A PORTRAIT OF JULIAN

- Three Interpretations of ‘Only God Forgives’ by Nicolas Winding Refn -

by

Philip M. Magri

Readings in Literary Tradition and Popular Culture

ATS 5120

Master of Arts in Literary Tradition and Popular Culture

February, 2014

Faculty of Arts

University of Malta

TABLE OF CONTENTS

‘Only God Forgives’: when fairytale dream turns into nightmare……………………1

1. The Freudian Interpretation……………………………………………………….5

2. The Synthesis of Two Opposing Forces………………………………………..8

3. Bangkok as Anti-Oedipus……………………………………………………….12

‘Only God Forgives’ : when fairytale dream turns into nightmare

Nicolas Winding Refn’s ‘Only God Forgives’ was undoubtedly one of the most

interesting cinematographic products of 2013. Truly enough, criticism of the

movie has been largely polarized with some notable critics hailing it as Winding

Refn’s masterpiece whilst others manifesting in very clear terms their utter

disappointment at the director’s work by drawing negative comparisons with his

previous ‘Drive’. The latter was premiered and awarded with the Best Director

award at Cannes in 2011.

Truly enough, for those who, after ‘Drive’’s widespread success, expected

Winding Refn to move more squarely towards Hollywood territory ‘Only God

Forgives’ comes as a shock on more levels than one. Not only has Winding Refn

steered his last work more decisively away from the mainstream but he has

certainly proved himself as one of a limited number of postmodern ‘auteurs’ who

will not allow himself to be easily channelled or pigeon-holed by the industry.

Suffice it to say that following ‘Only God Forgives’ there is also talk of him going

all sci-fi for a re-working of the ‘Barbarella’ cult.1 At the outset it is evident that

Winding Refn shares with his co-national Lars von Trier the declared intent of

non-repetition. At this juncture of his work, ‘Only God Forgives’ sees him at the

same time laying fresh stress on his signature love of stylish violence as his

predominant tool for portraying character whilst also opting for the investigation

of new worlds and concepts to the extent that the movie can almost be considered

1 ‘Barbarella’ is a 1968 French-Italian science fiction film based on Jean-Claude Forest's French

Barbarella comics. The film stars Jane Fonda in the title role and was directed by Roger Vadim,

who was Fonda's husband at the time.

2

a conceptual piece. Even for the fresh admirer of Winding Refn’s work, the

product shocks because, unlike ‘Drive’ that managed to articulate such a well-

balanced use of plot and character to bring forward a romantic hero of the our

times, ‘Only God Forgives’ thrives on imbalance. In attempting the stylish

handling of yet another portrait, this time around Winding Refn opts to favour, in

an absolute manner, signature style over plot. The elements of the latter are few

and sparse. We are told that Julian (also played by Ryan Gosling) manages a Thai

boxing club in Bangkok as a front for his drug trafficking. Julian’s brother Billy

murders an underage prostitute and as a result of this gets killed himself by the

prostitute’s father. Soon afterwards Crystal, the boys’ mother (played by an

unprecedented American incarnation of Kristin Scott Thomas – a cross between

Lady Macbeth and Donatella Versace2), arrives in Bangkok and demands that

Julian avenges his brother. But this is as far as plot will go. Unlike ‘Drive’, this

time around the laconic, taciturn protagonist will succumb impassively and

masochistically to a horrific destiny.

To a certain extent it is no wonder then that many critics felt cheated. The greatest

slap in the face comes from the manner in which Winding Refn has evidently

deconstructed completely the fairy-tale he had manufactured in ‘Drive’ in favour

of the hellish nightmare presented in ‘Only God Forgives’. Many negative critics

possibly refused to accept that a contemporary director can still favour his own

personal vision of life at the time when the movie gets made over the vision which

is generally expected of him at that particular point in time. And yet this is

2 Interview with Nicolas Winding Refn; Only God Forgives Press Kit; Le Pacte; Wild Side

Gaumont; available at http://www.festival-cannes.fr/assets/Image/Direct/048082.pdf. Last

accessed on the 31st January, 2014.

3

precisely what being an ‘auteur’ is all about. In his notes as included in the press

kit to the movie, Winding Refn had the following to say about the initial

inspiration for the movie:

“The original concept for the film was to make a movie

about a man who wants to fight God. That is, of course, a

very vast obstacle but when I was writing the film, I was

going through some very existential times in my life - we

were expecting our second child and it was a difficult

pregnancy - and the idea of having a character who wants

to fight God without knowing why very much appealed to

me.” 3

Many critics also failed to understand the significance of Julian’s character

because Ryan Gosling’s Driver did not prepare them for any of this. Many

possibly expected a development of that character and were faced with what can,

in such terms, be only evidently construed as a complete breakdown of the values

exhibited in ‘Drive’. There were ‘Drive’ showed a caring and protective avenger,

‘Only God Forgives’ presents a character who does not care enough even about

himself, who fails to protect or to avenge and barely tries to do so. In these terms,

it is perhaps better to seek an interpretation of Julian’s character independently of

the previous Driver. Many positive critics have rightly, in my opinion, abandoned

any hierarchy of values presented by the Driver as character, opting instead for a

hierarcy of values presented by ‘Drive’ as a text by Winding Refn the ‘auteur’

3 Ibid; Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014.

4

within his body of work. It is only in this perspective that ‘Only God Forgives’

can be hailed as a masterpiece in bringing to an epitome – precisely through

Julian’s character – the discourse that is typically that of Winding Refn, a

discourse that does not really distinguish between hero and villain as long as the

result is stylish and at the same time violent, leaving the audience truly lacerated

by the visual beauty, on one hand, and the horror of the action on the other.

In Reading People, Reading Plots 4 James Phelan argues that, within any given

text, character can be analysed with reference to three main categories: the

mimetic (character as person), the synthetic (character as artificial construct) and

the thematic (character as idea). This categorization can be clearly applied to

Julian as well to unlock at least three key interpretations of the character as also of

Winding Refn’s work. This paper attempts to reveal what drives the character,

what lies behind the deeply misinterpreted blank face and tight lips of Julian 5 by

applying precisely Phelan’s understanding of character and plot.

4 Phelan, James, ‘Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression and the Interpretation

of Narrative’; The University of Chicago Press – Chicago and London (1989). Full text available

at

https://ohiostatepress.org/index.htm?/books/complete%20pdfs/phelan%20reading/phelan%20readi

ng.htm; Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014. 5 For a highly negative review of ‘Only God Forgives’ the reader is invited to read the Anthony

Quinn’s review published by ‘The Independent’ (‘Only God Forgives – Ryan Gosling’s Bangkok

bloodfest is a hellish bore’): “Ryan Gosling has apparently decided that being a star means you don't have to act anymore, you can just stand there looking moody. (...)In Only God Forgives, he's

gone from laconic almost to catatonic, his expression one of unchanging poker-faced blankness,

and the drama follows suit with lead-boots heaviness. In the long pauses his character leaves

between lines you may find some useful catch-up time. I thought about what books I'd pack for my

holiday, but you could also plan out those emails, tweets and epic poems you've been meaning to

write. (...) If your idea of fun is watching Ryan Gosling sleepwalk through Bangkok, then this

could be for you. But take something along to occupy the hellish longueurs in between.” Available

at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-review-only-god-forgives-

-ryan-goslings-bangkok-bloodfest-is-a-hellish-bore-8742691.html. Last accessed on the 31st

January, 2014.

5

1. The Freudian Interpretation

The consideration of Julian’s character as a real person is necessarily linked to the

Oedipal theme. The latter runs throughout the movie to the extent that one evident

interpretation of the movie is that of a contemporary reworking of Sophocles’

work. Julian is a man-child evidently entrapped by his mother’s word as well as

by her world. We are told that, just like Oedipus, in the process of protecting her

from his own father – possibly by murdering him with his very own hands - he

has forced himself into exile, in Bangkok. He is however not as ruthless as the

criminal underworld run by his mother expects him to be. Although he is unable

to avenge his brother, at the same time he is equally unable to stand up against his

mother’s order of vengeance and even fails to voice even a basic argument that

contradicts her.

On the psychoanalytic couch this attachment is revealed as the cause of many of

the traits in Julian’s character including his sudden outbursts of seemingly

unreasonable violence as well as his distorted sexuality. In one scene Julian

observes longingly Mai, the Thai prostitute, standing behind a red bead curtain

from his forlorn seat in a club that is drenched in stylish carmine red and black-

blue hues. Soon afterwards he rises and violently confronts two men who sit at the

opposite corner of the room. The scene concludes with Julian dragging one of the

men by his jaw down a golden corridor to a fate that is not made known to the

viewer. In another scene Mai ties Julian’s hands to chair with a ribbon before

proceeding to masturbate herself. At the dinner scene, Julian is even unable to

utter a single word in defence when his mother ill-treats him and Mai. Julian is

6

repeatedly portrayed as pacing down dark red corridors seemingly reflecting the

uterine tubes of his own mother. Such scenes are as inconclusive as Julian’s

sexuality is in the movie, allowing even for a queer critique of the movie. It is

evident, however, that Julian fails to create a sexual link with another woman

because his mother’s figure looms overhead and stands in the way. A critic has

even hazarded the guess that, saving for Crystal, “the film’s other female

characters are in fact ladyboys, including Mai, (...)This teasing ambiguity of the

film’s gender representation may explain why Thailand was chosen as the

setting.”6

Whilst all this pent-up sexual frustration finds its opening in sudden outbursts of

violence, these are also within the mother’s domain of criminality thus creating in

Julian a seemingly inescapable viscious circle. Julian’s frustration can be traced

back to Eagleton’s explanation of the ‘lesson’ to be learnt from the Oedipus

complex. His only desire is really to possess his mother but:

“(t)he child must now resign itself to the fact that it can

never have any direct access to (...) the prohibited body of

the mother. (...) After the Oedipus crisis, we will never

again be able to attain this precious object, even though

we will spend all our lives hunting for it. We have to make

do instead with substitute objects (...) with which we try

vainly to plug the gap at the very centre of our being. We

move among substitutes for substitutes, metaphors for

6 Adam Woodward; ‘Only God Forgives Review’, ‘Little White Lies’ . Available at

http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/only-god-forgives-24418; Last accessed on the

31st January, 2014.

7

metaphors, never able to recover the pure (if fictive) self-

identity and self-completion.”7

In Freudian terms, energy in Julian is withdrawn from the erotic impulse and

added to the hostile one. Deep within the Oedipal myth, after having saved his

mother from his father he finds that he is still second best, in the eyes of his

mother, to his brother Billy. Julian’s inability to avenge Billy might stem equally

from a growing recognition of natural justice – his belief that his brother deserved

his end - as also from his life-long jealousy of his brother as spat by Crystal in his

face and Mai’s during the above-mentioned dinner scene.

In psychoanalytic terms the movie is a portrayal of Julian’s redemption from his

Oedipus complex through his mother’s death and also through final castration.

The first and perhaps most literal interpretation offered by the movie is that once

the man-child has re-inhabited the prohibited body of his mother, there is nowhere

else left to go. Once the ultimate object of desire is achieved there is truly enough,

in Freudian terms, nothing else left to strive for, no further desire to long for.

Castration is therefore no longer a threat from which to escape but a final

punishment to which Julian will voluntarily succumb.

Truly enough this interpretation is perhaps the most evident one of all the three

presented here. It is certainly the one that has left many critics disappointed by the

character’s lack of spine, by his evident submission to a tortuous descent into Hell

which, saving for the Freudian undertones, seems to be both pointless and

unredeeming. However, it is submitted that the true beauty of the work lies in the

7 Eagleton 1983: 167, 168, 185 quoted by Storey, John; ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An

Introduction’; 5th edition; Pearson Education Limited; England (2009); p. 104.

8

fact that the movie is constructed in such a manner as allows for multiple

interpretations which go beyond those strictly Freudian, providing the movie with

added depth of vision and scope for much philosophical debate as explained in

further detail below.

2. The Synthesis of Two Opposing Forces

Julian’s character can also be understood, in Lacanian terms, as a synthesis of the

two driving forces of the movie – his mother and the unnamed, avenging officer

who portrays God. Once again, this duality can be seen as a reflection of the

Freudian perspective with Crystal representing the ‘Id’ in opposition to the

‘Super-Ego’ represented by the avenging officer. However, beyond this, a second

interpretation of the movie is offered precisely by the tension which is created

through the juxtaposition in Julian of these two opposing desires or forces. In this

context the oedipal complex is only part of the language used by Winding Refn in

a more ample discourse which is used to describe Julian. It is true that the

character adores his mother but this will lead him to fight ‘God’. To this extent

Winding Refn also embraces the Lacanian version of the Oedipus providing a

sociological, if not even religious, dimension to the work beyond the strictly

psycho-analytical.8 Julian knows that, more than his own mother, the ultimate

8 Reece, Charles, ‘Only God Forgives; Feminism’ available at

http://www.amoeba.com/blog/2013/09/writings-from-the-holy-texan/his-mother-s-voice-only-god-

forgives-feminism.html: “This is, as Silverman might explain it, a Lacanian version of the

Oedipal: the child yearns for an imaginary union with the mother, but the father says, "No," which

introduces the kid into the symbolic register where laws, such as moral injunctions, operate. This

original 'no' is the law of the father, a symbolic castration that "grounds" (interpretatively

retrofits) all future symbolic behaviour on a fundamental lack that has removed the child's feeling

of being the center of everything.” (Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014). A Freudian

interpretation of this conflict is also provided by Alessandro Baratti in his review of the movie

9

confrontation is that against God Himself – the ultimate administrator of Justice as

portrayed in the Old Testament - against whom both him and his mother stand for

nothing and against whom he will inevitably emerge as the loser. As seen above

Winding Refn has made it clear that one of the central ideas behind the movie is

that of a man who decides to rebel against God. It is precisely this idea which

pulls the movie away from the strictly oedipal interpretation.

In this context the will to possess the mother can also be interpreted as the

ultimate act of transgression against the creator himself. In this context Julian is

not therefore as impassive as we make him out to be. In failing to avenge his

brother, in failing to protect his mother, in failing to offer any resistance to God in

the central fight scene he is strategically laying the ground for the unattainable

moment of plenitude in Lacanian terms. God will do justice with his mother

allowing Julian to possess her in death as he would never have been able to do in

life. He does not succumb to his destiny so much as passively construct it. He is

ready to face it to the fullest extent no matter the consequences. In this context,

Julian incarnates the devil, the ultimate rebel.

Of particular interest is the manner in which, in linguistic terms, Winding Refn

portrays this inner battle in Julian. Immediately, Billy’s final words to his brother

(‘Time to meet the devil.’) are immensely significant. These words are uttered by

Billy who will die soon afterwards but they are also directed at Julian himself who

will be required to face his inner demon let lose precisely by his brother’s death.

Julian’s duplicity is, after all, rendered also very clearly in visual terms. When

available at http://www.spietati.it/z_scheda_dett_film.asp?idFilm=4782 (Last accessed on the 31st

January, 2014).

10

Julian wears a black shirt he is prone to violent behaviour; however whenever he

dons a white shirt he seems to succumb to more altruitous feelings –

understanding, forgiveness and consequently an inability to follow his mother’s

violent word. Winding Refn himself refers to the concept of the movie also

emerging from the observation on camera of a man slowly clenching and

unclenching his fists and this is what Julian repeatedly does during the movie. The

movie is also replete with symmetrical images and shadows representing the alter-

ego. Clearly the hands, apart from signifying in Freudian terms, phallic symbols

also represent opposing natures, opposing positions taken by Julian throughout the

movie, for and against his mother, for and against violence, for an against Justice

and God.

A second interpretation of the movie, beyond revealing it as simply being a

contemporary re-working of the Oedipal myth as explained above, places added

emphasis on serious political, sociological even religious questions, particularly as

to the true nature – violent and/or controlled - of rebellion. The juxtaposition of

the active and the passive in Julian is also reflected in the ambivalent nature of

most scenes. Winding Refn has revealed that he often constructs the movie

through the use of index card notes describing the single scenes in one sentence

and which he juxtaposes in different sequences until a final development

emerges.9 As seen above, even in most single scenes Winding Refn opts for an

inconclusive approach and this clearly reveals the conceptual foundation of his

9 Winding Refn explains this exercise while interviewed for a featurette on the movie available at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvHti4JuNhs; Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014.

11

work10

. Once again one can hardly blame the audience for feeling left stranded

between opposing feelings which sometimes range from horror to comedy, from

admiration at the beauty of the setup and cinematography to the utter disgust for

what is happening within that setup, within that beautifully crafted

cinematography. Winding Refn is undoubtedly a master in building up or

heightening tension by means of a movement of emotion that proceeds, so to

speak, vertically. The torture scenes are emblematic in this sense. They are mostly

silent, slow and only forceful at particularly strategic intervals or just at the very

end revealing that the director’s interest, much like Tarantino, lies in the process

of tension build-up rather than in the violent act itself.

However, what makes Winding Refn’s work most particular is the ability to leave

the audience reeling from the rollercoaster ride caused by the widely divergent

emotions which the viewer is often made to face not only in experiencing the

movie as a whole but also in considering it frame by frame. A character torn in

two is therefore also reflected in the manner in which the audience itself is torn

between two often opposing feelings during the viewing. For example, the result

obtained after viewing the dinner scene is voluntarily ambivalent between the

comic and the tragic. Similarly, the extreme violence of some scenes is abruptly

interrupted by sessions of karaoke singing by the very perpetrator of such torture.

One cannot but admire the manner in which Winding Refn decisively manipulates

the audience’s feelings by swerving them – so to speak, horizontally - between the

opposing edges of comedy and horror to maximum effect. It is this ‘horizontal’

10

‘Only God Forgives’ is expressly dedicated to Alexander Jodorowsky a Chilean-French director

best known for his surrealist works typcally containing a hybrid blend of violent images,

mysticism and religious provocation.

12

tension, perhaps more than the fetishistic use of violence in itself, that

distinguishes Refn from other contemporary directors and confirms him as a self-

proclaimed ‘pornographer’11

. He has himself described the success of a movie as

being proportionate to the polarization of views. To his mind ‘Only God Forgives’

is a successful movie in that many viewers have loved it, sometimes even to the

point of veneration, and that just as many viewers have booed it or left their seats

half-way through.

3. Bangkok as Anti-Oedipus

One cannot undermine the importance of setting in ‘Only God Forgives’. Its

particular treatment serves well to reflect yet another aspect of Julian’s character

and to reveal a third interpretation of the movie. Once again, Winding Refn’s

emphasis is on style so that Bangkok is portrayed as voluntarily alien, oneiric,

reminiscent in more ways than one, for example, of Kubrick’s depiction of New

York in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’12

. Saving for Julian being so taciturn, as opposed to the

11

Anthony, Andrew; ‘Nicolas Winding Refn: I am a Pornographer’ The Guardian; The Observer;

13th July, 2013 available at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/13/nicolas-winding-refn-

god-forgives; “he concedes the point, but argues that his moral self exercises little control over his

aesthetic choices. "It's like pornography. I'm a pornographer. I make films about what arouses me.

What I want to see. Very rarely to understand why I want to see it and I've learned not to become

obsessed with that part of it." It's not an answer that is likely to satisfy those critics who saw

an almost misogynistic glee in the sexual brutality visited on women. Not only does Refn vacate moral responsibility for the grisly scenes he depicts, but he also compares himself to a

pornographer. There's a kind of provocative flippancy in some of his replies, a punkish temptation

to shock; but there's also a disarming candour, a willingness to look at himself critically.” Last

accessed on the 31st January, 2014. 12

Kubrick’s well-known fear of flight had stopped him from shooting in New York so that the

setting, in this case, unlike Winding Refn’s Bangkok, was scrupulously reconstructed.

13

usual compulsive talkers, Andrew Spicer’s13

list of characteristics of the film noir

is equally applicable to ‘Only God Forgives’:

“Their iconography (...) consists of images of the dark,

night-time city, its street damp with rain which reflects the

flashing neon signs. Its sleazy mileau of claustrophobic

alleyways and deserted docklands alternates with gaudy

nightclubs and swank apartments. (...) (D)eep, enveloping

shadows are fractured by shafts of lift from a single

source, and dark, claustrophobic interiors have shadowy

shapes on the walls. (...) Character’s faces are often lit

with strange highlights or partially shadowed to create

hidden and threatening spaces. (...) Noir’s non-heroic

protagonists are entrapped, often by mischance, in an

alienating, lonely world, usually the night-time city, where

they face the threat of death. The chaotic, random violence

of this world gives rise to feelings of persecution and

paranoia; a sense that life is absurd, meaningless, without

order or purpose.”

In more respects than one the movie takes on the form of an existentialist

nightmare where the ‘femme fatale’ is the protagonist’s mother. However, the

sympomatic, in Althusserian terms, idea or theme behind Julian goes beyond that

of a mere American exiled in Bangkok because of his Oedipus complex. Truly

13

Spicer, Andrew; ‘Film Noir’; Insider Film; Pearson Education (2002) p. 4.

14

enough Bangkok in the movie represents ‘the Other’ with the usual prejudices and

steroetypes – karaoke, sexual exploitation, sizzling dishes – and within this

context Refn’s Bangkok cannot but reveal Julian as a character essentially out of

his natural habitat. As is typical of noir narratives, Julian is, thematically, a

representation of a character doubly estranged from both his homeland and the

host country. Although Winding Refn has revealed that Julian was originally

supposed to be English and played by the English actor Luke Evans14

, and that it

was only after Ryan Gosling accepted to join the project that the character and his

mother ‘became’ American, the movie can still be deterministically interpreted as

the fruit of a particular historical period characterised by widespread economic

uncertainty in a world which is used to considering everything as a commodity.

The ‘noir’ elements gain further significance in this context by recalling “the dark

side of the American psyche and the bleak and forlorn nature of American

society”15

representing “a critique both of American society and the American

dream”.16

What is of particular interest is not the categorization of the movie under one

genre or style to the exclusion of others given that, as seen above, the movie is by

its very nature constructed in such a manner as to escape such categorization by

the juxtaposition of opposing moods. Rather, it is more relevant to consider the

role played by Bangkok within such an atypical movie. Plot-wise, Bangkok serves

as the Underworld and provides the necessary background for the death of

14 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1602613/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv; Last accessed on the 31st January,

2014. 15

Strinati, Domnic; ‘An Introduction to Studying Popular Culture’; Routledge, London (2000) p.

116-117. 16 Ibid.

15

Julian’s mother and his figurative castration. It is the setting where the character is

exiled, enslaved to his Oedipus complex but it is also where Julian, at the end of

the movie, can also be interpreted as having finally managed to break free of the

Freudian grid mother-father(God)-child. The mother’s death and the severing of

the limbs can therefore take yet another meaning independent of mere ‘castration’

in Freudian terms. A misogynistic interpretation of the movie could reveal that,

also similarly to most noir narratives, the social and sexual order can only be

restored by the death and destruction of the mother as the fatal woman. However,

it is submitted that this can be only partially applicable to ‘Only God Forgives’

given that Winding Refn opts to go beyond this by dragging his character beyond

the death of the mother – possibly a representation of America itself - right to the

very abyss of Freudian experience through an executed castration. At the end of

the movie one cannot help but wonder, what happens to Julian after this? What

options are available to Julian after castration and the end of his Freudian

experience in Bangkok? Is castration really the end of everything as presaged by

the first interpretation offered above? How does Julian live on?

By not killing Julian, Winding Refn seems to herald the possibility, albeit

maimed, of extra-oedipal life. Certain critics, amongst whom the blogger Jeremy

Izzo, have noted that:

“The relationship with his mother is rather comical and I

believe Refn exaggerates the Freudian relationship and

Oedipus complex (no need to explain the obvious) to

almost mock it or to suggest once again that this is an

16

internal fear of Julian’s. (...) When his mother talks at

dinner, it’s surreal, maybe because it isn’t really

happening that way, but the way Julian thinks it is.”17

Truly enough, while Izzo refers to the above within the context of Soren

Kierkegaard’s difference between objective and subjective truth, what interests

the undersigned most is the extent to which ‘Only God Forgives’ can also be read

as a critique of the oedipal complex and all that it represents. Winding Refn’s

obvious stress on the oedipal component sheds light also on the philosophical

counter-argument to this. Such a reading may be justified by the fact that Winding

Refn himself refers to Julian’s journey as one directed towards release:

“He's a sleepwalker. Because he walks through life not

knowing what he is moving towards. But because of his

condition he is forced to walk as if he is asleep. So it's like

in the world of the dead. He's cursed forever. He's chained

to his mother's womb. How he can release himself is to go

back into the womb. (...) (I)t’s like a wake-up call. (...) To

be reborn, one must enter what one came from.”18

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari19

, in providing a critique of psychoanalytic

conformity, seek to show that capitalism operates in largely the same way:

17

‘Only (your own) God Forgives’ available at http://www.jeremyizzo.com/only-god-

forgives. Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014. 18

Umstead, Ben; “Ask not what Art is, but what it is not: Nicolas Winding Refn and Cliff Martinez

on ‘Only God Forgives’ available at http://twitchfilm.com/2013/07/interview-nicolas-winding-

refn-and-cliff-martinez.html; Last accessed on the 31st January, 2014. 19

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix; ‘Anti-Oedipus – Capitalism and Schizophrenia’; The

Anthione Press; London (1972)

17

“(...) If desire is repressed, this is not because it is desire

for the mother and for the death of the father; on the

contrary, desire becomes that only because it is repressed

(...) If desire is repressed, it is because every position of

desire, no matter how small, is capable of calling into

question the established order of society. (...) desire does

not threaten society because it is a desire to sleep with the

mother, but because it is revolutionary. (...) Desire does

not ‘want’ revolution, it is revolutionary in its own right,

as though involuntarily, by wanting what it wants. Psychic

repression is such that social repression becomes desired;

it induces a consequent desire.”20

It is also significant that, in the ‘Anti-Oedipus’, Deleuze and Guattari develop

their concept of the “body without organs”:

“The body without organs is an egg (...) Nothing here is

representative; rather, it is all life and lived experience.

(...) Nothing but bands of intensity, potentials, thresholds,

and gradients. A harrowing, emotionally overwhelming

experience.”21

According to Deleuze and Guattari desire is not a negative but a positive force and

to "make oneself a body without organs," then, is to abandon the quest for power

and to actively experiment with oneself to draw out and activate these virtual

20 Ibid p. 116; 119. 21 Ibid; p. 19.

18

potentials. What, after all, renders Julian’s character so intriguing is also the fact

that, even according to the above interpretations, he represents a visible link

between the Freudian concept of Oedipus and the complete antithesis of this

concept as understood by Deleuze and Guattari, the anti-Oedipus. The movie can

therefore be best understood as a character’s journey from one extreme to another,

a journey that goes full circle from one argument to its counter-argument,

rendering the text ‘extreme’ not only in its form but also in its intellectual content.

The fact that the first interpretation necessarily conflicts with the third does not in

any way reduce the validity of one interpretation or the other or of the text itself.

As rightly noted by Pierre Macherey:

“The task of critical practice is not, therefore, the attempt

to measure and evaluate a text’s coherence, its

harmonious totality, its aesthetic utility, but instead to

explain the disparities in the text that point to a conflict of

meanings. ‘This conflict is not the sign of an imperfection;

it reveals the inscription of an otherness in the work,

through which it maintains a relationship with that which

it is not, that which happens at its margins.”22

This philosophical view unlocks therefore the third interpretation of the movie.

The act of castration, in ceasing be a threat and in being executed, ironically

enough can be viewed as liberating the protagonist from the chains that previously

enslaved him. In the end, Julian reflects also the virtual dimension of the person

22 Storey, op. cit. n. 7 p. 75.

19

and its infinite possibilities. Following castration, Julian becomes the anti-ego,

free of his mother, free of God, free of Freud, free of capitalism and possibly,

according to Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, the ‘body without organs’, a

character redeemed even of pre-established interpretations.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anthony, Andrew; ‘Nicolas Winding Refn: I am a Pornographer’ The Guardian; The

Observer; 13th July, 2013 available at

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/13/nicolas-winding-refn-god-forgives.

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix; ‘Anti-Oedipus – Capitalism and

Schizophrenia’; The Anthione Press; London (1972)

Izzo, Jeremy; ‘Only (your own) God Forgives’ available at

http://www.jeremyizzo.com/only-god-forgives.

Only God Forgives Press Kit; Le Pacte; Wild Side Gaumont; available at

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/assets/Image/Direct/048082.pdf.

Phelan, James, ‘Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression and the

Interpretation of Narrative’; The University of Chicago Press – Chicago and London (1989). Full text available at

https://ohiostatepress.org/index.htm?/books/complete%20pdfs/phelan%20reading/phelan

%20reading.htm.

Quinn, Anthony ‘The Independent’ (‘Only God Forgives – Ryan Gosling’s Bangkok

bloodfest is a hellish bore’); 2nd August, 2013 available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-review-only-god-forgives--ryan-goslings-bangkok-bloodfest-is-a-hellish-bore-8742691.html.

Reece, Charles, ‘Only God Forgives; Feminism’ available at http://www.amoeba.com/blog/2013/09/writings-from-the-holy-texan/his-mother-s-voice-

only-god-forgives-feminism.html.

Spicer, Andrew; ‘Film Noir’; Insider Film; Pearson Education (2002).

Storey, John; ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction’; 5th edition;

Pearson Education Limited; England (2009).

Strinati, Domnic; ‘An Introduction to Studying Popular Culture’; Routledge, London

(2000).

Umstead, Ben; “Ask not what Art is, but what it is not: Nicolas Winding Refn and Cliff

Martinez on ‘Only God Forgives’ available at http://twitchfilm.com/2013/07/interview-

nicolas-winding-refn-and-cliff-martinez.html.

Woodward, Adam; ‘Only God Forgives Review’, ‘Little White Lies’ . Available at

http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/only-god-forgives-24418.