Analysis of the Film

The magic is "quoddam semper, quoddam omnibus, quoddam ubique creditum est" There are no neutral images (Metz)

Suspiria is the first true horror movie ever made by Dario Argento. His previous films are "gialli", or thrillers, that perfectly fit into the genre narrative clichés. The interesting point to make about these movies is the absence of supernatural elements. Everything is explained, logically. Somebody follows an investigative path that will eventually lead him or her to the guilty. He (usually she) is located and punished or, most of the time, encounters a horrible end. With Suspiria all these things vanish. The likeliness turns into delirium, the investigative logic into the wandering in the corridors of the Academy: things happen, and that is all. The only event that can be inserted in a logical-causal scheme is the falling of the maggots (sequence no.3); Miss Tanner immediately gives the explanation, and it is the most banal thing you can imagine, i.e. rotten food. But in Suspiria, and this is the most relevant point, there is not even a shadow of the guilty. Considering Elena Marcos, or one of the followers of the coven, as responsible for the murders is not only too simple, but logically wrong. Indeed, in every Argento film you can see a particular of the killer: the hands, almost always gloved (and almost always of Argento himself), and something that, at the end turns out to be really belonging to the killer. The first example is the eye with the make-up in Profondo Rosso, a film in which the killer is shown after ten minutes, although reflected in a glass. Also in Suspiria Argento shows us some details, gives us (very few) "clues": big and hairy forearms with big hands and long nails, that will kill Pat (sequence no.1) and a figure from behind, in a black mantle, that is going to kill Sara (sequence no. 5). Not one of these items is easily recognisable as one of the adepts, nor Pavlo, the horrible waiter (ugly, but with cured hands). Anyway, somebody does kill. The problem is discovering whom. I will try to do that leading a particular line of inquiry: I will try to find the guilty by beginning from what he/she sees. The sequence of Daniel’s killing can be helpful. In particular I will concentrate on the status of some shots, referring to semiotic works as Metz (1995) and Casetti, di Chio (1990). The first shot I am going to consider is no.12. It is a long shot that allows us to see the location of the action. Indeed, we could suppose it is an "establishing shot", having both a summarising and orientating function at the same time. There is a distance from the action; this distance can be explained if we think that Daniel will be "on stage" only from the following shot. This shot can be seen, indeed, as a sort of opening of the curtain, and we have to pay particular attention to the scenery. It is the lighting that leads the eye of the viewer towards the two buildings, clearly enlightened and with their whiteness contrasting with the dark of the night. This scenery is not simply a mere frame, as the many shots dedicated to the buildings demonstrate. The same shot comes later (no.15), but this time Daniel is on stage, almost lost in the darkness of the square. Let us have a look at shot no.18. The tension is rising: the dog feels something and we know that we can / must trust him, as Daniel does. In this way the game of identification between us and the blind begins, and it will remain during the action. "What’s up?" asks Daniel, in shot no.17. The next shot shows us, or, better, confirms our suspicions, of what we felt. A long side travelling, a sound of steps in the foreground, versus the dog’s barking in the background: all of these things can do nothing but confirm that there is someone walking and watching. And it will not take too much for Daniel to say it, to realise it, even if whispering (shot no.21). Although we could think that he and we (the viewers) realised it at the same time. Indeed that is a subjective shot, without doubt. And we again have a long shot, so as to keep a distance. Moreover there is a third building, of which we can see only the columns. But this building is not as important as the others, we will never see it as a whole, but only in this and the last shot of the sequence (no.59) from inside. We will see a very small part of the stairs (shots nos.19 and 36). It is interesting to focus on the subjective status of shot no.18. The classic subjective shot scheme, named by Branigan "closed" (quoted in Casetti [1993; 166]) is known: firstly who sees is shown (point/glance), then what he/she sees (point/object), at the end again who sees. Sometimes we can have an inverted scheme, i.e. firstly the object is shown and then the subject (that is what Branigan names "inverted subjective shot"). These procedures make a classic subjective shot, a saturated subjective shot –or sutured subjective shot, according to Oudart’s theory (quoted in Aumont and Marie [1996; 234], and in Casetti [1993; 176]). Nothing is hidden to the viewer, the two poles of a subjective shot are shown explicitly. On the contrary, in the case of shot no.18, the so-called "absent field" is never shown. Thus, it may be difficult to find an orientation in the place of action, in the square, also because this third building, the place from which "you watch", is never shown, nor who watches. Indeed, it is the soundtrack that helps us in determining the status of this shot: the steps make us understand that what we are seeing is the movement of a person, and consequently, that we are looking through someone else’s eyes. But we cannot see them, exactly as Daniel cannot 5. The following shot, no.19, is again a long shot of the square, from above. We can hypothesise that the camera is located above, in front of the building (b). It would be visible, then, a very little part of the "third building" I have already mentioned. We can say it is an "unreal objective shot" (Casetti, di Chio [1990; 244]), or an "oriented objective image" (Metz [1995; 177]). In any case we have a direct attendance of the narrating device, of the foyer. Of course, the position of the camera is weird, "impossible", giving us a very strongly marked image. This time we do identify, not with someone, but with something: with the camera. It is time to analyse the objects that compete with Daniel and his dog on the visual track: the two neo-classic buildings I mentioned. Shot no.23 shows us the upper part of the building I called (a). Shortly afterwards, in shot no.28, we see the building (b): it has something more. We know this from the music, before the images: a voice whispers "witch" right as the building is shown. This is a clear indication for the viewer and could be named, using the vocabulary of Casetti and di Chio once again, a "sound consulting": indeed, the music is extra-diegetic; it is just for us, the viewers. Daniel is paying attention to the same building (shot no.24), but after he turns his head to the other side: he feels surrounded. Indeed, we do know where the danger will come from. The series of linking on the axis of the shots nos.28-30, close up on the statue of the winged monster, on the top of the building (b), a close up underlined by the same whispering heard before, "witch". Then we have the extraordinary subjective of a flight (shot no.31): we have no doubts on the status of this shot. As it did before, the soundtrack helps us once more, with the very sharp flapping, close to the sound of the steps of the shot no.18. It is the ability of hearing that makes the difference, both for us viewers and for Daniel. He can only hear: we often see him tense, listening for the softest noise. Daniel feels that something is falling upon him, as before he heard (or felt) that there was someone in the square. He could have heard the same steps we heard in shot no.18. Listening and hearing is the basis of his work of piano player, it is his bridge to the world. He is aware of that and he underlines it when, chased off by Miss Tanner, goes away saying: "I’m blind, not deaf!" 6. About shot no.18, I noted as that was the saturation problem, i.e. not making explicit the "absent field". In this case, instead, the rules are fully respected. As Metz points out (1995; 132): "(…) in order to assume one character’s point of view, the viewer has to see this character, immediately after or before". There is not a problem with the saturation: first we see who sees (the statue), then what is seen (the square). We have to identify with a stone bird: it is of secondary importance, but surely misleading. Considering shot no.31 as a subjective shot obliges us to review the status of shot no.19: they both show the same point of view, i.e. the one of the statue. Thus, we don’t have an unreal objective: we are identifying ourselves with the winged monster, we see through its eyes, although we do not know that. Shot no. 36 is the same as no. 19: but whom are we identifying with now? Whose eyes are we looking through, as the monster flew away? To tell the truth nothing moves. Even if something were to move, we/Daniel could only have heard it: something did move, but not the stone bird. Shot no.36 could be good evidence for that, but there are more concrete ones: the statue, in the following shots is always there, on the top of the building (for example, in shot no.41). We’d better say that something indefinite moved, maybe the shadows in shot no.33, in front of the other building. If we take for granted that hypothesis, the classical scheme of the subjective shot is wholly respected, having: who sees (shot no.30), what is seen (shot no. 31), again who sees (shot no. 33), that is, however, a different subject. We have to take for granted this minimum saturation scheme (that, however, has the big disadvantage of not being able to consider in any way shot no.36). Now the tension has reached its climax (and that is well underlined by the music), a climax that will be held for almost a minute. Daniel is frightened; we are too (or at least disoriented). He would see, we would see and understand but nobody can. Also what we see is useless, as it is not possible to make it fit into a logical pattern: what ever happened to the stone bird? What moved? Why those shadows? Argento seems to say that seeing is not so helpful. In the final part of the sequence all the elements examined come back frenziedly. The buildings, first of all, for a very short time, but full screen. Argento lets us see again the palace from which the monster would have glided, but the statue is always there, still, as to confirm the lack of orientation of the viewer and to make fun of him (shot no.41). We are shown the other building too, but never the third one. And again we have long shots from above the square (shots nos. 49, 53, 55), identical to the establishing shot no.12. But this time it is a nonsense to call it an introduction or summarising shot: the square has been viewed from many points, it is a well-known place. It could be advanced and hypothesised an unreal objective shot: we would identify, then, with the camera, with the foyer. The camera, indeed, is placed in an "impossible" position, and strongly marked by the use of the grandangular. Before proceeding, let us go back to the definition of this kind of "glance" (Casetti, di Chio [1990; 245]): they mention a "total seeing" versus the "limited seeing" of the subjective shot (247), a total seeing that leads to a "sense of visual almighty" (245). In all the shots of the square from above (shots nos.12, 15, 49, 53, 55) we always see the same part of the square, comprehensive of the whole building (b) and of a part of the building (a). But we do know more: first of all, many time we are shown the whole building (a) (shots nos.17, 23, 24, 38, 39); even more important, we know that there is another place, from the shots nos.18, 19, 36, 59. The seeing of what we called "unreal/oriented objective images" is not complete, then, but limited. We have to reconsider the hypothesis made on their status. A very brief analysis of the sequence from the point of view of the spatial organisation can help in noting interesting features. First of all, it is evident the sense of agoraphobia of Daniel: he feels surrounded, he moves in circles, he goes on turning his head all around; he does not understand where the danger comes from. Once again we, the viewers, are lost in the square, disoriented, we do not know where to look, nor where the danger comes from. The buildings, we have already seen, are often completely shown: sometimes they become a kind of co-protagonist of the sequence. It is significant that a little before the actual attack of the dog the buildings are "on stage", although only for few seconds. The attack led by the dog is, thus, a real shock, for us and for Daniel: this realisation is kept till the very end. We could expect another flight of a strange creature, or a hand in a glove, or anything else, but not an attack from something so close. Indeed, the danger, until that moment, has always been associated with the above, the space, the distance (also whatever flies does not touch Daniel). Moreover, the danger is associated with the stillness of the buildings and with their inorganic state. Indeed, the winged monster also presents these features. The death, instead, comes from below, from what is closest to Daniel, from a real animal, from his guide, and, in a sense, from his eyes. The sequence ends with a quite long fixed shot: everything is over, Daniel is dead, other people come, the policemen. The point of view, however, is very similar, almost the same of that at the end of shot no.18. We can see something of the third building, of the third side of the square. For a reason of affinity with the other shot I would say that this is a subjective shot too, as the "someone" who walked along the columns before, stood there until the end. Once again, then, we have a non-saturated subjective shot. Moreover, this time we decide its status only for an analogy with another shot, as in this nothing is heard. The "identity" of the seer is still a mystery. We have seen that the sound of the steps and the flapping of the wings refute any hypothesis about the foyer’s point of view. This can be said also about the last shot of the sequence, even if there are no sound clues. However, the same problem remains unsolved: who is looking? If it is a person, before or after we discover his/her identity, this does not happen even at the end of the film. Is it a winged monster? Indeed, we know it never leaves the top of the neo-classic building. Who is looking, then? My answer to this question is the Evil, the only aim the witches have, as professor Milius says. The witchcraft, the black magic that everybody believes in, always, and everywhere. The witches are mere performers, Elena Marcos is only the mightiest one, more powerful than her adepts. The Evil, of course, can be shaped in many different ways: it can be a person, or materialised as a monster of stone, or can become a shadow. It is pointless then, asking whom the steps of shot no. 18 belong to, or wondering about what happened to the winged statue. In the film it is said that the magic is everywhere, and here it is one of the possible ways of reading not only some shots of the analysed sequence, but of the whole film, full of "impossible" shots. In Suspiria the identification with the Evil never stops, we always see through its eyes. We can say that almost all the long shots can be reconsidered in this way 7. It is also possible to consider the long shots nos.12, 15, 49, 53, and 55 in this way. The square itself becomes a malevolent place: the Evil is everywhere, in the palaces, in the statues, in the air. And it can possess also a dog. Before being killed, Daniel turns his head everywhere: the Evil, the black magic is everywhere, impossible to see, invisible. It surrounds Daniel. It surrounds us, when we identify ourselves with the piano player, but, at the same time we threaten Daniel, we build a sort of "glances cage" that imprisons him. Metz says that "you can see ‘through’ a character, even if he/she does not constitute a psychologized full subject, even without knowing anything about him/her, apart that he/she is a character" (Metz [1995; 150]). In Suspiria this is carried further: Argento takes the viewer by the hand and carries him/her in a frenzied game of identification, making him/her identify with persons, statues, and palaces, without a pause. At the end Argento succeeds in making the viewer’s point of view identify with an absolute abstract concept; the Evil. In his first "supernatural" film, Dario Argento goes back to the ancient representations of the Evil, to its primordial and fiabesque status. He goes back to the witches, to the unsolved and not irresolvable fear of the dark, to the noises, the shadows, the sound of the steps, the creaks, the sighs, the maggots and the bats. In the beginning of this section I noted that we are shown some details of the killers. Now it is possible to say that it is pointless trying to find whom the hairy, long nailed hands belong to, for instance, as they are an archetype. In a fairy tale such are the hands of the killer, of the kidnapper, in a word, evil. The hands of the evil have this shape. Going back to another point examined in the beginning of this analysis, it is not completely right to say that the events cannot fit into a causal scheme. We’d better say that it is possible to recollect everything in a sort of very general macro-scheme, saying that opposing the Evil (to the witches, to the coven, to the Tanz-Akademie…) brings death. The Evil can do everything: it is not possible to fight it, whomever tries to do that is destined to a horrible end. This feeling of destiny and fatality is the basis of the hallucinatory atmosphere that pervades the film: the events happen because they must, people die because they must. Nobody can escape from this scheme; nobody can safely pass through the forbidden places, apart from Susy. The Suspiria heroin, with her candour and her permanent state of bewildered amazement, is a new Snow White. Just arrived, she has to pass through a forest, at the end of which there is the violet and threatening building of the Academy. But as she exits the antiseptic atmosphere of the airport, Susy is already sucked into a fairy tale, into an otherworld of unreal colours, lights and sounds, in which logic simply does not exist, in which everything is seething, a world of magic and death.

[contents]

[top of page]

|home|news|biography|filmography|dariobase|

|reviews|asia|audio/visual|links|comunicazione|map|