The Trial

            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