Skip to main content

You need to make the unconscious conscious!

Nightmare Alley (2021)
Nightmare Alley (1947)
Based on the novel by William Lindsay Gresham (1946)

In the spring of youth, we all think we are invincible. We believe we were sent to change the world. We go on a crusade to achieve these desires. Somewhere along with our lives and we should realise who we really are. We should know our capability, what role we play in the world. Only then can we set camp and grow laterally instead of reaching for the unattainable. The trouble is that this realisation may come early in some, at 20, 30 or some so much later in life. Some just roll down the cascade of their entire length of existence without realising it, ending it without collecting any moss.

The original offering in 1947.
Carl Jung is quoted to have said that until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate. Or karma. "Know thyself" - like it is inscribed at the courts of Temple of Apollo at Delphi. In 'The Art of War', Sun Tze mentions something to the effect of 
"know others and know thyself and you will not be endangered by innumerable battles".

This film came to my radar after its Academy Award nomination. Then I realised that there was an earlier version made in 1947. The story is based on William Lindsay Gresham's book of the same name. For comparison, I decided to watch both versions of the movies. Despite the technological advancements in film-making and storytelling over the years, sadly, in my opinion, the earlier version topped in terms of entertainment value and audience-gripping score.

Both movies start from different starting points. In the older version, the protagonist, Stanton Carlisle, begins as a helper in a travelling carnival. We do not know much about his past. In the latter, he has an overhanging dark secret. He commits a murder (we later find it was his alcoholic father) and starts life anew as a helping hand in a carnival. Both versions were set in the 1940s.

The novel
As the story progresses, we see Stanton going out of his way to learn the trait of a mentalist and trickery. He makes himself an indispensable asset to the troop. He smooth talks a cop who turned up to inspect their act as they were reported to be abusing people to perform heinous acts. In reality, part of their act involves what they call a geek. A geek is usually a drunk or substance addict fed with their cravings in exchange for gruesome acts like eating a live chicken. A human being cannot go lower than being a geek. He loses his dignity to carry out inhumane acts.

Stanton befriends Zeena, a Tarot reader and a seer and her alcoholic partner, Pete, who had seen better work prospects as a mentalist when he was sober. After learning the craft of 'mind reading', which is actually communicating with the assistant in codes, he poisons (accidentally, in the 1946 version) Pete. He marries Molly, a fellow performer, and makes it to the big city.

Stanton and Molly (as a reluctant partner) have roaring appearances as stage mind-reading performers in the city. They prey on grieving millionaires who lost loved ones. A stunt goes wrong, and Stanton runs from the long arms of the law. After being cheated by a psychologist who initially fed him with the necessary information, he becomes a fugitive. He ends up a drunk and has to work as a geek to sustain himself.

In keeping with the sentiments of the times, the 1946 one had to end with an ending that gave a sense of redemption. Stanton reunites with Molly, albeit with profound regret. In the 21st century bleak version, in keeping with the current tone of cancel culture, there is a downward spiral down the rabbit hole for Stanton.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. It is. The older version give more depth whilst the newer one is so dark. I suppose it is just in keeping with the change of our times.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gory historic details or gore fest?

Razakar:  The Silent Genocide Of Hyderabad  (Telegu, 2024) Director:  Yata Satyanarayana In her last major speech before her disposition, Sheikh Hasina accused those who opposed her rule in Bangladesh of being Razakars. The opposition took offence to this term and soon widespread mob throughout the land. Of course, it is not that that single incident brought down an elected government but a culmination of joblessness and unjust reservations for a select population group. In the Bengali psyche, Razakar is a pejorative term meaning traitor or Judas. It was first used during the 1971 Pakistan Civil War. The paramilitary group who were against the then-East Pakistani leader, Majibur Rehman, were pro-West Pakistan. After establishing independence in Bangladesh, Razakars were disbanded, and many ran off to Pakistan. Around the time of Indian independence, turmoil brewed in the princely state of Hyderabad, which had been a province deputed by the Mughals from 1794. The rule of N...

The products of a romantic star of the yesteryear!

Now you see all the children of Gemini Ganesan (of four wives, at least) posing gleefully for the camera after coming from different corners of the world to see the ailing father on his deathbed. They seem to found peace with the contributor of their half of their 46 chromosomes. Sure, growing up must have been hell seeing their respective mothers shedding tears, indulgence in unhealthy activities with one of them falling prey to the curse of the black dog, hating the sight of each step sibling, their respective heartaches all because of the evil done by one man who could not put his raging testesterones under check! Perhaps,the flashing lights and his dizzying heights that his career took clouded his judgement. After all, he was only human... Gems of Gemini Ganesan L-R: Dr Revathi Swaminathan, Narayani Ganesan, Dr Kamala Selvaraj, Rekha, Vijaya Chamundeswari   and Dr Jaya Shreedhar.  ( Abs:  Radha Usman Syed, Sathish Kumaar Ganesan) Seeing six of Ge...

Chicken's Invite? (Ajak-ajak ayam)

In the Malay lingo, the phrase 'ajak-ajak ayam' refers to an insincere invitation. Of course, many of us invite for courtesy's sake, but then the invitee may think that the invitation is for real! How does anyone know? Inviters and invitees must be smart enough to take the cue that one party may have gatecrashed with ulterior motives, or the other may not want him to join in the first place! Easily twenty years ago, my family was invited to a toddler's birthday party. As my children were toddlers, too, we were requested to come early so that my kids could run around and play in their big compound. And that the host said she would arrange a series of games for them to enjoy. So there we were in the early evening at a house that resembled very little of one immersed in joy and celebration. Instead, we were greeted by a house devoid of activities and no guests. The host was still out shopping her last-minute list, and her helper was knee-deep in her preparations to ...