Fish Tank - Binary Oppositions

How useful has an ideological critical approach been in understanding binary oppositions in the narrative of Fish Tank?

Todorov’s narrative theory states that following the introductory segments of the film, is a disruption to the established equilibrium, also referred to as the inciting incident by Robert McKee’s 5 part narrative structure. The application of this to Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank brings us to the scene where the character of Connor is introduced. The narrative tension in this scene derives from the opposition of Connor as the strong, and Mia as the weak. The earliest shot of Connor portrays him in a god-like manner - the way the lighting is focused on his bare body accentuates the shadows, emphasising his masculinity through exaggeration of his figure. He is therefore immediately established as dominant, and perhaps also a threat of the unknown to what was previously an all-female household. It is also noteworthy that prior to his introductory shot, was a medium close up of Mia’s waist while she was dancing, sexualising her, and the fact that Connor was silently watching, creates the implication that it was his focus. Arnold’s intent is to challenge the notion of the male gaze, as the spectator is forced to gaze upon Mia, yet the narrative perspective of the film makes us empathise with her, so we become immediately aware of the perverse nature of such objectification. There is no voyeuristic value to the shot, which is fully realised in her costume design; pyjamas that connote a childlike nature, increasing the potency of the immorality of said gaze. This would have the most effect on audiences similar in age, gender, and class of Connor’s character. The medium close up of her waist also serves as a fetishization, breaking down the threat posed by the female. Through this ideological perspective, the opposition of strong vs weak becomes more apparent - it is about Connor’s exploitation of his dominance as the strong over Mia. The effect of his entrance on Mia has pushed her away to the side of the kitchen, up against the wall, while he takes over what she was doing - making tea, portraying her as the passive character.

The opposition of foreign vs domestic is also present. Connor has come as a foreign entity, and is carrying out a role typical for the homeowner, the domestic, underpinning his dominion over the set, almost as if he’s conquered new land, which subsequently victimises Mia, and anchors her vulnerability. An ideological approach to this binary opposition would suggest that both Mia and Connor are conformists to the societal norm of the male to take charge, and the female to sit back and watch. Where the feminist ideological approach comes into play, is in the challenging of these norms. The film is through Mia’s perspective; she is in every scene, and using an example from this scene, the Kuleshov effect informs the spectator what she is looking at - Connor’s bare back. This sutures the spectator into empathising with her struggle to be a dissident against the patriarchy, displayed through her snappy dialogue aimed at Connor ; “what would you know” . Mia is therefore the ideological state apparatus. The suture allows the feminist ideology to be absorbed by the viewer without their knowledge, thus making it less likely for them to reject the ideology, an effective method employed by Arnold. It can therefore be said that film is hegemonic rather than a reflection of reality