Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:25:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark


At 01:58 AM 25/10/00 -0400, you wrote:

>>          Except that if "God" is going to perform this miracle anyway, 
>> couldn't she have saved Emily Watson's character's degradation by just 
>> fixing the husband and her coming to her senses and leaving him?

Ken repiled:

>This is what I think is interesting about the film. God is, unquestionably, 
>barbaric. However, in my reading of the film, I offer up a slightly more 
>provocative interpretation of the ending, with the "bells ringing from
heaven." 
>I argued, when Chris and I debated this, that, in fact, the bells did not 
>exist. Jan, and the other men, heard the bells because that's what they wanted 
>to hear (the bells justify Bess's 'sacrifice' (?) and make it ok - ie. they 
>are an illusion - them en here them only to comfort their guilt and absolve 
>them from taking responsibility) --> illustrating that masculinity is not only 
>perverse, but psychotic as well.

I've asked you this before, Ken, but forget the reply: IF we follow this
interpretation, I have to ask you: how is Bess' act subversive? How does it
'disrupt' the system, if those closest to her 'hear what they want to hear'?
Well, we could answer that it is subversive for the audience, I suppose, and
you are an example of this. BUT, we both know that many viewers certainly
missed such a perspective, and talked of Bess as a Christ-figure, etc. 

Now, the fact that some people 'miss the message' does not, of course, mean
that the message isn't there. BUT - and this is where I get stuck - if we do
think of the celebrated actions as representing a kind of praxis, then are
we not advocating self-sacrifice, in full knowledge that it will, in most
cases, fall on closed ears. AND, i will remind you, that it REALLY concerns
me that Zizek describes such actions as "feminine", just as Von Trier's
sacrifical victims are always women. 

<snip>
>I'm not conviced that we "believe" the commericals, I'm only conviced that we 
>act like we believe the commericals: ie. I know that drinking Coke won't make 
>me beautiful like the people of TV, and it might even rot my teeth... 
>however... I'm going to drink Coke anyway...
>
>It isn't that we know not what we do. The problem is we know *exactly* what we 
>are doing and we're still doing it!

This is certainly true, I'm just not sure I buy Zizek's explanation for why
this is.

Chris