most intriguing.
"Without #5—without the carrot, whatever form it takes—apocalypse could never sell. "
Right. So maybe one has to approach this recognising a diversity of agents and subjects, dividing the agents, rather than seeing all these motives at work in a kind of fungible mass humanity. (the idea of a "utopian impulse" just "in art" seems very sloppy and vague). Perhaps all five features are at work in all groups but hierarchised and ordered differently in different groups with different relatiosn to this artifacts (producers, owners, consumers etc). Or perhaps not at all five are always at work in all groups. Perhaps for example - just suppose for a minute - no. 5 is sort of causally number 1 in the production chain...that there is this fantasy, it's widespread, produced by a lot of people, it's part of the emotional and intellectual commons, it's kind of vague but has lineaments and motifs: imagine then another group, or set of agents, well informed, busily studying this mass of subjects who produce this fantasy in the commons, not themselves the subject producers of the fantasy - imagine these other agents have certain resources and capabilities and they step in to manage, edit, form, control this fantasy, to enclose it, produce it into something else, and sell it back to the producers of the original raw fantasy (as a commodity). Does the nature of "art" plus just general utopian dreams of humanity account for this, these specific artifacts and how they are circulated, satisfactorily? Are all the features of the artifacts to be equally attributed to all the people, as one big blob of dreams, fears and ideas, who in the life of these commodities come into contact with them (those who see them, those who don't see them, those who continue to derive revenue from them, those who don't...)?
It's possible that the producing group actually has fears where the audience has fantasies...fears of the hobbesian chaos, fears it intends consciously to embed and insert in the fantasies of freedom and clean slate etc or just imbues them with thoughtflessly and spontaneously, fears that are cautionary or punishments of the fantasies, or conditions for the fantasy, ...and other affects and assumptions this producing group weaves into and binds to this fantasy it finds lying around in the commons bin of thought product.
In 1993, Gallup's survey said the top two items on the minds of americans, the top two concerns were: affordable health care and the apocalypse. In that order. All the tv production companies buy this research. So - affordable health care, and the apocalypse. Now people in this industry use this to design tvs show and films to pitch. Out of the thousand that will be pitched based on this research, maybe one or two will be about the number one concern, affordable health care. But Michael Moore after all these years shows that's a no brainer, it will succeed, its not lack of audience interest that is really keeping producers away from this number one concern according to Gallup, which is for over fifteen years now steady in the top 3 things on the minds of americans.
So - there are lots of people with a wish of some kind, a dream, of waking up relieved of the current world; permanent snow day, crisis, etc. Social levelling. There are lots of people producing this fantasy of the sweeping away of capitalism and the current social order, lots of people who will be attracted to images of that, to the fantasy of life without these burdens and unbearable anxieties and humiliations and drudgery. Then, different people, who don't wish this, who like capitalism pretty much, who are gratified by the current arrangements (with of course annoyances and caveats), who experience power and satifsaction daily in the world as it is, who don't share this fantasy necessarily, are in a position to exploit this fantasy for profit, to enclose that wish, mix it with their own sentiments and conceptions and fantasies, commodifying that core apocalyptic fantasy, altering it (a lot or slightly), diverting it into other directions they determine consciously and otherwise. Dressing it, concretising it, defining and detailing this vague wish, linking it up with certain assumptions, etc.. Putting it into a form that is not the spontaneous product of mass wishing, but derives from elsewhere, from traditions, ideology, and the interests not of the wishing audience but the deliberate producers.
Because these artifacts, films, are industrially produced commodities, made by professionals, members of a specific group and class with specific interests which separate them from the majority of the audience and set in them in conflict with them. They are are not spontaneous cultural fantasies - they are made by a very very small and cohesive minority for consumption by large publics.
so maybe the thing is the solidity and unity of the "we" who produces or reacts to all five features of the commodified fantasy product has to be questioned. Maybe this needs to be addressed in a more systematic and refined way - that is, that both the spontaneous fears and ideological convictions of a different group of people is perhaps responsible for 4 (bare life, hobbesian nightmare) than that responsible for 5 (the fantasy wish fulfillment "appetite" the feeding of which justifies the pictures financially). It's not so cohesive and communal, maybe; a more complex sort of population, hierarchised, in conflict, and these artifacts are evidence of and conduits for and instruments of relations within this population, between different (fluid, transforming) segments and sections of it, organised by structures not confined to this industry but including it.
You do a great job delving into the specifics of the various visions of
the apocalypse. I'm not sure, however, that you've gone far enough. I'm
still not clear about the "nature of this wish-fulfillment." What about
visions of resources wars (water wars, for example--or peak oil) or of
the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the oceans that abound even in the mainstream media. I'm not clear on what separates them from other apocalyptic visions. What's the difference between watching a segment on coming water wars vs. watching "fictionalized" end-(or decline)-of-the-world scenarios?
i mean for example, if the question is: why do we enjoy apocalyptic fantasies? answer first part is we don't, most of us are indifferent or averse. But then some people do, and there is in that diverse and large minority an important plurality in the US of young suburban white men. So already, we see the lineaments of a complex of social relations here, being reproduced through the circulation of these things...relations within this group, between this group and the producing group, between this group and groups who prefer different fantasy commodities (like cinderellas say), relations of which these products are sinews and media, something far more complicated and intricate than a mass of humanity ritually imbibing images of its own dreams, enjoying them for lots of simultaneous reasons.
thanks for stopping by, chabert --
this is correct, i think, that one can't lump audience and producers together in trying to map out these genres, especially when we move into the Hollywood film industry. In terms of novels it's a bit more up in the air, but easier to decode on a case-by-case basis, analyzing the author's class (and specific position in relation to that class), personal history, etc. At any rate there are multiple audience groups and multiple producer groups within this category of 'narrative apocalypticism.'
so, switzerland, in order to keep these distinctions we're trying to draw from devolving into hand-waving about 'overdetermination,' and leaving it at that, let's look at your question, what separates 'realistic' depictions of disaster (see al gore et al.) from more fantastic or religious ones? these are certainly targeted at different audience groups -- Left Behind fans, Greens, and the 18-35 white male demographic are not necessarily the same. now it's true that the al gore scenario is fact-based while left behind or 28 days later aren't, and you could say its public service intent importantly outweighs its intent to entertain/profit. however, this does not mean that the legitimate fear of climate change can't be captured, commodified, and repurposed as spectacular entertainment -- see 'the day after tomorrow' (or don't). but this can happen even within the al gore movement itself, and one might even say that the pressure is for the green movement to become more apocalyptic and exploitative, to match its message to the existing ideological frameworks provided by Hollywood. a common example is the co-opting of green issues into the discourse of the ethical consumer, where one's attention is turned toward one's personal consumption habits as the limit of political action. conservatives try to make the green movement into a mirror image of religious apocalypticism, with monkish penitents futilely trying to put themselves right with mother earth before the inevitable eco-catastrophe and regression to primitivism, and greens sometimes fall into this trap by employing the same rhetorical devices and feeding on the same irrational fears as a hollywood fantasy film -- sometimes just in the effort to adequately promote themselves.
and many Xians of course denounce the left behind series as a blatant attempt to exploit genuine religious convictions for fear-mongering and profit.
and monster movies are often taken to 'allegorize' real problems (terrorism, global warming, etc.) -- does this perform a service by turning the public's attention to the issues or do they distract the audience and commodify the discourse?
'monster movies' should really just say 'hollywood blockbusters'
this:
http://www.history.com/minisites...e_after_people/
is a good example of 'spectacularization' in action: inviting you to 'imagine the possibilities of a world without humans' this is sold as an ad for post-apocalyptic romanticism -- 'it'd be interesting to contemplate,' etc.
the end of the world is an opportunity for adventure and the contemplation of possible adventure, regardless of its cause.
here's an article that thinks about this problem:
http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/200...e-
escapism.html
"Climate change is the adventure tour of a lifetime – and all it requires is that you wait. Then all the flooded hotels of Spain and south Florida will be yours for the taking.
Given images like these, the future looks exciting again."
" thanks for stopping by, chabert --"
oh sorry, the door was open. Well -
"At any rate there are multiple audience groups and multiple producer groups within this category of 'narrative apocalypticism.'"
years ago there was a harvard lampoon cover, it was a newsweek spoof, the headline was "the effects of nuclear war on america's top models". It had cover picture of models, mushroom cloud behind.
'Life after People' (the history channel show I linked to in the above comments) is currently number 8 on Google trends:
http://www.google.com/trends
no. 10 is the supposed end of world date (dec 21 2012) predicted by the mayan calendar.
I wound up writing just a little bit more about this back at my other blog:
Apocalypse as Pornography
Commenting by HaloScan
