Dustin Griffin’s Satire: A Critical Reintroduction thoroughly explores the elements and nature of satire, especially concentrating on historic examples of the genre. According to Griffin, for a text to be considered satire it must contain four essential elements: inquiry, provocation, display and play. The movie Saved displays elements of Griffin’s theory, and also highlights weaknesses within his theory.
Griffin defines inquiry relatively straightforward: to ask questions. Ultimately, the “satirist writes in order to discover, to explore, to survey, to attempt to clarify” (39). This is abundantly apparent in Saved, primarily through the main character of Mary. Mary begins the movie blindly accepting just about everything in her life and the world around her at face-value; she fails to question even the most obvious differences in the people around her. For example, Mary fails to notice that her boyfriend is gay – something just about everyone else is aware of. She does not notice the hypocritical attitudes of her mother, her best friend Hillary, the Preacher (who is having an affair with her mother), or even the basis of her faith itself. When Mary finds herself pregnant with the child of her gay boyfriend, she begins questioning everything, from her choice of faith all the way to her view of her mother and best friends. The producers of Saved, through Mary, are in essence questioning not only the nature of faith but the nature of humans, action, belief, and God Himself.
While Griffin is correct that all satire inquires, his emphasis on historical examples, many of which do not necessarily apply to the modern-day world, reduces the effectiveness of his argument. Saved fails in this element to some extent, also. Saved questions, especially the hypocrisy of believing one way while acting another, but does not actually provide any answers, at least not any hard answers. The simplistic “just accept all differences” type of ending fails not only to provide answers, but essentially weakens the very pertinent and strong questions the entire movie brought up. The aspect of inquiry in Griffin’s theory answers, but it doesn’t question itself enough. While Griffin’s historical examples are excellent, especially the Menippean example, they do not go far enough in exploring the necessity and effectiveness of inquiry in satire either from a historical or modern perspective. Griffin is “answering” the question of “what is satire” by saying one element is inquiry, and despite his noting that the “newer rhetoric of inquiry was designed not simply to ask questions…but to answer them…” (42), he fails to note within his own theory that for satire to be effective[1], one must at least attempt to provide some sort of answers.
On the other hand, the element of provocation within Griffin’s theory is dead-on-target; it is especially effective in Saved. While Griffin does cast provocation in a “negative” light (52), he is absolutely correct when he states that “in provocation, the question is designed to expose or demolish a foolish certainty” (52). Griffin describes several types of provocation, including “difficulty” (obscure language, “cryptic or abrupt allusiveness,” etc.) and “paradox” (in essence, contradiction) (52-53). The producers of Saved made great use of paradox (but very little use of difficulty), although it may seem at first that they use paradox more to provide setting than provocation, the paradoxical situations are provocative. Hillary Faye’s certainty in her own Christian righteousness provides many provocative moments within the film, especially when she vandalizes the school and blames others for this heinous act. She is so certain in her own sense of right and wrong that she commits a very un-Christian act, which not only is provocative, but a paradox. Why, if she (and others) is so Christian, does she (and others) do horrible, even criminal, acts in the name of their faith? The producers of Saved are using this act of Hillary’s as an allegorical representation of many historical “paradoxes,” from the biblical Exodus to Hitler’s annihilation of the Jews, to our current “war” on “terrorism.” Ultimately, however, the primary paradox – and provocation – is most eloquently stated by Mary at the very end of the movie: “If God wanted us to all to be the same, why did He make us all so different?” While of course, this question presupposes a belief in God, especially in God as a Creator of all, it is also a pointed paradox, one that effectively provokes the viewer into asking this question themselves.
Display, the third element in Griffin’s theory of satire, is an element that is so obvious it probably shouldn’t even be defined. Of course, satire is “associated with public performance” (71)! Without some sort of “public performance,” whether dramatic, oratory, or written, there can be no satire. Saved is a satire that, without public performance, it would not exist, just as is true for any satire. If it is not “displayed,” satire cannot exist. If this may at first seem simplistic, that is because it is. While Griffin’s thirteen pages exploring the “displaying” of satire does nothing to advance his theory per se, he is correct that often satire’s “real object is not to discredit…(but) to show what the ingenious satirist can accomplish” (83). Granted, the more creative and entertaining the satire, the more effective it is, but without display the satire does not exist. Saved “unfolds” (83) itself to the viewer, it “displays” the wit and skill of its creators, but of course it does (82). There is no need for Griffin to explore display as much as he does; in fact, his entire theory can do without the obviousness of display as a separate element.
Play, on the other hand, is an effective element of satire, and Griffin’s theory is strengthened through the inclusion of play as a separate element, however, like display, it is obvious that play is an element of satire. By design, satire often intends to create a playful atmosphere and comedic moments, especially to highlight the “inquiry” and “provocation” of the creator. Without comedy (play), satire not only risks losing effectiveness, it risks becoming simply a mean-spirited rant. Within Saved, even the most offended viewer cannot help but laugh at some of the comedic moments. Who cannot help themselves but laugh at Pastor Skip’s absurd gymnastic entrance onstage? Or Hillary’s ill-fated attempt to “exorcise” the demons within Mary by throwing a Bible at her – as offensive as using a Bible as a physical weapon is, the moment is funny! And, of course, this same moment inquires as to the absurdity of using any book as a political/spiritual/physical weapon, and provokes the viewer by having the most “Christian” character do something so blasphemous.
While Saved includes all four elements of Griffin’s theory, it also highlights one weakness of the theory: placing all four elements on essentially the same footing, the same level. Provocation is, without doubt, the most effective element of any satire, especially Saved. Provocation may easily be considered the primary, if not sole, purpose for the existence of satire. After all, satire is not intended to be merely entertaining, it is intended to provoke the viewer into some sort of change in actions or thoughts. Griffin is correct in highlighting provocation as an element of satire, but he does not place it as the primary element of satire. Inquiry, display, and play are all aspects of satire that are ultimately used to provoke, and are necessary for the provocation to be effective, but are not equal in necessity within a satire. Saved, of course, inquires and plays; its existence displays, but its primary purpose is to provoke the viewer. Provocation is the strongest and most abundant element of Saved; for Griffin’s theory to truly be effective, he should consider provocation the strongest and most abundant element of his own theory, then define inquiry, display, and play as methods used for provocation.
Written for Professor Campbell's Religion and Pop Culture class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 24th April, 2006.
[1] In my opinion, the most effective satire provides some answers to its questions, even if the answers are minimal. Griffin does note this aspect of inquiry within satire, but I feel he plays short shrift to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment