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:
I've noticed the 'just google it' phenomenon, but it has made me realize that knowledge must have been more democratic before things like the iPhone....in other words, people in a group would reach a general agreement as to what seemed true, but it might miss the mark. Now, we have precision knowledge, to know exactly the answer to something. I think it's boring and prevents fun debate. I think it's also a way to put a person down without considering their opinion. For instance, if you want to know a date and you have a wrong date in mind, you might have valid reason why you believe that date is correct. By dismissing these reasons because of a false answer, I feel it is essentially putting the other person (their thought process and arguments) down for the sake of a 'absolute truth.' You're right, the search for the mystery is part of the fun and data checking seems to me like a way to shut minds off to potential discoveries and analysis.
ReplyDelete