Changes

<table border=The tension of this scene consists in the radical incommensurability between the two [[subjective]] perspectives: what is for him the light-hearted flirt with the [[idea]] of a brief [[sexual]] affair is for her the question of life and [[death]]. We see the girl as an utterly terrified human [[being]], while the man is not even directly addresing her, but rather treating her as an object, a pretext for his loud monologue... So what is so thoroughly false here? The fact that the scene presents a (psychologically) [[impossible]] [[position]] of [[enunciation]] of its [[subject]]: it renders his [[split]] attitude towards the terrified Jewish girl as his direct [[psychological]] [[self]]-[[experience]]. The only way correctly to render this split would have been to [[stage]] the scene in a Brechtian way, with the actor playing the Nazi villain directly addressing the [[public]]: "0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%I, the commander of the concentration camp, find this girl sexually very attractive; I can do with my prisoners whatever I [[want]], so I can rape her with impunity. However, I am also impregnated by the racist [[ideology]] which tells me that Jews are filthy and unworthy of my attention. So I do not [[know]] how to decide..."<br><br>

The [[falsity]] of <tbody><tr><td width="15%"i>Schindler's List</tdi><td valign=is thus the same as the falsity of those who seek the clue to the horrors of [[Nazism]] in the "toppsychological profiles" width=of [[Hitler]] and [[other]] Nazi [[figures]]. Here, Hannah [[Arendt]] was [[right]] in her otherwise problematic [[thesis]] on the "70%banality of [[Evil]]"><font face="Times New Roman: if we take Adolf Eichmann as a psychological entity,Timesa person,Courier" size="3"></font><p class="b" align="justify"><font face="Times New Romanwe discover [[nothing]] monstrous about him - he was just an average bureaucrat,Times,Courier" size=his "3psychological profile">The success of Benigni's <i>Life Is Beautiful</i> seems gives us no clue to mark the beginning of a new sub-genre or at least a new trend: the holocaust comedieshorrors he executed. It was followed by Jacob Along the Liar with Robin Williamssame lines, it is totally misleading to investigate the remake [[psychic]] traumas and oscillations of the old GDR classic about camp commander in the owner way Spielberg does. The way out of a small shop the predicament seems to be to turn to [[comedy]] which, at least, accepts in advance its failure to render the ghetto who pretends to have a hidden radio-receiver and regularly tells his terrified fellows uplifting news about approaching German defeat that he allegedly learned from [[horror]] of the radioholocaust. Forthcoming Paradoxical as it may sound, the rise of the holocaust comedies is thus strictly correlative to the American release elevation of the Rumanian <i>The Train of Hope</i>, holocaust into the metaphysical diabolical Evil - the story of ultimate [[traumatic]] point at which the residents objectifying historical [[knowledge]] breaks down and has to acknowledge its worthlessness in front of a small Jewish community whosingle [[witness]], and, simultaneously, when the Nazis occupy the country and plan point at which witnesses themselves had to transport concede that [[words]] fail them to the extermination camp, organize a fake train with Nazi guardsthat what they can share is ultimately only their [[silence]]. Holocaust in advance disqualifies all (explanatory) answers - it cannot be explained, visualized, represented, transmitted, board since it andmarks the black [[hole]], the implosion of coursethe ([[narrative]]) [[universe]]. Accordingly, insteads of the campany attempt to locate it in its context, take the ride to freedom. Significantlypoliticize it, all three films are centered on a lie that allows equals the threatened Jews to survive their ordealanti-Semitic [[negation]] of its uniqueness.<br><br>

The key to However, this trend is provided by very depoliticization of the obvious failure of holocaust, its oppositeelevation into the properly [[sublime]] Evil, the holocaust tragedy. There is can also be a scene which condenses all that is false in Spielberg[[political]] act of utter cynical manipulation, although many a critic praised political [[intervention]] aiming at legitimizing a certain kind of hierarchical political relations. First, it as is part of the strongest scene in <i>Schindler's List<[[postmodern]] strategy of depoliticization and/i>, containing the "Oscar winning" performance by Ralph Fiennesor [[victimization]]: is holocaust not the scenesupreme proof that to be human today means to be a [[victim]], not an [[active]] political [[agent]]? Second, it disqualifies forms of the [[Third]] [[World]] violations of course, [[human rights]] for which Western states are (co)[[responsible]] as minor in which comparison with the commander Absolute Evil of the concentration camp confronts holocaust. Third, it serves to cast a beautiful Jewish girlshadow on every radical political [[project]], his prisoneri.e. We listen to his long quasi-theatrical monologue, while reinforce the Denkverbot ([[prohibition]] to [[think]]) against the terrified girl just silently stares in front of her, totally immobilized by mortal fearradical political [[imagination]]: while she attracts him sexually, he finds her unacceptable as his love object due "Are you aware that what you propose ultimately leads to her Jewish origins. the holocaust?" In this battle between short: notwithstanding the unquestionable sincerity of some of its proponents, the "[[objective]]" ideologico-political [[content]] of the depoliticization of the human erotic attraction and holocaust, of its elevation into the racist hatredabyssal absolute Evil, racism wins is the political pact of the day [[aggressive]] Zionists and he casts off the girlWestern Rightist anti-Semites at the expense of TODAY's radical political potentials.<br><br>

The tension of this scene consists in the radical incommensurability between the two subjective perspectives: what is for him the light-hearted flirt with No wonder, then, that no one, not even the idea most severe keepers of a brief sexual affair is for her the question flame of life and death. We see the girl as an utterly terrified human beingAbsolute Evil, was offended by <i>Life Is Beautiful</i>, while the man is not even directly addresing herstory of an Italian Jewish [[father]] who, but rather treating her as an objectin Auschwitz, he adopts a pretext for desperate strategy of shielding his loud monologue... So young son from the [[trauma]] by presenting him what is so thoroughly false here? The fact that goes on as a staged competition in which you must stick to the scene presents a rules (psychologicallyeat as little as possible, etc.) impossible position of enunciation of its subject: it renders his split attitude towards - those who win the most points will at the terrified Jewish girl as his direct psychological self-experienceend see an American tank arriving. The only way correctly to render this split would have been to stage miracle of the [[film]] is that the scene father succeeds in a Brechtian way, with maintaining the actor playing the Nazi villain directly addressing [[appearance]] to the publicend: "Ieven when, just before the commander liberation of the concentration campby the Allies, he is led away by a German soldier to be shot, find this girl sexually very attractive; I can do with my prisoners whatever I wanthe winks at his son (hidden in a nearby closet) and starts to march a goose-step in a comically-exaggerated way, so I can rape her as if playing a [[game]] with impunity. However, I am also impregnated by the racist ideology which tells me that Jews are filthy and unworthy of my attention. So I do not know how to decidesoldier..."<br><br>

The falsity Perhaps the key scene of <i>Schindler's List</i> is thus the same as film occurs when the falsity [[child]] gets tired of those who seek the clue to game which involves so many deprivations of the horrors camp life ([[lack]] of Nazism in food, the "psychological profiles" of Hitler necesssity to hide for hours) and other Nazi figuresannounces to the father that he wants to leave for home. HereUnperturbed, Hannah Arendt was right in her otherwise problematic thesis on the "banality of Evil": if we take Adolf Eichmann as a psychological entityfather agrees, but then, with a personfeigned indifference, we discover nothing monstrous about him - he was just an average bureaucrat, his "psychological profile" gives us no clue mentions to the horrors he executed. Along the same linesson how glad their competitors will be if they leave now, it is totally misleading to investigate when they are in the psychic traumas and oscillations of lead with so many points over the camp commander in [[others]]... In short, he deftly manipulates the way Spielberg does. The way out [[dimension]] of the predicament seems other's [[desire]], so that, when, finally, close to be the doors, father says to turn to comedy whichthe son "OK, let's go, at leastI cannot wait for you all day!", accepts in advance its failure the son changes his [[mind]] and asks him to render the horror of the holocauststay. Paradoxical as it may soundOf course, the rise tension of the holocaust comedies [[situation]] is thus strictly correlative to created by the elevation of fact that we, the holocaust into spectators, are well aware that the metaphysical diabolical Evil - the ultimate traumatic point at which the objectifying historical knowledge breaks down and has father's offer to acknowledge its worthlessness in front of go home is a single witnessfalse [[choice]], and, simultaneouslya pure bluff: if they were effectively to step out, the point at which witnesses themselves had to concede that words fail them, that what they can share son (who is ultimately only their silence. Holocaust hiding in advance disqualifies all (explanatorythe barracks) answers - it cannot would be explained, visualized, represented, transmitted, since it marks immediately killed in the black holegas chamber. Perhaps, therein resides the implosion fundamental function of the protective father: under the guise of offering a (narrativefalse) universe. Accordinglychoice, any attempt to locate it in its context, make the subject-son freely to politicize it, equals choose the inevitable through the anti-Semitic negation competitive evocation of its uniquenessthe other's desire.<br><br>

However, this very depoliticization of <i>Life Is Beautiful</i> makes it clear how the holocaust, its elevation into so-called human dignity relies on the properly sublime Evil, can also be urgent [[need]] to maintain a political act minimum of utter cynical manipulationprotective appearance - are not all fathers doing something similar, a political intervention aiming at legitimizing a certain kind of hierarchical political relations. First, it is part of although in less dramatic circumstances? Benigni's protective father ultimately accomplishes the postmodern strategy [[work]] of depoliticization and/or victimization"[[symbolic]] [[castration]]": is holocaust not he effectively separates the supreme proof that son from his [[mother]], introduces him to be human today means to be a victim, not an active political agent? Second, it disqualifies forms of the Third World violations of human rights for which Western states are [[dialectical]] [[identification]] with the Other's (cohis peer's)responsible as minor in comparison with [[desire,]] and thus accustoms him to the Absolute Evil cruel [[reality]] of the holocaustlife [[outside]] the [[family]]. Third, it serves The [[fantasmatic]] protective shield is the benevolent [[fiction]] allowing the son to cast a shadow on every radical political project, i.e. come to reinforce [[terms]] with harsh reality - father does NOT protect the Denkverbot (prohibition to think) against son from harsh reality of the camp, he just provides [[the radical political imagination: symbolic]] fiction that renders this reality bearable. And is this not father's main function? Is it not that, if "becoming mature"Are you aware means that what you propose ultimately leads to the holocaust?we no longer need such a protective appearance, we in a [[sense]] NEVER become effectively "mature" In short: notwithstanding we just displace the unquestionable sincerity shield of some of its proponentsthe protective appearance onto a different level? In today's [[times]], obsessed with "unmasking the false appearances"objective" ideologico-political content (from the traditional [[Leftist]] critique of the depoliticization [[ideological]] [[hypocrisy]] of the holocaust[[morality]] or [[power]], of its elevation into to the abyssal absolute EvilAmerican TV on which individuals in talk shows disclose publicly their innermost secrets and [[fantasies]]), it is [[touching]] to see such a pageant to the political pact benevolent power of the aggressive Zionists and the Western Rightist anti-Semites at the expense of TODAY's radical political potentialsappearance.<br><br>

No wonder, then, that no one, not even the most severe keepers of the flame of the Absolute Evil, was offended by <i>Life Is Beautiful</i>, the story of an Italian Jewish father who, What remains problematic in Auschwitz, he adopts a desperate strategy of shielding his young son from the trauma by presenting him what goes on as a staged competition in which you must stick to Benigni's film is the rules (eat as little as possible, etc.) - those who win allegoric [[relationship]] between the most points will at film's narrative and the end see an American tank arriving. The miracle of way the film addresses its [[spectator]]: is it not that , in the same way the father succeeds in maintaining within the appearance film constructs a protective fictional shield to render the end: even when, just before the liberation traumatic reality of the concentration camp by bearable, Benigni himself treats the Allies, he is led away by a German soldier spectators as [[children]] to be shot, he winks at his son (hidden in protected from the horror of the holocaust by a nearby closet) "crazy" sentimental and starts to march funny fiction of a goose-step in a comically-exaggerated wayfather saving his son, as if playing a game with the soldier...fiction that renders the historical reality of the holocaust somehow bearable?<br><br>

Perhaps the key scene of the As such, Benigni's film should be opposed to [[another]] [[recent]] film occurs when , Thomas Vinterberg's <i>Celebration</i> in which the child gets tired of father, far from protecting the game which involves so many deprivations of children from trauma, is the camp life (lack very [[cause]] of food, the necesssity to hide for hours) and announces to the father that he wants to leave for hometrauma. UnperturbedIn one [[case]], the we have a father agreesassuming an almost [[maternal]] protective [[role]], but then, with knitting a feigned indifference, mentions to the protective web of fictions for his son how glad their competitors will be if they leave now, when they are in the lead with so many points over the othersa kind of ersatz-placebo... In short, he deftly manipulates the dimension of On the other's desirehand, so that, when, finally, close to we have the doors, father says to at whose core we arrive through the son "OK[[dismantling]] of all protective fictions: at this point, let's gowe see him as what he is, I cannot wait for you all day!"as the brutal jouisseur, the son changes rapist of his mind and asks him to stayown children... Of courseCelebration tells a lot about how today, with the tension False [[Memory]] Syndrome (of the situation is created being molested by the fact that weone's [[parents]]), the spectators, are well aware that [[spectral]] [[figure]] of the father's offer to go home is a false choice[[Freudian]] Urvater, a pure bluff: if they were effectively to step outsexually possesing everyone around him, the son (who is hiding in the barracks) would be immediately killed in the gas chamberresuscitated - it tells a lot precisely on account of its artificial and fake [[character]]. Perhaps, therein resides the fundamental function A closer look at Celebration tells us that there is something wrong and faked about all this pseudo-Freudian stuff of "demystifying the protective fatherbourgeois paternal [[authority]]": under the guise of offering today, such a ("demystification" sounds and is false) choice, to make it more and more functions as a postmodern pastiche, even as a nostalgic depiction of the subject-son freely [[good]] old times in which it was still possible really to choose the inevitable through the competitive evocation of the other's desireexperience such "traumas".Why?<br><br>

The recent [[impasse]] with Binjamin Wilkomirski's <i>Life Is BeautifulFragments</i> makes it clear how points in the so-called human dignity relies on same direction: what everyone assumed to be authentic blurred [[memories]] of the urgent need to maintain [[author]] who, as a minimum of protective appearance 3- are not all fathers doing something similar4 years old child, although was imprisoned in less dramatic circumstances? Benigni's protective father ultimately accomplishes the work of "symbolic castration": he effectively separates the son from his motherMajdanek, introduces him turned out to be a [[literary]] fiction invented by the dialectical identification with author. Apart from the Other's (his peer's) desirestandard question of literary manipulation, and thus accustoms him are we aware to the cruel reality what extent is this "fake" revealing of the life outside fantasmatic investment and [[jouissance]] operative in even the family. The fantasmatic protective most painful and extreme [[conditions]]? Usually, we generate fantasies as a kind of shield is the benevolent fiction allowing the son to come to terms with harsh reality - father does NOT protect the son us from harsh reality of the campunbearable trauma; here, however, he just provides the symbolic fiction that renders this reality bearable. And is this not father's main function? Is it not thatvery ultimate traumatic experience, if "becoming mature" means that we no longer need such a protective appearance, we in a sense NEVER become effectively "mature": we just displace the shield of the protective appearance onto a different level? In today's timesholocaust, obsessed with "unmasking the false appearances" (from the traditional Leftist critique of the ideological hypocrisy of morality or power, to the American TV on which individuals in talk shows disclose publicly their innermost secrets and fantasies), it is touching to see such fantasized as a pageant to the benevolent power of appearance.shield - from what?<br><br>

What remains problematic in Benigni's film is Along the allegoric relationship between same lines, the film's narrative and rapist enjoying father of the False Memory Syndrome, far from being the way [[Real]] beneath the film addresses its spectator: respectful appearance, is it not thatrather himself a [[fantasy]] [[formation]], in the same way the father within the film constructs a protective fictional shield to render - against what? Such a father-jouisseur is the ultimate [[guarantee]] that there is somewhere [[full]], unconstrained [[enjoyment]]. So what if the [[true]] horror is the traumatic reality lack of enjoyment itself? The true horror is not the concentration camp bearablerapist Urvater against which the benevolent maternal father protects us with his fantasy shield, Benigni but the benign maternal father himself treats - the spectators as children truly suffocating and [[psychosis]]-generating experience for the child would have been to be protected from the horror of the holocaust by a "crazy" sentimental and funny fiction of have a father saving like Benigni, who, with his sonprotective care, erases all traces of the fiction excessive [[surplus]]-enjoyment. It is as a desperate [[defense]] measure against THIS father that renders one fantasizes about the historical reality of the holocaust somehow bearable?rapist father.<br><br>

As such, A further limitation of Benigni's film should be opposed to another recent becomes palpable when we confront his filmwith with the other, earlier, types of the holocaust comedy, Thomas VinterbergChaplin's <i>Celebration[[The Great Dictator]]</i> in which from before the father[[World War II]], far Lubitch's <i>To Be Or Not To Be</i> from protecting 1942, and <i>Seven Beauties - Pasqualino Settebelezze</i>, Lina Wertmueller's attempt at the children from traumaholocaust comedy in 1975. The first [[thing]] to take note is AT WHAT does one laugh here: there are obviously limits respected in all these films. Say, one could, in [[principle]], is well imagine the so-called "Muslims" (the very cause [[living]] [[dead]] of the trauma. In one casecamps, we have a father assuming an almost maternal protective rolethose prisoners who lost their will to life and just slowly dragged themselves around, knitting a protective web passively reacting to their surroundings) as the object of fictions for his son[[laughter]] generated by their automatic mindless movements; however, it is immediately clear that such a kind of ersatz-placebolaughter would have been ethically totally unacceptable. On the other handFurthermore, we have the father at whose core we arrive through the dismantling neither of all protective fictionsthese films is a 100% comedy: at this a certain point, laughter or satire is suspended and we see him as what he is, as are confronted with the brutal jouisseur, rapist of his own children.."serious" [[message]] or level. Celebration tells a lot about how today, with So the False Memory Syndrome (of being molested by onequestion is: WHICH is this point? In Chaplin's parents)<i>The Great Dictator</i>, it is obviously the spectral figure pathetic final [[speech]] of the Freudian Urvaterpoor Jewish barber who finds himself occupying the [[place]] of Hynkel (Hitler); in <i>Life Is Beautiful</i>, sexually possesing everyone around him, is resuscitated - it tells a lot precisely on account of its artificial and fake character. A closer look at Celebration tells us that there is something wrong and faked about all this pseudo-Freudian stuff the very last scene of "demystifying the bourgeois paternal authority": todayfilm, such a "demystification" sounds and is falsewhen we see the child after the war, it more and more functions as happily embracing his mother on a postmodern pastichegreen meadow, even as a nostalgic depiction of while his off-[[voice]] is thanking his father for his sacrifice.ed himself for the son's survivaled himself for the good old times in which it was still possible really to experience such "traumas"son's survival. Why?<br><br>

The recent impasse with Binjamin Wilkomirski's In all these films, at a certain point, the comedy is "sublated" and we are delivered a "serious" pathetic message. This pathetic [[moment]] of redemption is precisely what is [[missing]] in <i>FragmentsSeven Beauties</i> points in the same direction: what everyone assumed if Wertmueller were to be authentic blurred memories of shoot <i>Life Is Beautiful</i>, the author who, as film would probably end with a 3-4 years old soldier in the American tank mistaking the child, was imprisoned in Majdanek, turned out to be a literary fiction invented by for the authorlone Nazi sniper and shooting him dead. Apart from .. Pasqualino, the standard question hero of literary manipulation<i>Seven Beauties</i>, a caricaturized [[dynamic]] Italian obsesed with pathetic family honor (Giancarlo Giannini), are we aware comes to what extent the conclusion that, if he is this "fake" revealing of to survive the fantasmatic investment and jouissance operative in even concentration camp, he must [[seduce]] the most painful plump and extreme conditions? Usuallyruthless [[woman]] Commandant, and we generate fantasies as are witnessing his attempts to offer his [[body]], with erection a kind prerequisite for the success of shield his endeavour. After the successful [[seduction]], he is elevated into a Kapo, and, in [[order]] to protect us from save the unbearable trauma; heremen under his command, he must kill six of then, howeverincluding his own best friend Francesco... Comedy thus passes over into the undignified horror of the cruel survival [[logic]] of the concentration camp life: laughter is exaggerated beyond "good taste, " it is confronted with and slips into the very ultimate traumatic experiencescenes of burning corpses, that of [[people]] commitinmg [[suicide]] by jumping into a pool of human excrement. We are no longer dealing with the holocaustpathetic figure of a small good man maintaining his heroic dignity in horrible conditions, is fantasized as but with a shield victim-turned- from what?oppressor who definitely loses his [[moral]] innocence.<br><br>

Along When, in a holocaust comedy, the same lineslaughter stops, when the rapist enjoying father comic rendering of the False Memory Syndromeresourceful persistence of life reaches its end, far from being we thus get either pathetic dignity or nausea. This nausea marks the self-cancellation of the comedy: it emerges when the Real beneath hero persists to the respectful appearanceend in his survivalist stance. That is to say, is rather himself both comedy and tragedy involve a fantasy formationkind of immortality, a protective shield - against what? Such a father-jouisseur is albeit the opposite ones. In the [[tragic]] predicament, the hero forfeits his terrestrial life for the ultimate guarantee Thing, so that there his very defeat is somewhere fullhis triumph, conferring onto him the sublime dignity, unconstrained enjoyment. So what if while the true horror comedy is the lack triumph of enjoyment itself? The true horror is the indestructible life - not of the rapist Urvater against which sublime immortality of the benevolent maternal father protects us with his fantasy shieldtragic hero, but of the very vulgar, opportunistic, terrestrial life. Which is why the benign maternal father himself - ultimate comic scene is that of a false death: say, the proverbial scene of the solemn funeral with all the truly suffocating relatives gathered, crying and psychosis-generating experience for praising the child would have been to have deceased, when, all of a father like Benignisudden, whothe allegedly dead awakens (he did not really die, with his protective careafter all) and asks what the hell is going on, erases what's all traces of the excessive surplus-enjoymentfuss about.. It is as a desperate defense measure against THIS father that one fantasizes about the rapist father.<br><br>

A further limitation of Benigni becomes palpable when we confront his film with with Towards the other, earlier, types end of the holocaust comedy, ChaplinJohn Ford's <i>The Great Dictator</i> from before the World War II, Lubitch's <i>To Be Or Not To Be</i> from 1942Quiet Man, an old man is dying and <i>Seven Beauties - Pasqualino Settebelezze</i>, Lina Wertmueller's attempt at his deathbed, priests are already saying the holocaust comedy in 1975last prayers for him. The first thing to take note is AT WHAT does one laugh here: there are obviously limits respected in all these films. SayAll of a sudden, one could, in principle, well imagine the so-called "Muslims" (dignified calm of the situation is disturbed by the living dead sound of the campsviolent brawl: outside the house, those prisoners who lost their will to life and just slowly dragged themselves around, passively reacting to their surroundings) as the object of laughter generated by their automatic mindless movementsfistfight between the two film's heroes the [[whole]] village was waiting for is finally taking place; howeverthe dying man opens his eyes attentively pricks up his ears, it forgets that he is immediately clear that such a laughter would have been ethically totally unacceptable. Furthermoreinvolved in his own dying, gets up, neither runs out of these films is a 100% comedy: at a certain point, laughter or satire is suspended the house in his white nightgown and we are confronted with joins the enthusiastic observers of the "serious" message or levelfight... So the question This is: WHICH is this point? In Chaplinhow one should read [[Lacan]]'s <i>equation of the comic dimension with the [[phallic]] [[signifier]]: "The Great Dictator</i>[[phallus]] is nothing other than a signifier, it is obviously the pathetic final speech signifier of this flight... Life goes by, triumphs all the poor Jewish barber who finds himself occupying same, whatever happens. When the place of Hynkel comic hero trips up and falls in the soup, the little fellow still survives." (Hitler); in [[Jacques Lacan]], <i>Life Is BeautifulThe [[Ethics]] of [[Psychoanalysis]]</i>, it is the very last scene of the film, when we see the child after the war, happily embracing his mother on a green meadow, while his off-voice is thanking his father for his sacrifice.ed himself for the son's survivaled himself for the son's survival.)<br><br>

WhenImagine an [[Antigone]] who, in a holocaust comedyafter delivering her solemn response to Creon, asks to withdraw and, the laughter stopsonce outside Creon's quarters, when the she squats and urinates... Is this comic rendering aspect of survivalism not precisely what films like <i>Life Is Beautiful</i> or <i>Seven Beauties</i> rely on? No matter what the resourceful persistence of life reaches its enddifficulty, we thus get either pathetic dignity or nausea. This nausea marks the self-cancellation of the comedy: it emerges when the hero persists to the end in his survivalist stance. That is to say, both comedy and tragedy involve finds a kind of immortality, albeit the opposite onesway out. In the tragic predicamentHowever, if the hero forfeits his terrestrial life comic dimension stands for the Thing, so that his very defeat is his triumphof life in its most evasive and opportunistically resourceful, conferring onto him the sublime dignity, while point to be emphasized is that the "life" which survives all predicaments in comedy is precisely NOT the triumph of the indestructible simple [[biological]] life - not of the sublime immortality of the tragic hero, but of the very vulgar, opportunistic, terrestrial a fantasmatic ethereal life. Which is why unencumbered by the ultimate comic scene is that constraints of a false death: saybiological reality. In short, the proverbial scene this phallic universe of eternal survival is the solemn funeral with all the relatives gathered, crying and praising the deceased, when, all universe of a sudden, the allegedly dead awakens (he did not really die, after all) and asks what the hell is going on, what's all the fuss about..[[perversion]].<br><br>

Towards the end of John Ford's The Quiet Man, an old man is dying and, at his deathbedReduced to its elementary skeleton, priests are already saying the last prayers for him. All of perversion can be seen as a sudden, defense against the dignified calm [[threat]] of [[mortality]] as well as the situation is disturbed by the sound [[contingent]] imposition of the violent brawlsexual [[difference]]: outside in the house[[perverse]] universe, the fistfight between a human being can survive any catastrophe, [[adult]] [[sexuality]] is reduced to a childish game, one is not [[forced]] to die or to choose one of the two film's heroes [[sexes]]. [[Recall]] the whole village was waiting for standard scene from a Tom and Jerry cartoon: Jerry is finally taking place; the dying man opens his eyes attentively pricks up run over by a heavy truck, dynamite explodes in his earsmouth, forgets that he is involved in his own dyingcut to slices, gets upyet the story goes on, runs out of the house in his white nightgown and joins the enthusiastic observers next scene he is back again with no traces of the fightprevious catastrophy...This The stuff of comedy is how one should read Lacan's equation precisely this [[repetitive]] resourceful popping-up of life - whatever the comic dimension with the phallic signifier: "The phallus is nothing other than a signifiercatastrophy, no matter how dark the signifier of this flight... Life goes bypredicament, triumphs all the same, whatever happens. When the comic hero trips up and falls we can be sure in advance that the soup, the little small fellow still surviveswill find a way out..." (Jacques Lacan, <i>The Ethics of Psychoanalysis</i>)<br><br>

Imagine an Antigone who, after delivering her solemn response to Creon, asks to withdraw and, once outside Creon's quarters, she squats and urinates... Is this comic aspect of survivalism not precisely what films like <i>Life Is Beautiful</i> or <i>Seven Beauties</i> rely on? No matter what the difficulty, the hero finds a way out. However, if the comic dimension stands for the triumph of life in its most evasive and opportunistically resourceful, the point to be emphasized is that the "life" which survives all predicaments in comedy is precisely NOT the simple biological life, but a fantasmatic ethereal life unencumbered by the constraints of biological reality. In short, this phallic universe of eternal survival is the universe of perversion.<br><br> Reduced to its elementary skeleton, perversion can be seen as a defense against the threat of mortality as well as the contingent imposition of sexual difference: in the perverse universe, a human being can survive any catastrophe, adult sexuality is reduced to a childish game, one is not forced to die or to choose one of the two sexes. Recall the standard scene from a Tom and Jerry cartoon: Jerry is run over by a heavy truck, dynamite explodes in his mouth, he is cut to slices, yet the story goes on, in the next scene he is back again with no traces of the previous catastrophy... The stuff of comedy is precisely this repetitive resourceful popping-up of life - whatever the catastrophy, no matter how dark the predicament, we can be sure in advance that the small fellow will find a way out...<br><br> However, in the concentration-camp universe at its most horrifying, it is no longer possible to sustain this gap between reality in its material inertia and the aethereal domain of infinite Life. The Muslim is so destitute that his stance can no longer be considered "tragic": he no longer retains the minimum of dignity against the background of which his miserable position would have appeared as tragic - he is simply reduced to the shell of a person, emptied of the spark of spirit. If we try to present him as tragic, the effect will be precisely comic, as when one tries to read tragic dignity into a meaningless idiotic persistence. On the other hand, although the Muslim is in a way "comic," although he acts in the way that is usually the stuff of comedy and laughter (his automatic, mindless repetitive gestures, his impassive pursuit of food), the utter misery of his condition thwarts any attempt to present him as a "comic character." Again, if we try to present him as comic, the effect will be precisely tragic, like when the sad sight of someone cruelly mocking a helpless victim (like putting the obstacles in the way of a blind person, to see if he will stumble), instead of producing laughter in the observers, generates sympathy for the victim's tragic predicament. Did not something along these lines happen with the rituals of humiliation in the camps, from the notorious inscription above the entrance to the Auschwitz gate <i>Arbeit macht frei!</i> to the music band that accompanied prisoners to work or to gas chambers? It is only through such cruel humor that the tragic sentiment can be generated in the concentration camp universe.<br><br> The Muslim is thus the zero-point at which the very opposition between tragedy and comedy, between the sublime and the ridiculous, between dignity and derision, is suspended, the point at which one pole directly passes into its opposite. If we try to present his predicament as tragic, the result is comic, a mocking parody of the tragic dignity, and if we treat him as a comic character, tragedy emerges. We enter here the domain that is somehow outside or, rather, beneath the very elementary opposition of the dignified hierarchical [[structure ]] of authority and its carnivalesque [[reversal]], of the original and its parody, its mocking [[repetition]]. Can one imagine a film rendering THIS domain?<br><br>

==Source==* [[Laugh Yourself to Death|Laugh Yourself to Death: the New Wave of Holocaust Comedies!]] ''Lunds Universitet''. December 15, 1999. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekholocaust.htm>