Categories
Film theory Politics

Time and terror: what an Italian 70s movie can tell us about radicalisation in the age of late capitalism

Giulia Delprato and Laura Scalabrella Spada explore the farcical and terrifying world of long-forgotten Italian movie …hanno cambiato faccia, where CEOs, board meetings and TV ad breaks are revealed to be the stuff of nightmare.

‘Capital is dead labour,
which, vampire-like,
lives only by sucking living labour,
and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.’
Capital, Karl Marx

Most vampire movies today are based off the same premise: what if vampires were still among us? What if they survived, abandoning the mists of their nebulous Transylvanian past and moving to the more tangible realities of western modernity? What if they managed to blend into society, biding their time, waiting for a moment of weakness to strike?

So far, nothing new, except for the common addition of (frankly toxic) love stories, often predicated upon misogynistic fantasies of power imbalances misconstrued as timeless romance – thanks very much, Bram Stoker.

A 1971 Italian horror film, …hanno cambiato faccia (They’ve Changed Their Faces), however, attempts the impossible: combining the post-draculian vampire with its previous, perhaps even more influential iteration, that of the capitalist.

Boring, mediocre, petit-bourgeois Alberto Valle is an accountant employed by a comically large company.  One day, he is asked to meet the owner Giovanni Nosferatu (a tongue-in-cheek reference to industrialist Giovanni Agnelli, owner of Fiat and Juventus FC, and the vampire protagonist of the 1922 German expressionist film[1]) in his country mansion. The deceiving appearance of Nosferatu’s villa, ancient and in decay outside but full of immaculate modernist furniture inside (with built-in speakers for bespoke advertisement), mimics that of its owner. Valle soon finds out that his host is not only the owner and CEO of a major corporation, but a malicious, eternal being, who capitalises on consumerist lifestyle to dominate people – sucking life out of them, just like his blood-thirsty counterparts.

At a superficial glance, …hanno cambiato faccia seems to borrow random tropes from the Italian giallo tradition,[2] placing mismatched stereotypes here and there: both the helpful and flirtatious assistant and the sexually liberated hitchhiker echo different strands of the 70s obsession with ‘liberated’ sex, more often than not an excuse to objectify women. These characters are reminiscent of allusive, seedy gialli like Sergio Martino’s Tutti i Colori del Buio (1972; the protagonist and Martino’s brother’s wife at the time, Edwige Fenech, is perhaps better-known for her career in Italian soft-porn comedies, popular between the 70s and the 80s), while the isolated village where everything seems shrouded in superstition echoes the sinister atmosphere of one of Fulci’s masterpieces, Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino (1972). It goes without saying, these are all must watches.

Still from …hanno cambiato faccia.

Like many movies of that time, …hanno cambiato faccia combines the experimental ostinati of 1970s rock to eerie scenes of bleak rural landscape. The more Alberto’s tin car cuts through the fog of the Italian countryside, the more our tension increases. With every turn of the road, time seems to become loose. In a Foucauldian manner, we are reminded of its increasing meaninglessness by multiple striking of church bells, suggestive of the institutional rings of school, factory, or even prison cell bells, whose noises become an apparatus of discipline, surveillance and punishment inherent to capitalist ways of marking time. At the same time (excuse the pun), clocks are also winding back to the time of myths and immortal beings from which both iterations of Nosferatu, the company boss and the long-fingered vampire, hail from.

Still from …hanno cambiato faccia.

Cut to inside the house, where the incessant ticking is mirrored by office knick-knacks, covering a whole table in Nosferatu’s sitting room. These embody, perhaps, a symbolic remnant of office work. But why so many?

In this time of isolation, while the idea of a comfortable mansion sitting in the middle of the woods filled with all sorts of commodities sounds sort of reassuring, it stirs up questions about how will isolation change the way we think about desk-work. Ironically, it also highlights the recent discovery made by certain middle class media that vital work is not done at a desk, and the real forces of production do not lie in CEO offices but in the hands of labourers or, as we have learnt to say now, key workers.

The parasitical nature of office work emerges, in this movie, through a pungent if unsophisticated satire of mid-20th century corporate culture. In a key scene, we are shown a long meeting happening in a secret (and yet, for Alberto, surprisingly easy to access) basement room where caricatures of power speak at length of how they dominate the life of everyday people. Sometimes, these sequences transform into grotesque caroselli, a narrative-driven early form of TV advertising quintessential to the upbringing of every Italian child born between the 50s and the end of the 60s. One of these, perverted to the point of hilarity, is a particularly twisted ad for a newly discovered chemical, LSD, which of course Nosferatu plans to send into large distribution soon.

Still from …hanno cambiato faccia.

The meeting seems to be another manifestation of how capitalism’s machinations happen in plain sight, yet we decide to remain oblivious to them: consumerism as a form of control is the mantra snaking its way throughout the movie. In a particularly surreal scene, one of the corporate suits fails to meet his targets and Nosferatu quite literally gets rid of him, by sending him out to be run over by one of his roving white Fiat 500s, which police his estate – a modern update to Dracula’s bats and wolves.

Still from …hanno cambiato faccia.

So, back to the the knick-knacks left behind in Nosferatu’s lobby and their incongruous number: are they perhaps some kind of simulacra or metonymies, indicating the ease with which workers can be substituted in Nosferatu’s (our?) world? After the line manager man dies, Alberto is offered to replace him with a new, high-profile job in Nosferatu’s corporation. Nosferatu doesn’t question so much whether he will accept or not, but rather, when.

The movie is bookended by a spurious quote from Herbert Marcuse’s 1964 subversive study of political regimes One-dimensional Man: ‘Il terrore, oggi, si chiama tecnologia’ (Terror, today, equates technology). And while the original sentence is less punchy, its content is as relevant as ever – technology has been colonised by social forces as a form of discipline and control. We do have furniture with built-in speakers, but rather than spewing advertisement, they listen to our conversations. We did embrace consumption not only as a lifestyle but also, naively, as political statements. The products we buy, supposedly, say things about us – we vote with our wallets, as the libertarian saying goes.

Since the COVID-19/coronavirus crisis started, many self-proclaimed left-wing newspapers have been incessantly publishing articles full of well-intentioned banalities about how we should ‘build a better world’ and ‘reward our hero key workers’. Asking us to forget, perhaps, that the world we live in has been deliberately designed to be a machine oiled by the blood of the vulnerable, hostages to capitalism rather than selfless heroes. And while the lack of critical thinking and class analysis in contemporary liberal discourses is nothing new, we wonder if there is anything we can learn from the crass, grotesque allegories of this strange, almost forgotten movie. Can we choose to see what is in plain sight? Can we internalise the radical message of …hanno cambiato faccia?


[1] Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, 1922, dir. Friedrich W. Murnau. …hanno cambiato faccia pays homage to this incredibly influential silent film in a number of scenes, such as those in which Giovanni Nosferatu walks up the stairs of his countryside villa – a reference to the iconic shadow of Count Orlok climbing up a staircase.

[2] The giallo genre is a typical expression of Italian mid-20th century cinema, which combines thriller, horror and mystery tropes.

Further readings:

  • Baschiera, Stefano, and Russ Hunter, eds. Italian Horror Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
  • Fisher, Mark, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: O Books, 2009.
  • Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964.

Giulia Delprato is a writer and photographer currently working at the Museum of London.

Laura Scalabrella Spada has recently completed her PhD at University College London in the Department of History of Art (see more here).

Categories
Painting Politics

Going to Work (1943) (At Home): A Reflection on Isolation through the Work of L. S. Lowry

Ella Nixon brings our attention to Lawrence Stephen Lowry, the celebrated British painter of the working class, positing that the subjects of his paintings were his feelings of loneliness rather than the everyday struggles of the poor. What can his paintings tell us now, in this moment of social isolation?

A crowd of workers clad in clothing of dark blues, ochres, red, and black, walks away from the viewer without a backward glance. Some hold lunch boxes prepared for the long day ahead; some scurry forwards as if they are going to be late; some trudge towards the factory in an automatic movement. The mills rise as meccas of the industrial landscape. The anonymous people, like a whisper of moths to the light, cluster together in a journey towards the iron gates to begin their shifts at the mills. Going to Work (1943) illustrates how social distancing in twentieth-century industrial Manchester was an alien concept.

Laurence Stephen Lowry (1887-1976), in a repetitive fashion, produced a copious portfolio of paintings which depicted urban crowds. His job as a rent collector for the Pall Mall Property Company brought him into close contact with the working-class inhabitants of Salford and he came to know the streets intimately. The 2013 Tate Britain exhibition, Lowry and the Painting of Modern Life, curated by T. J. Clark and Anne M. Wagner, gave expression to these works. In the exhibition catalogue, they designated Lowry ‘as essentially a painter of the industrial city and its working class’.[1] In a rather Baudelairian fashion, therefore, Lowry was declared to be the painter of modern life. This article, however, will discuss Going to Work from a different angle to the modernity explored by the Tate exhibition: it will consider the nature of isolation in the twenty-first century.

In the winter of 1907-1908, Lowry attended an Impressionist exhibition. Here, Lowry could peruse the paintings of Impressionist masters, including Degas, Pissarro, and Manet. Despite expressing some admiration, he criticised the paintings because he ‘didn’t see the battle of life in them’.[2] Yet, he does not specify what ‘battle of life’ he was seeking in the Impressionist works. His admiration for Honoré Daumier’s paintings of dismal working-class subjects suggests that one of these battles was intended as the poverty and politics of the poor. A consideration of his later seascapes, however, suggests the ‘battle of life’ for him were his personal feelings of isolation.

The industrial scenes produced by Lowry are painted from an elevated perspective. The artist, invisible for the viewer, regards the bustling crowd from a distance. Despite entering the homes and drinking tea with his subjects as part of his job as a rent collector, Lowry admitted that he ‘did not care for them [his subjects] the way a social reformer does.’[3] Therefore, isolation from the bustling crowds was inherent in both the process and explicit in the perspective. It begs the question, in a time of social isolation, what is isolation and does it necessarily stem from the reduction of social contact?

The government imposed lockdown revolves around the phenomenon of social distancing. However, the isolation experienced by Lowry did not emanate from lack of human contact. Although the press presented Lowry as a recluse, the variety and number of friends he saw daily attest otherwise. Instead, his isolation was a psychological state rather than something we can use as a tape measure to numerically grasp.

Despite being surrounded constantly by people in busy Salford, it was the death of his mother which triggered his feelings of deep isolation. One of his closest friends described how ‘[e]ven if you had been quite intimate with him, you couldn’t ask him personal questions.’[4] In the 1940s, Lowry began to produce desolate seascapes after the death of his mother. Lowry’s Self Portrait as a Pillar in the Sea (1966) (Figure 2) conveys a deep sense of loneliness despite his constant contact with friends. He portrays himself as a lone pillar surrounded by the endless waves of the sea.

L. S. Lowry, Self-Portrait as a Pillar in the Sea (1966). Oil on panel, 38.8 x 15.3 cm. The Lowry Collection Salford, Private Collection. © The Estate of L.S. Lowry.

At a time when daily briefings report deaths in the hundreds and when people scroll anxiously through the news, it is easy for anxiety to disguise itself as isolation. In industrial Manchester, death was also visible daily on the streets. The omniscient presence of the fever van in many of Lowry’s paintings, such as Street Scene in the Snow (1941) (Figure 3) attest to this. However, the case of Lowry highlights the nature of isolation: he felt detached from a class of people he did not associate with and the death of a close one caused his loneliness.

L. S. Lowry, Street Scene in the Snow (1941). Oil on panel, 36.8 x 61 cm. Private Collection.

Lowry felt closest to his mother and, as he reported, sometimes these feelings of grief were overwhelming. After her death, he initially found it difficult to paint. He reported thirty years after the death that ‘I had no interest in life after my mother died’.[5] However, with time he came to cope with his feelings of isolation through painting. Michael Howard describes how, in his old age, the ‘relationship with his paintings developed into something rather like that of a father with his children’.[6] It was through his paintings that Lowry found his purpose and contact with life.

In these times, the message seems clear: keep contact with those who are closest to you and, alongside or at least, find purpose. In times of isolation – whether imposed by the lockdown or otherwise – contact with those who mean the most to us is paramount. It does not matter that the streets are not bustling, bars are closed, and parties are cancelled. In these environments, we can sometimes feel like the detached observer who surveys the crowd, or in Lowry’s case the crowds of workers on their way to the mills.

Lowry also shows us how, when contact is completely cut off, we must find purpose. The figures of Going to Work, like automata, were drawn to the mills. However, lest we confuse human company with lack thereof and dangers arise of losing a sense of purpose in life. Cultivate your interests and create that connection with yourself to share with others. Self-isolation need not be isolation.


[1] T. J. Clark and Anne M. Wagner, Lowry and the Painting of Modern Life (London: Tate Publishing, 2013), 18.

[2] Michael Howard, Lowry: A Visionary Artist (Salford Quays: Lowry Press, 2000), 19.

[3] Ibid., 123.

[4] Shelley Rohde, A Private View of L. S. Lowry (London: Book Club Associates, 1979), 116.

[5] Ibid., 144.

[6] Howard, Lowry: A Visionary Artist, 21.

Further Readings:

  • Clark, T. J. and Anne M. Wagner. Lowry and the Painting of Modern Life. London: Tate Publishing, 2013.
  • Howard, Michael. Lowry: A Visionary Artist. Salford Quays: Lowry Press, 2000.
  • Rohde, Shelley. A Private View of L. S. Lowry. London: Book Club Associates, 1979.

Ella Nixon is a History of Art MA student at The Courtauld Institute of Art specialising in twentieth century European art. Ella’s research interests lie in the curation of gender and postcolonialism, post-modern art, and the artworks of L. S. Lowry.

Categories
Film theory Politics

Fast and Furious Biopolitics

Andreas Petrossiants brings us on a swift ride through the Fast and Furious franchise, reflecting on 21st century developments of western surveillance and policing cultures.

For months, I’ve been trying to write a para-academic essay about Fast and Furious, and its fast allusions to the development of slow, epistemic violence. More appropriately, the process has mostly consisted of riffing on the very premise. The first time I told the idea to my partner, she laughed with me, said I should do it, and mentioned those movies were “my thing”: that one preposterous element of mainstream cinematic culture that many writers carry around, analysing—raw data waiting for a faux-Mark Fisherian analysis couched in a genuine appreciation for the sordid content.

I’ve considered a lot of approaches to it, growing numerous in a series of docs. Here are some of them.

  1. It’s the campiest series of films of this century. Both “deliberately exaggerated and theatrical in style, typically for humorous effect,” (and humorous it is) and “ostentatiously and extravagantly effeminate” (per Google’s definitions). The same crypto-homophobia nested in much use of that word apply to the saga’s politics as well. In the latest spin-off, Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, co-stars Jason Statham and Dwanye “The Rock” Johnson had stipulations in their contracts that neither of them could lose a fight—this was true of Vin Diesel’s alpha male character in prior movies as well.
  2. It documents how the aura of 90s idealisms—a collection of radically different subjectivities responding to the fragmentation of the internationalist left and globalization, erroneously grouped as one—were mythologized and made commercially viable after 9/11. In the first film, aesthetic choices (from wardrobe to character arcs) are somewhere between Hot Wheels, cyberpunk, skater boy, and Spaghetti Western. The subtextual political fuel goes from libertarian comradery to Patriot Act to Zuckerberg testifying at the Capital in just a few films.
  3. It’s a roadmap to the development of neoliberal forms of surveillance, policing, and supra-statist politics exemplified in new forms and representations of statist violence, occupation, “justice,” and legitimacy. The films document an important shift in political discourse over the last decade: the development of a highly profitable simulacrum of populism premised on heighted surveillance apparatuses, algorithmic policing, and extra-statist violence—Ayn Rand meets Hal 9000. How to sell populism without doing the dirty work of materially propping up some segments of the undercommons? Get Vin Diesel to talk about “familia,” while busting every union you see and individualising the workspace.
  4. It’s a “fat and stupid” description of neoliberal biopower becoming individualized self-policing biopolitics. It’s no accident that every central law enforcement figure in the franchise reappears in the next film as a class collaborator until they’re all rogue cops, nor that every villain, from the sixth movie onwards follows the same trajectory, until the saga uncovers that they were never villains at all, but rather so virtuous that they took the rap for the state’s cavalier militarisms.

Some ruminations on the fourth point. Once, when trying to type out Fast and Furious, my phone autocorrected the title to “Fat and Stupid.” I imagined this misspelling as a riff on a segment by liberal US late-night darling John Oliver titled “dumb Watergate,” in which he compared Trump’s Russian scandals to Nixon’s treason. We’d do best to avoid his logic which venerates fundamentally undemocratic systems that perpetuate systems of power (courts e.g.), not to mention that it plays into a sophisticated fearmongering. Fast and Furious does, however, act out the same “making stupid” of certain politics, without meaning to, to be sure.

Cast from The Fast and the Furious (2001)

In the early films, head “precision driver” and patriarch Dominic Toretto’s crew are a small gang of self-declared thieves. Their motto: “We ride together, we die together,” identities a small and tightly-knit band. It’s campier corollary, a recurring quip that demonstrates Dom is always on the run: “I live my life a quarter-mile at a time.” The next few films serve to build up this criminality, but exit the small Los Angeles backyard barbeque locale. In the ensuing films, they become criminals in the eyes of local police, federal drug enforcement agencies, the CIA, drug cartels, and so on. There was a feeble attempt to paint them as valiant Robin Hoods taking commodity redistribution into their own hands in Los Bandoleros (2009) a short film (with great music) connecting the story arcs of 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) to Fast and Furious (2009). For this short, Dom and his crew are found in Puerto Rico—avoiding extradition—stealing oil and giving it to poor locals. This attempt was short-lived—it’s harder to sell micro-redistribution than cops who look like crooks who run from the cops and do crimes with the cops’ permission.

By the middle of the fifth film (to Ludacris’ great malaise), they have become complicit with the police, they’re hired guns, and are bringing down the “dirty cops” of Rio. (This, ubiquitous in the action genre in general, does much to enforce the “bad cop” myth, that a cop can be anything but an enforcer of violent, racialised power).[1] By the beginning of the seventh, they’re not just class collaborators or mercenaries of the state, but rather an elite, supra-state paramilitary force, out for hire by intelligence apparatuses so secret, so fat and stupid, that even the US military believes them to be terrorists.

Roman (Tyrese Gibson) pretending to be a cop in Fast Five (2011) to infiltrate a police station. This is the first time any of the crew pretend to be cops, before becoming them in the next film.

A revealing characteristic adage in contemporary neoliberal drama, that this franchise is best poised to identify, then: if you can’t run from the cops, join them, or if you can’t avoid being policed, start to police others. Though reminiscent, in this formulation at least, of how Foucault and later Negri and Hardt conceive of biopolitics, there are moralist caveats (the fat and stupid variants):

  1. Surveillance is omnipresent, sure, but it must be in the “right hands.”
  2. There is always a power struggle playing out, but it isn’t a class struggle. It’s a struggle of “values”—among them integrity, fidelity, and so on.

The shift to heroes becoming rouge agents in the “eyes of the law” is a staple of 2010s action films: Tom Cruise’s mission becomes so impossible that even the government becomes his enemy; he must restore integrity to militarism by weeding out the dirty cops. Bond too. He fights a rouge element of the state that seeks to use surveillance for bad deeds, not for the good stuff. The point is venerating the state’s functionality while lamenting its current leadership. Trump bad, USA good. Surveillance in my back yard? Bad. Surveillance used by ICE? Good.

The crew (now elite agents) are told that they’re all on Interpol’s Top Ten most-wanted list in The Fate of the Furious (2017)

As we prepare for the ninth film in the Fast Saga, the opportunity to see how policing is sold to us by the culture industry remains ever present. As more and more urban centres employ surveillance to aid in the violent policing of precarious groups, perhaps its mainstream caricature can help us organize ourselves and disseminate political education. Maybe, Dom and his crew (among them cops, soldiers, hackers, and espionage bureaucrats) can be once again considered the “criminals” they were at the start, but with the added enlightenment that their crimes are propping up the military and carceral complexes, rather than driving sweet rides a quarter-mile at a time.


[1] Sacking Rome: A Magazine for Vandals no. 1.

Further readings:


Andreas Petrossiants is a writer and editor living in NY. His writing has appeared in ‘The Brooklyn Rail’, ‘Hyperallergic’, ‘View. Theories and Practices of Visual Culture’, ‘nuart journal’, ‘Exhibition Reviews Annual’, and elsewhere. He is the editorial assistant of ‘e-flux journal’. in 2019, he co-curated ‘Inventing Dance: In and Around Judson’, New York, 1959–1970 at MAMAC in Nice, France.