Kitchen Stories Film Review 6/6
Objective Review:
There were a lot of key moments within this movie, the main being at the timestamp 44:39 - 46:36. This is when Green comes and wakes Folke Nisson late at night claiming that he and Thor, his host, are in a pinch because they have run out of booze. Green asks if Folke would be willing to lend some booze to Thor and him. Folke tells Green that drinking with their host is against the rules and that he should not be drinking with Thor. This sets Green off, Green goes on a rant saying "Not allowed to drink, not allowed to talk, shit, Folke, What the hell are we doing? We sit up there on our pedestals and think we understand everything. How can we think we can understand anything about people simply by observing them?" Folke rebuttals this by explaining that observing is the nature of their research, which only angers Green more resulting in Green yelling "We have to talk to each other, people have to communicate!" Green is still very adamant about getting booze from Folke, which Folke says no, resulting in Green feeling betrayed and storming off. Folke tries to reason with Green yelling "I have also talked" implying that he and his host, Isak, have talked just like Green and Thor. This is the last time Green is seen because after he quits and disappears. This moment in the film brings up a big takeaway from the film, that to fully understand people we have to communicate with them, we can not just observe them. This also points out the flaws in the research that is being conducted.
Reaction:
I will be honest I thought I was not going to enjoy this movie, but I was shockingly surprised at how much I actually really enjoyed it. It was a very slow-paced film, and I will admit that at times it was a little boring, but the movie as a whole was very moving. Many lessons can be taken away from watching it, which in my opinion are the best movies. I really enjoyed watching Folke's and Isak's friendship grow throughout the film. They started off as two men who really had no interest in each other and they slowly developed this amazing friendship that was cherished by both of them. The ending however was quite heartbreaking, I was really looking forward to seeing Isak's reaction to Folke coming back to Norway to spend Christmas with him, but he had unfortunately passed away. Overall I would recommend this movie and I am happy that I watched it.
Interpretation:
The main goal in the film was to be able to revolutionize the modern kitchen, the scientists had already observed and studied the housewife so they turned their research to single men in Sweden. They did so by observing and collecting data on how the men moved around in the kitchen, almost as if they were tracking every movement these men made in the kitchen. The data being collected is power-based. There are many forms of power that are present within this film, the main being power-knowledge as well as bio-power.
Foucault believed that power had the ability to determine what is and is not considered knowledge. One of the key aspects of power knowledge is surveillance and control, which is exactly the relationship between the observer and the host. The observer is constantly watching the host and collecting data on him. Now in the case of Folke and Isak, Folke did surveil Isak but he had little control because Isak did not allow him to. Isak changed how he acted because he did not want that control over him. In fact, if anything Isak had more control and surveilled Folke more than Folke did him. He watched Folke from the hole in the ceiling and controlled Folke by not allowing him to observe and collect accurate data. Another key aspect of power knowledge is normalization, meaning that power knowledge enforces that people follow the same norms. Isak did not do this, he broke the norms by not cooking in his kitchen, instead he cooked upstairs. The biggest flaw within power knowledge is that it can be oppressive and can open the door to resistance, which is clear in this film. Take Green for example, he knew that the observers could not fully understand the hosts by just watching, so he revolted and became friends with his host, Thor. Foucault would have agreed with Green, "The very empiricity in man - that is, the fact that he lives, works, and speaks - become the transcendental foundation of knowledge" (Pyyhtinen & Tamminen p138). By just observing the hosts the observers would never be able to fully understand the host, people are not that simple. In order to fully understand someone you have to get to know them as well as watch them, Folke learned that throughout the film.
Foucault also developed bio-power, which is very similar to bio-politics but the difference is that while bio-politics focuses on the strategies in which populations are managed, bio-power focuses on the actual process in which that power is used to control populations. A key aspect of bio-power is disciplinary power, this just means that in order to control the population punishments are set in place to keep the population in line. The study was the one that had bio-power over both the observers and the hosts. Folke knew if he broke the rules he would be fired and no longer paid, so he followed the rules, at least in the beginning and when he no longer followed them he hid that fact from his boss so he could keep his job. Folke was only a part of this study so he could get a horse and he knew if he quit they would not give him a horse, so even when he no longer wanted to be a part of the study he stayed in it so he would get the horse.
Citations:
Pyyhtinen, O., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We have never been only human: Foucault and Latour on the question of the anthropos. Anthropological Theory, 11(2), 135-152.
Kitchen Stories. Directed by Bent Hamer, SF Norge A/S, 2003.
Your charette gave me an important reminder that, in spite of the frequent doom and gloom stemming from Foucault's understanding of power-knowledge and bio-power, the very act of oppressive control creates opportunities for resistance (we saw the same thing in Callen & Austin regarding societies of control). Isak is a perfect example of this - even though he signed up for the study and Folke has a contractual incentive to ensure it is carried out, he operates outside of the expected norms and renders Folke's observations worthless.
ReplyDeleteThat fact makes me wonder what might have happened if the film had ended differently, assuming Folke had kept to the norms and simply sat on his stool through the end of his contract as he was instructed? Perhaps the data he collected would have been brought back and used by Dr. Ljungberg and Malmberg, and ultimately rendered their new, efficient, neoliberal kitchen with potentially serious design flaws - ironically, all without their knowledge.
I enjoyed reading your film review and I think you brought up several relevant points. The first of which is Foucault's notion that power determines what is knowledge, and that surveillance and control played important roles in this power. However, in Kitchen Stories, Green questioned this power, despite not having the power in the situation. The questioned posed is an interesting one- can you truly know someone simply from observation, and no real interaction. While Green believes that communication is necessary, the study does not operate under that knowledge. I definitely understand Green's point, especially within the context of the film and study, though I would likely disagree and assume that the way to know the most about a person is through observation without the knowledge of the subject. Towards the end of your review, you brought up another important aspect of the movie. Folke acted outside of the norm because he did not want to continue, but knew that he would not get what he wanted if he was fired. This is an example of self-regulation, as utilized by Foucault. Folke had internal control but no external control, so through self regulation, he continued through less than ideal circumstances to get what he wanted.
ReplyDelete