This book engages in a critical encounter with the work of Stanley Cavell on cinema, focusing skeptical attention on the claims made for the contribution of cinema to the ethical character of democratic life. In much of Cavell's writing on film he seeks to show us that the protagonists of the films he terms "remarriage comedies" live a form of perfectionism that he upholds as desirable for contemporary democratic society: moral perfectionism. Films are often viewed on television, and television shows can have "filmlike" qualities. The book addresses the nature of viewing cinematic film as a mode of experience, arguing against Cavell that it is akin to dreaming rather than lived consciousness and, crucially, cannot be shared. It mirrors the celebrated dialogue between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Jean D'Alembert on theatre. The book articulates the implications of philosophical pessimism for addressing contemporary culture in its relationship to political life. It clarifies how The Americans resembles the remarriage films and can illuminate the issues they raise. The tragedy of remarriage, would be a better instructor of a democratic community, if such a community were prepared to listen. The book suggests that dreaming, both with and without films, is not merely a pleasurable distraction but a valuable pastime for democratic citizens. Finally, it concludes with a robust response from Dienstag to his critics.
spectacles ), Dienstag does not
comfort and flatter his reader by affirming the view that democraticcommunities are strengthened when the right kind of people
appreciate the right kind of movies. There is no satisfying
reconciliation of critique and community, which, quite
appropriately, makes his essay more like The
Rule(s) of the Game than The
to understand: its pessimistic depiction of democracy indicts its
audience and their desire for instruction and moral uplift from
aesthetic works. This tragedy of remarriage, I
maintain, would be a better instructor of a democraticcommunity, if
such a community were prepared to listen. That it is not is one of
the obstacles that aesthetic optimists fail to acknowledge.