Wes Anderson and Zizek

My classmate Sabbiaovale's recent blogpost on a commercial entitled "Mr. W" got me thinking. Commercials/advertisements that mimic independent film are an interesting conundrum. Whats even more interesting to me is the type of director who makes a much more nuanced and artistic film then is average in todays film scape, yet who still deign to follow the dominant media and capitalist ideology.

Take Wes Anderson (one of my favorites), for instance. Anderson produces films that employ the auteur method and fantastic cinematic skills, films that have solid character development, intelligent humor, and distinct technique. Anderson has the makings of a independent filmmaker, but like any filmmaker so-inclined in today's market (who wants their work to reach the masses), he must produce his movies though the major motion picture houses. This is the hard truth, but is still an interesting that Anderson makes this concession to the dominant power structure. I will get to this point later, through Zizek. What is more provoking is that Anderson has produced several commercials, one for American Express (credit cards, the plight of America) and one for ATT (wire tapping anyone?) Why is Anderson allowing himself this capitalist piggishness? I could accept films being produced by major studios out of necessity for distribution, but this is a much harder pill to swallow.

Anderson's AmEx commercial pays homage to Francois Truffaut and his "Day for Night". Though Truffaut's politics were complex, perhaps borderline anarchistic, he often sided with the French left (though he, admittedly, often attempted to rile them up as well). Truffaut signed the Manifesto of the 121, which nearly ruined his career. The lauded New Wave director was also involved in "les evenements Mai 1968" with leftist student protesters. Anderson paying homage to him through a commercial seems, therefore, a bit maladroit (to use a word from Truffaut's French). How can Anderson make such thoughtful films and ignore the fact that he is on bent knee to hegemonic capitalism?

Zizek, who I have been reading lately, would say that Anderson's take on art distances him from capitalist ideology but binds him to it at the same time. The distancing may be cynical, but it can also be defensive distancing. Cynical distance is just one way to blind ourselves to the structuring power of ideological fantasy. Anderson overlooks the gap between his belief and his actions. In the simplest case this overlooking is a matter of Anderson seeing through the illusion in general terms but failing to see how the illusion guides him.

In more simple words, Anderson (as an intelligent and successful filmmaker) can certainly see that he is aiding and abetting capitalism, but likely chooses to ignore it or view it cynically as a necessity to make ends meet.

Zizek presents a quote from Pascal which brilliantly reveals his theory.

"The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."

In reality, Anderson ought to be questioning why he does what he does, as we all should. We ought to question, as Zizek suggests, how to break this cycle.