The not-inocent object


I recently found this old but very interesting interview with Cronemberg where one particular paragraph called my attention:

…there are no innocent objects. They’re all guilty by definition. Most of the objects we’re talking about are created by people anyway. They’re not natural objects. Part of what I’m talking about is the way in which reality is created by us. We are the only reality we have. It’s a scary thought, but it’s also my version of existentialism; that all the technology that’s so invisible—this room, for instance, the air conditioning, the light—is just not natural and is, therefore, an expression of our will and our sexuality and everything else. All those objects have these things latent in them.

High-heeled shoes are obviously a great fetish object. Think of what they’re for. They’re a thing that deforms the way a woman’s body stands, and the way her pelvis moves, and they’re meant to be sexual, and why not focus on that? So much has gone into making this table, your tape recorder—all of our will and our creative ability for thousands of years has gone into making them. And so they are not innocent objects, they’re full of powerful meanings of all kinds.

The interview instigated me to further analyze a brief history of the relationship of objects and people throughout cinema. To do this I utilized the concept of fetishism in its primitive anthropological way and further more in the freudian way of usage.

The maltese Falcon

The anthropology fetishism


Freudian Fetishism


“I’m not so innocent”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.