Follow-up essay: Postmodernism and Memento Mori

This post contains spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie Memento or read the short story “Memento Mori”. You can read the short story here.

To pass my Modern Intellectual History course, I had to write an analysis of Jonathan Nolan's short story “Memento Mori”. Some may know about it, but it contains the concept from which his brother Christopher developed the memorable Memento, starring Guy Pearce. Both stories contain the basic premise of a man who, following a violent trauma, has lost his short-term memory and can no longer remember anything new. The story is an improbable one, but it serves an important philosophical purpose: it uses the premises of Postmodern thinking to develop a disturbing but thoroughly thought-provoking idea, for those who are willing to think far enough.

Postmodernism is not as complicated as it sounds, but it does rely on some very complicated thinking to get to where it can exist as a way of thinking. I am definitely not an expert in modern philosophy, in fact I consider myself rather ignorant in that field, but here is basically what Postmodernism means (in a sketch).

Jean-François Lyotard, French philosopher, said Postmodernism is an incredulity towards metanarratives (“l'incrédulité à l'égard des métarécits”). What does he mean by that? A metanarrative would refer to a story that is able to englobe all stories; to make sense of your life, my life and everyone's life on Earth put together, in all of history. Until a few hundred years ago, the western world generally believed the Christian metanarrative, which is to say that God created the world and humans, humans sinned against God, Jesus came to save humans from their sins and die in their place taking the punishment for their sins against God and each other, giving them the grace to love one another, and Jesus would come again to bring an end to history and judgement of the living and the dead. This was in part replaced in the 18^th century by a few prominent intellectuals who said that through progress in science and medicine, the world would reach an ideal state: this was the metanarrative of the Enlightenment. After the two World Wars, people realised this metanarrative was not goint to come true and a sense of disillusionment came over many intellectuals (notably H.G. Wells, who had written books praising this worldview but ended up completely disillusioned). This is what Lyotard refers to when he says postmoderns don't believe in stories that englobe all stories. Because the world was in shambles, modernist thinkers were saying we need to reconstruct this world physically and intellectually, but postmoderns said “no, let's deconstruct it instead”, meaning they would break down what was understood to be generally accepted in the West and make people rethink their worldviews. But they didn't offer an all-encompassing worldview.

Back to “Memento Mori”. How is this in any way relevant to the story? That is what the whole story is about. The main character, who can't store any more information in his memory, is unable to put together a solid autobiography. He can only remember up to the point of him and his wife being attacked, so he is obviously obsessed by finding his wife's murderer. Thus, he tries to put together fragments, by leaving notes to himself and then by tattooing important information on his own body. But that does not guarantee that he is getting any closer to his objective. Every now and then, he wakes up in a room he doesn't recognise, sees in the mirror that he's aged, and realises that his body is covered in tattoos. The tragic irony of his case is that even if he did succeed in achieving his goal, he might not remember that he did and would just continue trying to achieve it. But the plot is developed in a way that leaves time gaps, ellipses, that are not accounted for. The reader is almost as clueless as the main character. That is why there is no clear beginning, middle and end to his story.

I explained this in my essay and, in an effort to conclude in the last ten minutes of the exam, I wrote that the way this story is told may be a critique of traditional ways of thinking and story-telling, but it may also be using postmodern ideas to make a critique of postmodern thinking, and that the author left that question unanswered. But now I think he does answer it.

After all, this kind of story can only work once, since it is a story-telling concept in itself. The author may be pointing people to more innovative ways of telling stories, but he is at the same time showing the problem with such a story. Though it is clever, its ending is unsatisfactory, especially for the main character, but in the movie version, the average viewer (which I was) is perplexed at the end. But why do we consider stories satisfactory or unsatisfactory? The need for closure is automatic in people, that is why it is a stock in any story, good or bad, and why only very smart people can enjoy something as dull and self-indulgent as Michael Haneke's “Caché”.

The character is seeking salvation, to pass some form of finish line. We are seeking to pass that too, why on earth would I be sitting here writing about metanarratives otherwise?!

I think one way of seeing this story is as a critique of the very period we're in now. The truth is, we can't live without a sense of purpose of global cohesion in our lives. The main character is trying to put fragments together and making sense of his life. I believe a lot of people today and generally speaking, Western society today are doing the same, but, just like the man with no memory, they have got a defective knowledge of their past. Actually, their distant past is more jumbled up and confused than their recent past, but like this man, in their imperfect knowledge, they choose what fragments to put together and therefore end up with a metanarrative which somehow grates against reality, not able to really encompass it.

The other aspect of the character is that he doesn't question his own actions anymore, his motivations, he is a victim and an avenger. The moral compass being broken as well as the plot, people choose to believe what they want and simply get used to living in the moment, doing whatever feels right in that moment. This leads to justifying basically any lifestyle, since if we accept that there are no metanarratives except for each person's personal story, there is no way to say this or that is right or wrong. This explains the utter stubbornness and violent resistance of people who are told they should not act in certain destructive ways. It is as if we had gone back to a childish state, where everyone's claiming their rights to various things but with no wisdom, no concept of transcendence or history, except for selective history.

I think this explains in part the fragmentation of society into various causes which have various metanarratives: feminists believe history is a battle against women's oppression by men, lgbt activists believe history is a battle against oppression and repression of sexuality, many racial groups are convinced that they have suffered more than others and see history as a battle against their oppressors. Each metanarrative places the individual as central to his story and being in the centre, with a perspective which has massive blind spots, they believe they are going towards their salvation, they telos (end).

But maybe something meaningful has already happened, though they are unable to perceive it because of their blinders. Maybe their enemy is the person they think is their friend, their methods and justifications are simply leading them into more error and the people they think are their enemies are in fact trying to help them.

So what's funny is that postmoderns say they don't believe in grand metanarratives such as the biblical one, but they keep constructing new ones, to give meaning to their lives. How else could you explain all the young people who think they are going to end world hunger and injustices by going to concerts and signing online petitions?

And in that sense, “Memento Mori” truly puts its finger on a very contemporary problem. None of the narrators, whether the notes the main character leaves to himself or even the 3^rd person voice which keeps saying “maybe, whatever”, and especially not the main character in his 10-minute slot of time, none of these people are reliable. He needs a benevolent person, who can see the full scope of his actions and of his life, to help him out of his cycle. He needs healing of his brain and of his heart. He needs a higher purpose than himself, a metanarrative that includes both the bad and the good, but that has an end that brings closure and peace... And so do we.

For there is an ultimate, undeniable truth: "Memento Mori"; remember, you're going to die.

To be continued, through comments, discussions, and maybe a follow-up post.

Easter poem

George Herbert, 1633 - Easter 

RIse heart; thy Lord is risen.  Sing his praise
                                                  Without delayes,
Who takes thee by the hand, that thou likewise
                                                  With him mayst rise:
That, as his death calcined1 thee to dust,
His life may make thee gold, and much more, just.

Awake, my lute, and struggle for thy part
                                                  With all thy art.
The crosse taught all wood to resound his name,
                                                  Who bore the same.
His stretched sinews taught all strings, what key
Is best to celebrate this most high day.

Consort both heart and lute, and twist a song
                                                  Pleasant and long:
Or, since all musick is but three parts2 vied
                                                  And multiplied,
O let thy blessed Spirit bear a part,
And make up our defects with his sweet art.

Twilight - a(n informed?) critique

All the hype’s gonna go now. They’ll find, or indeed, I think they’ve already found something else to get kids excited about. Just as the Twilight “saga” replaced Harry Potter at the teeny box office, something else is going to come sell to younger audiences.

About a month ago, I was actually kidnapped and taken to the cinema by surprise, and made to watch the final episode of the series. This was after having succeeded in avoiding the whole of the so-called saga, though not entirely avoided seeing trailers and reading blogs about how both cinematographically awful they were as well as spiritually evil. Upon landing in Manila, after 20 hours of travelling, most of which had already been spent sitting and watching movies, I was picked up and driven to the cinema. So granted, I wasn’t particularly in the mood for it, but I was able, despite the tiredness and the frustration, to draw from it some things which I have not heard anyone mention before (though they probably have been said somewhere in the world), which I think I’d share.

Some people might read this (though I doubt they will actually read) and say “it’s just a flick, entertainment, and it’s fantasy! Why d’you have to try and see what’s behind it, it’s just a stupid movie!” The reality is, in spite of being stupid, any and all movie can tell you something about the people who are likely to enjoy them, the message which is being communicated, and the general trends in culture. I think this film and series is particularly telling at that level, even though I’ve only watched one of them.

Since I saw it over a month ago, it’s difficult to remember clearly and in what order things stood out to me, but there were many, on various levels. I think the one I really need to mention, because it’s so out there and glaring, is the particular type of self-determination which it presents. Seeing that explains a lot why it is popular with today’s teenagers. It basically implies that teenagers are wiser than any and everyone else, and that it’s up to them to decide what is right and what is wrong, each one of them individually. Bella lives in a world in which she can decide what to tell her father and what not to tell him and even patronise him about it, choose to be a vampire, and be with her friends, whilst separating themselves from the world, not entertaining relationships with people who are different from them (except the clique of cool werewolves, but we accept them, because they’re just so cool), and living in a world where time stops, they never age and life will always be this beautiful. What’s more, though she marries a vampire and doesn’t care about her dad’s opinion concerning that issue, her and her group have already decided that her newborn daughter is going to marry this other guy: an arranged marriage. The implications of this are shocking, but reveal where many teens are at today: they want to be in a world where they never have to grow old to become like their parents and take on responsibilities, never have to change, or learn anything which would help them mature, just hang out with their friends who are all co-dependent on each other. The consequence is that they intend to raise the children they may have in a context which is far worse, and more limiting for their own children than the one they grew up in. “I decide for myself” ends up becoming “I decide for everybody else”.

Another disturbing thing in the movie is the way these “friends” treat each other. Bella has no problem beating up her friend because she’s angry at him while the others watch, and this poor guy’s supposed to just let himself get punched, though he always treats her right. It is a strange form of feminism to say the least. Still under the self-deterministic insignia, there are subtle and less subtle references to drug-use and maybe alternative sexualities in the movie, though I don’t think the author would have necessarily intended these to be explicit, being a Mormon (which we’ll come back to later): there is the idea that I choose my lifestyle, some people are born like this, others are born like that, you just have to accept it (even if no cogent arguments are ever made), and if you don’t, you’re mean. There are even people who have relationships based exclusively on the sensations they get to feel together: one couple gets formed simply because the power one girl has, a form of electric shock, gives something of a rush to another vampire. It’s all very co-dependent, as I said.

The aspect of thirst for power is also very interesting, because in all myths and stories up until now, there has always been a need to justify the desire for superpowers, or to find a way to use them responsibly, for the greater good, just think of Spider-Man (“With great power comes great responsibility”), X-Men, etc. or if you’re into manga, there’s Bleach, Naruto, or Kenichi, where the reason is often to protect one’s friends, or to bring about world peace. Here, no reason is given. It’s just for the simple pleasure of being powerful. There is no ambition to do any good, except to oneself. No aspiration to anything that doesn’t bring something good to me. Another profound mark of selfishness.

But maybe, as mentioned, the author of the books didn’t intend for all these things to be apparent in her story. Maybe she was just creating a Mormon narrative, mixed with threads of teenage angst. After all, the other aspect which stands out pretty heavily is the Mormon discourse. For those who do not know, Mormonism is a religion created in the XIX^th century USA, which deviates significantly from historic Christianity, but wants to be recognised as true Christianity. It is halfway there in its homeland, since it is a recognised religion, just as any other, which this blogger finds both odd and frightening. Inspired by this background and the mythology of Mormonism, Stephanie Meyer has written a narrative which reflects life from that perspective. Bella is born again by being bitten by a vampire, and they live in a world where they are superior to everyone else. She often calls her dad by name instead of “Dad/daddy”, while she calls her vampire friends “our family”, and actually separates herself from him, a mark of sectarian belonging. They live in wilderness, separated from the world, similar to the way the early Mormon community founded Salt Lake City. They create a happy family where everyone is always together, and give each other hardly any privacy. The bad guys are the ancient establishment which wants to eradicate them (interestingly, they come from Italy) for no apparent reason and who executes people by burning them. The child that Bella has may be inspired by Mormon teaching on “spirit children”, since it is a child of a different kind, neither human nor vampire (you can really see I’ve spent too much time thinking about this…).

So much for the religious aspect. The final thing which stands out for me, and which still shocks me, though it shouldn’t, is just how downright bad the movie is, and how easy it is for Hollywood to sell something like this. Full of banal lines, I cannot believe someone got paid to write this script. There is no logic, coherence in the story, things happen and you think “why did that happen?”, or even “why would that happen?”. The story in and of itself is not even original! Vampire romance stories have been written by dozens for the last few decades, it is a whole genre, which once again, the Japanese do much better in manga. One also wonders how it is that teenagers, used to watching much more spectacular things, are satisfied with such awful fight scenes and special effects. Learn how to throw a punch Bella!!! It is probably because the main target audience is female, and girls often aren’t much interested in those particulars. All of this simply highlights the massive power of advertising. There are plenty of stories out there, better written, better done, but hype up the one you want, you’ll get people talking about it, even if it’s bad (yeah, even here, I’m doing publicity for the movie), and you’ll make bank. Which is of course what the bottom line is all about. It doesn’t matter if the message is awful, the subtext sectarian, the moral nonexistent, the punch-line abysmal, the finale done to death, or not quite, since to go that far is just too much of a letdown in most people’s books (have to see the finale to understand what I’m talking about here); if it sells, we’ll advertise well.

In one sense, Twilight is brilliant. It is an amalgam of contemporary teenage subculture and Mormon mythology, in a pre-established genre, which speaks to millions of teenagers today. On the other hand, it doesn’t say anything interesting, nor good, and it doesn’t say it well. If I may, J.K. Rowling, through the Harry Potter series is infinitely better at representing teenage life, frustrations, aspirations, and also better in the way she construct her characters. She also aims at something which is greater than my own good, sacrificial love for the sake of others. The HP series is more realistic in its depiction of humanity, more logical and it digs deeper into the heart, which is also why I think it’s a shame the way those movies panned out.

Tired of all this stuff, I’m going to resolve to read Paradise Lost this year, as well as some more Shakespeare. Though it may be difficult, at least they are original stories. And I pray that the Paradise Lost movie adaptation which was underway at one point gets pulled out of its rut, by miracle.