A female children book author (Madeleine Stowe) is kidnapped and finds herself in a room with a male interrogator (Alan Rickman) who appears to work for the government, accusing her that her latest book is a thinly veiled allegory of subversive nature. Trying to make her admit her guilt he uses various brutal, unethical and sexist methods.
Brought to you with the friendly support of Amnesty International 'Closet Land' is an anti-government/anti-authoritarian allegory of the most blatant kind, if you can even call it an allegory. More precisely it is about the abuse of power by the government in the form of torture in particular, and the abuse of power by authority in general. Torture in the name of the state of course is a very real thing, but in its details the theatrical scenario bears little resemblance to anything real even if one considers that it is set in the future, which this appears to be. And even taking into account the lack of a real context in the story concerning time and place, the author's behavior in this situation more often than not doesn't ring true to me.
What distinguishes this film from most other anti-authoritarian allegories is its feminist agenda which, however, comes in the form of vulgar self-victimization (Madeleine Stowe's nameless character even is credited as "Victim") and with a portion of misandry. Government is concluded to be a completely male domain. Males are per definition the victimizers and women are the victims, just like the government is per definition evil and the people are good. It also uses copious amounts of sexism as part of the interrogation/torture and a rape plot device which in a better film would probably seem fine but just adds more predictable elements to this unimaginative allegory, making them feel like clichés.
But it isn't all bad, at least towards the end it DOES have some interesting things to say that can make 'Closet Land' a nice conversation piece, most notably it forcefully drives home the point that the seeds of obedience to (male) authority and the acceptance of the (patriarchal) status quo are planted at a very young age, often through actions that may not even seem directly related to obedience to authority and so on. We unwittingly are all accomplices to the system in enforcing those ideals. Of course once the seed is planted in the impressionable child it is unlikely to go away, if anything it only grows. But this, like almost all other insights, is blatantly spelled out, in this case regrettably just after the film had made its point dramatically, if not subtly, at least as an integral part of the story.
The woman's martyrdom at the end (which is recognized as martyrdom more thanks to the swelling music and the pathos in the staging than from any heroism in her actions) is the expected final note before quoting some Amnesty International torture statistics and last but not least we get a Gandhi quote. The Amnesty International thing (the film apparently also was advertised a lot by linking it to the organization) actually wasn't meant to distract from its not very clever, on-the-nose, overzealous feminist message, at least not by director Radha Bharadwaj herself since that quote apparently was put there against her will and she opposes that her film is linked so closely to the human rights organization. Her film, after all, "ultimately has such a far-reaching scope", it would be a shame to "dismiss it as mere human rights propaganda". That's what SHE said.
Brought to you with the friendly support of Amnesty International 'Closet Land' is an anti-government/anti-authoritarian allegory of the most blatant kind, if you can even call it an allegory. More precisely it is about the abuse of power by the government in the form of torture in particular, and the abuse of power by authority in general. Torture in the name of the state of course is a very real thing, but in its details the theatrical scenario bears little resemblance to anything real even if one considers that it is set in the future, which this appears to be. And even taking into account the lack of a real context in the story concerning time and place, the author's behavior in this situation more often than not doesn't ring true to me.
What distinguishes this film from most other anti-authoritarian allegories is its feminist agenda which, however, comes in the form of vulgar self-victimization (Madeleine Stowe's nameless character even is credited as "Victim") and with a portion of misandry. Government is concluded to be a completely male domain. Males are per definition the victimizers and women are the victims, just like the government is per definition evil and the people are good. It also uses copious amounts of sexism as part of the interrogation/torture and a rape plot device which in a better film would probably seem fine but just adds more predictable elements to this unimaginative allegory, making them feel like clichés.
But it isn't all bad, at least towards the end it DOES have some interesting things to say that can make 'Closet Land' a nice conversation piece, most notably it forcefully drives home the point that the seeds of obedience to (male) authority and the acceptance of the (patriarchal) status quo are planted at a very young age, often through actions that may not even seem directly related to obedience to authority and so on. We unwittingly are all accomplices to the system in enforcing those ideals. Of course once the seed is planted in the impressionable child it is unlikely to go away, if anything it only grows. But this, like almost all other insights, is blatantly spelled out, in this case regrettably just after the film had made its point dramatically, if not subtly, at least as an integral part of the story.
The woman's martyrdom at the end (which is recognized as martyrdom more thanks to the swelling music and the pathos in the staging than from any heroism in her actions) is the expected final note before quoting some Amnesty International torture statistics and last but not least we get a Gandhi quote. The Amnesty International thing (the film apparently also was advertised a lot by linking it to the organization) actually wasn't meant to distract from its not very clever, on-the-nose, overzealous feminist message, at least not by director Radha Bharadwaj herself since that quote apparently was put there against her will and she opposes that her film is linked so closely to the human rights organization. Her film, after all, "ultimately has such a far-reaching scope", it would be a shame to "dismiss it as mere human rights propaganda". That's what SHE said.