Your Film Professor

If you still haven’t seen Disconnect (it had a limited release so I suspect it has flown under the radar for many), do yourself a favor and check it out, and before your read my thoughts on it since, again, I don’t worry about spoilers!

For me, the power of Disconnect (2013, Henry Alex Rubin) stems from it registering not only the truly disturbing “diconnective” nature of our omnipresent technologies (as the film also posits — part of what makes it a complex film — technology can also be profoundly connective) but especially as technology compounds our already self-destructive ideologies (e.g., consumerism, hypermasculinity, etc.) in general.

The film has three loosely connecting threads, the film opening with the Kyle/Nina thread:

Prostituting Self and Others

In the Kyle/Nina thread, we see multiple forms of “disconnecting” elements, the technology element being the least of them. Kyle and the many underage youths he lives with work for Harvey who has set up online sex chat/sex act/stripper sites, beginning a recurring motif of how technology is all too often used for predatory practices. Part of the complexity of this thread is that Harvey, essentially these youths’ pimp, has created a kind of alternative “family” atmosphere, the house he lives in suggesting this (this is indeed “home” for these castoff kids) and the lack of any discernible symptoms of the usual degradation attached to this place (well, relatively speaking—more on this in a moment) also suggests this, e.g., no ostensible signs of physical abuse or intimidation, depression, states of dejection, all of which inform a space (and even a parental figure) that incubates a state of happy commodification for these easily manipulated kids. Indeed, I think it is fair to say (and we hear this from Kyle at the end of the film) that these kids are relatively “happy,” and why not, they are probably runaways who have left abusive situations and could have landed in even worse situations, e.g., on the streets with a less benevolent “pimp.” We also see signs of real bonding between these kids (“Call of Duty in ten minutes”) signifying that despite their exploited conditions, they have found a way to still be “kids,” again relatively speaking. But, then, we get the sickness of the space coming through as well, of course most prominently in the flashes of what these kids do, “prostitute” their bodies online for money, though I think director Rubin also signifies this sickness via the newspapers on the windows (signifying that what is happening in this house has to be hidden), his use of color and lighting (e.g., that goldish color, film noir shadows, grainy filters, etc. all suggesting a kind of “sick” space where shady things are going on) and through that “champagne and caviar” throw off, suggesting not prosperity but rather depravity.

The Root Causes of Commodifying Bodies

So, what does all of this add up to? First, we can see how these kids so badly want a “family” atmosphere, want the bonding and support and comfort that comes with being in a family, even if it means commodifying themselves. And that, then, informs the truly egregious nature of this setting, that Harvey has deviously created a situation that gives these kids a seeming fulfilled feeling (mass commodities substituting for healthy sources of enrichment), to which, then, they can’t see their own state of alienation (commodification, objectification, dehumanization), to the point where they will actually defend their lifestyle, as we see Kyle do at the end of the film. (And, indeed, history has shown this formula to be the most effective way to keep oppressed, exploited people oppressed, keep them happy — obfuscate their enslaved condition — and they will not reject their oppressed state of being!) Finally, what this dehumanizing situation points to is how capitalism and one of its main tentacles, consumerism, creates these situations where kids are commodified for profit (and, in even more heinous ways capitalism creates the sexual trafficking of children all over the world); that is, in short, simply put (this is a complex thing), through its creation of a dog-eat-dog, put profit before people, survival of the fittest sensibility in general (e.g., this defines corporate and wall street power, Harvey functioning in the same way) – intersecting with the way capitalism/consumerism hyper-stimulates desires and appetites (and arguably diminishes empathy)– this sensibility filters down to, permeates all facets of life, to the detriment of all but especially victimizing the most vulnerable in society.

“Social Whores”

In this way, we see just how disconnecting (objectifying, dehumanizing) this way of life is for Kyle, e.g., because he has been so utterly commodified, determined by others, he sees his worth as being a sex object for others. Nina enters the picture as someone who could help him see his degraded (alienated) state of being but instead only commodifies him further by exploiting him for her own purposes. That is, we know that Harvey is exploiting (commodifying, objectifying, dehumanizing) Kyle and his other charges and yet Nina consumes Kyle as much as or more so than Harvey (or, indeed, Kyle’s clients) does, in the sense that at least Harvey is ostensibly giving Kyle something in return, care, housing, monetary recompense. In this context, then, the REAL of Nina and the business she represents is just this, a mercenary, predatory (put profit before people) person/institution. Put more bluntly, Nina consumes Kyle as much as she would have done had she actually purchased his sexual favors! In short, Nina is what Marxist, cultural studies scholar and playwright Bertolt Brecht calls a “social whore,” an individual who sells her or his morality and ethics for gain. In this case, we see that there is also a similarity between Nina and Kyle when it comes to using their bodies (selfs) to get what they want. Moreover, both Harvey and Nina exploit Kyle for their own ends, Harvey using the Internet to “sell” Kyle for sex acts and Nina using her station to “sell” Kyle for a different kind of consumption – for media discourses that also thrive on commodifying, exploiting bodies for gain (e.g., ratings) – one that will advance her career, both elements then speaking to how our technologies are used all too often for the consumption of Others, a deeply disconnecting, impersonal mode of being where bodies are objectified for our consumption, whether that be for sexual pleasure or for our entertainment. The question of course is whether such well-intentioned investigative stories as Nina’s actually promote or provoke real change or whether they merely offer apathetic viewers sensationalistic human interest stories that they can consume for their own self-centered reasons, including their expressions of horror and outrage that then displace (become a substitute for) actual actions that could facilitate change? In any case, when federal authorities get wind of her story, they demand that she acquiesce to giving up Kyle’s contact information, an act of betrayal on Nina’s part especially considering that she won’t actually give him a concrete alternative place to stay (e.g., with her!), a choice she isn’t willing to make for fear of losing her job, making this a choice between her career and Kyle, a choice that is wrenching for her but in the context of all that she will lose (not just her job and career boost but presumably her way of life), she chooses her career, perhaps forever dooming Kyle to a dead-end, life sucking life.

Hypermasculinity as a Disconnecting Norm

With the Derek/Cindy thread we see more clearly just how “disconnecting” technology can be though with this thread as well, we can see ideological norms intersect with technology to create truly dysfunctional ways of being.

In terms of ideological norms, we especially get this with Derek: Derek is our typical hypermasculine man conditioned in life to suppress emotions, which the military not only reinforces but compounds as it attempts to get men to suppress what society (ideology) labels as maternal/feminine attributes. Fighting in a traumatic war probably gave him PTSD or if not, such a traumatic experience potentially creates more internal – and unresolved – pain and turmoil, all suppressed and not discussed with his wife Cindy. On top of all of this, Derek comes back to a soul sucking, mind numbing job where he feels unimportant and alienated, all of which, again, based on the code of the hypermasculine man, has to be lived with and not constructively discussed and changed though, then, this also paradoxically emasculates him. Further compounding all of this, Derek’s interior self is literally wired to solve problems by seeing Others as the “enemy” and then, in a hypermasculine, phallocentric, patriarchal way, violently solve the conflict by attacking them. As we see with all of the ending collisions between characters (played out in an explosive crosscutting climax), it is the males who solve their interior pain and/or guilt and/or anger and/or hate by channeling these emotions into acts of violence, but as the cliché goes violence solves nothing, only makes the situation worse, only furthers the “disconnect.” (In the case of Rich and Mike we get an especially telling moment between men, which I discuss below.) In all of these ways, with this one character, we see how the film gives us yet another form of “disconnect.”

Breaking Free From the Dehumanizing Disconnect of Hypermasculinity

The loss of his son only drives Derek further into himself instead of moving him closer to his wife, who desperately seeks out alternative sources for comfort to her pain in lieu of her husband shutting her out. By Cindy communicating to Derek Stephen’s own pain and suffering — and how he filled the void left by Derek’s absence — this most human of human loss and crucial connection (between Cindy and Stephen) cuts through all of Derek’s hypermasculine programming, making this the most profound of human-to-human contact and connection, a way for Derek to indeed see that he is “not alone” in his suffering, that a hypermasculine, phallic response (now explicitly manifested with the gun in Derek’s hands, a moment where Derek sees both his own pain explicitly manifested and how it gets channeled in such a self-destructive direction, which, in turn, relays to him how self-destructive such a mode of being is in general, self-destructive to him, to his response to conflict, and to his relationship with his wife) a moment where he can confront himself in this moment, have some profound self-awareness of how this hypermasculine way of being is destroying him, in more ways than one, in terms of losing his self to his withdrawal from the world (as professor of philosophy Rahel Jaeggi profoundly gets at, when one loses an investment in the world, one is truly lost) and in the process losing his wife. And, thus, I would say that in this realization Derek took some steps to rejoining humanity, where he was able to substitute his programmed hypermasculine, phallocentric, patriarchal self (SO alienating to him) — again, represented by the gun — for a more “whole” (connecting) human being.

Technologies Compounding Existing Disconnects

Where technology comes in is as a mode of escape for both of them, Derek using it as escape (as we see in the office moment when he watches the whirling chainsaw guy and in him using it for online gambling) and Cindy as an outlet for her grief, discussing her grief with other individuals sharing similar tragedies in their lives, which, by the way, I think is an example of the positive and negative potentialities for technology, her having this option for her pain but also this option possibly moving her in unhealthy directions, the film insinuating that she might perhaps even meet Stephen and have an affair with him. In other words, if these technology avenues didn’t exist, perhaps these two would be forced to deal with their grief and pain with each other, as couples ultimately had to do in the past.

Signs of Ben’s Disconnected State of Being

The most heartbreaking thread in the film is Ben’s narrative. In this narrative, we see the most devastating use of technology. Ben just screams “disconnect” in look, tonalities, and posture. Everything he says and does feels as if he is so turned into himself. To my mind, he really is the center of this film, a product of our times, disconnected from everything around him, including his family, who all live in their own (technology enabling) self-centered worlds, Ben then being a victim of such a self-centered world. More specifically, Ben wears large headphones (signaling his desire to shut himself off from the world), wears his long hair so as to cover a good part of his face, including one eye (signifying his desire to not be seen or see outside himself), and he speaks in a soft voice, almost as if he doesn’t want to be heard, wants to maintain his invisibility. When someone seemingly makes a “connection” with him (e.g., “Jessica Rhony”), it is Ben’s one chance to come out of his “disconnected” shell (those shots of him really coming alive by “Jessica’s” texts are just SO heartbreaking!); of course, finding out that it is all a cruel prank is just all too much for him and he takes the ultimate “disconnecting” act, kill himself (or, ironically – tragically – it is the one thing that actually “connects” him back to others…).

Disconnection Leading to (Self) Destructive Acts

One of the things that makes this film so special is in not villainizing Jason, the ringleader of the two pranksters. Jason too is thoroughly “disconnected” as well. Jason’s alienation stems from his pain, apparently from not fully working through his grief from his mother’s death, as well as not getting the love and warmth and nurturing from his father Mike, which is why that ending moment of Jason and his father embracing was just SO important. For young adolescent males (or adult hypermasculine, phallocentric, patriarchal males as well), pain typically translates into (self) destructive acts, a form of compensation and channeling, which we also get with Jason’s horrible pranks, channeling his pain and suppressed anger (including his anger at a father who doesn’t comfort and nurture and spend quality time with his son) into this (self) destructive acts.

Technology as a Connecting Mechanism

As I suggest above, the one thing that I just love about this film is the way that it doesn’t simplistically just point the finger at technologies as being the primary source of our “disconnect,” but that in fact such technologies can be a profound way of “connecting” as well, as we see with Jason actually “connecting” (via his made up online persona, “Jessica Rhony”) with Ben, and, then, Jason and Rich actually “connecting” with each other as well. In this way, we see how one of the crucial ingredients for “connection” is being not self-centered but opening one’s self up to an inter-connection, technology being a potential enriching mode of sharing and expressing internal feelings.

Fathers (Men) Find a Common Bond

My favorite moment in the film is when the two hypermasculine, patriarchal fathers, Rich and Mike, come together in a complex clash of conflicts: In this moment we see two diametrically opposed potentialities: The two men initially react in a hypermasculine, patriarchal way (which, again, is often how phallocentric men react, channeling their pain and guilt in destructive, violent ways), resolving their pain through disconnecting violence, the hockey stick now not a connecting symbol (sports potentially being a profound way of bringing people together, connecting people) but a phallic symbol used to destroy. But what this film then does in this moment is to my mind just SO profound, Mike reaching out to Rich in a moment of clarity that why this violent moment even happened is because of just how disconnected everyone involved was to each other, both of the fathers to blame for their sons’ acts (Jason’s cruel prank and Ben’s suicide attempt), their hands coming together being Rubin’s (the filmmaker’s) commentary on how only through physical (emotional, psychological, intimate–human) contact can such pain be alleviated, prevented. In other words, this close-up of the two men’s hands coming together is Rubin’s clarion call for all of us to put away our technologies and ideologies (consumerism, individualism, patriarchy, hypermasculinity) and do the only thing that can end the destructive consequences of “disconnection,” REAL human contact, personal interaction! In this context, then, again, in this crosscutting ending climax overall, where we see so much “disconnection,” this hand clasping moment then even registers on a more profound level, speaking to this fundamental lack in all of these threads, how, due to how “disconnected” we are, dehumanized (conflictual, bullying, mercenary, violent) actions are inevitable.

Abby’s Encounter with Dehumanization/Technologization

I also want to touch on one other key moment in Ben’s thread: Ben’s sister Abby is trying to get some release from her own pain (from her brother’s suicide attempt and possible death) by relating her anguish to her friends but technology intrudes on her conveyance (one of her friends can’t resist checking her phone and relating its superficial message), a more telling moment of just how dehumanizing and disconnecting technology is. That is, this moment speaks to how these girls have literally lost their humanity; they are all surface and no depth, living for their self-centered stimulations via texting, and, in effect, an extension of their un-real online personas, more image than real human being. And that is what consumerism does to people, it makes them more self-absorbed and thus drains them of their empathy for Others. They become not unlike an addict; that is, they are so devoid of anything meaningful in their “Selfs” (as Jaeggi says, one has to be meaningfully invested in the world to not be alienated from one’s self) that they then have to fill that void with something to feel anything, which, for addicts, is their choice of addiction but it works the same way for consumerist-technology junkies, needing that constant consumerist/technology “fix” to make them feel good. But, then, as I say, living this kind of a lifestyle, in turn, leads to utter self-absorption, and the ensuing “disconnect” from the real world. In the case of Abby, it takes the trauma of potentially losing her brother to get her to re-connect to what is really important, loved ones, in effect, replacing the authenticity (of human connection) with the artificial (technology-consumerism disconnection).

A Family Re-connects

Finally, like the hand clasping hand moment between Rich and Mike, the other moment that just so powerfully exemplifies the film’s message of our need to “reconnect” to each other is the ending moment (just so powerful because it essentially sums up the theme of the film as well): Whether via technology or via personal contact, the key to “connection” is the investment one puts in bonding with others. Not some token form of communication or contact – as we see with previous Boyd moments, such as the “family” dinner moment – but authentic inter-connection between Selfs. In this way, Rubin gives us one of the few shots of the family together (before this, the family is largely shot with one shots, or in compositions where they are spatially positioned apart or framed with lines disconnecting them), and Rich’s hand touching his son’s body — I just love this touch, SO meaningful (!) — further emphasizes his desire to be “connected” to his son. The daughter’s gesture does not just sum up the Boyd thread but the film in general, her sharing of the earbuds/music is a deeply bonding moment between her and her brother, the DEEP “connection” then being both via technology and via recognizing her brother’s interest, music – symbolizing that she sees and hears him now, a deeply empathetic,  “connective” register – and of course via the body-to-body contact.