Thomas Cole CSCL 3461 Final Essay

The Cell: A Detailed Look at the Birth of a Monster

In the 1800’s, Mary Shelley captivated readers with her tale of the creation and

subsequent rampages of Dr. Frankenstein’s golem, an artificially created being which

mimicked the form and ability of a human. Even today, literature is rife with stories,

allegories and fairy tales about artificial or otherwise fantastical creatures which prey upon

humanity. However, the idea that not all monsters are artificial or fantastical is one that

viewers of the 2000 film The Cell become intimately acquainted with. The film is marketed

as a psychological thriller, carrying the tagline “Once you enter the mind of a killer, YOU

MAY NEVER GET OUT!” (IMDB). The imagery in the film is stunning, as the director

attempts to create the inner workings of the mind of a serial killer.

The tagline for the film is actually quite literal. In the film, Catherine Deane, played

by Jennifer Lopez, is a participant in a study on experimental psychotherapy which involves

the use of psychotropic drugs and complex machinery to actually enter the mind of a young

comatose boy, in an attempt to draw him out of his catatonia (Singh; Packer 11). As a

seemingly noble and innocent opening to the movie, the plot quickly darkens as viewers are

made aware of events occurring outside the laboratory, as FBI Agent Peter Novak, played by

Vince Vaughn, attempts to track down a serial killer before he strikes again. The audience

joins the search to find the serial killer just as the FBI discovers who he is, and where to find

him. Unfortunately, the serial killer, Carl Stargher, played by Vincent D’Onofrio, suffers

from a rare and fictional form of schizophrenia called “Whelan’s Infraction” (Singh), which

causes him to become comatose. The situation is complicated by the fact that another

woman has gone missing, and her location is unknown. Video footage is found of the device

which Carl uses to murder the woman, an elaborate enclosed cage which slowly drowns the

victim. Once the victim has drowned, Carl takes them from the hidden location back to his

home, where he preserves their bodies with bleach, affixes them with a hand-made steel

collar, and leaves their bodies by a water source for the authorities to find.

This film is often graphic in its depiction of mutilation, dismemberment, torture,

decay, sadomasochistic bondage, and misogyny. The horror in this film, though, stems not

from the often brutal and graphic depictions of violence, but more so from the eerie sense of

the sheer terror that is the inside of Stargher’s mind. Suspenseful and ominous, the horror

from this film comes from the underlying understanding that this sort of thing, as far as the

kidnapping and brutal murdering of women, happens at an unfortunate frequency in real

life. Aside from the visual and explicit detail of a number of the scenes, the film repeatedly

oozes suspense, building up to a crashing crescendo of fear, and then subsiding briefly only to

rise to new heights. While there is a great deal of blood and dismemberment in the movie, I

think the true terror of this film lies not so much in a display of gore, but instead plays more

off the common fear of being abducted and being brutally murdered.

Carl Stargher is, without question, a monster. His misogynistic views of women and

the sense of superiority he displays reduces his victims from actual human beings to mere

playthings. This sort of sociopathic behavior is frightening in a group setting, such as a city,

because other people become not equals, but prey for his twisted and sadistic desires. This

violation of social boundaries is coupled with his pathological behavior, which is a result of

his schizophrenia. Obviously, having a severe mental disorder like schizophrenia, even if the

particular form is fictional, crosses the boundary of what is normal and acceptable

psychological health. While he is incapable of crossing natural boundaries, as he is ascribed

no superhuman or paranormal abilities in his conscious life, a dip into his subconscious

reveals that in within his own mind, “He's not even Carl Stargher anymore. He's this...

idealized version of himself who can do anything he pleases... Without fear. A horrible

primitive ugly thing.” (Singh). Throughout the film, there are a number of fantastical and

unrealistic things that take place in the landscape of Stargher’s mind, such as the cutting

open of Agent Novak’s stomach, pulling out his intestine, and attaching it to a winding pole

which slowly draws it out as Stargher turns a crank, wrapping the entrails around the pole

and causes Novak a great deal of pain. Later in the film, it is revealed that this particular

scene in Stargher’s mind was inspired by a drawing of a medieval torture device used by the

Spanish Inquisition; Agent Novak discovers the picture in Stargher’s house as he is searching

for more evidence, and is noticeably disturbed by it.

Unlike the traditional serial killer movie, where the killer is painted as an inhuman

monster worthy of being reviled, a further examination of Stargher’s mind reveals a rather

interesting predicament. As Deane searches through Stargher’s psyche, looking for clues to

the whereabouts of the missing girl, she interacts with three versions of Stargher. The first

she encounters Stargher as a child, who is revealed to have been subjected to cruelly physical

and verbal abuse by his father on a number of occasions. It is here that we see where

Stargher developed his misogynistic views, as his father routinely beats him, breaks his

bones, and even presses a hot iron against his back while beating him with a belt. The

second figure she interacts with is the idealized self-version of himself, a demonic and

frightening looking individual with seemingly limitless power and capability. Briefly, in a

third form, she encounters Stargher as he looks in reality, where he shares details of more

physical abuse from his father. While his actions are inexcusable and revolting, one cannot

help but to feel pity for the younger Stargher, as the audience and Deane witness him being

savagely beaten by his father for playing with dolls, or for accidentally breaking a plate.

This raises a rather interesting debate with no clear answer: is someone who suffered

so much physical and verbal abuse who later in life repeats it worthy of the societal

demotion to subhuman status? It is entirely natural to dehumanize individuals who display

the behaviors Stargher displays as an adult; this same process of dehumanization is applied to

a number of others who violate the societal standard of the sacredness of human life.

Murderers, rapists, and child molesters are all, to an extent, seen to be less than human by

society in general. The film itself seems to make a point to contrast the cruel and unusual

behaviors of Stargher with brutal depictions of what he suffered in his childhood, in an

attempt to bring this issue to the forefront.

It is important to note, that as a psychologist, empathy is required in order to do

effective therapy. An important issue raised in another class I have taken, Introduction to

Counseling, was how a therapist can find the ability to be empathetic with individuals who

have done things which the therapist finds to be completely unacceptable, such as rape or

molestation (Anders). Ideally, a therapist can come to an understanding that the individual

has done terrible things, but they are indeed still human. It was also covered that the ability

to be empathetic with individuals who have committed these kinds of atrocities is extremely

difficult at times, and if empathy is unable to be established, it is in the best interest of both

the client and the therapist for the therapist to issue a referral to different therapist. As seen

in the film, Deane finds trouble empathizing with Stargher the adult, but is able to

empathize with Stargher the child, ultimately making her contact with him effective.

This issue is important for others to take a closer look at, because it challenges the

status quo of societal behavior. Entirely too often, there is no distinction made between

revulsion over the actions of a person, and revulsion over the person themselves. While it is

entirely acceptable to dislike and be outraged by actions such as murder, to treat the

murderer as subhuman reduces the issuers of judgment to same level as the murder.

Interestingly enough, the DVD includes an interactive game which tests the player for their

level of empathy. At the end of the questionnaire, the user is informed of why empathy is

important for the effectiveness of both the fictional mind-link therapy in the film, and

traditional therapy. The first lesson, then, that this film teaches, is that individuals who find

themselves issuing judgment on these so-called monsters do exactly as the “monsters” do, and

remove the mantle of humanity from their subjects.

Another important reason to look at this film, is that it, like many other science

fiction films, predicted breakthroughs in technology which would allow what we consider

fantastic and unrealistic to become reality. Much like Arthur C. Clarke’s prediction of

satellites in 1945 (Clarkefoundation.org), and Hugo Gernsbeck’s 1911 prediction of the

Chunnel between England and France (Technovelgy.com), science fiction has a habit of

being the source for technological advancement. Currently, a great deal of the technology

for the therapy in the film is in development. Packer states that things such as brain pacers,

vagal nerve stimulation, and implants, all of which are used in the film, are currently being

clinically trialed on humans (11), and that the film has also predicted the trend of social

workers and psychologist displacing the traditional dispensers of therapy, psychiatrists, as the

primary dealers of psychotherapeutical treatment (12). This introduction of these, at the

time, fictional devices and procedures into popular culture seems to have, in some way,

allowed for the inspiration to bring the fictional into reality.

Lastly, another important reason to look at this film is gender politics. As Sharma

discusses, the idea of womb-envy is clearly depicted in this film (1). While womb envy

originated as a feminist response to Freud’s penis-envy, the idea behind it is demonstrated

quite well in this film. Sharma quotes Kittay in her work, who describes that it is natural for

young boys to also want to have children and be nurturing, as much as women do (5).

However, the repressive patriarchal society we live in crushes and extinguishes this urge,

which then manifests itself through womb-envy, where men are jealous of the ability of

women to both create life and provide tender nurturing (6). In the film, prior to being

savagely beaten and branded with a hot iron, Stargher’s father walks in on his son playing

with dolls. He becomes enraged at the sight of this, screaming “I didn’t raise no faggot!” and

then proceeds to brutally beat his son with a belt. This particular scene is both disturbing for

the violence that is inflicted, but at the same time, is a powerful critique on society. The

rather strict gender politics which still prevail in society discourage any sign of femininity in

males, and seeks to crush and repress it at any and all opportunities. As we can see in

Stargher’s case, this repression is not only harmful to him, but leads to his later obsession

with capturing and murdering women.

While the film was not a smashing box office success, nor is it a masterpiece of

cinema, there are a number of important cultural issues addressed by this film. The film, in a

very visually artistic style, presents a number of critiques on society in general, as well as

raising issues in modern psychology. Perhaps the most important aspect of the film is that it

reminds us that while there are indeed monsters out there in the real world, these monsters

are often byproducts of the injustices present in our society. To dehumanize another, no

matter how cruel or needlessly violent they are, makes us no better than those we rob of

humanity.

Works Cited

Anders, Samantha. Introduction to Counseling Psychology. University of Minnesota. Nicholson Hall, Minneapolis MN. 6 Jul. 2009. Lecture.

Packer, Sharon. Movies and the Modern Psyche. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2007. Print, Web. <

http://books.google.com/books?id=OqZQfGsu2XAC&lpg=PA11&ots=kakR-itDHI&dq=%22the%20cell%22%20psychology%20therapy%20jennifer%20lopez&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=&f=false>

Sharma, Shweta. "The Killer Father and the Final Mother: Womb-Envy in The Cell."

Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network. Volume 1. Issue 2 (2007): n.page. Web. < http://journalhosting.org/meccsa-pgn/index.php/netknow/article/viewFile/20/70>

“60th anniversary of the Clarke Orbit.” Clarkefoundation.org. Arthur C. Clarke Foundation,

n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2009 <http://www.clarkefoundation.org/60th/index.php> “Sub-Atlantic Tube.” technovelgy.com. Technovelgy, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2009

<http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=676> The Cell. Dir. Tarsem Singh. Perf. Jennifer Lopez, Vince Vaughn, Vincent D’Onofrio. New

Line Cinema, 2000. DVD. "The Cell (2000)." imdb.com. Internet Movie Database, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2009.