![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
V for Vendetta, Part 2
Catharsis
A few weeks ago, I dropped the hammer on a documentary called Why We Fight, suggesting that it was very cleverly targeted propaganda to herd liberals into more realistic attitudes about the Iraq War and the American Empire in general. In that piece, I wrote that these movies
let us vent our frustrations together in a darkened room full of like-minded strangers. We feel bad-ass because we bought a $9 fuck-you ticket to Uncle Sam, and then once our angry impulses have been ritually slated, we go back home and put on our jammies.
This effect is termed “catharsis” and is as old as drama itself. A drama site defines it as “the ritual purpose of tragic drama. The tragic actions on the dramatic stage cause the audience to experience extreme feelings of pity and terror that causes a catharsis or release of these emotions.” Meanwhile, a site called the Communication, Cultural and Media Studies Infobase offers this somewhat expanded explanation:
the idea originated with the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who believed that the experience of watching tragedy is cathartic, i.e. it purges the spectator of certain strong emotions. As a result mainly of experiments by Feshbach and Singer, this idea has been developed in media effects research. Watching aggressive media output, it is proposed, does not make viewers more aggressive; quite the contrary - since the vicarious aggression experienced through the media purges the viewer of aggression, the result of watching violence is less aggression. The same argument is sometimes adduced in defence of pornography. Some researchers have taken the example of Japan, where there is far more violent sex in the media than in Europe, yet a much lower incidence of violent sex crime, to support the view that media experience can be cathartic.
The way I understand catharsis is that the subconscious (mythic) part of the mind either doesn’t care or can’t differentiate between fantasties and realities. If a story comes along that the subconscious identifies with strongly, it will glom onto it for its own purposes - which presumably have something to do with shuttling around psychic energy within the mind. The story enables the subconscious mind to transform energy, just like the actual acting out of this event would.
Of course, that’s just a theory. Or is it? For those of you who saw V for Vendetta, how did you feel when you walked out of it? Have you ever had similar cathartic experiences at other movies or artistic/dramatic events?
Where I’m going with this, obviously, is to ask the question if this movie and others like it are actually intended as a sort of release valve for angry pent-up emotions that we have as a culture. They let us act out our fantasies of revolution in a safe movie theatre environment, thus dissipating our need to act it out literally in the streets.
The other way of looking at it, of course, is that it does the opposite - that it encourages us to transform the world around us by providing us with mythic forms to build on and pattern our thoughts and feelings after. It also provides us with encouragement, showing us in a very public manner that “Hey, look at the messages in this story! See, the good guys *are* making a difference in the world.”
Or maybe it does both; or maybe there’s some third purpose that I don’t see - such as putting us into a deliberate double bind where we are trying to obey the commands “be independent” and “question authority.”
It’s situations like these which make me realize that the only rational choice for conscientious people nowadays is to become totally and utterly paranoid. To relentlessly dismantle every message that crosses our threshold, seeking to uncover it’s purpose, effects and method, with the sword of our intellect. But even that may be a trap set for us - the equivalent of walking into a Star Trek convention and starting an argument about which Star Trek series was superior, and then robbing everybody blind while the argue the finer points of Captain Picard versus Janeway versus Kirk. And again, paranoia becomes the only sensible option.
- V for Vendetta, Part 3
- V for Vendetta, Part 4
- Some good old-fashioned link piracy
- V for Vendetta, Part 1
- V for Vendetta, Part 5
- Prev: Castle in the Ocean
- Next: Arrow of Light
March 20th, 2006 at 3:48 am
The New York Times review pretty much slaughters the movie, closing with this line:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/movies/17vend.html?8mu&emc=mu
And out of the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060320crci_cinema
March 20th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Quick question - would u apply the same to books?
March 20th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I saw V yesterday… best time I’ve had watching a movie in 2-3 years (since Kill Bill 1). Why was it the best time? Complicated question, complicated answer. I’m currently working on an entry at my site about this very thing.
In regard to your post, though, I think (for me) the film certainly did tap into some greater vein of collective, stored and pent-up energy. Usually, watching movies inspires me to bring out the Hero within (get in really good shape, don’t be so lazy, etc)…. albeit on a personal level. V, though, for the first time I can really recall seemed to make me feel connected to a greater and collective store of this pent-up energy.
My fear for movie critics is that they watch so many films they become numb to the possibility of a film’s story/myth/symbols breaking through to their own realms of stored energy. The NYT (or whatever) review excerpts seemed totally irrelevent to me, personally. This film spoke to me… it opened something up (or helped open something that was already there). It left me feeling charged and inspired and hopeful and motivated.
If it doesn’t “get” to you, then fine — resort to bashing it for stylistic or otherwise objective bullshit reasons. Those words (the critics’) are meaningless for me, though. None of them will erase or make me feel embarrased or ashamed for what I experienced.
March 20th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
puts the kibosh on the whole ‘violent video games create violent children’ thing, that’s for sure. it’s always made sense, to me at least, that violent games and movies etc. provide an outlet for otherwise socially inappropriate expression. i know that if i have a terrible day at work/in traffic/etc., i love turning on the x-box and slaughterin’ some virtual monsters . . . .
March 20th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
right, or like how in high school i was friends with most of the metal/hardcore kids, who were the most completely chill kids around
March 20th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I think the NYT was encouraged to pan the film by the federal government.
Look at a list of big-name box office bombs (movies like Ishtar or Hudson Hawk). When looking at said list, ask yourself how many of them you’ve actually seen.
Then, go out and see some of them on DVD. You’ll find that (1) the movies are no worse than some of the more spectacular box-office bonanzas of recent years (I’m thinking oif movies that put people’s minds to sleep, like American Pie) and (2) most of the plots involve radical politics or magical elements that certain powers-that=be didn’t want unleashed on the public until the right time.
How’s that for paranoid?
March 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I like your line of thinking. But what purpose does it ultimately serve to allow the movie to come out, but then back-hand it in the same breath? Is it just, like I was saying, to allow these angsty feelings people to have to dissipate, but then simultaneously alienate those of us who did like it? Maybe I’ve just gotten myself into too much of a mind-fuck to think straight anymore.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Looking at those professional reviews again has gotten me even more suspicious. From the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060320crci_cinema
So they’re saying two things: (1) that Alan Moore didn’t invent dystopian visions of the future, and (2) things aren’t quite as bad as depicted in this movie. Both of these points are essentially true facts, but totally irrelevant - totally red herring arguments that add up to nothing. Did Alan Moore invent comic books? Did this author invent movie reviews? No, of course not. And none of that relates to anything - it only *seems* to.
Reading these people say that it’s NOT a revolutionary act to go see this movie are making me suspect that maybe it is. But then, that bounces me back to my original stance of it *not* being revolutionary, but dissipatory. So there I am. I’m stuck.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
haha, sometimes i think the most effective tactic “they” employ is their ability to create infinite rhetorical loops. we get so stuck trying to escape the loops of rhetoric that we can’t *do* anything.
…is seeing the movie revolutionary? if so, then obviously “they” wouldn’t somehow overlook that fact. so maybe “they” *want* us to see the movie for some reason. but they’d know we’d figure that out, so maybe they’d release it and then pan it so we *think* they hate it when actually they *want* us to see it. but then if they figure that out, then, then, then. maybe “they” want to inspire an actual revolution and copycat acts of terrorism by fooling us into thinking they hate the movie, so that when people start getting inspired to revolutionary acts “they” can bring down the hammer. or, maybe it’s just another way for a bunch of people to get wealthy by charging WAY too much for poppin’ corn and soda. of course, that’s what “they” want you to think.
it’s like getting stuck in a “rhetoric” warp . . . .
March 20th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
[…]
Rhetoric Loop Jeremy just made an excellent comment on one of my Vendetta posts that I think highlights one of the prime issues: […]
March 20th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I remember seeing Fight Club in the theater and feeling like just watching it was akin to doing something about my life at the time. Same with Fahrenheit 9/11.
JP’s concept of the infinite rhetoric loop is, I think, the crux behind Pynchon’s paranoid fiction, particularly The Crying Of Lot 49: cultural narcissism can be the reason why these kind of loops exist in society. Some audiences want to do more than just watch a movie or go to a concert– they want to belong to something or feel like they are in on something.
This makes people susceptible to secret societies, cults, organizations, cabals, and rigid caste systems. Do people become Masons because they want to be “enlightened” or do they do it so that they can enjoy the perks of membership? I think it’s the latter, because any individual can become “enlightened” but without the seeming approval of one’s peers, the “enlightenment” seems like a fraud or a sham.
Ironically, true enlightenment seems to only occur when no one is looking. That means it is an isolated event, and there are no “witnesses”. That’s counterintuitive to sheep people who want to join clubs at the price of their individuality.
March 20th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
The government is not in the business of “letting” or “not letting” certain movies come out: imagine the furor if V were censored. Instead they allow the movie to come out while simultaneously undermining it (using the cultural legitimacy of the NYT and other media outlets). Hence all the potential power of the movie drains away, instead of exploding all at once. This movie will get seen, eventually, but it’ll be in dribs and drabs by people sitting at home with their Netflix’d dvds.
March 20th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Well this movie was the box office winner during its opening though, so it’s off to a great start.
James, could you explain a little about how you jumped from rhetorical loops into the whole thing about clubs and enlightenment? I almost followed, but not quite. I think there might be something in what you’re saying I’d like to explore more.