Andrzej Zulawski’s Possession

My reflection on Style is Substance’s YouTube critique “POSSESSION (1981) — Faith and Chance”

00:54 − Relative Morality

As suggested in my previous philosophical riff, I reject the idea that such a thing as “relative morality” exists as anything more than a theoretical concept. I base this assertion on the fact that morality itself requires rational investment and logic isn’t relative. At worst the characters of the film could be described as amoral, refusing any concern for “the Good“, or as egoistic, centering moral value on personal desire/satisfaction. Likely a combination of both, as the latter gives itself freely to the former. Heinrich rationalizes his own actions as an appeal to his own self-interest, to justify his affair with Anna. As an extension of this ethical foundation (self-interest) he accepts others for their self-interested decision making.

Anna on the other hand accepts the negative judgement of others as a result of her lack of concern for their interest and her investment in her own. This isn’t to suggest that her decisions are in fact clear, even to herself. She presents a kind of chaotic disunity of being. She doesn’t fight judgement because she cannot clearly identify the cause of her own desire, an apparent failure to properly situate herself within the symbolic order. I see her character as sort of a metaphor for our inability to concisely identify the root of desire beyond the limits of “the Symbolic“. I’ll return to this in the section on Anna.

Finally the allusion of various “gods” in the film seems emblematic of the egoistic moral position, and its inability to properly account for the universality of the particular of “self-interest”. It is often in ones own interest to consider the interests of others as most egoists realize. The issue only arises once the egoist loses the clear incentive to pursue a common interest, therefore losing the connection to the other. It is an ironic and poetic issue often resulting in something not in the interest of the egoist, as we see in Possession.

03:19 − The Creature

The creature for me is neither G-D nor the devil. Taking a more Islamic stance I’ll suggest that there is no absolute rival to the Good of G-D. On the other hand what we describe as “evil” is no more than the deviation from the Absolute, embodied in the fissure of “material existence”. This is symbolized in Islam by the character of Iblis refusing to bow down to Adm. This is coincidentally also symbolic of the metaphysical dimension of freedom, or what allows for it; the goal of material existence being ultimately some form of reflection of divinity as in Sufi doctrine. From this perspective the work of believers becomes a kind of “purification” for Paradise; the “perfection” of that which is not G-D (the finite, material etc), but “free” in G-D’s likeness.

The monster of Possession however is in itself a test designed to damn those who serve it. It is a “false god” symbolically devouring the souls of its servants. This “false god” serves as a reference to the Soviet state Andrzej Zulawski was reflecting on with the setting of the film, right on the other-side of the Berlin Wall. When exposed to this pseudo-divinity, the characters temporarily go blind. Afterwards they are either devoured or they foolishly go along serving it until the truth reveals itself in their own self-deluded lie.

Possession is a tragedy of human folly. The symbolism of false “masters” can further be seen in the sort of love-triangle relationship between Anna, Mark and Heinrich. Anna seems to worship “Heinrich’s soul”. A mere human worshipping another mere human. While Anna was worshipped by her husband and Heinrich. Heinrich also ironically worships himself. He essentially drank his own cool-aid and got intoxicated. He is neither holy nor one of the guided and his self-parody form of new age spirituality is a lie sustained only by temporal comfort, ultimately to be ripped from beneath him in his encounter with the monster.

11:56 − Heinrich

Heinrich does project an image of spiritual security, though this is only as long as that which he desires is present. As soon as his direct contact with the object (Anna’s affection) is interrupted, upon his discovery that Anna has a new master and that he no longer holds sway, he near immediately begins to unravel. As I’ve already mentioned, moral relativism is for me a self-contradictory idea. I don’t see Heinrich as a relativist but rather as a naive egoist. His personal morality only functions while he is reaping the rewards, fueled by “selfish gain“. While he claims to love the world and everyone in it, he never considers the negative affect his sexual conquest has on Anna’s husband Mark or Anna and Mark’s son Bob. In taking what he wants, Heinrich helps fuel the spiraling chaos. All the while it is unlikely his accepting persona would survive if it was his marriage being destroyed.

Heinrich’s seeming spiritual confidence sustains itself though a kind of intellectual narcissism. On the one hand, he suggests that we can all find G-D in our own way. This spiritually liberal take is however only able to survive thanks to his refusal to accept the external influences of the other. He is easily able to reincorporate any challenging spiritual view by re-contextualizing it. Though he is unable to explicitly deny ones position (as it would be “illiberal”), in order for him to accept their view, he must reinterpret/distort their meaning in order to serve his pre-existing belief. We see this when Mark suggests that G-D to him is a disease. Heinrich is able to integrate the statement, and remove its meaning by stating that “through the disease we can reach G-D”.

All the while Heinrich’s almost insidious tactics expose his fraudulence. While he seems to place a moral value on the granting of “freedom” to Anna by not claiming ownership of her, he then makes the contradictory suggestion that this is why he “has rights” to her. He precedes to push himself on Anna, and it becomes apparent he’s using drugs to manipulate her toward his own whim. Only moments later he encounters the monster, and his lie is completely revealed.

30:35 − Mark

Mark’s character represents the opposing polarity of Heinrich’s in terms of spirituality. While Heinrich’s delusion is supported by his good fortune, Mark’s delusion belongs to misfortune. It is in the trauma of watching his dog die under his porch as a child that Mark’s story ark takes root. The loss comes full circle in the loss of his wife to Heinrich and the collapse of his family. Somehow in his relationship with lack (loss) we find an even closer proximity and sustained connection with the Divine. Which in the case of Mark in his selfishness is rather uncomfortable. G-D exerts a force in Mark’s life through anxiety, placing Mark in an antagonistic relationship with his divine interlocutor. It is this that ultimately pushes him over the edge.

Like the other members of the “love triangle”, Mark ultimately follows the excess of passion into a realm of pure possession. His submission of will to the selfish whim suggests a full adoption of Heinrich’s egoism, a kind of psychic transference with almost oedipal undertones. In the final act of the film, Mark slaughters the symbolic “father” in the form of Heinrich in order to obtain the power of the phallus. This is the first step in Mark’s quest to repossess his wife from the monster. It could ironically be seen as a sort of sacrifice to the monster, a trading of souls if you will. It is at this point, Mark is able to let go of his victimhood in order to fully assume his selfishness. He takes it to the end.

Later in the film, Mark’s supervisor attempts to convince him to return to work for the “greater good”. Mark seems unmoved by the sentiment. Fueled by his loss, he continues on the chosen path. It is only a matter of time before he winds up at the fatal conclusion. Allowing the pain of the temporal to deform him, he becomes a monster. His possessiveness allows him to disregard all, including his own son to have Anna. Making a “beast of himself” Mark manages to at least temporarily transcend the loss and indulge in selfish enjoyment, rather than pain. On the other hand, the Creature essentially turns into Mark’s doppelganger. His end result being death, and the Creature supposedly stealing his human identity. Though perhaps at peace for his final seconds with his absolute love object (Anna), Mark dies in a rather pathetic physical state.

36:26 − Anna

Anna has perhaps the most interesting and confusing character arc in the film. As a female, rebelling against the imperative “concern for the other” imposed on the “traditional” female subject, Anna’s character could be written off as a mere reflection of the “male gaze“. It was actually the first thing I connected with in the film over ten years ago when I first saw it. It was during this time I was somewhat immersed in that awful, often cringey world of PUA literature, which typically depicted heterosexual cis-females either implicitly or explicitly as irrational, instinctual animals who responded sexually primarily to the dominate social behavior of “Alpha males“. A rather zoological approach to dating if you ask me. However thanks to this reddit post and further reflection I feel there is a bit more to the analysis of Anna. Specifically in the reflexive critique her character offers for the rest of us.

While I believe her doppelgänger Helen would make a more noble female protagonist, Anna is the central figure of the film, and the catalyst of the action. She is the first, and only character that seems to be able to understand the Creature, even if only instrumentally. Her seemingly flimsy, in the moment conviction is tempered by her obscure infatuation with/possession by the Creature. Anna oscillates between confusion, unable to acknowledge the desire of the other, and amoral indifference. While she at one moment rejects the notion of good and evil in objective terms, she later recognizes herself as “the maker of” her own evil. Anna is essentially a distorted mirror, frequently changing tempo by the moment and fanning the flames of disarray in service to her master.

In the mode of the distorted mirror, Anna suggests that goodness is only a reflection upon evil. I found that to be an ironic reversal of the notion I suggested earlier, that evil is only the deviation from the Absolute (Good). Anna’s fundamental position is akin to “evil”, good being only its reflection, rather than the basis of ethical judgement. While she expresses a subtle empathy for those she hurts in the process, she continues in that direction of selfishness as a servant of the Creature, creator of her distortion. The chaos of here life amounts to this.

Once the Creature finally takes on the human form of Mark, it appears she is even able to maintain the image, while forsaking the object. The Creature deceives Anna by offering her the illusory satisfaction of union with the man she callously threw away though still desires in her paradoxical way. In her reflection on the sisters of Faith and Chance she explains how her faith can’t exclude chance and her chance can’t explain faith. I took this to mean that she cannot rely entirely on faith as it cannot account for the unpredictable often painful aspect of existence, while at the time the unpredictable nature of existence doesn’t account for the human tendency to hope. The internal battle portrayed in Heinrich’s film of her “transformation” ends in the loss of both to the Creature, who projects her inner chaos outward. This does not stop her from suffering it, though in some sense it lets her off the hook for her evil, despite her awareness of it.

The almost stereotypical hysteria displayed by Anna is countered by the calm confidence of Helen (her doppelgänger). Helen easily responds to Mark’s sexist remarks in a firm and reasonable tone. She’s well put-together, both intelligent and beautiful, and has a sincere clarity that neither Anna nor Mark, or even Heinrich properly posses. She represents the faith Anna miscarries in the infamous subway scene, which we must surmise occurred following the events of Heinrich’s film, most likely prior to the beginning of Possession. In eternal division, all that’s left is the brutal and chaotic aspect of chance, an ultimately hopeless finale to come.

Conclusion

The Creature served to offer Anna the power she lacked over the repressive domestic condition of her life, though this power proves ultimately damning as it arises from a miscarriage of her better self (Sister Faith). The origin of this internal division and psychosis is not her “liberation” but rather her enslavement to the false master, identified with chance. Sister Chance without accompanying Sister Faith is an absurd disaster. The scene preceding her miscarriage of faith shows Anna beneath the statue of Christ moaning in anguish. As one deceived by the surface level completeness of the image, Anna is lost in the surreal excess of meaning, her great agony.

Possession rather insightfully draws on the connection between morality and the quest for the spiritual. In my reading it exposes the failure in a spiritually that sacrifices the social for the sake of selfishness. Rather it seems applicable for the spiritual to overcome the self for the sake of the social. Read again through an Islamic lens I’ll suggest that one not forsake the world for asceticism or seclusion, but rather embrace the world for the sake of the Good, against what is ill and devious within “the world”. The image of Jesus Anna looks to for comfort perhaps highlights the desire for immediacy, rather than a more subtle, yet enduring encounter with the Divine. The image after all, a mere representation of an idea we can’t see with our eyes. An object can never occupy the place of the Supreme and such vulgar delimitation might only leads to unnecessary suffering.

Share
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply