Weekly Reflection 6: Revolution in Silent Hill!

Marx, discussed last class, said that all literature and art is about class struggle - the tensions between different socioeconomic classes. This is quite a generalization, which anyone would likely be skeptical of. This in mind, I sought to find a literary work that contradicted Marx's art theory. Immediately my mind went to one of the most abstract locales of horror fiction - Silent Hill, a favorite of mine.

Silent Hill is one of those video game-turned-movies with a long run and a near-cult following. My main interest in Silent Hill pertaining to Marx are the monsters of Silent Hill. I questioned, how can monsters possibly be explained by Marx's art theory? The monsters of Silent Hill are mindless vicious killers, seeming that not much literary depth could be drawn from, especially class struggles. My expectations were amended by the plot.

The monsters of Silent Hill in the movie were created by a child named Alessa. Alessa was born to an unwed single mother in the strict Christian town 'Silent Hill.' She was endlessly bullied and harassed by both other children and adults for being a bastard child. The harassment went overboard when Alessa was set on fire by the church officials. Through sheer will, Alessa filled the town with vicious monsters in an act of revenge (Wikipedia).

The monsters of Silent Hill are metaphoric for the strength of the individual. In opposition to the corrupt church powers, Alessa overwhelms them with monsters. This is a classic example of the binary powerful-versus-powerless, making Alessa's story a microcosm of class struggles between Marx's 'bourgeoisie' (owner) and 'proletariat' (worker). The church is the owner with the power (the power of numbers, akin to the power of money for the owner), and Alessa is the worker with no power.
Alessa's miraculous will empowers her to overcome the tyranny of the church, much like Marx theorized that the will of the workers will allow them to overcome the evils of the owners. In this light, the monsters of Silent Hill do have a place in Marx's art theory. Silent Hill could even be seen as a metaphor for Marxist revolution.


Works Cited_

Wikipedia. Silent Hill (film). Anonymous author(s). URL=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill_(film)]. Accessed 3/28/2010.

Weekly Reflection 5: Zizek the Monster

"I am a monster," Lacanian philosopher Slavoj Zizek says in the nearly autobiographical film Zizek!, which we watched last class. Of course he isn't a real monster, he simply means that, based on Freudian analysis, beneath the face he puts on for the world (the ego), he, and everyone at that, is a monstrous selfish self (the id). Lacanian philosophy is based on Freud, so this is right up his alley, so to speak.

From Zizek's words, I've learned more about Lacanian psychology than I ever would Lacan's writings. Though much, perhaps most, of what Zizek says is practically nonsense, he does have moments of immense clarity of thought. After reading Lacan, I'm suspicious that I actually did read anything at all, it was so difficult to understand.

From what I gather through Zizek is that Lacanian philosophy takes the id (subconscious desires) as perpetually seeking a state of loss of necessity of autonomy. This is like the experience of being in the mother's womb, where everything is taken care of for you, and you need to do nothing. Responsibility, in this case, might be seen as the ultimate evil, or unhappiness.

While this idea is interesting in itself, I feel it can be applied to Freud's idea of self destruction. Freud said that neurotics, and to a lesser extent perhaps all people, put themselves in a cycle of self destruction that allows them not to confront their real problems. For example, a person who is constantly sabotaging their romantic relationships might have a commitment problem that they simply cannot deal with.

Regarding literary criticism, under Zizek's Lacanian analysis, the self destruction element in media might be a response to overwhelming responsibilities in this modern industrial world. Characters who are set on a path to destruction and ruin might be an insight into our own internal problems of responsibility. To have nothing to lose, like many action genre characters, would be the ultimate ideal for anyone overwhelmed with responsibility. Further, death itself is the ultimate loss of responsibility. Perhaps we can see Freud's cycle of destruction in modern American "live fast, die young" mentality through the lens of Zizek.