← Back to Reviews
in
In a Glass Cage, 1986
Another rewatch.
The film begins with a man named Klaus (Gunter Meisner) torturing and murdering a young man as he is watched by an unseen figure. Years later, Klaus is paralyzed, kept alive only by an iron lung that churns away in the large home that he shares with his wife, the maid, and his daughter Rena (Gisele Echevarria). One day a mysterious man named Angelo (David Sust) appears, ostensibly to act as a nurse for Klaus. It is immediately obvious that Angelo has some past relationship to Klaus, and as time goes on he begins to exert an influence over the house.
This is a nasty film, and there are certain sequences that are very difficult to watch. Much of the film centers on the discussion of or perpetration of sexual violence and torture against boys. This is my second time watching the movie, and it was interesting to try and remember how I felt the first time I saw it, over 15 years ago, when I had just graduated from college. I had done a lot of academic work related to the Spanish Civil War and Spanish Involvement in World War 2), and I loved seeing how some of that history was explored in films (including things like The Devil's Backbone).
The film explores the notion of the way that violence begets violence, and addresses the way that abuse can become fetishized or internalized by its victims. Klaus's crimes are revisited and re-imagined with Angelo's arrival, and the movie sets up multiple symmetries and echoes between the original crimes and their new iterations. Klaus, alive but turned into a passive observer, exists in a strange place between victim and perpetrator. This includes echoes such as
The performances in the film are solid, including Sust as Angelo in his first feature film. This includes the performances of the child actors (more on that later), and the whole movie trembles with a fraught energy that means the entire 100 minutes is incredibly tense. There are maybe 3 minutes of happiness or joy or lightness. There are maybe a few moments of dark humor, especially as Angelo begins to transform the house into a literal war zone, but it's never winky enough to pull you from the sense of doom.
One thing that does slightly alleviate the brutality of the film's content is the way that it begins to scale into a sort of larger allegory as it goes on. The relationship between the war and violence and the lineage of violence between oppressors and the oppressed starts to take on a clear thematic presentation. There is a degree of craft and care in the narrative itself and way that the different sequence are filmed that lifts it a bit from feeling like exploitation. It's a fine line, though, and I could easily see another viewer feeling that it crossed that line.
So let's talk about the kids.
The very first sequence of the film graphically shows the torture and murder of a boy who is probably no older than 14 or 15, and many other sequences in the film either graphically describe or show the sexual abuse, torture, and/or murder of boys, sometimes in the context of WW2 medical "experimentation". There is a disclaimer at the very end of the film that all of the sequences filmed with children, "despite looking real", were filmed with consideration of ethics, and the statement is followed by the authorization of a child psychologist. When I listened to the commentary on the film [b]Mysterious Skin[/B, I was amazed when the director described the way that they kept the children from being involved by using editing tricks and special effects. In a scene where a character touches a child's belly, the director notes, "That's not the kid, that's actually a mannequin." Watching In a Glass Cage this time with an eye toward what the child actors were actually doing, you can tell that some tricks were used in this film. But that said, the child actors (I suspect that the person in the first scene was a bit older and possibly even a young-looking adult, considering there is nudity, but the other children are clearly much younger) are actually manhandled and partially disrobed on camera. To me, as I said before, the film barely lands on the "right side" of the question of how child actors and child characters are treated on screen.
I cannot say whether it was the way that the writer/director wanted things, or whether it was a concession to the limits of what you can put on screen, but I did think it was interesting that
Something I noticed very strongly this time around was the way that the film examines the power of gaze. In the very first sequence, it is the stare of his victim that agitates Klaus. Throughout the film Klaus is forced to witness much of the action through a mirror that is mounted on his iron lung--yet another symbol of the way that he becomes a second-hand part of the crimes. We learn that the gaze of his victims both repulsed and excited him. It is interesting to watch Angelo's own sight-lines as the film progresses, as well as those of the daughter, Rena.
This is a hard film, and it definitely won't be for everyone. The subject matter is obviously very disturbing. But I was impressed with both the craft and the message of the film.
In a Glass Cage, 1986
Another rewatch.
The film begins with a man named Klaus (Gunter Meisner) torturing and murdering a young man as he is watched by an unseen figure. Years later, Klaus is paralyzed, kept alive only by an iron lung that churns away in the large home that he shares with his wife, the maid, and his daughter Rena (Gisele Echevarria). One day a mysterious man named Angelo (David Sust) appears, ostensibly to act as a nurse for Klaus. It is immediately obvious that Angelo has some past relationship to Klaus, and as time goes on he begins to exert an influence over the house.
This is a nasty film, and there are certain sequences that are very difficult to watch. Much of the film centers on the discussion of or perpetration of sexual violence and torture against boys. This is my second time watching the movie, and it was interesting to try and remember how I felt the first time I saw it, over 15 years ago, when I had just graduated from college. I had done a lot of academic work related to the Spanish Civil War and Spanish Involvement in World War 2), and I loved seeing how some of that history was explored in films (including things like The Devil's Backbone).
The film explores the notion of the way that violence begets violence, and addresses the way that abuse can become fetishized or internalized by its victims. Klaus's crimes are revisited and re-imagined with Angelo's arrival, and the movie sets up multiple symmetries and echoes between the original crimes and their new iterations. Klaus, alive but turned into a passive observer, exists in a strange place between victim and perpetrator. This includes echoes such as
WARNING: spoilers below
the way that the first boy who ties gasps just the way that Klaus does when removed from the iron lung
The performances in the film are solid, including Sust as Angelo in his first feature film. This includes the performances of the child actors (more on that later), and the whole movie trembles with a fraught energy that means the entire 100 minutes is incredibly tense. There are maybe 3 minutes of happiness or joy or lightness. There are maybe a few moments of dark humor, especially as Angelo begins to transform the house into a literal war zone, but it's never winky enough to pull you from the sense of doom.
One thing that does slightly alleviate the brutality of the film's content is the way that it begins to scale into a sort of larger allegory as it goes on. The relationship between the war and violence and the lineage of violence between oppressors and the oppressed starts to take on a clear thematic presentation. There is a degree of craft and care in the narrative itself and way that the different sequence are filmed that lifts it a bit from feeling like exploitation. It's a fine line, though, and I could easily see another viewer feeling that it crossed that line.
So let's talk about the kids.
The very first sequence of the film graphically shows the torture and murder of a boy who is probably no older than 14 or 15, and many other sequences in the film either graphically describe or show the sexual abuse, torture, and/or murder of boys, sometimes in the context of WW2 medical "experimentation". There is a disclaimer at the very end of the film that all of the sequences filmed with children, "despite looking real", were filmed with consideration of ethics, and the statement is followed by the authorization of a child psychologist. When I listened to the commentary on the film [b]Mysterious Skin[/B, I was amazed when the director described the way that they kept the children from being involved by using editing tricks and special effects. In a scene where a character touches a child's belly, the director notes, "That's not the kid, that's actually a mannequin." Watching In a Glass Cage this time with an eye toward what the child actors were actually doing, you can tell that some tricks were used in this film. But that said, the child actors (I suspect that the person in the first scene was a bit older and possibly even a young-looking adult, considering there is nudity, but the other children are clearly much younger) are actually manhandled and partially disrobed on camera. To me, as I said before, the film barely lands on the "right side" of the question of how child actors and child characters are treated on screen.
I cannot say whether it was the way that the writer/director wanted things, or whether it was a concession to the limits of what you can put on screen, but I did think it was interesting that
WARNING: spoilers below
Angelo's fixation is on death and not the sexual abuse. While we learn that Klaus frequently raped/abused the children he victimized, it's interesting that Angelo is focused mostly on killing them. His sexual fixation is on Klaus himself, but he seems to primarily draw excitement from the purely violent aspect of the crimes and not the more sexualized ones.
Something I noticed very strongly this time around was the way that the film examines the power of gaze. In the very first sequence, it is the stare of his victim that agitates Klaus. Throughout the film Klaus is forced to witness much of the action through a mirror that is mounted on his iron lung--yet another symbol of the way that he becomes a second-hand part of the crimes. We learn that the gaze of his victims both repulsed and excited him. It is interesting to watch Angelo's own sight-lines as the film progresses, as well as those of the daughter, Rena.
This is a hard film, and it definitely won't be for everyone. The subject matter is obviously very disturbing. But I was impressed with both the craft and the message of the film.