Actually, I don't see it. As with the traditional reading, I see the roles reversed from your analysis. Doom pretty clearly sides with the Apollonian desire for order (He's a judge; despite being a corrupt one, perhaps sensing graft as the liminal order that bridges between the chaos of Toontown and the bureaucracy of Los Angeles' municipal world), progress ("My god, it will be beautiful"), and the desire to eliminate and constrain any chaotic, mysterious, and revelatory nature/society (mostly in the Toons, but also lackadaisical cops and off-duty barflies).
I'd say that Valiant's drinking does connect him to Dionysian impulses, but in that he wants to recapture the hedonia he lost with his innocence when his brother was murdered. He is seduced by the chaotic glee and irresponsibility that the Toons represent. This is addition to being carnally (self-)seduced by the (chaste) sexual promise that Jessica Rabbit incarnates. Who would care about fucking a toon? Jessica herself says she is nothing more than a sexual fantasy which cannot be fulfilled, and dreams are greatly the realm of the Dionysian. The reason that Valiant is the (anti) hero in this story is pretty much laid out by Roger when he hires the P.I. The Toons know him and his brother to be reliable mediums between the realms of the animated and human. Being victimized by the senseless chaotic violence which highlights that which is Toon, Valiant wills himself to shut himself away from the Dionysian - unsuccessfully, of course, and to much detriment. He attempts to take solace the firm and predictable order of the Apollonian, but comes to find that side of reality has its own horrors. Those horrors are largely incarnated in Doom, due to Doom's eager and overenthusiastic obsession with the Apollonian via reductio ad absurdum (as only a toon could).
I do like your premise, but I think it needs more support to it.
I'm not sure which reading this could mean, but again, I was referring to Nietzsche's conception of Apollonian and Dionysian. One of the key differences between the interpretation you're presenting and Nietzsche's is that Nietzsche strongly associates the Apollonian with dreams, this being closer to the domain of the god Apollo (the Wikipedia entry on the subject also puts dreams with Apollo).
Now, this might sound strange, but really the world of the Toons is far more ordered and rational than the world of humans in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I don't just mean because it makes sense for immortals to be rather carefree. It's also why the movie is almost blatantly about the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy--because, like humour usually does, the Toons' humour functions to bring meaning to the actual absurdity of life. That was Roger's point in the bar, about why the bar patrons wouldn't turn Roger in. Just like Nietzsche said, the Apollonian captivates and inspires the Dionysian. The story of a cartoon presents a version of reality where the consequences of violence aren't as dire and the meaning behind foolishness is easy to grasp. Meanwhile, Doom's plans involve murder in order to improve traffic conditions and to bring himself financial gain, which only makes sense under the despairing perspective of the Dionysian. It implicitly denies the value of artifice.
but in that he wants to recapture the hedonia he lost with his innocence when his brother was murdered.
I think it might be better to say he wishes to medicate himself in order to bear the pain caused by his newfound perception of reality's horror.
He is seduced by the chaotic glee and irresponsibility that the Toons represent.
You mean at the end of the film? Because at the beginning he very clearly hates Toons. Remember how mad he gets when anyone suggests he worked for a Toon?
This is addition to being carnally (self-)seduced by the (chaste) sexual promise that Jessica Rabbit incarnates. Who would care about fucking a toon?
Well, putting aside the fact for the moment I don't think Jessica needs any additional effort on the viewer's part to come off as seductive, I don't remember Eddie actively flirting with her. He seems attracted to her despite his better judgement.
I mean that Toons are wacky and humanity is "ordered". And yeah, I did not look at Nietzsche interpretation of the dichotomy - which I won't say is wrong, it just wasn't how I was looking at it. I do like the idea that the cartoon-logic of the Toons supercedes (or at least somehow becomes "more" logical) than the arbitrary rules and conduct assigned to human society. I suppose I am also thinking of the function of physics and physicality as an absolute deliminator to the sphere of human action, thought, etc. We can only act in limitation to the physical consequences of that action. Whereas the Toons can transcend our physical notions to condense action and intent to it's (il-)logical conclusion or ideal. It might not make "sense" to humanity, but given the set of logical premises upon which Toon Action is based, it is the most likely outcome. In the world of the toon, there is no such thing as a logical fallacy.
I think it might be better to say he wishes to medicate himself in order to bear the pain caused by his newfound perception of reality's horror.
Hmm. I think my point might have had more validity if we had seen Valiant lose control while under the influence of drink. If we had seen him become much more celebratory rather than self-destructive.
You mean at the end of the film? Because at the beginning he very clearly hates Toons. Remember how mad he gets when anyone suggests he worked for a Toon?
No, I think his rage is overcompensation and intended to camoflage what he feels is an irreconcible schism between what he saw as the innocent mania represented in Toontown and the absurd violence of his brother's death. Valiant is trying to convince everyone around him that he no longer approves of the Toon world, although everyone is pretty much knowledgeable that he's putting on an act. An act, of course, mostly to convince himself - but one that he requires other people to participate in and submit to. Valiant's grief has put his previous acceptance of Toonism into the closet, so to speak.
He seems attracted to her despite his better judgement.
True, and this is very much a trope of the mother-genre. However, what I'm speaking of is what that attraction stems from and what that judgement is telling him. She's a sexual cariacture, who obviously commands immense sensual attention in Toons and humans (As seen in the Ink & Paint club), and yet she's almost completely chaste when dealing with the actual (again) physics of sexuality. What I mean to say is that while Jessica would seem to be seductive to everyone around her, this is a function of her image alone (she's "just drawn that way") and never really backed up any declaration of intent or her actions. The only human to possibly connect with her (Acme) only participates in her physically to play a child's game. Of course, this parodic expression of sexuality is equated to the genuine article by Roger (which is the whole joke). When Valiant observes this he's dumbstruck by the absurd notion that all of the sexual signifiers are ultimately subverted by the fact that Jessica remains a Toon and cannot (or does not) participate in the kind of fantasy that she inspires in humanity.
In the world of the toon, there is no such thing as a logical fallacy.
It's more than this. By parodying human reality, Toons organise it and make it palatable to humans. Like in the cartoon that opens the film, we have a baby in apparent constant mortal danger, Roger's anxieties and hopeless inability to save the child. All this has both the shock of broaching the subjects and the pleasure of rendering them trivial through broad exaggeration.
Valiant's grief has put his previous acceptance of Toonism into the closet, so to speak.
I think this is true, which is of course what would have made the original ending so great. Valiant finally learns to embrace innocence again, the Apollonian, only to have it make him vulnerable when life gets Dionysian again.
and yet she's almost completely chaste when dealing with the actual (again) physics of sexuality.
I don't know if we can say for certain she never has sex, but it would of course make her intensely Apollonian.
I'd say that Valiant's drinking does connect him to Dionysian impulses, but in that he wants to recapture the hedonia he lost with his innocence when his brother was murdered. He is seduced by the chaotic glee and irresponsibility that the Toons represent. This is addition to being carnally (self-)seduced by the (chaste) sexual promise that Jessica Rabbit incarnates. Who would care about fucking a toon? Jessica herself says she is nothing more than a sexual fantasy which cannot be fulfilled, and dreams are greatly the realm of the Dionysian. The reason that Valiant is the (anti) hero in this story is pretty much laid out by Roger when he hires the P.I. The Toons know him and his brother to be reliable mediums between the realms of the animated and human. Being victimized by the senseless chaotic violence which highlights that which is Toon, Valiant wills himself to shut himself away from the Dionysian - unsuccessfully, of course, and to much detriment. He attempts to take solace the firm and predictable order of the Apollonian, but comes to find that side of reality has its own horrors. Those horrors are largely incarnated in Doom, due to Doom's eager and overenthusiastic obsession with the Apollonian via reductio ad absurdum (as only a toon could).
I do like your premise, but I think it needs more support to it.
Reply
I'm not sure which reading this could mean, but again, I was referring to Nietzsche's conception of Apollonian and Dionysian. One of the key differences between the interpretation you're presenting and Nietzsche's is that Nietzsche strongly associates the Apollonian with dreams, this being closer to the domain of the god Apollo (the Wikipedia entry on the subject also puts dreams with Apollo).
Now, this might sound strange, but really the world of the Toons is far more ordered and rational than the world of humans in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I don't just mean because it makes sense for immortals to be rather carefree. It's also why the movie is almost blatantly about the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy--because, like humour usually does, the Toons' humour functions to bring meaning to the actual absurdity of life. That was Roger's point in the bar, about why the bar patrons wouldn't turn Roger in. Just like Nietzsche said, the Apollonian captivates and inspires the Dionysian. The story of a cartoon presents a version of reality where the consequences of violence aren't as dire and the meaning behind foolishness is easy to grasp. Meanwhile, Doom's plans involve murder in order to improve traffic conditions and to bring himself financial gain, which only makes sense under the despairing perspective of the Dionysian. It implicitly denies the value of artifice.
but in that he wants to recapture the hedonia he lost with his innocence when his brother was murdered.
I think it might be better to say he wishes to medicate himself in order to bear the pain caused by his newfound perception of reality's horror.
He is seduced by the chaotic glee and irresponsibility that the Toons represent.
You mean at the end of the film? Because at the beginning he very clearly hates Toons. Remember how mad he gets when anyone suggests he worked for a Toon?
This is addition to being carnally (self-)seduced by the (chaste) sexual promise that Jessica Rabbit incarnates. Who would care about fucking a toon?
Well, putting aside the fact for the moment I don't think Jessica needs any additional effort on the viewer's part to come off as seductive, I don't remember Eddie actively flirting with her. He seems attracted to her despite his better judgement.
Reply
I mean that Toons are wacky and humanity is "ordered". And yeah, I did not look at Nietzsche interpretation of the dichotomy - which I won't say is wrong, it just wasn't how I was looking at it. I do like the idea that the cartoon-logic of the Toons supercedes (or at least somehow becomes "more" logical) than the arbitrary rules and conduct assigned to human society. I suppose I am also thinking of the function of physics and physicality as an absolute deliminator to the sphere of human action, thought, etc. We can only act in limitation to the physical consequences of that action. Whereas the Toons can transcend our physical notions to condense action and intent to it's (il-)logical conclusion or ideal. It might not make "sense" to humanity, but given the set of logical premises upon which Toon Action is based, it is the most likely outcome. In the world of the toon, there is no such thing as a logical fallacy.
I think it might be better to say he wishes to medicate himself in order to bear the pain caused by his newfound perception of reality's horror.
Hmm. I think my point might have had more validity if we had seen Valiant lose control while under the influence of drink. If we had seen him become much more celebratory rather than self-destructive.
You mean at the end of the film? Because at the beginning he very clearly hates Toons. Remember how mad he gets when anyone suggests he worked for a Toon?
No, I think his rage is overcompensation and intended to camoflage what he feels is an irreconcible schism between what he saw as the innocent mania represented in Toontown and the absurd violence of his brother's death. Valiant is trying to convince everyone around him that he no longer approves of the Toon world, although everyone is pretty much knowledgeable that he's putting on an act. An act, of course, mostly to convince himself - but one that he requires other people to participate in and submit to. Valiant's grief has put his previous acceptance of Toonism into the closet, so to speak.
He seems attracted to her despite his better judgement.
True, and this is very much a trope of the mother-genre. However, what I'm speaking of is what that attraction stems from and what that judgement is telling him. She's a sexual cariacture, who obviously commands immense sensual attention in Toons and humans (As seen in the Ink & Paint club), and yet she's almost completely chaste when dealing with the actual (again) physics of sexuality. What I mean to say is that while Jessica would seem to be seductive to everyone around her, this is a function of her image alone (she's "just drawn that way") and never really backed up any declaration of intent or her actions. The only human to possibly connect with her (Acme) only participates in her physically to play a child's game. Of course, this parodic expression of sexuality is equated to the genuine article by Roger (which is the whole joke). When Valiant observes this he's dumbstruck by the absurd notion that all of the sexual signifiers are ultimately subverted by the fact that Jessica remains a Toon and cannot (or does not) participate in the kind of fantasy that she inspires in humanity.
Reply
It's more than this. By parodying human reality, Toons organise it and make it palatable to humans. Like in the cartoon that opens the film, we have a baby in apparent constant mortal danger, Roger's anxieties and hopeless inability to save the child. All this has both the shock of broaching the subjects and the pleasure of rendering them trivial through broad exaggeration.
Valiant's grief has put his previous acceptance of Toonism into the closet, so to speak.
I think this is true, which is of course what would have made the original ending so great. Valiant finally learns to embrace innocence again, the Apollonian, only to have it make him vulnerable when life gets Dionysian again.
and yet she's almost completely chaste when dealing with the actual (again) physics of sexuality.
I don't know if we can say for certain she never has sex, but it would of course make her intensely Apollonian.
Reply
Leave a comment