Table of contents Introduction 3 Mission 4 Method 4 Theory 5
|
|  Yüklə 258 Kb.
|
The ending sceneAs mentioned earlier, Lars and Niels decide to write a new script in only five days, called Epidemic, about a mysterious, bubonic disease which the authorities, in vain, try to defeat. The film cuts between scenes from the movie they are writing and scenes from their everyday life, working on the new script. As Niels and Lars research their story, we see scenes from the movie where the young idealistic doctor Mesmer played by Trier, who despite threats and admonitions from medical authorities, goes out to the outskirt areas to fight the epidemic. His actions become tragic and ironic because it turns out that he carries the disease himself, and due to his idealism and desire to help the world, he ends up being the one who spreads the infection. While Lars and Niels continue their work on the script, a bubonic epidemic is also spreading in ‘reality’ and in the last scene, where they try to convince the film consultant of the validity of their idea, the disease breaks out and fiction and reality collide in a grotesque chaos. This last scene is ten minutes long and takes place in Niels’ apartment where the two writers have been working for the last five days. They have invited the film consultant to dinner as well as the hypnotist Sven Ali Hamann who hypnotizes the girl Gitte into telling the story of Epidemic which according to Lars and Niels is an attempt to present their idea in a differentiated way: En pige er i dyb hypnose. Hendes hoved hviler nede på brystet, mens hun lytter til hypnotisørens messende og insisterende stemme, der befaler hende at “gå ind i” Epidemic. At gå ind i filmen Epidemic. Kameraet zoomer ind på pigen og hypnotisøren, mens en udefra kommende, agressiv og overdøvende lyd fortrænger alle reallyde. De to filmmagere ser smilende og skeptiske til. Pigen begynder tøvende at fortælle: “Der er døde mennesker overalt....der er rotter med haler så lange... inde i husene er der mennesker. De råber...på Gud, tror jeg. Og der er børn....de begynder at klynke....er så frygtelig bange.....de har bylder over det hele....de....dør på gaden”. Pigen taler længe om de forfærdelige syner og begynder at græde, som gør det fysisk ondt på hende at gennemleve billederne, der trænger sig på inde i hendes hoved. En arm strækkes ind i billedfeltet, håndleddet er dækket med en stor byld. Pigen græder stadig højere. Hypnotisøren forsøger at berolige hende, mens filmkonsulenten og de to filmmagere ser stadigt mere usikre og bekymrede ud. Den hypnotiserede pige rejser sig, vakler hen mod væggen og synker her sammen, mens hypnotisøren forsøger at få hende til at forlade filmen Epidemic. Med et sæt farer hun op og kaster sig skrigende op på bordet. Hendes hals er nu dækket med bylder, og vi ser en byld i nærbillede blive perforeret med en gaffel. Niels’ kone Susanne står grædende ovre ved væggen, hvor hun kaster op, mens filmkonsulenten med et overnaturligt ryk slynges tilbage fra bordet. Med ét bliver der stille. Kameraet panorerer hen over bordet, hvor pigen ligger døende og sitrer. Niels ligger på knæ hos sin kone, der, efter at have kastet blod op på væggen, er død. Billedet fader over i et billede af Lars, der sidder sammensunket i et hjørne. Han løfter hovedet og kigger op, og frem toner et billede af en motorvej set oppefra. Lyden af vindens susen og trafikkens svage støj er eneste lydkilde, indtil sangen “Epidemic - we all fall down” toner frem, og rulleteksterne tager over.56 Perhaps the most interesting aspect in Epidemic is this last scene, which as often in Trier’s films proves to be a central turning point concerning the films climax and upcoming end. To let a movie reach its climax in the final scene without any form of aftermath or fade-out is unusual within the classic dramaturgy, which is also pointed out by Lars in the earlier mentioned scene where he notes that the climax should be introduced within 2/3 of the timeline. This is usually where all plot elements come together and the puzzle is solved. This, however, is neglected in Epidemic and as such the viewer is left without a cathartic satisfaction. This form of mental release of tension was theorized by Aristotle in his work Poetics and is elaborated by Grodal, Aristoteles mente, at gennemlevelsen af stærke følelser forårsaget af fiktion f.eks. tragedier, medførte ”katharsis”, en slags renselse, uden at han nærmere præciserede af hvilken art, denne katharsis var. Senere teoritikere har som f.eks. Freud fortolket katharsis som en slags afløb for indre mentale spændinger. Nyere psykologiske teorier har derimod fortolket interessen for at gennemleve stærke følelser gennem fiktion i lyset af en teori om ’homeostase’, ligevægt.57 Through this notion it is suggested that over time people seek to maintain an even level of excitement. If a person is mentally understimulated; he or she will seek out exciting events, whereas an overstimulated person will avoid these. This inconclusive ending in Epidemic proves again to be highly postmodern because it denies a clear conclusion of the movie’s plot or perhaps it offers more than one. The scene stands in contrast to the rest of the film, which is seen through the narrative aspects depicted here. As mentioned earlier Epidemic displays a lack of allegiance towards the characters and distances itself from its characters. This scene however, does attempt to create some form of alignment to the girl who is being hypnotized. We are able to empathize with the girl who expresses pain and sorrow through the hypnosis because the fact that we do not know anything about her denotes that we have no reason to doubt her person schemata. The ironic interpretationIn connection with the Postironical, the last scene becomes interesting due to Andersen’s notion on the effect irony has on a certain text. As mentioned earlier, Paul De Man had a deconstructive concept of irony and furthermore described it as a ‘permanent parabasis’ and in this respect a text is either ironical or earnest. In Epidemic the viewer has throughout the film been subjected to an ironic distancing between the audience and the movie and as such the last scene must also be perceived as ironic. However, as Wayne Booth points out, irony can in a rhetorical and pragmatic perspective be perceived as a local, temporary effect that communicates a specific message and does not necessarily destabilize the whole work. I do believe that this is the case in Epidemic because the last scene in my opinion is not meant to be ironic and it does not undermine the whole film. This is further established through the stylistic structure of the ending scene. As mentioned earlier, the part of the film where we follow the two writers’ daily work is filmed with a 16 mm camera which has a documentary effect, and the scenes of the movie they are creating are shot with a 35 mm camera which has a more traditional filmic outcome. However, in the beginning of the last scene, the hypnotist says, “Må vi gå igang?”58 and just after this the camera switches for a brief moment into a 35 mm shot of the dinner table and the people around it while a ominous, dark musical tone is played. The stylistic setting of this scene suddenly rejects the previous ironic distancing, which the audience has been subjected to, and has now transformed into a collision between fiction and reality. It is an immensely powerful scene, which is supported by the woman Gitte’s performance under the hypnosis that furthermore has the audience doubting the scene as an act. This last scene becomes a pivotal issue in the theory of the Postironical, where both De Man and Booth disagree on the influence of irony. As I mentioned before, I do not believe that the ironic aura of Epidemic cancels the pathos of the last scene but this perception can in one respect be caused by my own interpretation of the work. If we were to take Andersen’s analysis of Infinite Jest into account, the issue of perception becomes an individual task. According to Andersen, this novel has much in common with Umberto Eco’s theory of the open work where the emphasis in the interpretational work has shifted from a sender-oriented to a receiver-oriented understanding. This could very much be the same case in Epidemic if the interpretation is to be ruled by the receiver and not Trier himself. As a result of this, the perception of whether the last scene observes irony or not is determined by the audience and their individual interpretations. Consequently, the last scene could therefore be split in to two different understandings, where an ironic perception would have a comical result that sees Trier attempting to depict the hypnosis as a parody. However, if the receiver chooses to leave the irony behind, the scene takes a different approach. In this case, the hypnosis can be interpreted as the relation between the effect of hypnosis and the effect a film can have on a viewer, which is demonstrated by the woman’s vivid and empathic identification with the epidemic. It should be noted that Eco’s theory is based on literature and as such the practice of applying this concept to film may be questionable. Nevertheless, I see a plausible employment of the open work within film, due to the postmodern characteristic portrayed in Epidemic. As mentioned earlier Rose/Christiansen stated a postmodern film will often depict a story without an unequivocal conclusion, and instead present the viewer with multiple interpretations. Accordingly this characteristic bears much resemblance with a receiver-oriented understanding. |