03.22.07
Nudist Emperors and Cognac
In this, the illustrious second installment of my “Words, words, words” category, I will tackle the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Why? Because I’m getting more than a little tired of hearing the phrase “the emperor has no clothes” bandied about when someone just doesn’t want to get the point. There will even be a bit about a proper application to a recent cognac commercial! Oh yes, there will be fun tonight!
In a recent diatribe regarding the movie Black Snake Moan which I will not link to on principle (I don’t like giving hate-filled screeds any more page hits than necessary), a movie reviewer invoked the spectre of the naked emperor as a talking point, claiming that those who saw art or even symbolism in the film were somehow duped by the creator. In redux, the main argument was “I don’t see any symbolism, therefore there is none to be found”. Allow me to elaborate.
Part of the core plot of Black Snake Moan is Christina Ricci chained to Samuel L. Jackson’s radiator. Any claims that the chain had symbolic value were questioned by the reviewer and his commenters as “What symbolism? That’s right, there is none.” My anger at people who answer their own questions aside (or else I’ll start writing about my ex-wife, and believe me, no one wants to read that), this line of “questioning” leads me to realize that neither the reviewer nor his commenters believe that symbolism was even possible. If I see a clear symbolism in the chain, showing that Christina Ricci’s character had bound herself by her own nymphomania into a self-destructive cycle that she refused to believe she could escape by any means, her own or otherwise, I must - by the reasoning of these mental giants - be duped into a false sense of understanding. “WTFM8″ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
The Emperor’s New Clothes, Redux:
- Emperor wants clothes.
- Merchants seek to scam emperor.
- Merchants offer emperor nothing, claiming that it is something.
- Merchants play to emperor’s insecurities by telling him that only those of great wisdom and taste can perceive the invisible fabric that isn’t there.
- Emperor trots around in his birthday suit, showing off his “new clothes”.
- People are goaded by fear into “seeing” the clothes.
- An innocent child proclaims the truth; wisdom ensues.
The two bolded points indicate the two things that I believe are missing in this and many other claims of a naked emperor; smybolism (even unintended symbolism) can be perceived in a work without anyone being “duped” into seeing it. For example, in Black Snake Moan, I saw the aforementioned symbolism in the chain. I also saw symbolism in the cycles of violence, from Jackson’s broken beer bottle to his angry, violent blues, to the cycle of confrontation - first Jackson against the local preacher, then Jackson’s confrontation with the murderous Timberlake in the film’s climax. The author, director, crew, and actors neither played to my insecurities of not being seen as a tasteful, thinking man, nor did I feel a fear of reprisal for not seeing those things. How can I be a nude emperor or a scared peasant?
Some works are created with the intent of allowing the audience to project their own feelings onto the characters and plot. For example, I recently had the pleasure of attending a performance of my University’s dance troupe, in which they performed a deeply-disturbing short piece entitled “A Dream Discarded”. The choreographer openly admits in the playbill that the piece is intended to be left open to interpretation, challenging each individual audience member to find their own feelings and meaning in the movements, music, and character interplay. While I saw a shocking look into personal extremism, jealousy, and the price of hatred, others in the audience expressed an understanding of the piece as a love story, a state of liminality, the mind of a suicide, or even a hellscape. None of us were right; none of us were wrong. Why, then, is it wrong to find my own symbolism in a film that tries to touch on the darker aspects of self-image and societal tensions?
I’m not saying that all perceived symbolism is valid, or even intended by a work’s creator. Take, for example, the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises; both creators have spoken out against those who have claimed to have “found” the World War II symbolism “hidden” in these movies. In contrast, the symbolism seen in some works may, in fact, be the product of sycophant-seeking “cloth merchants”, as it were (some of the more shocking pieces of visual and performance art spring immediately to mind as potential examples). I find, however, that in these cases it is not always the performer but their reviewers and critics who become the merchants, trying to get us to believe that we must see a particular intent and message, or else we are unrefined louts - philistines! - who do not truly appreciate art unless it is spoonfed to us.
If an individual does not see meaning in a work, I’m more than happy to chalk it up to individual opinion and interpretation. Maybe that other hasn’t shared my experiences that cause me to see a particular thing, or maybe they see certain devices as overused and thus devoid of meaning the same way a painted pot loses its images after too much handling. On the other hand, there are those who refuse to see meaning unless it is clearly outlined to them, and who decry those who find meaning as “pseudo-intellectuals” seeking to be seen as deep, understanding people. To these people, if I find in Yoko Ono’s White Ladder a humorous look at the lengths to which people will go to find an answer they want (and greater humor in the role it played in John Lennon’s courtship of Ono), I must be trying to curry favor with the art community by buying into a delusion that is carefully crafted to ensure that I am afraid to claim otherwise.
I was going to talk about cognac, wasn’t I? Ah, yes, I believe I was. I loathe commercials - as my previous post about eHarmony has shown, I especially loathe commercials that insult detractors of a particular product. Enter Hennesey cognac. I am a fan of fine champagne cognac, specifically Remy Martin VSOP. I find Hennesey cognac too acidic for my tastes, with too much of the kickback often found in distilled liquors. I do, however, enjoy using a bit of Hennesey VS for cooking purposes. Yet a recent commercial for Hennesey claims that there’s really nothing wrong with the cognac, I just don’t understand it. The phrasing was tantamount to “you must be a special person to notice the character”. Again, even the vaunted “WTFM8″ fails to satisfy here. Again, impugning my ability to form an opinion based on my enjoyment of a company’s liquor does not sit well with me (then again, neither does Hennesey’s cognac; that’s why I don’t drink it).
So, to redux:
- Personally-perceived symbolism is just that. While it may not be sacred, it’s a matter of personal taste and (if one is honest when discussing potentially-unintended symbolism) an admitted product of a person’s projection of their own soul into the vessel of a character.
- Inability to perceive symbolism does not always mean that symbolism does not exist.
- Disagreements over symbolism do not mean that one party has been duped, or that the other is a philistine.
- Impugning another’s taste because a certain symbolic note does or does not resonate within them is the tactic of those who seek to control opinion.
- As a counterpoint, those who fail to see symbolism are not always the innocent child, pointing out the folly of sycophancy; neither is the person who sees symbolism always the wise advisor, showing the inner meaning to those who would not otherwise understand.
- The emperor is not always naked.