"The Discreet Masochism of the Bourgeoisie"

I often find myself in situations during discussions over films or books where I proclaim the film to be "feel-good" and that's where the discussion ends. It is, as if the film is feel-good, I don't bother myself too much thinking about it. It is ipso-facto sentimental, dishonest, manipulative or worse, it flatters the bourgeois illusions of the viewers. This doesn't happen always but it does happen sometimes. On the other hand if the film is "feel-bad", it often gets called "subversive", "moral" , "serious", "intelligent", in short, a work of art. Early this year I saw two such films and had a hard time defending them. One was Lars von Trier's Dogville, which plumbs new depths (okay, make it heights) of cynicism about human nature and the other Michael Haneke's Piano Teacher, which made me shudder with fear with its stark and utterly clinical portrayal of human disconnection. Although I loved both the films, Haneke's more than the other, I had a hard time defending these, specially with friends who call films like Forrest Gump a work of art. (Me? I find it feel-good and so, manipulative, sentimental and dishonest !)

That's why I found this short essay by A.O. Scott of the New York Times very interesting. Discussing the latest films by the two of the most feel-bad filmakers of contemporary times, he says:

The sting of movies like "Manderlay" and "Caché" can have a salutary effect, since the discomfort they provoke, even when it takes the form of defensive anger, is an antidote to the soothing reassurance that we find elsewhere. But the masochistic embrace of art that tries to hit us where we live can provide its own perverse form of comfort. Feeling bad about ourselves can become a way of affirming our own goodness, a sign of moral virtue and political concern that costs nothing more than the price of a ticket.

Which is quite true. These feel-bad movies, quite paradoxically, make us feel good about our intellectual and moral capabilities, not by doing anything but just by the act of having seen and understood those films. This is not to say anything against Michael Haneke or Lars von Trier. They are artists in the true sense of the word and of course, not just because their films are feel-bad. More on their films later. I am feeling too bad right now!

By the way, Scott says, "Mr. von Trier's cynical view of human nature can make Mr. Haneke look like Frank Capra,". Hmmm. Now, I am not too sure about that.