Maybe a true binary would be a black dog! In literary theory, there’s Deconstruction. One element of Deconstruction is the system of binary opposition in thought and language where theoretical opposites are defined and set against each other. Think of it as contrasts that define each other like hot/cold, darkness/light, good/evil. In Structuralism, these opposites are integral in human philosophy, language, and culture. The opposites don’t contradict each other, but rather structurally compliment one another. In cultural context, one of the binaries tends toward dominance over the other. The Deconstructionists call this dominance Privileging. Privileging establish a hierarchy, a kind of sub-relational chain of complimentary binaries…for example, hero/villain leads to associations with good/bad, handsome/ugly, right/wrong, etc. Deconstruction asks us to reverse this contextual hierarchy and see what values it may bring to the surface.
That’s a really literature professor way of saying, “Take two opposites, think about which one is thought of more favorably, then flip the favor in the opposite direction, look back at the text and THEN see what it’s saying. It’s kind of a game or a trick, but it can often time yield interesting insights into human behavior and character. David Cronenberg’s erotic thriller Dead Ringers is an excellent text through which to look at binary oppositions.
When doing this kind of analysis, it’s not enough to simply identify binaries and flip them. The binaries must service the greater need of theme; what is the storyteller trying to teach us about the subject? The subject of this film is Identity and its complexities. It asks us to examine external forces which affect or even define our identities. The resulting theme, then, is that oneness or wholeness trumps our needs for separation, and our identities (either real or perceived) are constructed and not always ours to control.
We begin with brothers Elliot and Beverly Mantle. They are gynecologists on the experimental frontier of their field. They are also identical twins, played by Jeremy Irons (who won both the New York and Chicago Film Critics award for best actor that year). Leave it to Cronenberg to complicate this process by giving us binary opposites that are identical – twins, indistinguishable physically. Claire, a client turned love interest for Beverly, asks him, “Are you identical psychologically?” And the answer in the beginning is yes. The brother’s have a psychological equilibrium, a system of their own hierarchy with Elliot (Elly) as the dominant, intellectual one and Beverly more the passive, emotional one. Though it’s not an identical identity, it’s more a symbiotic one.
Beverly, the emotional one. In the beginning, though, it’s Beverly’s emotional state that is privileged and seen as stable. He’s the one seeking a connection with a female other than a recreational one. Elliot is shown as the cad. Claire, upon meeting them together, points out this clearly when she says, “Beverly is the sweet one and you’re the shit.” This is confirmed in a scene where Elliot is being given an award, yet Beverly poses as Elliot to accept it. Elliot shows up drunk and causes a scene by being vulgar.
However, as Beverly gets closer to Claire and further away from Elliot, the privileging flips and Elliot becomes more concerned and professional while Beverly slips into drug abuse and emotional turmoil. This is symbolically depicted in the film during a dream sequence where Claire is in bed with both Beverly and Elliot who are conjoined by flesh at their chest. She gnaws the flesh literally separating them. Upon waking, Beverly tells Claire, “Don’t let me dream that again.” She gives him a pill and assures him he won’t dream. This puts her in control of his subconscious, though it’s a false, chemical control. She is the woman who has come between Beverly and Elly emotionally and, since she is the one supplying Beverly with the drugs, she is the one also responsible for his chemical dependence on her, it also becomes a physical dependence.
At this point in the film, where the lines are blurred between identities of good/bad, professional/unprofessional, healthy/sick… there’s a scene where Elliot hires twin escorts to his room. He wants one of them to call him Bev and the other to call him Elly. This is Elliot’s attempt to maintain the binary privilege of identity, thus also maintaining dominance of their oneness. He fights against this separation he sees Claire introducing into their dynamic. He goes to see her in an attempt to, oddly enough, include her in a possible three-way relationship, which she refuses.
Claire herself is an interesting character. She is an actress, someone whose job is to assume multiple personas. So this is something she shares with the brothers. In the scene where Elly comes to see her about inclusion in their relationship, she is sitting in a chair getting movie make up applied to her face. We see her from her right profile as they talk. Eventually she turns her head towards us and we see her left profile is made up with bruises and cuts. Cronenberg layers his film with constant images of duality. The dialogue in this scene also reveals Cronenberg’s deft hand and complete awareness that he is telling a complex story. Claire says, “You resent me tremendously, don’t you?” And Elly replies, “You contribute a confusing element to the Mantel saga. Possibly, a destructive one.” Saga=story!
Claire herself is an interesting character. She is an actress, someone whose job is to assume multiple personas. So this is something she shares with the brothers. In the scene where Elly comes to see her about inclusion in their relationship, she is sitting in a chair getting movie make up applied to her face. We see her from her right profile as they talk. Eventually she turns her head towards us and we see her left profile is made up with bruises and cuts. Cronenberg layers his film with constant images of duality. The dialogue in this scene also reveals Cronenberg’s deft hand and complete awareness that he is telling a complex story. Claire says, “You resent me tremendously, don’t you?” And Elly replies, “You contribute a confusing element to the Mantel saga. Possibly, a destructive one.” Saga=story!
Elly asks her, “Am I really that different from Bev?” She replies, “You really are.” Thus the separation of identity has happened. Elly is forced to acknowledge it. But rather than Elly resenting this, it oddly stabilizes him and the binary is flipped. Elly becomes the professional one while Bev slides into chemical and emotional dependency on Claire. This would be alright, except Clarie’s job requires her to leave for an extended period at which Bev slides even further down the abyss losing both his connection to Claire and to Elliot. He is told, “You’re lucky you’re in one piece.” But they are not in one piece anymore.
It’s Elliot, however, that attempts to rescue him in another wonderfully layered scene in which Bev is in a bed fighting his recovery and Elliot is the nurturing one attempting to save his brother. The scene begins with a Bev watching a TV show scene where a mother and daughter are having a conversation and the last thing we hear is the mother say, “Every relationship has its ups and downs, Dear.” It’s a throwaway line, but adds such a nice psychological layer to what follows. Bev is fishing for Elliot to give him something to help him sleep:
BEV: But what am I going to do then?
ELLY: You’ll stay up.
BEV: Elly, I’ll die if I don’t sleep.
ELLY: You’ll stay up.
BEV: What if I take something when you go home?
ELLY: I’m staying right here.
BEV: What if I take something while you go to sleep?
ELLY: I won’t go to sleep.
BEV: How will you stay awake?
ELLY: I’ll take something!
BEV: You’ll take an up so I don’t take a down. That’s crazy!
ELLY: Bev, don’t worry about me. I’m not you.
BEV: But what am I going to do then?
ELLY: You’ll stay up.
BEV: Elly, I’ll die if I don’t sleep.
ELLY: You’ll stay up.
BEV: What if I take something when you go home?
ELLY: I’m staying right here.
BEV: What if I take something while you go to sleep?
ELLY: I won’t go to sleep.
BEV: How will you stay awake?
ELLY: I’ll take something!
BEV: You’ll take an up so I don’t take a down. That’s crazy!
ELLY: Bev, don’t worry about me. I’m not you.
It IS crazy, but Elliot realizes it’s what’s necessary for them to synchronize again. He has to drop down to Bev’s chemically dependent level for them to get back whatever synchronicity they had before. It’s not until after Bev acts unprofessionally and nearly causes the death of a patient that Elliot says to his assistant who suggests he separate himself professionally, “Nobody can tell us apart. We are perceived as one.” He is referring to their professional reputation, but may as well be talking about their physical and emotional identities as well. It is here that Elliot understands his identity is not in his control. It is constructed by outside forces. And that separation would not strengthen his identity, but rather destroy it.
And that leads to an ending I’m not going to tell you about because you should really watch this movie. As far as I’m concerned, it’s Cronenberg’s masterpiece. It’s beautifully filmed, it has unmistakable touches of his style…there’s a beautiful image of Bev preparing for surgery in a blood red hospital gown and he turns around with arms spread looking like Christ. He even gets to play around with his usual gore in a dream sequence. It’s all there. Add to that his message that privileging identity (reputation) over oneness (wholeness) is ultimately a destructive choice and you’ve got a canvass rich with deconstructive material.
RSS Feed
