Kerfa, known as a “madman” to his neighbors, is someone who embodies, in a sense, what it means to be free from imbalanced constraints. He is depicted as a madman, spouting accusations against a tyrant in a verbally nonsensical way. In Sia an unusual, if not untethered emphasis is placed on the unravelling of his character. But what does this unravelling reveal about him, and why is he singled out as a threat to the king if all he does is speak in mysterious language? Its simply because what he is speaking is a type of nonsense that can be understood because of the heavy use of metaphors. At one point he said something to the effect that the emperor wanted to turn him into a hippopotamus that he rode on in order to better rule his country. He asked him to help because he recognized that Kerfa could reach the people, but Kerfa refused because he had a conscience, which was why he should have accepted. He acted mysteriously more than logically, which is a typical trait of people exercising their consciences.
But what forms did this conscience or altered consciousness take in Kerfa? That word, consciousness, crops up in my mind because one of its forms: sleeping, is precisely what Kerfa accuses the emperor of doing. Another metaphor, this time used to compare it to a death of the mind. A light tap on the hand for the situation he’s placed Sia in, but none-the-less suitable for provoking all kinds of reactions to the listeners as if by saying that he’s “waking them up” in a sense. This never truly happens because of his social status, which despite the fact of his riveting affirmation of equality to a court official, remains unchanged.
Along those same lines he is the only person throughout the film who remains essentially unchanged, instead of changing into the reflections of others. He was the only main figure, save Sia, who didn't weave lies into the plot, and in doing so preserved his character's stability. Sia’s fiance becomes the new emperor, Sia the new Kerfa, but Kerfa himself is always himself. He was a man who had no one in life and therefore died with no one. As he puts it when talking to Sia (who is a very central figure): “All stories have madmen, but no madmen have stories.” The way the camera depicted him sauntering through the foliage, living in a house outside of town...outside of the activities of other human beings with each other set the structure for his character to resemble an un-glorified, non-pretentious supporting role, such as that of merlin.
What is even more significant is that this quasi-merlin figure is equally opposing the emperor in an indirect, subtle way, in tandem with his usual modality of going volcano on him. In a way Kerfa repels his authority because he not only opposes his actions in word but through the subconscious use of a symbol he attacks who he is. In the film the use of symbols are how, among others, the child running through the palace courtyard with a pink kite that can never gain altitude (symbolizing the ineptitude of the government and its inability to stay afloat), the subconscious mind teaches not only the cliche in question's but an entire nation's collective consciousness how to improve itself. Kerfa’s symbol is his homemade cape that he wears in mockery of the emperor, which is made blindingly apparent in the one scene where he has a private dialogue with the emperor.
This is the pinnacle of his social-aloofness because what he is essentially doing is dethroning the king...and in this story there is nothing higher to dethrone, even if it is Sia’s savage captors. The king has the final power over all collectively conscious minds. Except for Kerfa, who has his own consciousness, enough to pass it on to Sia, who will emulate him. And enough where he “knows how to wake up when he dies.” And how? Simple. He is the old king, the true king, the king who always was, but then wasn’t but is again.
I hadn’t really considered that the reason why Kerfa was so different was because he had exercised his conscience, but I totally agree. My explanation was that he had seen the truth of the world. That he knew and saw the underlying evil that plagued the village. That he was aware. Although, I still believe that this was part of the reason why he was so different I agree with your argument because I felt several people in the village had a conscience such as Sia’s mother, the barber, and even her fiancée’s aunt yet they did not exercise it. They all blatantly disagreed with Sia’s predicament and yet really did nothing significant to prevent it. Their ability to evaluate whether an action was good or bad, and make the right evaluation proves that they had a conscience. Therefore, I do believe that the primary difference between Kerfa and these villagers was the exercise of their consciences. Kerfa followed his conscience and had the fortitude to surpass society’s oppressive parameters.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of Kerfa to be well said and thought provoking. Kerfa was indeed a character who was refreshingly free from restraints and who maintained his character integrity through his unwavering role as the “madman.”
ReplyDeleteIn your blog you mention his isolation, created by his madness/enlightenment, which resulted in a death that mirrored his life: executed without surrounding attachments. The lone death of Kerfa was a tragic and emotionally riddled scene, which served to highlight the manipulation and corruption involved in political coup. However, I felt that the scene paired well with the promise that Kerfa made to Sia.
When she was seized by soldiers at his home, Kerfa yelled out to her:
“Sia, Don’t worry, whatever happens, I will be there with you! In the Pythons lair!”
As we learn, by the conclusion of the movie, the Python is a lie used to blind and control those who believe in it and so the lair of a lie is anywhere actions are carried out to perpetuate said lie. Thus, when Kerfa was unjustly murdered, as Sia was unjustly raped, he joined Sia in the lair of the Python, just as he promised.
Also…
I would like to pose a personal question towards you, with my tongue in my cheek:
In your blog you state that those who exercise their conscience typically act mysteriously rather than logically. Would you say that it is impossible to have a conscience that reflects logic? I feel that my conscience leads me down a logical path more than I would like, but my passions, quite nicely, lead me down the path of mystery.
Your analysis of "secret situations" resembling caves is interesting, and seems to reflect the medieval paradigm of thinking of the world as flat. Only, the difference between the two is that your illustration serves to discover how the world actually is by exposing the secrets of mankind instead of establishing a world-view that serves to cultivate an atmosphere of ignorance. One could go a step further and view the entire world climate as a cave. Thinking of it that way allows us to construct a different meaning or emphasis on Kerfa's claim that he would be with Sia in the cave...even though he wasn't there in person. So far we've understood that he would be there with her in spirit, as he believed just as strongly that the particular injustice which was being served was chronic, but there is even another level at which he was with her. Simply being in the world, and being where he was, wherever he was, would be enough to be with her if the entire world is a cave of secrets. It wasn't as if one of them was more inside of it than another. Although, taking this philosophy to the extreme would make people seem merely cold and "socially philosophical" at the price of becoming uncaring about crimes against individuals. That would be an injustice in itself. However Sia, being a film, is meant to convey the ethos of the time, not to become a prescription for behavior...good or bad.
ReplyDeleteYour query about why I see the conscience a particular way is interesting as well, and is something I'll try to explain the best and clearest way that I can. I used the word "logic" and the word "mysterious" in particular ways within a certain context...namely, that of exercising of one's conscience. I am not, however, saying that you have to have mysterious reasons for saving someone's life. Quite the contrary: our first inclination is to think that saving someone's life is logical. But what about blessing someone who rails insults at you? That would be illogical, and even a little bit mysterious...if you had a reason for doing that. But then again, if you had a reason for doing it, a reason that obeyed your conscience you'd be acting logically. But what kind of conscience could allow you to act this way? An exceptional one where your kindness changes the heart of a person who hates you. This doesn't mean that you allow yourself to be trampled but, like Kerfa, you tell the truth...which is part of being kind to someone who hates you since you genuinely want them to positively grow to the point of being able to process how certain things should and not not be done to/for others.
As for being logical, I hear so few people who are logical enough about their emotions to where what they're saying or doing demonstrates that they can't grasp how powerful they are. If someone knew how powerful rage was, or sadness, or sexual instinct than it would be easier for them not to take any of these emotional outlets to dangerous extremes or overlap boundaries that would set events into motion which lead to unhealthy outcomes.
Stifling or suppressing emotions is equally as illogical, because that negates what being fully human really is. However, greed is also an emotion, or gratefulness that has dangerously mutated. It led the emperor to oppress his people and the priests to rape countless victims. It's the same with any emotion that exceeds itself. Balance is the key. Balance of the Id and Superego, the body and the soul, etc. What ingredient can give us this peace of mind, and the power to shape consciousness to this aim? Perhaps this is a question for later debate.