Your Film Professor

A Brief Thought on Sofia Coppola

To my mind, Sofia Coppola is one of the most underrated contemporary filmmakers creating films today. Excepting the highly lauded Lost in Translation, my sense is that people (critics and spectators alike) don’t entirely appreciate Coppola’s work (The Beguiled notwithstanding–I thought her latest was pretty weak, terribly underdeveloped). I think that is in part due to her distancing (Brecht’s alienation effect) style of filmmaking. Coppola has acknowledged her appreciation of the French New Wave, modernist filmmakers who believed that to really challenge the dominant social order, filmmakers needed to use a style of filmmaking that is self-reflexive (calling attention to the cinematic apparatus). In short, simply put, the French New Wave believed that the classical Hollywood style (e.g., the style we see every day with mainstream cinema) – a style of filmmaking that “sutures” spectators into the film world, never calling attention to the fact that they are watching a film – created passive viewers while a self-reflexive style – one that forced spectators to be aware that they are watching a film – created active viewers. (And, by the way, this is basically true but not the end of the story!) Now, while Coppola doesn’t go full self-reflexive in her work, she nonetheless utilizes this essential strategy to somewhat keep spectators at bay (e.g., keep them “active” viewers). She does this through (to name just a few key strategies) jarring cuts, jarring use of music, direct address shots (breaking the fourth wall), jarring montages and repetition that interrupts the flow of the narrative and that also creates didactic (political) commentary, long takes, all of which never allows for the usual melodramatic suturing that spectators crave. One other point: To my mind, one of the things that I find so striking in The Bling Ring is how dull she makes this world of hedonistic celebrity worship and consumerism. It reminds me of the novel American Psycho, where author Brett Easton Ellis so permeates the narrative (well, loosely speaking!) with over-the-top consumerism that the equally over-the-top horrific graphic details of serial killer Patrick Bateman’s murders become not shocking but utterly banal. In this way, Ellis utterly drains any possibility of making Bateman’s monstrous acts titillating (as well as making a political connection/commentary between consumerism and serial killing). I suspect that is why Coppola chose to inundate us over and over again with the consumerist images she gives us, as a way of draining any sexiness out of the images.

A Consumerist “Reality”/Celebrity Culture Fills the Void

To my mind, The Bling Ring is one of the most important anti-consumerist films ever made, Coppola didactically revealing just how dehumanizing consumerism is. Our consumerist, “celebrity culture” (e.g., the upper class royalty of today) is breeding a whole generation of young people who are “disconnected” from any sense of a centered, “authentic” self, a self built on some form of enrichment, an enrichment that is based on some deeper meaning, purpose, direction in life. Instead, emptied of something real in their life, they fill themselves up with the unreal, consumerist “celebrity” signifiers that are literally only skin deep, e.g., they live instead for surface brandings that have no meaning whatsoever. That is, due to an internalized consumerist (“celebrity culture”) identity formation, too many people are literally internalizing consumerist, “celebrity culture” ways of being, e.g., living a celebrity lifestyle, pursuing fame as a way of being, equating identity with name brand associations, and so on. For young people coming of age, this is especially dangerous; lacking any countering healthy influences in life (indeed, the lack of such positive role models/influences are a primary cause for consumerist identity formations), young people will fill themselves up with these permeating consumerist/”celebrity culture” assaults on their identity, and our capitalistic society is awash in such bombarding influences on us – an easy way to make massive profits – in so many ways, virtually every day.

We have essentially two core factors that create these seriously disordered consumerist identity youths: The first one is neglectful and/or complicit parents who, because they don’t instill in their kids a healthy identity formation, leave their kids to the mercy of the many ideological forces that prey on them (more on this element below). Intersecting this element are two key ideologies, capitalism and consumerism. In terms of capitalism, we see how this ideology creates a putting profit before people norm, e.g., powerful interests will make a profit however they can, including marketing to young people, who are especially susceptible to marketing influences. (Of course, the grounding here compounds this capitalism element as capitalism is all about the lures of upper class privilege and entitlement, not to mention that being upper class means having all of the image and status symbols that come with wealth and the hedonist lifestyle that is so sexily attached to it.) In terms of consumerism, again, we see how a “celebrity culture” and name brand status and image symbols are especially marketed to be consumed by young people who are looking for identity formations, which consumerism gives them however utterly emptied of meaning such formations are.

Conditioning Young People to Consume Others and the Self

Most disturbing is this deeper implication: What consumerism normalizes is the act of consuming itself. Part of consumerism’s messaging is a stress on consuming, which means people — young people in this case — constantly feeding their image and status appetites, buying image and name brand (status) commodities that are constantly being posited as the means to this status and image end. Celebrity culture consumerism does something even more malignant, encouraging the consumption of celebrities, turning human beings into fetishized objects (commodities) to be consumed. Part of the complexity of this consumerist formation is how young people see celebrities as Others to be worshiped and adulated, making them mirror images of themselves, a deeply disturbing scenario where young people (or people in general) begin a formation of self-absorption, where in the process of adoring celebrities, via seeing themselves in that celebrity formation, begin to adore themselves. This development, though, comes full circle as in this process, they end up then commodifying (festishizing) themselves. (Hang with me here, I think this idea becomes clear with the images below.) Finally, part of this (self) destructive consumerist mode of being is also adopting the hedonistic (consumption) lifestyle of celebrities, which is especially devastating for young people whose impulse is already towards filling their appetites.

Shopping for Shopping Sake

Perhaps nothing exemplifies what I convey above than this idea: The “bling ring” crew get these huge hauls from their robberies and yet they still find the compulsion to go shopping! That of course speaks to the need to go shopping, shopping for shopping sake, a way for them to feel good in the moment, not unlike the endorphin rush of gambling, drugs, eating, etc. (This is a real issue with many [most?] people in this country, where they don’t have an inner sense of fulfillment, where they have to feel good about themselves – or be happy – via a constant series of stimulation fixes.) But it isn’t just shopping per se it is a specific and coordinated shopping, shopping for the next stimulation rush of designer, name brand commodities. And since this is the spike of happiness that is all there is in their life, they have to keep filling it, keep shopping!

Nicki the “Spiritual Leader”

We especially see this consumerist identity formation with the character Nicki, who can only see herself in consumerist terms. In an interview sequence (“Kate from Vanity Fair” interviews Nicki), we especially see how Coppola informs Nicki’s consumerist identity formation. First, Coppola gives us a striking “mirroring” of Laurie, Nicki’s mom, and Nicki, Coppola emphasizing that this is as least partly or largely a conditioned behavior. Second, though, with this moment we get a really crucial point, how such a way of being – e.g., internalizing consumerist, celebrity culture narratives, slogans, marketing, advertising, etc. (and, again, I include such marketed “self-help” blather as “The Secret”–more on this in a moment) – literally leads to creating an alternative “reality” that adheres to one’s sense of self. That is, in this interview sequence Nicki sees herself as a “spiritual human being,” an “old soul,” and that it is her “journey…to push for peace and the health of the planet,” that her “main goal” is to be a “humanitarian” and a “leader” who “takes a stand for people.” In this interview, we can see how Nicki has internalized the language of “The Secret” — reinforced by proponents of this self-help consumerism, such as her mother — what amounts to mimicking what she has heard, projecting how she thinks she can garner respect and admiration from others, which amounts to both a mode of deflection from her criminal charges and a complementary piece of her celebrity status, since celebrities constantly have to also project an image of humanitarianism, something that Nicki is cognizant of. The thing is, though, Nicki isn’t lying when she says all of this nonsensical empty rhetoric — she is not going to do any of these things — rather, she actually has to create a delusional reality to fit her sense of (a consumerist, “celebrity”) self. Add in what is almost certainly a narcissistic personality disorder – and here too narcissists have to create their own reality so as to believe they are loved and adulated and seen as important by everyone else – and we have a toxic self who literally lives a delusional “reality.” Such a delusional “reality” is a truly self-destructive way of being since that means Nicki can never see her loss of self and thus can never enact change that will remove her self from such a destructive, alienated way of being.

Nicki’s Criminality Equating to Becoming a “Celebrity”

Perhaps most disturbing is that not only was Nicki not held accountable for her stealing, she actually ended up benefiting from this experience: It made her famous; it made her a “celebrity,” even if for only a fleeting moment. This is the insanity of our (capitalist, consumerist) way of being, where fame has become a coveted thing and it doesn’t matter how one gets it. When people don’t have the talent to get that fame through “normal” ways (e.g., via acting, sports, etc.) they will get it however they can, through doing crazy things or truly immoral or unethical things or even criminal acts. As we see throughout the film, the “bling ring” crew will not only appropriate “celebrity culture,” creating the illusion of being a “celebrity” (via appropriating and wearing their name brand consumerist stuff) but they can’t help but do something incredibly stupid, advertise their criminal deeds to the world, because in their relatively small circle, they are “celebrities” for their “bling ring” escapades, which, in turn, gives them a false sense of being adulated. As Marc says at one point, “When we went out, we got in everywhere and everyone loved us.” When they get arrested, then, this becomes just one more way to exploit their newfound infamy, to capitalize on it and become bonafide “celebrities.” Because of our societal reinforcement of their “celebrity” status, they learn nothing and only fall deeper into their delusional state of (alienated) being.

Moreover, Nicki’s prison time was short and she shared a prison with Lindsay Lohan, reinforcing in her twisted brain that she was like Lindsay Lohan and of course that is not a bad thing. Most crucially, because of Nicki’s mentally disordered state of mind (e.g., her consumerist, “celebrity culture” identity formation), she is literally incapable of self-awareness, self-introspection, self-realization, self-determination, self-improvement; instead, she is a slave to her need for celebrity status and image, and, again, in her narcissism, a slave to self-adulation, all of which means that she will create her own delusional “reality” rather than let “reality” dictate her being, e.g., let the “truth” take her to painful realizations. In this way, she will never change, but, rather, she will always be stuck in a self-defeating, alienation loop.

Rebecca’s Narcissism

Perhaps the character who most illustrates the disturbing nature of this consumerist identity formation is Rebecca. I think the best way to illustrate this consumerist identity formation is via an extraordinary, and, to me, chilling moment in the film. This moment comes when the “bling ring” break into Lindsay Lohan’s home. Lindsay is Rebecca’s ultimate celebrity; she literally worships the ground Lindsay walks on, as we see towards the end of the film when Rebecca is more lighted up by hearing what Lindsay had to say about her breaking into her place than she is concerned about her serious situation! At one point during their break-in of Lindsay’s home, Coppola gives us a shot of Rebecca looking at herself in a mirror in Lindsay’s bedroom, such a telling moment, made so by the way Coppola films it, using a subtle slow motion and just the most subtle use of sound that I can only describe as thoroughly ominous. I use the term “worship” particularly, since, to my mind, this moment speaks to a twisted sort of reverence moment though with a monumental twist. One of the reasons why I think Rebecca is a narcissist is because of this moment specifically: At first, I thought that this moment was just some simple twisted “divinity” moment for Rebecca, her being in Lindsay’s home (and, more intimately, her bedroom), her using Lindsay’s perfume, her looking at herself in Lindsay’s mirror. All of these signifiers give Rebecca something of a feeling of the same euphoria that religious divinity gives to devotees, the point being then that this is how dehumanized Rebecca has become, that her devotion to Lindsay runs this deep. And while I think all of this is true, I think there is something even more disturbing going on in this moment: The way that Rebecca looks at herself in the mirror makes me think of the actual Narcissus Greek myth, where the Narcissistic Personality Disorder gets its name: The figure Narcissus looks at himself in a lake and falls in love with himself; when he discovers that it is himself he has fallen in love with “he dies out of grief for having fallen in love with someone that did not exist outside of himself.” Like Narcissus, in this moment of supreme exaltation from being infused with the essence of Lindsay (being in the presence of Lindsay, seeing herself in the image of Lindsay) – Rebecca’s supreme moment of being – she looks in the mirror and falls in love with herself so to speak; or, rather, we see in this moment of divine adulation of (her) self, that she is the only person she can ever love, since no one could achieve this level of reverence for her and that can only be a kind of “death,” a spiritual “death” so to speak. Nothing or no moment in cinema can sum up the devastating nature of consumerism than this moment.

Rebecca’s Loss of Reality

As I mention above, a second moment punctuates Rebecca’s lostness. After being caught and incarcerated, at one point in the interrogation, the officer mentions that he had talked to Lindsay about her being robbed. Even in the face of severe consequences, Rebecca is still fixated on, thoroughly jazzed up about being directly connected to her hero Lindsay Lohan! This reveals the depth of her fixation on this celebrity culture, to the point where she places more importance on being in Lindsay’s constellation than she does her self. In this context, again, we can see an extremely disturbing and complex issue here, how when one internalizes a consumerist, celebrity culture identity formation, one loses those “reality” anchors that keep us grounded in the real world. In this case, “incarceration” and all of the negative connotations associated with this sensibility literally does not have meaning for Rebecca. Instead, her fantasy world of “celebrity culture” is so internalized that she can only frame her “reality” in those terms, in effect, creating her own “reality” where even being incarcerated is only deemed as an avenue to her hero Lindsay Lohan!

Rebecca’s Sociopathy

Finally, registering not only Rebecca’s narcissism (her inability to love anyone but her self), we get a moment where we see just how sociopathic Rebecca is, which is not surprising since narcissists have a low degree to zero degree empathy. That is, with her relationship with Marc, we can see just how predatory Rebecca is, e.g., she feigns sincere interest in Marc but ultimately is wholly measuring him for her own selfish needs and ends, beginning the process of exploiting his “weaknesses” for her own gain. Again, because Rebecca is narcissistic, she is literally incapable of forming healthy give-and-take relationships. She can only take. That probably comes from her upbringing (severe parental neglect can cause this condition) though there is more and more research that suggests consumerism can both compound narcissism and perhaps even cause it. Tim Kasser says, “Social critics and psychologists have often suggested that consumer culture breeds a narcissistic personality by focusing individuals on the glorification of consumption” (The High Price of Materialism, 2002: 12). Kasser goes on to discuss just how dehumanizing consumerism can be:

“When people place a strong emphasis on consuming and buying, earning and spending, thinking of the monetary worth of things, and thinking of things a great deal of time, they may also become more likely to treat people like things. Philosopher Martin Buber referred to this interpersonal stance as I-It relationships, in which others’ qualities, subjective experience, feelings, and desires are ignored, seen as unimportant, or viewed only in terms of their usefulness to oneself. In such relationships, other people become reduced to objects, little different from products that may be purchased, used, and discarded as necessary (The High Price of Materialism, 2002: 67).

This quote by Kasser perfectly captures the way that Rebecca objectifies and uses Marc. In this context, we can see Rebecca as a kind of “Frankenstein’s Monster,” created by this consumerist (celebrity) culture.

Chloe’s Bad Girl Image

In one disturbing moment, Chloe gets in a bad car accident (her alcohol level was “off the charts”) but after being released we can see that she has learned nothing. As we have seen previously, Chloe likens herself to a “bad girl” consumerist image. This self-destructive behavior is also part and parcel of the celebrity lifestyle, e.g., these kids get nothing in the way of the magnitude of their destructive behavior; indeed, the consequences of Chloe’s behavior (the trauma of getting slammed into; incarceration; punishment) gives Chloe zero pause, her ready to go partying again soon after her release. But then this is what they see with such celebrities as Lindsay Lohan, who do (self) destructive acts, get thrown in jail but then go straight back to their bad behavior, their privileged lifestyle allowing for no real accountability. It is an altogether toxic recipe for (self) destructive behavior: a sense of entitlement, emulation of a “bad girl” celebrity lifestyle, and a lack of parental investment in kids. In terms of the latter, parents do not invest their kids with those elements that make them caring and evolving human beings, empathy, a sense of right and wrong, accountability, and so on. Of all of the “bling ring” crew, I think Chloe is the one who most tries to project a “bad girl” image, which she will project even after such a disturbing horrific accident and arrest! For most individuals who have an iota of self-awareness and morality, such an incident would have been an eye opening, life changing wake-up call, but for Chloe, who is so deeply ensnared by her consumerist, “celebrity culture” (“bad girl”) image, she will merely work this incident into her sense of self, making it a testament of her “bad girl” self instead of using it as a pivot to a badly needed life style change.

The Real of The Bling Ring’s Way of Being

At various points in the film, Coppola gives us moments that strip away any signs of the potential for making the bling ring’s exploits sexy, darker moments that spell out their criminality, like the mug shot of Chloe above. I think two moments especially stand out, the moment when Marc fences stolen watches and especially the break-in of Audrina Patridge‘s home. I’ll touch on the fencing moment below. I want to especially focus on the Audrina home break-in, a break-in that Coppola films in a very peculiar and singular way.

Unlike the previous sequences of the kids’ break-ins – where it might be all too tempting to get caught up in their exhilarating consumption of the really gluttonous amount of commodities in these celebrities’ houses – here we don’t get that possibility, Coppola keeping us out, forcing us to just be distant observers. In my view, this change of view speaks to Coppola giving us the stripped down reality of who these kids really are: criminals. That is, again, whenever we are in the houses with them, watching them consume these celebrities’ commodities, joyfully indulging their desires and appetites, we can almost get caught up in their thrill of this indulgence and thus we can almost understand why they are doing it. But when Coppola gives us them stealing in this stripped down perspective (see image below), from the outside, with no electrifying music playing, no adrenaline rush exchanges between the kids, we see their behavior and actions for what it really is, kids robbing Others, with no regards for the people they are robbing. In this way, Coppola drains their actions of any titillation.

Irresponsible Parenting/Law of Attraction

The thing that I love about Coppola’s commentary in the film is that she doesn’t just condemn these superficial kids – or even primarily condemn these kids – but more so trains her critical eye (camera) on the obscene excess and superficiality of celebrity culture and the utterly “vapid” (meaningless, purposeless, directionless, lifeless) lifestyle of middle class suburbanites. In my view, in the little bit of what I learned in my research (and, admittedly I could be wrong about this), this “Law of Attraction” belief system of Nicki’s mother Laurie is one of many such consumerist self-help pitches that are marketed and sold to the well-to-do in this country, book shelves and Internet sites permeated with junk “self-help” formulas and shallow belief systems (not to mention get rich schemes!), all of which are marketed to the middle and upper classes who are devoid of meaning in their lives. In this sense, these schemes are a marker of the real of our American way of life (e.g., the “American Dream”); that is, this hyper-emphasis on status, image, material possessions, wealth accumulation, stimulation fixes (not just drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, but also shopping, celebrity culture, consumerism in general, media and technology stimulations, etc.), and so on has created a “monster” in the form of what we see in this film, people utterly devoid of anything meaningful in their lives, and on some level they know it, which, in turn, leads them to seek out ways to fill the emptiness of their existence, usually though through filling it with empty options that just make their lives even more empty.

Angelina Jolie (Parenting Reinforcing Consumerist Appeals)

Further complementing this emptied of meaning, surface level belief system (e.g., “Law of Attraction”), parents such as Laurie worship at the shrine of not some meaningful spiritual icon (e.g., for example, what looks like a Buddhist statue next to the doorway) but rather they worship “celebrity culture” and what that stands for, the attainment and accumulation of wealth and status symbols, which, for such people, are the signs of success in life. That is, accentuating the shallowness of this “Law of Attraction” self-help nonsense, Laurie then chooses a famous movie star, Angelina Jolie for her lesson. In this way, Laurie is just reinforcing the girls’ adulation of celebrities, exactly the opposite of what these girls need. Laurie’s choice of Jolie is just so striking. For one thing, why in the world didn’t she pick a more substantive figure for her example? And there are numerous women who have really worked toward changing the world that she could have chosen. Even if she wanted a “popular” woman, someone like Oprah Winfrey would have been a better choice. Now, actually, Angelina Jolie is not a bad choice – since she has done a lot of good in the world – but then why didn’t she choose pictures of Jolie doing good work instead of pictures that either emphasized her glamorous (fashion) side or her popular movie roles? Of course, getting raised in such an environment and such influences is just devastating to young people, especially considering the permeating assaults from media discourses that are already bombarding them.

Adderall

Finally, I just want to add another horrible thing that Laurie does here, give her kids “Adderall.” One of the most egregious parts of our society right now is the pharmaceutical industry, an industry that is all about making more and more profit. They do this through literally creating needs (e.g., creating diseases, disorders, etc.) and then creating drugs to address these needs. They also do this by actually giving doctors lots of money to prescribe drugs to patients and/or prescribe newer, more expensive drugs. So, we have a society that is way, way over-medicated, people way too easily getting drugs for unnecessary reasons. In terms of the ADHD element, we get an “over diagnosis of a disease” because it is just so much easier to deal with the more challenging children. (I actually experienced this first hand when my daughter’s kindergarten teacher recommended ADHD drugs for my daughter! She was a bit hyperactive at this age but she was in no way afflicted with ADHD!) What is even more egregious here is that we are literally creating this epidemic of ADHD, creating media, game, and technology entertainments that literally wires our infant’s and children’s brains in a way that creates attention deficit disorders. Finally, that they may be or may also be using the drug for weight loss is just one more egregious hyper-focus for people, especially women and especially young girls, media discourses (advertisements, films, TV, etc) hyper-emphasizing unnatural female bodies that are literally unattainable for young girls, bodies that have been cosmetically altered, subjected to unhealthy diets and diet drugs, and, then, in representations, images that have been altered to make bodies look better.

Neglectful Parenting

Finally, Coppola stresses another angle to bad parenting: We see the impact of neglectful, absent or otherwise irresponsible parenting, letting their kids do whatever they want, and kids being kids, without the requisite limitations and boundaries placed on them, they will wholly live for feeding their appetites, e.g., take drugs, drink alcohol, party all the time and so on.

Marc

Marc seems to be the one figure who is driven by his low sense of self-worth (at least ostensibly given, e.g. I’m sure this is the case with all of them as this goes hand-in-hand with this drive for image and status) and thus his partaking in the “bling ring” (e.g., falling under the sway of the oh-so slick Rebecca) is more about peer pressure – more about him wanting to be a part of something, be bonded with others – than it is about what the others are after, a celebrity, consumerist lifestyle/identity. In an early mirror moment, we get this meaning punctuated, mirror symbolism often signifying a split ego, in this case, signifying Marc’s split self between who he is and who he wants to be. Of course, Marc too wants to be famous but I think his desire is more measured, more balanced with at least a small measure of something substantive in him. We see hints that there is something more to Marc throughout the film – his thoughtful comments on Rebecca, his self-awareness as to why he and the others did what they did, even little touches like that kiss on his grandmother’s cheek – a sense that he has more to him than just a consumerist identity formation. His transgenderism speaks to another layer of him that the film can only hint at, that this too probably speaks to his feelings of inadequacies (e.g., that he doesn’t feel “normal”). But then that is what our capitalist, consumerist world does, is prey on low self-worth, feelings of inadequacy, deep insecurities, by hyper-emphasizing image and status representations that directly link worth with such superficial, artificial qualities as beauty, glamor, fashion markers, unnatural body standards, and so on. People – especially young people still trying to figure things out – link such image and status markers as the way to feeling good about one’s self, popularity, acceptance, not to mention that such markers are the only path to the fame depicted in celebrity culture!

For more on the dangers of consumerism, check out my blog post on Reality and my essay on American Psycho, two other vital anti-consumerist films.