Walton and Funny Games

Walton brings up an interesting discussion in this week’s reading about whether or not an audience will enjoy a movie that supports morally questionable themes. For example, is it appropriate to enjoy a movie that claims slavery is just? Walton brings up this topic when discussing coordination between individuals during a mimetic experience. More specifically, he is talking about how we must align with the mutual beliefs of the time period during which the mimetic work was present. However, this question is relevant even for modern films. For example, Funny Games is about a family held hostage by two young men. Throughout the movie, the family is forced into physical and mental torture. In the end, the young men kill the entire family and dispose of their bodies in a nearby lake. The last scene shows the two men entering another family’s house to repeat their mayhem. This movie depicts a variety of morally questionable themes, such as the general theme of evil prevailing. As Walton mentions, to truly enjoy a story like this, one must be willing to accept these morally compromised themes while watching the film. Yet, will the audience enjoy this film? In regards to Funny Games, my feelings are mixed. I enjoyed that the film didn’t have the atypical happy ending that similar films had. At the same time, I felt unsettled after watching it.

Walton suggests that we should avoid such films that exhibit vicious or perverse conduct. Yet, there is a huge market for movies like Hostel that exhibit “torture porn.” Perhaps, like I when I was watching Funny Games, people get enjoyment from watching such violent acts, but at the same time feel unsettled when watching them. This coule be why, though there is a large market for torture porn, these movies are not the norm. People enjoy these kinds of movies on occasion, but generally like to see movies with good moral values.

Aristotle and Question 3

Unlike Plato, I don’t think Aristotle believes that mimetic works corrupt the audience. In his discussion of the elements of good mimetic art, he talks extensively about factors required to incite an emotional response from the audience. However, unless I missed this section (which is likely), he never explicitly states how this emotional response negatively affects the audience. He mentions in Book 13 that one part of a good tragedy is that we can empathize with the actions occurring while at the same time being comforted by the fact that these actions could not happen to us. In this respect, a distance is established between the audience and the artwork. This occurs because, while mimetic artworks imitate reality, they are not direct copies. Aristotle aptly reflects this in is his discussion of a tragic character from history. He discusses a good tragic character as one whom “reproduces the distinctive features of [the real] man, without losing the likeness, makes him [better] than he is…” In other words, the character is a stylized version of the actual man. The audience recognizes this difference, and subconsciously knows that the play is a more stylized version of reality. Because of this separation, people can think about a mimetic work and not be harmfully affected by it.   

The Magic of Mystery

There was an extensive debate in class today about what fear is and how it relates to mimesis. Particularly interesting was the multiple interpretations taken on what Aristotle says about this topic. In Book 13, he mentions that “pity is occasioned by undeserved misfortune, and fear by that of one like ourselves…” One interpretation of this was that that the audience is fearful of the fate of the character. For example, we are afraid for Oedipus and his fate at the end of the play. Another interpretation was that we are fearful that the misfortune depicted could happen to us. Going back to Oedipus, we are fearful that we share the character flaws that Oedipus has and could share similar misfortune. Both interpretations seem like valid causes of fear, and I think it’s difficult to tell which Aristotle intended. If pressed, I would side with the second interpretation because of the part about “that of one like ourselves.” This can be interpreted as meaning that a situation that could happen to ourselves is most fearful. What does everyone think about this?

Another good topic mentioned in class is how in horror movies we always want to see the monster, but are ultimately disappointed after it is shown. This topic got me thinking about an article I read by JJ Abrams on mystery. He says that mystery is always around us, but in our times most mysteries can be solved in a few seconds. Wondering how old Bob Dylan was when he died? Just Google it. For this reason, mysteries in stories present an anomaly. They force us “slow down and discover” the story, and actively engage it. As he aptly states “the experience of the doing really is everything. The ending should be the end of that experience, not the experience itself.”

Extending this to horror films, perhaps what incites our fear is the mystery behind the monster. By withholding the monster from the audience, the director forces them to actively engage their imagination to picture the monster. This in itself is an integral part of the experience.

Here’s the original Abrams article:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-05/mf_jjessay?currentPage=all

Aristotle's Poetics

An interesting thing I realized after reading Poetics is that very few modern movies are classical tragedies. According to Aristotle, the plot of a tragedy generally involves a single character that starts off having good fortune, but ultimately is ruined by the end of the story due to some large character flaw. At the moment, I can’t think of any modern movie that follows this general plot line. The closest one is The Wrestler, where the main character ultimately dies due to his desire for fame (though his death is never explicitly shown in the film). However, the main character doesn’t start with good fortune, as he is a washed-up wrestler who lives in a trailer. Considering how emotionally effective The Wrestler was, it is surprising to see that there aren’t many more pseudo-tragic films.

Despite the fact that films are no longer strictly tragic or epic, many of the elements of a good mimetic artwork that Aristotle describes are present in modern films. For one, Aristotle states that while a historian “describes the things that have been,” while a poet describes the “things that might be.” In other words, a poet is allowed a creative looseness in the accuracy of his story in order to attach a greater meaning to his story. For example, the movie Black Hawk Down is based on a true story, but the scenes in the movie are not completely historically accurate. This aspect was sacrificed to convey deeper themes of the hardships soldiers face in battle.

Aristotle continues to say that emotional events are most effective when “they occur unexpectedly and at the same time in consequence of one another.” In other words, a good narrative has emotionally arousing scenes that follow as a plausible consequence of the story, while at the same time are not predicted by the audience. Creating a narrative that lives to this standard is hard, and many stories often fail to satisfy both conditions. For example, writers often use deus ex machina to abruptly resolve all of the tensions built up in a narrative. While the resolution is unexpected, it is hardly a plausible ending to the story. On the other hand, typical romantic comedies like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days are the exact opposite. While the endings to these movies are plausible, they are very predictable.

The fact that many of the standards that Aristotle discusses are still used today reflects that these elements are fundamental to our enjoyment of narratives. 

Museum Exhibits: A mimetic form of art?

Earlier in class we discussed how certain buildings could be mimetic works of art. These buildings can be considered mimetic if they are architecturally exceptional, such as the Disney Concert Hall. This criterion seems to sufficiently distinguish these buildings from an average one. In this respect, several museums are mimetic works of art. A good example is the Getty, with its modernist design. In addition to the building itself, the exhibits in the museum are also separate, mimetic works of art.

Museums are designed to be a place of reflection and enlightenment. As an individual walks into a museum, the interior is designed to produce this effect. Within exhibits, curators carefully plan the placement of artwork. Without providing captions, curators can design an exhibit such that the viewer is educated by the exhibit itself. Aspects of this designing include viewing angle, lighting, and the relationship with neighboring objects. Each piece of artwork in an exhibit is an individual mimetic experience. However, examining the different artworks in succession is also a larger experience in itself. For this reason, it seems that museum exhibits are mimetic works of art.

In class on Monday we discussed the three levels of nature (is that the right way to term it?). At the highest level is the form, which can be described as the ideal object. For example, the form of a chair is a kind of ‘super-chair’ that all physical chairs are particular instances of. The next level is comprised of all the physical objects we see in the world. For example, the chair I am sitting in right now belongs in this level. The third level corresponds to things that are representations of these physical objects. It is at this level that mimesis is present. For example, a painting of a chair is at this level and considered a mimetic work of art.

If museum exhibits are truly a mimetic form of art, then does this case present a problem for Socrates’ notion of three levels? Could the exhibit itself belong to level two, as all of the artworks in the exhibit are physical objects? Granted, each individual piece of art belongs to the third level. But exhibits use multiple works, such that the individual objects (artworks) produce a new experience. If the museum exhibits belong in level two, then this presents a problem for Socrates, who says mimesis occurs only in the representations of objects. 

Introduction

Hi my name is Lakshmanan, but I usually go by Lucky. I’m a senior Neuroscience major and Philosophy minor. From the first week of classes I can tell that the notion of mimesis is a very complex topic that has wide implications. Throughout my posts I will do my best to refine my understanding of this concept, and find examples of its use in our culture.

Mimesis is an ancient Greek word that can be roughly translated as “imitate.” However, mimetic art is not simply trying to copy reality; rather, it gives a more stylized viewpoint of reality (I was wondering if one could even say that mimetic art is an extension of reality. Any thoughts?) . A mimetic exploration of art involves looking at an artwork as its own micro-world. This exploration involves more than an audience simply staring at the artwork. Instead, it involves actively participating in the emotions and story being portrayed. As St. Coolidge states, this exploration also involves a “willing suspension of disbelief.” For example, the audience of a play must be willing to overlook that the events they are watching are not actually happening (i.e. person being killed on stage), and still engage the performance. Particularly good mimetic art has an internal harmony that is evident to the audience.

Last weekend, I watched Sucker Punch and thought about mimesis as I was leaving the theatre. In short, this movie is about a girl who uses her imagination to construct an alternate reality in order to escape from the mental institution she is imprisoned in. In one scene, a fight was occurring in a castle between Elves and Orcs (think Lord of the Rings). Meanwhile, the main character flies onto the scene on a helicopter and immediately starts shooting at the Orcs with a machine gun. As I was watching this, an almost subconscious thought popped into my head that something wasn’t right in this picture. Surely machine guns didn’t exist in the Middle-Ages? However, as quickly as this thought popped into my head it disappeared and I continued to watch the movie.

Upon reflection, this experience seems to question Socrates’ thoughts on mimesis. While watching the movie, I agree with Socrates that arational part of my mind took over. I was definitely emotionally affected by the events occurring. However, for such an obvious contradiction as a machine gun in the Middle-Ages, my rational mind stepped in for a brief moment to raise its concerns. Thus, while it seems like the arational part of my mind was in control at the time, the rational mind is constantly watching in the background. When it seems that something is morally questionable or logically incoherent, this rational mind steps in to ensure that we aren’t changed by these false ideas. For this reason, no matter how many movies I watch with machine guns in the Middle-Ages, I am not going to believe that people actually used guns in that time period. What does everyone else think about this idea?