Otto (Or Up With Dead People)

by on Apr.10, 2012, under Uncategorized

I thought I would repost Jiyoon Lee’s comment about “Otto” (from below):

I just watched the movie. I really like it.
I like how the female director is a dictator in this film even though the title is Otto; Otto is a passive protagonist despite it sounding like “auto”. He is a subject to the film, subjected to the fictionality of undead despite his firm belief that he is actually undead. It is female(human)-gaze time, bitches!
We as viewers are also subjected to the ranting of the director, her ideology that is spoken in the hyperconcentrated jargon that form its own language, just like shrieking static noises Otto hears everywhere. It is painful, like the piston movement of a male undead penetrating the wound of another male undead, but you have to take it.
But there is a higher power that runs and dictates this movie; it is overflowing lust for bodies, penises, meat. The lesbian director cannot have wild sex with her partner because her partner is indulging herself in her virtual existence, like the incessant pleasant piano music that accompanies her implies. The partner never bounces out of the black-and-white film like Otto or other male undeads do. Otto and male undeads, their bodies specifically, have to keep springing out of the narrative–hyper political–, confusing the viewer’s sense of boundary between real and fiction, progress of the story. That is all because of their superflousness of their bodies; Otto springs out of narrative and digress into eating other people, being lynched because he is actually undead (urge to eat other people, hightened body odor, sinister presence), the latter because they have penises that crave for sex, orgies. They can’t stay in one level of film. Their bodies are kitschy glitchy bodies that require penetration, biting, fucking, and cumming:superfluidity. Their fluids cannot be contained. But I do not mean by this motion of “springing out” that they spring out from fiction to the reality. There is inevitable genres that keep closing in due to the nature of film as commercial medium, such as the moment where Otto and an actor get intimate; The camera angle, movements, and transitional techniques indicate pornographic film. But what matters is that they spring out from one to jump into another, in and out, in and out, never settling down. continuous piston movement.

2 comments for this entry:
  1. Joyelle McSweeney

    I would like to see this movie for many reasons but one would be to find out if Otto ‘learns’ to walk properly. What I really like about the trailer is his ‘spazziness’, as we in grade school idiotically referred to those who seemed to lack control over their mobility but infact were perpetrating highly choreographed, lovely, and fascinating mobility– his zombie walk marks him as disabled as much as zombie, yet in one sequence he seems to have ‘overcome’ this and to be moving down the capitalist street like any other commuter. I hope not!

  2. Lara Glenum

    One of my favorite aspects of the movie (other than the positive avalanche of meat, cocks, and male-to-male penetration) is the total slippage of narrative frame. As in, we never know if Otto’s actually a zombie or not, and if he’s not, why he thinks he is. The faux-confessional scene (where Otto finally meets his ex-lover) is the kitschiest, most ill-fitting scene of them all.

    I also love how the movie is so sloppy in the way it performs (or fails to perform) its various genres: zombie movie, political documentary, porn. The whole thing is ripely decomposing. The constant digression into eating roadkill and fucking people through their wounds–the movie staggers about like Otto’s gimpy zombie walk.

    Also, replacing lust for brains with lust for cock is a superb move.

Leave a Reply