#12
Post
by therewillbeblus » Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:48 pm
I hadn't seen this since I think high school when I distinctly remember liking the first story miles beyond the others, and a revisit left me with more or less a similar experience, although one that bridged a greater appreciation for the execution of themes. The fine line between self-preservation and ignorantly complacent self-seeking behavior is explored to interesting ends without defaulting to obnoxious didactics, especially when "self-preservation" is defined on love's opaque terms in the basic core need for self-care and external compassion. "Love's a bitch", or "bad loves", two translations of the title, seems to infer that the ambiguity of love- more specifically, are my actions sourced in another person/thing/value/idea, or actually love for myself masked as the former?- is such an insoluble rhetorical question that diluting our psyche's of all the complex variables stimulating our actions feels to be an unbearable feat and ultimate paradox. Dogs are devoted to man and live by simplified virtues of affection but are also wild animals capable of getting lost in lower-brain violence or other regressive reactivity and dissonant chaos, and Iñárritu finds ways for characters to simplify themselves through this selfish havoc with relativist irony.
I was focused too much on the loose story connectivity aspect the first time around, but I respect how Iñárritu seems to be harmonizing the commonality of this nebulous existential struggle across social contexts. He professes equal parts cynicism, in defaulting to our soiled essences, and hope for rehabilitation, to make choices starting at any moment that have an absolute-value impact on the future without being tied to the past. These tangible markers of love are sometimes all we can do to transmit and find meaning; be they making and giving money, finding a dog under a floor, or sobering up to one's participation in immoral acts and attempting to abolish self-centered control (showing up unwanted to see the daughter) as well as disengage with the system that perpetuates suffering (feihong's 'reveal'). I don't think the intent is for this to clear anyone's conscience, and if anything Iñárritu disrupts any clear path for his characters to look forward at the opportunities that come with such a power of choice, and can't help but demonstrate how one is compelled to reflect on their relationship with the past, which can't be traversed. There's a gravity to the necessity and magnetic pull of certain structures and drives (socioeconomic disparities prompting moral sacrifice, expectations dependent on circumstances and superficialities affecting devotion and love more than the individuality of the loved one; self-pity and refusal to accept life on life's terms clouding one's ability to transform into the person who really deserves the love they seek) that Iñárritu doesn't just acknowledge but validates characters for defaulting to them.
However, it's important to note that his characters use resources from and rely on the systems that exploit their natures to to try to break free from these natures, a contradictory cycle that includes succumbing to them. Octavio engages in unethical systems of economics and involves himself in facilitating criminal acts against his brother to get what he wants, and later continues to pine selfishly, simplifying the situation that's complex to Susana, honing in on his own core of self-gain and ignoring cultural, systemic, and (most significantly) his love interest's own subjective barriers to try to desperately liberate himself from the forces that perpetuate his nature, even though it's coming from within. El Chivo does something similar in his very aggressive act to leave it all behind- he's actively and passionately manipulating the situation and even if the ritual is one of cleansing himself, it's entirely rooted in using these violent behaviors founded in self-will-run-riot to achieve a sense of catharsis that he can't find where he most desires to get it. Instead of this serving as a "washes his hands of it and leaves with his conscience finally clear" moment of clarity, he finds that no singular epiphany (or makeover) can keep him from that drive toward indulging one's own victimization based on an inability to accept the past, and the present based on that past. These bitter ironies of anti-character development all adds to this grey portrait of human nature, but through it all I still find the film more interesting to think about than to watch.
