Identification

[Agent Sparrow]

Actually I can’t ever remember thinking “ooh that reminds me of me” when I’ve read any book, ever, so I’m a non-identificationist, I guess. I still feel fully immersed in a story where all the characters are completely exotic and light years away from my own psychological makeup.

See, I'm not arguing you have to consciously think "I identify with that", I think it's much more subtle.

However I know that by using the subconscious I'm in essence saying stuff which is quite hard to prove or disprove so maybe I should stop here.

 

[MysteryGuest]

ESCAPIST!

Oooh - red letters. I can identify with that.

 

[Hollis]

Yeah.. I mean I'm sure, in retrospect, with Avon in Blakes 7 there was some really screwy subconscious shit going on maan.

 

[Dubversion]

. If you care at all what happens to a character it could be argued that you've emotionally connected with them in some way.

or that - as you alluded earlier - you have enough concern for the human condition that you don't consider identification or empathy a precondition for concern about their fate.

 

[girasol]

By identification do you mean sympathising/understanding the motivations behind the characters actions?

If that's the case there are many films in which this is the case for me, and many others when it's not.

When I just don't agree with the character's way of thinking or their actions I find that it can make the film even more enjoyable, because it challenges my way of thinking...

 

[Reno]

I often like stories that subvert our desire to identify with the protagonist/s.

Hitchcock was very good at playing with audience identification. He'd often cast an actor who is more charismatic than the hero as the villain (as in Strangers on a Train), he'd make the "hero" do appalling things (Cary Grant forcing Ingrid Bergman into prostitution in Notorious) or he'd create a suspense sequence forcing the audience to become complicit with a character even when they are committing a crime. He pushed this furthest in Psycho, when he killed off the only character we can identify half way through the film, forcing us to switch out sympathies to her killer as he is mopping up her blood.

It can be the point of a narrative that no character is sympathetic or something can still be so formally interesting that it doesn't matter that we don't identify with anybody (I find this is the case with most Dario Argento films). The only time when it doesn't work for me is when I can't identify with a character who is supposed to be sympathetic due to bad characterisation (as in the writing or acting)).

 

[tastebud]

Must have a weak sense of self then, like the poster MysteryGuest.

Not at all! I know you're taking the piss but I will respond nevertheless. I *do* often identify with characters, or at least parts of characters. I sometimes identify with characters that 'seem' totally different to myself but I also really enjoy films and books when I *don't* id. with a character or cannot fathom the motivation for behaviour or action.

I'm just saying that it isn't what I'm hoping to get from a book/film, which seems to be the case for the people that Dub is alluding to in his OP and a bit of what AS said too.

(TBH I think Hollis *has* summed it all up correctly).

 

[Agent Sparrow]

or that - as you alluded earlier - you have enough concern for the human condition that you don't consider identification or empathy a precondition for concern about their fate.

I'm not totally sure what you mean here tbh. That might be my fault for not explaining myself too well.

Personally though I think I generally feel some sort of empathy for one of the characters in most books I read, even if they are totally different from myself. Though that might just be me.

 

[Hollis]

If that's the case there are many films in which this is the case for me, and many others when it's not.

Great minds think alike.

 

[Dubversion]

as Vixen and others have said, this thread was a response to seeing a lot of comments on threads (Hidden's an example) where people have said

"nah, didn't like it, couldn't identify with the characters" or "the protagonists were wankers so i didn't enjoy it", something like that.

which is valid, of course, but utterly alien to me.

 

[Dubversion]

I'm not totally sure what you mean here tbh. That might be my fault for not explaining myself too well.

you seemed to imply that to care about the fate of a character would involve some degree of empathy or identification. I just disagree with that..

 

[girasol]

In Hidden I actually identified with all of the characters (i.e. their motivations were absolutely clear and understandable to me - perhaps that's why I liked it so much - everyone's emotions made perfect sense to me)...

 

[tastebud]

Hmmm, now I could say that perhaps that's why you like them so much, because it helps you explore a totally different side of emotions/situations which you'd never normally explore. And in order to explore those emotions you do need to make a connection on some level. But perhaps I'm reading into it all too much.

I do personally think though for a book to be really memorable though there is most often some emotional connection, whether that is a case of clear identification, or fascination, or whatever. If you care at all what happens to a character it could be argued that you've emotionally connected with them in some way. We interact with people in such a psychologically complex way I think it is only fair to assume that similar processes are going on with our perception of the characters of books and film. When those complex processes are not engaged, we find it very hard to keep our interest.

This is don't agree with. Or certainly can't *relate* to - my favourite books are my favourite books because of the way they are written; the prose.. they just happen to feature some very bizarre and twisted characters.

Another thing I'd add is that I use books - possibly films too, although that's not as obvious to myself - to get the f*ck away from life/people around me. If I want to escape into a book it's often to get the hell away from real-life/human kind. I've been like that since a very small child.

 

[Dubversion]

In Hidden I actually identified with all of the characters (i.e. their motivations were absolutely clear and understandable to me - perhaps that's why I liked it so much - everyone's emotions made perfect sense to me)

this i also agree with to some extent - whereas i don't need to identify to enjoy, ironically i could identify to some extent with the protagonists in hidden

 

[Leica]

If this thread was sparked by Hidden, why don't you make it more particular by referring specifically to Hidden. It is hard to talk about identification in general terms, it is a huge topic.

 

[Pieface]

Because it was sparked by it but occurred to me I'd heard criticism of the same kind at Book Group.

 

[Dubversion]

If this thread was sparked by Hidden, why don't you make it more particular by referring specifically to Hidden. It is hard to talk about identification in general terms, it is a huge topic.

because it's not specific to Hidden, it's a comment i see most days somewhere or other in the books/films/tv forum. Hidden was the most recent example, but not a specially indicative one.

and i'm aware it's hard to talk about, that's what makes it interesting

 

[tastebud]

If this thread was sparked by Hidden, why don't you make it more particular by referring specifically to Hidden. It is hard to talk about identification in general terms, it is a huge topic.

Hmm I think it's really interesting as a general topick actually.

I do still think Hollis is right though. With a little added bit: clearly some people need to identify to enjoy whereas others do not.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

you seemed to imply that to care about the fate of a character would involve some degree of empathy or identification. I just disagree with that..

Identification, perhaps no. Empathy, yes, I think that you do need to empathise to a degree in order to care about someone's fate. Or instead feel emotions that are the counter of empathy - disgust for example. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I personally think if you care about a character having a good outcome you need to empathise.

Mind you, I am quite an emotional reader/viewer, and usually one of those who ends up crying at sad films.

 

[Leica]

I just thought it might be easier to discuss this by referring to a concrete example. Sometimes it helps to go from the specific to the general. Perhaps I should have said that it is hard for me to talk about it then.

 

[Orang Utan]

I find repellent characters fascinating but I do sometimes get put off by certain characters who I do not identify with - eg Ian McEwan's books are written superbly but the people in them tend to live in such a different world to me that I cannot suspend my prejudices against such overpriviledged middle-class types and I fail to engage emotionally with anyone in his books (apart from the really nasty fucked up ones in his early short stories). The same with Stephen fucking Polliakoff, if you need a cinematic example.

 

[Orang Utan]

It's weird cos I identify more with working class characters in, say, the films of Ken Loach, despite not being working class myself.

 

[girasol]

'American Psycho' is probably a classic example of a character no one (well, I'd imagine most people wouldn't) identifies with, but it's a book I'm glad I read.

 

[tastebud]

Mind you, I am quite an emotional reader/viewer, and usually one of those who ends up crying at sad films.

Me too. (Books too).

I find repellent characters fascinating but I do sometimes get put off by certain characters who I do not identify with - eg Ian McEwan's books are written superbly but the people in them tend to live in such a different world to me that I cannot suspend my prejudices against such overpriviledged middle-class types and I fail to engage emotionally with anyone in his books (apart from the really nasty fucked up ones in his early short stories).

Whereas I still absolutely love his books despite not engaging with the characters. Whilst I can't identify with their over-priviledged middle-classness I can sometimes identify with their feelings. But to come back to my earlier point; he has such a beautiful way of writing that it supercedes any emotional engagement that I'm failing to make.

 

[Pieface]

he has such a beautiful way of writing that it supercedes any emotional engagement that I'm failing to make.

This is what I think I pick up on more - style and execution of the ideas. I can be a soft twat though when I get sucked in

 

[tastebud]

This is what I think I pick up on more - style and execution of the ideas. I can be a soft twat though when I get sucked in

Actually I've been thinking about this more and take back some of what I've said earlier. The ultimate escape IS when you can imagine yourself within the story. Actually I think all I was ever saying is that I can fall in love with a book/film if it is beautifully written etc and do not necessarily *need* to identify with a character.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

'American Psycho' is probably a classic example of a character no one (well, I'd imagine most people wouldn't) identifies with, but it's a book I'm glad I read.

But you don't have to identify with the main protagonist surely, there are other characters. Even though she's a minor role I thought there was scope to identify with his PA, who was invited round totally unknowing, and who got away. Even though our friends aren't psycho serial killers, I thought there was a hint of "what if" about that film.

And I've only seen the film, but I thought American Psycho was somewhat about the demon which exists within us all, albiet a much more extreme version of most of our demons!

 

[Groucho]

It is an established Hollywood FACT that one only gets a film(/play/novel) if one identifies with a lead character. And you need a romantic interest. And a beginning, a middle and an end: Don't forget the plot.

Although I do think this above is rubbish - over simplistic lowest common denominator stuff - I think it is easier to have a character you can identify with, just as it is easier to have a plot that is simple. But easier isn't always better.

Identification anyway can be complex. Cinematic techniques deploy identification in a number of ways. Simply viewing an event from a particular character's perspective forces idenitification on one level. It is possible to identify with a character far removed from oneself if by so doing you allow expression of a single facet of desire.

Buniel's Belle De Jour is male sexual fantasy. The principle character is a woman who conforms to a common male sexual fantasy/fear as attached to woman. The character Belle De Jour does not have to be convincing as a woman as she is simply a projection of a male fantasy woman-figure. The identification is largely male viewer with female protagonist, but the female is an extension of male desire. So identification does not need to be predicated on a direct link to the character with whom one is identifying.

Eisenstein's Strike or Battleship Potemkin has social movements/classes as the protagonists rather than individual heroes/heroines with occassional brief moments of individual human identification. Potemkin is rightly considered a giant of a film but has no individual hero, and no romantic interest!

Although Shallow Grave was not a great film, I could never understand the standard objection - that one could not identify with any of the yuppy git characters. For one thing seeing dislikeable people tear themselves and each other apart principally as a result of the Thatcherite morals they adhere to is surely amusing precisely because you don't identify with them. Although I would have thought desire to cut your flat mates to shreds was not uncommon and there would be space to identify in that sense....

 

[Dubversion]

Although Shallow Grave was not a great film, I could never understand the standard objection - that one could not identify with any of the yuppy git characters. For one thing seeing dislikeable people tear themselves and each other apart principally as a result of the Thatcherite morals they adhere to is surely amusing precisely because you don't identify with them. .

exactly.

 

[Dubversion]

Even though our friends aren't psycho serial killers,

speak for yourself