The Marxist Theory in Movies Vagabond and Invisible

People, the root of stories. Woven into humanity for many years, views and opinions, biases and values, allow for infinite ways to convey a desired message. Nonetheless, these principles can be rendered ineffective when viewed through a singular lens. It’s in fact, the deeper understanding acquired through the help of multiple lenses that inspires a pronounced appreciation for an author’s work. The short film "Vagabond" (directed by Pedro Ivo Carvalho) follows the path of struggle to greatness over the course of an exhilarating yet nerve racking adventure to save a friend. Contrarily, the short film "Invisible" (directed by Jean-Charles Charavin) features a boy who is given the gift of invisibility, and the opportunities and obstacles that he must face with this ability. Additional differences are yielded between these two films when studied through the Marxist lens, counter to similarities presented through the examination of the Archetypal perspective.

The Marxist theory perspective is based on the struggle between capitalists and the working class. This concept is widely presented throughout both films, however in a different manner. Whilst one film goes along with capitalist views and societal “norms” the other rejects them completely. “Vagabond” displays an opening scene of people scattered in business suits. They rush around, briefcase in hand, to get to their jobs on time. They clearly represent the proletariat, with no focus other than fulfilling their role in society to please the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, so distracted, illustrates the concept of alienation of the worker. Too occupied to notice a homeless man or a stray dog, they march on, displaying separation from their community. Due to the fact that they are so focused on what capitalism has driven them to do, they no longer pay attention to their society or surroundings. In opposition, “Invisible”, demonstrates a revolt from these views. The boy, whilst a part of the common class, does not buy into the proletariat and bourgeoisie dynamic. He is shown running away from his bullies who represent the bourgeoisie, owning nice cars, phones and expensive name brand clothing, in result, projecting their separation in terms of socioeconomic class. In turn, this amplifies how the protagonist refuses to be dominated by the higher class, by running away and turning invisible, shutting them out. Invisible, the boy mocks the bourgeoisie representatives by stealing their car, ridiculing their materialistic views, going against what’s expected from a normal capitalist society.

All things considered, with a view through an archetypal lens, these two short films are almost indistinguishable. This is thanks to the compelling characters that follow similar pathways and share related traits. Although archetypal criticism encourages some standard character roles, such as hero, mentor, trickster etc… What makes these films so alike is the fact that the two protagonists share roles that aren’t exactly common. In the short film “Vagabond” the main character lives in a dystopian society that features a big city and ample amounts of pollution. When his new friend, a dog, is picked up by a piece of machinery, he chases him through the whole city to prevent him from being dropped into a disintegration pit. During this adventure, the main character faces death many times, but pushes on, sacrificing his own life. This demonstrates the caregiver archetype as he is very loyal to the dog, throwing himself into the extremely busy city and sacrificing his life near the fire pit by pulling the lever to halt the machinery. All examples highlighting the caregiver archetype; someone who is selfless, honorable and overall a person who takes pride in making sure others are alright. In the short film “Invisible” the main character exhibits this same trait. At the beginning, the main character is being bullied and runs away from the harassers, only to discover that they can’t see him anymore. He initially enjoys this new-found freedom, however it rapidly grows lonely, until he meets a girl facing the same problem. The two characters spend all their time together, eventually falling in love. When the bullies make a return, the main character and his love interest become visible. A gun is aimed at the girl, but the main character takes the bullet for her, demonstrating loyalty and selflessness. Identical to the previous film, the main character sacrifices his well-being out of the goodness of his heart to save someone else, hence exhibiting the caregiver archetype. Consequently, this commonality between characters is what helps the audience to analyze a story through a familiar perspective.

Ultimately, in both films, there are some evident differences in terms of the portrayal of class conflict, yet precise views of character archetypes. Even though “Invisible” dealt with an intriguing concept, the most effective of the two films would be “Vagabond”, as it not only demonstrated realistic problems and thrilling adventure, it’s also summarized with a hopeful ending.