Using two films directed by Lars Von Trier as Case-Studies, can film serve as a means of cultivating the moral educative disposition of Rorty’s Strong Poet?
(Essay written for a university assignment. This can also be found on my substack)
My aim in this essay is to argue that Lars Von Trier is a strong poet in a 2-pronged argument. The first prong being his co-creation of Dogme 95, and how through the creation of the Dogme 95 movement he can be seen to be changing the traditions and vocabularies in the context of cinema, as his new methodology for filmmaking outlined in the Dogme 95 manifesto goes almost entirely against mainstream cinema and the current traditions of the time. The second prong, using The Idiots and Breaking the Waves as examples, he presents cruelty to the audience and makes them question themselves for it. Through these two prongs Von Trier can be interpreted as a strong poet, and if Lars Von trier can be a strong poet and can cultivate the morality of the audience, then film as an artform can definitely be used to cultivate morality in the way Rorty outlines.
Rorty outlines the strong poet in chapters two and three of Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, as someone that we should aspire to in an ideal liberal world. “Liberal” is defined by Shkalar as an adjective for “people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we (people) do”, (Rorty, XV) and so a liberal utopian world would aim to minimise cruelty. (Rorty, XVI)
Rorty talks about how vocabularies have changed, and shaped the ways we think and the debates we have. He references Nietzsche, Aristotle, Kant and Freud, and the various changes to the philosophical landscape that they brought with changes they made to the vocabularies of the time. (Rorty 3-23) He outlines how a strong poet is someone who changes the vocabularies and traditions, (Rorty, 28) shows the subjectivity of the human experience of the world, and can be used as a tool to help cultivate a culture of empathy and compassion in an ideal liberal world, and in this way reduce cruelty (Rorty, XVI). Rorty uses Orwell’s 1984 as an example which helps readers to see what is wrong with authoritarian forms of government (Rorty, 172). Toni Morrison can be another example, as her novels allow readers to understand the point of view and lived realities of marginalized people and understand their feelings. In this way literature and strong poets are better than philosophy. Instead of fighting cruelty using logical, moral arguments, they use poetry and expressions of lived realities to make us understand cruelty and fight it from a place of compassionate understanding.
In summary, a strong poet rethinks the vocabularies of the time, and helps us understand cruelty through human emotions expressed in their poetry or art, rather than through logical arguments about morality and cruelty in the way western philosophy does. From the understanding of cruelty provided by the strong poet, the audience will be moved to fight against cruelty in the world and to try to achieve a liberal utopia, in which all people try to mitigate cruelty as much as possible.
Lars Von Trier can be seen as an example of a contemporary strong poet as he can be seen to rethink and create new vocabularies and fight against the tradition in cinema (looking at his founding of the Dogme 95 movement specifically as one example). He can be seen to provide the audience with an understanding of cruelty and moralities of love, compassion and care through his films. Two examples being The Idiots and Breaking The Waves.
Lars Von Trier Co-founded the Dogme 95 movement with Thomas Vinterberg. (Hayward, 153) It was a film movement which, through its manifesto, was inextricably bound to its own particular philosophy which was anti-bourgeois, against hollywood’s commercialisation of film, instead being in favour of film as an accessible artform that should emphasise the creative vision of the entire filming crew, and not just the director. The Manifesto laid out specific rules, called the Vow of Chastity. From rejecting Genre films, to the strict rules on sound and special effects, the Vow of Chastity meant every single unspoken rule about making a mainstream film was to be rejected completely. As Susan Hayward writes, “this new manifesto was borne out of these filmmakers’ weariness with old formulas for film narrative and practice and a desire to hit out against the economies of production in the era of globalization” (Hayward, 153)
Lars, through the Dogme 95 movement can be seen to be changing the vocabularies as he co-creates new vocabularies, terms and rules within the Dogme 95 movement, and through Dogme 95 films creates a new subform of expression. With this specific form of expression highlighting the importance of expressing the artist's vision rather than the studio or producer’s vision for a film (one that should be exaggerated for drama and commercial appeal via commercial technology), he intrinsically links his philosophy (which stands against the commercialization of the artform of film) to the movement. Gaunt states, “The vow of chastity was presented as a list of ten commandments for filmmakers to follow which would strip their films of bourgeois illusion in an attempt to find an authenticity in their work.” (Guant, 82). The bourgeois illusion, being the “decadence of commercial cinema in terms of its corrupting illusionism, trickery and sentimentality.” (Roberts, 141) The Vows “intended to cleanse the artist of all commercial vices, leaving him purer and better” (Schepelern, 64). So through the Vows, Trier rejects the filmmaking traditions of mainstream commercial Hollywood.
Also with Dogme 95 and the nature of the handheld cameras of low resolution, it breaks the immersion of the audience in the film, and forces them to confront the film’s nature of provocation. As in, the Audience watches the film, and is provoked, but due to the barriers to complete immersion, must confront the films provocative nature, and question themselves as they are provoked. Von Trier is attributed to have said, “A film should be like a stone in your shoe”, meaning it should provoke and force you to ask yourself why?
But he does the above as he creates new vocabularies in the form of the Dogme 95 movement and new ways of filmmaking.
Breaking the Waves is a Von Trier film that looks at various forms of morality throughout.
One main moral question it looks at is Sexual morality and what forms of sexual activity can be morally permissible. The plot follows Bess, as she confronts the question of whether or not to engage in sexual relations outside of her marriage to Jan, at his own request. On one hand she is bound to her wedding vows to stay loyal to him, but at the same time, does loyalty to him mean accepting every request he has? If she doesn’t do as he requests is she now unloyal to him in a paradoxical way?
Mixed with this question, is religious morality, and questions of split duties. This can be seen as Bess is shown to be devout in her religion and faith in God, to the extent that when she is praying, she believes she is in direct conversation with God, and even plays the part of God answering and replying to her. So she has to juggle between the Vow she made to God to stay loyal to Jan, and Jan himself. And in this religious question is the question of which should she choose in a choice between the abstract God, and the concrete and tangible real world which includes Jan. In the end she does choose Jan, has sex with men as he requests and in her Church, states that you can only love a human being and not words, referring to the Bible, the word of God.
Bess also faces much cruelty from within her community in the film, as the population of her village are all shown to be deeply religious and the church elders are community leaders. As her church elders expel her from the Church for what they deem sinful behaviour, her community follows suit and children stone her. The audience is confronted with this great show of cruelty, and must ask to what extent is religion actually harmful and divisive in communities, rather than providing support and compassion? The audience must ask themselves about where the lines are drawn in sexual morality and religious morality and where is a healthy place for religion within communities, as we watch Bess face the cruelty of being rejected on religious grounds and how this leads to her almost total isolation from the rest of the community.
The Idiots follows Karen, as she joins a small commune of nine: Axel, Susanne, Jeppe, Henrik, Stoffer, Nana, Katrine, Ped and Josephine. This commune has a shared aim to find their “inner idiot”, through acting as though they are mentally disabled.
The Idiots explores morality similarly to Breaking the Waves. It doesn’t provide the audience with a clear answer but showcases cruelty, forcing the audience to confront it and question it. It looks at the themes of community, bonds of care and moralities of compassion, much like Breaking the Waves explores.
However, The Idiots looks at these themes from a comparison of people we choose to be with compared to family and society at large. This can be seen as a comparison between Karen’s relationship with the Idiots, versus her relationship with her family.
Karen joins the idiot’s commune at the beginning of the film. They provide her with more support than she receives from her family and possibly more acceptance than she has ever received in her life prior. This can be seen with how Karen, in her monologue on her final day with them, states, “I just want to say how happy I have been here. Being an idiot with you is one of the best things I've ever done … I believe I love you all - more than I have ever loved anybody. Maybe with one exception.”
The last sentence alludes to her young son who recently died. Karen, between the two lines above, gives everyone a compliment, and even compares Jeppe to her son who never had the opportunity to grow up. It is a touching and deep scene where the depth of the bonds formed within the group are highlighted. The bond between Karen and Susanne are also seen throughout the film as deep and strong, as Susanne comforts Karen crying on the windowsill, and holds Karen as she “spazzes” for the first time in the pool.
The film also looks at ableism, and asks what behaviours we deem morally acceptable. It forces us to ask whether or not the mere subject matter is morally acceptable for a film/ piece of art to explore. Is it right that Von Trier presents a film about people acting stereotypically like mentally disabled people? The behaviors of the characters themselves are in fact presented as unsound, as each time a character gives their reasoning behind their behaviour, they later contradict themselves through words and actions. As Jennie Haines states, “Von Trier's representation of the group and their way of life consistently undermines and exposes the participants and their flimsy, hypocritical, and contradictory justifications for acting the way they choose to.” (Haines).
So the point is not the spazzing. The spazzing behaviors are the means for the characters in the group to connect with one another. The point is the human connection in comparison to the lack of connection Karen shares with her family.
We see Karen’s lack of connection to her family when she returns home to spaz, and she is met with coldness from her entire family. Anders dismisses Karen’s attempt to apologise for missing the funeral of their son, saying she couldn’t have been that upset. He ignores her attempt to reconnect, then resorts to physical violence when she spazzes. The rest of her family remains unflinching, watching Anders slap Karen. The only person showing any care for Karen in the scene is Susanne. The cruelty showcased is staggering. The revelation about Karen’s son knocks you down and Anders knocks you out.
Von Trier is widely attributed to have said that “a film should be like a stone in your shoe”. It should make the audience uncomfortable. But I think that we can look past Von Trier as simply being a provocateur but also someone who wants the audience to ask themselves hard questions about morality, cruelty and compassion. And in this way he serves as being morally educative, though not in a straightforward way as he doesn’t tell you what’s right and wrong, and presents much cruelty. But this causes the natural reaction of questioning the cruelty; what is cruel, why it’s cruel, what’s the moral thing to do in the face of cruelty. He makes you question compassion and human connections. Taking the connections between the group in The Idiots, and the connections between Bess, Jan, and their community. How does the community and their varying degrees of compassion affect the human understanding for those suffering within the community? In this way I think that Von Trier can serve as a Rorty-ian strong poet, through provocation, forcing the audience to confront the cruelty in his films. And if Trier can morally educate through exposure to cruelty, then film can serve as a means of moral education.
Guant, Joshua T. J. Adaptation in a Post-Digital Age: Aesthetics and Methodological Approaches to Reviving Texts of the Past. a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Film by Practice. May 2011. ProQuest, University of Exeter, https://www.proquest.com/openview/b75ec263e9a724d02753333062678a5f/1.pdf?cbl=51922&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar.
Haines, Jennie. "The Idiots (Film Review)" FILMHOUNDS, August 2023 https://filmhounds.co.uk/2023/08/the-idiots-film-review/.
Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. 5th ed., Routledge, 2018.
Roberts, John. “Dogme 95.” New Left Review, vol. 1, no. 238, 1999, pp. 141-149. New Left Review, https://newleftreview-org.soas.idm.oclc.org/issues/i238/articles/john-roberts-dogme-95.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Schepelern, Peter. “‘“Kill Your Darlings”: Lars von Trier and the Origin of Dogma 95.’ Purity and Provocation: Dogma 95”, edited by Mette Hjort and Scott MacKenzie, British Film Institute, 2006, pp. 58-69.
Von Trier, Lars, Director. Breaking the Waves, Zentropa, 1996.
Von Trier, Lars, Director. The Idiots, Zentropa, 1999.
