rather consciously since the late 90s and early 2000s on film and in television - a great example being Sex and the City - but, of course, this idea-structure is pre-existent of the 90s; She's Gotta Have It demonstrates just this.
Implicit in this philosophy of freedom of choice is an imperative defamation of social dictatorship, which is to say, this philosophy confronts the consequences of existing outside of 'the normal'. It is imperative for consequence to be questioned if it is not to become socially customary to, for example, maim, incarcerate and kill adulterers. Alas, a philosophy of freedom of choice should not be destructive to the essence of custom and inset philosophies, for, under them, there is truth. I do not then see why virtue should be assigned to non-monogamy if, in the same breath, non-monogamy is presented as destructive and an extension of certain neuroses. The narrative journey we are taken on through She's Gotta Have It presents just this: our main character, despite it clearly not being good for her life, involves herself in multiple relationships at one time. In the ending, it is made implicit that she will confront the presented neuroses by concentrating on herself, her body, her mind, but this is all too shallow and her grip on herself and reality all too questionable.
With all of this said, what is not important here is, singularly, my moral judgement of this ending and of this character. I outline the ways in which I could not see sense and virtue in this narrative as to emphasise the one key assertion: there is humanity in this film. So, whilst I may not, in essence, agree with the sentiments of this narrative, I can see into its realist underpinnings (these are, however, due to quite clunky, too-conscious writing and caricaturing, threatened by the foundational melodrama). In the realism of this film is humanity, is truth. The ill-logic and faulted philosophy in this truth, however, dictates form. We are then told the truth of stupidity by characters who have not fully overcome their stupidity - in fact, the ending signifies their incompletion as thinking people.
Spike Lee directs this with a consistent search for photogénie; images that allow this humanity to emerge. However, whilst, taken out of their narrative context, his images may be photogénic, they fail if understood in regards to narrative. There is then particular focus on capturing photogénie in sex scenes. Images of skin, nipples, belly buttons and more are not merely vessels for spectacle, but, with a certain (moral) ugliness, they reveal truth: who characters really are; the ways in which they are, at their core, conflicted and weak in face of sexual desire and opportunity. It is at the base of this photogénic effort, however, where I disengage; where I see no virtue. This is due to the overall structure of the narrative and in spite of fleetingly evocative imagery.
There is particular brilliance in Jean Epstein's definition of photogénie. He does not simply suggest that images that emit humanity are photogénetic. He wanted to describe images of great impact, a core source of cinema's affecting abilities. He then understood that, hand-in-hand with the capturing of humanity has to come 'moral enhancement'. Spike Lee's imagery and narrative facilitate an evocation of truth and humanity, but without morality.
One may argue here that Lee then reveals ugly truths like Béla Tarr and Lars von Trier mean to. However, these three directors ultimately fail, in my estimation, for their neglect of morality. Absolute truth is not found without moral fortitude. There is a realm of Dionysian transcendence, but this is below a realm of moral transcendence in my estimation. What Lee, Tarr and Trier are then doing with the realist elements of their cinemas falls short of lyrosophy; for Lee, exists in a Dionysian heaven, but falls short of the moral firmament. They all investigate humanity, true. However, without moral fortitude, the truth and humanity they find fails to affect. Thus, we do not come to experience truth and knowledge. We stare without empathy, without knowing.
Epstein speaks of art's highest functions as lyrosophical in that they take what science can teach us and give it a soul - which is to say that great art lets us experience truth. Morality is the hinge of great art and affection. It is only through moral expression that presented truths resonate through our consciousness and down to some deeper place in tune with absolute truth beyond subjectivity. Because Lee fails to generate a morally convincing narrative in She's Gotta Have It, his photogénic efforts consistently fail.
It is in my estimation that Lee's failed photogénie presents the dead end in his work. One may argue, however, that new philosophical ground can only be breached when photogénie fails. This argument may be based on a scepticism of the unconscious and its understanding and projection of absolute truth into the psyche. I then leave this topic open to you. Do you think photogénie fails in She's Gotta Have It? What do you think the consequence of this is; is it positive or negative; destructive or constructive?
Previous post:
Illang: The Wolf Brigade - Tragic, Hero
Next post
End Of The Week Shorts #83
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
