A nameless man wakes in his bed to
find a mysterious figure entering his bedroom. The unknown male personage walks
into the room, dressed like a detective and immediately establishes himself as
the dominant figure. He immediately interrogates the waking man, asking
questions with the purpose of exposing any faults in the waking mans answers.
The waking man whom is later identified as Josef, is baffled at the random
circumstances of his waking and stumbles through his answers, making the
detective more suspicious. It is obvious that Josef is nervous, weather it be
because he is guilty, or that he is out of his element. The scene grows more
and more strange as further detectives walk in and out of the room asking
questions, making accusations, and twisting Josef’s words. Orson Wells, the
narrator opens the movie by stating that the logic of the movie is that of the
logic of a dream of a nightmare, indeed this is true. The plot and setting are
never explained the movie forces the audience fill in the holes and make their
own assumptions about the theme of the film (The Trial 0:300-0:1700).
The
Trial is full of contradictory themes and logic, yet the full of the movie
seems to represent different aspects of poststructuralist theory. It may seem
cheap to write a review of the first fifteen minutes of the movie. To some it can
be viewed as lazy, as if this was the first and only portion watched, yet just
these few minutes emulate poststructuralist theory in a multitude of ways. There
are definite themes of literary realism, Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory of
linguistics, and the genealogy of knowledge.
“It has been said that the logic of
this story is the logic of a dream of a nightmare” (The Trial, 3:52). Right off
the bat, the movie screams of literary realism. The Trial is a story that of meta-fiction, it is a story of a story
of a story. Reality and logic are blurred because the story is removed from
reality three times; at this point, anything is possible. Logic can be blurred
and misshapen, yet still appear realistic (Bolton, 2012).
Saussure ‘s contribution to the
poststructuralist theory concerning linguistics shows that words and their
sounds are not directly associated with the entity that it portrays. Language
is generally objective in nature. New words derive from previous words or
encounters with words. For example, if humans had more relative association in their
daily lives, they would simply call a lion, a rawr, since that sound directly relates to the sound that a lion
might make, thus making a direct association between the physical object and
the word; instead the word comes from the Latin word Leo and the French word
lion, which means hero. There is still some relativity, since the English and
French word piggy packs off of the Latin root, but there is still a large
difference from the symbol of a lion to the signifier Leo (Etymology Online,
2016).
As the detectives cross examine
Josef, they come across a discoloration on the floor in the shape of an oval.
The men continually ask, what the “ovaly”
shape is on the floor, after which Josef exclaims that ovaly is not a word. Why would the men make up this word? There is
a direct link between the signified and signifier of the word ovaly. The men took a word, which was
already known to them, oval, and turned the word into an adjective. Not only
was it easy for the detectives to create the word, but also it is easy for one
to instantly relate the new word from the oval shape. The term has so much objective
association, that if Josef did not explain that ovaly was not a word, many audience members would not have known.
The dialog of the detectives reveals
them to be relational thinkers; so much so that it reaches an extreme level,
yet their rational has limits. The questions they ask Josef are as if they
posses no objectivity. Since they did not witness anything that Josef has done,
then they do not believe that it has happened or could happen. Later, the head
detective comes across this conversation in his notes left by the other
officers as he comes across the word ovaly,
he immediately knows the word to be incorrect grammar and dismisses it as
foolish babbling. The head inspector assumes that the word play is Josef’s
doing, he is unable to understand the meaning of the word, or its relevancy to
the task at hand. The head inspector and the other officers are two extreme
representations of humanity, some people are able to play with the meaning of
words, and use past experiences to alter the future of syntax. Others, like the
head inspector do not have this ability to use their past to alter their
future. The head inspector’s inability to understand the knowledge passed
through the chain of command also shows a lacking of genealogy of knowledge.
Knowledge could not be passed from one to another (What is Poststructuralism?).
If I had watched this movie outside the
context of this class, I would have not enjoyed it. I would not have been able
to enjoy the film without knowing anything about postructuralist theory. The
film was fun because it was awkward. The seemingly strange dialog and random
setting was humorous. The Trial helped
me take the theory off of paper and see it in real life context.
References
[Bolton
Christopher]. (2012, November 9). Animating
Poststructuralism. [Video File]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2dLVx8THA
Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2016,
from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lion
Welles, O. (Director), Welles, O., Ledrut, J., Richard, E.,
& Muller, F. (Writers), & Salkind, M., & Salkind, A. (Producers). (2002). The trial
[Motion picture]. Los Angelos, CA: Miracle Pictures.
What is poststructuralism? (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2016,
from http://www.readysteadybook.com/Article.aspx?page=whatispoststructuralism
