What Nocturnal Animals Can Teach You About Obsession

And the dire consequences of it

Part 1 here.

The theme of weakness is strong in this movie. Edward is accused of being weak both by Susan’s mom and herself, and he projects that onto his character Tony. It’s pretty clear / strongly implied this is how he views himself, as a weak man.

But where is his weakness shown? What actions does he take that make him weak?

When we first see him, in the scene where he talks to Susan in the restaurant, we see that he’s a sensitive, romantic guy. This suggests he’s weak because sensitive people are often emotionally fragile, but that’s about it.

Then Susan’s mom says he’s weak because he lacks drive and ambition. That might have been right at the time she says this but as the movie progresses the audience learns he did write at least this one book. It’s also implied he’s written other books:

He has his own website and logo; nice paper; all that in a nice package. True, any idiot can buy a logo for 50$ nowadays, but still, this frame suggests he’s now a successful writer, so he’s written other books before. That can’t be a guy without drive and ambition, now can it?

Tony also feels weak and is called so by Ray in the end. But what could he actually have done to protect his family? He was outpowered, outnumbered, out of cellphone signal. There’s nothing he could have done to change the outcome, so it’s not really weakness either.

We do get some glimpses of Edward’s insecurity: when he argues with Susan about his writing; when she breaks up with him; when he stalks her up to the clinic. But all these are fairly normal actions, right? Edward might not have perfect emotional balance, but all this is understandable given the context he was in.

What is NOT normal and NOT ok is the fact that he wrote a book about all this and sent it to his ex nineteen years later.

How many days was Susan troubled by the thought of Edward? Not too many. More than zero, sure, after all she mentions she tried to contact him a few times and it’s implied that every so often she thinks about what could have been different. But still, she doesn’t seem to have had many sleepless nights over this.

On the other hand, how many days did Edward spend troubled by Susan? Apparently 6935 = all day for nineteen years.

This is Edward’s true weakness: he let Susan and her betrayal become his life. He let himself be defined by it. He let a person he didn’t even talk to anymore control his destiny. He spent nineteen fucking years of his life obsessed with it.

The point of the opening scene is that the fat women are who they are and they don’t give a damn about what you think, they aren’t defined by what you might or not think or expect of them. They have a certain body and a certain attitude and they’re not gonna change it to fit your wishes. In a way, they’re the embodiment of freedom of spirit.

That seems to be what Susan wants: to have a different life, free of society’s and her mom’s expectations of her. She wants this freedom that she doesn’t have. The same can be said about Edward: almost two decades later and he’s still not free from Susan, still tormented by the thought of her, which is why he writes a book about her, hoping he can get some closure.

This is why I started the last post the way I did, because if someone clearly signals that they have spent the last 19 years obsessing about you, it’s a bad sign.

When Susan receives the book she doesn’t triple security like I suggested. Instead she actually decides to read it. Think about this. Wouldn’t you be at least a little bit creeped out if your ex husband sent you a book ABOUT you and FOR you nineteen years later after you split up? Jesus, 19 years ago was 1998, think about how long ago that was.

She doesn’t raise her guard because she’s plagued with self-doubt: a job at which she’s good, but which she hates; a distancing relationship to her husband; fake social relations; crumbling finances; husband cheating etc. All these are happening at the same time, her world is falling apart, so it’s understandable she’d look for escapism in the writing of a man she once loved.

And but it goes deeper than that, because this is not a thing of the moment. This is who she is. From the earliest point we see her, a young woman dating a young man, she’s uncertain about her future, about what she wants, about what she should do. She’s always had trouble sleeping; indeed, Edward was the one who called her a nocturnal animal. She might be in a particularly bad moment in her life, but insomnia and self-doubt are old friends. Receiving the book is just a catalyst.

Susan doesn’t seem to be someone who owns her choices either. Remember when she broke up with edward? “I need a life that is more structured”. Well then you made a right call, because most writers won’t even be published, and of the few who do even less will achieve success. So yes, if you need structure in your life, marrying a writer is not the best call. Own it.

Edward’s success is part of what shakes her: “wow, he did become a successful writer after all, did I do everything wrong? Should I have stayed with him?”

It’s real easy to think that now that you know he’s beaten the odds, but in real life the chance of someone becoming a successful writer is minimal. So again, if you’re the kind of person who needs structure, then not marrying a writer is the right call because there’s like a 98% chance that he’ll fail. This movie only works because it tells a story that happens within that 2%; if Nocturnal Animals (the book) was shit, Nocturnal Animals (the movie) could not be done.

I’m not saying the movie’s bad, it’s fucking great, one of the best in 2016. My point is the author (Tom Ford) wrote a very specific narrative that works perfectly, but only because all the pieces align. Susan HAS to be a vulnerable woman for this movie to work, otherwise she might never have opened the book.

Tom Ford:

She falls in love again? With a man she hasn’t seen in two decades? A man with whom the interactions she has throughout the movie are two dozens of words over two emails?

She doesn’t fall in love with him. At best she falls in love with her memory of him and at worst she falls back in love with a fantasy of who he has become, but definitely not him. Actually, maybe fantasy is best and memory is worse, I’m not sure. What I am sure of is that she shows up in that restaurant full of expectations. I’m also sure that if they got together again that relationship would also implode sooner or later, because both people haven’t changed, not where it matters.

I just realized I’ve spent a billion words ranting about this movie but still haven’t made my point clear.

The tagline for the movie is this:

It’s also what Edward says in the break up:

The movie wants us to believe Susan is a bad person, a cold, heartless bitch who doesn’t care about anyone’s feelings, while Edward is the poor guy who’s wronged, the innocent, the victim.

Well, I disagree. First because Edward is not such a nice guy, as I’ve spent many words arguing.

Second because love sometimes means breaking up, and no, to end a relationship is not necessarily the same as to “throw it away”. I could go on about this, but honestly Medium has many posts explaining this better than I ever could, so just hit that search button if you’re really interested.

All in all what I have to say is this: Nocturnal Animals is a great movie, but be careful what message you get from it.

Related posts:

I think the thought of not having to work is appealing to a lot of people. Just look at what happened when COVID shut everything down. Yes, we all went on unemployment, but obviously some of us…

Everyone knows the famous novel 1984. Prior to Big Brother being a TV show that involving washed up bigoted Z list celebs and having countless international spin offs (Pooja, what is this behavior?)…

Hoy es uno de esos dias que no me gustan recordar, aparte de ese cumpleaños insolito, aparte de una solicitud sin autorizar, aparte de un reencuentro innecesario Porque la vida se encarga de…