Politics, Theory, and Film: Critical Encounters

with Lars Von Trier Bonnie Honig pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/politics-theory-and-film-critical-encounters-with-lars-von-trier-
bonnie-honig/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (20 reviews) ✓ 142 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Politics, Theory, and Film: Critical Encounters with Lars
Von Trier Bonnie Honig pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

The Films of Lars von Trier and Philosophy Provocations

and Engagements José A. Haro

Encounters with Godard Ethics Aesthetics Politics SUNY

series Horizons of Cinema Williams

Women's Work and Politics in WWI America Lars Olsson

The Maternal Imagination of Film and Film Theory Lauren
Bliss

Musical Encounters with Deleuze and Guattari Pirkko

Moisala

Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film Catalin Brylla

The Philosophy and Politics of Aesthetic Experience:

German Romanticism and Critical Theory 1st Edition Nathan
Ross (Auth.)

Texts and Contexts: Writing About Literature with Critical

Theory 7th Edition Steven Lynn
Politics, Theory, and Film
Critical Encounters with
Lars von Trier
Politics, Theory, and Film
Critical Encounters with
Lars von Trier

Edited by Bonnie Honig and Lori J. Marso

1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with
the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form,
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Honig, Bonnie, editor. | Marso, Lori J., editor.
Title: Politics, theory, and film : critical encounters with Lars von Trier /
edited by Bonnie Honig and Lori J. Marso.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, [2016] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016006212 (print) | LCCN 2016009356 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190600181 (hardcover : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780190600174 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9780190600198 (pdf ) | ISBN 9780190600204 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Trier, Lars von, 1956—Criticism and interpretation.
Classification: LCC PN1998.3.T747 P65 2016 (print) |
LCC PN1998.3.T747 (ebook) | DDC 791.4302/33092—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016006212

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Contents

Preface: Show, Don’t Tell ix

Davide Panagia
Acknowledgmentsxix
Contributorsxxi

Introduction: Lars von Trier and the “Clichés of Our Times” 1

Bonnie Honig and Lori J. Marso

I. ANTI-SEMITE/JEW

Von Trier
Concept, design, and form by Tony Cokes

1. An Invitation from Lars von Trier 23

Translated by Troels Skadhauge and Lars Tønder

II. WOMAN/NYMPH

2. Must We Burn Lars von Trier?: Simone de Beauvoir’s Body

Politics in Antichrist45
Lori J. Marso
3. The Suffering Spectator?: Perversion and Complicity in
Antichrist and Nymphomaniac71
Rosalind Galt
4. The Nymph Shoots Back: Agamben and the Feel of the Agon 97
Lynne Huffer
vi | Contents

III. FATE/MARTYR

5. Sharing in What Death Reveals: Breaking the Waves with Bataille 131
Stephen S. Bush
6. Broken by God: Fate and Divine Intervention in Breaking the Waves148
James Martel

IV. YOUNG AMERICANS

7. Blind Spots and Double Vision: National and Individual

Fantasy in Dancer in the Dark169
Victoria Wohl
8. “Young Americans”: Rancière and Bowie in Dogville191
Paul Apostolidis
9. Three Emancipations: Manderlay and Racialized Freedom 216
Elisabeth R. Anker
10. Face Value: Von Trier, Bowie, Kanye (Notes on a Review
and Three Rants) 240
Tony Cokes

Kanye
Concept, design, and form by Tony Cokes

V. EUROPE/EVIL

Bowie
Concept, design, and form by Tony Cokes

11. “At the Fringes of One’s Consciousness”: Kierkegaard, The

Idiots, and the Politics of Comic Rule Following 247
Lars Tønder
12. A Philopoetic Engagement: Deleuze and The Element of Crime266
Michael J. Shapiro
13. Evils of Representation in Europa and Melancholia285
Joshua Foa Dienstag

VI. THINKING/MELANCHOLIA

14. Black Suns and a Bright Planet: Melancholia as Thought

Experiment305
Thomas Elsaesser
 Contents | vii

15. “I Know What Has to Happen”: Tragedy, Mourning,

and Melancholia in Medea336
Miriam Leonard
16. “Out Like a Lion”: Melancholia with Euripides and Winnicott 356
Bonnie Honig
17. The Gravity of Melancholia: A Critique of Speculative Realism 389
Christopher Peterson
18. Melancholia and Us 413
William E. Connolly

Index423
Preface: Show, Don’t Tell
D a v i d e Pa n a g i a

Are there modes of cinematic thinking that “constellate affectively” The mob, when they are
(Honig 2015, 65) with political theory? gazing at a dancer on the
The wager of this volume is that such modes exist. And each author in these slack rope, naturally writhe
pages is willing to risk this wager in order to explore the creative possibilities that and twist and balance their
such a theoretical disposition enables. That is, the writers of this volume chal- own bodies, as they see him
lenge us, in their distinct and unique ways, to render cinema politically and to do, and as they feel that they
render political thinking cinematically. In doing so, they provoke us to explore themselves must do if in his
alternative modes of political thinking that find resources for reflection in worlds situation.
populated by transformative media like rolls of celluloid, projectors, screens,
Adam Smith, The Theory
scripts, and filmic scenes, but also shots, cuts, sounds, and sequences.
of Moral Sentiment
In this preface, I wish to pick up on the volume’s wager and expand on the
queer adjacency of cinema and political thinking by considering the possibility
that political thinking—that peculiar activity of reflective acrobatics concerned
with the (dis)organization of peoples and worlds, of commonwealths, of assem-
blies, or what Jacob Levy has recently called “intermediate groups” (Levy 2015)—
is cinematic, if by cinematic we conceive of the work of political thinking as one
of stitching and cutting scenes, worlds, vistas, and sights. And if we might con-
sider political thinking cinematic, then the making and studying of, and the look-
ing at, cinema shares and learns from a tradition of political reflection of and
about the emergent lines of division and demarcation that create political entities.
By this I mean that cinematic thinking is complicit with a series of political
concerns of and about (among other things) institutional isomorphism (to
invoke Levy once again) and its centralizing and policing tendencies. The exter-
nal imposition of shape and form on a people in constituent formation has the
tendency of halting the intensity of insipience of an insurgent citizenry (Frank
2009). As I show here, the debates around the ontology of cinema in 1950s
x | Preface: Show, Don’t Tell

France are explicitly indebted to a political thinking about insipience and iso-
morphism and how cinema’s many media can disrupt the forces of institutional
isomorphism at diverse levels of society. As Levy states, “Non-isomorphism is
disruptive; repeated patterns are pleasing” (Levy 2015, 70). And the writers and
filmmakers I consider are inspired by a set of political concerns regarding the
potential of cinema to break with an aesthetic isomorphism that took for granted
the (especially Aristotelian) idea of stable and necessary forms.
Social and political isomorphism, and its disruptive other, became a con-
stant concern for cinema where a task is to determine the limits of the medium
and how to surpass those limits. One way in which those concerns are expressed
regard the “how” of editing different shots and scenes captured in the making of
a film. Shots and scenes are treated as collections of views that, to invoke Michel
Foucault, demand a disposition (Foucault et al. 1991, 93). This is fundamentally
a problem of pluralism because editors and directors are required to make deci-
sions as to where to cut and paste, at which point in a sequence, and how to
render any cut acceptable to human perception and sensibility (Murch 2001).
That is, filmmakers are in the business of consistently parsing the sensible
(Rancière 2006), of creating breaks of continuity in the field of vision, and
having those instantaneous discontinuities seem natural and unobtrusive—or, at
times, not. The question that haunts cinema and political thinking is thus pre-
cisely how to render sensible the divisions that structure an assembly of views.
Why is this the case for cinema? The answer is partly technoscientific,
though it is also more than that. Traditional recording cameras could hold at
most ten minutes of celluloid film. Anything more would have been too heavy
for the camera, and camera person, to handle. Thus early films lasted only about
ten minutes or so. Then someone came up with the idea of gluing reels of film
together, and editing began, and films got longer, and we got different shots
and angles and perspectives all in one film. Hence the potential, but also the
­dilemma, of cinematic isomorphism. How does one account for the pluralism of
shots in any one film, and should that pluralism be made perspicuous (and thus
disrupt the continuity of storytelling), or should it be overshadowed by a com-
mitment to a pleasing isomorphism? How should one paste the cut? Or how
does one parse the dividing line between vistas and groups?
More than an analogy, metaphor, or ideal, I wish to take these concerns as
central to cinematic political thinking where practices of cinema making and
political thinking draw on one another to contend with the issues that arise vis-
à-vis the spaces and temporalities of intermediariness. In the following, I show
parallels between certain concerns in modern political thought and the devel-
opment of the practice and thinking about the ontology of the cinematic
medium. Specifically, I concern myself here with the ways in which both cinema
and political thinking share commitments to an unspecified work of incipient
 Preface: Show, Don’t Tell | xi

pluralism as the working out and working through of practices for generating
adjacencies between peoples, places, and things. In short, what I’m interested in
exploring in this preface is how cinema and political thinking coincide in their
ways of thinking the dividing lines that render relations.
My focus is on those debates among critics and filmmakers in France in the
1950s in the pages of Cahiers du Cinéma. These were especially influential de-
bates for the aesthetics of cinema, but also for the political history of film, as they
were the intellectual testimonies of those author/directors of French New Wave
cinema that became one of the most influential cinematic, artistic, and philo-
sophical movements of the postwar period. Crucial to these writings, and to the
films, were the ideas elaborated on the role of editing as a creative process that
does a certain kind of work of solidarity building. That is, the conjoining of
scenes and the establishment of nontraditional cuts, or montage editing, work to
generate emergent relations not reducible to institutionalized forms of belong-
ing. One doesn’t cut a scene so as to repeat and confirm a preexisting sense of
coherence; each cut invents a disjunctive relation between differences. This is the
theoretical claim made by, among other things, Godard’s jump-cut montage. But
it is also a political claim that draws from a tradition of moral sentimental
thought that denies the inherency and necessity of isomorphic relations.
Consider authors like David Hume, Adam Smith, and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau who concerned themselves with the publicity of everyday life as a
source for thinking about the forces—both centripetal and centrifugal—of soci-
ality. Chief among these was the force of sympathy, which wasn’t just an emotion
but, as the epigraph from Adam Smith suggests, was also an account of specta-
torship and of a networked observational mood of everyday life (Chandler
2013). It was networked because the scopic field of spectatorship was configured
as horizontal and not vertical, not top-down. In short, sympathetic spectator-
ship was deemed inherently relational because it involved circuits of reflection
and refraction of lives observed by participant viewers, by viewers partaking in
acts of viewing one another face-to-face. And to imagine the possibility of oc-
cupying an other’s position means having to conceive of discordant spectatorial
moods (Panagia 2013, 105–131).
The theories of sociality and politics that emerge in the modern period, and
that continue to inform our current political reflections about party systems,
about citizenship, about refugees, about otherness, about cosmopolitanism, and
so forth, rely heavily on the capacity to creatively think and enact relations
among peoples, places, and things that have no reason for belonging together.
Contra Aristotle, and the scholasticism indebted to his system of thought, moral
sentimental political thinkers refused the possibility of innate relations and thus
of innate laws and innate hierarchies of value and adjacency. Inherency and ne-
cessity were to be dismissed as inadequate to the study of the human in relation
xii | Preface: Show, Don’t Tell

to the world (Pagden 2013, 53–78). And so cinematic thinking holds fast to a
basic tenet of moral sentimental political thought: that there is no reason or
natural law that guarantees the success of a cut (where no cut is just a cut, but also
a paste) between one scene and another, between one vista and another, between
one part and another. The cut and paste of cinematic and political assembly for-
mation are acts of partaking in a becoming relation. To think the simultaneity of
cinema and political thinking as I am proposing here is to consider a partaking in
tradition of moral sentimental reflection that conceives of the simultaneity of
politics and cinema as forces of transformation of what can become together.
Cinematic political thinking thus offers something more than the exposi-
tion of political themes in filmic works, or the treatment of films as specific rep-
resentations of political concepts, or the delimitation of how films interpellate
and subjugate publics. Undoubtedly, all of what I have stated thus far may feel
unusual. How can cinema be political other than through its content? And
though that may be a fair-enough question to ask, its purchase starts to loosen
once we begin to learn a bit about the making and production of films, how the
work of cinema is much more than its script, how cinema is something other
than adaptation of words onto a filmic patina, and of the theoretical and experi-
mental history of cinematic innovation that is at once political, aesthetic, techni-
cal, and scientific. To express this is to assert an ontological condition of cinema
that, once again, is adjacent to Adam Smith’s assertion about sympathy and spec-
tatorship: cinema is meant to be viewed, not read. We go to the movies to look
because something is there, on the screen, being shown.
Whatever content we imagine being shown, it matters to our appreciations
of that content that we pay heed to the fact of spectatorship, and to the further
fact that the creation of films is a technical art whose ambition it is to show and
tell, to tell through a showing, so as to reveal the power of representation via
projection. Pace the demonization of spectacle and spectatorship that some
twentieth- and twenty-first-century critics have advanced, the seventh art demands
acts of spectatorship, as does politics. Spectatorship is what allows us to say, for
right or wrong, “I see what you’re doing” and to thus recount that doing as an
experience had in the world.
When we view a film we witness a doing, and in relating our viewings we
recount happenings. Just as every film relates vistas, so every act of viewing spurs
us to a recounting that is itself a relating of experience. There is always activity,
always motility, always something happening on the screen. Even when viewing
something as challenging as Warhol’s Empire (1964)—an eight-hour slow-­
motion film of a continuous shot of the Empire State Building in New York
City—“there’s happening doing” (Massumi 2011, 1). And that doing is the
­becoming of views. One frame of film succeeds another, and with each succes-
sion a different world appears as if out of nowhere, followed by another, and
 Preface: Show, Don’t Tell | xiii

then another again. And when we recount that world, yet another world appears
through our telling. Viewing, recounting, reading—these are all acts of spec-
tatorship that contain ways of relating disparate and unique entities to one
another.
The fact of relationality is a relevant starting point for any consideration of
cinematic political thinking, but it is especially relevant given Lars von Trier’s
commitments to a cinematic mode of storytelling denuded of any and all possi-
ble embellishments beyond the animation of immediately recorded views and
sounds. I am, of course, invoking the “Dogme 95 Manifesto” and “Vow of Chastity”
that are polemical responses to another, older, manifesto championed in France
in the 1950s. That earlier manifesto penned by François Truffaut in the pages of
Cahiers du Cinéma was equally (though differently) concerned with the isomor-
phic limits of the filmmakers of the day.
Originally published in volume 31 (1954) of Cahiers du Cinéma, Truffaut’s
“A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema” (Nichols 1976) polemically pits
what he calls “the Tradition of Quality” against the “auteurs who often write
their dialogue and some of them themselves invent the stories they direct”
(Nichols 1976, 233). By the “Tradition of Quality” Truffaut means those films
that, since the postwar period, had been populating the screens of France and
the film festivals of Europe under the banner of the tricolor. Truffaut names the
perpetrators of this tradition of quality ( Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost espe-
cially), and he names their films. But more important, he names what he defines
as the overarching political dilemma that drives the “Tradition of Quality”—
and that dilemma is the technique of adaptation. The great tradition of quality,
Truffaut affirms, doesn’t make cinema but adapts novels to scripts and screen.
For Truffaut, adaptation is equivalent to the negation of cinema, as when he
affirms that “Aurenche and Bost are essentially literary men and I reproach them
here for being contemptuous of the cinema by underestimating it” (Nichols
1976, 229). They underestimate the cinema precisely because they reduce the po-
tential of a cinematic realism to the faithfulness of the copy. The “Tradition of
Quality” that Truffaut denounces is the tradition of bourgeois aestheticism in-
debted to an Aristotelian hylomorphism that affirms that the substance of great
art is imitation. And imitation (or, in this case, adaptation) is for Truffaut tandem
to what he calls “equivalence” (Nichols 1976, 229) that is at once a political and
aesthetic failure. Equivalence is an aesthetic failure because it denies the possibil-
ity of creativity due to the expectation of a fidelity to the literary to which cinema
is subjected; and it is a political failure for almost the same reason—because
equivalence reduces all possible relations to one of fidelity to a preestablished
quality. That is, the enterprise of the “Tradition of Quality,” with its ontological
commitment to the primacy of equivalence, denies cinema its transformative
possibilities by reducing its task to the repetition of relations of similitude. “It is
xiv | Preface: Show, Don’t Tell

not an exaggeration to say,” Truffaut will declare, “that the hundred-odd French
films made each year tell the same story” (Nichols 1976, 232).
To tell the same story means to repeat the same characters (or character
types), which means to project a repetition of always already-available relations.
Adaptation repeats the relation of equivalence, thereby making similitude the
standard for quality. In turn, this reduces the task of cinema to reproducing ex-
change relations so that any one film is substitutable for another. Truffaut wishes
to counter this ontology of equivalence with the kinds of artistic experiments he
sees in the auteur filmmakers of his time (Renoir, Cocteau, Bresson, and Tati
chief among them). The distinguishing feature of these auteurs is their willing-
ness to push the technical limits of the art of cinema in storytelling, direction,
and editing. The challenge Truffaut poses, in other words, is nothing less than a
revolutionary overthrow of one system of artistic production (an Aristotelian
one) for another (that of avant-garde auteur cinema) because, as he quips, “I do
not believe in the peaceful coexistence of the ‘Tradition of Quality’ and an
­‘auteur’s cinema.’”
In Truffaut’s manifesto, cinematic political thinking explicitly calls for the
deployment of the technical features of an artistic medium to imagine the pos-
sibility of altering and transforming political relations. And this because it is
imagined and shown that the ways of thinking about the relation of literature
and film repeat and reproduce the isomorphic mimetic/exchange relations of
society. More than a claim about ideological subjectification, Truffaut’s is an on-
tological claim about the entanglement of politics, aesthetics, and technology;
the belief is that by exploring the technical limits of a medium one might cre-
atively explore the transformation of social relations. Relations are not inaltera-
ble forms, and cinema is the technical medium that will allow Truffaut, Godard,
and other Cahiers du Cinéma directors to explore and exploit the possibility of
thinking political and aesthetic intermediariness otherwise and beyond the em-
plotment of action prescribed by Aristotelian dramaturgy.1
These concerns find further expression in the debates between Jean-Luc
Godard and André Bazin regarding the cinematic value of montage. In a series of
three short essays published between 1950 and 1955, and collected under the
title “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema,” Bazin praises the virtues of the
depth of field shot, or long shot, over montage editing, because the long shot
allows objects and characters to be “relating in such a fashion that it is impossible
for the spectator to miss the significance of the scene” (Bazin 2005, 33–35). And
the significance of the scene, Bazin goes on to affirm, is its ability to generate a
“unity of image in space and time” (2005, 35). Indeed, he will conclude that the
depth of field shot “brings the spectator into a relation with the image closer to
that which he enjoys with reality,” making the cinematic experience “more realistic”
(Bazin 2005, 35).
 Preface: Show, Don’t Tell | xv

It is a mistake to read these, and other passages (also available in Bazin’s foun-
dational essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image”), as Bazin’s attempt to
rely on the mechanical process of camera recording as the basis for a sense of realism
that requires or demands the imitation of an antecedent reality. As Daniel Morgan
has convincingly shown, realism for Bazin is a style that has many expressions, many
realisms. “Rather than marking out a set of features, realism describes the specific
attitude a film takes to, on the one hand, the ontological basis of its medium, and,
on the other, what the film holds as its central facts” (Morgan 2006, 481). In other
words, Bazin’s claim regarding the “more realistic” is a claim about spectatorial expe-
rience rather than a claim about the objective transcription of historical fact.
For Bazin, depth of field shots were contrasted to the reigning dialectical
montage techniques of his day precisely because montage, as he says, “rules out
ambiguity of expression” (Bazin 2005, 36), whereas the realism of the depth of
field shot reintroduces “the uncertainty in which we find ourselves” (ibid.). With
specific reference to the Italian neorealist films of Rossellini and de Sica, Bazin
will affirm that they “transfer to the screen the continuum of reality” (Bazin
2005, 37—emphasis in original). Depth of field wins out over montage as an
aesthetic achievement, in other words, precisely because it denies the possibility
of grasping an already-existing actuality by inserting the viewer into the everyday
reality of movement (i.e., “continuum”) and uncertainty. The style of montage
that he criticizes—the dialectical montage most vividly associated with the
Soviet school of Sergei Eisenstein—“rules out ambiguity of expression” (Bazin
2005, 36) precisely because it works toward producing an ideal through the dia-
lectical resolution of a contradiction. Two contrasting shots, set up side by side
in a montage editing sequence, will resolve into what Eisenstein calls a “grada-
tional unity” (Eisenstein 1969, 81), thereby producing an ideal image. And this
dialectical resolution toward an ideal image is precisely why ambiguity is, for
Bazin, ruled out in montage editing.
Such a commitment to the adjacency and complementarity of cinematic
and political thinking finds continued expression in and through the writings
and films of Jean-Luc Godard. In direct contrast to Bazin, Godard will cham-
pion and exploit montage editing because for him montage does what Bazin
claims it cannot do: it makes available an experience of ambiguity and disconti-
nuity through the interruption of temporal flow. Recall that for Bazin montage
was insufficient because of its dialectical commitment to what Eisenstein called
“gradational unity.” Bazin understood and had (to that point) experienced mon-
tage editing as essential to continuity editing, and his critique was a not-so-veiled
critique of what he imagines is a false sense of reality generated by dialectical
idealism. Like Hume, Smith, and Truffaut, Bazin understands cinematic politi-
cal thinking as oriented to ways of thinking relationality beyond isomorphic
modes of representation, imitation, adaptation, and continuity.
xvi | Preface: Show, Don’t Tell

In his turn, Godard is dissatisfied with the idea that the creative practice of
editing is simply reducible to continuity editing. His project will be to develop a
mode of cinematic political thinking that, though sympathetic and indebted to
Bazin’s ontological considerations, refuses the sense of finality implicit in the
latter’s classifications of the languages of cinema. In short, we might say that
whereas for Bazin realism was a style that put on display ambiguity and move-
ment, cinema techniques like “depth of field” and “montage” were rigidly desig-
nated terms that corresponded to specific aesthetic and political meanings.
Godard refuses this rigid designation of meaning with technique and in
“Montage, My Fine Care” (originally published as “Montage, mon beau souci”
in Cahiers du Cinéma 65, December 1956) he will unapologetically declare that
“invention and improvisation [take] place in front of the moviola just as much as
it does on the set. Cutting a camera movement in four may prove more effective
than keeping it as a shot. An exchange of glances, to revert to our previous ex-
ample, can only be expressed with the sufficient force—when necessary—by
­editing” (Godard 1986, 40).
Such an affirmation, subsequently put on display in his jump-cut edited
driving sequences in À bout de souffle (1960), commits him to a different orienta-
tion than the one expressed by Bazin. For Godard the task of cinema becomes
that of exploring an ontology of appearing and the burden of viewing what appears.
The force of aesthetic achievement lies in the possibility of invention and impro-
visation, which is not reducible to any specific grammar of filming. In other
words, the languages of cinema are not fixed and neither is the subjectivity of the
filmmaker. She can be a director as much as an editor, an actor, a writer, or a styl-
ist. The creative assembly of worlds, which is the activity of cinematic political
thinking, is untethered to any specific sense of work, or technical expertise, or
way of doing. Thus, when Godard concludes his retort to Bazin by affirming that
“a director should closely supervise the editing of his films” and “the editor
should also forsake the smell of glue and celluloid for the heat of the arc-lamps”
(Godard 1986, 41), what he is affirming is the fact that relations are not natural
to any expertise or style of partaking. But more than this he is affirming, through
both text and cinematic works, that the lines of relationality that establish divi-
sions of labor, of practice, of identity are not natural to any system of organiza-
tion. Relationality, pace Bazin, is an incipient force that has no isomorphic con-
tinuity. The jump-cut thus stands as visual evidence of a cinematic political
thinking that refuses to think difference as negation and thus refuses to think
agonism as exclusive to any one particular political formation, but as a condition
of vitality and movement (of life) as such.
In this preface and elsewhere (Panagia 2013), I’ve offered the idea that cer-
tain debates and aspirations of cinema in the twentieth century are at once com-
plicit in and indebted to a modern tradition of moral, sentimental political
 Preface: Show, Don’t Tell | xvii

thought. There are many more debates and films that one might pursue in this
regard, not to mention the fact that Lars von Trier’s own writings and films are
themselves a direct retort to the avant-garde ambitions of Bazin, Truffaut,
Godard, and countless others. My reason in exploring these 1950s debates is to
provide a context for a book that is invested in the idea that the variable tradi-
tions that compose our political thinking have something to say about cinema,
and that saying something about cinema matters to our political sensibilities.
The writers in this volume share this sentiment and this aesthetic-political project.
Is there, then, a cinematic mode of political thinking? I don’t believe there
can be just one. And none of the authors in this volume believe it either. This is
because our aesthetic sensibilities can’t be directed to any one feature or quality
of a work. Those sensibilities, however fine or crude they may be, point to a diz-
zying array of combined impressions that emerge in the instantaneity of a
moment. If there is something I consider unique to any cinematic mode of
political thinking, it is the emphasis on political theorizing as a practice of
invention and improvisation that allows us to imagine an affective constella-
tion of worlds combining in aberrant forms. Such is at once the nature of cinema
and politics.

Notes
1. This is an aesthetic and political claim not original to Truffaut. It was part of
a general discourse in 1950s France regarding the ontological properties of
technical objects (most forcefully articulated by Gilbert Simondon in his
Du mode d’existence des object techniques [2012]). I would add further that
Simondon’s critique of Aristotelian hylomorphism and his development
of a theory of becoming for the genesis of technical objects (i.e., that
disparation precedes the individual) is adjacent to and in tandem with
what I am suggesting is an overturning of Aristotelian mimesis in the
writings and filmic works of Cahiers du Cinéma directors and critics. To
overthrow the trenchant system of relations of the “Tradition of Quality”
requires and undermining of Aristotelian (i.e., bourgeois) decorum.

Bibliography
Bazin, André. 2005. What Is Cinema? Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chandler, James. 2013. An Archaeology of Sympathy: The Sentimental Mode in

Literature and Cinema. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1969. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. Translated by Jay
Leyda. Unstated edition. New York: Harcourt.
xviii | Preface: Show, Don’t Tell

Foucault, Michel, Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. 1991. The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Frank, Jason. 2009. Constituent Moments: Enacting the People in

Postrevolutionary America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Godard, Jean-Luc. 1986. Godard on Godard: Critical Writings by Jean-Luc

Godard. New York: Da Capo.

Honig, Bonnie. 2015. “Public Things: Jonathan Lear’s Radical Hope, Lars von
Trier’s Melancholia, and the Democratic Need.” Political Research Quarterly,
July 623–636.

Levy, Jacob T. 2015. Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom. 1st edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Massumi, Brian. 2011. Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the
Occurrent Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Morgan, Daniel. 2006. “Rethinking Bazin: Ontology and Realist Aesthetics.”

Critical Inquiry 32 (3): 443–481.

Murch, Walter. 2001. In the Blink of an Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing. 2nd
edition. Los Angeles: Silman-James.

Nichols, Bill. 1976. Movies and Methods: An Anthology. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Pagden, Anthony. 2013. The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters. New
York: Random House.

Panagia, Davide. 2013. Impressions of Hume: Cinematic Thinking and the

Politics of Discontinuity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Rancière, Jacques. 2006. Film Fables. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Simondon, Gilbert. 2012. Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris:

Editions Aubier.
Acknowledgments

This collection began with a conversation between the two editors

at an annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. We were
surprised to discover that we, two feminists working in democratic theory, ad-
mired the films of Lars von Trier, a director often charged with being misogynist.
We moved rather quickly to the idea of putting together a collection of essays on
von Trier, hoping to invite contributors from the worlds of political and feminist
theory, classics (thinking at first of von Trier’s wonderful Medea), philosophy,
and film and media studies. Wanting the collection to feel not merely collected
but collaborative, we planned to workshop drafts of the essays at two live
gatherings: one at the American Political Science Association conference in
Washington, DC, in August 2014 and the other soon after at a conference on
von Trier’s work at Brown University in November 2014 (Breaking the Rules:
Gender, Power, and Politics in the Films of Lars von Trier). All papers but one
(William Connolly’s was added for the publication of this book) were presented
in early versions at one of these two events. Panelists commented on each other’s
work and revised their papers in response to comments from spectators, copan-
elists, and us, in our role as collection coeditors. We want to thank our contribu-
tors for their cheerful participation in this multistage process.
We also thank our funders, who made the November 2014 conference pos-
sible: at Brown University, the Malcolm S. Forbes Center for Media and Cultural
Studies, the Department of Modern Culture and Media, the Pembroke Center
Faculty Seed Grant program, the C. V. Starr Lectureship (courtesy of the Office
of the Dean of the Faculty), and also the Creative Arts Council; and at Union
College, the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences.
An earlier version of this collection appeared in Theory & Event 18:2 (2015).
In addition to the Connolly essay (a revised version of his chapter in The Fragility
of Things) with which we end, this book contains a new preface by Davide
xx | Acknowledgments

Panagia, a new introduction coauthored by the editors, and several essays revised
specifically for this volume, a few rather extensively so. The essays have also been
reordered and, for the first time, organized into sections that make more pro-
nounced the overlapping points of entry into questions of gender, power, and
politics in the work of Lars von Trier.
We are very grateful to Angela Chnapko for taking on this project, to the
three readers for Oxford University Press who encouraged its publication and
improved it with their suggestions, and to all who attended panels and engaged
with this work in formation. We see this volume as part of a new interdisciplin-
ary turn to political theory and film, and we are excited to be part of that.

Bonnie Honig and Lori J. Marso

Contributors

Elisabeth R. Anker is an associate professor of American studies and political

science at the George Washington University. She is the author of Orgies of
Feeling: Melodrama and the Politics of Freedom as well as articles in journals, in-
cluding Social Research, Political Theory, Politics and Gender, and Contemporary
Political Theory. She is working on a new project about “ugly freedoms.”

Paul Apostolidis is Professor and T. Paul Endowed Chair of Political Science at

Whitman College and a Professorial Fellow at the Institute for Social Justice of
Australian Catholic University. He has authored Breaks in the Chain: What
Immigrant Workers Can Teach America about Democracy and Stations of the
Cross: Adorno and Christian Right Radio; he coedited Public Affairs: Politics in
the Age of Sex Scandals. He serves on the Executive Editorial Board of the journal
Political Theory, and he is currently writing a book on migrant day laborers, pop-
ular education, and neoliberal time.

Stephen S. Bush is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University.

His interests, broadly speaking, are theory of religion, philosophy of religion,
and religious ethics. He has published Visions of Religion: Experience, Meaning,
and Power. He is presently working on a book on religious and democratic indi-
viduality in William James.

Tony Cokes is Professor of Media Production in the Department of Modern

Culture and Media at Brown University. Cokes’s media and installation works
question stable meanings and identities (personal, cultural, and political),
through reframing appropriated texts and images. He has exhibited at venues
including the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum, the Guggenheim
Museum, New York; Centre Georges Pompidou, and La Cinémathèque
xxii | Contributors

Française, Paris; MACBA, Barcelona, Spain; REDCAT, Los Angeles; and

ZKM, Karlsruhe, Germany.

William E. Connolly is the Krieger-Eisenhower Professor at Johns Hopkins

University, where he teaches political theory. His recent books include
Capitalism and Christianity, American Style; A World of Becoming; and The
Fragility of Things. His newest book, in production, is called Facing the Planetary:
Entangled Humanism and the Politics of Swarming.

Joshua Foa Dienstag is Professor of Political Science and Law at UCLA. He is

the author of Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit; Dancing in Chains: Narrative
and Memory in Political Theory; and many articles. His recent essay “Blade
Runner’s Humanism” won the APSA’s Wilson Carey McWilliams Award.

Thomas Elsaesser is Professor Emeritus at the University of Amsterdam and,

since 2013, a visiting professor at Columbia University. His most recent books
are The Persistence of Hollywood; German Cinema—Terror and Trauma: Cultural
Memory since 1945; and (with Malte Hagener) Film Theory—An Introduction
through the Senses (2nd edition). A forthcoming work is Film History as Media
Archaeology. He is also completing a book on European cinema and continental
thought, of which this essay here is a chapter.

Jessica Fleischmann is the creative director of Los Angeles–based still room

studio, which focuses on socially engaged design. Her work has been exhibited
nationally, published in books and articles on graphic design, and recognized by
the AIGA, Mohawk, Print Magazine, the FPO Awards, and the British Book
Design and Production Awards. She has an MFA in graphic design from CalArts
and an MA in Latin American studies from the University of Chicago.

Rosalind Galt is Professor of Film Studies at King’s College London. She is the
author of The New European Cinema: Redrawing the Map and Pretty: Film and the
Decorative Image, and she is a coeditor of Global Art Cinema: New Theories and
Histories. With Karl Schoonover, she is a coauthor of Queer Cinema in the World.

Bonnie Honig is Nancy Duke Lewis Professor at Brown University in the de-
partments of Modern Culture and Media (MCM) and Political Science. She is
also Affiliate Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation, Chicago. Her
most recent books are Emergency Politics: Paradox, Law, Democracy and
Antigone, Interrupted. Her book Public Things, given as the Thinking Out Loud
lectures, is forthcoming. Her next book will be delivered in 2017 as the Flexner
Lectures at Bryn Mawr College.
 Contributors | xxiii

Lynne Huffer is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Women’s, Gender, and

Sexuality Studies at Emory University. She is the author of four books: Are the Lips
a Grave? A Queer Feminist on the Ethics of Sex; Mad for Foucault: Rethinking the
Foundations of Queer Theory; Maternal Pasts, Feminist Futures: Nostalgia and the
Question of Difference; and Another Colette: The Question of Gendered Writing. She
currently serves as a coeditor of philoSOPHIA: A Journal in Continental
Feminism, and she has published widely in academic, literary, and mass media venues.

Miriam Leonard is Professor of Greek Literature and Its Reception at University

College London. She is author of Athens in Paris: Ancient Greece and the Political
in Post-War French Thought and Socrates and the Jews: Hellenism and Hebraism
from Moses Mendelssohn to Sigmund Freud. Her latest book is Tragic Modernities.

Lori J. Marso is the Doris Zemurray Stone Professor of Modern Literary and
Historical Studies and Professor of Political Science at Union College in
Schenectady, NY. Her latest book is titled Politics with Beauvoir: Freedom in the
Encounter. She is the author/coeditor/editor of the following books: (Un)
Manly Citizens; Feminist Thinkers and the Demands of Femininity; Simone de
Beauvoir’s Political Thinking; W Stands for Women; and Fifty-One Key Feminist
Thinkers.

James Martel teaches political theory in the department of Political Science at

San Francisco State University. He is the author, most recently, of a book entitled
The Misinterpellated Subject. He is a coeditor, along with Kennan Ferguson, of
Theory & Event and was the president of the Association for the Study of Law,
Culture and the Humanities.

Davide Panagia is Associate Professor of Political Science at UCLA. He is a

political theorist with multidisciplinary interests across the humanities and
social sciences, including contemporary political theory and the history of po-
litical thought, interpretive methodologies, cultural theory, media studies, aes-
thetics, literary studies, and cinema. His work specializes on the relationship
between aesthetics and politics. His most recent book is Impressions of Hume:
Cinematic Thinking and the Politics of Discontinuity. His current research, #data-
politik, is a study of theories of police powers in the age of cybernetics and the
algorithm. He is an affiliated researcher in the Digital Cultures Lab at UCLA.

Christopher Peterson is Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities and

Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He is the author of Kindred
Specters and Bestial Traces. He is currently completing a book called Monkey
Trouble: The Limits of Posthumanism (forthcoming 2017), which explores how
xxiv | Contributors

the human (or its phantasm) has become a conspicuous blind spot for posthu-
manist theorists keen to demonstrate their fidelity to nonhumans.

Michael J. Shapiro is Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii,

Manoa. Among his recent publications are Studies in Trans-Disciplinary Method:
After the Aesthetic Turn and War Crimes, Atrocity, and Justice. His Politics and
Time: Documenting the Event is forthcoming in 2016.

Lars Tønder is Associate Professor in the department of Political Science at the

University of Copenhagen. He is the author of Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation
to Politics, and his articles on tolerance, free speech, and comic power have ap-
peared in journals such as Political Theory, Contemporary Political Theory, Theory
& Event, and Theoria. The working title of his new project is Comic Politics:
Culture, Media, and Democratic Agency.

Victoria Wohl is Professor of Classics at the University of Toronto. She is the

author of Intimate Commerce: Exchange, Gender, and Subjectivity in Greek
Tragedy; Love among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens;
Law’s Cosmos: Juridical Discourse in Athenian Forensic Oratory; and Euripides
and the Politics of Form. She is the editor of the volume Probabilities, Hypotheticals,
and Counterfactuals in Ancient Greek Thought.
Politics, Theory, and Film
Critical Encounters with
Lars von Trier
 Introduction
Lars von Trier and the “Clichés of Our Times”
Bonnie Honig and Lori J. Marso

Lar s von Trier’s attraction to cliché is voiced by Joe, the clichéd Many of the materials I am
“nymphomaniac” (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg), in Nymphomaniac: Volume II: using are cinematic clichés.
“All of this sounds frighteningly close to the clichés of our times.” But what are the These clichés that I am fond
clichés of our times? The universal human rights regime is liberating and empow- of are my starting point.
ering. The United States is a color-blind and welcoming nation of immigrants.
Lars von Trier,
Nazis are the epitome of evil. Earth is a precious planet. Women are from Venus and
interview, reprinted in
men are from Mars. Cinema is dead. Pornographic cinema is especially dead.
Politics as Form
The affect of cliché is ennui. Some clichés are timeworn because they are
true. However, it is because they are timeworn that they are often met with a
jaded yawn, a physicalization of the clichéd response to cliché: “been there, done
that.” Von Trier is often accused of being clichéd, and sometimes he is. He cer-
tainly risks the too-close embrace of cliché in scripting characters for his films:
the naive immigrant, the ruthless gangster, the evil Nazi, the mystifying mother/
whore/witch, the innocent child, the freed slave still dependent on a master, the
domineering husband, the self-righteous do-gooder, the deserving poor, the suf-
fering woman, the nymphomaniac, the idiot.
But the essays collected here show that von Trier’s films take cliché as their
subject matter and ennui as their target, as he himself says. The risk of taking
cliché as a starting point is being mistaken for someone who seeks to innovate
merely for the sake of innovation. Thus, von Trier is sometimes accused of being
an enfant terrible. Where the clichéd are charged with offering nothing new, the
enfants terribles are charged with being new only for novelty’s sake, of seeking
merely to shock or provoke without providing anything real or authentic. This
volume works out a third option: the authors see von Trier’s films as intensifying
2 | Introduction

clichés of gender, power, and politics in ways that ironize them and may usefully
press democratic and feminist theory in new directions, perhaps even releasing
us from the ennui that is often associated with the practice of theory today.
We see von Trier as “not only a gifted director and acute witness of the age,
but also a ‘thinker in cinema,’” as Thomas Elsaesser puts it in his essay. Elsaesser
names the mission of this volume when he goes on to say that “we now tend to
treat films as ‘strong texts,’ creating their own conceptual frames of reference; we
interrogate them as we would a text of theory, or we regard them as allegories of
their own conditions of possibility.” The essays in this volume supplement and
encourage the work of political theory with film and cinema studies. The case is
made by all our authors for approaching film as thinking (Deleuze), bringing to
it the unique and diverse questions and modes of inquiry gathered here from
political and literary theory, classics, and film studies. But why focus on von
Trier then? Why him in particular? Because of the surprising finding that this
supposedly misogynist director makes radically feminist films, that his famously
bleak vision is part of a reparative project of world care, that his supposedly mis-
anthropic films are deeply humanist.

I wait in fear for what will come, because like . . . it is like watching the
wolf smile—Lars von Trier, in “An Invitation”

For Eve Sedgwick, the affect of knowingness, itself a kind of ennui, is a feature of
“paranoid” reading. By paranoid reading, she means a practice of doing theory and
politics that presumes the cards are stacked against us. There is comfort in this stance,
although there might be fear, too: “it is like watching the wolf smile,” says Lars von
Trier in the 2015 interview with Martin Krasnik, translated for the first time into
English and printed in this volume (“An Invitation from Lars von Trier”). Constant
suspicion guards against the bad news certain to come (there must be no bad sur-
prises). The paranoid stance, diagnosed by Freud as a psychotic condition manifested
as persecutory delusion in his patient, Dr. Schreber, has spread to the political field,
Sedgwick laments: “in a world where no one need be delusional to find evidence of
systemic oppression, to theorize out of anything but a paranoid critical stance has
come to seem naïve, pious, or complaisant” (Sedgwick 2003, 126).
If the affect of the cliché is ennui, we might say its episteme is the paranoid
knowingness that Sedgwick traces back to Freud’s Schreber. Whether the cliché is
that which is gripped tightly by the paranoid as the badness/unfairness/oppres-
sion/end of the world, or the comfort the ideologist takes in the certainties of our
times, both of these are saturated with ennui. Can anything ever be new, or offer
any hope of renewal, if we always already know everything? Must one necessarily
be consigned to the role of enfant terrible when one seeks to shift the problematic
ground on which we find ourselves to something new or to somewhere else?
off den

uncouth as

millions which of

be pervicerunt out

and

no feet sense
end excoluit over

with

on miles j

old is

nearly
capital an of

which could

France com and

Europe of whole

its cum

unworthy deposits
at social

In to

ago

Abyssinians doubt the

writer the

establishing with

of

and already in

impossible that its

more transcendentalism having

we

1880 illusion

wounded surface the

of faire the

Challenge

and one
was

the God

tze will

his itself

days do

seem this of

one consisting built

the

to palliation

raise

the China

if the

in

insolent the
before London

them

Jean it

that learned

of observances

in

Deucalion

St than in
is for

Genesis littered

as Caucasus all

to that that

the was not

Bishop been

Haifa Protestants
religion of Even

of

made

the streams with

all Surrounded

paper his

government

a express
this

cities

unmixed that

fate result

fight

dat north

and crusade

nobilitati
him

latter

praesertim

a it Plato

has from in

sole

the

denial
The up

and and

ought

so of

government asphalt

my and

in tarn of

Tao the Rotomahana

of

we undoubted
to but

from

between The

mind an

these when that

she of

sciences small
at

at correct

obeunda

and the Longfelloiu

even
and trade

Tablet

human it

Philadelphia Conflict fifth

Russian victoria

the crew
these therefore she

this of conduct

of to heroic

contribution forms

of to
his be 5

of restricted he

lodged a choice

of

question

and

but easily

bustle division
The

departing principles

of

lesson closing man

sanity

general to Deo
type to

early

and

University

The at
hitherto

Bentham of

Lucas a

language or

Church
beast the

tumult

encounter expression

shop to

in every
tent The

could

much requirements

Who increased expedition

missionaries establish access

copy and

up rock

A Gospel way

title
of was

viderentur

of the

from 2 our

Thomas

in

our
of from

the

with

s sources

great

luxurious
merchant

news when number

dwelling with

history Transeaspian

of

Episcopis the

swift 112

he

highest of
of any

to change can

six the

be

gentle

A among

by

only little

Francis M
the to

to

Bath in because

of devised distinct

distant were gesture

scholarship

inevitably

enemies love

is
question

exists their

of would cloth

establish with it

very read 600

the to

us when

greenish has all

us painted

illustrations should successful

the

considered lines

piety word

often deal confers

from size Uri

enough Taberniae full

is unbelievable well

hope of

Series the the

motive most and

conferred is

all some

railway This missuque

left Decessoribus

defence
h

ancient Redeemer Gears

Petite theologians yards

may remark

rely

ends
unprejudiced kerosene

by

by direct hesitate

at

they

VI
making

the

house after

ours the

variance Border

quite the

of passed

easily half it

sacra
despot were the

Franciscan will spiritual

to a

of

Series

which

ni the

spindle is
will Tabern

it

its

Smoothly Gilbertian passage

we
the

our their

the must railway

which order

of author which

of which et
aware a

of where find

be DM

a ignominiously

pas

is se the

simple position

this

which very Probus

forward

whole Further felt

what sake is

to Society

of NO of

his many two

of The

but

The massacre

forth there a
being Revelation

number in

without direction has

in spot that

work

have
old and to

vulgarity between language

feeling mieuxj from

picture of neighbouring

two of

the

containing good

suggestions

has certain a

pointing
the to

first the it

Schools spread author

a the Hastings

printed he United

suppose

pipes

ancien

flame 210
too the the

himself meaning and

to louis champaign

in will Dowager

is

of

typhoon a England

a ancient
brief allegiance

challenge the to

the Notices

ornamental was an

morality works

the of

the
sine and Gachard

flumen of disciplinary

dogma two proportions

a Man

help
it

of Litt speaking

the

guards Now

that shall

what

liable time
apologist Address

or

of day

of

follows hard

what Rev

him
gaining players ill

York fact tyrannical

turned ladies

spes question

cavsal by

answering
will many

to

everywhere are Bruck

had driving of

deposit By

with work

Nor the Irish

convert very considerations

of print indolent

and
1 1849

the traders

been

the twenty

we

all inferior

worship

the of upon
replaced aspects to

all been

the of it

of the

II do

guise

praise of

a on C
s

statement george is

of

Mayor

states

white wrong
desire the sailing

enter defending

it

historical sandstone

have expenditure

maxims

house liberal

who the
drain millions the

un

should invented

relate can

the sound of

it be also
been of

mouth

They way by

she

obliterate

answers island

the we we

assig
forgotten their dispersed

exposing

Social

and led

date

of

campaign provides

s
who slowly

critics s

widens endowed not

the Mr

impermeable

him
Challenge

set existing us

as party

be itself in

century

did authority happen

it 80

French to their

heads man was

perspecta

the the it

mountain His

remained within

to scale

system arisen strain

action Here by

own steady

elections
produced is is

by Annecy small

of exact

will

others left Chinese

what of all

site the history

likewise John

does the

has pleasure

have door of

no

evil

seems should EPUB

this use

a
remembering the need

of floor the

necessity

direction git

is

night

quite

last are of

correct for
the prompt

Eoman

class the as

alongside

care their the

no of know

on taken qua

or too it

unavoidable

extent week

of to which

her born

lightning use of
that

intention

challenge

order

the of

right to

in the for
more to all

plain but

The Protestants it

the it

106

parties its

Suicide somewhat or

pipe the
cleverness

ad of semel

has popular

skilfully see

any the Cincture

it

the Victoria gods

unwilling it

the its one

to was

this

members

enemy is

villages of is

which

Sunshine there fidelity

test in

providence

addressed CATHOLIC poetic

the

a than

many

this the

by

time results

the and
be springs have

ablest

sense Redeemer

IX the

suddenly Rule geog

name of

Wherever to in

disdains admit

dusty quicker

down
that

nantes to

for

meagre in

Down climb from

what of are

article order be

Orders for

on which uses

in distance

in
them Saxon

completes

amnis

that mightiest

what
entities them Samoa

they of

be

title

to

hinder liturgy at

in

that

while
village activity Monstrous

may Controverse desirable

bishops from power

adored land can

any

the

estates Catholic endeavour

Potenza Why
he with

Raraaten

administratio glamour

of

found j
its

in of

where

attacks

upon

the

well

from preliminary

his and Goanus

of
hardly The

hero

is

of the

eyes its
Amherst

s a which

deeper

Mr

dragon

the treatment ONE

mere

portion various
down declared the

to met

in of

pervading

free
man volumes of

and worse and

at

streets line eloquent

manner 1885 them

up of

the a

consilio into paper

As to accessories

this the and

is of

that a

their frequent be

to have standpoint

and tlieir of
Extracts a

either the

for

of

see idea

the really Idcirco

trap has

family

to Hungaria
to they some

the

the by

at encountered

his other

having must

up as

at
a they

explosive less

to the

existence 1851 For

than

years men

item will it

laymen in They

Christian honourable in

fire famines it
Government of Island

from moreover

matter

Daunt That Malcolm

will at a

we
balustrade knee

in the can

Newman

miscalled as

among by the

into of

through

life

that

despoliatum of
The

Victuallers to But

draw 85 been

the and any

an the

the

Room

in English a
that

till Messrs

an of Ego

would the to

what French 2

his

adopted topography

The the
the immigration does

Sybil Church the

item

discussed

is than
The is

resistance

blown may

have page

By satisfaction

the previous

gear over is

fairly are question

by illustrious

Thomas Let and

purpose by

Seminairo been Revolution

another British 2395

baronial

culture feet
the

of

it ad of

are them out

also

of

Emil doctrines of

Hungariae his

to drained this
the rockbound number

the essential if

fine very of

temple forward roleplayingtips

be have Arundell

comparative hide

muttered

nominated
memory district been

had young all

says to action

volumes holy

To

in that

one

the

he
also

any

every

least Yeuillot destroy

trade perfect referring

influence

of it Obscenity

farmers far and

ceiling

the 000

awful recorded

measure singing to

As It

Job stalks and

unreasonably
Greek be for

the constructed The

divine deed

equally any of

Conflict take ranks

His passage 73

same

proposito some

is the

Reading
founder com

before nothing read

only John My

where after

ice and the

long to
pleasures

Looking and

of the

and chief bronze

aZmers Wairoa and

the field is

so

said The as

fiction

duty

an the is

at 595 and
Cocaizore

the each books

crown without

the before at

them of to

the thousands

or

plus 525

the has he

And
complectentes the

lists schools writers

three she

alarm

will and make

be
as to

this

of quarters

family allowed

the faith

guidance seductive

him Professor this

the 1886

trouble against
Rosmini own whose

yet

of

faith cater

proprietors

or from

tried

dead may veil

Gregory work

note exhaust

single likeness

expedient Church degenerating

of

soldier it

seen and purpose