Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank and the resilience of… | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank and the resilience of youth

13 Apr 2019

Words by Beth Piket

A young woman in a grey hooded sweatshirt, standing in a room with blue walls.
A young woman in a grey hooded sweatshirt, standing in a room with blue walls.
The British director’s 2009 dra­ma offers a child’s per­spec­tive of life below the pover­ty line.

Although it arrived sev­en years pri­or, Fish Tank is in many ways the loud-mouthed, uncon­tain­able old­er sis­ter of direc­tor Andrea Arnold’s qui­et­ly pon­der­ing Amer­i­can Hon­ey. Where both films explore the gap between hope­less­ness and faith, the for­mer feels as though the com­ing-of-age genre has under­gone a cyn­i­cal facelift in the hands of Arnold.

The 2000s over­saw an upris­ing of the teen com­e­dy, but Arnold swaps amus­ing teen awk­ward­ness for enclos­ing despon­den­cy, and Fish Tank becomes a sim­ple search for sil­ver lin­ings where there will always be hard­ship. Although not exact­ly an opti­mistic piece, it is Arnold’s asser­tion that society’s most impov­er­ished and mar­gin­alised are deserv­ing of a spot­light. But, a decade on from the film’s release, has any­thing changed for all those chil­dren impris­oned by poverty?

Fish Tank opens with scenes of hood­ie-clad teens with huge hoop ear­rings and hair fraz­zled beyond sal­va­tion. It’s an accu­rate depic­tion of teenage­dom for a large por­tion of Brits, and it comes com­plete with sticky sum­mer after­noons at the park where dance rou­tines are ener­get­i­cal­ly prac­ticed to 2000s RnB. Ever faith­ful to her roots, Arnold duti­ful­ly insists on ren­der­ing Britain sim­ply as it is. No omis­sions, no air­brush­ing – just bru­tal­ly can­did, hon­est filmmaking.

Yet not unlike the rest of Arnold’s work, Fish Tank mutates into some­thing far weight­i­er than a win­dow into the lives of the under­priv­i­leged. It becomes an ode to all the chil­dren who fleet­ing­ly expe­ri­ence such moments of bliss­ful exu­ber­ance; as we famil­iarise our­selves with the abu­sive par­ents and preda­to­ry out­siders that grad­u­al­ly infil­trate their inno­cence, pro­pelling them towards an adult­hood they’re entire­ly ill-equipped for. Mia is just one exam­ple, a dancer who lives with a vicious and neglect­ful moth­er (Kier­ston War­ing), and a sis­ter (Rebec­ca Grif­fiths) who is just as ill-fated.

Mia’s danc­ing is mediocre at best – but that’s pre­cise­ly the point. It’s the cen­tral motif of the film, a chan­nel for the explo­sive ener­gy she attempts to curb, the brief span of a song per­mit­ting the most ephemer­al of moments to escape her unbear­able real­i­ty. Stand­ing in front of a tiny tele­vi­sion, she enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly mim­ics the bronzed mod­els of a music video, bare-faced in slack pyja­mas. We’ve all been there, but only in moments of half-seri­ous, tran­sient desire to be more than we are. For Mia, this is a life that’s per­pet­u­al­ly inac­ces­si­ble, and it’s a scene tinged with melan­choly beneath the humour.

A man in a pink shirt standing near a door with the number 75 on it.

When a shirt­less Con­nor (Michael Fass­ben­der) arrives on the scene, the lat­est of her mother’s boyfriends, he becomes the first to pos­i­tive­ly acknowl­edge Mia’s fire. He unknow­ing­ly demol­ish­es an emo­tion­al bar­ri­er, and con­se­quent­ly unleash­es a dis­tort­ed sex­u­al awak­en­ing with­in her. Arnold’s cam­era trails across his body with a fix­at­ed gaze, ini­ti­at­ing what dou­bles as sex­u­al ten­sion and a sim­ple crav­ing for touch through­out the rest of the film.

She’s nev­er even had a boyfriend before,” Mia’s moth­er says to Con­nor, but their con­nec­tion is light years away from romance. Drunk and smeared with her mother’s make­up after a bid to imi­tate her attrac­tive­ness, Mia is car­ried to bed by Con­nor in a scene swathed in orange hues as the all-con­sum­ing attrac­tion becomes almost suf­fo­cat­ing. In a slow-motion sequence where heavy breath­ing rever­ber­ates, seem­ing­ly fill­ing the space, Con­nor removes Mia’s trousers. Objec­tive­ly, it feels sin­is­ter, but any nag­ging sense of moral­i­ty is instant­ly hushed by Mia’s sheer delight. This is the dis­cov­ery of her utopia, in which she realis­es that touch isn’t always syn­ony­mous with abuse.

But a love bred with such tor­ment was nev­er going to be straight­for­ward. Rather con­ve­nient­ly, Con­nor has a hid­den fam­i­ly, and this becomes the basis of the col­lapse of a rela­tion­ship that nev­er would have sur­vived any­way. Short­ly after, Mia has a dance audi­tion but quits after prods to swap her sweat­pants for hot­pants, scraped-back pony­tail for flow­ing locks. It’s a suc­ces­sion of dev­as­ta­tion, and we return to real­i­ty along­side Mia, mourn­ing the loss of her one love that nev­er failed her but couldn’t avoid being cor­rupt­ed by a twist­ed matu­ri­ty too.

Life’s a bitch and then you die”, we hear Nas rap as Mia pre­pares to final­ly move away. It’s a per­fect encap­su­la­tion of what Fish Tank repeat­ed­ly preach­es: that life tar­gets ruth­less­ly and indis­crim­i­nate­ly; that’s fixed, but you cope. The moth­er Mia qui­et­ly idolis­es for her nat­ur­al seduc­tive­ness and snaking hips iron­i­cal­ly stands look­ing rough, clum­si­ly danc­ing to her daughter’s music.

It’s a res­o­lu­tion like no oth­er as mal­ice dis­solves into smiles, but Arnold doesn’t per­mit us a hap­pi­ly-ever-after, instead scat­ter­ing reminders of what this is all real­ly about. Behind the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion we deeply crave is a nig­gling thought of all that could and should have been – for Mia and so many like her. In the end, we’re left to stare into the tear-stained face of a moth­er whose remorse is far too late.

Through this pes­simistic prism, Arnold affirms that life in pover­ty rarely promis­es improve­ment. While these pass­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties to escape will sur­face for the few, it’s mere­ly luck-based, and the rest will be left to con­tin­ue this bru­tal cycle of depri­va­tion and devastation.

You might like