Table of contents Introduction 3 Mission 4 Method 4 Theory 5
|
|  Yüklə 258 Kb.
|
Perspective of Andersen’s theoryTore Rye Andersen’s theory of the Postironical does seem to have legitimate arguments and a basis for a new movement may be in its beginning phase. Furthermore, Andersen is not alone in his contemplation of postmodern irony. Among others Linda Hutcheon also sees the problems that exist within the politics of irony. However, Andersen is the only one to coin the term the Postironical to the common traits in Postmodern literature, which he bases his theory on. In Irony’s Edge, Hutcheon notes the danger of being misunderstood when we in the Western world try to use irony as a critical weapon against certain establishments. When the Western world decides to be ironic about itself, it cannot avoid some relation to its others. Hutcheon gives an example of this, where she details a visit at a Canadian museum, which, instead of presenting its archives from other dominated cultures from the point of view of knowledge and authority, decided to adopt an ironic view point.64 One image showed a white woman educating the indigenous population in the art of hygiene and was presented and labeled as such, with the viewer supposedly being able to spot the patronizing tone both of the image and its description. However, this decision to present the colonizing gaze ironically, failed to achieve its aim, where many of the indigenous viewers of the exhibition saw the images as a presentation of the white Western view of its others. As such Hutcheon believes that irony is not and should not be a disbelief or distance from what one says, but that irony has a political and ethical force. In this sense, speaking the language of colonialism and reason ironically should be in order to display its violence, force and delimited viewpoint. However, this critical repetition does not only risk being unnoticed or misunderstood, because it still allows the voice of colonialism to speak. Hutcheon cannot seem to reach a conclusion on this issue, which English professor Claire Colebrook also notes in her book Irony (2004), On one hand she maintains the value of irony in creating a distance from Western discourses and narratives of reason. It is precisely because, from a position of postmodern postcolonialism, one cannot find or desire a better position of truth and authority, that one adopts irony to present any authority or history as one fiction among others. On the other hand, not only can such gestures of distancing and irony fail to be read, they also allow the West to keep speaking itself, even if one with a full sense of violence and limits of one’s context.65 In this sense, Hutcheon and Claire also see the paradoxical problem that exists within the concept of Postmodern irony. Like Andersen, they note that the employment of irony in Western culture has the issue of being misread. Furthermore, Colebrook’s theory also seems to support Andersen’s notion of irony’s loss of critical value and that mainstream culture has made it a norm in itself. Colebrook writes how Postmodern novels and films such as Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho (1991) and Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (1992), display a system of signs, clichés, slogans and advertising slogans. They both present the dismemberment of bodies alongside the enjoyed and popular signs of everyday life and as such the violence can be read, not as a local perversion or evil, but as a symptomatic of a world where the immediacy and surface nature of desire and gratification precludes any moral voice or limit. In this way Colebrook states, that one could read such works as ironic critiques of the world they present, but this would requires an explicit reading. Therefore Colebrook states, Even if we were to decide that such works were ironic, how do we avoid the enjoyment, repetition and reinforcement of violence that these texts also make possible? If masculinity, or Western ‘phallogocentrism’ that can acknowledge no limits to its own desire and self-projection, is being repeatedly ironised as self-consuming, irony may be one way for this subject of domination to sustain itself.66 As noted in the theory section, Andersen used the film Pulp Fiction as an example of mainstream culture’s employment of irony, and within this he described it through Jameson’s notion of blank irony – that the irony in a movie like Pulp Fiction does not serve a visible purpose besides maintaining the shiny facades of the characters. On the basis of this, irony is seen a directionless which is not committed to anything but a sly grin and has lost all oppositional force. As such Andersen and Colebrook disagrees on irony’s purpose within these movies, where Andersen sees the irony as a way of maintaining the characters’ shallow personalities, Colebrook sees it as method to sustain self-projected masculinity. But interestingly enough, they both come to the conclusion that the irony contained in these films does not claim any form of critical value. However, there are a number of aspects that question Andersen’s notion and shake the ground on which he stands. From reviewing the characteristics Andersen notes on the Postironical themes, it becomes clear that one of them creates a paradox within his own argument. As mentioned, Andersen states that there is a focus on near things such as family and the personal which is not synonymous with the desertion of political awareness in favor of self-centered contemplation. Andersen claims that there has been a slight adjustment of Postmodernism, so that the political is now presented through the personal rather than vice versa. In Postmodernism we are often presented as slaves of the System, whereas the Postironical seems to be increasingly aware of that we in fact constitute the System and that our role as victims tends to be caused by our own free choices. What is interesting here is Andersen’s assumption that this aspect is only as he calls it a “slight adjustment” from Postmodernism to the Postironical. However, I see this notion as a rather considerable adjustment, which stands in contrast with the supposed new movement’s predecessor. If Andersen is right, then there is no longer anyone to blame but ourselves and as such the revolt against mainstream culture becomes in reality a revolt against our own consciousness. Furthermore, this aspect also creates a paradox within Andersen’s argument concerning the most pivotal point of the Postironical basis. The main argument in Andersen’s theory is David Foster Wallace’s critique of mainstream culture’s directionless use and transformation of irony, which in the sixties stood as a healthy and critical reaction against the System. This is where the paradox occurs, because if we in a Postironical fashion accept the fact that we constitute the System, then criticizing this establishment implies that we are reacting against ourselves, and therefore the loss of irony as a critical weapon seems justified since it would otherwise contradict the argument. What is furthermore interesting about Andersen’s theory is his comment on the problem he sees American writers are faced with. According to him, the main problem is how the commercial culture increasingly encroaches upon the writers’ territory, and thereby rendering their art toothless. Here, Andersen uses the American author Don DeLillo as an example of this, who by his account has attempted to stay out of the commercial loop and maintain a marginal position in the society he criticizes in his novels. By staying on the edge of the System, it is possible to undertake a number of critical attacks against the System without becoming a part of it. Andersen’s states that DeLillo rarely gives interviews and he at one point in his life moved to Greece in order to stay out of the commercial market. But with the publication of the bestseller White Noise (1985), it became increasingly difficult for DeLillo to keep the attention at bay, and when he published Underworld in 1997, he was transformed into a literary superstar. This resulted in the previously silent and invisible writer going on a number of promotion tours and giving a series of interviews. Nevertheless, the media and the critics are still trying to construct DeLillo as a marginal, rebellious figure in the midst of mainstream culture. Conversely, this aspect also seems to presents a form paradox within Andersen’s argument. If the goal of a Postmodernist is point out the problems that exist with the establishment, it will also be reasonable to expect that people should be made aware of this in order to resolve these problems. But if it is only possible to criticize the System by staying out of the commercial loop, then it would seemingly be impossible to be heard. ConclusionBased on my analysis, I am now able to answer my thesis’ problem statement, which set out to explore how and if Lars von Trier, who by Andersen’s claim, portray Postironical traits. I do believe that Tore Rye Andersen is justified in his claim that Lars von Trier does show traits of the Postironical in connection to the films analyzed in this thesis. Even though Trier explores two different themes, there still seems to be a common aspect present in both of them. They both diverge from the typical mainstream film and try to incorporate a combination of different opposing narrative and stylistic structures. Epidemic can be seen as an experimental film which explores the diverse aspect of film and is more a direct critique of mainstream movies. Based on my analysis, I argue that Epidemic is more than anything a statement by Trier that a film can be made without following a certain set of approved or recognized rules. Breaking the Waves can be seen as a result of Epidemic’s statement, where Trier manages to incorporate metafictive and ironic aspects in a melodramatic film without cancelling the pathos and as such Trier successfully proves his point. What also becomes apparent is Trier’s position within the concept of the Postironical, where he stands out among his colleagues as the only director who effectively achieves his goals. On the basis of this, I also argue that Andersen is wrong in his claim that Trier struggles to be taken seriously in his attempt to employ a larger degree of pathos in his work. It seems that Trier is fully aware of the fact that in order to be critical of the film industry, he has to maintain a marginal position because, as mentioned, in order to stay critical of the System it is important not to be a part of it. One could argue that Trier can be compared with Don DeLillo who by Andersen’s account deals with the same problem. In comparison Trier is also notoriously known for his reluctance to give interviews and as a result of this reporters and critics are often left with their own opinion of his work. Furthermore, Trier who on the success of Dogme 95 suddenly gave interviews – although the number of interviews was limited, it still became noticeable due to his previous total silence in the media. However, the comparison between the two does not seem to end here because Andersen notes how the effect of commercial success has influenced DeLillo. Moreover, Trier’s latest film Antichrist from 2009 showed Trier as the most interesting director at the Cannes Film Festival where many critics and reporters gathered to interview him at the press conference. This aspect may argue that Trier has passed his position as a Postironist and has now moved on to seek new ground. However, I would claim that Trier still attempts to preserve his position as a marginal director. Antichrist which received a lot of attention on its release contains elements to support my claim. While some critics praised the film for its stunning stylistic structure and sinister depiction of human grief, others saw it as a disgusting and mindless provocation without any value. The depictions of molesting both male and female genitalia are some of the elements that created such strong reactions to the film. By having these images, Trier manages to avoid mainstream culture’s acceptance and keep his role as a rebellious figure who continues to stay critical of the System. Furthermore, in terms of irony Trier still employs its practice in his recent film, which points to the notion of an auteur trademark and therefore is a characteristic which among others defines Trier’s creative visions. On a final note, the ironic aura, Andersen claims Trier to have, is thus also a perception I agree with. However, where Andersen sees it as a problematic characteristic that impedes Trier’s ability to maintain his position as a rebellious director; I find the ironic distancing to be a part of his persona which supports his position as a Postironist. In a perspective view, the concept of irony in a Postmodern context denotes an interesting aspect in the world today. As noted in the introduction we use irony on a daily basis and as such our employment of this rhetorical mode must be presumed to have a significant role in our society. However, as Andersen points out irony seems to have changed from a position of being critical of the System to an empty and powerless norm in itself. It is certainly true that within the mainstream culture of television, talks-shows, sitcoms and other comical programs employ a great deal of irony as a method of distancing themselves from the subject, which they ridicule. However, as Booth mentions, this may only have temporary effect and therefore it does not create any worthy significance in taking a critical position. How can irony be viewed as a weapon to expose the hypocrisy of Western society when it is distancing itself from what is being criticized. In this perspective it demands the interpreter of the statement to recognize the unsaid meaning and thus irony has a potential chance of being misunderstood. In this sense, I question the argument if irony should even be used as way of criticizing anything when it has an ambiguous and self-conscious demeanor. This aspect also presents a paradoxical notion of the fact that I become self-conscious when analyzing and criticizing the subject of my thesis. As such it is interesting to consider Andersen’s notion of being critical of the System. I do believe that the Postmodern thinking is changing from a criticizing view of society and the conservative establishment, to a realization of our own involvement in the construction of the System which we urge to blame. In this perspective I argue that irony can be viewed as a healthy device to help us recognize this because irony creates distance, which gives us the opportunity to see society from another point of view. 1 "irony." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010 2 De Man, Paul. Aesthetic Ideology (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press 1996) p 164 3 Hutcheon, Linda. Irony’s Edge (1994) p 11 4 Hutcheon. p 62 5 De Man, Paul. p 179 7 De Man. p 165 8 Booth. p 9 9 Elleström, Lars. Divine Madness – On Interpreting Literatyre, Music and the Visual Arts Ironically (Lewisburg: Bucknell University, 2002) p 148 10 Booth. p 8 11 Booth. p 8 12 Booth. p 8 13 Rasmussen, Michael. Fornuften og Synerne (Aalborg: Aalborg Universitet, 2000) 14 Rasmussen. p 208 15 Camus, Albert. The Fall (New York: Random House Inc. 1956) p 7 16 Camus. p 17 17 Rasmussen. p 209 18 Rasmussen. p 209 19 Rasmussen. p 209 20 Rasmussen. p 212 21 Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report On Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1994) p 6 22 Rasmussen. p 215 23 Main source Tore Rye Andersen’s Down With the Rebels!, 2005 24 Andersen. p 187 26 Andersen. p 202 27 Andersen. p 188 28 Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. p 17 29 Andersen. p 189 30 Andersen. p 204 31 Andersen. p 192 32 Andersen. p 192 33Andersen. p 196 34 Andersen. p 198 35 Andersen. p 203 36 Andersen. p 204 37 Rose, Gitte / Christiansen, H.C. Analyse af billedmedier – en introduktion (2006) p 147 38 Rose/Christiansen. p 146-147 39 Trier, Lars Von / Vørsel, Niels. Epidemic (1987) t 00:00:15 40 Rose/Christiansen. p 150 41 Rose/Christiansen. p 152 42 Rose/Christiansen. p 152 43 Epidemic t 00:02:43 44 Rose / Christiansen p 153 45 Rose / Christiansen p 154 46 An example of this method, as seen in various mainstream, is when the protagonist Harry Potter who appears humble and subdued, almost automatically creates an allegiance between the audience and him. 47 Rose/Christiansen p 145 48 Epidemic t 00:27:37 49 Rose / Christiansen p 156 50 Rose / Christiansen p 149 51 See appendix 52 The term refers to the German dramatist-director Bertolt Brecht, who coined this form of distancing effect practiced within theater, and involves the use of techniques designed to distance the audience from emotional involvement in the play through jolting reminders of the artificiality of the theatrical performance. 53 Grodal. P 39 54 Rose/Christiansen. p 65-67 55 Epidemic. t 00:25:23 56 Nielsen, Lisbeth Overgaard. Lars Von Triers Film (2007) p 69 57 Grodal. p 68 58 Epidemic. t 01:27:03 59 Grodal, Torben. Filmoplevelse – en indføring i audiovisuel teori og analyse. 2003 p 199 60 Rose/Christiansen. p 150 61 Rose / Christiansen. p 174 62 Breaking the waves. t 01:07:16 63 Grodal, Torben. p. 207 64 Hutcheon, Linda. Irony’s Edge – The theory and politics of irony. 1994 p 178 65 Colebrook, Claire. Irony. 2004 p 160 66 Colebrook. p 158 |