How Words Betray People: The Original Language Structure of Human Surrender

P4 Theater and You · Shoot Self with You

How Words Betray People: The Original Language Structure of Human Surrender

Some films do not grow out of stories.

They seem instead to seep out of several recurring clusters of words. Words appear first, and only then do events slowly take shape; words go bad first, and only then do the characters begin to sink; words change sides first, and only then do relations finally reveal their original cracks.

Human Surrender is this kind of film.

It certainly has relations, performance, a director, an audience, games, doors, and sentences that look heavy enough, sharp enough, and detachable enough to circulate. But the deeper one looks, the more one finds that what truly drives the film may not be plot in the usual sense, but a more hidden movement of language.

Several extremely ordinary words are picked up again and again in the film, handed over, passed on, worn down, misused, until they are no longer what they originally meant.

"What should we do?" begins as concern, then becomes the throwing back of responsibility.

"Must" begins as an almost unbearable need to come close, then becomes an order.

"Can" begins as self-support, then becomes permission to harm.

"Look" begins as meeting, confirmation, the last thin line in an intimate relation; later it becomes audience, scene, public exposure, and a demand for production.

"Director," "actor," and "male lead" begin as creative language; later they become slots into which a person is placed, named, and replaced.

"Game" begins as a way out, then becomes an alternative operating system for reality.

"Beginning" and "ending" are no longer reliable either.

They appear again and again, yet cannot provide the narrative with stable boundaries. What remains at the end is not an ending, but a door, a road, an opening one must cross without knowing where it will lead.

So the truly dark place in Human Surrender is not that the characters finally have nothing left to say.

On the contrary, there is always too much speech.

Too many explanations, questions, comforts, corrections, jokes, orders, rules, judgments, too many sentences that still seem to keep the live site running.

But these words gradually stop speaking for people.

They turn toward the live site, toward rules, toward watching, toward roles, toward thresholds.

The words remain, but people slowly disappear from within them.

Perhaps this is the real sound of blood flowing in Human Surrender: not silence, but language still surging; not aphasia, but language changing sides.

I. From "Why did you come?" to "Then what should we do?": presence is interrogated, responsibility is returned

Very early, the film gives us a sentence

Why did you come?

The sentence is so light that it can almost slide past as ordinary small talk.

But it is not "What happened to you?"

"What happened to you?" still means that I am willing to pause beside your state, to acknowledge that something has happened to you, to acknowledge that the event has not yet been named together. It still carries a little hesitation, a small gesture of leaning toward you.

But "Why did you come?" is different.

It does not ask about a state. It asks about arrival.

He does not first ask: what happened to you?

He first asks: why are you here?

This is a threshold that descends very early. Before a person has opened their mouth to explain themselves, they have already been placed where their own position must be accounted for. Your appearance is not naturally accepted; your arrival must first be questioned, confirmed, judged.

From the beginning, then, Human Surrender is not about a person slowly encountering difficulty. It is about how, the moment someone enters the live site, they are already in an unstable position.

The person has not yet been understood; their arrival already has to be explained.

This is the film's first hidden door.

Later, "what should we do?" keeps returning.

Someone says, "I don't know what I should do." The subject finally admits that they have lost the ability to organize action. Yet immediately the site throws the question back again and again: "Then what should we do?" "Then what do you want to do?"

At this point, "what should we do?" is no longer a search for an answer. It is an idling machine. It knocks back and forth inside the site like a ball with no exit. Everyone is asking about how to handle things, but no one really enters the thing that cannot be handled.

Thus the opening "Why did you come?" and the later "Then what should we do?" form a more hidden chain

first, arrival is interrogated.

then, the situation is returned to the person.

One first has to explain why one came; later one has to explain what one intends to do.

This is also the precise shape of many modern predicaments.

It is not that people are never asked.

They are asked too much.

They are asked again and again: why did you come here? What are you going to do? How are you going to handle yourself?

Yet they are rarely allowed to remain in an earlier, softer, harder-to-say place

I still do not know what has happened to me.

The cruelest thing about Human Surrender is that it films this logic very early. It tells us that before a person has become an object of understanding, before they have even been allowed to be stably present, they have already become someone who must explain their own appearance and manage their own situation.

So the "surrender" in this film is never a sudden collapse.

It is more like someone who has long been asked "Why did you come?" and "Then what should we do?"

finally discovering that they can neither justify their arrival nor continue to provide the world with a plan for handling things.

II. "I must see you": presence before understanding

After "Why did you come?" another set of words quickly appears

I must see you.

It hardly sounds like a line of love.

Because it is not "I miss you," not "I love you," not even "Can you understand me?"

It is more fundamental.

It says: I must appear before you.

"Seeing" here is not a social action but an existential confirmation. A person must bring their body before another person, must occupy the same space, must make the other's eyes enter into relation with their own body, before they can feel that they might not be completely erased by the world.

This is also an important original-language line in Human Surrender

before language, there is first an anxiety of presence.

A person does not first want to explain things clearly.

A person first must be there.

If I cannot see you, whatever I say is too far away; if I cannot make you see me, my expression is like a signal sent into the depths of the universe; if I cannot place my body before you, I cannot confirm whether I still qualify to be answered.

So in this film, the body is always anxious earlier than language.

The body wants to approach, to appear, to press close, to retreat, to be held, to confirm that it is still in a shared space. Language arrives later like a patch, always half a beat slow, always speaking wearily only after the body has already reached the boundary: I must see you.

This "must" is not willfulness.

It is someone fearing that they are falling out of the relation.

But the problem is that "I must see you" cannot guarantee real arrival.

Meeting is not understanding.

Being in the same room is not being together.

Eyes looking into eyes do not mean that one person can truly return to themselves from within another person's eyes.

So the film quickly moves to the next layer: the person finally meets the other, yet still has not been seen.

III. Eyes, glasses, audience: how seeing becomes a system

The sharpest sentence in Human Surrender is of course

I cannot see myself in your eyes either.

The sentence hurts because it compresses love, mirror image, and existential confirmation into one place.

When a person looks into another person's eyes, it is not originally to obtain information, but to confirm that they still exist there, in the other, in some way. Eyes are mirrors, and they are also passageways. They let a person believe that they are not floating outside the world alone.

But the sentence said, "I do not see me in your eyes."

In other words, it's not that you didn't look at me, it's that you can't return me to myself.

This is deeper than "You don't love me".

"No love" at least recognizes the existence of a relationship, except that there is no love in it. But "I can't see me in your eyes," which means that the circuit to confirm the world is broken.

People are not rejected.

People are not reflected.

The film is followed by a question of "see"

Can you see them?

You look again.

Can you look at something real?

I dare you.

Nothing to look at.

The eyes are no longer just intimacy organs, and the glasses are no longer mere props. They form a set of watch conditions: are you really blind or afraid to look? Are you seeing me or what you can handle? Can you see it when you remove the aid? You promise to look at it, but what part of the truth?

Here, "see" has moved from emotional to cognitive.

The world is not just without love.

The world can't begin to focus.

Even colder, at the end of the second half, the view no longer stops between two people.

Every eye is looking at me.

What do you want to see?

What are you looking at?

"Look" from the mirror of intimacy to the public viewing system.

Initially, a person said "must see you", hoping that he would be seen by a specific person; later, he found a lot of eyes watching; later, the eyes were no longer mere witnesses, but began to ask him for content.

"If you look at anything?" It's almost like a knife.

What's that?

A man's death is his last resort.

It's not resistance, it's not rejection, it's not breakdown, it's just a short absence. It is a way for the spirit to be withdrawn from the scene, and the last grey area left when one has not come to the organizational language and does not want to fall completely.

The grey area was also confiscated.

Because everybody's watching.

Because the audience needs to see.

Because you even have to be a blank to be seen.

So the "see" in "Human Surrender" completed a terrible migration

From "I want to see you", to "I can't see me in your eyes", to "What do you see?"

People change from those who seek confirmation to those who are forced to produce visuality.

That's how watching turns into a system.

It's not mean. It's even natural, it's gentle, it's like a part of a live push.

But it eventually leaves one with a blank.

"I can": how a person can prove that he or she can be used

In the middle, the words "I can".

I can.

I can do that.

I can go over there.

I can.

These words are more of a survival spell than a statement of ability.

They are not "I really have the situation under control", but "Please believe that I haven't completely failed".

I can cooperate.

I can move.

I can pass.

I can go on.

I can maintain what I need on the ground.

"I can" is painful here because it is not freedom, but self-evidence. A person must prove repeatedly that he or she is still available, that he or she is still available, that he or she is still able to take up his or her place and that he or she remains a barrier on the ground.

This is a dark line with the preceding "must see you".

I had to see you because I was afraid to disappear from the relationship, so I wanted to be there.

"I can" is where I am, but I have to prove that I did not bring it down.

One is the existence of anxiety.

One is functional anxiety.

The former asked: "Are I still with you?"

The latter asked: "Can I still be used on this site?"

This is the process by which people move from "loved people" to "available people."

And when it continues to slide, it reaches the colder level.

May I?

You can just hit me, right?

The same "yes", which is preceded by a person who barely supports himself, is followed by an authorized interview on the ground for injuries.

Words are not changed.

But the words changed.

This is the darkest flow of language in Human Surrender: it is not suddenly bad, but rather a quiet slide from self-sustainment to system approval along the same word.

"I can" with human temperature.

"Can I hit?" It's just the cold of the rules.

V. DIRECTORS, ACTORS, MAJORS: HOW PEOPLE ARE RETURNED

In the second half of the year, a large number of live languages were created: directors, actors, characters, leading men, replacements.

These words can be easily understood as the structure of a meta-film: films are talking about movies, performances are exposing performances, directors are exposing directors.

But it's too light if it's just a dollar movie.

What these words really do is to rephrase the person from the person in the relationship to the place in the scene.

Not just acting.

Isn't the director pretty?

Who thinks they can take over?

The man's position.

I'm the director, he's the lead man.

You're the real lead.

We have four directors present.

It is not "directors" that are too many, it is not "actors" that are repeatedly named, but it is "positions" that begin to outnumber people.

"Who can take the place of this actor?"

This sentence is almost the most important structural sentence of the latter part.

It indicates that it is no longer someone but a place to be discussed. The reason why a person is present is not because he cannot be replaced, but because he temporarily occupies a slot that can be replaced, evaluated and redistributed.

That's slot.

A man is no longer the first to himself.

He is an actor, the leading man, the object that is seen by the director, the function required by a paragraph, the place where he can be replaced or replaced.

This is deeper than ordinary power oppression.

Ordinary power oppression still recognizes you as an oppressed person; and location can turn people into a manageable resource.

You're in pain, but your pain is in service; you're in silence, but your silence is in sight; you're out of your mind, but you're out of your mind, and you're out of your mind; and you're out of your mind, but your breakdown may also be in the organization where you're going.

So the last part of Human Surrender is not simply into chaos.

It enters a more efficient order.

This order does not require a real understanding of people.

It just needs to place people.

"Let's play the game": relationships are taken away by rules

"Let's play the game."

When that phrase appeared, the film was no longer a private dispute.

The game is like a suddenly paved floor. Everything that is unclear, unreachable and unplaceable has finally been transformed into an enforceable mechanism.

You scratch.

I got it.

Who stands in the middle.

Who can fight.

Who replaces who.

Who entered the scene.

Who was blindfolded.

Who's watching.

The horror of the game is not that it makes things go wrong, but that it makes things work again.

It is still necessary to continue on the ground when understanding fails, sympathy fails, appeases fail, interpretations fail and bodies fail. So the game appeared. It gives unsolved relationships an operational shell.

It's a very modern cold.

Modern systems do not necessarily directly negate suffering. It is often smarter: it transforms pain into processes, chaos into chains, collapse into visible objects, place people in one place and move forward.

This is the alternative operating system in the video.

It doesn't solve the pain.

It takes over pain.

It also explains why the more rules there are, the colder it is. Because the clearer the rules, the less people understand. The more the field works, the more the subject becomes left behind by the operation itself.

There is no way out.

Sometimes it is just too many roads, too many processes, too many arrangements, too many things to implement, and none of them leads to people.

"Kill me": when a call for help is taken as a proposition of fact

In all the heavy sentences, killing me is, of course, the strongest.

But I'm getting to the point that what really deserves to be seen is not it itself, but its subsequent answer

No one wants to kill you.

This answer is not necessarily cruel.

It may even carry the appeasement with its instinct to correct extreme expressions. It's like saying, "Don't think so. No one wants to hurt you. It's not what you say."

But it's completely wrong.

"Kill me" here is not just a letter of request, nor is it a proposition to wait for verification of the facts. It's more like an extreme exit language: I can't continue to exist in this way, please take me away from this scene.

And "no one wants to kill you" brings this phrase back to reality.

So the deepest crack happened.

A person pushes his language to its limit because the ordinary language is no longer able to carry his position. However, he continues to be answered in the ordinary language on the scene as if he were dealing with an inaccurate presentation.

This is the typical moment when words betray people.

Not nobody answered.

It was answered, but the answer fell on the wrong floor.

This is worse than silence.

Silence admits, at least, that it is not responsive; the faulty response creates a false catch. It seems to be responding, actually re-stuffing it back into manageable language.

The most modern cruelty of Human Surrender is here: extreme suffering will not be completely ignored, it will be corrected, translated, processed and rationalized.

Then stay on the scene.

viii. Disgusting, feeling lost, pissing in the toilet: the body keeps the last truth.

If the article is written only in language, watching, directing, playing, it becomes too beautiful.

But Human Surrender doesn't make himself pretty.

It always comes out with something low

I can't feel it.

Nothing.

It's really very disgusting.

It's just disgusting.

Toilet's pissing out.

These words are not advanced.

They even undermine the so-called decency of film analysis.

But that is why they are extremely important.

They show that when words, love, viewing, rules and positions are all trying to organize people, the body still retains some kind of anti-evidence capability.

You'll lose your body.

The body will be disgusting.

The body will leak.

The body would prove that it was not completely assembled at the scene in the most humiliating and in the most indefatigable manner.

Disgusting is not an ordinary emotion.

It's the body's judgment of the scene.

It's not apathy.

It's the power outage of the sensor system.

"The toilet is pissing" is not the kind of thing that can easily jump through. It's like a warning from the ground that, regardless of how the scene was moved, how it was named, how it was watched, how people were put into roles and rules, the body eventually destroyed the cleanness with an embarrassing fact.

This is also where Human Surrender has the most flesh and blood.

It's not a pure concept film.

It's always dirty.

And this dirty, just makes it real.

Because people are never a mere subject in a desperate situation. People don't just say, "I suffer," "I need to love," "I can't be seen." People sweat, heat, fear, pee, disgust, and tell the last unteached truth in their bodies after all the beautiful languages have failed.

IX. Start, end, door: narrative does not provide the end, only access

Human Surrender has been disrupting the beginning and ending.

Or wrong from the start.

I started.

So what do we start now?

Sit at the beginning.

So it's all over?

Just need you to cross that road.

Run towards the door.

These sentences constitute another time inside the film.

It's not linear time.

Not the beginning, the middle, the orgasm, the end.

It is the time of the scene, which is constantly being restarted, named, postponed and rewritten.

It was wrong at the beginning.

It started again.

At the end of the day, he sat at the beginning.

When people finally ask, "Is this all over?" The movie doesn't give a real end. It gives doors, roads, passes.

The door usually means an exit.

But here

The door is more like the last frame.

Because the film has proved time and again that going out of a space is not the same as going out of a structure; leaving from a scene is not the same as leaving from a view; withdrawing from a relationship is not the same as withdrawing from response obligations, allocation of positions and verbal betrayal.

So crossing is not a victory.

It just had to happen.

That is the threshold narrative.

Ordinary narratives will tell you how things end.

The threshold narrative only tells you that you have been pushed to where you have to go.

As for what happened in the past, it is not guaranteed.

The long end of Human Surrender is because it does not film the door as an exit, but rather a form of pressure that continues.

Transport chain of words: from request to threshold

Connecting these clues, you'll see a chain deeper than the story.

Let's start with the question

What do you do? What do you do? What do you want to do?

They throw the subject back at themselves.

Here's the text

I have to see you. I can. Can you fight?

They turn needs into maintenance and then into permits.

Then the watchword

Eyes. Glasses. See. Audience. Hold on.

They transform people from objects to visible materials.

And then the position sentence

Actor. Director. The lead man. Substitute.

They transform people from characters to functional positions.

And then there's the rule

Game. Grab. Beat. Kill.

They turn conflicts into operations.

And then the body sentence

Can't feel it. Disgusting. Toilet.

They allow physical resistance to be fully symbolic.

Finally, the threshold

Start. End. Door. Over.

They changed the story from an ending to a door.

This is the original language structure of Human Surrender.

It's not about having a full story, then having the lines express the subject.

It's words that move, transform, change hands, cool. The characters were taken away by these words, renamed by them, thrown out of intimate relationships, sent to the watch system, then into role positions, game rules and thresholds.

So what this film really does is probably not a language failure.

It's language that works too well.

It has been too successful in transforming a person ' s suffering into problems, responsibilities, rules, locations, processes and visible content.

That's the worst.

If words fail altogether, people may still be silent.

But language has not failed here. It's been working. It's just the object of work, not the person.

Eleven words. People are not in words anymore.

When we get here, when we look back at the name "Human Surrender", it is no longer just a gesture.

Surrender is not without words.

Surrender is not a simple bowing down after suffering.

The surrender may take place at another more hidden moment

You find all the words still there, but they're no longer standing for you.

You said, "What do we do?" The world asked you to give it.

You said, "You must be seen," but meeting doesn't bring you.

You said, "I can," but you're actually proving that you can be used.

You said, "Look," and then you turned yourself into something to be watched.

You said "director" "actor" "man" and people slipped into position.

You say "play," and pain is taken away by the rules.

You said, "Kill me" and you said it on the spot.

You say "disgusting," and the body finally makes your judgment.

You asked, "Is it over?" The movie only gave you a door.

That's how words betray people.

Not that they suddenly become lies.

Rather, they are still right, they are still clear, they are still available, and they are still being used seriously, except that they are on the other side.

They stand over the scene, over the rules, over the audience, over the role and position, over the threshold.

People are still talking.

But it's already starting to push people out.

So the deepest dark current of Human Surrender is not that a man is finally silent, but that a man is washed away in a flood of words.

He's not without words.

He lost his place in the word.

Maybe the real surrender is this moment

When you find yourself still able to speak, you can no longer go back to people, relationships, bodies and the world by talking.

When you find that the language is still high and the scene is still functioning, the audience still looks at the rules and the doors are still there.

And you're not in it anymore.

About the author.

Writing. A few years of non-fictional reporting in the early years, and later feeling that there were too many false stories in big events, began to turn to capture the daily "false", "silent" and "unsatisfied". There is no orthodox theatre or video training, written with intuition and body experience.

Usually, they like to mix up in online writing workshops that are limited to a few days, not for publication, simply to observe how people use words to defend themselves under high pressure. Last spring in Georgia, when I was in Georgia for a while, I came back and was a little concerned about how "people can't stay in space". It is more concerned than the grand concept that a person can't find his or her face in a toilet when he or she pees, or how to rub his or her hand in the cold.

Related articles

No longer loyal to integrity - the final edition of Human Surrender Long Commentary

Theatre and Psychoanalysis

From symbols to events: academic thinking and influence on Erica Fisher-Lishit

The Grammar of Events: Actor-Generated Topology (AGT) and the birth of a postmodern subject (up)

p4 Third subject of theoretical analysis: a comprehensive exploration of Thomas Ogden's "third presence" theory

Group theory development from a psychoanalytic perspective: Theoretical practice and history of Deleuze and Gathari

P4 Theater, 10-year archive (partial)

If you want to see a movie, add the captain.