That Obscure Object of Desire and Courtly Love or Woman as Thing

That Obscure Object of Desire

I found the actress changes to be interesting because they were generally accompanied by a mood, attitude, and overall character shift on Conchita’s part. Carole Bouquet is the French actress we first meet during the opening train station scene – she plays Conchita with bruises and bandages on her face shuffling through the crowd to get on the train. Bouquet is the stonier actress of the two and typically plays in scenes where Conchita is cold towards Mathieu (e.g. When Mathieu gives her the deed to her new house, she says, “I’m afraid of no one, not even you, Mathieu.”) We also see her in the scene where Conchita and Mathieu meet – Conchita is a servant, and a rude one at that. Later that night when Mathieu requests the aphrodisiac, the actress switches to Angelina Molina, the warmer, flirtatious Spaniard. She smiles widely at Mathieu throughout the duration of the scene, chatting and turning down the bed. As the movie continues, a pattern emerges; the Spanish Molina plays Conchita while she is cheery and affectionate, and the French Bouquet appears to play the more prude and cautious role.

Mathieu is narrating the story to a car of people he shares some mutual connection with, the two most prominent being a judge who knows his cousin and a psychologist who had provided an expert testimony before that same judge.  The choice of these characters seems to deliberately mimic a trial – a trial of Mathieu’s conduct in pouring water over Conchita’s head. Since Mathieu is the storyteller, all the details and disclosure are completely at his discretion. It crossed my mind that the director of That Obscure Object of Desire strategically planned the use of Angelina Molina to indicate that Mathieu’s portrayal of the story may be inaccurate. I think much of the story was distorted by Mathieu’s perception, which was especially warped due to his desire for Conchita.

It seems that Angelina Molina represents the ideal version of Conchita that Mathieu had painted for himself, but may have very little foundation in reality. Molina never models any traits that upset Mathieu – flightiness, indecision, or coldness. Molina plays Conchita when Mathieu visits her apartment for the second time, where she sits on his lap and kisses him and he discovers she is a virgin. Additionally, she plays in the scene where Conchita proclaims her love for Mathieu at the country house. Although it might be an overstatement, it seems to me that an eighteen year old virgin offering her undying love and chastity to a man at least three times her age seems a bit out of the typical realm of reality. However, there is no concrete evidence to support that Conchita was ever warm or loving toward him because we do not see their interactions from her perspective, but it is possible that the friendliness was entirely contrived in Mathieu’s mind. 

Conversely, Carole Bouquet’s presence in a scene tends to indicate a more honest retelling of the story. She represents the reality of the situation because she still contains the traits that Mathieu finds to be undesirable and is otherwise blind to. One of the most dramatic examples of this is when Mathieu visits her apartment for the first time – he gives Conchita (played by Bouquet) money and she doesn’t react or show gratitude, but rather just puts a finger to her mouth and stares down at the table at it. Throughout the movie, several characters make reference to the fact that Mathieu is naïve when it comes to Conchita – something I attribute to his love for Angelina Molina’s character. He is so in love with Molina that he is blind to the existence of Bouquet’s portion of Conchita’s personality.

In one of the final scenes where Mathieu hits Conchita, I would have expected Bouquet to take the role but the director chose Molina. If Molina is ultimately the object of Mathieu’s desire, this scene raises the question of what Mateo truly desired – Did he desire Conchita or did he desire to control Conchita? The use of the word “Object” in the title leads me to believe the latter.

At the end scene, Carole Bouquet is standing in the mall, watching a woman mend a bloodstained dress. She gets upset and turns to walk away from Mathieu. There is an abrupt actress change as he reaches to grab her arm. Angelina Molina turns to look at Mathieu, pulls her arm away and there is a fatal explosion directly behind her. I took this as Mathieu finally understanding that his idealized vision of Conchita (played by Molina) is unattainable and potentially nonexistent and he finally sees her for what she is. He is forced to let go of his illusion and this shatters his reality, because for so long, all of his time and energy was spent on the pursuit of a nonexistent Conchita.

I know that was rather long-winded so I’ll speak very briefly about Zizek.

Zizek says, “The object can be perceived only when It is viewed from the side, in partial, distorted form as its own shadow – if we cast a direct glance at it, we see nothing, a mere void.” (p. 95)

The use of the word ‘object’ is interesting as it almost seems to imply that we do not desire reciprocation so much as possession of love, or what we perceive as love. I found this quote to be very applicable to our discussion in class as well as to the myth of Narcissus. So much of what we consider to be love is manufactured in our minds, so when we look into it and explore it more directly, it’s plain to see that this ideal vision love does not exist at all. Narcissus thought that he loved the person that he saw in his reflection, but upon closer inspection, he discovered that it was nothing but that – a reflection. He realized that he was, in fact, the object upon which he’d pinned all of his love and desire and that he would never have any hope of attaining it. This created a void where his love was supposed to be, and that void was reflected back into his person so severely that he withered away.

Song of Songs, Narcissus, and Mirror Stage

Song of Songs:

I noticed that both parties frequently use fruit to describe their feelings of love and desire for each other. At one point during Song of Songs 4:13-14, Solomon compares his lover to pomegranates, fruit, henna, nard, saffron, calamus, cinnamon, incense trees, myrrh, aloe, and fine spices within the course of a few lines. It’s somewhat of a common practice to use fruit and flowers to describe desire in a delicate, modest manner, especially in the bible. I’m inclined to believe that this use of symbolism originated from the story of Adam and Eve, where the apple tree and the fruit were used as symbols for desire.

A book like this is on the raunchy and scandalous side for a religious book like the bible, but many people interpret Song of Songs as a portrayal of the relationship between God and the church or God and the individual rather than Solomon and his lover.

Ovid’s Myth of Narcissus:

Narcissus is a story I’ve heard before, but I’d never taken the time to have a closer look. Throughout the story, both central characters find a love that is out of their reach, and the unfulfilled desire ultimately leads to their demise. The myth of Narcissus depicts love and the aftermath of love through somewhat of a cynical and dark lens.

I found it interesting that Echo could selectively echo speech. Instead of echoing everything, she only echoes the ends of sentences that convey her feelings. However, this wasn’t sufficient enough to make Narcissus understand her intentions, so upon revealing herself, Narcissus rejects Echo and runs away. Initially, Echo is elated at the discovery of her new love, but after Narcissus’ rejection, “she concealed herself in the woods, hiding her shamed face in the shelter of the leaves and ever since that day, she dwells in lonely caves.” (p. 84)

Echo originally had a body, but when she became reclusive, the pain of unrequited love riddled her with insomnia, weight loss, and decay until there was nothing left of her, save for her voice. A similar end came to Narcissus, who found himself unable to leave his reflection, even to perform those important functions like eating and sleeping, until, “he was worn and wasted away with love, and slowly consumed by its hidden fire.” (p. 87)

Despite Narcissus’ disregard for Echo’s feelings, Echo still grieved for him. Her love was strong enough to make her forgive him and turn a blind eye to the past, which is something I find myself doing and something I see in other people.

I found it remarkable that both characters fell in love, found it to be out of reach, and allowed it to physically destroy them. Narcissus loved something that he could never have this made his love infinitely stronger. If someone feels as though they are lacking something, it’s far more enticing to obtain the object or person they feel that they lack because the sense of fulfillment is much greater. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “You want what you can’t have.” This holds true not only in literature, but in reality as well. It almost seems as though it’s in human nature to desire what we lack and in doing so, submit ourselves to self-inflicted torture. 

Lacan’s ‘Mirror Stage’:

In the Mirror Stage, Lacan describes how infants initially form their concept of I by recognizing their own reflections.  I saw a parallel to Narcissus in the sense that in both cases, the individual is basing their identity on a reflection of themselves.

The Ideal-I, an individual’s perception of the perfect version of himself or herself, is a representation of ego and generally cannot be obtained. The infant will feel lacking and continue to strive to achieve the Ideal-I, much like Narcissus recognized his reflection as something that was unattainable, but still strived to merge his real self and the reflection due to his sense of shortcoming.