Table of contents Introduction 3 Mission 4 Method 4 Theory 5
|
|  Yüklə 258 Kb.
|
Conclusion of EpidemicIt can be concluded that Epidemic is highly postmodern as seen through the use of metafictive aspects and ironic distancing, which the film carries. This leaves the question concerning Andersen notion of Trier as a Postironist. In order to analyze his claim, the characteristics of the Postironical should be taken into consideration in connection with Epidemic. From examining the film, it becomes clear that the movie holds several of these characteristics and the first one, I will mention is Andersen’s notion of the inclusion of reality in a world of fiction. This aspect is seen through a number of elements within the film and the first most noticeable notion of this is displayed through the character portrayals. Both Trier and Vørsel play the main characters or protagonists in Epidemic; they are portrayed as a film director and writer which they both, in fact, are in real life and this is also the case for the rest of the cast who portray themselves. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize a specific example in the film where the inclusion of reality comes to its most pivotal significance in connection to the Postironical. In their research for the new script the two writers decide to take a trip to Germany as a change of scenery and means of inspiration. While they are in Cologne, they visit the actor Udo Kier who tells them a story about his mother and the day he was born. The interesting aspect here is the fact that Kier is telling Lars and Niels a true story from his own life. He tells that the day his was born, during World War II, the British military bombed the hospital in an air raid where he and his mother were. The story becomes even more horrific when he tells that his mother saw the effects phosphor bombs had on human skin and how people ran around screaming in agony. However, Lars and Niels look bored and uninterested in his story even when Kier starts to cry which leaves the viewer quite confused. Due to this tragic and shocking story woven in with the two writers’ reaction, the viewer is not sure how to react to this. Furthermore, the ironic distancing throughout the film is also a factor, which leaves the viewer confused. This inclusion of reality and the personal in Epidemic constitutes a clear contrast to the Postmodern insisting that everything – even human identity – is a fiction and at the same time it makes the Postironical’s self-consciousness seem honestly self-revealing and painful rather than cool, aesthetic calculating. As mentioned earlier the perhaps strongest characteristic of the Postironical, according to Andersen, is the reckoning that mainstream culture taken over irony and made its own. In Epidemic one could certainly argue that Trier falls under the category of artists who join this revolt against mainstream’s watered down version of irony. However, I find Trier not to limit himself to the notion of irony but rather to a broader spectrum of mainstreams calculated methods. It is true that Trier uses irony as a critical tool in order to comment on the System, but the System in this case in not the conservative establishment or monolithical government.In Trier’s case it seems that his criticism is aimed at the film industry and that Epidemic is a reaction to the Danish Film Institute where directors such as Nils Malmros and Bille August were praised for their work. This notion is also supported in Epidemic as Trier takes the role of Dr. Mesmer, where parallels can be drawn to Trier’s own idealism. In the new script they are writing, Trier plays the role of the young doctor who goes against the medical System who threatens and warns him against disobeying their rules. In comparison to reality, Trier is seeing himself as the idealistic director who despite established ‘laws’ within filmmaking chooses to turn his attention in a different direction. If one were to be plain, Trier is on a quest to liberate the world of mainstream films which are as an epidemic. However, Andersen does, in one aspect, seem to be right in classifying Trier as a Postironist when analyzing the aforementioned example. At the same time as Trier is criticizing the industry, he is also being self-conscious about the situation. This is substantiated by the outcome of Dr. Mesmer’s mission to cure the disease. As mentioned earlier he realizes at the end that he was the one who in fact spread the very epidemic he was trying to eliminate. Returning to a conclusion of the analysis of Epidemic, I argue that while the film is greatly filled with ironic elements, it does not determine the whole work to be ironic due to the factors mentioned above. To further substantiate my claim, the theory of irony in visual arts has to be taken into account. As I have touched upon earlier, the recognition of irony in visual arts may be less demanding to detect as opposed to literature because according to Elleström, irony in film may be compared to irony in real life; that the representation of irony in film is presented via speech, visual and aural elements, characters, actions, and situations. To write about irony in film may be simply a variation of making ironic interpretations of more or less ordinary lives that the viewers live. Furthermore, as it is noted by Booth, the interpretation of an ironic statement depends on the knowledge of the speaker and the ‘nudges’ we, the receivers, are presented with. However, in literature these nuances that surround the speaker and the listener require much more elaborate inferences due to the lack of visual and aural ‘nudges’ with literature. As such one could argue that this theory also works the other way around, meaning that the less elaborate it is to detect irony in film, the easier it might be to cancel it. And I do believe that this is a method practiced in Epidemic where it is easier to forgive the ironic distancing the film carries up to the last scene. But to further maintain this belief, it seems essential to investigate Andersen’s claim that the ironic aura of Trier transcends to a broader collection of his work. Through Andersen’s account the pervading irony found in Trier’s earlier movies seems to cancel his attempts to employ a larger degree of pathos in his later work, with the particular example of the film Breaking the Waves from 1996. Therefore, I seek to analyze this film in order to examine Andersen’s claim. |