Binary Oppositions - Fish Tank and Kevin

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 he was partaking in scopophilia.

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. 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 viewer experiences a similar power struggle in Lynne Ramsay’s We Need To Talk About Kevin. Eva, the mother, is fighting a constant battle with her son, Kevin, over one’s obedience to the other. One of the few times she seems to achieve a victory over him is during the Robin Hood book reading scene. Kevin’s psychotic and temperamental characteristic has led to what seems like a resolution in the conflict between the two character’s, which is in fact, far from resolved - this point in the film is only at the second act.  In a scene where Eva is the dominant in the binary opposition of dominant vs assertive, she and Kevin are finally living in harmony, which has enabled the expression of the maternal role. The ideological message derived from the aforementioned equilibrium is that it is ‘right’ for the parent to be the dominant one. We see throughout the film how Eva fluctuates between appearing more masculine or feminine, linking to Doanne’s theory of the performed quality of femininity, how womanliness is a mask either worn or removed. During this scene, the faded colour of her beige top, lack of any womanly makeup e.g. redder lips/eye shadow or anything that accentuates the lashes/brows, as well as short hair (not too dissimilar to Kevin’s hair) makes her seem more masculine. The implication of such masculinity is that Eva is merely pretending to be a caring mother, and in reality is antipathetic towards Kevin. This behaviour is mirrored by him, as while he acts as a normal boy in the scene, displayed through stereotypically boyish and childlike pyjamas (blue with robots), the argument could be made that this incongruous behaviour is only as a result of his lowered defences now that he is ill, and so he needs to have someone to depend on. This brief rest in the opposition between Kevin and Eva has helped the spectator understand the layered nature of their relationship - they will only ever resolve their issues through acting as a normal mother and son.

In the same scene, a product of Kevin’s likening to his mother is a subsequent hostility towards his father. When Franklin enters the room, the proxemics has put Kevin and Eva at one end, physically close to one another, with Franklin being separated from them. This is a physical representation of how Kevin views his father - as a foreign entity that threatens the intimacy he has with his mother. This is also a progression in the Oedipal trajectory that Kevin undergoes - at this stage, we see a supposed jealousy of the father, who has lawful sexual access to the mother. It is also worth noting that it is Kevin’s room which Franklin enters, and so the hostility directed at him can be interpreted as the animalistic tendency to protect one’s territory, and so Kevin is to some extent , dehumanised, or portrayed as less evolved. This is supported by Lombroso’s theory of the criminal man (which Kevin later becomes) who is more likely to display more primal behaviour. The subconscious sexual desire posed by the Oedipal trajectory is expressed through the fact that the Kevin and Eva are sitting on his bed, connoting sexual congress.

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” . Arnold therefore employs Mia to be the ideological state apparatus for her feminist views . 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.