Contemporary Catharsis

COntemporary catharsis
An inquiry into the relationship between tragedy and film, from the concepts of mimesis and catharsis as presented in the works of Plato and Aristotle, film theory and empirical research
March 27, 2016Emma BouterseWord count: 3109March 27, 2016Emma BouterseWord count: 3109
March 27, 2016
Emma Bouterse
Word count: 3109
March 27, 2016
Emma Bouterse
Word count: 3109


Contemporary Catharsis
Introduction
"It's not that we like sad movies that make us feel like, 'Oh, my God, what a bummer.' We like emotionally moving experiences. It's nothing new. It's catharsis. It goes back to the Greeks." – Gayle Forman, youth novel author on sad movies

What exactly is it that makes us feel attracted to tragedy? Why do we watch sad or gruesome movies and enjoy these, even if they end badly? Why do we rate sad, dramatic movies generally as better than comedies? And how can we feel relief after having watched sad or moving movies? As we see exemplified by the popularity of Greek tragedy as a form of entertainment and education in ancient Athens, the use of deep saddening stories for amusement of the people carries a very long history (Knoblich-Westerwick, Gong, Hagner and Kerbeykian, 2012). Plato and Aristotle lay down arguments on respectively why art should not and should be allowed in the city, and to what extent. Following the concept of mimesis, Plato argues that art is a mere representation of truth, and can be distracting to what is the core of existence – the Ideas (Bal, 1982). Therefore, in the city, art should not play a role at all, as it does not serve any other purpose than to imitate. If we conceptualize this in the setting of Plato's cave allegory, the spectators of tragedies are the chained prisoners watching the shadows on the wall, unable to see the truth of things. On the other hand, Aristotle in his Poetics praises art, and argues that mimesis can be very helpful, especially in leading the spectator into a state of catharsis, or emotional relief, while he is deeply moved by what the protagonist of the play goes through (Lear, 1988). This concept of catharsis can also be seen as a process of emotional cleansing, and is experienced in the most tragic part of the play, e.g. when everything comes together, and at this point the spectator gets relieved from emotions like pity and fear.
In film theory, we find a similar type of concept, sometimes named the 'tragic paradox': the phenomenon that people get more satisfaction from watching a tragic film with a sad ending than from watching more positive movies (De Wied, Zillmann and Ordmann, 1994). This idea revolves around having empathy for the protagonist(s) in the movie, and being able to place oneself in the "tragic hero's" shoes. This is best seen in two genres of movies: drama and horror. Horror movies, in an Aristotelian sense, evoke a strengthened sense of fear (phobos), whereas dramatic movies will evoke pity (eleos). This concept is not only to be found in film, but also in literature. However, as film resembles a tragedy better than does literature, as there is a physical audience involved, this essay will focus on tragedy and film rather than tragedy and fiction in general.
In this essay, I want to explore the concept of catharsis in film to a greater extent, relating to both the three tragedies we have discussed over the course of the past few weeks, and to drama and horror movies. I want to argue not only that the concepts we adore in contemporary film are very similar to what the ancient Greek audience appreciated about tragedies, but also that there is a high need for experiences of contemporary catharsis in the twenty-first century. First, I will explore the concepts of mimesis and catharsis as outlined by Plato and Aristotle. Subsequently, the idea of catharsis in modern entertainment will be explored, using film theory and research on film experience. Through an analysis of the cathartic elements in Medea, Antigone and Prometheus and by comparing these to elements of one tragic and one horror movie, I would like to argue that both tragedy and film have the same effect on the spectator, namely: a specific emotional experience that we seem to enjoy. The movie used for this analysis is Requiem for a Dream (2000). Finally, I would like to spark a discussion on what contemporary catharsis means to us and how it might be used as a tool for emotional relief in today's society.

Catharsis and mimesis
As laid down in the introduction, in order to understand catharsis, we need to go back to Plato and Aristotle, most importantly to an explanation of the two complex concepts of mimesis and catharsis. Mimesis, translated both as imitation and representation, was looked on by Plato as a concept that had a very negative connotation. Bal (1982) states that Plato rejected mimesis as it would influence how a spectator sees the world, and that it corrupts the mind. Although it can be used as a tool to remind people of the ideas they represent, they should have a minimal role as just that, and recipients should be aware of the fact that it is mimesis they see, not the truth (Golden, 1969). However, not everyone is capable of doing so, and therefore Plato believes that art corrupts the soul. Catharsis finds its origins in Aristotle, who argues that through portraying a model of reality, the audience can be relieved of bad emotions without experiencing the reality the model displays (Bal, 1982). Moreover, looking at mimesis for Aristotle, it is a process that involves learning about the experiences displayed, in order to deal with them through catharsis (Golden, 1976). Catharsis and mimesis are thus connected to one another in order to educate and relieve the audience to the fullest. On the exact meaning of catharsis, as Aristotle used it in his writings, exists a lot of controversy. Some see it as a mere purification, whilst other authors relate more to the learning process it can form for the audience, teaching them how to respond to certain emotions (Golden, 1973; Golden, 1976).
According to Aristotle, a good tragedy must have several aspects that make it truly possible for catharsis to have the strongest effect. Lear (1988) argues that for something to be considered a tragedy, Aristotle stresses the importance of both the fatal error (hamartia) and overconfidence (hybris). For something to be truly tragic, events in a tragedy should have a causal relationship with each other, and through the audience's relationship to the hamartia and hybris of the heroic protagonist and the plot of the tragedy, catharsis can be reached (Lear, 1988). Through the audience's associations with what happens in the tragedy, Aristotle argues, they do not only experience a relief by being freed of pity and fear, but moreover they are taught universal truths.
The cathartic experience often lies in the moment in which the downfall of the protagonist becomes most evident, often in the climax of the play (Napieralski, 1973). In Medea, this will be the moment in which she takes her ultimate revenge on everyone that has caused her pain; in Prometheus, the cathartic experience lies in Prometheus' fate of being punished for wanting to act good towards humanity; the death of Antigone for standing up for her brother's death forms the climax and ultimate cathartic experience in this play. What these cathartic experiences mean and how the audience can experience this will be discussed more in-depth at a later point in in this essay.

Tragedy and film: the ungraspable tragic paradox
Now that we have established a brief but coherent overview of what catharsis and mimesis mean in the ancient Greek tradition of tragedy, I will no delve into providing an overview of how research on film, aesthetics and emotions looks at films with a tragic plot. As mentioned in the introduction of this essay, research on film and the emotions of audiences provides interesting views on a tragic film experience that I find highly comparable to that of Aristotelian catharsis. Knoblich-Westerwick et al. (2012) stress that although research into tragic film and the amusement of the audiences of such films is very limited, most research stresses that the more tragic a film is, the more pleasure the audience feels. A potential reason for enjoying another person's pain is that one then does not think about their own tragedies in life, or starts to overthink them and appreciate them more (Knoblich-Westerwick et al., 2012). The tragic paradox, which means that people will thus feel happier after watching a sad rather than after a happy movie, aids the audience in reflecting on their own lives.
According to Schramm and Wirth (2010), the explanation for a sad film with a happy ending is logical: the sadder one feels over the course of the movie, the happier one will be when its ending is happy. However, it becomes more problematic when we look at films that do not end well: why do we still enjoy these movies even though they do not end well? Schramm et al. (2010) cannot provide us with a clear answer to this question, as the results derived from their research did not point into a specific direction. Even though their research that people did feel happier after watching a sad movie with a sad ending, they could not pinpoint exactly why. The lack of explanations we can find for this question is also evident in other authors' writings. Tan (1994) does exemplify that people show genuine emotions towards events in films, even though they do know the film is fictitious, however stresses that he cannot measure how and why. Zillmann (1995) stresses that empathy theory based on identification lies at the basis of reactivity to tragedies, and in research conducted with De Wied et al. (1994), they do find out that the reversal of emotions from sadness and grief to enjoyment does take place when watching cinematic drama. Nevertheless, just like all others named before, these authors also stress that no sufficient model can explain why we enjoy movies in which terrible things happen to our beloved protagonists.
The phenomenon that has been reflected in all reviewed literature is that of the inexplicability of the contradictory effect sad films have on the viewer: they all feel either relieved or happy after a sad film has ended. This relief rings to me as being very familiar: is this not exactly what Aristotle refers to in his exploration of catharsis? Is it not exactly that paradoxical element he pinpoints, of being cleansed and feeling freed from unhappy emotions after having seen the tragedy? This is what I would like to call the contemporary version of catharsis. Not only is film a fictitious representation of reality – thus resembling the idea of mimesis – tragic film moreover evokes a cathartic experience for the audience that has proven to be highly inexplicable by science. Aristotelean catharsis has always been a controversial concept, as philosophy scholars are still engaged in a complex discourse on what exactly he must have meant with the concept (Golden, 1969; Bal, 1982). Naparienski (1973) stresses that the essence of tragedies lies in its paradoxical features, as only in opposition the ultimate tragic tension can be created. The paradox in this sense is that even with the heroic nature of the protagonist, he still manages to involve in a tragic error which leads to his downfall and demise (Naparienski, 1973). A similar paradoxical discourse is prevalent in film and film psychology studies, as we do not seem to be able to grasp the core of this disputable concept that binds tragedy with happiness.



Theories applied: Catharsis and empathy in Tragedy and film
Now that I have laid down both the ideas of Aristotelian catharsis and the similarly cathartic reception of contemporary sad films, I will apply both concepts to the three tragedies Antigone, Prometheus and Medea and to one contemporary movie that evokes both fear and pity, Requiem for a Dream (2000).
In the tragic figure of Antigone, we can apply the concept of catharsis to her terrible fate; as exemplified before, this is the moment of her death, just as Creon has changed his mind about her actions and wants to set her free. The cathartic tension that can is felt here is that of being too late to save her. The audience might feel pity for not just Antigone, but even more so for her fiancé Haemon, who upon the sight of her suicide decides to kill himself as well. The dramatic tension after Haemon's death is complete, as to the audience the cruel king Creon, evoker of phobos with his regime, has not been able to make the right decision and thus loses his son to his own wrong decisions. The emotional affinity the audience could feel with Antigone is that of a heroic sister and a gatekeeper of norms and values, by burying her brother in honorable fashion against the will of the king. The eleos the audience feels for both Haemon and Antigone intensifies this experience. If we apply theory of film and empathy to this tragedy, as explained by Zillmann (1995), the audience can identity itself with Antigone standing her ground, and thus also feel emotional affiliation towards her, leading to a cathartic experience.
Prometheus bound is the tragedy that probably evokes the most pity out of the three, in creating the cathartic experience. The audience feels that justice has failed in Prometheus' fate and punishment, being nailed to a rock for trying to make the human race survive. As the audience is exactly the target of Prometheus crime – they are, after all, humans – they will feel identified with Prometheus even more for acting upon their behalf. What we see here is both the cathartic feeling of eleos and the empathic concept of identification as exemplified in Zillmann (1995). Through this process of identification with the protagonist as well as through their emotions of pity towards Prometheus and supposed fear towards Zeus, the audience experiences a sense of catharsis.
Medea is a more difficult tragedy to grasp, as Euripides goes against all rules set to produce a tragedy (Burnett, 1973). Medea is fully aware of the crimes she will commit, and above all she is the murderer of her own children. The cathartic experience in this tragedy is harder to grasp, as Medea comes across as an evil character towards the audience. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Medea takes revenge upon everyone that has hurt her. Revenge is something that many of us dream of, but not necessarily always commit to. The murders of all her enemies could then be interpreted in two ways: 1) as an act everyone wants to commit but never dare to because it is unethical, thus reflecting our inner desires for revenge, or 2) as a reminder of why we should not hold grudges. Nevertheless, the figure of Medea evokes both pity – in the sense that her husband has abandoned her – and fear – in her fearful actions.
Film theory on empathy, as formerly discussed, mainly revolves around movies that are sad or frightening (Zillman, 1995; Schramm et al., 2010). Therefore, I would like to apply the concepts of catharsis and film-induced empathy to Darren Aronofsky's drama Requiem for a Dream (2000). It has been rated an 8.4 on average by the Internet Movie Database and is praised for its tragic qualities and dramatic depiction of tragic lives (IMDb, 2016; Runyon, 2013). Aronofsky is famous for creating disturbing, dramatic movies and this is exemplified in the movies plot. The movie revolves around four main protagonists that all suffer from drug addiction. Their stories all relate to each other and all end very badly. Each of the characters had a dream of which they were in the process of pursuing, when they (un)consciously fall into (increased) drug addiction. Their hamartia and hybris find its climax in their inability to see reality for what it truly is. Aronofsky builds up the plot of all tragic heroes in the same way: first he outlines their hopes and dreams, then he shows the characters all falling down into the deepest abyss. At the end of the movie, all characters are broken, devastated and haunted by their demons. Surprisingly, after having watched this movie one feels weirdly relieved. The empathic experience one goes through while watching this movie is so intense that afterwards the audience is either devastated and reflecting on one's own life, or intensely relieved that it has ended. Relieved from the pity for all four characters and from the fear their dangerous lives evoke, the audience can go on with their lives, just like Zillman (1995) and Knoblich-Westerwick (2012) exemplify in their theories and empirical research on tragic film. Even so, the audience seems to resemble a cathartic experience in the way Aristotle describes it in the Poetics (Golden, 1976).

Contemporary catharsis: a necessity?
What we have seen here is a close resemblance in the experience of the audiences of both tragedies and film, and cathartic elements are visible in both. I have tried to apply both Aristotelian theory on catharsis as well as theory on dramatic film to both classic tragedy and contemporary movie reception. What I have hoped to show is that both tragedies and dramatic film carry a similar type of cathartic experience within them, and we enjoy them as much. However, the cause and explicit mechanisms of this cathartic and empathic experience seems to still be lacking. Neither Aristotle nor film reception theory has managed to provide us with a clear answer: it can be emotional cleansing, purgation, identification, empathy, and so on. The crux is that even though the answer to the question of why we enjoy sad movies has not sufficiently been answered, we still keep watching them. The tradition of tragedy from Classical Antiquity until the twenty-first century continues to exist and the discourse on what it means to be cleansed or relieved by tragedy or tragic film is still an on-going process. After having reviewed literature on both the cathartic element of tragedy and that of film, and after having drawn a general comparison between tragedy and film reception, I believe that the issue can be addressed in the following way. Pity and fear are negatively perceived emotions that we generally do not want to experience, except for when they are evoked by a fictitious reality. This signals that we are still in need of experiencing these emotions, on a more distant level than being involved in the pitiful or fearful experience itself. Tragedy and film can in that sense provide a safe alternative to be able to feel these emotions and reflect on them without putting oneself in a situation of real tragedy. Contemporary catharsis is thus a tool to deal with things in life we would rather not experience. We have to know hate in order to experience love; pity to experience indifference; fear to experience confidence; and ultimately, sadness to experience happiness. In this paradox of emotions, the classic tragedy and the contemporary film have served its purposes: they educate, entertain and they aid the public to salvation of what hurts them. Aristotle would be proud.

References
Bal, M., Dupont-Roc, R., & Lallot, J. (1982). Mimesis and genre theory in Aristotle's Poetics.
Burnett, A. (1973). Medea and the Tragedy of Revenge. Classical Philology,68(1), 1-24.
Golden, L. (1969). Mimesis and katharsis. Classical Philology, 64(3), 145-153.
Golden, L. (1976). The Clarification Theory of" Katharsis". Hermes, 104(H. 4), 437-452.
Golden, L. (1973). The purgation theory of catharsis. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(4), 473-479.
IMDb (2016). Requiem for a Dream (2002). Retrieved on March 27, 2016, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180093/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Gong, Y., Hagner, H., & Kerbeykian, L. (2012). Tragedy viewers count their blessings: Feeling low on fiction leads to feeling high on life. Communication Research, 0093650212437758.
Lear, J. (1988). Katharsis. Phronesis, 297-326.
Napieralski, E. A. (1973). The tragic knot: paradox in the experience of tragedy. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(4), 441-449.
Schramm, H., & Wirth, W. (2010). Exploring the paradox of sad-film enjoyment: The role of multiple appraisals and meta-appraisals. Poetics, 38(3), 319-335.
Runyon, C. (2013). THE DARREN ARONOFSKY RETROSPECTIVE: 'REQUIEM FOR A DREAM' in Movie Mezzanine. Retrieved on March 26, 2016, from http://moviemezzanine.com/the-darren-aronofsky-retrospective-requiem/
Tan, E. S. H. (1995). Film-induced affect as a witness emotion. Poetics, 23(1), 7-32.
De Wied, M., Zillmann, D., & Ordman, V. (1995). The role of empathic distress in the enjoyment of cinematic tragedy. Poetics, 23(1), 91-106.
Zillmann, D. (1995). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics,23(1), 33-51.








2

Emma Bouterse, 387249 March 27, 2016


[Document title]