An analysis of TUSK, SPOILERS
Whew, I'm ready to be laughed at. Writing an analysis post about a Kevin Smith film, a movie where Justin Long turns into a walrus human-centipede style. So why am I writing this? Well first, this is the most original film Kevin Smith has done in years. This is probably my favorite film of his and I will continue to be watching it years down the road, which is more than I could say for the rest of his filmography. Nevertheless, even with a limited budget and some poor choices in pacing and direction, Kevin Smith proves to be a really capable storyteller. Read this if you liked Tusk and just want to think about it, it's not a very deep movie by any means, I just think it was very funny and I think you could draw some conclusions to it that most people would completely ignore. Also, spoilers. I don't know how those work on this board, this is my first time posting here.
First, we're going to go with the standard interpretation of TUSK. I think this explanation is important to understand my interpretation of the film, and I think in general this is the simplest interpretation and Kevin Smith probably intended for it. One more time, there will be spoilers, this is a new movie and you should check it out before you read this.
The movie's central theme is humanity. Specifically, humanity in an animalistic context. "Is man really a walrus?" is the question Howard Howe proposes in the film, and that's the question of the film, but you should probably take walrus to mean animal. Howe thought the walrus (Mr. Tusk, specifically) more than an animal, he thought Mr. Tusk was the most beautiful, caring creature he ever met. In contrast, he thought man was an uncaring monster. Wallace Bryton's character development goes through the entire spectrum of animal and man, sometimes blurring the lines between them even before the transformation. Most of the characters in TUSK are unpleasant, especially present-day Wallace. The most sympathetic character in the entire film (except perhaps Mr. Tusk himself, Mr. Tusk and Wallace share a bond and a relationship unlike any other in this film) is a Wallace we never saw. His girlfriend (played by the lovely Genesis Rodriguez) speaks very highly of this man. He cries during Winnie the Pooh, would never cheat on his girlfriend, and was happy spending his nights telling bad jokes in comedy clubs for no pay because it was what he loved doing. The "new Wallace" (marked by the mustache, a nice touch to the semblance of a walrus) is an asshole that doesn't care about anything other than fame and his own personal satisfaction. He is mean-spirited, and the only true thing about Wallace that remained was that they both love BIG GULPs (or whatever the brand was called in the movie).
So, when Wallace is turned into a Walrus, we're supposed to be happy. We view it as some sort of karmic punishment, at least on the surface. What's really going on is a true transformation, note the big gulp drink is present in every scene with Wallace in the walrus scenes. He loses his legs ("Hell, I'd give up a leg for fame in a heartbeat" [paraphrased]) and his legbones then become his tusks, he starts going insane, but his will to survive is so strong he kills Howe with his tusks while the song "TUSK" is playing by Fleetwood Mac, an openly sexual song. (I suppose you might be able to draw some sexuality interpretations with it but I didn't and that's not where I'm going here.) He's discovered by his girlfriend and best friend, and when he sees them he's reduced to an animal (or, "full walrus"). A year later, we see them feeding walrus in an animal sanctuary, the girlfriend tells Wallace she still loves him, Wallace cries and we see a flashback where she basically says "crying is what separates us from the animals", and he hides away as the credits roll.
So the question most people will be asking themselves is, is there still Wallace in there? I would argue that the common interpretation, the one Kevin Smith put in there and the one for audiences to just "get", is yes. Wallace is still there, just disfigured into a walrus costume and accepting of his fate. His tears mean he has changed back into the Wallace most human, and ultimately it's not that man is really a walrus (animal), but animals sometimes show humanity (just as Mr. Tusk did for Howe, and it should be clear that Howe humanized Mr. Tusk far more than he realized.) Howe was wrong, misguided, and cruel. The biggest giveaway that makes me think this is the enduring image of the BIG GULP drink always near Wallace, marking his personality and humanity. It's the one thing he always liked, and in the final scene you see dozens of BIG GULP cans scattered around his new walrus home, indicating that Wallace never left.
So, with that out of the way, it's important to recognize some of the things I didn't touch on before I go into this new interpretation. First, there probably is a sexual angle to TUSK, LePointe specifically makes a big deal out of the killer NOT fornicating with the creature (but I should stress that in almost every horror film with predator/prey, there's a sexual angle), The first artifact in Howe's home Wallace makes a personal big deal out of is the walrus penisbone, the heavy romantic sub-plot, and the "Tusk" song playing during the climax of the film (name of the film, height of the conflict and the crux of Wallace's transformation, yeah it's pretty important). Also, with this "humanity" angle, it might be easy to chart Wallace's emotional path throughout the film but it's difficult to pin everybody else down. Howe and LePointe are strong characters, but they don't really stand for anything (well, Howe does) and when they meet there is no tension and the confrontation is nonexistent. I would say that perhaps Howe stresses that humans should be more like walruses (or animals), while LePointe sees the value in humanity (the biggest thing that I noticed about his character was his ability to grab onto people's emotions. He would relate himself to the person he was talking to, no matter how weird he was. So much so that one of the walrus victims' mother "treated him like he was her own son" [paraphrased])
So this alternate interpretation hinges on walrus iconography. It's also important to keep the same questions viewers had in mind for the initial interpretation, but being aware of walruses in real life and in media changes the dynamic of the final scene. With an awareness of walruses outside of TUSK, the viewer should come to the conclusion that Wallace has been completely removed, and the walrus that remains in the final scene is merely a walrus crying for deception/a biological reason.
It's important that CRYING is the action that marks humanity in this film, it's also important that walruses can cry. They cry in the wild when they are in intense pain or do not have a mate, and that sounds like our boy here. Howe doesn't even cry when he looks at his hands and realizes he's killed "his only friend" in the flashback. The only other person that cries in the film is Ally, when she cries to Teddy about Wallace's infidelity. There's potential for an interesting parallel, when Wallace cries could be the moment he realizes of Ally's infidelity. Again, walruses cry when they lack a mate.
Outside the realm of the animal response, there's the walrus in media. There's not a lot of walrus presence in pop culture (unfortunate, isn't it?), but what's there has strong ties to one major poem: The Walrus and the Carpenter. It's also an important poem because that was the title of the podcast episode in which the idea was originally conceived, and an excerpt of the podcast even shows up during the credits.
The excerpt of the poem I will put here is: " 'I weep for you,' the Walrus said: 'I deeply sympathize.' With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes."
The Walrus in the poem does two things: he eats oysters, and he cries about it. The cries are almost always viewed as "crocodile tears" (as informed by the scenario and noted large size of the tears) and the walrus is almost always seen as the villain. In The Beatles' "I am the Walrus", the line "I'm crying" is repeated multiple times after the end of verses. Walruses and crying are joined together, and if a walrus cries in the media there's probably an influence of this poem.
So, taking TUSK as it is the standard interpretation is rock solid, but being informed on the animal so present in the film brings an entirely new perspective to the ending and the answer to the question: with this information Wallace has gone full walrus. His cries are not human, they are walrus tears. They are either purely a biological reaction to losing a potential mate (or the unbearable pain of being a mutilated body in a human skinned walrus costume, I dunno) or feigned sadness to get the humans to sympathize with him, potentially earning more food.
I don't really know what else to add to this yet, but another nice bit of information I noticed was when Howe described when Mr. Tusk took him in "like he would take in one of his own young"[paraphrased], it's also important to note that most walrus species don't take care of their young almost at all. Walruses abandon their young. I don't really know the implications of this, but if I had to guess that with all of this biological information it animalizes the walrus back into reality. Howe mythologizes walruses, and the movie puts them on par to humans, but what does the informed perspective do? It shows how really absurd the characters are and calls into question some key moments in the film, not as far as suspension of disbelief goes (that went out the window when you bought the ticket), but character motivations. Specifically of Mr. Tusk and Wallace.
Thank you, and I'm sorry if this was not welcomed. I just enjoyed the film, and again, I think this shows that Kevin Smith is really capable. I think he should stick to low budget, independent flicks. I look forward to yoga hosers.
I originally posted this here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/2hluyw/an_interpretation_of_kevin_smiths_tusk_2014/
