I was wrong about Melancholia on two counts. First, I thought that German Romanticism is about grandiosity and sentimentality. It is not. Second, I thought that all absence-related frames in Melancholia are trivial. My list contained five in-your-face absences: two having to do with empty chairs, one absence from a golf cart, one from a bottle of pills and one from a dish for collecting berries. Upon the second viewing of the film, I was glad to prove myself wrong. Melancholia has a complex visual language that gets buried under the obscene beauty of the film. There are some Antonioni-esque moves: like L’Eclisse, the movie begins with an end. Consider also absences. Showing a chair abandoned by Justine, who is the film’s main character, is seemingly plain in its message. We get it – she is not there. But things are not so simple. The camera anxiously hovers over her absence, zooms in and out, and jerks away. Justine’s absence is not calm, it is anxious, just as her presence is. Moreover, there are obvious formal parallels between the empty chair image and the preceding sequence. Justine’s absence is framed by two men sitting beside her. Immediately before this, we are shown two trees framing a part of the sky where planet Melancholia is present but not yet fully visible.
Because the image of invisible Melancholia structurally resembles the image of Justine’s absence, we are led to wonder if these characters are one and the same. Their images, when juxtaposed, impart meaning to one another. German Romanticism spoke of a sense of absence that always points beyond what appears, and absences in Melancholia likewise transcend their initial appearances.
Thanks for the post; it me appreciate the movie more. The second frame is of the spot where Melancholia is? Then isn’t it seen a presence? It it presence in absence? Is the phenomenology different if it is viewed as absence, or even as conveying the invisibility of the planet known to be there? Is seeing that something is invisible the same as seeing an absence?
Jesse, I was vague in my description to raise exactly these sorts of questions. When I was watching the movie, I couldn’t make out where Melancholia was on that patch of sky. Seeing Justine intently look at the sky conveyed to me that she was seeing something. I guessed that Melancholia is somewhere there, but couldn’t find it and saw its absence. So here is a more precise way to explain formal parallels between the chair and the sky images: both depict gaps framed by objects. Justine is no longer there, and Melancholia is almost there. So we’ve got an absence and a near presence.
Now, the viewer could also amodally feel Melancholia’s presence on that patch of sky: i.e., sense that the planet there, looming and approaching. But I think, actually, that you aren’t supposed to feel that. Remember (SPOILER!) that Justine is special – unlike others, she has premonitions and knows what will happen. I think that it would be wrong to read the movie as a call to identify with her. On the opposite, the movie highlights her alienation – she, like Melancholia, is a foreign object. If my reading is correct, then we, the viewers, should be viewing that patch of the sky as the rest of the characters do: without a sense of impending doom (and not “filling in” a large scary planet).
I would be curious, however, to see if others who saw the movie did have a strong sense of Melancholia’s presence and had alternative interpretations of this scene. To summarize, there are three ways to view this scene:
(1) Only experience Melancholia’s absence (as I did)
(2) See the little bright star that Justine is observing as Melancholia (I couldn’t find the star)
(3) Feel/sense (=amodally see) Melancholia’s presence after not being able to locate the star (anyone?)
Great post, in particular about not being able to see the star.
Anya, this blog is such a wonderful resource! Somehow when I lasted checked in I couldn’t read (or saw the absence of) any text) – my duff macbook no doubt. Anyway, very much looking forward discussing absences with you very soon. Particularly intrigued by your suggestion that the movement of camera apes Justine’s presence/contributes to the representation of Justine’s absence – very helpful idea.
Hi,
I was wondering if you could tell more about this passage :
“German Romanticism spoke of a sense of absence that always points beyond what appears”
The formulation is beautiful. Could you please tell me where i could read more about absence in German Romanticism?
thanks in advance