TIPRR 10

I remember when I was first introduced to literary theory at the ripe old age of 18, postcolonialism was emphasized so little that I honestly don't remember even studying it at all. However, when I took a class from Gloria Cronin 7 years later, postcolionalism had come so much to the forefront that it was the lens through which we examined all of the literature we studied. I've often wondered WHY this was the case, and it wasn't until reading Barry this week that I came to appreciate that this lens is a relatively new one in the repertoire of literary theory. I certainly think it's a good addition to the toolbox, and the philosophy of the theory interests me greatly. However, after reading Erika's post, I can simply say "Yeah," and leave it at that. So, I'm going to focus on postmodernism-something that's much less comfortable for me.

In the reading on postmodernism, I really appreciated the background on modernism and the attempt to clarify the differences between the two theories. As I read, one of the concepts that intrigued me was this postmodernist idea of the "loss of the real." Maybe it's because of my own personal experiences with losing tough of reality, but this really seemed like a plausible concept. The existence "hyperreality" where the lines between the real and imagined have been obscured? Just ask any 18-year-old-boy abut his relationship with his girlfriend, and I bet he'll be able to tell you a thing or two about not being able to live up to a "hyperreality"-- said girlfriend's "chick flick fantasies."

In relationship to this, Barry also discusses Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulations" and how signs have lost their "fullness," the state at which they are a "surface indication of an underlying depth or reality" (84). There are a series of steps in the "emptying" process, according to Baudrillard, as discussed by Barry, and it is within these steps that that I have examined Chosen this week.


According to Baudrillard, the steps in the creation of hyperreality through the loss of the real are as follows:
Step 1-The sign represents a basic reality.
Step 2-The sign misrepresents or distorts the reality behind it.
Step 3-The sign disguises the fact that there is no corresponding reality underneath.
Step 4-The sign bears no relation to any reality at all.

In thinking about how Barry distinguishes between the steps and about the paintings used to illustrate each category, I find that Chosen, as a text, falls most into the second step, with spill-over into the first and third at times. Here's why...

In the beginning, we see an artistic shot image of the dock, the boat, and the ice being broken up by the boat as the boat pulls in to the dock and the Tibetan man and child meet Clive Owen. The beauty of the image itself is a distortion of the reality behind it, because this is an romanticized representation of a dock at night. In addition, there would be more than two passengers simply standing on the deck-others are needed to "park" a boat safely, especially if there were ice on the water.

Then there's the car chase. This is where I feel that the sign does represent a basic reality, thereby falling into step 1, because there is in fact a BMW out there that looks and handles like this car. However, slipping back into step 2, the way in which the car chase is presented. One versus three, light versus dark, and then add the abilities of stunt drivers, the talents of cameramen, and the music...Bam you've now got a very inaccurate representation of what you, as a driver of the BMW, would ever be able to do. Plus, this car chase is highly romanticized in the favor of BMW in general (and why wouldn't it be-it's their commercial). After all, the car is shown in beautiful lighting, it doesn't get dirty, and the bullets seem to just bounce off leaving no holes. The one exception to this, the one bullet that does break through, is due solely to the fact that they are trapped, which is quickly remedied by ramming the other car out of the way, and even after ramming the other car, as Clive Owen drives away, the tail end doesn't seem to have been damaged. THAT is a romanticized version of the car. Does the car exist? Yes, but is it this incredible? Probably not. And that is why this text falls into Baudrillard's second step on the way to the loss of the real.

There is so much more to this "romanticization/misrepresentation" of reality within this text--neon pink poison and the ability to take out another man with one poorly-placed punch? However, I think I'll leave the rest of this discussion for class because I'm interested to hear what you guys think. Sorry about the length, yet again.