Vincenzo Natali’s Cube remains a brilliant film yet, for me, it never comes across as overly smart. Basically, a dumb-ass could perfectly enjoy this film and understand most of it. In fact, it still works out if you don’t fully grasp the whole thing because that puts you closer to the anxiety-inducing and puzzling nature of the main character’s predicament. Trapped inside some interlocking, cube-like rooms with deadly traps, any potential survival deduces a pattern, to escape, lest they stay trapped indefinitely (until the last days, perhaps?).
The group begins to go mad, of course, but it seems the average viewer might understand the reasons (at least some of them). The fact that there are number code patterns is also a brilliant, built-in method for describing the room and its objects in shorthand, rather than relying solely on disorienting visual cues. Granted, I can’t personally follow the mathematical patterns hinted at in Cube, but I’m at least smart enough to grasp that they are there.
Also, as the drama increases between the characters, it’s almost like the frequency of tremors increases dramatically, even if they don’t; The viewer will feel that tension between the personalities, with themselves frequently being triggered instead of triggering the literal traps. We don’t need to see the room boil with steam to know tensions are boiling hot. We don’t need to see flames to get a sense of their inner and outer hell.
Cube unlocks the human puzzle at the center
Overall, Cube“looks at the complex, destructive nature of the human mind, which is its own room of “never enough.” Even when there’s a solution in sight, it’s never quite in sight enough, is it? The story also examines some archetypes, including the ones we might toss onto the characters. For example, when I see the apparent finalists of the Cube contest, I am tempted to observe five (perhaps) interchangeable archetypes between the characters: a reluctant leader, a nerd, a child genius, a wildcard, and a self-rationalizing brute (an antagonist who is chaos cloaked in order).
The man is David Worth (David Hewlett), the woman Joan Leaven (Nicole de Boer), the child Kazan (Andrew Miller), the wildcard Dr. Helen Holloway (Nicky Guadagni), and the brute Quentin McNeil (Maurice Dean Wint). When I say “interchangeable” I mean that all of these characters end up mirroring elements of each other’s traits at some point; they all have sparks of intelligence, wildness, childishness, and angry/violent potential. So, basically, it isn’t just Quentin who you might want to be held in place with restraints because they can all end up at each other’s throats at some point. The fights are really a key element of the story, rather than aspects that seem tacked on to increase the death factor.
More common ground between the Cube characters
As Cube progresses, each character adopts a wide variety of attitudes and responses. Each character has moments of intelligent, adult-like reasoning, but each cube room subdues them and threatens to bring out their proverbial inner children. They also end up interrogating each other. It’s also plausible that there are some elements of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Envy, Sloth, and Wrath. Ultimately, Cube solves the puzzle by what amounts to a process of killing the child, who almost seems to emerge to face some sort of Judgment Day.
Then again, I could be wrong about some of the things I have set down here. Really, that’s part of the intelligence in Cube. So much is open to interpretation. Things that sound outlandish to me might sound plausible to others, and vice versa. We do know that this giant puzzle is twisted and strange, and maybe one of the unspoken plot devices here is that the characters are truly just characters, or pawns, put through crazy circumstances and contractions for the audience’s own questionable amusement.
What are your thoughts on Cube? Let us know in the comments!