Kitchen Stories
Kitchen Stories: A film review
Kitchens are the heart of the house. It is where memories are made and meals are created. The film Kitchen Stories, by Bent Hamer, is a story about a forward-thinking company’s efforts to gather data to design the perfect and ideal kitchen space. While observing within the kitchen space of a local man's home, we learn about data collection, discipline, power structures, and friendship. Upon his perch, Folke Nilsson watched as Isak Bjorvik lived his life within the confines of mostly the kitchen. At first, Isak was reluctant to let anyone into his life but shortly warmed up to Folke and began to even converse with him. Although fraternization was against the rules of the data collection survey, the two men became friendly and even shared a laugh. Once the company learned of the socializing, they inspected the situation and discovered that Isak had been observing the observer, Folke, as well. This made the decision to shut down the collection of data and fire Folke, easy and dramatic. The movie ended in silence with meaningful glances at each other, which gave room for the audience to fill in the blanks.
Reaction
This film was supposed to be a tender and heartwarming story of an unassuming friendship, but it was a dry and difficult story to follow at times. It was a simple film with many moments of silent action and interesting implications. Although this film claimed to be a comedy-drama, it did not contain much substance and left the audience to interpret a great deal of the time. I find it difficult to fill in the gaps and often had a delayed reaction to a scene, missing the action. I also found it odd that the only woman in this film was at the very beginning where the study was explained and a woman was used as an example. The rest of the time, it was a battle of wits between two eventual friends and a boss who had no respect for personal boundaries. Overall, this film was interesting but I did not see the layers of complexity that this week's reading led me to believe was there.
Analysis
The way I analyzed this film was through a practical and philosophical lens. As we know, the humanities influencer, Michel Foucault, was a philosopher associated with the structuralist and post-structuralist movements. The focused task throughout this film was to collect data. Data that would go on to determine marketing and product development. This was important work and was taken very seriously. During this time, observation data was crucial and the main form of data collection. “Data has been called “the oil” of the digital economy” (Wedel & Kannan p. 97). Which “produce vast data streams in how consumers feel, behave, and interact around products and services as well as how they respond to marketing efforts.” “Data is assuming an increasingly central role in organizations, as marketers aim to harness data to build and maintain customer relationships; and automate marketing processes in real time” (Wedel & Kannan p. 97). The serious data collection throughout this film focused on power. Through Foucault's perspective, power is being able to identify what knowledge is and can be. In the Kitchen Stories film, we see this through Folkes data collecting efforts and, in another way, we also see it through Isaks eyes as well. What we know as technologies of the self, helps us better understand and define who we are as good members in society. For example, Isak knew what it meant to be a good friend in the end, and saved Folke from being crushed on the train tracks. When it comes to behavior, the idea that Isak behaved differently because he was being watched, doesn't fit in with Foucault's way of thinking because Isak changed his behavior to not fit the mold, instead of doing what was normal and right, he did things like cooking his meals on burners upstairs in the bedroom. In other words, he did not put on an act in order to play the part of being observed.
As Foucault taught, the technologies of the self shape who we are as humans, while we are constantly in the process of self-understanding. According to Foucault, power is about the ability to determine what knowledge is, we can better understand that knowledge is ever-flowing and distinguished from thinking. An interesting thought that resonates with this notion is “Knowledge becomes something that nobody knows and thinking is something that nobody has thought; it does not presuppose the knowing and thinking subject.” “ This becomes evident already in his manner of defining ‘thought’ as ‘the act that posits a subject and an object’’ (Pyyhtinen & Tamminen, p.142). There are demonstrations of power knowledge throughout this film; this being the power that is based on knowledge and makes use of that knowledge over and over again such as the observer and the subject relationship. We can see this through the chair placement being far taller than necessary within the kitchen. This relationship built a lot of discipline within this story which varied from self-discipline when Folke had to stay on the perch and remain an objective observer, even throughout awkward situations, to discipline in that the survey was being monitored by a boss who frankly was too far removed from the situation to have all the knowledge but remained in control of the people. This study also had bio-power over the observers, including Folke, because they did not want to be kicked out of the program and no longer get paid or receive a horse. In this story, neo-liberalism relies on the fact that these characters are rational individuals and are driven by these benefits, which was the basis of their actions; this is knowledge. They were following the rules or appearing to follow the rules in order to stay in the game.
Pyyhtinen, O., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We have never been only human: Foucault and Latour on the question of the anthropos. Anthropological Theory, 11(2), 135-152.
Wedel, M., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). Marketing Analytics for Data-Rich Environments. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 97–121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44134975
 |
| Just for laughs! |
I found your last paragraph particularly interesting. You make a good point that Folke and Isak make an effort to appear as if they are "following the rules" of the neoliberal structure of the study, seeking to appear as hyper-rational individuals engaging in scientific work for the sake of capitalistic improvement. If I am understanding you correctly, the dominant neoliberal paradigm is the form of Foucaultian knowledge present that influences those operating under it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the fact that Folke and Isak (as well as Green and the man he was observing) ultimately shirked their responsibility and the bio-power structure in the film. I'm sure there are a number of theories as to why this occured, but perhaps this is a result of the "outside" that Pyyhtinen and Tamminen discuss - Foucault's Life and Lacour's Plasma. Is there resistance to power in the film something that can be rationalized? Or is it simply too complex and something we just have to take for granted?
Thank you for this insightful comment, Ryan! Yes, you are correct, that is what I meant in my closing paragraph. I believe they were engaging in the survey for the sake of capitalistic improvement. The Green character was far more extreme in that he simply disobeyed all the rules right off the bat. The bio-structure was challenged. Green stated that humans need interaction and communication to better understand each other. I found this interesting and true! I think we learn and work better with formal communication. Do you? This resistance to power was rationalized in that they discovered that humans need that level of communication - off the record. People tend to become more acquainted over time, warming up to each other. Actions change and people become more loose with the rules. I do not think this is too complex, but perhaps I am looking at it as a purely humanistic behavior side of things where as Foucault might take a more philosophical stance. Do humans learn and observe better through engagement and communication? I do not think "observation" stickily means you cannot engage with the subject, but rather observe the situation and notice or interpret something that might be significant to the situation or goal you are seeking. This could include asking questions to clarify an assumption.
DeleteFor what's it's worth, I had a slightly different take on both Folke and Isak's motivations to continue with the study. Both men appeared to be most comfortable follow routine, and uncertainty may have been enough to keep moving through the motions. I understood Isak understood the horse was the doll, and he felt taken advantage of by the study's misleading recruitment. Furthemore, I wondered if perhaps neither person knew how to exit the situation, or given the post-war timepoint, perhaps there were social nuances of fear or trepidation in rocking the boat, to take action to end their involvement, or question the study's methods. It still connects to knowledge as a form of power in my mind.
DeleteAlso, Nikole, I too thought the portrayal of women in this film was bizarre. I don't understand the role of the woman on the airplane at all, except to demonstrate Ljungberg’s authority, and how he abuses his power.
Interesting, Tracy. Thank you for your reply. I agree that both parties did not know how to exit the situation and felt stuck in doing their part. There was an element of fear for sure, the boss (I forget his name) seemed to let himself into Isak's house and do his own thing, so perhaps they didn't know how to stop this and didn't have the gumption to stand up to him. I'm curious, since you said you have a slightly different take, how do you think this connects to knowledge as a form of power?
DeleteI forgot about the airplane scene had a woman cameo... not in the best light might I add! This was unnecessary to the story, and in fact added to the issue that women were not represented well or in good light. I understand the times and the culture played a role but something that involved the household, you would think a woman would be included if she was present. Did you catch if any of the other households in the study had both a man and a women within the household? This would make more sense as a study subject, in my mind, to have a fully represented study subject, aka a family.
I related the possibility of their hesitancy to exit the study, or courage to push back on the prohibition of communication, to knowledge. I think people, myself included, are more hesitant in those situations if they lack confidence. And since confidence is often gained through experience, as is knowledge and familiarity, I think it's reasonable to assume that is one possible scenario. Both Isak and Folke are also in positions with limited power in the situation, which is also another factor in seeking out dramatic change, which both quitting the study, or pushing back on the structure of the study would be.
DeleteI agree, Tracy. They were limited in control but at the same time, in a way they had all the control... they were the ones running the experiment. They determined if it would fail or not, and they chose to disregard the rules resulting in that failure. Do you agree that in a way they had the control too?
DeleteNikole- I like this perspective that the subjects did actually have a lot of control considering they control whether the experiment is successful or not. I hadn't thought of it quite that way. It was interesting that when they did "ruin" the experiment by flipping it on its head with Folke becoming the one being observed, the man in charge wasn't particularly bothered. When the report is delivered to him on the plane, he finds it hysterical. I interpreted this as reflective of the illusions systems of power give us, making us think there are dire consequences for not complying with the rules when in reality that isn't always the case.
DeleteI found this to be a very interesting review. I had not necessarily thought of it in the context of technologies of the self, and really liked that you pointed out that Isak knew what it meant to be a good friend, which is knowledge. Ryan's point was also interesting about Folke and Isak attempting to look like they are following the rules while Green openly disobeyed them. I believe that this is largely due to them being fundamentally different people, and therefore making dramatically different choices when given the freedom to do so. Lemke stated "political analysis must start to study the ‘autonomous’ individual’s capacity for self-control and how this is
ReplyDeletelinked to forms of political rule and economic exploitation," (203). I suppose when analyzing the different choices of the men it is important to explore the conditions that shaped them into who they became to better understand the effects that certain circumstances can have on different people.
Thank you for your comment, Presley! Great quote. Do you think that their individual capacity for self-control is what motivated them to employ bio-politics? Do their motives change throughout the film? I would argue that they do evolve along with the knowledge exchange.
Delete