When I read a description of Possessor, I was interested, but seeing the preview made it a priority. The film is about a woman who uses technology to inhabit another person’s body to assassinate people for her employer. There are inherent dangers to using this technology, and she is not executing people as planned. Where does the glitch reside? It stars the great, unrecognizable Andrea Riseborough as Tasya Vos, and Christopher Abbott as her most recent residence.
I was unaware until after I saw Possessor that Brandon Cronenberg, son of David Cronenberg, directed the film. It is a gorgeous, gory film so while the familial influence, nature and nurture, is obvious, he definitely has his own distinct style and pacing. He is simultaneously more measured and intellectual, but narratively messy, either intentionally or unintentionally, by leaving too much to the viewer’s imagination. Parts of the film feel like homages to Midsommar and Blade Runner, but unless I pointed out the specific sections, it may not immediately occur to you. It definitely evokes the same nuanced intersectional power dynamics of Lady Macbeth in its depiction of identity as rooted in terms of bodies-race and gender. Which people are seen as violent? How much of that violence goes undetected because of those assumptions and that person’s privileges?
Possessor suffers from a chicken and egg problem. Has Vos’ work changed her and/or did she choose the work because she was always a bit of a predator? She has chosen to be a scientifically created demon…..right? On the other hand, if you have the technology to possess individuals unwittingly, what is voluntary and what is not? Maybe I was not supposed to question everything, but I did. A majority of the third part of the film relies on the viewer being able to tell who is in control: Vos or her host? Because we neither know Vos or her host bodies without the other, it is hard to tell when she is in control or not except when she is homicidal. I gave the movie my complete attention, and I think that it would require repeat, eagle-eyed viewing to figure it out. Watching the bonus features on the DVD after the movie was eye opening. Cronenberg definitely knew what was going on, but the actors seemed less certain. While I enjoyed the film, one viewing was enough for me.
If this ambiguity was unintentional, I am going to blame Abbott for not quite being as talented an actor as Riseborough whom I never recognize, but as soon as I see her name in the credits, it retroactively makes sense. She is only recognizable if you are looking for her: Waco, Mandy, Nocturnal Animals, Battle of the Sexes, Oblivion, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), W.E., Never Let Me Go. If Abbott is a good actor, then his agent needs to get him in better movies because I’m unimpressed with what I have seen him in so far: Tyrel, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, It Comes at Night and Piercing. He was good in Girls as Charlie, Marnie’s initial love interest, but for me, it was not such a long walk to becoming homicidal. I blame Abbott because while the actor playing the first host, Gabrielle Graham, had less time, she made the ambiguity or lack thereof work in her favor. She was interesting to watch. Her performance and work with Cronenberg briefly elevated the film to Kill Bill meets Get Out, but Abbott is not as innately riveting to watch. His mere presence made me reconsider watching the film because the body of his work has been largely unimpressive. Another man playing the role could work—a Tom Hardy type or another actor with better mastery over his body and voice, but less of a household name.
If the ambiguity was intentional, Cronenberg needs to cut the crap because he does have great talent and the bones of a provocative story. One element which may suggest that Cronenberg is the issue, not Abbott, is the film is supposed to be set in 2008. Why? How am I supposed to know that? What is the significance? If you watch the film, and it is obvious, please notify me that I am losing my perspicacity. I honestly did not see it, and I was not multitasking. I really enjoyed watching the majority of the film.
Possessor is a bleak film, and I love bleak films. Vos is concerned that she is losing her control over her hosts, but part of her job is incepting them to believe that they actually chose the action that she made them do. Is someone using the same technique on Vos and/or is Vos unconsciously doing it to herself because she has not accepted what she wants. In terms of race and gender, Vos, in her own body, is someone whom society would not see as anything other than a victim; however Vos’ uncertainty resides in reconciling these assumptions with who she really is. Pay attention to the bodies that she enjoys inflicting violence on. The denouement is worth the price of admission. She is at a crossroads of choosing a traditional life or her career. She definitively sheds societal expectations at the threshold of high stakes raised to the point of an existential threat. By immersing herself in other identities, she gets to embrace her true self and face what she hates about her own life. Her reluctance to pull out is tied to where she is being pulled into. She wants to be free of all encumbrances. Unfortunately for everyone else, her true self is horrible.
Possessor’s ending is so controversial because usually such a twist and revelation would be traditionally greeted with expressions of shock and betrayal at manipulation. Instead she gets catharsis in as unnatural a way as Midsommar’s May Queen. The happy ending is counterintuitive to most of us because it is Vos’ most honest expression of herself and what it turns out to be in service of, unlike the Alien franchise, is an embrace of the coldly, clinical corporation, which for her, does know better. Vos is the anti-Sigourney Weaver/Ripley, but she could not exist without Jennifer Jason Leigh, who has a small but pivotal role as Vos’ Girder. Riseborough and Leigh’s scenes have the vibe of an emotionally taciturn girls’ day at the spa meets support group as Leigh seems less manipulative and more supportive in helping Riseborough get on the path of freedom from the accidental, capricious restraints from birth.
I would be curious to read a transperson’s critique of this movie. In the future, will it be the equivalent of Dressed to Kill or Silence of the Lambs in the way that body gender issues are played out? Using the machine to enter others’ bodies reads as a bit addictive because one cannot bear to be in one’s skin. The Midsommar reference alludes to a scene where Vos’ body and life is shown as distorted and ill-fitting, less vibrant than when she wears others’ bodies. There is an implied messiness of possession. There is no way to unscramble the egg, but whether or not you enjoy the scramble and fight against those who seek to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, which Vos repeatedly does, or want to be free of it, as her host body does, leads to one firm conclusion: you can’t threaten someone with a good time. This silent understanding is what Vos and the Girder share.
If you are into strange, disturbing, violent movies with sexual situations, definitely check Possessor out, but the execution disappointingly falls short of the greatness of its concepts and story while visually it cannot be perfect because of its lack of clarity and ability to wordlessly convey its full meaning.
