Giles De’Ath, How You Haunt Me So
January 30th, 2008 by IllyMy apologies to those of you who, for whatever reason, couldn’t make tonight’s screening of Love and Death on Long Island for writing this post… Maybe come back here after tomorrow night’s viewing?
For those of you who did make it tonight, I’ve been kind of mulling this over for the past three or so hours: what was it about Giles’s behavior that was so funny?
I laughed throughout the entire film, not at the hilarity of the characters/situation, but rather at how uncomfortable I felt watching Giles and his growing obsession with Ronnie/Jason Priestley. In retrospect, I can’t think of a single thing Giles did that I didn’t do at the height of my fandom participation (apart from stalking the hometown of my favorite celeb): I watched movies/read books repetively, bought any magazine that had a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio in it, memorized every little detail of his/her personal life, made a scrapbook, enjoyed fanart that was, if not as graphic, more graphic than what he was producing. That about covers it all. Granted, the character of Giles was an exaggeration of such fan activity. Uh…a HUGE one at that.
Was it that exaggeration that had me squirming in my seat? Was I embarrassed at the parts of Gile’s behavior that I saw as being reflective of my own activities? Or was I uncomfortable watching a stodgy, old British intellectual engaging in behavior that would fall into what one would expect of a thirteen year old fangirl? (And yes, that final question falls into the debate of gendered fanroles [fanboy vs. fangirl] that was briefly alluded to in Tuesday’s class!]
Or was he just a weird and awkward stalker dude who deserves no sympathy from the fan community and should be shunned for giving us a bad name?
Those are just a few personal questions I’ve been going over since the viewing. I’m interested in hearing, or reading, what you guys thought of the film.
Posted in Fan representation, Screenings | 11 Comments »
This might be excessively communist and biased based on my own experience, but I think part of Giles’ problem is that he didn’t have a fan community to educate him about the “social norms” of fandom. I’m not saying that every fan that’s not involved in the fan community would go to the lengths Giles did (obviously), but that part of the problem with his behavior is that as a member of the fan community, I saw him acting…awkwardly as a fan. The embarrassment I felt for him was, I posit, similar to that felt by society mavens towards anyone who wears white shoes after Labor Day, only moreso.
I actually didn’t think it was funny at all — I found the movie insanely creepy. In fact, I came out of it feeling like *I* must be creepy.
The film really has a way of putting you in Giles’ head, what with all the Giles PoV shots of the films he watches, complete with Hitchcockian (think Rear Window *shivers*) reaction shots, the endless MIRRORS in which you see Giles reflected as if it was you, and those creepy SLOW ZOOMS… you know, when Giles would be struck by some aspect of Ronnie’s beauty or something, there would be this medium shot of Giles in bust, with this excruciatingly slow zoom in to his head and this little bit of creepy music…? The director gives you too much time to let some moments sink in with his molasses camerawork, to the point where you’re squirming around in your seat going “QUIT IT ALREADY!”
Or was that just me?
So yeah, like a true pretentious film major, I thought it was the camerawork that made the film creepy, not the plot
.
Perhaps Giles was worried about some of the stereotyping that comes with fandom (touched upon in the introductions of both our texts thus far) which resulted in his isolation and secret love of Ronnie. Fandom has its fair share of negative stigma, not to mention that he is an old British academic with a reputation to uphold and finds himself dedicating his time to a young American pop/movie/teen star. At the movie rental store, he was obviously uncomfortable asking for Hotpants College II at the front desk, and equally against verbalizing his desire to purchase a ticket to the film at the movie theater. It made sense to me that he would hide his fan tendencies from the world.
In regards to his lack of fan community, I find it hard to believe he would know where to find one. He barely had his own social circle.
I also have to raise the point that if more people think his actions are ok/normal–does it really change the creepiness of it? (that sounds kinda like its opening doors towards cult behavior and such…) Seeing as I have very limited experience in fan communities protocol– is there a set of boundaries and rules regarding acceptable fan behavior?
Stemming of that question, I think the movie brings an attention to the line between fandom and obsession/stalker. Where do you draw the line? Giles seemed to be first drawn to Ronnie in the ketchup scene that reminded him of his wife’s favorite painting. Ronnie may have been a replacement vessel for the affection Giles feels for his late wife. It is obvious he is still struggling without her (locking himself out and giving her credit for knowing he would). He seems quite lonely and bored, longing for something to feel passion towards. (“for the first time, I said yes”) I would suggest that underlying psychological issues needed to be addressed regarding his love for Ronnie.
I apologize if this post was a little all over the place. I just wanted to raise some questions that I had regarding the film and respond to the above posts.
Personally, I felt that Giles was less creepy and more sympathetic. The film goes out of its way to establish Giles as harmless; it never occurred to me that Bostock might have been in danger. I think that most of the film’s humor (and I did find it funny) comes from the contrast between Giles’ persona and his behavior with regards to Bostock, and especially his obvious embarrassment with regards to his fandom. More importantly, however, I definitely remember dealing with similar feelings of shame concerning fandom when I was younger, hiding my video game magazines from my parents because they embarrassed me and so forth.
I think that it’s difficult to draw a definite line between fandom and obsession; they both seem to be extensions of the same inclinations. Because of this I’m not sure that the stalker/fan debate is ultimately a fruitful one. Giles’ actions may or may not have been dangerous, but regardless of whether they were or not they exemplify fannish behavior. What interests me most, then, is the question of why Giles became as fixated on Bostock as he did. As other posters have mentioned, the film provides some fairly explicit psychological explanations for Giles’ fascination (notably the death of his wife, and his apparent loneliness and boredom). I’m not sure, however, that I find these explanations satisfying, at least when applied to fandom as a universal phenomena. Must fandom always develop from loss and ennui? Can’t it show up in socially-well-adjusted, content individuals? Giles’ obsession makes sense in the context of his character, but in supplying him with such obvious motivations the film avoids the more interesting question of what tendencies might have driven him to such extreme fannish/obsessive behavior.
Rachel – I agree, Giles wouldn’t have known how to find or even interact with a fan community, but I still think that had that not been the case, his behavior would have been, in a sense, more “normalized”. In regards to your question, yes, there’s a set of boundaries and rules regarding acceptable fan behavior that is often different from what’s acceptable in society at large. For example, ripping a strange man’s clothes off; not acceptable in most cases, acceptable in Beatles fandom (so I hear was the case). Similarly, bestiality; totally taboo in society, but, for some reason beyond my ken, acceptable in a subset of HP fandom (although not in all of the fan community at large — I did a survey on my LJ at the beginning of fall semester about what people consider to be transgressive in fanfic and a majority said bestiality). I think in fan communities the line is often drawn at…breaking the fourth wall, if that makes sense. Or, as Bob would have it, perhaps, trying to interact with producers to too great a level when one is a consumer.
One thing I think is worth mentioning that didn’t come up in class is what I consider to be the most important line of the movie, when Giles calls Ronnie “everything I never was”. This, combined with his attempts to shape Ronnie into what he, Giles, considers to be a worthwhile actor, and his prediction of Ronnie’s behavior with the letter, gives me the impression that Giles’ fandom is, like courtly love, more centered on himself than on Ronnie. This raises a third view of fandom, combined with centering on text and centering on community.
I was intrigued while watching the character and the movie as a whole that its comments on fandom were coming from a film, written (presumably) by guild writers and definitely starring SAG actors. In other words, an establishment film.
This was a topic that was explored briefly last spring in Bob’s TV and New Media class, but it has stuck with me…
Not only can we explore what the film text may be saying about fandom as either pathological or healthy, or perhaps one specific fan, but also the idea that the ‘authors’ of the text have their own relationship with the fan community. I was just wondering what other people may think about that.
About 3 quarters into the film, when Giles is talking to Ronnie more seriously about his career, I found it to be less creepy and more “healthy.” It made me feel like Giles might be taking control of his obsession; maybe there actually is some acting prowess in Ronnie that only Giles sees? But what I find most interesting is the way it made me feel. Why is this behavior so much different in my gut?
What I think, because I certainly do not know, is that that role seemed to be more acceptable for Giles. Okay, so he is obsessed with a young idol, but at least he is approaching it in a literary sort of way. Or maybe it was just less striking behavior. Thoughts?
Ariel, I totally agree with your analysis of the importance of the third view of fandom.
While I agree that there was obviously a sexual fandom, to me the biggest part of Giles’ fandom really was this desire to be Ronnie. Well more correctly, since he can’t do that, shape the rest of Ronnie’s life to satisfy the things Giles missed out on.
I admit after initially watching the movie and discussing it I was creeped out by Giles sexual fandom. Whether it was that he seemed obsessive/stalkerish or that he didn’t fit the role of who “should be” attracted to a teen heart-throb, I’m not sure exactly.
But once I read some of the posts and began thinking back on Giles’ desire to be rather than be with Ronnie, he seemed less creepy. Not sure what that means…. just thought it was interesting.
I agree with Fletcher’s comment about how the film depicts fannish behavior coming solely from Gile’s lost. It seems like an unfair depiction of fan behavior as solely existing to fill a void in a person’s life. Reality isn’t good enough for the person so they obsess about something outside their life. Come to think of it, the “Get a life” SNL skit depicts fandom in that same light, as does the movie Fever Pitch, which shows sports fandom.
It is true that fandoms can provide an escape. I know if I’m having a bad day, reading one of my favorite books or watching Star Trek will always make me feel better. I think the distinction comes from people who are very into their fandom, but have other interests, and those who are only interested in a fandom. The media seems only to depict the latter. Giles had no other interests beyond his fandom/obsession with Ronnie. But depicting fans solely as people who need to fill their life ignores a large portion of the fandom that does in fact “have a life.”
While I agree that if LADOLI were presenting a text as representative of fandom then it would be doing a great disservice by presenting Giles as so obsessive that his life is consumed entirely by Ronnie, I do not think that is necessarily the case here.
You bring up the concept of Giles seeking to fill a void left by the loss of his wife and perhaps by the daunting fear of irrelevance in the modern world (as evidenced by his complete ignorance of modern technology, etc). This concept seems more important to the film’s narrative and structure than the role fandom plays.
Ultimately the film left me with an incredible sense of loss and a search for meaning from an unexpected vantage point (I.E.-The career of a heart throb teen actor). While I do see the relationship between this sort of “fan” and the way we have commonly been associating and considering the term, I think that LADOLI does not proclaim to be entirely representative of any form of fan community or common fan practices and for that reason I tend to consider it only as a personalized and arguably isolated story of loss and discovering something new of apparent importance and substance. The moments that do seem to greatly reference more common fan practices – cutting out pictures, watching everything you can pertaining to the subject, etc – are ultimately much less significant than the actions Giles takes and the moments he shares with Ronnie.