Dialectical Tension Between Vulnerability and Invulnerability
Apart from the depiction of the psychopathic traits in Erika, the film also lays emphasis on the dialectical tension between Erika’s vulnerability as a human being, and her constant pursuit of invulnerability as a psychopathic individual. As implied by Haneke’s repetitive uses of long tracking shots throughout the film, which aim at creating a dispassionate and objective perspective, The Piano Teacher does not intend to either aggrandize or vilify Erika as a psychopathic villain commonly recognized in other films, as manifested in Leistedt’s and Linkowski’s study. In contrast, the film is committed to offering an austere depiction of the multifaceted human nature, which psychopaths also share. More precisely put, while psychopaths can easily perform malicious and egocentric acts, which most empaths would find heinous and unaccountable, they also possess the fundamental needs shared by human beings altogether. Consequently, when these needs are not satisfied, psychopaths can also be fragile and suffer from the pain induced by loneliness, as well as an inability to form a loving, nurturing relationship with others.
In terms of The Piano Teacher, I argue that the film closely examines the interplay between love and vulnerability. Herein vulnerability is defined by openness instead of weakness and passivity, on the basis of Erinn C. Gilson’s conception.
Furthermore, the unpredictable and uncontrollable dimensions render vulnerability an experience of ambivalence and ambiguity, in which no certain outcome is guaranteed.
Most important of all, vulnerability is a fundamental condition of human existence that cannot be entirely averted. In view of the aforementioned premises, one has to be vulnerable in order to love, considering that love entails mutual affection and
alteration, for which intersubjective openness to others is a prerequisite.
In The Piano Teacher, one of the pivotal issues is Erika’s strenuous attempt to love as a vulnerable human being. Nevertheless, her efforts to love are constantly frustrated and hampered by her morbid fascination with control, detachment, and self-possession, which, in Gilson’s view, constitute invulnerability and obstruct one’s openness to alteration and to being affected in ways that cause such alteration (86).
Erika’s persistent obsession with invulnerability is understandably linked to her psychopathic personality. In other words, Erika’s psychopathic personality embodies invulnerability in several dimensions. As indicated by Gilson, invulnerability is a form of closure cultivated willfully and habitually in social contexts, as opposed to an inherent disposition (79). As one understands vulnerability in a reductively negative way, equating it with weakness, powerlessness, dependency, and defect, he or she is prone to seek invulnerability, in order to feel superior, adamant, and in control (79).
This happens to be Erika’s situation, where the psychopathic heroine deliberately confines herself in a self-imposed closure, refusing to be affected and altered by others in ways that she has no control over. Differently put, from an overall
viewpoint, The Piano Teacher revolves around Erika’s obsession with control over herself as well as others. However, as the story unfolds, she realizes she is starting to lose grip on it, because her feelings for Walter have begun to evoke her intrinsic vulnerability, which she views as a weakness and continually strives to repudiate by exhibiting an impervious facade.
We certainly do not know to what extent Erika’s psychopathic personality is influenced genetically. However, in view of Hare’s proposition that psychopathy emerges from a complex interplay between biological factors and social forces, e.g.
parenting practices and childhood experiences, it is reasonable that the mother’s oppressive control stimulates Erika’s pursuit of invulnerability to a great extent. Since the maternal control infringes on every aspect of Erika’s life, Erika cannot refrain
from taking her own methods of declaring her authority. Numerous critics have testified to this proposition, including Heidi James, who views Erika’s auto-trauma as an assertion of her own power, along with Jean Wyatt, who understands Erika’s urination, vomiting, and bleeding as the attempts to expel a mother experienced as so close as to be inside her own body (James; Wyatt 462). Additionally, invulnerability is also embodied by Wyatt’s conception of maternal jouissance as a static and impenetrable space, where Erika is trapped and unable to experience desire, which conversely is always in motion and indicates openness to alteration (461). In a similar vein, Arnold M. Cooper maintains that Erika’s perversions involve her fantasies of erasing passivity and the experience of being at the mercy of her cruel, controlling mother (168). The mother’s overbearing supervision practically severs Erika’s connection to the world, preventing the opportunity for the daughter to develop nurturing relationships with others.
Several scenes in the film attest to the mother’s omnipresent surveillance, including the opening sequence, where the mother interrogates Erika and rummages through her purse, even tearing her new dress. On top of that, during Erika’s and Walter’s first conversation at the piano recital, Erika’s mother can be seen nearby, obviously inattentive to her interlocutor and eager to suspend her daughter’s interaction with an attractive young man. What’s more, we also see the mother contact the academy to inquire about Erika’s whereabouts, despite the daughter’s demand that her mother not call. Most importantly, the fact that the middle-aged Erika still shares the same bed with her mother every night signifies the improbability for her to engage in wholesome sexual activities, especially given the mother’s painstaking effort to preclude Erika’s chance of forming any romantic relationship.
Differently put, the mother incessantly obstructs openness for Erika by impeding her opportunity to be sustained and transformed through interrelationship
with others. The situation is made even worse by the mother’s use of Erika as her own narcissistic extension – her “puppet pianist,” as described by Harriet Wrye (1207). As a consequence, these conditions altogether facilitate in shaping Erika as a detached, impervious, and invulnerable psychopath, who is desperate to re-enact the absolute control that her mother forcibly imposes on her.
Furthermore, as contended by Gilson, invulnerability is a willful ignorance that underlies other oppressive types of ignorance (74). In other words, by pursuing invulnerability, one becomes ignorant of vulnerability, which is a willful attempt to avoid what might unsettle and disturb one’s formation of masterful self-identity (86).
Given that vulnerability denotes openness to unplanned and unanticipated alteration, the ignorance of it constructs a closure that hinders one’s understanding of his or her complicity in oppressive social relations, which are inextricably intertwined with control, mastery, and detachment. These qualities of invulnerability are generally considered to be of social utility and habitually put into practice, because they seem to eradicate the discomfort and unease produced by one’s experience of vulnerability as openness to destabilization of the self. However, Gilson also underscores that,
“ignorance of vulnerability is produced precisely because we do know and experience our own vulnerability, yet disavow it as formative and significant because
acknowledging it will hinder our attempts to achieve our diverse goals in a social world that has come to value the trappings of invulnerability” (79). The combat between seeking invulnerability and being aware of one’s fundamental vulnerability permeates the story of The Piano Teacher, in particular with the advent of Walter’s romantic courtship of Erika. In other words, as Erika realizes that Walter’s
affectionate pursuit has aroused her feelings for him, she begins to oscillate between finding her intrinsic vulnerability evoked and maintaining absolute control over herself and others.
The destabilization of Erika’s established invulnerability is first shown during the scene where Walter auditions for Erika’s advanced class at the conservatory, and plays Schubert, her favorite composer, several days after their first encounter at the piano recital. In this respect, Haneke explains Erika’s nuanced display of how she is emotionally affected by Walter’s music, precisely conveyed by actress Isabelle Huppert’s extremely subtle movements of her facial expression (see fig. 4):
“This scene begins with her completely opposed to accepting this new student, because she’s afraid she might lose herself in a relationship with him. At first she’s completely reserved, but the way he plays breaks through her emotional defenses. The camera stays on her while he plays three
selections chosen specifically to allow for an emotional progression. […]
Without her doing a thing, her face changes in such a way that you can read everything right there and understand it all, without her explicitly
“showing” or declaring anything.” (Haneke, “New Interview with Haneke”)
Fig. 4. Isabelle Huppert delivering Erika’s strenuous efforts to repress her emotions with her extremely subtle movements of the facial expression, The Piano Teacher (00:32:56).
In a similar vein, Huppert illustrates how Erika falls in love with Walter while listening to his music, regardless of her efforts to suppress the emotions:
“[T]he fact is she’s already fallen in love with him from hearing him play this music, but here the music tells us about the nature of the love she demands. She’s seduced by the way he plays. She feels he plays well, with brio, but also with a certain self-satisfied air and a certain vulgar flashiness.
And that reveals her feelings about love. She’s seeking a love that’s perfect, and she sees right away that he most likely loves the way he plays. And that’s what annoys her as she listens to him play. At first she’s touched by the beauty of the music, because it’s a very beautiful piece by Schubert. So of course she responds deeply to that perfection and beauty, but at the same time she’s slightly annoyed by his playing and by the fact she’s falling in love with him. She’s a jumble of confused emotions.” (Huppert)
Walter’s audition illuminates for Erika her fundamental vulnerability of being open to affection that could lead to alteration and destabilization of the self, which places her in a paradoxical situation. As Huppert points out, Erika resents the fact that she is uncontrollably touched by the music played by a man whom she is attracted to. While she relishes being overwhelmed by this foreign feeling known as love, she is also threatened by the prospect of being altered into a less invulnerable person, who lacks absolute control over herself and others. During one of their private lessons, Walter manifests to Erika his unquenchable desire to kiss her, to which Erika responds with her customary aloofness. Nevertheless, Walter is not discouraged by Erika’s
ostensible disregard for his affections. He is aware that Erika consciously forces herself to conceal her genuine emotions by appearing indifferent. As a result, he fervently presses close to her, and says in a tender whisper, “Let yourself go. Allow yourself feelings for once” (The Piano Teacher 01:22:08-13). However, his remarks
seem to upset Erika even more. She struggles to escape his arms, and declares to him in a firm and frosty voice, “I have no feelings. Get that into you head. If ever I do, they won’t defeat my intelligence” (The Piano Teacher 01:22:22-27). The declaration practically encapsulates Erika’s perception of her existence in the social world. It may as well be viewed as the pianist’s conscious acknowledgement of her psychopathic propensity for an invulnerable self, which intentionally prohibits openness to
alteration and affection. Nevertheless, the conspicuous change of the style of Erika’s costume hints at the destabilized condition of Erika’s invulnerability. During the first half of the film, Erika wears plain and severe clothing, in colors such as blue, black, gray, and beige. On top of that, whenever Erika appears outside her house, she invariably keeps her hair in a bun (see fig. 5). As proposed by Christopher Christian, during the earlier part of the film, Erika’s style of dressing, in particular the trench coat and kidskin gloves which evoke the image of the proverbial male pervert, signifies her wish to embody masculinity as a token of empowerment (776-77).
However, during the scene of her private lesson with Walter, she is noticeably dressed up in a more feminine manner, putting on a sunset-orange cardigan and wearing her hair down (see fig. 6). Later as she heads home after the lesson, we also see a drastic change in her outfit, particularly highlighted by the red cloche hat she wears, which forms a stark contrast to the image of a “proverbial male pervert” provoked by her previous outfit (see fig. 7). Accordingly, despite Erika’s verbal denial of her feelings, the change of the style of her outfit stands as a mute testimony to her inner
transformation. As a matter of fact, Erika may have subconsciously decided to dress in a feminine fashion, which contradicts her professed imperviousness and
unresponsiveness to Walter’s affections. In this sense, Erika’s subconscious decision verifies the unpredictable and uncontrollable dimensions of her immanent
vulnerability as a matter of susceptibility, in the face of her ostensible disavowal of its presence.
Fig. 6. The noticeable change in Erika’s outfit and hair hints at the way she is affected by Walter, despite her explicit verbal denial of her feelings, The Piano Teacher (01:23:17).
Fig. 5. During the first half of the film, Erika is always dressed in grim colors and wears her hair in a bun, The Piano Teacher (00:41:16).
Fig. 7. Erika’s earlier “proverbial male pervert” outfit (left) in contrast to her later feminine look (right), The Piano Teacher (00:49:32, 01:24:08).
Following the conversation during their private lesson, where Erika willfully refuses to admit and return Walter’s affections, a later scene vividly manifests the conflict between vulnerability and invulnerability, in the form of Erika’s masochistic sexual fantasies. After the lesson is finished, Walter follows Erika home, and the two eventually end up alone in Erika’s room, regardless of the intense opposition of her mother, who remains blocked outside the door. Inside the room, Erika demands that Walter read the letter she gives to him earlier during their lesson, before they embark on whatever he wishes for. Despite reluctance, Walter obeys and begins reading the letter, only to be shocked and repulsed by its content, which turns out to be nothing else but Erika’s masochistic fantasies:
“On the contrary, if I beg, tighten my bonds, please. Adjust the belt by at least two or three holes. The tighter the better. Then, gag me with some stockings I will have ready. Stuff them in so hard that I’m incapable of making any sound. Next, take off the blindfold, please, and sit down on my face and punch me in the stomach to force me to thrust my tongue in your behind. For that is my dearest wish. Hands and feet tied behind my back and locked up next door to my mother but out of her reach behind my bedroom door, till the next morning. […] If you catch me disobeying any of your orders, hit me, please, even with the back of your hand on my face.
Ask me why I don’t cry out to mother or why I don’t fight back. Above all, say things like that, so that I realize just how powerless I am.” (The Piano Teacher 01:29:31-01:32:30)
The explicit confession of Erika’s masochistic nature appalls Walter, and renders him unable to utter a word for some time, until he finally says to her in a cold tone,
“You’re sick. You need treatment” (The Piano Teacher 01:37:27-30). In this scene, the letter plays a significant role in embodying the dialectical tension between
vulnerability and invulnerability, which manifests itself in the form of masochistic perversion. The content of Erika’s letter, when understood in the literal sense, seems to be Erika’s wish for Walter to shatter her invulnerable self, especially considering her final request for him to abuse her verbally, so that she realizes “just how
powerless she is.” Paradoxically, the letter is simultaneously the representation of Erika’s morbid obsession with control and mastery, vividly concretized in a list of specific orders regarding how she would like Walter to torment her physically and mentally. Erika’s deep-rooted compulsion for invulnerability is substantiated by the way Walter reacts to the letter, which comes across as a fusion of disgust and anger.
He is not only revolted by Erika’s perverse fantasies, which appear obscene and barbarous particularly in contrast to the sophisticated musical culture of the Viennese bourgeoisie – the setting of their first encounter at the piano recital held by Walter’s wealthy uncle and aunt. What’s more, Walter is severely offended and irritated by Erika’s attempt to wrest control of their relationship, playing the role of the commander and giving him orders to satisfy her masochistic longings. In
consideration of Jean Wyatt’s view that Walter stands as the representative of a solid masculine identity in the film, it is most likely that his rage mainly results from Erika’s attempt to deprive him of the autonomy, mastery, and phallic control that constitute the core of his masculinity (466). In other words, Erika’s letter serves as her assertion of control, which is nevertheless fundamentally paradoxical, because she is practically forcing demands on Walter to force demands on herself, rendering the letter a conflicting zone where vulnerability and invulnerability collide with each other. Consequently, it produces in Walter a mixture of bewilderment and repulsion, for he feels threatened by a sense of dissolution of his masculinity, which Erika unknowingly claims to usurp in her letter.
Furthermore, Erika’s wishes of being tortured, humiliated, and inhumanly treated signify the process of dehumanization, particularly given her specific request to be “gagged with her stockings,” so that she is “unable to make any sound or cry out to her mother.” In Ruth McPhee’s examination of how Elaine Scarry conceptualizes physical pain, McPhee maintains that, “the enforced removal of the tortured subject’s linguistic capability by the torturer is regarded as absolutely central to the process of dehumanization” (175). In other words, to remove one from language is to remove one’s humanity, and to renounce one’s language is to renounce the very position of one’s subjectivity (175). In this sense, Erika’s demands to be bound, gagged, and silenced indicate her wish to be dehumanized, which seemingly amounts to the repudiation of her invulnerable subjectivity. Nevertheless, on account of vulnerability as a fundamental human condition, Erika’s willful attempt to have herself
dehumanized denotes her rejection of vulnerability. As Arnold M. Cooper points out,
“Dehumanization is the ultimate strategy against the fears of human qualities – it protects against the vulnerability of loving, against the possibility of human
unpredictability, and against the sense of powerlessness and passivity in comparison to other humans” (168). Moreover, Cooper also suggests that the attempt to
dehumanize is carried out through the use of fantasies, which serve as the efforts to deny the experience of being the helpless, needy baby at the mercy of a cruel,
frustrating mother (168). In this sense, Cooper’s description corresponds with Erika’s predicament, given that a major part of Erika’s persistent will for invulnerability is likely to result from her unbreakable attachment to her mother’s domineering control.
Through dehumanizing herself with her masochistic fantasies and her earlier self-mutilation, Erika manages to avoid total passivity and ensure control over her victimization. Consequently, while the letter ostensibly symbolizes Erika’s wish to
Through dehumanizing herself with her masochistic fantasies and her earlier self-mutilation, Erika manages to avoid total passivity and ensure control over her victimization. Consequently, while the letter ostensibly symbolizes Erika’s wish to