A European auteur (known only here as “Herr Director”) is making his English-language debut, with a film entitled The Undesirables, an overwrought melodrama about deformed patients in a facility, who are all falsely promised the chance to have their lives improved by a sinister doctor, who hides many secrets about his institution from those under his care, using his patients as subjects in his sadistic experiments on human lives. The director has cast a young actress named Mabel in the leading role of a blind woman and has surrounded her with a variety of individuals who are all stricken by some malady or disability, to give the film more authenticity. Questions of the exploitative nature of his film begin to surface, concurrently to the growing friendship between Mabel and her co-lead, known only by his character’s name of Rosenthal, whose facial disfigurements have left him unable to find the kind of satisfaction in life he desired, having to resort to playing small parts in films that only use him as a device. Mabel is struck by conflict – a film that centres entirely around the concept of what can be considered beautiful, has employed actors who are seen as contradictory to this idea, and instead of giving them the exposure they deserve, they all become mere props in a work focused instead on showing the plight of a woman who meets these standards. Through her friendship with Rosenthal and her interactions with the rest of the cast, she begins to learn that there is far more to the industry than she expected, especially in the treatment of those who don’t quite match the criteria of what a movie star should look like, regardless of their underlying talent.
Before the film starts, Chained for Life presents us with these words by Pauline Kael:
Actors and actresses are usually more beautiful than ordinary people. And why not? Why should we be deprived of the pleasure of beauty? It is a supreme asset for actors and actresses to be beautiful, it gives them greater range and greater possibilities for expressiveness. The handsomer they are, the more roles they can play. Actors and actresses who are beautiful start with an enormous advantage, because we love to look at them.
This was adapted from Kael’s 1967 review of Bonnie and Clyde, in reference to her discussion on the casting of Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway as the titular duo, and the idea that their attractiveness somehow glamourises the crimes their characters are committing. This quote (which could be considered somewhat controversial in a modern context) being repurposed as an epigraph to this film was a bold choice, particularly when we look into the precise themes that director Aaron Schimberg was exploring with this mighty exploration of not only the film industry, but the human tendency to negotiate the definition of beauty based on standards that have been maintained as being prominent for centuries, and continue to be a topic of enormous contention, especially in a society that most would believe is heading in a more progressive direction. Undoubtedly, to start a film that hinges on a discussion of physical beauty in relation to more intimate matters with these words is quite a daring decision and far from subtle – yet its also a brilliant method of introducing the fact that Schimberg is not going to approach this subject matter with the kind of innocuous, cautious subtlety that many other forays into this narrative territory tend to do. Chained for Life is a provocative, darkly comical satire on the perception of beauty, not only from the perspective of those that have to endure the challenges of being different in a world that doesn’t accept them for who they are, but also those who perpetuate a myopic view of what beauty is, even when their good intentions lead them to believe otherwise.
Chained for Life is an exceptionally intelligent film, particularly in its approach to the challenging subject matter. It makes use of a method that is hardly utilized in the film industry, whereby it tackles a controversial issue that afflicts a certain faction of society by becoming the very thing it is criticizing, and then gradually subverting the message to become an indictment on the institutionalized structures that it is inherently taking to task. It’s a concept that is rarely ever done successfully, but which Schimberg somehow manages to execute with precision, elegance and sensitivity. It’s a complex film with a multitude of fascinating ideas, all of which are composed in a meaningful way, which allows for the avoidance of any insincerity, and evades the threat of this film being seen as either flippant in how it approaches the subject matter, where it could have easily trivialized these characters and their struggle, or inappropriately overwrought, preaching to audiences about their own preconceived notions without actually contributing to the discussion in an insightful way. Schimberg navigates the narrow boundary between languid moralizing and exploitation and delivers one of the most exceptionally profound explorations of the human condition in recent years, a heartfelt drama that frequently touches on deeper issues in such a way that they evoke fascinating and necessary discussions without actually deviating off-course and becoming a bundle of sanctimonious neuroses that are the result of a filmmaker who believes himself to be a lot more intelligent and insightful to issues than he actually is. It avoids the pratfalls of the archetypal moral “lesson films” by blending humour with pathos and humanizing the characters in a way that isn’t merely indicating that we should not judge based on appearance, but rather look even deeper to find the true worth in each individual, separate from any external factors.
In no uncertain terms, Chained for Life is an unquestionably important film, waiting patiently to be discovered as the subversive masterpiece that it is. Unfortunately, it is relatively underseen due to its smaller scope, a product of its fiercely independent spirit, which should’ve been easily overcome by the fact that the director is doing something very compelling with his approach to the film, looking at the limits of perception through challenging the very boundaries of the human condition, and how we not only identify ourselves but the identity we assert on others. A question that is not often asked when it comes to this kind of film is how individuals negotiate both our own place in society, but also where he place those around us. Chained for Life, contrary to what the premise suggests (and which its detractors have often forced onto it as an indelible aspect of its storyline) is not merely about a young, beautiful woman having her perspective changed by being in contact with individuals who are not aligned with what she has been conditioned to believe beauty to look like, with a deeper set of theoretical concepts pervading the film and creating an atmosphere of surreal pensiveness, particularly in comparison between the two leads. Schimberg is masterfully putting together various ideas by creating two separate storylines, which he explores concurrently through setting Chained for Life within the film industry, writing a poignant tale of acceptance, which he contrasts with the film-within-the-film, which is far more challenging when it comes to how we perceive these issues, both on a personal level and in terms of the broader socio-cultural context.
In keeping with the spirit of the premise, the film employs a cast of relative unknowns, with a blend of newcomers and more obscure character actors populating the film. Jess Weixler, who has spent most of her career in bit parts in an assortment of films and television series, occupies the main role of Mabel, bringing with her a sincerity that works alongside her more evasive hesitation to the project and its many challenges, which only erodes as the story progresses. She’s exceptionally good, taking on the role with an enormous delicacy that makes her journey as a character all the more compelling. She shares many of her scenes with Adam Pearson, who plays the role of Rosenthal. Pearson had previously been cast in his first feature film as one of the victims in Under the Skin, a film that carefully made use of his unique appearance and crafted one of the most effective portrayals of disability ever committed to film, an authentically beautiful, earnest exploration of deeper issues that pertain to those with any kind of difference, whether it be of appearance or ability. Unfortunately, there are not many roles for those like Pearson, so for him to get another astonishing role in this film was thrilling. Rosenthal is the film’s tragic hero – he’s as charming and endearing as any of the other co-stars, with the only difference being his disfigurement, which he refuses to allow to define him. Pearson is truly an exceptionally gifted actor, bringing so much sincerity and pathos to a role that would have very likely been nothing more than a plot device had it not been for both the actor’s immense talents and the director who made sure to utilize them.
It’s not enough to just cast people with disabilities if they’re going to just satiate a diversity quota, which is something Chained for Life not only realized but also actively worked to remedy, giving these actors the showcase they deserve. The most touching moments come when the disabled actors are left to stay in the abandoned hospital, while the “stars” of the film make their way to a luxurious hotel – and instead of simply sitting in a sedate state, they decide to make their own movie, where they’re not solely defined on their appearance or abilities, but can play the dashing hero, the charming love-interest and the complex villains. For many of them, this is the first time they’re afforded the opportunity to speak in the entire film, as the film-within-a-film just uses them as background characters. Its a beautifully moving set of scenes, and its where the theme of not only diversity but meaningful interaction, dovetails in an unexpectedly heartwarming manner. The film intentionally doesn’t choose a particular genre to align itself with – caught somewhere between psychological drama and comical satire, as well as employing some elements of horror, which is intentionally chosen to underpin and eventually subvert the theme of difference. In their first appearance, the “alternatively talented” actors are presented as if they were not entirely human – reduced to a few small physical descriptors, standing in the shadows (sometimes quite literally) and being the subject of discussion without uttering so much as a single word before the more myopic characters assert their own opinions on who these people are. When the protagonist (along with the audience, who accompany her on this metaphysical journey) eventually learns how eloquent these people are, it truly opens up the film and allows it to flourish into this gorgeous statement on humanity and its idiosyncratic nature.
Schimberg’s effortless manner of quite literally going beyond skin-deep issues and presenting us with something so beautifully complex, while still hopelessly optimistic in its approach to the subject matter, is exactly what sets this film apart from the many others that have gradually shown themselves to be open to this kind of discussion. Many projects have prioritized the idea of “the other”, where even the most open-minded of them tend to approach these characters as childlike or relatively harmless, which was appropriate for a time in which the mindset was different – but to have to reiterate exactly how ordinary these individuals are by making it a point is inherently harmful in itself, which is something Chained for Life avoids entirely by telling a coherent story about humanity in its many forms, rather than the binary that a great deal of thematically-similar films tends to do. This film is almost revolutionary in its mindset, taking a far more complex approach to these issues, while still remaining as charming as it intended to be. It doesn’t feel it necessary to overcomplicate the issues by presenting us with intense ruminations on what it means to be human, which is a condescending tendency for a lot of similar films. Instead, Schimberg goes in search of something deeper, a quiet compassion that elevates this film and turns it into a powerful social statement that is entirely authentic and beautifully-composed, both in terms of the content and the form (the gorgeous cinematography that pervades throughout the film is inherently important in evoking the meaningful detachment from reality at the film thrives on). Chained for Life is a daring film – not only does it challenge many preconceived notions, including by those who are often regarded as the seminal authorities on certain subjects, but also looks at our own perception, forcing us to question it, and come to the conclusion that ultimately, we all have a long way to go in terms of how we view those not quite aligned with culturally-conditioned ideals. A heartbreaking, but also sweetly funny, drama that ponders enormous issues by exploring them through a very simple premise, there’s no doubt that Chained for Life is a vitally important film that leaves a truly indelible impression, and establishes itself as a poignant social statement that relates to every one of us in some way.
The Postmodern Pelican 