Filozofski vestnik Letnik/Volume XXIII • Številka/Number 2 • 2002 • 167-178
WHAT A WONDERFUL FASCISM: CLAIMING THE REAL IN LARS VON TRIER AND DOGMA 95
Nataša Go v ed ić
Given the dominance o f the victim as the realist documentary subject, this is cause for some concern, fo r it does not mean that the ethical difficulties faced by the realist filmmaker go away - only that they can be ignored.
B rian W in sto n 1
I.
In m any respects, th e D O G M A 95 film m o v em en t was in te n d e d an d p re sen ted as th e ir fo u n d e rs ’ (Lars V on T rie r a n d T hom as V interberg ) p lea to tu rn from th e trad itio n a l o r fictio n al film n arrativ e tow ards th e fram ings o f do cum entary film narrativ e w ithin trad itio n a l cinem a: towards the real. W hat was perceived as unreal was g e n re film , technologically advanced film editing, H ollyw ood’s ideo
logical, ec o n o m ic al a n d esth etical system o f re p resen ta tio n . In m o re u to p ian term s, DOG M A 95 initially w a n te d to escape th e b o u n d aries o f commercial film history an d th e logic o f art as rhetorical sign. Instead o f w orn-out signs, film art sh o u ld have b e e n th e a re a o f u n can n y , direct, terrible, authentic experience;
th e event o f th e R eal,2 p referab ly causing “fear a n d trem blin g,” a total Dionysiac c h a n g e o f A p o llo n ian lifestyle le d by R ilke’s archaic statue (as d escrib ed in the p o e m Apollo ’s Archaic Torso), a n d with th e final goal o f escaping the little death of d ec o d in g , signification, co n v e n tio n a l in terp re tatio n .
As usual, w h e n e v e r a n a rtist claim s T h e Real, s / h e also expresses th e will to e x it fro m an - im plicitly accep ted ! - interp retativ e legacy w here a rt is treated as “only” artificial u n reality ; a n everlasting P latonic realm o f “m e re ” shadows.
1 W inston, B rian (1999 [1995]): C laim ing the Real: The Documentary Revisited,L ondon:
B ritish Film Institute, p. 230.
2 B adiou, Alain, (1993): L ’Ethique: Essai sur la conscience du Mal,Paris: H atier.
T h e n e o n lig ht o f T h e Real is th e re fo re tra d itio n a lly lin k e d w ith discou rses th a t are p erceiv ed as far as possible fro m lin g u istic co n tro l: d isco u rses o f th e body, subconscious, d re am , politics o f d esire , p a in , illness o r d e a th . In Z ižek’s w ords “th e Real o f d e a th a n d sexuality” a n d “th e R eal o f h u m a n fin itu d e .” 3 T h e p a ra d o x o f e n te rin g th e R eal, th e R eal as L a c a n ia n “e n c o u n te r w ith th e Im p o ssib le,” re m a in s c o n n e c te d w ith b o th physical a n d m etap h y sical e x p e ri
ences o f painful, a n d a t th e sam e tim e desirable, loss (o r so m etim e s even an orgiastic explosion) o f c o n tro l. L et m e say th a t this d e fin itio n o f th e re a l as an e n c o u n te r with th e Im possible also h as m an y relig io u s c o n n o ta tio n s, o f w hich L acan was also well aw are (h e a d m itte d d e a lin g w ith “m ystical e x p e rie n c e ” o f psychoanalytical h e rm e n e u tic s4) . As a fo rm a l d e sc rip tio n , th e “e n c o u n te r with th e Im possible” is, in fact, c o n stru c te d as th e p o w erfu l rh e to ric a l fig u re called o xym oron ; a rh e to ric a l fig u re, a c c o rd in g to K e n n e th B u rk e ,5 classically c o n n e c te d w ith all th e religious p ersu asio n s, b e c au se th e su b lim e o b je c t o f fa ith gets to b e d escrib ed as so m e th in g so absolute th a t it can b e im a g in e d only as
“im possible e n c o u n te r.” T h e Real in re lig io n is th e re fo re a p a ra d o x o f m e e t
ing th e im possible o r ab so lu te N o n P re s e n c e (o r G o d ), j u s t as th e L ac an ian Real is m e e tin g with th e im possible O th e r Side o f R atio n al C o n tro l. Irra tio nal a n d in stinct, as instances o f th e R eal, h e r e s ta n d h a n d in h a n d . T h ey are n o t th e Real; they are b o th re p re s e n ta tio n s o f th e R eal, as m u c h as h u m a n love fo r St. Paul tu rn s o u t to be re p re s e n ta tio n o f fu tu re m e e tin g w ith th e R eal o r e n c o u n te rin g G od “face to fa c e .” Yet fo r L acan, “th e re is n o th in g b e h in d re p re se n ta tio n .”6 In his ow n w ords: “B eyond a p p e a ra n c e th e re is n o th in g in itself, th e re is th e gaze.”7 T h e r e fo r e th e e n c o u n te r w ith b o th divine o r L acan ian Real preserves th e n o tio n o f se m a n tic tra n s fe r o r th e rh e to ric a l p ro c e d u re , n o m a tte r how m u ch th e a rtis t claim s s / h e is en tire ly a u to b io g ra p h ic o r fully d o c u m e n ta ry o r subversively o u ts id e any kn ow n o r given sign system.
H e re o n E arth , th e R eal s tu b b o rn ly e n c o u n te rs us on ly as re p re s e n ta tio n . Žižek: The very word SIGN, in opposition to the arbitrary mark, pertains to the <an
swer o f the real>: the <sign> is given by the thing itself, it includes that at least at a certain point, the abyss separating the real from the symbolic network has been crossed, i.e. that the real itself complied with the signifier’s appeal. 8
3 Žižek, Slavoj (2001): D id Somebody Say Totalitarianism'?,L o ndon: Verso; pp. 84-85.
4 Lacan, Jacques (1998 [1973]): The Four F undam ental Principles o f Psycho-Analysis,L on
don: Vintage, p. 4-8.
5 Burke, K enneth (1961): The Rhetoric o f Religion, Studies in Logology,Berkley: C alifornia University Press.
6C opjec,Jo an (1995): Read My Desire,C am b rid g e MA: M IT Press, p. 35.
? Lacan, Jaques (1998 [1973]): The Four F undam ental Principles o f Psycho-Analysis, L on
don: Vintage, p. 103.
8 Žižek, Slavoj (2000 [1991]): Looking Awry,C am bridge MA: M IT Press, p. 32.
168
W h a t a W o n d e r f u l F a s c i s m : C l a i m i n g t h e R e a l i n L a r s V o n T r i e r a n d D o g m a 9 5
II.
In c o n ta c t w ith th e re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e tra u m a o r raw instincts, o f sub
co n sc io u s o r th e religiou sly m ira c u lo u s e x p e rie n c e (e x p erien c e o f th e abso
lu te ), o n e is s u p p o se d to tra n sfo rm . In te n se p a in a n d p leasu re, how ever, tu rn o u t to b e tra n s la te d in to id e o lo g ie s o f v ictim h o o d a n d sain th o o d , a t least for m ass p ro d u c e rs o f th e Real. T h e fo rm u la fo r th e Real, let us n o t forget, is first a n d fo re m o st a rh e to ric a l m ix tu re : th e re is n o th in g “a b so lu te” n o r d eterm in - istically “re a l” a b o u t that kind o f R eal. T h e re are o th e r signification systems b esid es psychoanalysis a n d re lig io u s re p re se n ta tio n s; n o t to m e n tio n a rt as a n a re a o f extrem ely co m p lex reality effects th a t can also chan ge us profoundly.
I am c e rta in th a t p sychoan alytical m yths, n o m a tte r ho w e n te rta in in g , are n o t a t all th e un iv ersal key to th e R eal. T hese m yths deal with in te rc o n n e c tio n b etw e en E ros, T h a n a to s a n d th e n o tio n o f n ev er-en d in g Past, or, as M alcolm Bow ie says: A n entire dimension o f Freud’s work redramatizes the myth o f the Furies:
the past is visited upon the individual in a series o f violent intrusions, and his future, i f he has one, can be envisaged only as a prolongation o f these and a continuing help
less desire to lift their curse. 9
I w ould su g g est th a t th e R eal, as radical in sig h t o r ca th a rtic re fig u ratio n o r th e (e th ic al) E v en t c a n n o t u se p re d ic ta b le sem an tic ro u tes. F or instance, in Aki K aurism aki’s film Crime and Punishment the Real is p erceived as an (im possible) desire to forgive, n o t th e sexual desire o r d eath drive. O n th e o th e r side o f th e sp ec tru m , in H ollyw ood cinem atography, sex a n d d ea th are so over
d o sed a n d over-used th a t th e re is absolutely n o th in g “im possible” o r shocking a b o u t th em . T h ey a re th e stu ff th a t Hollywood is m ad e of. P o st-m od ern A m eri
can d irec to rs like Q u e n tin T a ra n tin o an d C oen bro th ers are n o t even taking th e m seriously. W h at they fiercely mock is precisely th e seriousness o f H itchcock’s e ra a n d its psychoanalytical dream -w ork, in th e sam e way th a t R enaissance au th o rs u se d to m o ck th e s ta n d a rd o f p e rfo rm in g th e R eal o f p u b lic executions.
In b o th in stan ces, “th e R eal” ca n obviously go o u t o f date.
It is, how ever, still very m u c h possible to talk a b o u t psychoanalysis as m y th o p o e tic p rax is o f re te llin g a n d etern ally trac in g the R eal o f d e a th a n d d esire , b u t c a th a rtic p o te n tia l o f E ros a n d T h a n a to s C o rp o ra tio n , in my view, grow s m o re a n d m o re lim ited . W h e re they do h o ld pow er are very co m m o n th e ra p e u tic se rm o n s a b o u t eth ics o f pain. D iscussing K ant a n d particularly th e eth ics o f p ain , A len k a Z u p a n č ič rightfully concludes: “F ro m this p e rsp e c tive, we m ig h t d e fin e w ith g re a t p re cisio n th e lim it at w hich ethics is tran s
fo rm e d in to e ith e r te rro r, o r th e o b scu re desire fo r c a ta stro p h e. [...] [SJince
9 Bowie, M alcolm (1991), Lacan, L on d o n : Fontana, p. 182.
su ffering an d p a in b e c o m e th e m a rk o f e th ics, th e ra rity o f ‘g o o d ’ b e c o m e s th é ‘o m n ip re se n c e o f evil;’ th e in c o m p a tib ility o f eth ics a n d p le a su re leads to m e th o d ic a l m asochism [,..].”10
A n d does it also lead to p erceiv in g th e w o rld as fascist (as “o m n ip re s e n c e o f evil”)? This is th e questio n I wish to e x p lo re th ro u g h th e m ateria l o f DOG M A 95 a n d Lars V on T r ie r ’s films. B u t first le t us visit d o c u m e n ta ry film g e n re d u rin g th e p erio d o f historically re c o g n iz e d fascist era.
III.
T h e m o st fam ous ex a m p le o f d o c u m e n ta ry style u sed as a m ask fo r co m pletely d iffe ren t (fictional, m ythical, highly ideological) p u rp o se s can b e fo u n d in th e w orks o f L eni R iefenstahl, w h e re th e “re a l life e v e n t” is fram ed as d o c u m en tary narrative, b u t is ju s t as m u c h p r o p a g a n d a m a te ria l fo r H itle r ’s Nazi party. In The Triumph o f the Will ( 1934-35), R iefen sta h l em ploys several p u re ly fictional strategies to c reate the document o f th e tim e . T h e q u e s tio n a b o u t how real th e d o c u m e n ta ry film is im m e d ia te ly answ ers itself: it sim u lates th e w o rk
ings o f re a l event. W hat d o I m e a n by that? F irst o f all, R iefen sta h l insists o n p ro d u c in g sen tim en tal visual id e n tific a tio n w ith th e “m in d -n u m b in g re p e ti
tiveness”11 of u n ite d p arty im ages: p a tte r n a fte r p a tte r n o f obsessive, co llec
tive sym m etries. T his is o n e o f th e o ld e s t rh e to ric a l strategies. S econdly, she uses p e o p le as props; as th e triu m p h o f th e director's fre e will only. W h ich m eans th a t th e re is n o th in g ra n d o m o r c o n tin g e n t a b o u t h e r choices. T hirdly, she re c o rd s H itle r’s mythically fra m e d d e s c e n t to th e G e rm a n n a tio n . Finally, she p re te n d s to ig n o re th e p o litical a sp e c t o f th e very o ccasion sh e covers. The Triumph o f the Will (with the o p e n in g credit: “P ro d u c e d by O rd e r o f th e F ü h re r.
D ire cted by L en i R iefensahl”12) is specially d e s ig n e d a n d stag ed as a rally, paying sym bolic re sp ect to th e SA N azi w ing (th e b ro w n sh irt, c o m m o n , street- fightin g, m o re p o p u list a n d p ro le ta ria n stre a m o f th e N azi p a r ty ), w hose u n i
form H itle r h im self wears in th e d o c u m e n ta ry , even w hilst h e was coldly o r d e rin g “p u rg e s” (m ass killings) in th e ra n k s o f th e se very sam e, cin em atically
“h o n o r e d ” SA forces, n o t only o n th e eve o f th e rally, b u t also w hile it was taking place. R iefenstahl afterw ards p re d ic ta b ly c laim ed fa n ta stic th in g s like:
I told H itler I d o n ’t know what is SA and what is SS.13 T h e m o st m o rb id d etail in
10 Zupančič, A lenka (2000): Ethics o f the Real,L o ndon: Verso; p. 236.
11 W inston, Brian (1999 [1995]): C laim ing the Real: The Documentary Film Revisited,L on
don: British Film Institute, p. 75.
12 Barnouw, Erik ( 1993) : Documentary: A History o f the Non-Fiction Film, O xford: O xford University Press, p. 103.
13 Infield, G lenn (1976): L en i Riefenstahl: The Fallen Film Goddess,NY: Crowell, p. 74.
170
Wh a ta Wo n d e r f u l Fa s c i s m: Cl a i m i n g t h e Re a li n La r s Vo n Tr i e ra n d Do g m a 9 5
th is p a rtic u la r story c o n c e rn s th e “re a l” SA d ea th s, u n re c o g n iz e d by a n o th e r, m o re visible “re a l e v e n t” o f th e film e d occasion. B ut this is also th e case o f p u re p ro p a g a n d a o r th e m o st invisible ideological m a n ip u la tio n . As G oebbels said: People who are influenced by propaganda must not notice it.'4
In case o f Lars V o n T r ie r ’s u sag e o f d o c u m e n ta ry film te ch n iq u e s, h e does w a n t us to n o tic e th e shaky c a m e ra a n d its falling o u t o f focus as vivid “p ro o fs”
o f d ire c to rs sp ecial access to illogical S u bconscious o r the H ig h e r T ru th s o f re p re s e n ta tio n , w hile, I a rg u e , th is r e c u rre n t q u a sid o c u m e n ta ry te c h n iq u e is n o less “sta g e d ,” digitally e d ite d , n arratively c o n stru c te d , stylistically calcu
la te d , p re -re h e a rs e d a n d s c rip te d th a n R iefen sta h l’s “d o c u m e n ts .” F u rth e r
m o re , q u a sid o c u m e n ta ry te c h n iq u e is em p lo y ed to m ask T r ie r ’s “invisible”
p ro p a g a n d a m o d e l. In this m o d e l, q u asid o cu m e n ta rism is cast as th e re p re s e n ta tio n o f o u r collective S u bconscious.
IV.
T h e sub co n scio u sly “re a l” o f b o u rg e o is society is system atically rid icu led a n d g la m o riz e d in T r i e r ’s first D O G M A m ovie: The Idiots (1998). T h e victims o f social a lie n a tio n in this film d e c id e to leave th e oppressive system a n d fo rm a se p a ra te c o m m u n ity (in an em p ty villa, b elo n g in g to th e g ro u p le a d e r’s rich u n c le ). T h ey live o n “b o rro w e d ” (p e rh a p s sto len ) c o rp o ra te c re d it cards an d en jo y th e fre e d o m o f fin d in g th e ir “in n e r id io ts.” H a n d h e ld ca m e ra a n d “on- lo c a tio n ” shots, d e lib e ra te ly film e d to m ake objects a n d ch a ra c te rs out-of
focus, are h e re to c re a te th e g ra n d illusion o f cinema vérité, alth o u g h th e “d o c u m e n ta ry style” re m a in s p r e s e n t as a so p h istic ated a n d c o m p lex d ire c to r’s m o c k in g g am e w ith p e rc e p tiv e c o n v e n tio n s o f th e au d ie n c e . T h e a u d ie n c e know s th a t T rie r w orks w ith p ro fessio n al actors (som e o f th em a re fam ous an d we im m e d ia tely re c o g n iz e th e m ), w ith his own p rofessio nal (fictional) script, w ith classic takes a n d re-takes, se le c tio n o f shots, process o f ed iting . W hy is it th e n th a t h e n e e d s the documentarist rh e to ric in th e first place? Is it b ecau se a rt is n o t “re a l” e n o u g h fo r him ? D oes h e n e e d to legalise his w ork by th e crite ria o f art-d esp isin g “re alists”? O r is it b ec au se h e n ee d s a royal, th a t is, an o n eiric ro a d to o u r subco n scio u s? In any case, T rie r is only fa k in g d o cu m en ta rism a n d falsely o b ey in g D O G M A ’s “Vow o f C hastity.” If any th ing , his works show all th e ch a ra c te ristic s o f auteur cin em a ; again criticized in D O G M A ’s orig in al layout. O n to p o f it all, th e fin al v ersio n o f The Idiots was digitally rew orked by
14 Q u o te d in d o cu m en ta ry film H itler’s Henchman: Goebbels - the Firebrand, ZDF: 2000;
dir. by P ete r H artl.
th e p ro d u c e rs, b ecau se th e o rig in al v ersio n was o v e re x p o se d to lig h t a n d lit
erally im possible to use fo r fu r th e r film co p y in g a n d (m assive!) d istrib u tio n . In a fu n n y ironical twist, T r ie r ’s exclusive “d o c u m e n t o f th e R eal” was rew rit
te n in o r d e r to b e c o m e m o re c o m m e rc ia l a n d m o re p ro fita b le ; in th e H olly
w ood sen se o f th e words.
The Idiots fu rth e rm o re show a n aiv ete o f u n d e r s ta n d in g th e R eal as th e c h a ra c te rs’ nudity, sexual prom iscu ity , c h e a tin g to avoid p ay in g re s ta u ra n t bills a n d ex p letive-ridden o u tb u rsts a t b u re a u c r a tic officials. T rie r seem s to expose, again ironically, th e th re e g re a te s t m yths o f th e Sixties: co m m u n ality , sexual fre e d o m a n d th e re lig io n o f n ecessary a b n o rm a lity (m o d e lle d by th e teach in g s o f R.D. L aing a n d his an tip sy ch iatry m o v e m e n t). W hile stag ed iso
latio n in co m m u n alism a n d hym ns to n o n -in h ib ite d sex u al b e h a v io r w ork only fo r a short w hile, th e n o tio n o f tu rn in g b a c k to “id io tic ” o r m o st creative fre e d o m o u tsid e th e h istrio n ic g h e tto d o e s not w o rk fo r an y m e m b e r o f th e h istrio n ic g ro u p . B ut b e h in d th e ir collective e sc ap e in to “P rim al D rives” o f S acred Idiocy (T rier calls it spastic b e h a v io r ), th e r e is also a story a b o u t K aren, played o f course by th e p ro fessio n al actress. T o K a ren b e lo n g s th e ro le o f th e
“real v ictim ” o f society a n d th e re fo re o f a s tra n g e r to th e c o m m u n ity o f histri
onic idiots. In th e su b p lo t a b o u t K aren , the real is c o n n e c te d w ith K a re n ’s seri
ous pain ; i.e., K a re n ’s su p p re sse d g rie f o ver th e d e a th o f h e r b aby a n d p os
sible p a re n ta l abuse. Yet, th e p le a s u re p rin c ip le is also im p o r ta n t fo r K a re n ’s ch a rac te r: while visiting th e “id io tic c o m m u n ity ” o f fakes, K aren is th e only o n e to say: I have never been happier. I love you all so much. B ein g th e only m e n tally c h a lle n g e d p e rso n in th e g ro u p , in th e e n d K aren tu rn s o u t to b e th e only o n e fo r w hom th e g ro u p th e ra p y really w o rk ed .
Fascism is explicitly n a m e d a n d c o n d e m n e d in The Idiots, th ro u g h S to ffer’s (h e is th e a u th o rita ria n boss o f his c o m m u n ity ) o u tra g e d cries. T h e w orld out there, outside th e b o u n d a rie s o f S to ffe r’s c o m m u n ity , we le a rn , is d e s c rib e d as
“fuck in g fascism .” B ut th e w o rld in there, w ith in th e c o m m u n ity , is n o less discrim inatory: S toffer m akes all k in d s o f rep ressiv e h ie ra rc h ie s , h e m akes decisions a b o u t everybody else, h e even lead s th e m ale m e m b e rs o f th e g ro u p in to o n e ‘jo k in g ” a tte m p t to ra p e a fe m a le m e m b e r o f th e g ro u p . T h e fre e d o m o f S toffer’s com m unity, its ra n g e o f re p re s e n ta tio n a l m asks, is ex tre m ely lim ited. In fact, all o f th e m e m b e rs k now only th e sim p lest hypocrisy gam es:
allow ing th e ir “in n e r idiots” to b e h e a r d in p riv ate a n d safe g h e tto , b u t silen c
in g th e m in public. B elonging n e ith e r to th e o u ts id e w o rld n o r to th e h y p o critical regim e o f S to ffer’s th e a te r, K arin a p p e a rs to b e a d o u b le o u tcast. In th e “d o c u m e n ta ry ” seq u e n ces w hile in terv iew in g th e actors, T rie r h as talk to th e m a b o u t h e r c h a ra c te r with in te re st, b u t w ith o u t u n d e r s ta n d in g o r co m passion. She gets even less k in d n ess fro m h e r family. T h e re a re th e re fo re
1 7 2
Wh a ta Wo n d e r f u l Fa s c i s m: Cl a i m i n gt h e Re a l i n La r s Vo n Tr i e ra n d Do g m a 9 5
th r e e circles o f h o p e le ss iso la tio n a n d d espair: la rg e r society (attack ed by S to ffer as < fascistic>), sm all c o m m u n ity m e m b e rsh ip th a t re p e a ts th e aggres
sion fro m th e o u tsid e w orld, a n d th e sm allest u n it o f infinitely “m isp la ced ” K arin. T h a t is why I su g g est th a t T r ie r ’s nihilism m ight, in fact, promote th e very d isc rim in a to ry p o litics it d escribes. T h e sam e goes fo r his stylistic d e
vices, b a se d o n th e b e lie f th a t “th e re a l” evil has to b e fo u g h t by a faked d o c u m e n ta ry style o f d ire c tin g , o th erw ise n o o n e will take you seriously e n o u g h . A rt in itself, a r t w ith o u t th e d o c u m e n ta ris t fra m in g o f events, a r t as representa
tion, a r t th a t d o es n o t p e rfo rm u n d e r th e m yth o f live TV a n d “real p re se n c e s”
o f tru e h isto rical d o c u m e n t, is se e n as totally c o rru p te d , useless, pointless.
T h is is, o f co u rse, r a th e r naive “a rto p h o b y .”
In T r ie r ’s e a rlie r e x p re ssio n ist m ovie, Zentropa (1991), m a d e b efo re th e D O G M A years, T r ie r tells th e story a b o u t an A m erican w ho visits G erm any, on ly to d isco ver th a t we a re even now living in th e m iddle o f everlasting Nazi E u ro p e values a n d c o m m e rc e . N azi factories a n d Nazi co rp o ra tio n s are still in p o w e r a n d we a re n o t ab le to see th e re al d im en sio n o f th e re m a in in g , o n g o in g , G e rm a n a n d p a n -E u ro p e a n fascism. T h e c h ie f c h a ra c te r in Zentropa discovers th e R eal o f silen t, overw h elm in g, su p p re sse d fascism - passed to h im th ro u g h a woman a n d th ro u g h th e w orking o f sexual drives. T h e sexual d im e n sio n th e re fo re re m a in s th e g u ilt-rid d e n a re a in all o f T r ie r ’s movies. In his early film s, like Medea (1986), it is society th a t is tra ito ro u s a n d ro tte n to th e b o n e . H e n c e th e society projects itself o n to th e h e ro a n d infects th e c h ie f p ro ta g o n is t w ith its ow n p o iso n . In T r ie r ’s la te r films, like Dancer in the Dark (2000), d e a th a n d d e sire as p rin c ip le s o f th e R eal are a c c o m p a n ie d by th e w orkings o f th e A bsolute: th e h e r o in e is safe fro m fascistic m isjustices in an o th e r w orld. T h e sacrifice a n d re s u rre c tio n th e re fo re b ecam e th e only pos
sible d ire c tio n tow ards th e Real.
V.
DO G M A 95 also has its m o re sec u la r face. In T ho m as V in te rb e rg ’s Cel- ebration/Festen (1998), th e g ro u p o f actors p artic ip a te s in sh o o tin g o n loca
tio n fro m h a n d h e ld c a m e ras a c c o rd in g to DOGM A rules. Yet, co n tra ry to T r i e r ’s Idiots, th e se p e o p le m a in ta in th e c o h e re n c e o f th e therapeutic g ro u p . O n c e again, th e discovery o f p a in is narratively lin k e d with th e pleasure (even in th e film ’s title: th e p arty o r th e c e le b ra tio n ) o f orgiastic b re a k in g o f society n o rm s, a n d th e film e n d s a t th e m o m e n t w h en th e family painfully acknow l
edges, a n d fo r th e first tim e socially ostracizes (p u n ish es), th e ir incestu ou s fath er; ind irectly guilty fo r th e d e a th o f th e d a u g h te r h e sexually abused. Again
a n d again, the Real is staged a r o u n d th e p o litic a l a n d p e rs o n a l ro le o f th e victim. V in te rb e rg tightly links fam ily violence, contemporary racism a n d false sen
timentality of c o n te m p o ra ry E u ro p e , see n as n o less fascist th a n in T r i e r ’s Zentropa (th e film was originally c a lle d Europa). T h e m ain d iffe re n c e b etw e en th e two DOG M A d ire c to rs is T r ie r ’s m u c h s tro n g e r e s t/e th ic a l cynicism . Nev
erth eless, th e c o n c e p t o f th e R eal as re lig io u s a b so lu te is n o t e n tire ly c u t o u t fro m V in te rb e rg ’s films n e ith e r. The Celebration is a story a b o u t th e in c e stu o u s history a n d suicidal sacrifice o f th e o ld e st d a u g h te r in th e fam ily, so th e R eal is again a n d again in tro d u c e d th r o u g h th e victim .
VI.
N ow I wish to c o n c e n tra te o n th e lin k b e tw e e n g lo rific a tio n o f th e v ictim h o o d a n d ideology o f fascism in T r i e r ’s m o st successful a n d ac claim ed films: Breaking the Waves (1996) a n d Dancer in the Dark (20 00 ). In b o th o f th e m T rie r fu r th e r ex p lo res th e ro le o f th e FEM ALE victim ; th e le a d in g fe m a le roles are p re se n te d as em o tio n ally d is tu rb e d p e rso n a litie s w ith a p u blicly veri
fied p rivate m ythology o f self-d estru ctio n . W ith Bess fro m Breaking the Waves a n d S elm a fro m Dancer in the Dark, we e n te r in to th e W a g n e ria n fo rests o f BEAUTIFUL fascism; fascism th a t o p e n ly jo in s fo rces w ith th e C ath o lic S ub
lim e. H e re , th e W om an (th e a rc h e ty p a l o n e ) b e c o m e s th e p a in f u l/p le a s u r able R eal, an d at th e sam e tim e, th e “p u rg in g ” v eh icle o f m a sc u lin e society.
Selm a a n d Bess are p re s e n te d as h e r o in e s W IT H O U T tru e ch o ice ; m ythically d o o m e d to sacrifice th e ir life fo r th e sake o f th e greater good. B o th a re (sar
donically, in my o p in io n ) aw ard ed w ith e te r n a l salvation in H e av en . S p eak
in g th e lang u ag e o f p u re ideology, th ey p re s e n t e x e m p la ry p r o p a g a n d a m o d els o f social masochism a n d political conservatism. In th e case o f Bess, h e r obses
sive behavio r, i. e. b lin d follow ing o f w h a t sh e p erceives as d ire c t orders fro m two m ale p ro tag o n ists in th e film - G o d a n d h e r h u s b a n d J a n , a n d h e r h ig h e m o tio n a l in te re st only in J a n , h e r h isto ry o f fo rm a l e m o tio n a l b re ak d o w n s etc., - a re co n stru c te d as th e e x a c t repetition o f h e r n ative c o m m u n ity obses
sively s tric t values; values th a t sh e e n d o r s e d b e fo re J a n ’s arrival. Complete lack o f freedom in h e r religious c o m m u n ity (w hich c o u ld also s ta n d as d e fin itio n o f fascism!) is re p e a te d by h e r b lin d , slavish d e v o tio n to J a n . D esp ite o n e e p i
so d e o f sh o u tin g a t j a n ’s p ro m isc u o u s p la n s fo r h e r a n d th e e v e n t o f v o m itin g afte r she has b e e n “ra p e d ,” follow ing J a n ’s in stru c tio n s, sh e d o e s n o t have a
“will” o r “s e lf’ o f h e r own; she j u s t follow s o rd e rs. In o th e r w ords, sh e d e s p e r
ately shows th e d esire to be - in h e r ow n w ords: “a g o o d g irl.” A g o o d girl is in fact only th e o b e d ie n t girl, a n d sh e c o n sta n tly feels g uilty b ec au se sh e do es
174
W h a ta Wo n d e r f u l Fa s c i s m: Cl a i m i n gt h e Re a li n La r s Vo n Tr i e ra n d Do g m a 9 5
n o t c o n s id e r h e rs e lf to b e o b e d ie n t e n o u g h . T h e explo sion s o f h e r h u g e guilt c o m p le x a re d irec tly c o n n e c te d w ith h e r sexual behav io r (a n d p leasu re p rin cip le) . A t th e e n d o f th e m ovie, sh e w ears th e d o u b le m ask o f sexual masochism jo i n e d w ith th e ro le o f the social victim. C o n trary to G irard (1986) o p in io n , h e r sacrifice d o es n o t “p u rify ” th e c o m m u n ity w ho w atches it. O n th e contrary:
th e film co n firm s th e reality o f “a b so lu te ” violence.
W h a t we are in v ite d to ig n o re o r fo rg et h e re is th a t Bess, n o t som e h ig h e r pow er, is responsible fo r h e r choices o f obedience, th e ethics o f resp on sibility has e n te r e d even th e c o n te m p o ra ry psychiatric trea tm e n ts. We a re also invited to c o n s id e r h e r as sym bol o f goodness (th a t is th e ch a rac te ristic we h e a r a b o u t h e r m o st o fte n ), a lth o u g h Bess lacks in e le m e n ta ry com p assion fo r an y th in g o u tsid e h e r obsessive sm all u n iv erse (a m e m o ra b le ev ent o f h e r coldness is th e sc e n e in th e b e g in n in g o f th e film , w hen sh e has fu n w a tch in g coldly th e fu n e ra l o f h e r village n e ig h b o u r) . In h e r obsessive m in d , sh e is in te re ste d only in c o m p le tin g th e v io le n t tran sa ctio n : to sacrifice h e r ow n body fo r th e survival o f J a n . T h e d ire c to r a n d scrip tw riter (in th e sam e p e rs o n o f Lars Von T ie r) “ap p ro v e s” it. W e see th a t h e r Biblical sacrifice works: previously h a n d i
c a p p e d J a n is m irac u lo u sly b ack o n his feet. W h at a w o n d e rfu l fascism! A fter Bess was c o m p le te ly a b a n d o n e d by h e r evil com m unity, e x p e lle d from the C h u rc h , d e n o u n c e d by h e r m o th e r, b etra y ed by h e r b est frie n d D odo, d e
s e rte d by h e r p sy ch iatrist a n d even sto n e d by th e local c h ild re n (as “w h o re ”), she fulfils h e r ow n obsessive d esire: a t least in th e viewers a n d in J a n ’s eyes she is finally m e ta m o rp h o s e d fro m th e live sexual o b ject to the d e a d Saint (we see th e s h o t in w hich godly bells fro m som ew h ere B eyond tolls fo r Bess re su rre c tio n ). T h e Real o f sex, d e a th a n d religious A bsolute is on its clim ax. T o use Z ižek’s L ac an ian vocabu lary, w o m an is h e re only a helpless sym ptom o f cru el m ale society, a n d if it looks like as if she has b e e n “fav o red ” by th e film, it is only b e c a u se th e a u d ie n c e follow s th e story o f h e r m a g n ifice n t destruction. In th e g e n e ra l system o f o b e d ie n c e , she in tern alizes the m o st h o rrib le g ro u p o rd e r: d e n o u n c e y o u r ow n in te g rity - a n d fre e d o m - fo r th e p ow er o f H ig h e r G o o d . As C an etti u n d e rlin e s, d esc rib in g totalitarian ism a n d its system o f o p e n o r s e c re t o rd ers: It is well known that men who are acting under orders are capable of the most appalling deeds.15A ctin g under orders do es a n o th e r im p o rta n t thing: re leases Bess, like any o th e r d ivine o r sec u la r solder, from any responsibility.
She is a sac red o b je c t e x c h a n g e d b etw e en g o d a n d h e r h u s b a n d an d back to g o d again. A n d th e p o w e r o f th is id eo lo g izatio n is terrifying w h en observing female re a c tio n s to T r ie r ’s film: m an y o f th e m have in te rn a lis e d th e p ro p a g a n d a o f v ic tim h o o d so m u c h , th a t they feel as if T rie r has g ra sp e d “th e R eal”
15 C a n n ed , Elias (1992 [1960], Crowds and Power, L ondon: Penguin, p. 385.
c o n te n t o f th e ir su bconscious a n d d e s c rib e d “a tru e lo ve.” L o o k in g awry at th a t a g e n d a, we co u ld say th a t T r ie r te a c h e s w o m e n how to a d m ire th e ir own to rtu re a n d how to a c c e p t suicid e as way to s te lla r s a in th o o d .
T h e sam e divinisation o f suicidal b e h a v io u r h a p p e n s w ith S elm a in T r ie r ’s m ovie Dancer in the Dark. Selm a is ro b b e d o f h e r savings a n d fo rc e d to kill h e r attac k er in self-defence, b u t she d o e s n o t d e f e n d h e rs e lf a t th e c o u r t (w hen accused fo r m u rd e r) b ecau se sh e h as alre a d y a c c o m p lis h e d h e r ow n obses
sive m ission: she re g a in e d th e m o n e y fo r h e r s o n ’s eye o p e ra tio n . Yet it seem s th a t S elm a wants to die fro m th e very sta rt o f th e n arrativ e: sh e is so tire d o f o p p ressio n , eye sickness a n d p o v erty th a t in th e b e g in n in g o f th e film sh e alm ost in ju res h e rs e lf badly, b e fo re a facto ry fr ie n d “saves” h e r. O n a n o th e r occasion, she ig n o res a d istin c t fe e lin g th a t sh e is b e in g w a tc h e d a t th e m o m e n t o f o p e n in g h e r sec ret savings b o x , a n d th is in c id e n t in fact leads to th e ft a n d all fu r th e r crim es. Selm a refuses to see in th e m o st e le m e n ta ry sense. I f Bess is obsessive a b o u t see in g only J a n , S elm a is obsessive a b o u t b e in g b lin d to an y th in g th a t goes b ey o n d h e r daily ro u tin e . D e a th seem s like th e m o st ra d i
cal escap e, fulfilling all th e levels o f a n tic ip a tin g th e Real: p a in a n d p le a su re o f A bsolute O th e rn e ss. T his is a g a in th e m o st b e a u tifu l fascism : te a c h in g us th e b e a u ty o f d e a th . W hile S elm a’s fic tio n a l flig h ts in to H ollyw ood-like m usi
cal m e lo d ra m a (scenes sh o t in ric h d ig ita l p h o to g ra p h y a n d w ith collective c h o reo g ra p h y ) proves th e b ea u ty o f d e a th , th e ra p id w o rse n in g o f h e r sig h t a n d h e r final d ecisio n n o t to d e f e n d h e r s e lf p ro p e rly a t th e trial shows h e r d esire to sacrifice th e g rim reality o f h e r e x iste n c e as so o n as possible. T h e film is n o t c o n c e n tra te d o n h e r so n , n o r d o e s it e la b o ra te o n th e ir m u tu a l re la tio n sh ip (we see h e r n ag g in g a n d s h o u tin g a t th e boy o n ce ; th a t ’s all).
S elm a shows affection only fo r musicals and death. T h e s o n ’s o p e ra tio n is h e r
“te rrib le ” duty; n o t h e r loving ch o ice . S e lm a ’s w o rld also follow s th e triad ic s tru c tu re o f fascism: th e b ro a d e s t reality is th e reality o f th e c ru e l factory ex
p lo ita tio n , the se c o n d level is h e r obsessive savings fo r h e r so n, a n d th e th ird is th e in tim a te level o f h e r obsessive in to x ic a tio n w ith d e c e itfu l H ollyw ood s p e c ta c le . T h e b lin d o b sessio n also m a rk s th e m a in d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n A n tig o n e and T r ie r ’s h e ro in e s; A n tig o n e is c h o o sin g h e r d e a th a g a in st all social odds, she is protesting, w hile S elm a a n d Bess e n d u p k illed by silent, o b e d ie n t, in te rn a lise d a n d self-destructive social p ro g ra m m in g . In pay in g (unnecessarily) fo r h e r s o n ’s o p e r a tio n by “c u rre n c y ” o f her own death, S elm a re p e a ts a n d en d o rses th e b lin d n e ss o f th e w h o le social system . S h e ac cep ts to b e guilty fo r it.
W h a t T rier is p re s e n tin g ag a in a n d ag a in is th e o m n ip re s e n c e o f evil; th e sym bolic universe full o f suicidal desires. Is th is p ersp ectiv e p o litically realis
tic? W e can certainly factually pro v e th a t in e q u a litie s b etw e en p e o p le , b e 176
Wh a ta Wo n d e r f u l Fa s c i s m: Cl a i m i n gt h e Re a li n La r s Vo n Tr i e ra n d Do g m a 9 5
tw een classes, races, ages a n d sexes in today’s w orld are n o t g ettin g any sm aller.
T h e d e e p g ap b e tw e e n n o n -w h ite poverty a n d w hite p ro p a g a n d a co uld be c a lle d fascism ; it c o u ld b e even ca lled “capitalistic, c o rp o ra te fascism .” Yet R astko M očnik, a u th o r o f th e b o o k How Much Fascism? a n d p e rsiste n t critic o f right-w ing fascisation in th e p o stco lo n ial, post-Yugoslavian states, is careful e n o u g h to w arn us a g a in st u sin g th e te rm to o easily: fascism is an ex tre m e a n d th e re fo re politically a lm o st e m p ty te rm .161 w ould ra th e r suggest th e n o f talk in g a b o u t fascistic tendencies in otherw ise c o m p lex cu ltu re s o f o pp ressio n.
O n e c o u ld p e r h a p s say th a t T rie r w orks w ith elem e n ts o f “g o th ic” g en re.
As M ark E d m u n d s o n 17 d esc rib es th e gothic, T rie r in d e e d plays with all its ch a rac te ristic s: m a id e n in distress, m a id e n tra p p e d in h o rrib le c la u stro p h o bic situ a tio n , p u n is h m e n t fo r ex p re sse d sexual desire by d e a th , g en e ral in fa tu a tio n w ith d e a th . B u t g o th ic is also a g e n re th a t is decisively sceptical, if n o t critical o f any social a u th o ritie s .18 In itself, th e c h ie f g hotic h ero , th e Vam p ire , fu n c tio n s as a ra d ic a l p a ro d y o f any ra tio n a l o r state c o n tro l. T rie r th e re fo re n e v e r p ro d u c e s v am p iric re b e ls o r ro m a n tic outcasts w ith fangs. H e p ro d u ce s su icid al saints; h e b e lo n g s to th e C h ristian tra d itio n . B ut sh o u ld we really u n d e r s ta n d C h ris t’s sacrifice as a call fo r all o f us to kill ourselves?
D ivinisation by death, o n th e o th e r h a n d , is th e strategy o f psychotic p atien ts a n d re lig io u s c u lt m e m b e rs. T h e tra u m a o f e n c o u n te rin g th e Real o r th e A b so lu te is n o t a t all sin g u larly o r exclusively eth ica l event; it can b e u sed fo r various, in c lu d in g fascistic o r even com ic pu rp o ses. C o n sid er th e terribly shal
low b u t p o p u la r m e lo d ra m a Life Less Ordinary, d ire c te d by D ann y Boyle, w here th e a u d ie n c e is in v ited to have “f u n ” a n d la u g h te r d u rin g th e scen e w here th e h e ro , so b b in g w ith distress, g u n p o in te d at his h e a d , is fo rced to dig his own grave so m e w h e re in d e s e rte d w oods. B ut th e a u d ie n c e know s it is really an A ng el in disg uise, m o le stin g th e h e ro “to teach him a lesso n;” so th e re is n o th in g to w orry a b o u t. H ollyw ood knows all a b o u t p ub lic ex e cu tio n s in c o n c e n tra tio n cam ps, w ith its scen ery o f p riso n ers w ho are d ig g in g th e ir own graves b e fo re dying, a n d yet th e film ind u stry will use it as a comic relief se
q u e n c e . T h is is th e p o in t w h e re co m m ercial c in e m a to g ra p h y distastefully ironizes th e d o c u m e n ta ry film as tra d itio n th a t exploits T h e Real o f victim hood a n d th e R eal o f d e a th a n d d esire . D o c u m e n ta ry film s are n o t shy a b o u t q u o t
in g a n d a c c e p tin g fic tio n a l stra te g ie s e ith e r: m an y o f th e m , sin ce J o h n G rie rs o n ’s tim es, in c lu d e c o m p le te ly staged m inidram as.
Finally, th e q u e s tio n o f th e R eal seem s p ersistently c o n n e c te d with th e
16 M očnik, Rastko (1998): Koliko fašizma?, Zagreb: Arkzin, p. 147.
17 E d m u n d so n , M ark (1997): 'Nightmare on M ain Street: Angles, Sadomasochism and the Culture o f Ghotic, C am bridge MA: H arvard UP.
18 Ibid., p. 21.
re p re se n ta tio n o f th e trau m a , b u t an y r e p re s e n ta tio n o f tra u m a also in d ic a te s o p e n n e ss to nasty political m a n ip u la tio n s. N a tio n alism , fo r in sta n c e , w orks with “tra u m a ” o f th e past; re lig io n o p e ra te s w ith th r e a t a n d g u ilt o f d e sire fo r th e A bsolute. T h e ro le o f th e victim sh o u ld th e re fo re b e s tu d ie d w ith u tm o s t p recisio n . In case o f Lars V on T r ie r a n d D O G M A 95, I am co n v in c e d th a t fem ale victims a n d th e ir obsessive sacrifices p e r p e tu a te the culture o f death.
Even if we d ecide n o t to call it “fascism ,” I c h o o s e to criticise it as id eo lo g ical falsity a n d cognitive tra p o f ad v e rtisin g u ltim a te h elp lessn ess. B etw een won
derful fascism a n d ugly freedom I am r a th e r in c lin e d to m ess w ith im p e rfe c tio n s o f th e sec o n d o p tio n : th e R eal m in u s v ic tim h o o d , in b o th fic tio n a l a n d d o c u m en tary narrative.
References
B arnouw , Erik (1993) Documentary: A History o f the Non-Fiction Film, O x fo rd : O x fo rd U. Press.
B adiou, A lain (1993) L ’Ethique: Essai sur la conscience du Mal, Paris: H a tie r.
Bowie, M alcolm (1991) Lacan, L o n d o n : F o n ta n a .
B urke, K e n n eth (1961) The Rhetoric o f Religion, Studies in Logo logy, B erkley:
C alifo rn ia U. Press.
C a n n e d , Elias (1992 [I9 6 0 ]) Crowds and Power, L o n d o n : P e n g u in . C o p je c ,Jo a n (1995) Read My Desire, C a m b rid g e MA: M IT Press.
E d m u n d so n , M ark (1997) Nightmare on M ain Street: Angles, Sadomasochism and the Culture o f Ghotic, C a m b rid g e MA: H a rv a rd U. Press.
G irard, R ené (1986) The Scapegoat, B altim o re: T h e J o h n H o p k in s U. Press.
Infield, G len n (1976) Leni Riefenstahl: The Fallen Film Goddess, NY: C row ell.
Lacan, Jac q u es (1998 [1973]) T h e F o u r F u n d a m e n ta l P rin cip les o f Psycho- Analysis, L o n d o n : V intage.
M očnik, Rastko (1998) Koliko fa šizm a ?, Z agreb: A rkzin
W inston, B rian (1999 [1995]) Claiming the Real: The Documentary Film Revis
ited, L o n d o n : B ritish Film In stitu te .
Z upančič, A lenka (2000) Ethics o f the Real, L o n d o n : V erso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2000 [1991]) Looking Awry, C a m b rid g e MA: M IT Press.
Žižek, Slavoj (2001) Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?, L o n d o n : V erso.
1 7 8
