David DeCoteau is no stranger to infamy on the internet, especially his release with the film A Talking Cat!?! being covered by a famous YouTuber. I’ve seen 85 out of the whopping 185 films of his filmography thus far, and noticed his vastly different subgenres – from hardcore gay pornography, to low-budget horror, to kids films, Christmas films, and even Lifetime releases. But, there are also surprisingly deep themes among his work. The Invisible Chronicles is a complex and meta film that uses the invisible man as a symbol for the audience member, the voyeur who later takes control of the power dynamic with the media they are viewing as they begin to analyze it. This shows his statement on the consistency of the gay male objectifying gaze of an era of his filmography, and how like the protagonist, we are the passive viewer.

Involuntary Immersion

It opens with the protagonist Griffin covered in foundation makeup, giving the illusion that he is making himself visible towards a character he’s speaking to. Although it makes a supposed continuity error when one considers the rest of the film, it is an aspect that shouldn’t be dismissed as I will show later. The next scene he is the voyeur by watching other students taking a shower in the locker room; however, he is not invisible. He is quickly found, and the other students take something out of a locker (we don’t know what type of object), and use that to rape him. It is quite vulgar, yet an interesting piece of symbolism as it represents the initial control that the media upholds in the power dynamic. Like Griffin, we begin the piece of media by watching the boys shower, but are then thrusting involuntarily into the film’s immersive world.

As the viewer, he seeks control afterwards, which is done through experiments to make himself invisible. Upon achieving this task, he takes his clothes off, and doesn’t see his reflection. Through the meta element, we still see him as his nude self. This is where the supposed continuity issue arise. Why cover himself when we still see him despite the experiment being a success? It is due to him establishing a connection with another character. He is talking to another character, interjecting himself into the piece of media, wanting to be made aware that he exists towards other characters.

The Passive Power of Observation

As for the other scenes, only his voyeurism is needed. He begins this by going to houses of the characters that raped him before, watching them shower for quite a long period of time, or implied masturbation. Despite him being in close proximity with these characters, and him not being visible in the camera’s point of view, the other characters never see him. Like him, we are the invisible voyeurs. We are ones that are invisible to the characters, and no matter our actions they are completely unaware that we are watching their every move. This is emphasized by DeCoteau’s signature camerawork. It admires the male form, with closeups and a camera that lingers around the torso of the man. While we linger on for a few minutes, it reaches the point of passiveness. Passive viewing is used to emphasize the voyeuristic nature of Griffin, and our actions by proxy.

The more overt element arises when he watches a couple about to have sex. He says the following in a voiceover: “Neither of them knew I was there. I could watch them all night. Or I could join in. Roger thinking I was Elyse. Elyse thinking I was Roger.” The audience tends to find an element, usually a character, that they can latch onto. They want to stick with a character that they perhaps relate to, finding entertaining, or interesting. That character becomes the audience, or in this case, the voyeur’s focus. We find ourselves immersed into these characters or at least the depicted world, and “want to be like Roger or Elyse.” Roger and Elise then fall into this meta element. Roger is rubbing his torso and crotch while Elyse watches, and it never goes further than that. Elyse becomes the consistently passive voyeur of Roger’s representation as the movie character. This scene is a meta element as it shows the cinematic relationship upon another cinematic relationship with Griffin, and ourselves as the outside audience.

The Final Stage of Consumption

Later on, Griffin seeks vengeance among those who raped him. During these murder scenes, he shows himself by being clothed. This represents the audience overcoming the initial shock of entering the new piece of media. One slowly learns the world, lore, intricacies of the characters, etc. The audience slowly overcomes that, thus switching the power dynamic between voyeur and the media. They are the ones imposing themselves onto the world, the ones that being analyzing the film, or simply forming an opinion. However, they are now the ones in full control.

Due to this, The Invisible Chronicles brings forth a meta statement on DeCoteau’s consistent themes through his filmography. The vast majority of his films during the 2000’s and 2010’s consist of films that focus on the male form. These are films that depict of shower scenes, exercise, and walking around in tight underwear. Many of these scenes are overlong, are shown in mostly closeups, and has a lingering quality with how the camera moves. It is a recurring theme among his other work, thus making this film a self-aware and dissection of the motif of DeCoteau’s work.

The Invisible Chronicles shows how DeCoteau’s low-budget films include a deep self-awareness, with this film being one of the more overt cases. It is a self-aware, meta critique of the power dynamics between the viewer and the film, and how the slow transition from the involuntary immersion (the raped), to the passive voyeur, to the murdering consumer that represents the audience’s newfound control. Analyzing and judging a film is what brings the true effectiveness of getting the most out of media, as at that point you are the one in control. Many of his works have a certain in-depth analytical element to them, and I hope to explore more of them in future articles.