Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Rationalists and eXistenZ




On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, ken wrote:

> Dreaming (fantasy) is the support for any possible vision of 
> reality that one might have.  If you accept that the idea of 
> dialectic makes sense (ie. the interaction between the subject 
> and the object changes both) then you never quite reach the 
> point of being able to say "what you see is what you get."

I don't get this.  As far as I understand it, dialectical thinking is
precisely "you see what you get" with the understanding that there is
always something more that you cannot/have not yet seen.  This does not
mean, however, as you seem to be suggesting, that because we cannot see it
we do not invest in or work with what we can see.  Again, the point I seem
to constantly be harping on (sorry!) is that not everything is thrown up
in the air.  Critique works with what we can see precisely for the
opportunity to reveal/access that which we have not yet seen.

> Language is probably one of the only ways to achieve 
> understanding.

Yes, but language is not *the* only way.  Language, particularly among
language-loving, jargon obsessed academics enjoys some privelege, but
there are also other ways to achieve understanding.  I take Adorno's
aesthetic theory on this, or even Gadamer's Bildung and Erlebnis (which
also has a nice echo in the eXistenZ flick which you reviewed below -
albeit as a critique of the problems of knowing through experience).  I
guess my problem with the focus on language is that it doesn't seem to
be willing to take a risk.  I mean sure, all critique or forms of
knowing is going to be partial, but focusing solely on language seems to
have a smug air to it in a "you can't pin me down" kind of way.  It is
this which will probably always draw the line in the sand between the
semioticians/Lacanians and other theorists.  








Warning: talkin' about eXistenZ (the movie)

I'm curious to see/hear how people respond to this movie as opposed to
Crash, Videodrone, Scanners and the rest of the Cronenberg corpus.  I saw
the movie last night and although I enjoyed it (he is just a brilliant
filmmaker in my opinion) I found it less compelling/disorienting than
most of his work.  I mean, it felt strangely literal to me in a "look
what can happen kiddies" kind of way.  Also the language references were
just a little heavy-handed weren't they? eXistenZ, Transcendenz (sp?)?
Felt like Philosophy 100.  The body/machine motif, or more appropriately
the technologising of the body and the organicising of the machine, is an
interesting idea worth exploring but he didn't even push these limits
beyond the grotesque visuals (as you note Ken).  Even the "sexed" organ of
the bioport is literal.  I like to work when I see a movie, or at least
expect to work when I go to see a movie made by someone I consider to be
an intelligent filmmaker like Cronenberg (otherwise I don't set my
expectations very high) but eXistenZ was a let down in this respect.  I
felt spoon-fed.  Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the film and would
recommend it, but I was looking for something that would disorient me
rather than reiterate what most of the technophobes out there are already
prophecising.



Sadly oriented, or sad to be oriented,

Tanja


P.S. Beyond my overall downer of a response to the film I'd be glad to
join in a discussion of its finer points.  I suspect there is much to be
mined as a few individual scenes and motifs did prove to be compelling.