Interesting article on what are we, as audience members and consumers of art and culture, supposed to do in the face of male creators who are monsters, i.e. have done or said something horrible that troubles our relationship to their art.
In her discussion of Manhattan (Woody Allen), Claire Dederer makes use of terms by Heidegger to unpack the character of Tracy, who is presented by Allen as "good and pure in a way that the grown women in the film never can be".
"Heidegger has this notion of dasein and vorhandensein. Dasein means conscious presence, an entity aware of its own mortality—e.g., almost every character in every Woody Allen movie ever except Tracy. Vorhandensein, on the other hand, is a being that exists in itself; it just is—like an object, or an animal. Or Tracy. She’s glorious simply by being: inert, object-like, vorhandensein. Like the great movie stars of old, she’s a face, as Isaac so famously states in his litany of reasons to go on living: “Groucho Marx and Willie Mays; those incredible apples and pears by Cézanne; the crabs at Sam Wo’s; uh, Tracy’s face.” (Watching the film for the first time in decades, I was struck by how much Isaac’s list sounded like a Facebook gratitude post.)"
Dederer fails to mention Heidegger's affinity and membership of the Nazi party. How do we pick and choose? Perhaps this is a simple oversight on Dederer's part or perhaps her focus is on the ways in which male artists or thinkers have treated women, but why make such a distinction? Yet, if her point is that we can still take pleasure in these works, then this use of Heidegger is appropriate - but it could still have done with some self-reflexive comment.
Asking the question, "What do I do about the monster? Do I have a responsibility either way? To turn away, or to overcome my biographical distaste and watch, or read, or listen?", I am reminded by Barthes's essay, The Death of the Author, but with a different spin put on it.
Nussbaum proposes looking to the future instead of to the past to absorb the situation and event and to try to move forward, while admitting that it may include seeing to the punishment of the offender, however, "in a spirit that is deterrent rather than retaliatory." Nussbaum is not against anger as a whole, as she sees it along with fear in communication with hope and as a fuel to instantiate change and protest. Her problem is with anger that in the service of retaliation.
But is it not so that payback is sometimes feels right, good and just? Does seeing an offender behind bars not give us some relief, to feel, for example that through this punishment could come a reckoning of one's own wrongdoings? And what about the fact that an offender cannot repeat offence while locked away - does this not provide some sort of comfort? Maybe a revision of the prison system is to be called for in order, one that focuses less on the suffering of inmates and more on their growth.
She uses Nelson Mandela's story as enlightening in the proactive and productive ways to materialise anger to work towards a more socially just future.
Interview with Soon-Yi conducted by Daphne Merkin. Important and interesting to hear all sides to a complicated story with many perspectives, memories and conflicting accounts.
"“Mia wasn’t maternal to me from the get-go,” she says with some vehemence. Soon-Yi remembers, for instance, the first bath that Farrow gave her, in a Korean hotel room, as traumatic. “I’d never taken a bath by myself, because in the orphanage it was a big tub and we all got in it. Here, it was for a single person, and I was scared to get in the water by myself. So instead of doing what you would do with an infant — you know, maybe get into the water, put some toys in, put your arm in to show that you’re fine, it’s not dangerous — she just kind of threw me in.”"
We are born in monarchy (rather than democracy) - as babies we are aware of what is going on (mind) but we don’t have the capacity to move and get for ourselves what we need (body). As such, we have to make slaves out of the people around us. We need an all-giving caretaker who we can trust and boss them around, while at the same time being extremely dependent on them for affection and holding.
fear and love for one’s country and how we can be motivated by our fear instead of getting rid of it entirely. To be detached and without fear is to be without love
how to separate what is reasonable or not to fear - we must self-examine
how to preserve integrity in the face of terrible torment (e.g. the experience of war)… should we call for a return to or revival of stoicism?
Should we mistrust emotionality? (Buddhism? Stoics?) We should try to get rid of certain kinds of anger (but not the kind that fuels protest and politics)… how to do this? Stop loving. Nussbaum thinks this is taking it too far…
How to govern and discipline one’s emotions? What are positive (hope) and negative (retributive anger)? If emotions can be examined, they can be managed - is this true? Is this a call for a kind of national therapy in the hope of a productive democratic life?
How to learn what is worth caring about and not. Measure levels of anxiety based on proximity to the effects on one’s own life. How to deal with anxiety and learn whether it is something you have to live with or act against. WHAT ARE THE REALLY BIG PROBLEMS?
Can we manipulate emotions rationally? Emotions have ideas in them - e.g. compassion (it would be good if someone else’s suffering could stop) - moreover, we can manipulate compassion (propaganda) (e.g. photographs and documents around Roosevelt’s New Deal… no compassion because it was thought that poverty was to be blamed on the poor)
Cleanliness and disgust with regard to subordinating people as deeming them more like animals and not transcending their bodies as if we have risen above our animal bodies and others have not. Disgust as manufactured and taught when it comes to discriminating people within systems
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS - proactive movement to stop suffering for others rather than try to see to the death of drunk drivers (even though some acts of revenge make people “feel better”, i.e. death penalty)
fear and hope - uncertainty about the outcome even if probability is high or low - how does this make you act?
Absolutely adored this film! So apt at depicting the complexities of family dynamics and the sensitivities we grow up having because of early family experiences. Extremely charming.
The only thing I would say is that there was mostly a focus on the relationship between the brothers and the sons/father. I was so interested in and delighted by Jean, the daughter/sister character who is so subtle but so tender. She is given a spotlight moment and a monologue, yet, I felt that her relational experience to her father and brothers could have been further explored rather than tacked on as if to complete a checklist.
This article eloquently and with nuanced critique sums up in a productive way the current issues around sexual harassment. Critical of Kipnis, Rose uses psychoanalysis to look into recent books that address issues of rape, harassment, and female sexuality in order to present a thought-provoking argument on how to address the abuse of woman while leaving room for an explorative and liberating female sexuality.
She asks the question: "How can we acknowledge the viciousness of sexual harassment while leaving open the question of what sexuality at its wildest – most harmful and most exhilarating, sometimes both together – might be?"
"We need, then, to acknowledge the vagaries of human sexuality (which has always felt emancipatory to me); recognise its stubbornness once it has been locked in place (what the feminist Juliet Mitchell has described as the heavy undertow, the drag of sexual difference); insist that sexual harassment is unacceptable and must cease. Holding these apparently contradictory ideas in mind at the same time, moving on more than one front: for me this presents the greatest challenge raised by the present crisis. The tension between the various components of the issue perhaps helps us to understand why legal attempts to curtail harassment, as they have spread incrementally across campuses in the US, seem so often to be ineffective, to go awry, even to defeat themselves."
On Laura Kipnis's "wild diagnosis of ‘borderline personality disorder’" to Ludlow's accuser:
"One of its components, we are told, is ‘provocative or seductive behaviour’, at which point I find myself wanting to invoke Jane Gallop as an ally. Victimised andseductive. Far from being a sign of mental disturbance, this might instead be grounds for hope: it suggests that a woman’s ability to seduce hasn’t been completely quashed by ambient violence. Is it disordered, in a sexually disordered world, for a woman to feel something of both?"
And lastly, on Roxane Gay, having been gang raped at the age of 12:
"The legacy of that moment – above all a manic appetite that turned her body into a fortress against pain – is the subject of her memoir, Hunger, which was published last year: ‘If I was undesirable, I could keep more hurt away … My body could become so big it would never be broken again.’ "