Michael (Markus Schleinzer, 2012)

[Mr Sausage]

You say that Michael observes social boundaries so that he may fit in but then breaks them when he feels like it; you and other people do the same thing, therefore it's a comment on our general disposition to ignore social mores when we feel like it and the consequences of that. But that's a reductionism. It treats all boundary crossing as equivalent, which pragmatically and morally isn't true, and it elides the actual problem: what's really wrong is not the fact that Michael is breaking a rule or going against a social taboo, it's that he takes pleasure in the suffering of another human being.

Well again, in drawing parallels I don't mean to diminish the severity of child abuse, or to equate what Michael does in this film with simple boundary crossing or white lies that we all tell. And I certainly don't mean to say that I can simplify his issues into ones comparable to my own, and therefore understand what makes him the way he is. I was only trying to convey that, when confronted with a movie like this, I can respond in a number of ways--I can be disgusted and write the film off, I can be thrilled by the film in a way that is perhaps insensitive to people who face things like this in real life, or I can take the opportunity to reflect on my own life and genuinely ask myself if I recognize even a scintilla of the ugliness portrayed on screen in myself. I don't say this to be self-righteous (and I'm not necessarily going to change my life or anything specifically as a result of having watched Michael) but whenever a film puts me in a mind to better myself, I consider this a plus.

That seems a pretty normal reaction, actually, to try to find something redeeming about a horrific thing, some way of improving your life through it. This is getting away from the film (balancing it, even). But I don't know that it's worth drawing these parallels. I prefer to treat the movie clinically, as a precisely observed psychological portrait. I'd rather keep the movie and its main character at arms length and not try to see myself in any of it.

[zedz]

This has been a really interesting discussion, but a lot of the repsonses to the film seem to be wildly different from my own. One of the things I found remarkable is that for me it completely avoided the Norman Bates situation. Even though Michael was the only viable protagonist in the movie, I never for a moment sided with him, even contingently. I was even conscious while watching the film that it was actually quite an achievement for a scene like the casually intruding workmate one to play the way it did (for me): I was hoping the intrusion - or the suspicion his response engendered - would trigger discovery and an ending of the situation. Considering how much Michael dominates the film, I thought it was interesting that there wasn't even a residue of reflex identification with him, and realized that this was actually quite a rare thing in criminal-focussed films (even in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer we have an even more odious figure than Henry in the form of Otis, and Becky's there as a relatable figure). But I wasn't counting on all these other readings.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I think it is essential to understand the points and attributes we share with someone deeply disturbed in order to effect change and rehabilitation, so I agree with swo17 that it's not inappropriate--that it is in fact crucial--to look at Michael as he interacts with coworkers and family and say to oneself, "I find myself doing the same thing," even though all of Michael's decisions are geared toward facilitating a monstrous deceit. And this even goes so far as recognizing oddly normative behavior around Wolfgang, as colinr0380 points out earlier. I would dislike this film intensely if it took the We Need to Talk About Kevin tack, in which an equally disturbed individual is made out to be something totally remote from you or me, something monstrous, impenetrable, or cartoonishly sinister. I think it is far worse and potentially more harmful to fence ourselves from an atrocity by never daring to imagine the ways in which an individual like this one can function inconspicuously in a world we all share. I don't mind being implicated in this regard; I think we all have a lot to learn when it comes to understanding this kind of terrible sickness. I think it's this complicity that helps us avoid more exploitative, Gothic, or generically suspenseful versions of a story like this one--what david hare understandably deplores.

A few more points.

First, sorry to disappoint you gcgiles1dollarbin, but there's as yet been no evidence that psychopaths can be changed or rehabilitated. The best we can presently hope for is that some -- but not all -- mellow out a bit around middle age for no known reason. Doctors are currently experimenting with early invention in so-called callous-unemotional youths. But that work is very early on and rough going and there's no significant data yet. (See that NYT feature I mentioned if you're curious for more.) On a personal note, I have a good friend who worked on a documentary in which some of the most high profile killers at San Quentin partook in group therapy sessions. To a one, he said they were faking it, but expertly so. And the scarier the criminal the more convincing his transformation -- Joe Hunt, for instance, seemed superficially more improved than one of the Menendez Brothers. Therapy just doesn't seem to work for psychopaths except as "training" for rehearsing normalcy.

Second, the answer to how an "individual like this one can function inconspicuously in a world we all share" is because that's the nature of psychopathy. To pass for a normally empathetic human when one is anything but. And it's also because the truth about the condition is widely misunderstood, as is evidenced by its portrayal in most popular media and many of the reactions here that I'm taking issue with.

I don't think you're sorry at all! I can only take your word for it that you have some expertise on this matter, but your take on this is awfully tidy and amounts to a refusal to deal with pedophilia as it may or may not develop in human beings. Are all pedophiles psychopaths, and as such, worth no more than permanent incarceration and total disregard? Have we really exhausted our efforts to understand the problem? Is a future pedophile an immediately fully formed individual who is incorrigibly evil? Are high-profile murderers and pedophiles simply "psychopaths" and no longer worth distinguishing beyond that slippery DSM-IV nomenclature? Isn't there a way in which society or institutions contribute to this that may implicate all of us (for example, the Catholic Church and its tacit tolerance for child rape and molestation)? Doesn't this, at the very least, complicate the diagnosis and bring societal responsibility into the equation--a responsibility that reaches beyond incarceration, which if anything, only breeds killers and sociopaths, judging by recidivist rates? Most importantly, can I make a point without turning it into a question?

[warren oates]

Thank you, zedz, for saying all that better than I could have. Your references to Psycho and Henry: Potrait of A Serial Killer are spot on. And not to beat a dead horse but: Is there anyone out there who legitimately believes Michael to be a psychopath, fully understands what that means in all its implications, and still claims to have identified with Michael even for just one scene?

[warren oates]

don't think you're sorry at all! I can only take your word for it that you have some expertise on this matter, but your take on this is awfully tidy and amounts to a refusal to deal with pedophilia as it may or may not develop in human beings. Are all pedophiles psychopaths, and as such, worth no more than permanent incarceration and total disregard? Have we really exhausted our efforts to understand the problem? Is a future pedophile an immediately fully formed individual who is incorrigibly evil? Are high-profile murderers and pedophiles simply "psychopaths" and no longer worth distinguishing beyond that slippery DSM-IV nomenclature? Isn't there a way in which society or institutions contribute to this that may implicate all of us (for example, the Catholic Church and its tacit tolerance for child rape and molestation)? Doesn't this, at the very least, complicate the diagnosis and bring societal responsibility into the equation--a responsibility that reaches beyond incarceration, which if anything, only breeds killers and sociopaths, judging by recidivist rates? Most importantly, can I make a point without turning it into a question?

No, obviously, not all pedophiles are psychopaths. (Have a closer look at some of my previous posts above.) But Michael certainly is. The film isn't about pedophilia, but about the actions of one psychopathic child predator. But if you want to understand whether a desire like child lust, once it's hardwired into the brain, can ever be undone have a look at Sylvere Lotringer's book Overexposed. I'm not sure that a pedophile's desire to ravage young children is any more malleable than, for instance, someone with objectophilia's love for a roller coaster, a statue or a car. It's just that in the object-lover's case, it's usually a victimless crime (trespassing at best). But that doesn't mean that all pedophiles act on their desires or that all of them who do act are as disconnected from the pain they're causing as Michael or as likely to take the extreme step of imprisoning and totally controlling their victims.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I understand what you’re saying, but I still think it is too hasty to assume that Michael is a psychopath. Among the factors listed in Robert Hare’s psychopathy checklist—what has been, recently at least, the most frequently used diagnostic tool in identifying psychopaths—are an inflated self-esteem (Michael was more of a self-effacing nebbish), reckless lifestyle (including a professional instability that Michael clearly doesn’t suffer from), and an impulsivity that does not correspond to the painstaking measures Michael used to conceal what he has done. It remains arguable, but it isn't obvious. Perhaps one professional psychopathologist would diagnose Michael this way, while another wouldn’t; ultimately, pathologizing a fictional character after 90 minutes does not obviate the fact that we live in a world where this kind of behavior can be fully developed into adulthood, albeit secretly. While it is more comforting to dismiss Michael as a cut-and-dry psychopath (read: monster), I don’t think it is that easy to label the protagonist that way; there is far more ambiguity in his characterization, and this is one of the reasons why the film was so powerful. We are not meant to identify with his sickness (I don’t think anyone wants to see the movie in which this is the object), but the banality and fine-tuned regulation of his life is, judging by the deadpan manner of Schleinzer’s mise-en-scène, meant to appear jarringly familiar and quotidian. There is an ugly seam between these two aspects that, sadly enough, depends on the child victim’s resilience (hot water to the face)—not police procedure or family members or society at large—for a satisfying disruption, and this makes the situation that much more atrocious: it can easily subsist in our world. (Thanks for the book recommendation, btw! I'll take a gander. And I'll let you have the last word, if you wish.)

[warren oates]

I understand what you’re saying, but I still think it is too hasty to assume that Michael is a psychopath. Among the factors listed in Robert Hare’s psychopathy checklist—what has been, recently at least, the most frequently used diagnostic tool in identifying psychopaths—are an inflated self-esteem (Michael was more of a self-effacing nebbish), reckless lifestyle (including a professional instability that Michael clearly doesn’t suffer from), and an impulsivity that does not correspond to the painstaking measures Michael used to conceal what he has done. It remains arguable, but it isn't obvious. Perhaps one professional psychopathologist would diagnose Michael this way, while another wouldn’t; ultimately, pathologizing a fictional character after 90 minutes does not obviate the fact that we live in a world where this kind of behavior can be fully developed into adulthood, albeit secretly. While it is more comforting to dismiss Michael as a cut-and-dry psychopath (read: monster), I don’t think it is that easy to label the protagonist that way; there is far more ambiguity in his characterization, and this is one of the reasons why the film was so powerful. We are not meant to identify with his sickness (I don’t think anyone wants to see the movie in which this is the object), but the banality and fine-tuned regulation of his life is, judging by the deadpan manner of Schleinzer’s mise-en-scène, meant to appear jarringly familiar and quotidian. There is an ugly seam between these two aspects that, sadly enough, depends on the child victim’s resilience (hot water to the face)—not police procedure or family members or society at large—for a satisfying disruption, and this makes the situation that much more atrocious: it can easily subsist in our world. (Thanks for the book recommendation, btw! I'll take a gander. And I'll let you have the last word, if you wish.)

Please by all means don't "let" me have the last word. If there's more to discuss, keep discussing. I'll start near the end of your post: I agree with most everything you've written after "We are not meant to identify..."

About whether categorizing Michael as a psychopath equals a move to "dismiss" him, I must obviously disagree strenuously. There's nothing reductive in an accurate diagnosis. I'm not pathologizing him. I'm describing his extent pathology with the most apt term available. Nor do I ever conflate psychopathy with a word like "monster" (just the opposite if you'll look at my posts). Though I will cop to using "evil" to describe his behavior.

On to some of your specific points:

"...does not obviate the fact that we live in a world where this kind of behavior can be fully developed into adulthood, albeit secretly." There's nothing to say about this except read that recent NYT feature on childhood psychopaths. It's most decidedly not the fault of their environment, which is why I keep trying to explain that psychopathy is a special case. Nobody keeps a kid in his basement because his mum didn't love him enough.

Hare isn't the end all-be all, but okay, is Michael a psychopath according to Hare's checklist? I don't have the full document handy. But you've cherry picked a few that may not fit and ignored a number of the most prominent factors in the checklist, including most of the well-known ones we've been talking about already: pathological lying, cunning/manipulative, shallow affect (hey, doesn't the ENTIRE FILM have this symptom?), lack of remorse/guilt, callousness/lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility for one's actions... And you're also probably misunderstanding a few of the characteristics you take to be absent. Grandiose self worth doesn't necessarily track to extroverted charisma or largeness of personality. (For instance, The BTK killer was as much of a narcissist as Ted Bundy, but he was more introverted and less charismatic so the trait presented differently.) I'd argue that it's Michael's incredible narcissism that's at the heart of what I initially, mistakenly took to be the least necessary scene in the film

Spoiler

where the overconfident and underskilled powder skier can't believe he's stuck in the snow. The nerve of Mother Nature to get in his way like this!

It seems as if at this point our disagreement may be more about our respective wordviews than what's in the movie. I was once like you. I used to live in a world where all problems could be solved or prevented by the judicious application of thoughtful social responsibility and liberal lovingkindness. But through experience and study I've come to conclude that not all individuals can be reasoned with or rehabilitated. And not all bad people are just inherently good people who got on the wrong track somewhere (bad parenting, bad neighborhoods, etc.). For me this knowledge is far from reductive and it's not at all comforting. I'd rather live in a world where anyone who might do me harm at least has that kernel of potential goodness -- let's call it human empathy -- deep inside somewhere, waiting to be kindled by the right societal forces. I'm very sorry that I don't live in that world and I fear that you don't either whether you want to admit it or not.

[warren oates]

The shocking revelations of the Cleveland kidnapping case continue to pour out, but one in particular made me think of this film. Apparently, a routine traffic stop a few years ago could easily have put the suspect, Ariel Castro, in jail -- though he got off with a ticket. Meanwhile, as with Michael's unintended trip to the hospital, his locked-up victims would have been left to fend for themselves indefinitely. There's also Castro's mundane job (school bus driver) and seemingly normal outside life, complete with well-developed hobbies (musician) and routine social interaction with neighbors (he barbecued with one of the guys who kicked the door in). And of course his blacked-out, boarded-up windows and basement prison.