Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:45:00 +0100
Subject: different deaths
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


on 21/8/03 10:50 pm, Kenneth Johnson at beeso-AT-pop.charter.net wrote:

> 
> just noticed when you write nietzscheheidegger w/o a space there's a little
> subdued laughter right in the middle

:-)

"... and although my eyes were open/ they might just as well been closed..."
[ Procul Harem, 'Whiter Shade of Pale' ]

A jesting ghost, an unwelcome uncanny ghastly guest/ghost lives and dies in
the invisible/absent hyphen [ hyp-hen, under-one ] 'twixt nietzsche and/cum
heidegger, the slippage of time of the same, of being-historical...

Speaking of ghosts and living and dying (not to mention lying and diving), I
watched a minor dark masterpiece of a film the other night: 'Sixth Sense'
with Bruce Willis sensitively [ yes, really ] playing a child
psychotherapist directed by someone with the extraordinary first name of
Night. The title, unfortunately, is a misnomer, given that the little boy
(splendidly acted) at the centre of the film only sees and hears the
ghosts... perhaps the sixth sense is the one we, the spectators, have in
being privy, being present, to the mortality play that is the film.

The little boy keeps on seeing the ghosts and seeing them as and around when
they died. It seems the ghosts need to be present to the little boy in order
to literally re-live their deaths one last time. And then they can die as
ghosts too and absent themselves from the little boy (and others,
presumably). All of the ghosts the little boy sees appear to have met
violent/murderous ends and their being present to the little boy who
interacts with them, appears to serve redemption ends; he somehow helps them
to understand and be present to their own deaths, whereupon they can die to
their deaths. The twist in this tale revolves around the psychotherapist
learning from the boy that he too is dead and one of the ghosts; as a ghost
he helps the boy to be unafraid of the other ghosts; for the
psychotherapist, helping the little boy helps him redeem his failure to help
another young man who kills himself... after having killed the
psychotherapist; the boy shows him that he is indeed dead, and this showing,
making present, is the gift the therapist needs to properly die [ throughout
the film, we see the therapist as depressed, detached and out of it ].

But what stands out in this clever and moving film is the scene where the
little boy takes part in a school play whose audience is the assembled
parents mostly. We see snatches of the play along with the therapist; then
the view changes to display the audience who shockingly are almost all
filming the play with their camcorders, their eyes covered by lenses. They
are more ghostly than the ghosts of the boy in that they are simply not
present to the play; rather, they are only there to represent the play; they
are there as representation, i.e., not there at all; their eyes are open but
might just as well be closed, eyes wide shut indeed.

The film, for me, revolves cleverly around the difference between redemption
and representation and the difference between both these and
presence/absence. Redemption brings forth what had not been brought forth in
the original; representation merely repeats at best (at this best it is
often called 'naturalistic' or 'realistic'). The film is a take on time and
death in its attempt to represent redemption through the device of a
convoluted ghost story.

[ Sorry, Ken'th, one thing led to another from your witty observation; my
first thought was not the "hehe" but the ghostly hyp-hen that rips through
time...]

regards

mP





     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---