The film Rubber and why it breaks film-making rules?
When I say this film is wild, prepare to be flabbergasted as the film truly warns you about what you are about to watch.
The film Rubber (2010)is a thrilling, experimental film by the always rule-breaking French director Quentin Dupieux. It follows a car tire that comes to life and undergoes a ravenous killing spree...the narrative alone sounds insane but it is only the beginning. When creating this film from interviews I have looked into there are 0 reasons behind him creating his films or messages behind them (well…why am I writing this then?) (Hove,2013.) As someone who created this film for the fun of it, to me, there is under tonnes of himself challenging Hollywood from the way he is constructing his films to messages being displayed throughout.
Looking at the role of films there are a way to escape into the world while observing the narrative/world playing before you. When observing films as described by Micheal Tratner it is like “dreaming in the night” (Tratner,2008.) The film world becomes a sealed reality that we observe and mostly not wanting to be taken out of however this film from the start reminds you this is a film and consistently takes you out of the film realm. In the opening scene, a police car pulls up, a police officer emerges from the car boot and walks/stares towards the camera delivering a monologue.
This opening scene takes the audience out of the film realm by breaking the fourth wall. As described by Martin Glynn breaking the fourth wall is when a “character directly addressing an audience, or actively acknowledging (through breaking character or through dialogue) that the characters and action going on is not real” (Gylnn,2010.) Breaking this fourth wall herby removes the invincible barrier between the two ‘worlds’ (ours and films) removing the escapism that this form of media provides. Films and TV do use breaking the fourth wall though mostly for comedies like Deadpool and Fleabag, it works to bring in the audience on the joke, elevates characters, and tells us crucial information. Though in Rubber the breaking of the fourth wall is just a way to yell at audainces “HEY! This is a film and nothing that is going to happen will make sense.”
Within the opening monologue, the police officer takes a jab at Hollywood films highlighting that in every film there is always an element that just “does not make sense.” With films such as ET, The Pianist and Chain Saw Massacre getting targeted the opening of Rubber ends telling audainces that “the film you are about to see today, is an homage to the no reason.” Therefore breaking the fourth wall, acknowledging it's a film, and taking aim at Hollywood films with one sentence. As Ian Buckwalter states that when watching this film “if ever you find yourself thinking that something doesn’t make sense…don’t bother searching for an explanation: There isn’t one” (Buckwalter,2011.) This is highlighted with the po lice officer emerging from the car boot. The almost prologue of the first 5 minutes perfectly captures what the rest of the film is like.
The film becomes meta as the camera pans around to the police officer not talking to us but to a crowd that is watching him holding binoculars. We find out that they are here to watch the film (in their ‘real’ world)(it's confusing.) This crowd is intertwined throughout the first half of the film (almost like playing us as an audience)with their commentary throughout the film. This further takes audiences out of the escapism of films and consistently reminds us everything we are witnessing is fake.
The reason behind this was for ‘personal reasons’ stating that his first film was a flop with nobody seeing it meaning “ putting spectators in the movie was a good way to have spectators, and to control them” (Dupieux & Mark Olsen,2011.) When it came to promoting this film, this segment was not shown and was displayed as a ‘mainstream’ Hollywood crazy killer flick. You can tell when reading this that the killing tire segment/story there is not much there and is another segment of “no reason’ as the cleverness and rule-breaking happens in other sections. He has advertised it in a way to get audainces into seeing his films by being unique but blending into other traditional trailers missing out on large sections of the film that at its core will confuse audiences.
The audience throughout is left confused and baffled by what they are watching similarity to us. We have grown slightly custom to predictable and non-thought-provoking films that the industry is making, our minds are confused when seeing these complex experimental styles. Quickly due to the negative reviews, the audience in the film are silenced by killing them causing a police officer from the start to interfere with the main ‘plot.’ The police officer breaks the film reality by telling the ‘actors’ that nobody is watching and they can finish, it's all fake.
Within doing this and telling the actors “it's all fake” again takes audainces out of the reality. What it highlights though is the power that audainces have over a film. As highlighted by Rachel Tustin stating; “The audience drives every aspect of developing a theatrical performance” from casting actors, the development of the narrative but also the success of the film (Tustin,2019) Films can be unique or brilliant but if nobody is seeing it then ‘what's the point?’ To me, box office and stuff do not matter but when looking at headlines and success it's what the trades and companies look at more. This scene puts into perspective that with the actors being persuaded and about to stop ‘acting’ that without people watching ‘is their really a film?’ This could be a link into his first film which was a flop as nobody saw it or a link to how he advertised this film to make it more appealing for general audainces to watch (then seeing the final product.)
Before concluding here, there are a few more attacks on Hollywood for example the food that poisoned the spectators can be seen as a metaphor for the junk food we mindlessly consume while watching or how the ending could be a swing at Hollywood’s ongoing decisions to produce sequels or re-boots (‘for no reason.’)
In conclusion, there is so much more to talk about this film but I hoping it gives you an insight into the film Rubber and why it is such a complex experimental film that truly breaks the film-making rulebook, maybe even give it a watch?
Check out the video for non-readers or just visuals that go with the piece.
References;
Dupieux, Quentin & Olsen, Mark. (2011). Indie Focus: Quentin Dupieux knew ‘Rubber’ needed more than a killer tire. Available from: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-mar-27-la-ca-indie-focus-20110327-story.html.
Glynn, M., 2010. Breaking The Fourth Wall. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Available at: https://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/784_1.pdf [Accessed 18 August 2021].
Hove, Micah Van. (2013). Get Inside the Mind of Quentin Dupieux, Director of ‘Rubber,’ with 15 of His Reddit AMA Answers. Available from: https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/quentin-dupieux-director-rubber-wrong-reddit-ama.
Ian Buckwalter. (2011). if ever you find yourself thinking that something doesn’t make sense…don’t bother searching for an explanation: There isn’t one. Available from: https://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/134928197/unexpected-turns-after-rubber-meets-the-road?t=1629379662685.
Rubber. (2010). [Film] Directed by Q. Dupieux. France: Fantastic Fest.
Tratner, Micheal. (2008). COLLECTIVE SPECTATORSHIP. In Crowd Scenes: Movies and Mass Politics (pp. 12–32). New York: Fordham University Press. Retrieved August 15, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1x76fv9.5
Tustin. Rachel. (2010). The Role of the Audience in Theatre. Available from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-role-of-the-audience-in-theatre.html.