This is Athena Cruz-Albrecht’s response to and analysis of I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone directed by Tsai Ming-liang.
Vulnerable Bodies and Dependence within Caregiving: On Tsia Ming-liang’s I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone
Biography & Summary Analysis:
Across the various works covered thus far, it is noted how easily society can label and treat people with disabilities as inferior, either physically or intellectually. But an alternative approach by which society views ‘disability’ is ‘vulnerability.’ Tsai Ming-liang, in his movie I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone, represents various forms of disability through the lens of vulnerability and dependence rather than an inability to do something. Tsai is a Taiwanese filmmaker best known for his 2015 short film No No Sleep, a movie depicting modern Chinese urban settings. His 2006 film I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone, however, was set in Malaysia, which introduces new complex historical and socio-cultural context. Themes from Malaysia’s subjugation to British colonialism in addition to its caste system and Sharia law are important to understand the factors behind the film’s setting. Two of the main characters in the movie are the ‘homeless guy’ and the ‘paralysed guy’ (as the credits name them), both of whom are played by the same actor–Lee Kang-Sheng. These characters are both placed in a position of vulnerability in the film, and both are Chinese, like 26% of the Malaysian population. One main character also begins to develop romantic feelings for another man; this, in addition to disability, disrupts the oppression that homogeneous societies have placed on minorities. In “Queerly Connecting: The queer Sinophone politics of Tsai Ming-liang’s I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone,” Kenneth Chan explains that “disability deconstructs the imaginary wholeness of the able-bodied, straight Chinese society and the able-bodied, heterosexual demands of the conservative Malaysian state” (170). In I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone, Tsai uses disability and homosexuality as themes to invert the oppressive roles and demands of a homogeneous society, and uses vulnerable bodies to demonstrate the contrasting undertones within caregiving and care ethics.
I Don’t Want to Sleep Alone depicts two parallel stories: one of Rawang, a poor worker from Bangladesh who takes care of the homeless man after he is beaten up by a group of Malaysian scammers; the second is of a paralyzed man being taken care of by the coffee-shop waitress. The film begins when the homeless guy is left stranded and wounded in an alley, and Rawang and his fellow workers find him by chance. They use a thrown-out mattress to carry him back to their building, which is owned by a Chinese landlady. The paralyzed man cannot move any part of his body and is at the mercy of the waitress’ rough hands. At the same time, he is sexually abused by his mother, the lady boss of the coffee-shop. The shots within the movie are long, slow, and detached, but quickly alternate between the homeless guy and the paralyzed guy when there is a connection between them. For example, the audience gradually witnesses the waitress roughly wash every part of the paralyzed man’s head, from his teeth to his ears. Immediately afterwards the audience observes the ways in which Rawang is taking care of the homeless man–helping him go to the bathroom, giving him medicine, and changing and washing his clothes. The rough and distant way in which the waitress takes care of the paralyzed man is starkly juxtaposed with the caring and intimate way in which Rawang takes care of the homeless man. Though both caregivers are doing similar actions and in a detailed and silent manner, their incentives are different. The waitress is acting out of duty and responsibility to the lady boss, whereas Rawang is acting out of pure kindness and empathy–and later on, out of love and yearning.
The obvious contrasts in this film between the two forms of caregiving are impossible to ignore; and the distanced camera angles gives the viewer the impression of being a helpless bystander or observer, making scenes of abuse or just empty silence very uncomfortable to watch. The movie disregards meaningless dialogue or small talk and instead focuses on the most distinctly human actions, even if they are strange or distressing to watch. For example, when a fire breaks out in the city, smoke seeps everywhere and people of the low socio-economic class cannot afford to purchase masks, instead making makeshift ones from cups and plastic bags. At one point the homeless man and the waitress attempt to have sex in the abandoned building, but can hardly kiss each other without voilently coughing from the smoke. Not only does this scene pronounce the poor and desperate situation in which people of this class are living, but it serves as a pivotal point in the plot as well. After the whole ordeal, the homeless man brings Rawang’s mattress to the waitress’ room, symbolizing his disconnect from, and rejection of, Rawang. Rawang responds to this betrayal by finding the homeless man and attempting to kill him with the lid of a can. But Rawang finds he cannot complete this emotion-fueled murder attempt after the homeless man looks him in the eye and wipes away his tears. This climactic scene quickly finds its resolution as the final long shot is displayed–that of the mattress slowly drifting down a river at night, with the homeless man, alongside the waitress and Rawang, all sleeping on it.
Interpretation & Criticism:
The visual representations of the homeless man and the paralyzed man as vulnerable bodies to be taken care of is so emotionally stirring. Rawang is not financially stable, to say the least, yet gives the homeless man, a complete stranger from a dirty alleyway, as much care and love as possible. Rawang cleans his body, his clothes, and the mattress he was brought with. There are several particularly memorable scenes of Rawang’s caregiving, such as him cleaning the homeless guy’s entire body while covering his waist and later washing his underwear. Rawang treats the homeless man with respect and modestly–unlike the lady boss who sexually violates the paralyzed guy and the waitress who roughly takes care of him and leaves him in uncomfortable positions. Although both the homeless and paralyzed men are being treated, the homeless man is viewed as an equal by Rawang, and thus becomes a subject of receiving care, whilst the paralyzed man remains an inferior object of care. These two characters are also different in their forms of disability, as the homeless man has a temporary disability while the paralyzed man has a permanent disability. It is interesting that although the two characters are played by the same actor and both receive similar physical care, the two are so starkly different; this film truly shows how no matter how people with disabilities look, or how society literally treats them, it is the manner in which we view them, and the intentions we have to take care of them that makes the true difference. To further support this juxtaposition, there is an imbalance of power and control between the two pairs of caretakers and caregivers. The ‘vulnerable’ dependent character has to overcome the power of the caregiver. But the waitress does not have a relationship with the paralyzed man; she is taking care of him in a mechanical and clinical manner without empathy. This method is not conducive to the paralyzed man gaining autonomy and overcoming his lack of power. But the homeless man is able to overcome his dependence on Rawang–not only because he is physically healed because of Rawang, but because Rawang treats him as an equal. The homeless man is then easily able to go out and have his own relationships with the boss lady and the waitress, even though it hurts Rawang.
This entire film was slow, distanced, and had a noticeable lack of dialogue and even music. In addition to the discomfort this brings, the scenes were also literally difficult to watch, as the setting was almost always at night, and there was often smoke or fog blocking the view. The camera angles were realistic and motionless (aside from the emotional climax where Rawang attempts to cut the homeless man’s throat), yet the dark settings with pink or orange tints make the film appear surreal. The closing scene is perhaps the biggest instance of this dreamlike quality, as the mattress and three characters calmly float down the black river, and a beautiful song about love and spring begins to play. This film truly leaves the viewers with both a sense of responsibility after the depictions of care, but also a sense of simultaneous confusion and relief from the last dreamlike scene in which all is somehow resolved. The truth is, however, that abuse, oppression, and discrimination are all still occurring, and the socio-economic status’ of these communities have not changed. The individual characters on the mattress do appear to have changed, though, providing hope to viewers that ethically caring for people does indeed make a difference.
