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'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
( ... )
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
( ... )
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.
Comments 4
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 ( ... )
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 ( ... )
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