Here is the IMDB’s synopsis of Pedro Almodóvar‘s ¿Qué he hecho yo para merecer esto!! (1984), a film I have always wanted to see but never have.
A dysfunctional family in Madrid: Gloria is a cleaning lady, hooked on No-Doze, living in a crowded flat with Antonio, her surly husband, a cabby who adores an aging German singer he used to chauffeur; he’s also a forger. One teen son sells heroin, the other sleeps with men. Her mother-in-law keeps bottled water and cupcakes under lock and key, selling them to the family. Two alcoholic writers cook up a plot to sell a manuscript as Hitler’s memoirs, if Antonio will transcribe it in Hitler’s hand. He won’t, so they ask the German singer to intercede. Meanwhile, Gloria has given away one son to a sex-crazed dentist, and grandma picks up a pet lizard. Can this chaos be tamed?
The English translation of the title is “What Have I Done To Deserve This?” It is a question asked by many, both rhetorically, as a wry comment, and seriously. What did Iraq really do, for instance, to deserve the most recent United States invasion?
As the question relates to the mistreatment of persons, I have discerned that there are some three schools of thought:
1. You brought it on yourself: you were guilty, you were a reasonable suspect, you were careless, you have an unconventional appearance, or, in the ‘therapeutic’ industry, you sought it out, or if not, you have an inner flaw which ‘attracted’ mistreatment to you. In all of these cases, the assumption is that the problem is an individual one, and the subject is not working well enough with the system. The individual, if they control themselves better, can improve outcomes.
2. You did nothing. Mistreatment can happen to anyone, and it is destructive to everyone. Therefore, for instance, do not feel inadequate if you broke under torture; most people do.
3. You attracted attention to yourself because of some particularly brilliant or heroic qualities you have, or some other special skills. You thus became a threat, or the target of destructive envy, through no fault of your own. These, however, are not qualities you should change: they are positive traits, and they bring rewards as well as risks.
There may be more interpretive models than these, and there is surely more to say about each. My comment for now on the matter, however, is that if one is seeking causes, and if these are the possibilities, it may not be necessary to choose only one. They could very well all coexist in the same instance.
Axé.
Hello Prof Z,
Thanks for stopping by my site and saying “hello”. The film you blog about seems very thought-provoking. I have heard of it also, seen it at the video store but never thought of viewing it. From your synopsis I think I will.
Please visit again… you are always welcome. I am in transition at the moment but will make it a point to keep in touch.
Blessings.
Asa.
Hi Asa – OK, I’ll also commit to looking for that movie!
Hi to myself – I’ve now been told that this interpretation: “you sought it out, or if not, you have an inner flaw which ‘attracted’ mistreatment to you” is actually false, undocumented as an actual cause, and documented as a form of mistreatment in itself. I tend to agree: it has always sounded like victim- blaming to me. Also, it is very convoluted, and convolution, I have found, is often a sign of manipulation.
Another common thing to say is, “this happened because you have weak boundaries.” In point of fact, the one with the poor boundaries is the abuser–you know, the one who gets off on transgressing peoples’ boundaries.