Microsoft Word Narrative Exploits docx

Domestic Violence

Haneke’s Funny Games is an American remake of the German-language film by the same name, also directed by Haneke (1997). Known for his experiments with narrative and his fervent disavowal of Hollywood conventions, Haneke, particularly in Funny Games, invites viewers to enter the narrative space

of the film, commenting on our desire for violence both in the narratives we consume and in the national policies we implicitly endorse. Although many critics have discussed the self-referential aspects of the film that render viewers complicit in the scenes of torture that Haneke depicts, little has been written on the presence of domesticity in the film and how violence not only intrudes on domestic space, but is, in fact, intrinsically embedded in our notions of domesticity. These processes, as in Roth’s novel, reflect Americans’ evolving relationship to an imagined American homeland. The scenes that Haneke presents and the formal strategies he incorporates suggest that violence has always been tied up with domestic space and narrative production and that we, as consumers of these kinds of narratives, are ultimately complicit in the state’s manipulation of discourses on national security. Using scenes that evoke the images of torture captured at Abu Ghraib, Haneke suggests that Americans’ relationship to violence and domestic space enable and in fact encourage participation in national regimes of torture that are founded on cultures of political violence.

Funny Games tells the story of a bourgeois American couple, Ann and George (played by Naomi Watts and Tim Roth), who travel, accompanied by their son and dog, to their impressive, gated, lakefront home in the Hamptons in hopes of spending a few days enjoying the privileges of high society. Upon their arrival, however, they are confronted by Peter and Paul, two youths dressed in white, upper-class summer attire (their striking appearance interestingly bears similarity to George’s attire), who almost immediately lay claim to their home and proceed

to torture the family through a series of sadistic “games.” First killing the family dog, the two intruders proceed to murder all three family members, beginning with the child, Georgie, and ending with Ann. Much of the film takes place in the vacation home, where Peter and Paul transform the familiar space of the living room, the kitchen, and other domestic zones into disturbing scenes of graphic torture. During these scenes, Paul, the more vocal and articulate of the two torturers, several times addresses the camera directly, thereby involving the viewer in the scenes of torture and violence that take place. When Ann is finally killed aboard the family’s sailboat in the nearby lake, Peter and Paul (they use other generic names—Tom and Jerry, Beavis and Butthead, etc.—over the course of the film) move on to another nearby lakefront property, presumably with the intention of carrying out the same set of “games.”

Since the American version of Funny Games is a shot-for-shot remake of the earlier European version, and since the two films share almost identical dialogue, this short synopsis functions equally well for both films. If the two films are identical, with the exception of actors and language differences, why, then, would Haneke choose to remake Funny Games a decade after its initial release?

In interviews, he has indicated that the 1997 film’s relative failure in American markets—it apparently only reached six thousand American viewers upon its release—demanded a version of the film that would be more palatable to American audiences (Wheatley 21). Furthermore, in various interviews Haneke has expressed his desire to reach specifically American audiences, seeing violence

as an American cultural phenomenon with respect to its production and consumption in the entertainment industry. Actors like Roth and Watts, whom American audiences would recognize from their roles in mainstream Hollywood films, along with an aggressive marketing campaign that targeted art-house audiences, made the American version of Funny Games a project specifically devoted to accessing and deconstructing an American culture of violence.¹² I argue that the film’s power resides more specifically in its presentation of domestic space and narrative, particularly in the context of the debates on national security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11. In cultural, political, and national contexts vastly different from those of its predecessor, the American Funny Games, in the vein of American Pastoral, makes specific commentary on domestic space and violence as conditions of an increasingly invasive institutional presence.

The lakeside vacation home that dominates the film’s mise-en-scene bears some similarities to The Swede’s Old Rimrock home in American Pastoral. Like the old stone house, the vacation home in Funny Games serves as a repository for middle-class, bourgeois ideology through its design and its associations with an idyllic vision of American wealth and tradition. With its expansive lawns and looming, white exterior, the house immediately reveals its inhabitants to be

¹² In her review of the film, Catherine Wheatley makes the interesting observation that, complicating Haneke’s ostensible desire to comment on Hollywood from an insider’s position through the American remake, all of the actors are either foreign-born or have forged their careers in independent films helmed by foreign directors. She asks, “Might the production then serve to undermine the US cultural imperialism Haneke despises by working within its terms while rejecting its models? (21).

invested in a mid-century New England culture of comfort. The interior, too, despite its first-rate kitchen appliances and modern living room furnishings, reveals that the house’s owners not only have money, but that they seek a lifestyle removed from the political exigencies of modernity; the wood floors, the French windows, the heavy, wooden chest in the foyer, the antique bookshelves, and the all-white interior are just a few of the features that align their home within an antiquated, postwar tradition of domestic space that emerged as middle class Americans in the postwar years fled inner cities, thereby rejecting the political tensions that continued to plague urban life. The home’s appearance may remind readers of the houses Bachelard discusses in The Poetics of Space, which, in their apparent neutrality, are themselves political. In embracing an ostensibly neutral political position, the house in Funny Games in fact implicitly rejects the messy urban politics of, say, Merry’s “home” in the blighted Newark of American Pastoral. To repeat Merry’s words: “Everything is political.”

The film’s first scenes overtly establish both the family’s identification with a bourgeois aesthetic and the house’s role in perpetuating and protecting this ideology. From the start, we see that the domestic space of the house, as a “lived space,” allows the family to put into practice the ideology that they, perhaps unconsciously, espouse. In the film’s first scene, the family is shown driving their Land Rover along a peaceful wooded highway to their vacation home, with their sailboat in tow. In the car, Ann and George play a simple game that involves guessing classical music compositions from their collection of compact discs in

the center console. When Haneke splices in the signature music from the film— John Zorn’s aggressive death-metal, which we also hear in other crucial moments throughout the film—we can see that the family’s interest in cultivating bourgeois tastes is always, even if they fail to recognize it, being threatened by the violence of the Real. As their SUV approaches the house, we see it stop outside a massive set of security gates, which slowly open and finally close once the car has passed safely into the protected space of their lakefront property. After the car moves out of the frame, Haneke lingers on the shot as we watch the gates slowly close, once again securing the family’s ideological safe haven.

Haneke, in these early scenes, is clearly interested in complicating our relationship to the film’s protagonists—Ann and George—by depicting them as members of a social class often understood to be out of touch with the realities of urban life. Despite our emotional investment in them as human beings—George, after all, deals with the intruders as diplomatically as any of us would and Ann is generous with the eggs she gives to Peter before he makes his true intentions known—it is difficult to identify whole-heartedly with characters who occupy a social sphere most of us can only dream about and who take measures to protect that life from contamination from the outside world. Nonetheless, we might find ourselves asking of them the same question we asked of the Levovs: “what is wrong with their life? What on earth is less reprehensible than the life of the Levovs?” Of course, the answer, as in Roth’s novel, is connected to political ideology. Like the all-white interior of the house and the white attire sported by

the two youths, who are either parodying or, more disturbing, belong to the victims’ social set, Ann and George lead what they believe to be a “pure” existence, one free of ideological contamination. This belief, like the Swede’s domestic fantasy, only serves to bolster an existence that reinforces dangerous class boundaries.

The security gates—which receive a remarkable amount of screen time— serve to isolate the family from the heterogeneity of the outside world and protect a domestic fantasy free of political conflict. In sustaining this fantasy, they deny what spatial theorists such as Lefebvre, Foucault, and Edward Soja see as a fundamental aspect of contemporary social life. Ann and George fail to recognize, in Soja’s words, “that the organization of space is a social product filled with politics and ideology, contradiction and struggle, comparable to the making of history” (243). Refusing to acknowledge our position in social space proves dangerous, as it blinds us from the realities of the outside world and prevents the political friction necessary for social progress. Midway through the film, when young Georgie stages an unsuccessful escape from his torturers, the gate prevents his escape. Peter Brunette writes that “the gate [is] intended to protect and isolate the bourgeoisie from life’s terrors, but […] later becomes an obstacle to escape from these very terrors” (53). Here Haneke seems to suggest that our attempts to produce and sustain homogeneous, “pure” ideologies through our domestic spaces are inherently dangerous political practices, as, in attempting to protect us from the perceived dangers of the outside world, they paradoxically make us vulnerable

to the more subtle mechanics of political violence—namely the invasive politics of surveillance and homeland security—operating on national and institutional levels.

The gates furthermore fail to protect the family from the intrusion of violence. When asked by Ann how he gained access to their home, Peter explains that he entered through a hole in the fence leading to the nearby lake. The family’s attempts to fortify their domestic space and their way of life therefore prove ineffectual, as, Haneke seems to suggest, violence will always permeate the boundaries that separate our homes from the chaotic, ideologically-unstable public realm. Despite our attempts to construct domestic space in terms of safety, stability, and security, violence is a fundamental component of our private lives; since domesticity is a product of narrativization which, I have shown above, always does violence to the reality it attempts to represent, domestic space itself is fraught with political violence. Haneke addresses the connections between narrative, violence, and domestic space most directly through the two torturers, but early in the film he gives us subtle clues to the presence of violence even in the behavior of the two protagonists. Before Peter enters the house, Ann is shown preparing food for the night’s meal. Wielding a large butcher’s knife, she quickly and efficiently carves several cuts of steak from a massive slab of meat, and Haneke utilizes a series of shots to depict this process in detail, alerting the viewer to its significance. Minutes later, reacting to the intruders’ violation of their private space, George slaps Paul, initiating the violence that will continue for the

rest of the film. These scenes, as Haneke has made clear in interviews, are not meant to provide justification for the characters’ torture and death, but rather to show that, if we as viewers find ourselves identifying with George and Ann, we must also recognize that they are invested, albeit on different scales, in a culture of violence similar to that of their torturers. In both examples, we see that, although their social position has to a large extent suppressed the presence of violence in their home lives, it very much underlies their routines and their behavior.

The latent presence of violence in domestic space speaks more specifically to the family’s erroneous belief in domesticity as a refuge from the political violence of modernity. In our recognition of George and Ann’s complicity in this culture of violence, we can more easily identify the breakdown of boundaries that divide the domestic from the urban and the private from the public. In an interview on the film, Haneke explains, “Funny Games was meant as a metaphor for a society that has turned inward and excluded the exterior world. Men [sic] today live in prisons they’ve created for themselves. They can’t escape, because they’re the ones that built the walls that surround them” (Michael Haneke 146- 147). Haneke’s spatial metaphor is particularly apt. In Funny Games, the family’s attempt to fortify its lifestyle from the exterior world results in traumatic, violent ruptures that ultimately put a grisly end to their idyllic vision of domesticity.

Haneke is careful to point out that, even though the family sets up spatial boundaries to protect their domestic vision, these artificial boundaries only serve

to entrap them within a culture that is heavily invested in violence. The boundaries that traditionally divide the public from the private therefore no longer function as effective instruments for organizing space, as both realms have become saturated by the same dependency on violence. Oliver C. Speck observes, “Not only are the two killers, familiar with their victims’ way of life, easily able to turn the gated community into a prison camp, but, as their knowledge of golf and sailing shows, they are not impostors but clearly part of the upper-middle- class that they are murdering” (Funny Frames 158). As mentioned above, if the torturers do, indeed, belong to Ann and George’s social caste, then the violence that they perpetrate on their victims would appear to be the product of processes of political disavowal that attempt to repress violence for the preservation of ideological purity and domestic stability. Viewers are confronted by the realization that they are not intruders at all, but were in fact created by the politically-pure environment that Ann and George represent and have sought to protect. Therefore, our efforts to delineate inside from outside and public from private through the figures of the torturers ultimately fail, as we realize that these spatial loci are merely constructions designed to create artificial, imagined spaces of ideological purity. Violence is as much a product of, as a threat to, domestic space.

The contemporary debates on homeland security and domestic space that I have detailed above provide the necessary context for Haneke’s commentary on domestic space and violence in the American remake of Funny Games. Amy

Kaplan’s discussion of the encroachment of institutional politics on domestic space demonstrates how, in the interest of national security, Americans have been increasingly willing to authorize the institutional breakdown of boundaries that divide public space from private, domestic space (90). The dissolution of boundaries that we see in Funny Games speaks to this phenomenon, and the debates on national security here in the twenty-first century continually haunt the American remake of the film. As agents of violence, Peter and Paul specifically function as figures that illustrate the ways that violence has permeated domestic space, from within and from without. As the discourse on protecting the homeland intensifies, and as we, like Ann and George, seek to protect our American way of life with different kinds of security gates, the threat of institutional violence becomes all the more tangible. Furthermore, the scenes of torture that Haneke depicts—staged, no less, in the living room, the heart of domestic space—render any reading of the film outside of its political context incomplete.

The most striking image from the film that plays on our associations with the political violence of the past decade appears during the disturbing “cat-in-the- bag” scene, during which the torturers pull a pillowcase over Georgie’s head while his mother undresses in front of them. Carrying significant rhetorical weight, the visual image of young Georgie, blinded by the hood and placed in a position of absolute physical and mental submission, evokes the now-infamous image of the Iraqi prisoner in Abu Ghraib who was forced to stand on a box for several hours with wires connected to his fingertips and penis, informed by Army

prison guards that if he moved from the box, he would be electrocuted.¹³ Exposing the US government’s willingness to engage in acts of torture that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions, this now-iconic image served as a powerful rhetorical tool against the war in Iraq. The image of the helpless Iraqi prisoner specifically spoke to Vice President Dick Cheney’s dubious “One-Percent Doctrine,” which stated that, if faced with even a one-percent chance that an individual or group posed a threat to the security of the United States, the government had the authority to neutralize that threat using any means necessary.¹⁴ Despite opposition from Senator John McCain and other members of his own political party, Cheney, throughout the war in Iraq, espoused the need to define torture in such a way that would permit new modes of “interrogation” in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and on US soil in Guantánamo Bay (Zimbardo 434).

Interestingly, national security and defense of the homeland provided the underlying justification for torture during the Iraq war and continuing to the present day; in order to protect the homeland, we, as patriotic Americans, had to be willing to endorse difficult-to-swallow acts of political violence. Philip

¹³ The cover for the German-language Funny Games released on DVD in 1999 features a close-up shot of actor Ulrich Mühe staring into the camera.

Interestingly, in 2006 the same German-language film was re-released with a new cover design: a close-up shot of the hooded boy. Achieving new meanings after the Abu Ghraib incident, this image has clearly affected the reception of the film. A Google Images search of “Funny Games” yields this image with greater frequency than any other image from either film.

¹⁴ For more on this policy and an informative analysis of the Bush Administration’s willingness to violate international law in order to forward its own political agenda, see Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine.

Zimbardo, the architect of the Stanford Prison Experiment, writes, “The central premise of [the War on Terror] was that terrorism is the primary threat to ‘national security,’ and to ‘the homeland,’ and that it must be opposed by all means necessary. This ideological foundation has been used by virtually all nations as a device for gaining popular and military support for aggression, as well as repression (430). The administration’s rhetoric of torture therefore made Americans complicit in institutional violence, all in the name of protecting the homeland. Consistent with Kaplan’s analysis, this brand of interpellating Americans as political subjects of the state served to erode the boundaries between the public and the private through new conceptions of domestic space and the homeland; as the administration normalized violence in its campaign of homeland security, it likewise forced Americans to understand violence as an intrinsic component of a symbolic domestic space.

Ten years after the release of the German-language Funny Games, Haneke’s decision to re-make the film in English, set it in America, and market it to American audiences clearly reveals an interest in exploring the post-9/11 political milieu. This context imbues both films—but particularly the American version—with shades of meaning that could not have existed prior to 9/11.<sup>15



15</sup> It is worth noting that the German-language film, released four years prior to 9/11 and, with the exception of its cast, identical to the American version, anticipates the discourses of the post-9/11 era. Like American Pastoral, which was also published in 1997, the German-language Funny Games reveals, through its thematic concerns, that institutional projects of narrative production— particularly those linked to domestic space—were, in fact, underway on a global scale well before the attacks on the World Trade Centers. These discourses became more visible after 9/11, and perhaps Haneke saw an opportunity with the

Indeed, in Haneke’s own words, the film “has become even more relevant today than it was [in 1997]” (Sight and Sound 20). The image of the hooded child, the sadistic torturers, and the domestic space transformed into a prison camp speak directly to an American homeland under siege, not from foreign terrorists but from the very political and institutional forces at the core of American life. Speck points out these connections in his essay, “Self/Aggression: Violence in the Films of Michael Haneke.” He writes:

When we invoke the polite white-gloved killers […] who transform the in-between space of the gated community into a camp and install their own ‘law of the threshold’ in the form of rigged ‘bets’ and ‘wagers,’ it should be clear by now that we are not dealing with the murderous excess of some lawless perverts but with a reenactment of the modern state’s conflation of law and politics. (68)

As two-dimensional archetypes of institutional violence, then, Peter and Paul appropriately stand in for the faceless institution behind the American campaign of torture in the name of homeland security. As Zimbardo has pointed out, not one high-ranking official has been tried for the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. The administration’s systematic culture of transgression has largely been concealed and rendered amorphous by the rhetoric of homeland security, which positions the

release of the American Funny Games to engage American audiences, who, involved in the debates on torture and national security, would be more receptive to the film’s politics.

administration above and outside the law.¹⁶ Instead of acknowledging the chain of command responsible for endorsing political violence, individual acts of torture are written off as the work of delinquent soldiers, such as Private Lynddie England, a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, who, interestingly, called the prisoner abuses “fun and games” (Zimbardo 328).

The US government’s position on torture—and the public’s general willingness to endorse this position—is, of course, a result of political narratives that have defined America as a nation under attack, a homeland whose survival depends on redefining our relationship to political violence. Realizing the critical role narrative production plays in national politics and the shaping of public opinion, Haneke explicitly comments on narrative as an instrument of power and violence in Funny Games. Throughout the film, Haneke makes overt gestures to remind us that the story in which we find ourselves invested is a narrative production. The first instance occurs when Paul leads Ann outside in search of the dog he has just killed. Giving her instructions as to its whereabouts through a game of “hot and cold,” he suddenly turns to the camera, makes eye contact with the viewer, and gives a knowing smirk.¹⁷ In the following scenes of torture, Paul

¹⁶ It is worth noting the measures that have been taken to disown, yet continue to perpetrate, acts of torture. In many cases, prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq have been transported to countries not bound to the Geneva Conventions for “interrogation” by their governments, of course, under the watchful eye of the CIA. Though publicly endorsing more flexible definitions of torture, the administration has been careful not to attach its public image to these kinds of practices.
¹⁷ In the German-language version of Funny Games, instead of smirking, Paul winks at the viewer. Whether this subtle difference is of any consequence is for

directly addresses the viewer through dialogue. In one scene, he asks, “What do you think? Do you think [Ann and George] have a chance at winning? You’re on their side, aren’t you? So, who will you bet with?” (Funny Games). Later, in response to Ann’s question, “Why don’t you just kill us right away?” Paul replies, “Don’t forget the entertainment value. We’d all be deprived of our pleasure” (Funny Games). One critic explains that “these scenes take[ ] viewers out of the temporal-spatial context in which they are anchored…the thinking viewer can recognize that production modes have become themselves an integral part of the world of fiction” (Pillip 355). Haneke forcibly removes us from the space of the primary narrative, making us aware of it as a construction, one capable of manipulating both our emotions and, more importantly, our attitudes toward violence.

A second function of these meta-narrative moments is to implicate us, as viewers of the film, in the scenes of torture that we witness. Haneke has been forthcoming about his intentions to turn the mirror on the audience, particularly American audiences who have come to treat violence as “a sort of consumer product” (Johnston 20). When Paul involves us in the scenes of violence and torture, we must confront our expectations of the film’s narrative and, more broadly, of all the narratives we consume for entertainment value. It is worth noting that Haneke patently refuses to satisfy the viewer’s desire for narrative fulfillment through violence; when violence occurs in the film, it either never comes to fruition or occurs off-screen, denying the viewer the possibility of

the reader to decide.

fulfillment through violence. For instance, setting us up for what seems to be an inevitable rape scene, Haneke refuses to show Ann’s naked body, and, at the expected moment of physical violence, Paul tells her to put her clothes back on. Our encounter with scenes such as this one is complex; we are simultaneously relieved to see Ann spared the horrors of rape and frustrated by Haneke’s refusal to fulfill on the film’s promises. Here Haneke seems to suggest that Americans’ innate appetite for violence ultimately effects an implicit endorsement of the same kind of violence that we see enacted on political prisoners in the name of national security. Violence having permeated the constructed boundaries of domestic space, Americans put faith in narratives of national security to satisfy our desire for violence and bloodshed.¹⁸

Commenting on viewer expectations is only one part of Haneke’s complex agenda in his treatment of narrative. More importantly, he is interested in narrative as a spatial locus that imprisons viewers through architectures of manipulation. Gail K. Hart writes, “it is not so much a potential heightening of viewer aggression that troubles Haneke, but what he perceives as submission to a narrative structure that explains and accommodates violence and the subordination, for profit, of art to pacification” (72). Another critic explains that

¹⁸ This phenomenon is all the more pertinent in light of the recent influx of ultra- realistic videogames that allow gamers to control American military personnel in horrifically violent battles, some of which take place in American cities in the imagined scenario of foreign invasion. More disturbing, television commercials for these videogames are ubiquitous on all major networks and often depict movie stars, athletes, and other well-known celebrities participating in these ultra-violent scenes of urban warfare. In these commercials we see the horrifying convergence of military force, the familiar rhetoric of homeland security, and our own innate desire for violence.

Haneke “seems interested in the relation between pain and its containment through the generalizing capacity of classical narration” (Price 26). In my analysis of American Pastoral, I showed how the novel’s primary narrative forms a familiar, domestic space for the reader, and when Roth removes us from this textual space through Zuckerman’s frame story, he exposes the strains of political violence embedded in all processes of narrativization. In Funny Games, Haneke, too, exposes the machinery of narrative, but, rather than exerting violence on classical narrative—as we see Zuckerman do to the Swede’s story—he suggests that our conceptions of narrative have been conditioned around the presence of violence to such a degree that narrative cannot exist without violence. These processes are even more pronounced when considering Funny Games as both a product of and an intervention into mainstream Hollywood culture. The filmic strategies that Haneke deploys simultaneously engage and subvert the power of the visual image through scenes that both deny the visceral “pleasure” of on- screen violence and, in certain instances, fulfill on the film’s promises, presenting violence in horrific detail. Unlike Roth’s novel, whose readership would not necessarily require the same degree of narrative propulsion as an average moviegoer would, Haneke’s film, always aware, ironically, of its obligation to entertain, is better equipped to stimulate, subvert, and critique readerly expectations.

Haneke’s aims become evident midway through the film when, after brutally murdering Georgie, Peter and Paul inexplicably depart, leaving Ann and

George to deal with the carnage of the murder. The following scene, filmed in an extended nine and a half minute single shot from a stationary camera angle, shows Ann, with her hands and feet bound, struggling to stand up. Once she does so, she unties George and helps him out of the living room, concluding the

excruciatingly-long single shot. The following scenes show George attempting to dry their water-damaged cell-phone with a hair dryer and Ann searching for wire- cutters in the nearby greenhouse, again employing extended, single-frame shots. In these scenes in particular, and, in fact, all of the scenes that take place in the absence of the torturers, we are struck by how little action occurs and by how dramatically the “entertainment value” of the film has suffered. Contrasting the quick edits and close-ups that characterize the early part of the film, these scenes mostly employ long, drawn out shots that deprive the viewer of emotional connection to the on-screen action. When the torturers return in the final part of the film, Haneke resorts back to his more conventional filmmaking strategies, and we find ourselves both horrified and, admittedly, pleased to see the film resume its narrative velocity. Through these scenes, Haneke clearly suggests that classical narrative is heavily-dependent on violence as its narrative motor. Without Peter and Paul, the agents of violence in the film, the narrative loses momentum and the film’s entertainment value suffers. Paul tells Ann upon his return, “We want to entertain our audience…show them what we can do” (Funny Games). Sadly, without these agents of violence, the movie is unable to entertain, and the viewer

cannot help but appreciate the narrative tension generated by scenes of torture and bloodshed.

Haneke’s formal experiments come to a head in the film’s climax, when Ann, faced with imminent death, grabs the gun from the coffee table and shoots Peter in the chest, launching his body against the far wall. In light of Haneke’s general refusal to depict graphic violence throughout the film, this scene’s realistic and totally visual rendering of retributive justice is remarkable. Haneke has commented on his desire in this scene to turn the mirror, again, on the audience, critiquing viewers who derive pleasure from witnessing the graphic murder of another human being. Our relationship to narrative, character, and violence at this point might be more complex than Haneke is willing to concede, but it is nonetheless worth considering our relation to violence and retributive justice. What is more remarkable about this scene is what follows Peter’s death. Seeing his friend’s body splayed against the wall, Paul picks up the television remote from the couch and presses rewind. At this moment, the film we have been watching, too, begins to rewind, simulating the work of a digital video player, and we see the graphic violence played in reverse, up until the point when Ann grabs the gun from the coffee table. When the film resumes, Paul stops Ann’s play at the gun, and the torturers reestablish control over their victims.

Apart from removing the viewer from the film’s primary narrative and exposing it as a construction, this scene establishes the critical fact that we, as viewers, are prisoners, like Ann and George within their home, within a narrative

architecture. When Paul presses rewind on the remote, reversing Ann’s attempt to claim control of the narrative, he establishes his role as the agent, not only of violence, but of narrative invention. His ability to manipulate the narrative gives him control over both his victims and, more importantly, the viewer, who, teased by Ann’s act of aggression, realizes that the narrative will fail to fulfill on its promises of a redemptive conclusion. In every respect, then, our conceptions of narrative as a stable home, protected from the violence of the outside world, have been turned upside down. The agents of narrative invention have exposed classical narrative to be an inherently unstable domain, and their propensity for torture combined with our own desire for violence, demonstrates that the very modes we have of understanding our world, modes founded on narrative stability, are under constant manipulation by forces well beyond our control.

This, of course, speaks more broadly to the presence of institutional violence in our home lives and the narrative control that the state has exerted over our conceptions of the American homeland. As the state increasingly exerts control over private space, articulated here through domestic imaginaries, we likewise relinquish our control over the narratives that we once used to establish positions of political agency that separated us from the discourses of the state. The narratives of violence, torture, and political innocence that the state continues to produce are fueled, I argue, by our own complex relationship to violence. In the same way that we, as viewers, are denied control over the film’s narrative of torture and violence, a narrative that uses the domestic space of the house as its

logical vehicle for production, so, too, do we find ourselves manipulated by an institutional presence that uses the homeland, a slippery rhetorical trope, as the site of narrative production. These narratives, like the ones that imprison us within the textual space of Funny Games, ultimately confine Americans within a particular ideological framework that makes it increasingly difficult to find ways of challenging the discourses of the state; the argument to reduce our defense budget and adopt a more politically-responsible foreign policy, for instance, is always met by the maddening and practically watertight contention that doing so would put the safety of the American homeland at risk.

Both American Pastoral and Funny Games, too very different kinds of texts, help us to better understand our relationship to institutional politics and how the state infiltrates, redefines, and ultimately controls the narratives produced through domestic space. As the boundaries of public and private space continue to erode under the discourses of national security and the protection of the homeland, so, too, does our ability to establish political positions that exist outside the lines of discourse provided by the state. As I have outlined in the previous chapter, this evolving relationship between the individual and the state is inherently traumatic, and much of the state’s power resides in generating narratives that are embedded in the fabric of everyday life. By rhetorically situating the American homeland and issues of homeland security in domestic terms, the state has infiltrated the most intimate of private spaces, producing political narratives that, because of their psychic proximity, are difficult to

contest. Embedded in domestic space, these narratives—whether they encourage political apathy (American Pastoral) or the endorsement of political violence (Funny Games)—render individuals complicit agents of American institutional power. In this way, Americans exercise “technologies of the self,” supporting dubious political initiatives—the Patriot Act, wars in the Middle East, policies of torture, etc.—that legitimate and extend the state’s power and influence.

These processes tend to limit Americans’ political agency, and, confronted by this political reality, individuals enter the arena of political trauma. Traumatic dislocation occurs, if we revisit Jenny Edkins’ writings on political trauma, when the individual is made aware of her traumatic relation to the state, recognizing a “radical interconnectedness that has been so shockingly betrayed in and through the violence of trauma” (“Remembering Relationality” 99). In Funny Games, the lack of agency that we witness in Ann and George’s submission to their torturers and that we experience in our submission to narrative authority provokes this kind of profound psychological disturbance; it is not surprising that audience members at Cannes famously walked out during Haneke’s screening of the film, obviously disgusted by the subject matter, but more likely reacting to a deeper psychological trauma connected to their loss of agency as spectators.

Roth’s novel is less interested in provoking these traumatic encounters through its formal strategies, but the Swede’s mental decline is surely the consequence of his inability to assimilate the dramatic upheaval of his home life and the violence that has permeated its boundaries.

I have shown in this chapter how domestic spaces are inherently political and how our conceptions of the homeland and the home front, which are intimately linked to domestic space, serve as repositories for political narratives. In the following chapter, I discuss the first moment of national trauma following the attacks on the World Trade Center: Hurricane Katrina. In the weeks and months following the hurricane, the Department of Homeland Security was instrumental in organizing and disciplining the city space of New Orleans, and many of the critical discourses attached the American homeland came to bear, materially, on the people of New Orleans. Having discussed the ways that institutional power infiltrates our most intimate spaces, in the next chapter I explore how institutional power extends outside of the home and into the city, re- writing our relationship to urban space.

CHAPTER 3 SMOOTHING OUT THE CITY:

HURRICANE KATRINA AND THE POLITICS OF URBAN SPACE

I have one message for these hoodlums… These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well-trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets. They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco

We going down to Bedford town / Iko iko unday / We gonna dance / Bout to mess around / Jockomo feena nay.

“Iko Iko,” Mardi Gras Indian Traditional

By now the story of Hurricane Katrina is familiar to most Americans: New Orleans, swallowed by devastating flooding, tens of thousands of people evacuated from the city, entire neighborhoods destroyed. The U.S. government’s delayed response, thousands quarantined in the Superdome and the Convention Center, reports of looting, rape, murder. Residents of New Orleans in boats patrolling the city’s flooded streets, pulling survivors from their homes. The military, torn between conflicting missions to provide aid and establish order in a

city slipping toward chaos. The American news media producing heavily racialized narratives of African Americans, armed and dangerous, roaming the streets. New Orleans had entered a state of lawlessness, and the federal government was absent. The iconic image to emerge from Hurricane Katrina, ironically enough, in no way depicted the devastation wrought by the hurricane. Nor did it depict a city submerged in water, or the water pouring in through the compromised levees from the surrounding Lake Ponchartrain and the city’s canal system. It did not portray the suffering endured by those forced to spend five days in the sweltering heat of the Superdome, desperate for food, water, and medical care. The image most often associated with Hurricane Katrina depicts President George W. Bush gazing out the window of Air Force One, suspended above the chaos, a symbol of the massive disconnect between the US government and the people of the United States.

That this image achieved such symbolic capital owes itself to the ways Americans have since come to regard Hurricane Katrina as a natural disaster and the aftermath of Katrina as a decidedly unnatural disaster. This latter zone of inquiry is the focus of this chapter. The suffering endured by New Orleanians in the days, weeks, months, and even years following the hurricane and the large- scale restructuring of urban space in New Orleans that continues even today are in many ways a result of an American institutional project that increasingly inscribes itself on the spaces of everyday life, often at the expense of those on society’s margins. The discourses of race and class circulating in the news media in the

days after the hurricane—mostly linked to erroneous reports of rape and murder in the Superdome and Convention Center, and racially-tinged accounts of looting in the city—by no means ended as New Orleans struggled to put itself back together; these discourses (which existed long before anyone had ever heard of Katrina) continue to play a significant role in the rebuilding of the city. As the urban space of New Orleans was laid bare by the flooding and the subsequent destabilization of its various social and political infrastructures, the residents of New Orleans—both during and after the storm—were exposed to a gross display of institutional violence, violence stemming from the militarization of the city and the controversial politics of reconstruction. Therefore, the iconic significance of the Air Force One photograph reveals how Hurricane Katrina has become associated with institutional inaction, institutional violence, and, for those people caught up in the aftermath of the storm, institutional trauma.

That said, designating the Bush Administration as solely responsible for the trauma endured by New Orleanians prevents us from exploring the more complex institutional failures at the heart of Katrina as a political event.

Furthermore this impulse works against one of the central claims of this project: that in the era of globalization, power is networked and dispersed in such a way as to eliminate the political significance of individual sovereign entities. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, describing capitalism as the force underlying the recent movement toward global “Empire,” write, “sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a

single logic of rule…Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule” (xii). Although, Hardt and Negri here address power in the context of global politics, the increasingly dispersed, networked space of American institutional politics similarly locates power and, thus, responsibility, in the structure itself, rather than in the state actors that comprise it. The institutional failures associated with Katrina, of course, occurred within this network, where separate institutional entities—from the insurance industry to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Army Corps of Engineers—contributed jointly to New Orleanians’ material and psychological displacement. Lacking a traumatic referent against which to position their anger, fear, and resentment over their treatment as “refugees” in their own country,¹ residents of the city found themselves victims of political trauma.

The federal government’s inability to execute a well-orchestrated recovery resulted in a profound destabilization of city space, one that seemingly justified a radical inscription of near-martial law as a means of maintaining order. This chapter is interested in the ways that the urban space of New Orleans was “laid bare” following the storm, how the state quickly imposed itself on this space, and, finally, how individuals would eventually position themselves against the politics

¹ Douglas Brinkley discusses the contentious debate over the use of the term “refugee” in the days following the hurricane. Many political leaders, most notably Jesse Jackson, claimed that the term positioned the predominantly black survivors of Katrina within a framework of American privilege and, conversely, racism. Refugees were “necessarily foreigners” and were therefore excluded from the benefits of a safe and secure American life (465).

of the state through critical subversive activity in urban space. The two texts of interest to this chapter—Dave Eggers’ work of narrative nonfiction, Zeitoun and David Simon and Eric Overmyer’s HBO series, Treme—address this progression and reveal the always-present tension between individuals and the institutions that surround them, particularly in the context of urban spaces. Both texts emphasize the trauma of Hurricane Katrina not as a result of the hurricane itself, but rather as a consequence of institutional politics laying claim to the space of the city, a space once associated with unregimented, free cultural exchange. The characters in these texts, like the residents of New Orleans even today in 2013, seek to overcome the institutional trauma of Katrina by wrestling their city from the grips of regimented, institutional control.

In order to understand how institutional power inscribed itself on the space of the city, it is first necessary to understand the foundations of institutional power in New Orleans, which can be traced through two interrelated infrastructural and cultural phenomena: first, the politics surrounding the construction and maintenance of the levee system protecting New Orleans and, second, the city’s long and thorny history of race relations. These two factors contribute to my argument, here, that institutional power, especially in the aftermath of Katrina, must be understood as networked, dispersed, and existing within and between various systems of power. The state is only one of several agents involved in the institutional program of New Orleans.

Douglas Brinkley details the failures of a series of projects over the course of the twentieth century that were designed to protect New Orleans through a complex levee system put in place by the Army Corps of Engineers (8-10). These levees—often engineered to satisfy conflicting desires of federal and state governments—were not only poorly constructed, but they also played a crucial role in the erosion of the wetlands surrounding New Orleans from 1930 to 2005. These wetlands represented the chief means of natural protection against flooding for the people of New Orleans. Furthermore, the levees themselves by 2005 were in a state of disrepair, but, as Spike Lee suggests in his excellent documentary, When the Levees Broke, politically-risky propositions to pour money into projects of reconstruction were passionately avoided by politicians concerned with re- election. Those acquainted with the history of levee politics in New Orleans were not surprised when the levees were breached by the city’s overflowing canal system and the surrounding Lake Ponchartrain during Katrina, and the institutional failure that allowed this to happen reflects the tendency for politics to jeopardize the safety of civilians.

In addition to the levee politics of New Orleans, the city’s place in the national consciousness and its veiled history of racial conflict contributed to the traumatic impact of Katrina and its aftermath. Jeremy I. Levitt and Matthew C. Whitaker note that, despite the city’s much-celebrated cultural diversity, “The Pre-Katrina Gulf Coast, especially New Orleans, like many other American regions and cities, was characterized by racism, racial segregation, and acute

poverty levels well before the storm” (6). In fact, by 2005, New Orleans would claim an astonishing 28 percent general and 35 percent black poverty rate, which represented some of the highest figures in the nation (7). These discourses on race and class similarly play into the spatial segregation of the city; the wealthiest (and therefore whitest) neighborhoods, such as Lakeview—situated on high ground relative to the rest of the city—were mostly unaffected by the flooding, whereas black neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward were devastated by nearby breaches in the levees. Race relations in New Orleans are further complicated by the city’s divergent strains of cultural tourism and racism. Lynell L. Thomas writes:

New Orleans pre-Katrina tourism, then, was part of the historically-paradoxical construction of blackness that acknowledges and celebrates black cultural contributions while simultaneously insisting upon black social and cultural inferiority and indicting African Americans for perceived post-bellum and post-civil-rights-era social ills of poverty, crime, immorality, educational inadequacy, and political corruption. (750-751)

The spirit of racism that became visible in the days following the storm, then, was concealed, but nonetheless present, throughout the twentieth century.² Class and, thus, race-based discrimination and segregation therefore played into the

² See also James Edward Ford III’s “Mob Rule in New Orleans: Anarchy, Governance, and Media Representation,” which discusses racial violence in New Orleans over the course of the twentieth century, and how the representation of African Americans during Katrina fell in line with the city’s long history of racial prejudice.

institutional response to Katrina in critical ways, and this chapter addresses how these discourses coincided with larger projects of nationalism and homeland security. In fact, intersecting vectors of institutional racism, state and federal political policies that failed to address the problem of the levees, and a networked federal bureaucracy concerned with combating terrorism ultimately enabled a decidedly man-made catastrophe that would generate a space for political trauma.

What is interesting about Zeitoun and Treme—and, indeed, about much of the literature dealing with post-Katrina New Orleans—is their interest in producing an accurate record of the events that transpired following the storm.

Zeitoun, a work of narrative nonfiction and certainly a formal departure for Eggers, whose pared down writing in this text contrasts with the sometimes distracting rhetorical flourish of his prior work, includes an extensive bibliography and a statement on the author’s methodology. In addition to the numerous photographs incorporated into the text, the prefatory note makes clear that “dates, times, locations, and other facts have been confirmed by independent sources and the historical record” (Eggers xv). Likewise, much of Treme’s cast hails from New Orleans or surrounding areas, and in several instances, survivors of the hurricane, some of whom appear in Spike Lee’s documentary, When the Levees Broke, receive speaking parts in the script. The project of narrativization connected to Katrina, then, is itself a mode of processing national trauma; although relatively few Americans were directly affected by the hurricane, the

idea that such institutional injustice could be perpetrated against Americans affected the national consciousness in profound ways.

However, unlike the complex processes of narrativization circulating around 9/11, which, as I demonstrated in the first chapter, are continually being absorbed and co-opted by institutional projects of narrative production, the narratives on Katrina exist in a significantly less politically-sensitive rhetorical zone; the government’s failures are, to many Americans at this point, common knowledge, so the work of these texts is to expose the more complicated racial discourses operating in the city and to address the ongoing political trauma being experienced by New Orleanians. In this regard, the project of Katrina narratives— especially in the two texts discussed below—is to offer testimony as a means of confronting political trauma. Shoshana Felman explains that testimony is “a discursive practice, as opposed to pure theory…As a performative speech act, testimony in effect addresses what in history is action that exceeds any substantialized significance, and what in happenings is impact that dynamically explodes any conceptual reifications and any constative delimitations” (5). In this regard, the practice of testimony, insofar as it represents a “performative speech act,” is much like the performative spatial practices that characters turn to in order to reclaim the urban space of New Orleans, a space overwritten by institutional power and, thus, a site of trauma.<sup>3



3</sup> For a companion to the texts under consideration in this chapter, see poet Cynthia Hogue and photographer Rebecca Ross’ recent intermedial experiment in photography, poetry, and testimony, When the Water Came: Evacuees of Hurricane Katrina. Interviewing a number of Katrina evacuees, many of whom