PDF: Fragmentation and Ideology in Kira Muratova`s The Asthenic

0 e n i S For tin
48
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Allen, plusieurscitations peuvent !tre reconnues du spectateur. C'est III
. qu'elle prend tout son sens.
Genette, Gerard, Palimpsestes: la litterature au second degre, Paris, editions du
Seuil, collection Points/Essais, 1982, p. 216.
Lax, Brie, Woody Allen, Paris, editionsJulliard, 1992, p. 287.
Sauf dans Ie cas de Comidie eroti'lue d'une nuit d'ete ou l'humour prend une
place importante sans toutefois laisser en plan Ie cote psychologique du film.
Bendazzi, Giannancarlo, The Films ofWoody Allen, New York, editions Liane
Levy, 1985, p. 122 (traduction libre).
Bakhtine, Mikhail, Esthetique et theorie du roman, Paris, editions NRF
Gallimard, 1978, p. 99.
Yacowar, Maurice, The Loser Take AU: The Comic Art ofWoody Allen, New
York, Frederick Ungar Co., 1979, p. 182 (traduction libre).
Cette structure provient des trois definitions que fait Gerard Genette de la
parodie ou il mentionne que Ie «parodiste» peut egalement detoumer un
texte de son objet en Ie modifiantjuste'autant qu'il est necessaire et aussi,
d'emprunter un style pour composer dans ce style un autre texte ou traiter
un autre obj et (cette deniiere definition se relie directement aux «references
non-direetes»). (Palimpsestes: 14litterature au second degre, p. 22).
Lefebvre, Martin, «De Ia reprise a la figure: intertextualite et culture
fllmique», dans RSSI, no. 2-3, vol. 11, 1991, p: 110. .
Fragmentation and Ideology in
Kira Muratova's The Asthenic Syndrome
and Arto Paragamian'sBecause Why
Seraftma Roll
CE TEXTE TENTE DE CERNER UN ASPECT DE L'ALLIANCE DELICATE ENTRE
LA PRATIQUE DE LA FRAGMENTATION QUE L'ON RETROUVE DANS
PLUSIEURS DISCOURS MODERNISTES ETL'IDEOLOGIE DANS THEAsTHENIC SYNDROME DE KIRA MURATOVA ET BECAUSE WHY DE ARTO
P AB.AGAMIAN.IL EST DEMONTRE COMMENT, EN UTILISANT LES METODES
FORMALISTES DE LEURS PREDECESSEURS, LES CINEASTES CONTEMPO-
OUVRAGES CITES
RAINS ANALYSENT LES PROBLEMES IDEOLOGIQUES PREDOMINANTS
A~XQUELS
Bakhtine, Mikhail, Estheti'lue et theorie du roman, Paris, editions NRF Gallimard,
1978.
Bendazzi, Giannancarlo, The Films ofWoody Allen, New York, Liane Levy, 1985.
Genette, Gerard, Palimpsestes: 14litteratltre au second degre, Paris, editions du Seull,
collection Points I Bssais, 1982.
Lax. Bric, Woody Allen, Paris, editions Julliard, 1992.
Lefebvre, Martin, «De la reprise a la figure: intertextualite et culture filmiqueJ>,
dans RSSI, no. 2-3, vol. 11, 1991.
Yacowar, Maurice, The Loser Take All: The Comic Art ofWoody Allen, New York.,
Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979.
FONT FACE LEURS SOCIE.TBs-D'UN COTE ..LA BRUTALITE
CAPILLAIRE DE L'APRES-GLASNOST EN RUSSIE, ET DE L'AUTRE LA PLUS
SUBTILE VIOLENCE ENVERS LA LIBERTE INDIVIDUELLB DANS LA SOCIETE
CONTEMPORAINE CANADIENNE QUI MENE AL'ALIENATION PERSONELLE
ET SOCIALE. EN ABORDANT LA RESURGENCE DES INSTINCTS VIOLENTS
BT L'INERTIE GENBRALB LA SOCIETE RUSSE CONTEMPORAINE AINSI QUE
LA CELLULE FAMILIALB CANADIENNE, CE TEXTB EXPLICITE L'ATTENTION
QUE PORTENT LES REALISATEURS AUX SITUATIONS HISTORIQUES
CONCRETES ET SOULEVE QUELQUES QUESTIONS PAR RAPPORT AUX
PROBLEMES SOCIAUX VECUS PAR DEUX SOCIETES DIFFBRENTES DANS UNE
CONJONCTURE HISTORIQUE PARTICULIERE.
Denis Fortin est etudiant a la malmse en Etudes cinematographiques a l'Universite de Montreal. Son travail porte sur la
representation du judaisme chez Woody Allen. n s'interesse
egalement aux questions d'intertextualite au cinema.
his paper addresses the intricate alliance between the fragme~ta­
tion ofcinematic discourse and ideology itt contemporary RUSSian
and Canadian films, as exemplified in Kira Muratova's The Asthenic
Syndrome (Russia, 1989) and Arto Paragamian's Because Why (Canada,
T
C4JUUliall Journal of FilmStvdieslRevlte caJUUliellne d'ttudes dnimatographiq..es Vol; N°l
g
.5'0
Fragmentation and Ideology...
Serafima Roll
arde artistic experimentation and its
brutal suppresslOn of avant g . d th 'd ology ofthe Communist
°th t that emphaslZe
e1 e
. replacement WI ar
crude but inevitable gesture of the
a
h demonstrated in his recent
state has always been seen ~s G
.'
t Yet as Bons roys as
nd
totalitanan sta e.
" . Avant-Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, a
study The Total Art ofStaltntsm.
.
f S "a1ist Realism could be so
"ti of the doctrme 0 OCl
.
Beyond, the Imposl on
r al nature of the Russian avanteasily carried out due .to ,the apo ItlC black white, and red squares
garde. Kazimir Malevlch s num~ro:s 're to ~vercome the visible and
vividly exemplify the av~nt7gardi~t es~ "suprematist") nothingness
. the external, and to achleve abso ut.e (l.e·
world.51tisnot difficult
fthe
.and complete liberation fr~~ the~::;:s~e horizon of an apocalyptic
to see how avant-garde stnvmg tI" I xistence could absorb and
timelessness and abstract ?n~o °Rgtcal~ e doxa of mass progression
'"1ate tea
h b stract Soclalist e . Ism This insistence on overcomaSSlml
towards the horizon ~f absolut~ha~p:e::. lacing it with ideologically
0
ing history by escapmg from ItI d
J:e works ofthe underground
.
remises and its complete
saturated content eventually exp 0, e
uestion art s utoplan p
. 1
d
artists who starte to q
dical social and politica
fr
life praxiS The recent ra
separation om
' . u" necessitated are-evaluation
transformation in the ~o~mer SOYlet ::~:nd olitics and shifted the'
of the former com~liclty ber:~:ematic di;courses. This shift has
direction of both hterary ~
.
loser to the dynamics of
RUSSlan art practices c
.
ry
brought contempora
. , of the former comphct . the West The questlOnrng
1
contemporary ar 10
.,
. d the examination of what it concea s
ity of discourse and ~ohtlcs, an than what it reveals, initiated a new
from the reader or Viewer rather
d
stmodemism.
'
th t is often referre to as po
.
artistic movem~nt ~ t 1 will discuss in this essay exemplify this
The two ms" a. in the context of two continents and two
practice of re-exammatlon .
d ' their different cinematic
radically different culture~. y et esplt~ ns both films address the
"
d their themauc representa 0 •
. .
strategtes an
' d and u rooted individual or the entire
same problem-the alienate
II h P
ffmding a place in society,
,
r
pIe who lost a ope 0
h
generation 0 peo
'1' . th West through films suc as
th t has become famllar m e
1 Cou land's Generation X.
a theme a
ReaHt~ Bites or boo~ such as D~~;e::c syJrome could be seen as a
Kira Muratova s film The. X roblematic. It shows the personal
Russian version ofthe Generation . P
. ty in the post-Glasnost and
and social malaise that afflicts RUSSlan SOCle d dominance of Soviet
. ds after the protracte
early Perestroika pertO,
d
' t influence. The title of the
'
ideology has lost its power an preemmen
o
1993). On a slightly different and perhaps more theoretical level, this
essay attempts to demonstrate how the use of fragmentation in
postmodem cinema is coupled with a strong ideological agenda which
in tum asserts the political nature of contemporary cinema.
The renewed interest in the ideological nature of cinematic
discourses comes in-North America after a protracted fascination with
the avant-garde interest in the purely formal issues of artistic production, and in Russia after a long period of ideological imposition on
culture that served' in the former Soviet Union to exemplify and
strengthen the political dogma of the ruling Communist elite. The
avant-garde interest in purely formal problems was rooted in the belief
that art should address eternal and atemporal issues as well as
investigate the formal limits of artistic experimentation. This interest
not only deprived art of its transformative possibilities, as Hal Foster
suggests, I but also imposed a chasm between art and life praxis, as
Peter Burger skilfully demonstrates in his Theory of the Avant-Garde. z
The explicit separation of the avant-garde from the historical involved
the avant-garde's implicit complicity with the ideology oftechnological
progress, the limitless consumption of resources, and the accumulation
of wealth; in other words, with the very basic assumptions of the
ideology of Reason and Power that could only be sustamed by the
more advanced states' control and domination over the less-developed
nations. The 1930s interest in the Third World and the discovery of
the "savage mind," however, changed the old and seemingly stable
world order. The artists' and. scholars' eye witnessed reports on the
life ofthe Other, and the relationship between the dominions and the
colonized territories challenged traditional views and transformed
public awareness. 3 Later developments inpoststructuralist theory-including the publications ofMichel Foucault,]acques Lacan and Roland
Barthes-significantly contributed to a re-examination of the position
of Western "man" and of the exclusionary character of humanistic
discourses. Poststructuralist theorists began to question the "internal
contradictions" of structuralist poetics as well as "its complicity with
the dominant social and cultural order ."4 This precise re-examination
has triggered the promiscuous transgression of the signifier and has
led to the collapse of the hitherto stable boundaries between high and
pop culture, between discourse and life praxis and therefore between
texts and politics.
A slightIydifferent trajectory of the demise ofhermetically sealed
and ahistorical discourse has occurred in the former Soviet Union. The
51
_
0
lin
5Z
Serafima Roll
film explicitly stresses the sickness that society experiences in. this
turbulent period of radical change. "Asthenic" refers to the Greek word
"as~~neia,"meaning·lack or .loss of strength, ··weakness or even
d~bility: Compared to Western representations of alienation or social
dislocation, .proportions of this syndrome testify to the horrific consequences that ide~logicalrepression left on the Russian mentality and
culture. The fllmlS composed of two seemingly independent parts:
the- first addresses· the problem of the social and personal experience
of death,. and the second portrays the life of a high school in the new
post-SoVIet cultural climate. Unlike the avant-garde fascination with
death as ~n existential, phenomenological, or metaphysical problem,
as found m the works of Boris Pasternak, Osip Mande1shtam .Rainer
Maria Rilke, Andre Breton, Maurice Blanchot and others, Mu~atova's
attention is focussed on the sochil reception of death. Death is
re~resented not from the point of view of a personal experience of
~rmg or "entering nothingness," but from the social context in which
It occurs. Here, the traditional Russian....,and for that matter, Westernsolemni~ ofdeathiscontrasted with the banality oflife, the brutality
of emotions, the callousness of feelings, and the spontaneous abuse
_ofless.p~ot~cted members of society. The myth of death's purity and
exclusIVIty IS deconstructed by the "contaminated" reality oflife.
The .seco~d part of the film depicts the cultural sociology of the
post-SoVIet high school, an "institution of enlightenment" at the
moment of the collapse of the Soviet ideological doxa. The camera
fo~ses o~ the depiction of the everyday·that emerges after the veil
ofIdeolOgical repr~ssion has been somewhat removed from the social
_~nd cultural spheres of. life. ,What has been hitherto concealed by
ldeolo~ presents a horrific picture: rampant violence, murder, abuse
of the~ocent, brutal sexuality, but also fatigue, social inertia, the
crumblmg moral, and open chauvinism, This social and existential
chaos is further orchestrated by the s~enes of sheer philistinism
invo?v.ing people who had successfully ignored their own personal
dest1Ill~s. One prevailing motive appears, however, in ail these
thematically disparate episodes and re-surfaces over and over in this
fl1m; ~ame1y, the brutality and violence of mostly-but not
eXcluslve1y-m~leindivi.duals. This violence permeates the very fibre
of human relations and IS perceived as a norm of communication not
o~y between friends and colleagues but also between family members.
It IS a backdrop to everything that is portrayed in the film almost as
the objective representation of society's structure.
'
Fragmentation and IdeologY...
53
Yet when violence becomes the focus of the fUm, its depiction
horrifies a spectator with its brutality and its inevitable thirst for
domination. This fact is exemplified in an episode depicting the
interaction between a father and his daughter in an apartment which
is initially set up as a place of seemingly undisturbed and peacert:1
family life. The daughter's fascination with music and the father s
attachment to birds foreground the apartment as an environment that
stands apart from the chaotic brutality and violence of t~e rest of the
society, This seemingly peaceful enclave quickly reveals ltSe1~ to be an
integral part of society's violent pattern when the dau~ter s attachment to her cat goes against her father's concern for hiS nu~erous
birds threatened by the frivolous behaviour of the cat, The vlOlence
that arises from the father's and the daughter's desires to controlthe
territory parallels the situation in the animal kingdom where the
struggle for survival is accompanied by the annihilation of those who
are weaker and less protected. Muratova's depiction of personaland
social violence leaves little doubt that the general problem with
Russian post-Glasnost society is a re-surfacing ofviolent instinc~s kept
under control in the ideologically oppressive regime.
While the depiction ofviolence and its corollaries, such as contr~l
and submission, domination and enslavement, seem to b~ Mur~tova s
main preoccupation, her cinematic language suggests qUIte a di~ferent
problematic. Her cinematic discourse both tri~s to ci:c~~ventVlolence
and yet shows her awareness ofthe inherent I~P~SSl~lh~ of ove~com­
ing it completely since every artistic creatlo~ IS lmphca~ed .m the
violence ofa creative act directed towards formmg and shapmg tmages
and signs. It is through this awareness of the role of the artist ~n.d
his I her potentials and deficiencies that Muratova's personal and artIstic
strengths come forth.
"
.
Muratova's cinematic language strikes the viewer With ItS forceful
fragmentation of images. The presence of two thematically di!ferent
scenarios and two different protagonists who loosely orgamze t~e
cinematic material around themselves deconstrUcts traditional semantic
homogeneity of discourse, its closure, dominance of signifleds: and
single point of view. Moreover, the presentation of the thematiCally
disconnected episodes not only ruptures the smo~th su~face o,r
representation but also prevents the articulation of a umvoca11de~1~gt­
cal position. At the same time, a lack of any internal reaso~ exp1ammg
the bonding of the different episodes into one production and the
eschewal of the psychological element in character portrayals, does
1
;4
Serafima Roll
not invite a hermeneutic analysis and precludes any analytical
interpretation of the film. These characteristics of discourse not only
deconstruct any metaphysical tendencies, push forth the signifier, and
subvert the tradition of the "grand re«;it," but also create Muratova's
discursive playfulness. This playfulness performs a liberating function
for the viewer, bombarded by the grim picture of the Perestroika
period, and it also celebrates the departure of the dominance of the
metaphysical or the· ideological from the contemporary cinematic
climate. Thus, in spite of the depiction ofsocial chaos, open brutality,
and violence that engulfs contemporary Russia, Muratova's own
ideological position involves the celebration ofthe collapse of a single
ideology as well as the presentation of social reality after the veil of
Soviet ideology has been lifted.
Muratova's deconstruction of the traditional master narratives,
whose symbolic imagery and single point of view leads to moralizing
tendencies that we encounter in Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and others, goes
beyond an experimental and formalistic engagement with the cinematic discourse. The intentional fragmentation of the film into logically
disconnected episodes and snapshots is carried on with a certain
intentionality. These snapshots and the thematically disconnected
images fulfill a special function in her film; they juxtapose and connect
pictures of the inside with the outside, interior life with open space,
human emotions with public classroom discussions. The
interconnectedness of inside and outside not only breaks the avantgarde's preoccupation with psychological interiority but also illustrates
the ideological interpenetration of the social and private spheres and
the impossibility of viewing the life of the individual outside his I her
social and political contexts. Thus, the seeming eclecticism of Muratova's style does not simply form an avant-garde-like collage of
disparate images but shows her awareness of the ideological nature
of any discourse. Likewise, Muratova's use of representation within
particular episodes not only undermines the seeming transparency of
meaning and the idea of a discourse as a simple mirror oflife, but also
strives to underline the constructed nature ofcinematic representation
and its ideological investment. An awareness of these aspects leads
Muratova to implicate her own political position that she assumes in
creating this film. The appearance of the director of the film on the
stage in one of the episodes not only points to the meta-cinematic
nature of its creation, but also suggests Muratova's unavoidable
ideological positioning as the director ofthe film. The artist's acknowl-
Fragmentation and Ideology.•.
55
icS
nt of her impossibility to be outside of ideology .~d polfitth
d
e geme
f ' the conditions 0
e
. R
.
testifies to the artistic strength 0 Muratova 10
f
di
d cinema entertainment 10 USSla.
growing role 0 m~ ~ ;;;cause Why also speaks about a crisis that the
Arto ~aragaml~ ~ ally represented by Montreal-is undergoing
urban soclety-dsymfthi°. c illennium. Similar to Muratova, Paragamian
s m . l'
. ersonal failure,
in the last deca e 0
.
h' udience to the problems of SOCla mertla, p
I
expose.s lS~.
d abandoned goals. However, the who e
unrealized mtentlons, an.
.. hrust of his film is completely
cultural, philosophical and cmematlc : from Muratova's film is the
at
different..What sets Because .~~: ofthe collapse of the traditional
. presentatlon of the problem:
d th 'tuation of fluctuation that
stable ide.n~ity, nu~lear :~:~a~; stab~eS~tructures. Intricately interh
l'ssues permeate its visual
follows dislOtegratlOn o .
.
. ematic discourse, t ese
woven lOto a Clo
in the scenes offrequentjourneys and
landscape. They come throu~ the fUm are engaged in almost as a
. I
purpose
travels that the characters 0
permanent occupation. Yet their travlik~llinghas no~=,:::situation
.
.
d' presented more e an escape
.ourne . The scenes of frequent travel are
or destinatlOn an l~
Yf
tments and partners, and the
rather that a meamngful J
then reinforced by the change ~ apar.
etual dissatisfaction with
sense of instability comes forth 10 the pe~ch for other locales that,
blem The scenes of
the situation that forces characters to s~a
_I:
1 do not resolve the malO pro
.
ulllortunate y,
.
h I: h I ce where one achieves a state
bU'
.
change or searc lor t epa
contlnUOUS
.'
fpermanent transition, insta lty
ofequilibrium create an ltnpr~Ssdil~ntO the dissolution of values which
fl
.
d in turn 10 ca e
in order to feel.that
in life. Yet the characters i~V~~~~~:n~~~e~ possibility to forge their
place w~ere;heY'~~:~~~~e:are nei~er particularly young nor they
persona an s~C1a 1
. deeds or crimes committed in the past. On
are ''burdened by any eV1I
d as leasant and ordinary citizens
the contrary, they are portraye
.p.
fl'v'lng What then, is at
. .
1h
drum aCtiVity 0 1
.
,
involved 10 the norma um
th
eneration of Montrealers
stake in this film which presents e youdnggompassion and precise
.
h
nseof humor, gene c
'
.
wlth suc a se
.
f Uncle Vania or a bnghter,
~ Is it another verSlOn 0
'
.
.
charactenzatlon,
. d
.
of Beckett to the
.
d much less morbld a aptation
more comtC an
. I'
gm'alized allophone's view
Canadian situation? s lt a mar
..
. .) f the· formerly dominant
contemporary
(Paragamian is of ~~en: Of1~~T:e latter might be the most
anglophone populatlon 10 ontre
:~~n;~~:~:~~ldS
~el:::a:::;::t:r~~~:~~:
JW··
51
Serafima Roll
Fragmentation and Ideology.. ,
appropriate answer but it needs in my view some clarifications and
requires a further look at the problems the film explores.
While Paragamian's depiction of the disintegration of stable
traditional structures that formally explained the purpose of human
destiny is the main thematic thrust of his film, his main target is the
exposition of the effect of this situation on society at large and a
questioning of the possibility of survival of a society that has lost any
sense of purpose and becoming. Paragamian explores this problem
through questioning the effect of the disappearance of essential
characteristics that defined human identities, such as meaningfulness
of communication, a possibility of having feelings of respect or
compassion for the other, a sense of direction in life or fulfillment of
social roles. Disintegration of meaningful discourse and loss of
direction in life are perhaps the most striking, and I would mostly like
to dwell on them.
. The waning of the role of meaningful exchange, communication
of feelings, or both understanding one's own desires and having the
ability to articulate them permeate the communication patterns of all
the characters regardless of age or profession. It comes through often
innocuously in comic situations and is expressed in simple statements
like "nothing" or "nobody" or in responses such as "because-because"
that give no reasonable or logical explanation to the events that took
place in life. At times the characters' inability to communicate is
rendered through incomplete declarative statements negating the very
idea of reasonable explanation or purposefulness of action. The feeling
of disconnectedness from oneself is also expressed through unpretentious recourse to polite cliches or conventional phrases that conveniently cover up the hidden emptiness offeelings or self-awareness. One
often senses that the shapes of phrases are left intact but the content
is irretrievably gone and that what is left of meaningful discourse is
an empty corpse that people play with either because they have lost
all hopes to "reml" it or because of their indifference to themselves.
These scenes of communication gone astray are reminiscentbfJean
Baudrillard's descriptions of simulated actions arising from a general
implosion of meaning and a neutralizing effect between the referent
and the signified. 6 And they do point to the same problem of a loss of
primary interest in the secrets oflife. A few scenes in the film highlight
this idea in the context ofcharacters' inability to relate to each other.
The one in question here is a conversation between two close friends ,
Arto and Alex, who after a long separation are reunited on Alex's
balcony in Montreal:
56
Alex: I think it's time...
Arto: Oh, definitely. Time for what?
Alex: Kids.
Arto: What?
Alex: Kids. I think it's time to have kids.
Arto:What?
Alex: Yes.
Arto: Ab, kids... Yes, that's it. Meaning, the true cause. Kids, it's one of
the most important things. Isn't it? To leave something ofyourselfbehind
after you die... I mean what· else is there? Nothing. That's what...
Alex: That's it.
Arto: What that's it. I was kidding.
Alex: You were, ab. I wasn't.
Arto: You weren't? I thought you were. I was.
Alex: I wasn't.
Arto: I understood kids, but why?
Alex: Why? "/3ecause.ljust think. that...having kids...would... You know,
I just really think. it would just... I just really think it would.. ,7
As the dialogue succinctly demonstrates, a lack of meaningful
exchange arises from different ideologies that the friends attach to the
same words. The polysemous signification of words is behind the
dialogue's irony and it introduces a sense ofhumor and lightness into
the discourse. While by itself this aspect could carry on the dialogue
in the Beckettian tradition of the disintegration of ultimate meaning,
Paragamian attempts a different strategy.8In contrast to Beckett and
other late modernists he is not just interested in the formal aspects of
linguistic discord or in the limits of representation. His creative energy
goes beyond a simple play with words and targets a problem that
underlines the characters' inability to have a meaningful dialogue. The
gap in communication that separates characters arises largely due to
the characters own internal dynamic. Their inability to see what each
of them says reflects a detachment from their own feelings and
emotions. The disparity between words and their psyches not only
makes them float along the surface of life but renders their actions
futile. While the above mentioned conversation shows the end result
of the individual problems, the full picture of the characters' internal
dynamics becomes evident vis-a-vis their actions. As the film progresses
I
58
Fragmentation and Ideology...
Serafima, Roll
the audience subsequently learns that the values they articulate are
not substa~tiatedby their actions in life and thus perceives a different
reason for their lack of communication. Arto's denial of any meaning
to the traditional family strUcture that served procreational purposes
is strangely contradicted by his inability to find something that would
replace the reproductive ideology ofold family values andhence leaves
his relationship with Alay meaningless. 9 Furthermore. his denial ofthe
idea of posterity should have shifted his entire life energy into the
present and have made him experiericed it intensely. to This, however,
does not happen and Arto is not only idle but seems to depend a lot
on his friends for support and assurance that his life has some purpose.
Alex's problem is completely different and arises from the gap between
his desires and his inability to enact them in life. He is not only
financially and emotionally incapable ofrearing children (a point made
by both of his short-lived relationships) but is also shown to be
incapable of taking care of the children of his second girlfriend.
'The gap between the characters' words and actions is unobtrusively captured in the dialogue. Alex's inability to bring up children is
exactly expressed in his inability to provide any meaningful explanation
for his desire to have children. It is this disparity between desire and
unawareness of its purpose and meaning that suggests Alex's loss of
any direction in life. In Arto's case the harsh nihilism of the traditional
family values sounds suspicious if not altogether comic for it comes
at the time of his return to Montreal to the same girlfriend, after his
unsuccessful escape from the situation that threatens to bind him to
the same place and the same partner.
The lack of meaningful communication is then a problem that
resides not in the inability of language to carry meaning but in the
characters' inability to locate themselves in particular historical
circumstances. Paragamian does not put much emphasis on the
depiction of new socio-economic conditions in abstract or general
terms but rather shows what role they play in the changing nature of
human identities. However, the pitfall ofcontemporary socio-economic
structures is indirectly suggested through contrasts between the
unfortunate characters and the relative economic prosperity ofthe city
where they live, as well as between the purposeless wandering of
characters and the scenes ofbeautiful and powerful nature. What then
prevents these good-natured and intelligent people from becoming
fully fledged individuals who would have a sense ofpersonal and social
fulfillment in life? Is it the socio-economic and political reality of
59
contemporary post-industrial urban society that shifts emphasis from
individual strength to corporate powers and diminishes the space for
public freedom and people's input-the forum which would enable
individuals to feel themselves socially engaged? To what extent are the
personal problems of characters part of a larger problem-the issues
ofpostmodem politics and a culture industry that prevent individuals
from identifying their needs and enacting their essential desires?
Paragamian's focus rests more on the effect of contemporary postindustrial politics on individual lives, and he shows this effect through
the alienated nature ofMs characters. Yet within this specific problem
he intricately links the issue of characters' alienation with their loss
of consciousness and self-awareness. One can undoubtedly sense
Paragamian implications, namely that lack of self-consciousness is a
ll
normal s~quence of repressive politics towards the individual.
Paragamian, however, avoids harsh criticism or direct moralizing.
Instead, he emphasizes what has replaced inquiries of the individual
into his/her needs andbrought him/ her to the state ofdisequilibrium.
It is not surprising then that language would play such a maJor role
in characterizing the social and psychological landscape ofthe film for
it is through language that human alienation becomes'most percep-
.~..
I,
tible.
One ofthe key dialogues in the film exactly exemplifies the extent
of human misfortune brought about by an individual's interest in
abstract philosophical concepts or metaphysical ideas. These concepts
not only give rise to changing ideologies that we easily subs~ribe. to
but they also conceal the historical reality that demands exammatlon
in order to initiate a change. By this change Paragamian obviously
implies not a simple simulacrum that easily adapts to ideologically
based cultures, but rather the change that would make a perceptibly
substantial effect. Hence he shows how simulated ideologies and
concepts turn people's communication into absurdity and eve~ bring
them to tragic ends. The falsity of philosophical concepts easl1y falls
flat in the presence of the immediate and the everyday, and Andre's
death (occuring immediately after the end of this dialogue) is not
unrelated to the truly morbid nature of his pragmatic mind:
Andre: Well, what about nothingness?
Albert: What?
Andre: Nothingness.
Albert: What about it?
60
Serafima Roll
Andre: Being, being and nothingness?
Albert: What about them?
Andre: Which is bigger?
Albert: What do you mean which is bigger?
Andre: Which is bigger,·being or nothingness?
Albert: Eternity.
Andre: I didn't mention eternity. I said being or nothingness.
Albert: Being, being is bigger.
Andre: No, it is not. Nothingness is a hundred times bigger than
being, at least.
Albert: Oh, come on, how can you measure them.
What then is missing in people's communication and in their
desire-to reach the other and touch the base of human needs? We saw
that the characters' inability to communicate is rooted in their
detachment from their own bodily needs and emotions or in their
tendency to deny the problem at hand and instead have recourse to
abstract concepts and ideologies. But is there any positive way of
dealing with the issue? Paragamiandoes not address this problem
directly, and prefers (as many contemporary artists do) to deal with it
through suggesting what is wrong with people's lives rather then
saying "what is not in place." I will return to this issue later, but will
mention here only that this approach has a certain value, for it
represents reality more authentically and leaves any moralizing or
utopian projections outside of the film. There is, however, a scene that
comes close to being taken as a positive nucleus which would allow
further creative and constructive approaches to the whole problem.
This scene provides children's comments on the adults' failures and
makes adults look like children and children like adults. It captUres
children's dissatisfaction with the story narrated to them by Alex. Not
only they are discouraged by Alex's lack of imagination and his
inability to transcend personal fears and lack of belief in himself
through narrative but they are particularly distressed by his m:ability
to bring the story to an end. The children's response to Alex's loss of
confidence and mental inertia is a strikingly fresh suggestion and it
injects a different energy into the entire film: "we told him that he
didn't need another ending, he didn't need a new ending, he needed
another story."
A completely different story is perhaps what the contemporary
Canadian urban society needs, according to Paragamian. His ethnic
Fragmentation and Ideology...
61
ongm comes through in this suggestion, for his descent from a
traditional culture undoubtedly carries with it a set of beliefs and
values that had previously enabled people to see themselves as fullyfledged individuals even though that feeling was achieved through a
denial ofvarious discriminatory practices. The disappearance ofthese
stories is both a consequence of the contemporary North American
social and cultural environment and an indication of the transitional
period that attempts to re-evaluate traditional narratives and articulate
new stories in which discriminatory politics is viewed negatively.
Because Why exactly addresses the situation that occurs when old
narrative structures do not hold but the time for new ones has not yet
arrived. It articulates with humour and verbal and cinematic mastery
a situation of changing attitudes, personal anxieties about the future
and the inability to forge new identities or different values that would
easily replace the traditional narratives which cannot satisfy our
contemporary sense of community and our roles in it. Because Why
depicts the state of inertia or purposeless actions which show an
individual's internal dislocation (at least within the represented milieu
of middle-class heterosexual white people) caused by the demise of
traditional values and old beliefs. What Paragamian shows his audience
is the transitional period when old humanistic precepts no longer hold
and when new values have not yet become part of everyday reality .12
Paragamian's cinematic language, however, articulates his position
much more forcefully than any explication of the film based on
thematic analysis. It is Paragamian's cinematic technique that enables
the audience to laugh at itself, to relieve itself of tension, and to keep
on going. The episodic structuring of the film, the lack ofcommunication and meaningful exchange in the dialogues, as well as the portrayal
of the fragmented, uncertain, and socially undetermined characters
bear witness to the failure of positivistic thinking and to a crisis of the
legitimating power of meta-discourses that were the basis of the
nineteenth-century concepts of social interaction, science and law. In
other words, Paragamian's representation ofurban society's social and
cultural problems speaks to the demise ofthe long tradition ofWestem
metaphysics with its insistence on phonocentrism, coherent and unified
subjectivity, the idea of presence and the inner substance of expressions. These concerns associate Paragamian with the ideas of JeanFran~ois Lyotard and Jacques Derrida.
In The Postmodem Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Lyotard speaks
about the crisis of narrative discourses based on customary and
r
62
Serafima Roll
traditional knowledge. These texts are often grounded on the rhythmic
repetition of a certain metre, on the synthesis of the beat with a
regular period; while displaying the musical and vibratory property
of the language, these texts obey the tradition and the form of a ritual.
Originating in religious piety, these texts articulate the rules that
constitute social bonding since their pragmatic properties assert the
similarities of all discourses, a strategy that forces people to perceive
themselves as the same regardless of race, gender, or socio-economic
position. Lyotard, therefore, asserts the legitimacy oflanguage games
which not only deconstruct the totality of social bonding, but also
allow for differences to be articulated in a hope that these differences
will teach people to be sensible and tolerant "to the incommensurable."13
Jacques Derrida's critique of Western metaphysics addresses a
similar problem regarding the totalizing nature ofmeta-discourses. His
ar~ment is much more complex than can be summarized here and
therefore my use ofDerrida's ideas will be restricted to the issue of
signification as it relates to Paragamian's conception of language.
Derrida's main point is that the traditional privileging of speech over
writing is based on the idea of signifying substance or consciousness.
Use of the voice, as something already in existence, has often been
associated with consciousness; on such a view, the speaker considers
him /herselfto be conscious because he / she emits thoughts and names
objects. Speaking not only reinforces the idea of a speaker's presence
in the world but also emphasizes the importance of concepts or
signifieds as a natural phenomenon of communication or interaction.
Derrida argues that within written discourses where the signifier is
problematized due to its phonic, graphic, or spatial characteristics, it
becomes impossible simply to reduce the signifier to the signified. In
writing, and especially i~ discourses that privilege the signifier, the
articulation of concepts is replaced by the play of semantic and formal
differences that he calls "traces." As a result, Derrida proposes a new
concept of writing based on traces or differences that, due to their
continuous referencing of other differences in a linguistic system,
prevent the name from being present in and ontself. Derrida's concept
of writing stresses the endless play of formal linguistic connotations
which resists an articulation of definite meaning or the signified. It is
not difficult to see that the endless play of differences not only
deconstucts the idea ofpresence and conceptual thinking, but subverts
Fragment4tion and Ideology.•.
63
the whole tradition of metaphysical thought based on the idea of the
presence of consciousness. 14
Paragamian's dialogues apdy demonstrate Derrida's idea of .
writing. Not only do they articulate his theory of the play of differences that prevents the dialogue from arriving at a definite meaning,
but they also show the absurdity of metaphysical concepts in a way
that is accessible to a non-philosophical mind. Likewise, they exemplify
Lyotard's idea of the legitimation oflanguage games, of the inconsistencies and unstable linguistic combinations that prevent the univocal
meaning, the "expectation of salvation," and social bonding.
Paragamian's presentation ofthe problems articulated by Lyotard
and Derrida is however different from the detached and quasi-theoretical analysis ofcontemporary French philosophers. 'What sets Paragamian's portrayal of personal and social crisis apart from his theoretical
predecessors is that his presentation of the crisis of knowledge based
on the univocality of meaning, pragmatics or metaphysical concepts
is articulated not as a positive phenomenon but as an inevitable
consequence of the disintegration of traditional values. The ~bsence
of meaningful exchange and the characters' inability to know and
express their desires are rendered as a displacement and a lack of
understanding of human needs. No harsh criticism is intended in the
portrayal of this misfortune, but a subtle sense of humour renders
Paragamian' vision of the situation as inadequate and inhuman.
Furthermore, Paragamian's presentation ofthe demise ofmetaphysics
and traditional social structures is integrllted into the cultural and
political domains. In Because Why, the fragmentation of personal
identity and the disintegration of family strUcture that permeate
contemporary North American society are presented as a consequence
ofa new economic reality that forces urban inhabitants ofvarious ages
and different professions to live in the same low-rise downtown
apartment building. This apartment building becomes the symbol of
a society that attempts to survive the conditions of free-floating
identities and disintegration of formerly unquestioned values.
In these ways both Muratova and Paragamian show their audiences images of societies undergoing significant social·and cultural
changes after the humanistic belief in will power, progress or any
single ideology has disintegrated or fallen down like the Berli~ Wall.
Likewise, both directors portray the consequences of the SOClal and
personal crises now unfolding in two different societies. Both of them
also implicate the crises in the new ideological situations experienced
64
,
J~-
Serafima Roll
Fragmentation and Ideology...
by their societies. What also brings them· together is the subtlety of
their cinematic critiques of social situations. As compared to some
explicit and harsh criticisms in North America of social abuse, power
struggles and the administration ofrights and privileges, Muratova and
Paragamian keep relatively silent and allow events to speak for
themselves. By eschewing open judgement and strong criticism, they
withdraw from a position of absolute knowledge and totalizing
assuredness, thereby leaving the space for the opinion of the Other.
At the same time, Muratova and Paragamian's use ofclipped shots and
their pervasive fragmentation of cinematic narratives set them apart
. from contemporary and highly commercial directors such as Quentin
Tarantino (Pulp Fiction) and Oliver Stone (Natural Born-Killers). All four
rely on the avant-garde technique of fragmented and disconnected
collage of thematically disparate images at the expense of a mimetic
reproduction of events and character portrayal. However, whereas
Tarantino and especially Stone emphasize sensationalism-and what
Guy Debord and]ean Baudrillard identify as a simulation of images
so as to achieve a hypertext and to expose the society of spectac1e 15 -Muratova and Paragarnian do not sell out to the commercial
market of advertising images and showbiz personalities. 16
In addition to their numerous resemblances, there are certain
differences in Muratova's and Paragamian's presentations of the
interconnectedness offragmentation and ideology and these differences
perhaps testify to different cultural sensibilities and political contexts.
While Muratova's analysis of contemporary Russian society investigates the issue of violence and abuse that openly resurfaces in the
situation ofdiminished governmental control, Paragamian shows social
and personal crisis after the belief in equal opportunities, democratic
justice, unlimited natural resources and enlightenment have been
abandoned as either naive or unrealistic. Both directors demonstrate
what Groys would call post-utopian social and ideological situations.
Muratova does it with a sense of reproach and a feeling of denied
happiness; Paragamian allows his audience to laugh at situatioris with
which viewers easily identify.Paragamian's sense of levity and near
playfulness, however, itselfpossesses a tinge of immense dissatisfaction
that he wants his audience to experience in the hope of engaging in
the creation of new cultural dynamics.
NOTES
Research for this paper was ftnded by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council ofCanada.
1. Hal Foster, "Postmodernism in Parallax," October 63 (1993): 3.
Z. Peter BUrger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, trans. from the German Michael
Shaw, fwd. Jochen Schulte-Sasse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press), 3S~S4.
3. See, for example, an interesting account ofthe large exhibition concerning
the French colonies in 'Paris in 1931 and the Surrealists' response to it with
a show titled "The Truth about the Colonies;" Foster, 11.
4. Craig.Owens, "Representation, Appropriation, and Power," Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture, ed. Scott Bryson, Barbara Kruger et.
al. (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1992), 9Z.
S. See, for example, Groys' assessment ofMalevich's art: "Malevich experi~nces
this disappearance of perspective and the rejection of illusory three-dimensional space as a release into the freedom of the boundless cosmic space of
infinite nothingness;" Boris Groys, The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde,
AestheticDictatorship, and Beyond, trans. Charles Rougle (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 199Z), 83.
6. Jean Baudrillard. Simulatwns, trans. 'Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip
Beitchamn (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983),57-58.
7. This and the other quotations from Because Why are reproduced here with
the permission of Aska Production, which owns the copyright to the film.
8. For an excellent study of Beckett's art see Wolfgang Iser, 'When Is the End
Not the End~ The Idea ofFiction in Beckett," On Beckett: Essays and Criticism,
ed. S. E. Gontarski(New York: Grove Press, 1986), 46-64, and M. Esslin, The
Theatre ofthe Absurd (New York: Doubleday, 1961).
9. The problem of the disintegratio~ of traditional family which leaves an
empty space in individual life has become one of the major themes of
contemporary cinema. While Canadian director, Denys Arcand, captured
it in Love and Human Remains, the British director Mike Leigh depicted it in
the Naked. It is interesting to note here that the most recent film by
Cronenberg Crash (based on James G. Ballard's novel), which made a hit at
Cannes this spring, also dwells on a relevant problem-the danger of rampant
sexuality and unlimited freedom that replaced the ideology of reproduction
in the traditional family structure. I am offering here Ballard's comments
on his book and Cronenberg's fUm that make succinct commentaries on this
large issue: "The book and the film are cautionary tales. Over the last 50
years, the separation of sex from the reproductive role has unleashed the
sexual imagination, which is a very powerful, dangerous force. We're very
much at the mercy of our conventions, which include the idea that a happy
marriage is the greatest happiness. The trouble is, you can't buy it off a shelf.
Most people do not find it, and they search for it in different ways. We live
4ii4WLJ
:;;
66
10.
11.
12.
13.
Fragment4tion and Ideology...
Serafima Roll
in an era of, reiative to my grandparents' standards, unlimited leisure
opportunities. And idle hands tum to masturbation, to coin an awful phrase.
Peopte nowdays can experiment with their lives." LiamLacey, "Down 'n'
Dirty at Cronenberg's Crash Site," Glolle and MAil, May 20, 1996, A8.
On the point ofliving in the present see Friederich Nietzsche's, "On the Uses
and Disadvantages ofHistory for Life" in his Untimely Meditations, trans. R.J.
Hollingdale, intro.J.P. Stem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987),
57-123.
For a recent analysis of the relationship between corporate state and
individual freedom see John Ralston Saul, The UnconsciollS Civilization
(Concord, Canada: House ofAnansi Press, 1995). Consider, for example this
quotation: "Certainly corporatism is creating a conformist society... The slow
emergence of strict modem corporatism can be seen in our attempts, over
the last half-century, to deal with this issue of obedience. It was given
enotInous play after the Wodd War Two ~hen German officers and officials
were tried and convicted at Nuremberg for having obeyed orders. Today
we are inundated by trials and official inquiries revolving around this same
question ofwhether or not to obey orders... Increasingly, those who follow
.orders are being acquitted. Why? Because increasingly our society ,does not
see social obligation as the primary obligation of th~ individual," 90-91.
This transitional period has been going on since the late 1960s in North
America. It is only now, however, that the social repercussions ofthis new
psychological dislocation of mosdy young people are becoming strikingly
apparent. Recently, dislocation has became such a pervasive phenomenon
that it influenc.es the general economy of the continent; it is, therefore,
thematized in the productions of the major publishing and movie companies
as well as discussed at academic conferences and featured in course curricula
at universities.
Jean-Franl;ois Lyotard, The Postmodem Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans.
from the French Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, fwd. Frederic
Jameson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), xxv, 21, 81. It
is a culturally interesting phenomenon that Paragamian's cinematic strategies
reflect Lyotard's idea of postmodernism as the. crisis of stable language
combinations and as advocation ofheterogeneity oflanguage games which
would give rise to invention. As FredericJameson points out in his introduction to The Postmodem Condition, Lyotard's position is defined not by his
unwillingness to see postmodernism as a radical break from high modernism,
but rather by his postulation of postmodernism as a criticism of specific
formal aspects of modernist styles. Lyotard's position differs from the
contemporary North American version of the postmodern which stresses
a renewed interest in representation and its ideology, which in tum gives
rise to new areas of inquiries such as femi,nism, postcolonial, and queer
studies. Paragamian's closeness to Lyotard's view raises questions about the
differences between the European and North American practices of
61
postffiodernism; however a discussion ofthis phenomenon has to be left out
of this paper for it requires a much lengthier analysis tha~ space ~ows:
14. Jacques Derrida. Positions, trans. and annot. Alan Bass (Chicago: Umverslty
of Chicago Press, 1981), 52, 74, 80.
15. See Guy Debord, Society ofthe SpectaCle (Detroit: Black and Red, 1977) and
Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, trans. Malcolm Imrie (New York:
Verso, 1990) and Jean Baudrillard, Simulations, trans. Paul Foss, Paul Patton,
and Philip Beitehman (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983).
16.. For an interesting analysis of Natural Born Killers and the issue of violence
in contemporary cinema; see Jose Arroyo, "Knocking 'Em Dead at the Box
Office: Natural Born Killers," Border/Lines 34/35 (1995): 10-14.
I
'I
I
.
I
(
I
\
{
Serafima Roll is an Assistant Professor at the Department of
Russian and Slavic Studies, McGill University. She has published extensively on Russian and European Modernisms,
particularly on such authors as Rainer Maria Rilke, Andre
Breton. Osip Mandelshtam and Boris Pasternak. She is currently engaged in research on Russian Postmodemism and contempora.ry Russian and North American cinema a.nd media.