“I think, you’re confusing suicide with self-destruction.”
Dr. Ventress
Spoiler Warning: Hope you’ve seen the movie bc/ I’m about to spoil it. If not, hope you’ll see it and we can talk about it later.
Alex Garland, the writer and director of Annihilation 2018, loosely based the script on the first book in the “Southern Reach” trilogy, the 2014 novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. Garland even decided not to re-read the novel, instead, he decided to adapt it “like a dream of the book”. The story follows a group of scientists who enter the Shimmer, a mysterious quarantined zone of mutating plants and animals caused by an alien presence. Garland emphasized a few times in his interviews that sci-fi is the best genre to openly explore the fundamental ideas of biological and existential concepts, and I fully agree with him.
I’ll briefly go over the plot to help us refresh our memories. In the opening scene of the film a cellular biology professor and former U.S. Army soldier Lena (Natalie Portman) is under interrogation. We learn that she was a part of an expedition to an anomalous zone as the Shimmer, but she was the lone survivor to return. The Shimmer emerged three years from a meteor that landed on a lighthouse in a wildlife refuge and its gradually expanding and increasing its boundaries. Many exploratory expeditions were organised, but only Lena’s husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), returned home after a year of absence in the Shimmer. He cannot explain where he was and how he came back, and his condition quickly deteriorates. Lena volunteers to join a new scientific expedition involving all female scientists, prepared by psychologist Dr. Ventress (played by Jennifer Jason-Leigh). Three other women participate in the expedition: Cass (Tuva Novotny), a geomorphologist, Anya (Gina Rodriguez) a paramedic, and Josie (Tessa Thompson) a physicist. Each character represents a variation on the theme of self-destruction. Demonstrating the themes through character design is a theme found in all genres but I think, sci-fi is particularly good at expressing abstract ideas through story building. Annihilation in that sense, is a great example of how a film can serve as an exploration of an idea, embracing the sci-fi genre and taking the fundamental process of how life spreads and evolves, expressing it in the setting of a story and the forces of antagonism that inhabit it. Uniting us all, under the thematic umbrella of human tendency toward self-destruction to create a powerful and intriguing cinematic experience. Demonstrating that something can be created following annihilation.
The story opens with a monologue by Lena explaining the concepts of duplication, mutation, and self-destruction. She is giving a lecture and poses the question: “How come a cancer cell, a product of our own bodies are able to eventually kill us?” This question lays the foundation of the story and the core questions can be asked and answered through this question, in the movie.
The shimmer
In the shimmer, like the unconscious, all of its contents are blurred and merged into one another. In it, one never knows exactly what or where anything is, or where one thing begins and another ends. Time, space, and matter merge seamlessly as if in a dream. The order and the structure of the outside world do not exist inside. Where getting lost is inevitable and yet it is the place where we collectively find ourselves. All of the volunteered women are risking their lives by going into the Shimmer, seeking to find answers to each of their problems. As the story unfolds we see that only those that are going through deep inner instability would find themselves caught up in the Shimmer.
“Its not exactly something you do (going into the Shimmer) if your life is in perfect harmony.”
Dr. Ventress
If the core of this story is chaos then beauty is not the only thing that one’s bound to find.
The enemy within
The monsters we believed to be exclusively external in nature, dwell abundantly within our own bodies, within our minds. A realisation emerges, “Am I the real danger?”, “Am I the thing bent on self-destruction?”
“We drink, we smoke, we destabilise the good job or the happy marriage.”
DR. Ventress
Expecting self-destruction from ourselves would be to admit to one’s own shortcomings which we so often try to hind behind a masked personality. Denying it would be to disown its existence within oneself completely. For the denier, the only way out is to project one’s own monsters onto the people around them. “How could I ever be a monster?”, “Maybe you or you, but not me?”, “For it is I, who knows the way and who will save the world from damnation!” This unconscious failure to come to terms with one’s reality then becomes nothing more than another ultimate dead end. It is only those who, that on some level have made peace with the fact that spending time in this world is slowly changing who they are and how they perceive themselves and their growing realisation that the tumor of the shimmer isn’t necessarily caused by something outside of themselves, but perhaps an echo from their own inner world that find peace. And so, the way to save the world would be to save oneself. But why would one bother to go through such lengths to salvage something that wasn’t perceived to contain much value to begin with. Life does what it wants. Why bother struggling against its will?
The shadow
“Consciousness succumbs all to easily to unconscious influences, and these are often truer and wiser than our conscious thinking. Also, it frequently happens that unconscious motives over-rule our conscious decisions. Especially in matters of vital importance.”
Carl Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
People undermine their own agenda. To their frustration and bewilderment, they find themselves making irrational decisions. Experiencing mental blocks and even physical ailments that cripple their plans. It’s like a mysterious force takes over control, steering them away from the goals that they were so determined to accomplish. And thus, plagued by unconscious sabotage they never seem to get where they want to go. But why do we self-destruct? How come we wreck our plans without any good reason? Jung discovered answers to these questions as he became aware of the psyche that he called the shadow.
The shadow exists in the realm of the unconscious. Where the light of the conscious awareness does not reach its reality. As if they aren’t a part of us, our undesirable and repressed traits are banished here. As we become painfully aware in fact that they are.
According to Jung, repression will not solve our problems. In fact, it can have disastrous consequences as these aspects take on a life of their own. Operating in obscurity. This is where self-destruction begins. The repressed parts of the personality revolt against our conscious mind from the deepness of the unconscious shadow. And so, we are at war with ourselves without even knowing who we are fighting against.
Luckily there are ways to stop this self-destruction. Instead of repressing its contents, Jung urges us to integrate the shadow contents into our personality. We can only do this by making the unconscious, conscious and discovering its hidden contents. The shadow is not simply the dark and negative side of our personality. Not just a part of ourselves that holds all of our negative impulses. Not a shadowy figure suggesting an ominous “other self” that exists outside our awareness out to destroy ourselves. It refers to something fundamentally different. It is actually more like a dark place rather than a shadowy figure. Like a dark closet in the human psyche where the light of the consciousness doesn’t shine. Where we lock away all the repressed (meaning unwanted or undesired) parts of our personality that we are unwilling or unable to face or re-integrate into our personality at the moment. Which can happen for a variety of reasons. Such as unmet needs or trauma. Often causing problems because of this disconnect.
The shadow aspect’s agenda is noticed when we’re engaging in procrastination and self-destructive behaviour which are keeping us from making positive changes in our lives. As long as we fail to shine a light on what’s lurking in the shade, it will govern us like a puppeteer from behind the curtain.
The solution to this dilemma requires observation and brutal honesty. The unmet needs and agendas of our ego need to be recognised. We need to ensure that we meet our shadow aspects needs, so that doesn’t have to sabotage our ego’s agenda and goals.
The shadow aspect does not want to be illuminated. Its elusiveness is understandable. As it represents what’s unwanted but also rebels against the person who disowned them. If it is found, it will lose its sovereignty. As long as it remains in the shadows, it maintains the power of autonomy to troll, sabotage, and destroy its own personality and above all, is safe. At the cost of protection, the person is doomed to forever be in conflict with themselves.
Facing our dark side means facing the fact that we’re not as good as we think we are. We possess animalistic drives for sex and power. We have a cruel and aggressive side that can do great harm to others. We tend to deny our flaws and weaknesses, but what we deny doesn’t disappear. It sinks into our unconscious and thrives in our shadow. Confronting and integrating its elements into our personality is a means to rejuvenate our life and heal a divided world.
“Only someone who goes through their darkness can hope to make any further progress.”
Carl Jung
For a shadow to be cast an object must impede a path of light. That object is our persona. A Latin word signifying a mask worn by an actor. It represents the metaphorical mask we wear in the social world. A collection of character traits we want others to believe that define us.
“A kind of mask, designed an the one hand to make a definite impression upon others, and, on the other hand to conceal the true nature of the individual.”
Carl Jung
Construction of our persona begins early in life. We learn which elements of our own character garner approval from family members, peers, and society at large and which are rejected. The former we integrate into our persona and the latter we hide behind this mask. We identify with our persona and hide our unwanted characteristics in our shadows. Not only from others but, also from ourselves. So they get repressed.
The only way our shadow manifests itself is through projection. Wherein we perceive other individuals, groups, nations, races, or political parties as the weaknesses, faults, and evils that reside within ourselves. Elements of our shadow also find expression in our day-to-day life by affecting our moods and behaviours. The character traits, instincts, and desires repressed living in the shadow, create a tension between our conscious personality and the autonomous splinter personality of the shadow.
At times of stress or conflict, when our mind is unable to keep the doors of the unconscious closed, the shadow reveals itself with often damaging consequences. Confronting the shadow begins with accepting its existence and realising the personality we portray to the world and our conscious sense of self does not represent us in totality.
Once accepted, honest self-reflection and self-criticism can reveal some of the traits we have been hiding from. The good and the bad could come to the light in us should we wish, as we should wish to live without self-deception or self-delusion. Without self-destruction.
To unearth these elements, we can use a few different tactics. Firstly, we should take notice of any traits in other people that trigger a particularly strong emotional reaction. This is a sign that the same traits lie within us. Or we could peer into the shadow of someone close to us, a task easier than peering into our own. Although some aspects of the shadow are personal, much that gets deposited there is influenced by social and cultural trends and so we share them among the members of our society. A character trait we reject has likely been rejected by a sibling or a close friend. If we can learn about their shadow, clues about our won will be revealed.
“To confront a person with their shadow, is to show them their own light.”
Carl Jung
Confronting the shadow also reduces the ability of our flaws and weaknesses to wreak havoc on our lives. Awareness of an anger issue, selfishness, greed, aggression, obsession, or compulsion grants us the opportunity to exert a modicum of control over it. We can strive to overcome a flaw or at least minimize its potential damage. By becoming aware of these repressed drives and sublimating them we put them in the service of higher ends. They can empower us, motivate us to take risks for a fulfilling life, and even spur our creativity.
“Only down below can we find the fiery source of life.”
Carl Jung
The shadow also homes the strengths of our character, which we repressed as a result of our upbringing or by adapting to a sick society. They represent our unmet needs. Re-connecting with the positive side of our shadow, minimizing the effects of its negative side, and integrating it all into our conscious sense of self, produces a character that tends toward the ideal of wholeness, which Jung believed defined the psychotically healthy. As we approach a state of wholeness, we become more attractive to other people.
For human beings, we posses an instinctive suspicion of those who appear too good and who identify too much with their persona. We know that beneath a bright persona, lurks a dark and dangerous shadow. A far more attractive is a complete character, the whole person who knows not only their strengths, virtues and potential for good but also their weaknesses, faults, and shortcomings and their potential for evil. Too many people see all the problems in society and all the problems in other people but fail to notice the much more serious problems that lie within themselves. Failing to see they are a character split in two and until they confront their shadow, they will only amplify the hostility and divisiveness around their world.
Connecting all this back to Annihilation, only those who truly desire to return will have the power to re-emerge from the Shimmer. And so, one by one the companions perish, dissolve, and disappear until Lena is the only one left. “Why did they have to succumb to darkness? , “Why am I, still here?” The ever-continuing cycle of death and rebirth. The sign of the Ouroboros. “The dramatic symbol of the snake eating its own tail for the integration and assimilation of the opposite of the shadow.” The only way to truly find out what all of this means is to make one final push toward the center. Towards the lighthouse.
“Ventress wants to face it. You want to fight it. But, I don’t think, I want either of those things.”
Josie
The Lighthouse
“… perhaps I should desire it for self-destruction, its ultimately all thats certain. What is the creature that acts as if my shadow? Was I you? Were you me? If you are me. If you are more than I am, then I am a lie, and I can exist no longer.”
Kane
We finally become fully aware that this world is not alien in nature, but a part of our own self that was hidden away in our unconsciousness. Desperately trying to be acknowledged. The only way forward then, is to look oneself directly in the eye and accept this shadow as it is. Only then the final illuminating integration can be achieved. With it, we now know better who we are and thereby are dissolved by our own pathologies. The return to order is therefore shown as a reconciliation of two previously estranged souls. Reconnecting. Both fought and died in one way or another. And, both have re-emerged as someone else. One a mere shadow of his former self. The other is more intact. Strangers but, strangers attuned to each other than before. Embracing one another. As the first step to start anew.
“A child weaned on poison considers harm a comfort.”
Gillian Flynn
Dikkat: Baştan spoiler uyarısı veriyorum. Hikâyenin sürprizlerine değineceğim. Ek olarak, konunun içeriğinin hassasiyeti nedeniyle geçmişte yaşanmış olumsuz deneyimleri hatırlatma uyarısı niyetiyle trigger warning de diyerek söze başlıyorum.
Gillian Flynn’in 2006 yılında yayınlanan ilk romanı Sharp Objects, 2018 yılında HBO mini dizisi olarak uyarlandı. Dizinin başrollerinde Amy Adams, Patricia Clarkson, Chris Messina, Eliza Scanlen gibi isimler var. Diziyi Jean-Marc Vallée yönetip kurguluyor. Ki, dizi bence en çok kurgusuyla dikkat çekiyor. Buna ilerleyen bölümlerde detaylı değineceğim.
Hikaye, merkezindeki cinayetlerin gizemine eşlik eden travma, travma sonrası stres bozukluğu, işlevsiz aile yapısı, aile içi şiddet, kendini yaralama gibi ana temalar eşliğinde işleniyor. Böylece öykü, bizi bir şiddet döngüsüne ortak ediyor.
St. Louis şehrinde suç muhabirliği yapan Camille Preaker, editörü tarafından iki genç kızın cinayetleri üzerine haber yapması için memleketi Wind Gap kasabasına yollanıyor. Bu geri dönüş, cinayetlerin çözümü ile beraber Camille’i kendi geçmişi ve iç sıkıntılarıyla yüzleşip baş etmeye zorluyor.
Hikâyenin tamamının üzerinden geçmektense ben bugün burada Camille Preaker ve Adora Crellin karakterlerinin ilişkisi üzerine odaklanacağım.
Öncesinde de biraz travma ve travma sonrası stres bozukluğundan bahsedeceğim. Dizinin kurgusu da zaten bu deneyimleri göstermede çok başarılı olduğu için dikkat çekici düzeyde etkileyiciydi.
Ekrandaki travmanın anlatımına üç nokta üzerinden bakabiliriz. İlk olarak olayın kendisi, bir ya da birden fazla kez mağdura gerçekleştirilen ya da gerçekleşme tehdidi bulunan zararın yaşanması. İkincisi deneyimlenmesi, yani mağdurun olayı kendi algılayışı, son olarak da olayın ve deneyimin mağdur üzerinde yarattığı etkisi.
Aynı zamanda ekranda travma sonrası stres bozukluğu belirtilerini de görüyoruz. Camille’in deneyimlediği, davetsiz düşünceler şeklinde ilk olarak karşımıza çıkıyorlar. Travmatik olayların tekrarlanan hatıralarını izliyoruz. Yaşanmış olaylar, ezici bir duygusal ağırlıkla üstüne çöküyor adeta. Böylece geçmişi, sürekli olarak şimdiki zamanında yeniden canlanıyor. Bu hatırlatmalar kaçınma davranışlarına dönüşüyor. Yeniden deneyimleme korkusuyla herhangi bir potansiyel tetikleyiciden korunmak için elinden geleni yapıyor. Fakat bilinçli olarak kaçtıkları rüya ve kâbuslarında savunmalarını aşarak gün yüzüne çıkıyor ve yaşananları ve yaşanabilecekleri ona yine de hatırlatmayı başarıyor. Bunların sonucunda ruh halinde ve bilişinde olumsuz duygu ve düşünceler gerçekleşiyor.
“Whenever I’m here, I feel like a bad person.”
Camille Preaker
Adora Crellin
Wind Gap kasabasının ekonomisi domuz çiftçiliği ve kesim sanayisi üzerine kurulmuş. Adora bu varlıklı kurucu ailenin soyundan geliyor. O sebeple de, bir bakıma kasabanın sosyal dinamikleri içinde manevi leydilik gibi bir rolü var. Ailesinin Amerikan İç Savaşı yıllarına dayanan, kasaba halkının trajik olmasına rağmen kutladığı oldukça şiddetli, tecavüz ve cinayet içeren bir geçmişi var. Bu kurucu ailenin kadınları yıllardır süren kaçınılmaz bir kuşaksal şiddet döngüsü içindeler diyebiliriz. Hikâye çözüldükçe Adora’nın kasabaya kendini sunduğu özenle çizilmiş imajının, kapalı kapılar ardında yerle bir oluşuna tanık oluyoruz. İçeriye girdiğimizde, çevresindekilerin ona hayranlık duymasını isterken kimsenin kendisiyle yakınlık kurmasına izin vermeyen mesafeli, soğuk, bir o kadar da saldırgan ve istilacı bir anne ile karşılaşıyoruz.
Adora’nın anneliğine şahit oldukça onun mükemmel bir anne olarak görünme ihtiyacının, mükemmel bir anne olma isteğini fazlasıyla gölgelediğini gözlemliyoruz. Bir yandan “aşırı” ebeveynlik yaparken aynı anda da diğer çocuklarına göre özellikle Camille’i baştan sona ihmal ettiğini söyleyebiliriz. Çünkü Camille’in küçüklüğünden itibaren kardeşleri Marian ve Amma’nın aksine Adora’nın ona bakmasına, yani bir başka deyişle hasta etmesine izin vermediğini görüyoruz. Bunun sonucunda da Camille’in ebeveyn sevgisini deneyimleyemeden büyüdüğünü söyleyebiliriz. Çünkü Adora anneliğini bu hasta edip iyileştirme döngüleri üzerine inşa etmiş. Çocuklarına zarar vermeden onlara şefkat de gösteremiyor. Hikâye ilerledikçe Adora’nın, öldürülen iki genç kız ile de aralarında bir “iyileştirme” ilişkisi olduğunu öğreniyoruz. Bu cinayetlerin gizemi çözüldükçe, Adora’nın “Munchausen by Proxy Sendromu” olduğunu anlıyoruz. Bu, aynı annesi Joya gibi Adora’nın da çocuklarını zehirlediğini öğrenmemiz ile açıklığa kavuşuyor. Hatta zamanında Camille’in kardeşi Marian’ın Adora’nın bu istismarı sonucu öldüğünü öğreniyoruz. Adora, kızının ölümünün sorumluluğunu almadığı gibi bu ölümü kabullenmiyor da.
“She just liked to hurt people.”
Alan Crellin
Camille Preaker
Adora’nın etrafındakilerin acılarından beslenen bir yapısı olduğundan bahsettik. Onun şiddet eğilimleri ne kadar benmerkezci ise, Camille’inkine de aksine özyönelimli diyebiliriz. Onu ilk gördüğümüz andan itibaren Camille’in kendini alkol ile uyuşturduğunu biliyoruz. Memleketine geri dönmesi ile uyuşturup kaçmaya çalıştığı geçmişinin gerçekliği yeniden canlanıp şimdiki zamanında hayat buluyor. Aile evine geri döndüğü andan itibaren, yani Adora karakteri ile ilk tanıştığımız andan itibaren annesinin ona ve Camille’in bir uzantısı olarak izleyici olan bize bir yabancı, bir ziyaretçi olarak davrandığını görüyoruz. Günler geçtikçe Adora’nın Camille’in davranışlarını, kasaba içindeki hareketlerini, görüştüğü insanlarla konuştuklarını umursadığını ve kontrol etmeye çalıştığını görüyoruz. Camille’e karşı sürekli bir sorgulama, suçlama, hayatına karışma halindeyken aynı anda ruhsal ve fiziksel olarak ihmal edişine tanık oluyoruz. Çünkü ilgilendiği ve umursadığı Camille’in kendisi değil. Kızını kendinin bir uzantısı olarak gördüğü için Camille’in varlığı kendinin bir yansımasına dönüşüyor. Böylece, yine koruduğu ve önemsediği kişi kendisi oluyor. Adora, Camille’i hor gördüğünü inkâr etmiyor ve bunu açıkça yüzüne de söylüyor. Fakat bu farkındalık halinin Camille’e yine faydasından çok zararı oluyor diyebiliriz. Çünkü Adora, tüm kabahatleri ve hataları ile kurduğu ilişki gibi bu rencide edişlerinin de sorumluluğunu üstlenmiyor. Camille böylece, inatçılığıyla babasına çekmiş, “kötü” bir çocuk olarak damgalanıyor.
Camille bu durumda, sürekli olarak etrafını memnun etmesi beklenerek tatmin edilmesi imkansız ve zehirli bir ev ortamında büyüyor. Bu ortam, öfkesini içselleştirerek kendine yönelttiği ve kendine zarar verme davranışları geliştirdiği bir döngüyü doğuruyor. Ergenlikten itibaren, annesinin de ağzından duyduğumuz belirli kelimeleri yazarak vücudunu kestiğini öğreniyoruz. Kesme davranışı ile kendine karşı hem saldırgan hem mağdur rolünü üstlenmiş oluyor. Kesmek, yaralanmanın yanında aynı zamanda iyileşmeyi de içeriyor. Yaraların gözle görülebilir bir şekilde bedeninde cisimleşmesi, içinde arındırıcı bir döngü doğuruyor. İncin, acı çek, iyileş… İncin, acı çek, iyileş… Tek bir bedende hayat bulmuş dönüp duran bir şiddet üçlemesi. Dünyanın en yalnız eylemlerinden biri olsa gerek. Camille de işin doğası gereği yalnız bir insan olarak çıkıyor karşımıza. İzleyici olarak biz de onunla beraber bu döngü içine çekiliyoruz. Camille’in geçmişi, şimdiki zamanı ve geleceği nemli bir boğuculukla üstümüze kapanıyor.
Annesi ile kurulan güvensiz bağın sonucunda Camille’in, kendini sevilmeye değer görmeyen bir yetişkin olarak günümüze geldiğini görüyoruz. Bağlanma travmalarının büyük çoğunluğu da, Adora’nın davranışlarının sonucunda oluşuyor. Oysa Camille yüzyılı aşkın süredir ailesinin içinde bulunduğu bu nesilsel travmanın farkında ve tüm gücüyle bunun kurbanı olmamak için çabalıyor.
“Am I good at caring for Amma, because of kindness? Or, do I like caring for Amma because, I have Adora’s sickness? I waver between the two. Especially, at night when my skin begins to pulse. Lately, I’ve been leaning toward kindness.”
Camille Preaker
Amma Crellin
Burada derinine girmeyecek de olsam bir parça Amma’dan bahsetmemde fayda var. Katilin Amma olduğunu öğrenişimizle tüm perspektifimiz bir anda değişiyor. Adora’nın tutuklanmasının ardından, her şey arkamızda kaldı sandığımız ve rahatladığımız bir anda, aslında katilin Amma olduğunu öğrenmemizle Camille gibi izleyici olarak biz de bu keşifle karanlık bir boşluğa düşüyoruz. Hikâyenin son anda halıyı altımızdan çekerek bizi yüz üstü yere düşürmesi, gerçekleri açıklar açıklamaz bitmesi, anlatıcımız Camille’in gözünden hikâyeyi deneyimlediğimiz için olsa gerek. Öfkesini içselleştiren Camille’e göre Amma’nın saldırganlığını dışarıya yönlendirdiğini, kendisi dışında etrafındaki herkese bunu dayattığını son anda anlıyoruz. Arka planda bir bebek eviyle oynarmış gibi herkesi ve her şeyi manipüle ettiğini öğreniyoruz ve (taşlar yerine) dişler yerine oturuyor.
“Don’t tell Momma.”
Amma Crellin
Hikâyenin sonuna gelmiş de olsak, benim geri dönüp son olarak vurgulamam gereken, şahane çekilip kurgulanmış bir sahne var. Camille’in hatıralarında ormanda koşturduğunu, bir grup oğlan tarafından kovalandığını ve bir dalla bir örümceği dürttüğünü görüyoruz. Ekranda herhangi bir şiddet eylemi izlemiyoruz. Fakat bir tecavüz yaşandığı ima ediliyor. İzleyici olarak olup bitenlere karşı kayıtsız hissettiriliyoruz. Deneyimin derinlemesine travmatik olduğunu Camille’in olup bitenleri hatırlayamaması vurguluyor. Bu çekim teknikleri ile bize Camille’in olayı tamamen bastırdığını ve bilincinde yok ettiğini anlatılıyor. Bu, gerçekte hafızamızın çalışma şekli ve travma sonrası stres bozukluğunun deneyimlenişiyle uyumlu olduğu için çok çarpıcıydı. Film, karmaşık psikolojik kavramları görünürde aldatıcı derecede basit yollarla tasvir etmemize olanak tanıyor. Sinemayı bu yüzden büyüleyici buluyorum.
Why am I fascinated by cooking? Honestly, over the years I’ve developed a deep-rooted appreciation for the practice itself as I witnessed its power in bringing people together. It’s overwhelming living in a modern world divided by differences. Choosing to focus on eating a universal commonality made me happier. I agree, we do all have powerful memories being cooked for. That act of generosity and love I received from my family did leave a mark on me. I want to explore that sentiment deeper with the help of this show called Cooked.
Michael Pollan wrote a book called Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation and Netflix made a documentary about it. It’s a four-part mini-series, focusing on the great transformations of cooking. The chapters correspond to the four classical elements; fire, water, air, and earth. Each element has evolutionary relationships between food and society. The show raised a lot of questions like how exactly the practice of eating created and shaped cultures around the world as it separated us from other animals and made us human? A primatologist named Richard Wrangham who developed the cooking hypothesis says the answer is chewing. Being able to cook our meals relieved us from chewing. Half of the primate’s waking hour is spent chewing and it was cooking that led to us becoming human. Homo erectus as the first human evolved when an ape learned to cook. Meaning, cooking is in our nature.
Fire
“When we learned to cook is when we became truly human.”
Michael Pollan
We are starting with fire because that’s where cooking begins. Some communities like the Martu in Australia still practice ancestral methods of cooking by hunting using open fire. Cooking directly over the fire and sharing that meal with a community of people is how our ancestors ate in the olden days. Creating and controlling fire nurtured people to evolve into our modern selves. Around that fire, stories were told about the land and through the cautionary tales about dangers and the beauty of fire, communities were formed.
After watching the scenes in Australia, I was left with many questions. I need to take the fact that this is a Netflix documentary with a grain of salt and asses for a minute. As we were thinking about the evolution of the human species and Homo sapiens differentiation from primates, was it Eurocentric to cut to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People’s hunting and cooking practices? Should we consider Orientalism here with the lack of subtitles during some dialogues and added atmospheric music in mind? Is cooking over a fire an inherent masculine practice? Is meat consumption crucial to the male identity?
It was a debatable and thought-provoking segment. At the end of the day, the intention is what I value here. The fact that it made me ask questions was valuable to me. I don’t know. We should talk about it. Leave your thoughts.
How is barbecuing different than daily home cooking which has been associated with women? Outdoors? Can it be that simple? How did cooking over a fire become ritually so important to men? Many anthropologists say that men are tied to hunting and a part of that killing is cooking. Henry Fielding even refers to The Odyssey as “Homer’s book about eating”. In the Odyssey, these great heroes, the most prestigious people in their community are out there butchering and cooking and serving food with a lot of care. It doesn’t diminish their prestige because it is ritualistically so important. The high-risk high-value hunt creates an occasion for their community. A feast. The abundance of food shared around a fire creates a memory.
In time, memories turn into the lore of the barbecue. A story told using fire as its medium. Humans are taught to be halfway between the gods and the animals. Because the animals can’t cook and the gods love sacrifice. When humans are wielding that fire and sending that sacrifice up to the gods in the form of smoke, it’s a declaration of their elevation above the animals who don’t know how to cook. That is why the idea of a man in front of a fire, as the leader of the community, who’s dispensing the goods to his community is so strong. There is a great meaning attached to meat consumption, helpful in understanding today’s dietary conflicts.
Interesting how a sight or a smell of barbecued meat can make us salivate. I know we’re drawn to certain foods by our co-evolution. Fruits in particular. Meat cooked in certain ways picks up some of the same chemical compounds that we are hardwired to like in fruit. The flavors we tend to prefer in smoked meat come from hardwoods. And woods carry the same flavor compounds that make their way into fruits. Also, when we cook using hardwoods, it’s not the wood itself that is burning. It’s the gases inside the wood that actually burns and it volatilizes a variety of compounds into the meat as it cooks. While the meat is cooking, The Maillard Reaction occurs when amino acids and sugars form new molecules. When new chemical compounds are formed it creates more complexity and complexity means more flavor. The flavor we get comes from fat in the meat melting and dripping down and then catching fire on the burning wood and coals. That in turn gives us aroma. Honestly, I am salivating right now writing about this.
“Live in the present, savor the past and be excited about the future.”
Eliza MacLean
Now we have arrived at the heart of this narrative. Livestock farming. The much-debated argument over grass-fed organic farming vs. factory farming. A consumer’s dilemma. Again, an idea is being pitched to us. Essentially the question is, where should we choose to spend our money? But it’s asked subtler than that. Where should your meat come from? Should you choose to care about it? What difference does your choice make? Who’s interests are being served by consumer decisions?
Well. Before I begin, I should say that I would very much rather become one with nature. I don’t enjoy being a human being sometimes. This must be the price of having a consciousness. Unfortunate. Let’s dive in
I understand humanity is curious, competitive, greedy for resources, expansionist, and with this quality our ancestors were successful in building civilizations. A measurable metric for civilization’s progress is their energy use. How much energy we extract from our environment and with it how many usable things we produce define our civilization’s progress. Altering the planet must be the price of being civilized. How does all this relate to meat production?
Through film language, the show is forming emotional connections with grass-fed livestock farming. We see open spaces, sunshine, happy animals in an organic farm, and torture, pain, and misery in a factory farm. The enemy is clear here. And I don’t enjoy being emotionally manipulated. We should all be able to make informed rational decisions based on facts. When you pay close attention you can see that we’re not being presented by many facts here, but rather we are being presented with a choice.
I don’t think individuals can stand in the way of progress. Progress is profitable. People love having gains. Nature has always been an obstacle to overcome in the civilization-building game. Earth becoming uninhabitable is price humanity is willing to pay in the name of progress. Capitalism may love individualizing global issues, but your choices do not matter here. It may ease your conscience to choose, but it will not make a difference.
Joy. Kittens. Puppies. Hugs.
I brought you down. Now, it’s time to go back up.
Moving on.
“People are at their best, when they realize they are connected.”
Ed Mitchell
Traditions survive because they are adaptive. They are a result of a cultural selection. They exist to keep people healthy and happy and connected. A meal is the simplest thing that we can share together. I do think having active daily participation in cooking is crucial for our well-being. Even in our busy post-modern daily routines, we can keep cooking for ourselves. Though outsourcing makes life easier, letting corporations cook for us renders us into passive consumers. There is a certain amount of pleasure around food and cooking. It’s a set of skills that allows us to be a maker of things, a producer, a provider. That is essential for our survival. The disappearance of fire from our lives is a story of progress. But civilizations do begin around that cook fire. Even today fire draws us together.
Is this your new site? Log in to activate admin features and dismiss this message
egOnto 