The very
irrational nature of the human mind is the bedrock of conflict and drama in an
narrative medium. What Animal Spirits, a film by Daniel Hui, does differently
is it tries to fit irrationality into a rational, logical train of thought. The
term ‘Animal Spirits’ is a term coined by influential economist John Maynard Keynes
which means human emotions and irrationality that could affect consumption
behaviour. It is ironic how science attempts to structuralise feelings and moods
but it is with the same sense of irony that the short film Animal Spirits is
characterised – one that gives a refreshing take on the universal and familiar
themes of longing, separation, love.
Animal
Spirits puts two stories together side by side, examining their different
situations, yet presenting them in almost similar fashions, like a clinical
study of human behaviour. Story one features Maria, a Hispanic young lady who
left her job and partner behind in Pennsylvannia to start a new life in Los
Angeles as a student. Speaking in a monotone, she recounts how how she got to
Los Angeles and how she settled down. In between the procedural, she injects
the emotional, though still adopting a detached, restrained persona. The
effect, which sounds like a confession in front of a shrink, is surreal and
resonating. What the film seems to succeed in doing is presenting a kind of
reverse-treatment of the human condition, straight-jacketing basic feelings,
banishing animal spirits, which in fact, leaves you thinking about Maria even
more.
Hyesung, the
other half of this duet of monologues, is a Korean student who is still
financially dependent on her mother. While being the weaker half of the duet in
terms of the ‘voice’ of her character, she provides an interesting counterpoint
to Maria’s fervently delivered narration. While her weaker voice meanders
through what sounds like the same script as Maria, she goes through the same set of
actions as Maria (though with Asian signatures) – making the film seem like a visual
ballet of parallel actions. While the idea of two different characters going
through a similar routine is not particularly ingenious, it’s Daniel’s thoughtful
interplay of the words with the actions (mostly mundane chores) that adds
tangible depth to what could otherwise end up as indulgent experimentation. One who
reads the synopsis or programme notes may notice the heavy overtones of
inaccessible academia, which is masking what is really a down-to-earth study of
human behaviour and choices, making it easier for practical Singapore to
identify with than one would expect.
Review by Jeremy Sing