THINKING FOR A SINGLE SOLITARY MOMENT ABOUT THE SHINING AND MOVIE POSTERS

I have literally five posts sitting in my drafts folder that I need to finish and put up. For now, though, here's a quick one on my favourite movie, The Shining (which is playing in the background as I write this. Jack and Wendy are having a talk right now...).

Via twitter, I was directed to Buzzfeed's collection of 39 movie posters made by fans of The Shining. There are several striking posters in there (particularly #s 3, 9, 12, 14, 24, and 37), but by and large I am not a fan of them. What I dislike about many of the posters (aside from the ones that just look like covers for a Dover Thrift Edition of the novel) is that they mistakenly load their weight onto (admittedly iconic) elements of the film that have nothing to do with what makes it such a masterpiece. The twins, the axe, the blood, the tricycle, even the typewriter and the manuscript, all of these are contributing aspects to the film's horror, but they're not the central cause. That resides in the relationship between Jack, Wendy, Danny, and the Overlook Hotel.


The Shining is not scary because it's a violent film (really, the amount of violence is fairly small, though its impact is sizable); The Shining is terrifying because nothing in the film really explains why it is violent. The ghosts from the hotel don't really explain it (unless accepting the drink from Lloyd really does involve Jack selling his soul to the devil), the story Ullman tells about cabin fever doesn't really explain it, and the already present strain between the family doesn't really explain it. King famously complained that it was a mistake to cast Jack Nicholson because what is to come is too obvious from the opening scene. King makes a good point in that there's a certain narrative satisfaction that a less overtly "on edge" actor might have provided by emphasising the transformation of Jack from the start of the film to the end, but again knowing that violence will break out by the end of the movie, that Jack will become something monstrous, doesn't explain why. No, the very ambiguity of the movie, the "undecidability" that it foregrounds--is the Overlook a malevolent force that corrupts an otherwise decent man? Is this simply an encounter with absolute evil and its effects? Are ghosts responsible for all of this? Any of this? Would this have happened regardless of the family visiting the Overlook?--is the key to the horror that it instills in the viewer. This is what prevents a glib dismissal of the movie as "just a story;" it is fantastical in some respects, but in that is the seed of "fantasy" in the sense of a wise or desire: is The Shining showing us something we long for? Some quotidian violence that can erupt when given the right impetus? What is that impetus? Of course, these are once again the very questions that the movie refuses to answer. For now, I'll point in the direction of one of the most cogent explanations of the film's power (and horror), and leave it at that.

When it comes to a poster for the film, then, something of that undecidability, that quotidian element that trends into horror, that erupts into violence, should be captured in a way that blood and axes can't. For me, were I to make a poster of the film, I would focus not on the memorable "Here's Johnny!" scene that the DVD uses, but on a smaller scene that I find the most chilling in the film. After arguing with Wendy just before he goes down to the ballroom and runs into Grady, Jack storms out of the apartment, leaving the door wide open. That scene, with Jack walking away, the family now open and exposed to evil, to violence, to something that no longer feels like a possibility, but an inevitability (and, even worse, an inevitability that has never really seemed like anything else in hindsight, though there's still no reason why--cruelly underscored by Grady's insistence that Jack has always been the caretaker). Of course, one of the deepest ironies of the film that Fisher mentions in the analysis I've linked to above is that all of the horrifying elements, once they've assembled themselves into an (il)logical chain by the end of the movie, cannot be overlooked in any subsequent viewing. The telos of the movie is its violence, but nothing will ever really explain how we get there.

To that end, my movie poster for The Shining (clearly, I'm not a graphic designer, and I'd like to do something nicer with most of the text). One obvious caveat to all of this: more than almost any other movie I've seen, The Shining relies on all of its constituent parts to work; without its music/sound effects, any movie poster for The Shining is doomed to woefully underrepresent the movie's power.

A BRIEF NOTE ON MAUS AND HAUNTOLOGY, INSPIRED BY METAMAUS

If there's a canon of American hauntological fiction, Maus is definitely part of it (other texts to be included in that list: Beloved, The Shining, a whole mess of Philip K. Dick [e.g. Man in the High Castle, Ubik, and Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said], the New York Trilogy). I'm working my way through MetaMaus right now and this quote from Art Spiegelman is just so perfect, both in explaining why Maus is a hauntological work and why comics are an inherently hauntological medium:

What is most interesting about comics for me has to do with the abstraction and structurings that come with the comics page, the fact that moments in time are juxtaposed. In a story that is trying to make chronological and coherent the incomprehensible, the juxtaposing of past and present insists that past and present are always present--one doesn't displace the other the way it happens in film. (165)

This seems like a formal and material manifestation of Derrida's  "deconstructing, dislocating, displacing, disarticulating, disjoining, putting 'out of joint' the authority of the 'is.' . . . measuring . . . against the historical experience--and this is history itself--against the experience of that which in the 'is,' in time or in the present time of 'is,' remains precisely 'out of joint'" ("The Time is Out of Joint" 25). In Spiegelman's description, Maus would fail if it gave authority to any "is;" the narrative works precisely because there remains no time or tense that gains priority. Spiegelman points to a passage early in the second volume in which the formal representation of the past and of the present are "butting . . . up against each other." The very rigid and regular grids of the present "have fallen away to reveal what's underneath. . . . By peeling away what would have been six of the panels on that fifteen-grid page, the map of Auschwitz that underlies our present is revealed" (181-82; my emphasis).

Similarly, the introduction to Auschwitz in the second volume--which up to now has been seen only as its iconic front gates--is accomplished via a similar displacement of the primacy of the present moment. In a way to get around the dread he felt at telling this part of his father's story, Spiegelman sought to enter Auschwitz in a way that "doesn't allow for the momentousness of the moment" (188). Thus, the introduction comes through a break in the present--one that reveals that the past was there all along, that any entry into Auschwitz by the narrative is a reentry--when, "after wandering around the bungalow colony with my father . . . a very small panel, a close-up of a snarling Nazi . . . interrupts the fairly fluid stroll through the country. It's very abrupt and perfunctory" (188). The Nazi's shout--ostensibly to the Jews who had been transported to Auschwitz in the truck carrying Vladek and Anja--is multivalent: a call to leave the present moment and a call to the past to expose itself as there in that present moment.

In these reveals, these explorations of the past and present as both always present, Maus is a tremendously uncanny text. It offers up what is to remain hidden in order for the present to assert its authority: the competing narrative of the past, whose presence, formerly skirting by at the edges of awareness, frame, and panel, now becomes fully visible. In this sense, Maus fits with Adam Harper's definition of hauntological art, in which the object possesses:

two stages, or layers. The first layer seems to present something that's in some way idealised - this is often but not always an image involving the past . . . The second "hauntological" layer problematises, compromises and obfuscates the first layer, undermining or damaging it in some way and introducing irony into the work, and represents the opinionated viewpoint of the present. While the first layer might express hope and confidence, the hauntological layer contradicts and undoes this by expressing a satirical doubt and disillusionment.

Here, Maus functions as a hauntological work because the ostensibly idealized life in America that Vladek enjoys in Rego Park is continually undercut by the reintroduction of the past (or the way it functions as an uncanny text). In a mirror of the map of Auschwitz underneath Vladek and Art's present conversation, the back cover of the second volume (reproduced within the body of the text) geographically and temporally displaces contemporary New York and New Jersey into Poland and Auschwitz.

Even Spiegelman's counterpart in the text, Art, cannot escape the past in his present moment of success after the publishing of the first volume. His writing desk rests on the bodies of dead mice, he's bordered by a swastika, and a guard tower looms outside his window. For Spiegelman, this "Time Flies" section serves "as a MetaMaus like commentary on the whole project."

Perhaps even more powerful, though slightly less visceral than the above sequence, is one of the motivating questions Spiegelman describes:

"So, how did you get born when you weren't supposed to?" In a way, taking on my parents' Holocaust story was a way of getting to the primal moment of my birth, because there was no way that they were both supposed to be alive and coupling after World War II. It is a specific journey that has nothing to do with history and everything to do with history; one or both of these people is supposed to be dead, which means that I'm not supposed to be here. (199)

Spiegelman's own presence, his body, destabilizes time and history here, complicating narratives that resist closure and refuse to add up. In this way, the hauntological elements of Maus are, I think, exactly what continue to make it relevant. As Spiegelman points out, casual racism is:

what festered into becoming the Final Solution; and it is what allows our current immigration debates to take certain kinds of appalling coloration now. It is what allows us to call Arabs "ragheads," it's what allows Arabs to think of Jews and Americans as wearing targets around their necks so one can kill them, it's that whole process of dehumanization. I'm not exempting myself, my father, or the Nazis or Poles from it; it seems to be a basic aspect of how tribes organize themselves. (36-37)

The call to remember in Maus, to account, introduces "Guilt . . . an explosive thing to live with, but it may be the price we humans must pay for civilization while trying to learn true Empathy" (158).* It might be possible to pair this statement with the ethical and political aspect of hauntology, its insistence that the present is not the only possibility: "The reason all these ghosts matter, the point of saying It wasn't always like this, is not that it was better then, let's go back, but to remind ourselves that it doesn't have to be this way. . . The ghosts that should most haunt us are the spectres of events that have not yet happened." The spectres raised by Maus, the history that the text bleeds, are not confined to the past, but extend into the returning future in which the preconditions for what takes place in Maus have never been eliminated.

Anyway, if you're a fan of Maus, do yourself a favour and pick up MetaMaus. The three long interview sections--"Why the Holocaust?," "Why Mice?," and "Why Comics?"--are illuminating, with Spiegelman's candid and articulate answers a real joy to read. Added treats: the unedited transcript of his initial interview with his father, Vladek, in 1972 and the DVD, containing audio clips of Spiegelman explaining his work and excerpts from the tape recordings of Vladek telling his story.

*Echoes of PKD's claim that empathy is the necessary characteristic of the human?