The autistic ciphers of Jane Campion | Little White Lies

The autis­tic ciphers of Jane Campion

02 Sep 2022

Words by Lexie Corbett

Two individuals, a person in a black robe and another in a blue robe, sitting amongst lush greenery in a forested setting.
Two individuals, a person in a black robe and another in a blue robe, sitting amongst lush greenery in a forested setting.
In the com­plex, full-formed char­ac­ters of Jane Cam­pi­on’s cin­e­ma, I found con­nec­tions with my own recent autism diagnosis.

When I was a child, no one knew what was wrong with me. I strug­gled through school, iso­lat­ed, and crip­pled with unman­age­able anx­i­ety. I was told that the way I act­ed was weird, wrong, and unin­tel­li­gi­ble. But I am just autis­tic, as I dis­cov­ered when I was diag­nosed at 29.

After my diag­no­sis I decid­ed to search for my autis­tic self in the cin­e­ma, but I was quick­ly tak­en aback by a cacoph­o­ny of films that divorce autists from their human­i­ty. Films about autism often char­ac­ter­ize us as symp­tom clus­ters, savants, and emo­tion­less bur­dens – nev­er whole, com­plex human beings. Light­house of the Whales (2016) and Music (2021) are recent exam­ples, but the phe­nom­e­non stretch­es back decades. Prob­lem­at­ic rep­re­sen­ta­tions of autism appear to be so so nor­mal­ized that peo­ple have trou­ble under­stand­ing what the issue is: such films rep­re­sent autism as unde­sir­able, deficit, and some­how divis­i­ble from the autis­tic per­son. But there is noth­ing to divide. Being autis­tic is sim­ply anoth­er way of being a person.

I was look­ing for myself in the cin­e­ma, and I was not find­ing it. If the movies about autism were ter­ri­ble, per­haps real autis­tic cin­e­ma was hid­den the way I had been hid­den; maybe it was ciphered in plain sight. A sim­i­lar con­cept called cod­ing” is dis­cussed in online spaces, usu­al­ly con­cern­ing TV shows and video games. Cod­ing is a met­ric by which fans iden­ti­fy a char­ac­ter as autis­tic, most often through max­i­mal­ist stereo­typed traits; such as the induc­tive genius of Sher­lock Holmes. I wasn’t look­ing for that. I was look­ing for authen­tic autis­tic sub­jec­tiv­i­ty; a seri­ous cin­e­mat­ic rep­re­sen­ta­tion that treat­ed its sub­jects like whole peo­ple. I call it an autis­tic cipher, and I found it in the films of Jane Campion.

Ada (Hol­ly Hunter) in The Piano (1993) and Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in The Pow­er of the Dog (2021) are both pow­er­ful autis­tic ciphers because they are pre­sent­ed as whole human beings, indi­vis­i­ble from the traits that make them appear odd to soci­ety. Not only that, but their traits inform their pow­er as peo­ple, fur­ther demon­strat­ing a holis­tic char­ac­ter­i­za­tion. The cipher is not a diag­nos­tic exer­cise. It is cin­e­mat­ic arche­ol­o­gy. If being autis­tic is just anoth­er way of being, it stands to rea­son that we autists may direct films or write char­ac­ters that seem famil­iar to us. But I won’t begin the cipher in any sim­ple, max­i­mal­ist autis­tic-like expres­sion, such as Ada’s mutism, or Peter’s sen­so­ry reliance on a comb. Those traits are mere land­marks. We can cipher Ada and Peter’s traits through the details of each character’s social pre­sen­ta­tion and how they communicate.

Frag­men­tary voice-over car­ries the voice of Ada’s six-year-old self, who tells us about her selec­tive mutism; her dark tal­ent’, and how no one knows why she does not speak. In the open­ing scene of The Piano Ada is pre­sent­ing us with oth­er people’s opin­ions of her; that she is dark’ as in unin­tel­li­gi­ble. But Ada is not unin­tel­li­gi­ble- she is the exact oppo­site. So, how is it that every­one is con­stant­ly mis­un­der­stand­ing her? Find­ing the autis­tic cipher in a female char­ac­ter is com­pli­cat­ed by sex. Autis­tic women expe­ri­ence addi­tion­al pres­sure to con­form to the social order, assume roles, and mask” their autis­tic traits. Ada’s cipher can be found with­in her piano. When Ada arrives in New Zealand, the piano is aban­doned on the shore; she demands it from any­one who will lis­ten. Her new hus­band Stew­art (Sam Neill) sells the piano to his friend, Baines (Har­vey Keitel).

In response, Ada carves out­lines of piano keys into a table and plays it as though it is real. Stew­art then gos­sips about it with the house women. They spec­u­late on Ada’s san­i­ty, for what is unin­tel­li­gi­ble must be insane. Ada’s requests for the piano are clear and con­sis­tent, but they con­fuse Stew­art and oth­ers because the piano express­es non-com­pli­ance with the social order. Instead of assum­ing the social­ly expect­ed role of wife, Ada demands her piano. The piano is the part of her that is not under­stood by any­one but Baines and their affair is premised on the acqui­si­tion of the instru­ment. Baines takes her to the piano on request, and ulti­mate­ly gives it back to her.

One may won­der how Ada’s appar­ent­ly fairy tale mar­riage to Baines can be rec­on­ciled in an appar­ent­ly fem­i­nist film. When we take Ada as an autis­tic (female) cipher who refus­es to assume roles that seem non­sen­si­cal to her, the answer becomes clear. By nature of sex and his­to­ry, Ada must enact mar­i­tal depen­den­cy to pre­serve her­self. Baines accepts the piano, mean­ing he accepts Ada as a whole per­son. When the piano is thrown over­board in the penul­ti­mate scene, it’s because she doesn’t need it any­more. Ada is a pow­er­ful autis­tic cipher because her com­pro­mis­es are lim­it­ed, even under tremen­dous pres­sure to con­form. She suf­fers, but she also carves out the life she wants, with the very traits that make her unin­tel­li­gi­ble to those that would oppress her.

Young man in a white shirt examining something intently in a dimly lit room.

The Pow­er of the Dog demon­strates a sen­si­tiv­i­ty to the dif­fer­ent ways autism is expe­ri­enced by the sex­es. Unlike Ada, Peter’s sex allows him to be more active­ly him­self. Even so, his fem­i­nine appear­ance and unusu­al gait quick­ly draws ire, par­tic­u­lar­ly from the dom­i­neer­ing Phil Bur­bank (Bene­dict Cum­ber­batch). Ear­ly in the film Phil heads a table of men din­ing at Rose’s (Kirsten Dun­st) board­ing house. In his hands is a del­i­cate paper flower. What lit­tle lady made these?” he drawls. Rose’s son Peter quick steps across the restau­rant, eager to take cred­it for the flow­ers. But Phil is mak­ing fun of him, and Peter doesn’t real­ize. The cipher lies in the space where it does not occur to Peter that Phil has bad inten­tions, or that there is any­thing unde­sir­able about a boy mak­ing paper flowers.

What is remark­able about Peter’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion is the way Cam­pi­on por­trays his obliv­i­ous­ness, and pecu­liar­i­ty with­out being cute. Peter hula-hoop­ing behind the board­ing house might have played for laughs in the hands of a less­er artist, but Cam­pi­on gives him every respect. He is a pow­er­ful autis­tic cipher because the things that make him weird are not framed in deficit, they are not framed in stereo­type, and they’re not played for com­e­dy. Not once is Peter’s awk­ward­ness por­trayed as some­thing to be laughed at or thought adorable. Like Ada, his human­i­ty is pre­served, cul­ti­vat­ed, and indi­vis­i­ble from the things that make him a dif­fer­ent sort of per­son. I can­not know that Cam­pi­on had autism in mind when she wrote these char­ac­ters- but what I do know is that Ada and Peter make me feel seen in the cinema.

Lit­tle White Lies is com­mit­ted to cham­pi­oning great movies and the tal­ent­ed peo­ple who make them.

By becom­ing a mem­ber you can sup­port our inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ism and receive exclu­sive essays, prints, month­ly film rec­om­men­da­tions and more.

You might like