So
with Synecdoche, New York and this
week’s reading there is a lot to talk about. I want to ask very seriously the
question, how do we know something is ironic or not? How do we understand
irony? Is it as simple as saying that it is a difference between what one says
and what one means? To refer to the film, recall the scene when Claire and
Caden argue because Sammy said what Caden thought. This scene highlights a
tension between thought and speech that reverberates throughout the entire
film. What do we make of the fact that there is no division between what one
thinks and what one says? In light of our conversation concerning irony, does
irony persist when knowledge is recursively broken down. By this I mean that in
Synecdoche, New York, there is anxiety about knowledge, an anxiety that we
have seen throughout in our discussion about the hipster. This anxiety also
works as an uncertainty, an uncertainty of never quite being sure what one
means, why one means something, in short, an uncertainty of whether or not the
meaning, the speech, produced by someone is genuine or sincere. Thus, the film
is structured like a mise-en-abyme. This means it is structured like an image
of a mirror reflecting itself ad infinitum. This kind of self-reflexive
structure has become a common trope and is seen by some people as pretentious
or overwrought with the sense of trying to hard to be intellectual. This is
basically what the Altered Ego essay argues is the problem with Synecdoche, New
York. I’m interested in what people think about this trope (the mirror within a
mirror) in relation to the hipster. Does it capture the hipster’s problem of
self elevation as a means of being superior, or does it suggest something much
more problematic about ourselves, about the world? I’m not sure if this
question makes a lot of sense, it is hard to talk about irony without being
ironized in turn. I’ve been wondering a lot about subjectivity in regards to
irony, sincerity, and how it is operating in Synecdoche, New York. I think this
is best seen when Caden moves from being the director to an actor being
directed. In the final scenes of the film, as I’m sure we all remember, Caden
is being told what to do and what to say by Ellen who has taken on the role of
Caden. When I first saw the final scene with Caden and the woman that played
Ellen’s mother in the dream, I thought that it was the most sincere moment of
the film. The film ends with Caden saying “I know what to do with this play
now. I have an idea. I think.” After he says this, however, Ellen’s voice is
overheard saying, “die.” In the end, even death has become subjected to the
desires of the director. The film makes us question if Caden occupies a subject
position, if he exist as an “I”, if he has a subjective “eye”? In the last
paragraph of Hip Affected Earnestness the first sentence reads, “It saddens
hipsters and thrills clothing manufacturers that trends once hip have caught on
with frat guys and sorority girls looking to spice up their wardrobe”; and the
second, “American “rebel capitalism” that “commodifies your dissent” now helps
the American consumer retail economy along at ever-greater speeds, even amidst
its current lethargy.”
In a
world where even our dissent has been capitalized and commercialized, how can
we say that our desires our “authentically” ours and not, like in Synecdoche,
New York, being directed by capitalism? I guess my big question is what is at
stake when we talk about authenticity and inauthenticity, and whom do you think
is able to claim the authentic, and who is able to disclaim the inauthentic? To
end this rather confusing post (I’m sorry) I’ve been thinking a lot about what
Jackie said a couple of weeks back about using irony to combat irony. I’m
wondering if we can think of Synecdoche, New York as an example of this kind of
mode of ironic warfare, or if we can think of other examples. Feel free to
disagree with me, or ask questions, or anything. I’m looking forward to our
discussion!
I think Rafael poses a core question in this blog post. For me, I associate irony most commonly with speech. In that sense, the tone of how someone says something reveals, to me at least, the degree of sincerity or irony in the words. The rub, however, lies in when speech is not the subject of our analysis. Thankfully, though, this week's topic was a film where we could hear, for the most part (I lost audio for about 15 minutes), how exactly people were saying what they said. In other media, such as fashion or music taste, we lose the ability to read into whether or not hipsters carry a certain tone to what they are wearing. This is especially the case with fashion. There is no way to tell if that hipster is wearing that beanie because he likes the way it looks or if he is trying to make a statement about how ugly he thinks it is. As Rafael pointed out, it is a very confusing game to play. We can attempt to interpret body language or other signs, but irony is a cruel mistress. I had trouble interpreting the degree of irony in Synecdoche as well. On one hand, I could see how it might have been an honest attempt at a film about a film about a play about a play. Wow, that was exhausting. I can see how, like the short criticism we read, someone would take it seriously. On the other hand, I trust Phillip Seymour Hoffman's judgment in regard to taking roles as well. I don't think he would have accepted such an absurd role as Caden's without knowing the film was attempting to poke fun at a lot of things and thrive on a sense of irony. I still can't get over the burning house. That amused me and bothered me in so many ways, as any great piece of irony would. I think, whether or not we choose to view the film as ironic, we have to wonder about authenticity in general. When we talk about authenticity, it is to try to give something the characteristic of being genuine or original. Inauthenticity is founded upon the idea of poserism or copycatting. The only real way to prove authenticity is through record books and see who was the first to produce this or change this or say this. With trends, however, no one really records who is the first person to wear flannel with skinny jeans, or who was the first person to listen to Vampire Weekend. That's why, with trends, it is impossible to label a genuine and a poser. There is the exception where you may know someone personally who, for example, always listened to Vampire Weekend or always wore floral headbands. As it became cool, this person likely didn't stop either.
ReplyDeleteContinued: The only gateway to determining authenticity is in observation and record. There really is no one that can claim true authenticity, especially in hipsterdom, as it is based off of cultural capital graverobbing. For example, the first people to wear trucker hats were truckers... I don't think anyone possesses a true claim to authenticity and if they do, they are likely to just sound preachy or obnoxious. The great thing about culture or sub-culture is that, throughout history, none of it is authentic. Should we go throw a tirade against fraternities and sororities for using Greek letters even though they are clearly American? No. If we quit worrying about which sects of culture are original and which are not, we may have more time to actually appreciate what is going on instead of prove that it is going on. On another note, however, I do like the idea of ironic warfare. I remember seeing a special on SNL during the 2000's and the studio is in New York City. They had to have a show 2 weeks after 9/11. And all of the interviews were along the lines of "I didn't know if we could be funny, or what we could be funny about." The show didn't make any 9/11 jokes, but slowly reincorporated their political humor and irony to highlight the state of America. In that sense, they used their irony to combat the ironic idea of a death of irony. In making an effort to show that you don't care you combat the notion that people don't care about anything. Because even if what you care about is not caring, you still care. That is my interpretation of the irony v. irony war. Regardless of how much I think about it, it will still make my brain hurt. Sayonara.
ReplyDelete