Date: May 19, 2007
“There is no beauty without decay”[1]
There can be no doubt that, for Hegel, philosophy was […] a commitment to seeking a comprehension of what it is to be human and to holding up before society the image thus comprehended so that society might discover whether it finds itself mirrored there. (Lauer, 14)
In his 1958 essay “The Hegel Legend,” Gustav Mueller’s asserts that nowhere in Hegel’s work does Hegel attempt to actually implement his legendary triadic model of “thesis, antithesis and synthesis” (413). Mueller suggests that Hegel’s most significant contention is nothing more than a series of continued mistranslations and interpretations (412). Other sources suggest that the Hegelian triad was a misunderstood example of Hegel’s critique of Kant propagated by Heinrich Chalybäus (Mueller 413). This essay, however, aims to apply an understanding of Hegel’s fluid model of development, his Dialectic, as it has been understood and taught by numerous theorists for many years. Despite Mueller’s notions, the Triadic Dialectic (attributable to Hegel or not) has been undeniably influential to the history of Western culture and thought. It is being used here to examine the outcomes of the cult film Withnail and I through the transition of the characters. This essay follows the Dialectic pattern by asking: what has led the characters to the point they are now at (thesis), what is happening to the characters (antithesis) and how are these characters changed by the experience (synthesis)?
Withnail and I, staring Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann, is a story based around two fundamental observations. Firstly, the irony inherent in the juxtaposition of oppositions and secondly, the inherent need for individuals to adopt a pragmatic approach to existence and thus change with changing times. These observations, by writer and director Bruce Robinson, lend themselves almost explicitly to the expected outcomes of the application of Hegelian Dialectic. By demonstrating oppositions Robinson gives us “thesis” and “antithesis” and by concentrating the story on the inevitable necessity for change (by both individuals and societies) and the ramifications of not changing, Robinson gives us front row seats to examine the story as “synthesis.” The main characters “Withnail” (Grant) and “Marwood,” (McGann) (who is the “…and I” of the title and credits but written as “Marwood” in the script) are unemployed actors living in London, it is October of 1969. They live on a near lethal cocktail of drink and drugs and are “drifting into the arena of the unwell”[2](14). Withnail manages to persuade his eccentric and extremely homosexual Uncle Monty (played by Richard Griffiths) to loan them his cottage in the countryside under the mis-understanding that Marwood is, like Monty, a homosexual “toilet trader” (107). Marwood is unaware that Withnail has led Monty to believe that Marwood might be sexually available and Marwood is unsurprisingly disgruntled when Monty arrives at the cottage for the weekend with the express intention of “having” Marwood, “even if it must be burglary”(105). When Marwood is offered a part in a play the degenerate pair return to London to find two drug dealer acquaintances, Danny and Ed, living in their rodent infested flat which is about to be repossessed. Marwood and Withnail tragically part company. Withnail ends the film in the dank, grey, British rain with an emotional performance of a Hamlet soliloquy performed only for the wet wolves in Regent Park Zoo.
How then does the plot of the film and, in particular, the actions of these two character’s depict Hegel’s Dialectic? In order to answer this question we must first isolate evidence from within the film which demonstrates the proposition or “thesis” required. We must consider the aspects of the character’s lives but only in so far as the opposites of these aspects, their “antithesis,” exist. Throughout the film our attention is drawn to the juxtaposition of opposites and the chaos which ensues when these opposites are forced against one another. Rich and poor are paired together in the character backgrounds of Withnail and Marwood respectively. Reality and fantasy are defined in Withnail’s refusal to accept an acting role “understudying Constantine in The Seagull” (60) while Marwood’s audition success finally forces their friendship apart. The negative idiosyncrasies of both urban city living and rural country life are placed side by side while the isolation of country living adds a sinister overtone to the gay versus straight conflict between Monty and Marwood. Themes of substance abuse and sobriety are placed in contrast through-out the film and at one point even the merits of vegetables over flowers are discussed!
Certainly there is much evidence for the existence of thesis and antithesis within Withnail and I. Not least of which can be seen in the dichotomy of the old and the new; a juxtaposition repeated in the script, mise-en-scéne, sound design and characterization throughout the film. There are many examples of this opposition, ranging from subtle (maybe even unintentional) moments, such as Withnail gluing the souls of his old shoes back on before embarking on a new adventure, to more obvious interactions between the old thespian Monty and the two young unemployed actors.
It is important to consider the implications of the suggestion that “old” be the thesis and “new” be the antithesis and the implications which come with this, or any such supposition. Among other’s (e.g. McTaggart in 1892) Nathan Rotenstreich questioned Hegel’s assertion in The Science of Logic that “Being” should be considered the thesis to the antithesis of “Nothing.” Rotenstreich states that:
The question is whether we are to consider Being as occupying a determinate position of its own right, that is to say, whether it forms the absolute beginning of the process, so that the whole process depends and is based upon it. (242)
Certainly within metaphysical or phenomenological practices, Rotenstreich’s observation is of considerable significance. Why preface the Dialectic with Being? Why not start with Nothing? Without deconstructing Hegel further we can immediately ask, why preface the comparison of “new” and “old” with “old” and not “new?” More importantly, is there any philosophical significance in choosing one starting point over the other?
From a linguistic point of view it would seem reasonable that “old” - being representative of the past, come before “new” - being representative of the present. It seems logical that the past come before the present. Working with this justification we can place “old” in Rotenstreich’s “determinate position” as the beginning of the process, as the thesis. To parallel this logic with Withnail and I we need only look as far as the opening titles, from which we learn that the year is 1969. By far the clearest example of the dichotomy between the old and the new – or more accurately - the linear transition from old to new, is the character of Danny, a drug dealer and cliché of the 1960’s Woodstock hippy. Towards the end of the film Danny presents us with the prophetic words:
“They’re selling hippy wigs in Woolworth’s, man.
The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over…
and we have failed to paint it black.” (p.124)
Danny’s words, which reek of conscious self referential irony, provide us with a philosophical window through which we see the characters’ fear of the future and the uncertainty these characters posses of their place in that future. Marx’s transition of Hegel’s dialectic into Dialectical Materialism demonstrated historically, and one might argue psychologically, that the human spirit resists attempts to place it in a state of perpetual change. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of “old” and “new” as the oppositional forces of thesis and antithesis leads to one logical conclusion; “future” as synthesis. It is no surprise then that when we look for examples of synthesis within Withnail and I, specifically as it relates to the reconciliation of the “old” and the “new,” we find the characters in a state of instability. Danny’s line suggests quite clearly that the future is upon them even though they have failed to achieve everything which the 1960’s promised. As the film slows to its conclusion, we know that their apartment is about to be repossessed, that Marwood will be leaving and that Withnail is not prepared to change his habits or lifestyle. Withnail deals with his fear of the future by making a conscious effort to stay drunk and hang onto the past while Marwood embraces the new opportunities which the present has provide him. Withnail representing the old and Marwood the new.
It would be temping to simply leave this analysis here with the conclusion that Withnail does not achieve synthesis because he is not willing to reconcile the present with the past; while, Marwood takes his experiences of the past and his present opportunities and walks off to confront his future through the synthesis of the two. However, a closer reading of Hegel reminds us that there are no indeterminate absolutes within his suggested Dialectic process. Michael Foster describes this by saying that “Hegel seeks to show that upon conceptual analysis, category A proves to contain a contrary category B” (132) and vise-versa. That is to say that our thesis should prove to contain a contrary “antithesis.” It is not enough to rely solely on the linguistic antonym to generate the oppositional category. The thesis must contain within it seeds of its own antithesis.
Within Withnail and I the inter-textuality of the old and new is not restricted to the themes, characters or dialogue, but rather is such a fundamental part of the aesthetic of the film, it can be found in any of the formal structures therein. If we return again to Foster’s contention that Hegel explicitly requires the “self-contradictory” of both thesis and antithesis within each other, then we need to perform a “conceptual analysis” (132) upon our chosen category A in order to find if this is true. For example, in the kitchen scene (scene 8), the scenography pays more than a passing homage to the old by utilizing the kind of historical kitsch so often found in Postmodern texts. The rear wall of the kitchen is adorned with posters of old films - not just any films, specifically: Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times (1936) and Gone With The Wind (1939). Both of these films have strong plot lines relating to the transition from old to new and the need to change with changing times. Here we can see, quite literally, examples of the old being exta nt within the new. Simultaneously we can read the implication of new from the plots of Modern Times and Gone With The Wind in the “old” of the films themselves. Tenuous though this attempt to implement Foster’s “self-contradictory categories” (132) may appear at first, it is interesting to note, by way of comparison, that Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction utilizes the same style of visual homage (albeit less subtly) in the “Jack Rabbit Slim” scene. Here Uma Thurman and John Travolta are served dinner by a selection of famous 1950’s movie and music stars. Pulp Fiction is not concerned with showing us the consequences of the conflict between old and new and it is certainly not attempting to provide any form of synthesis. Rather, Tarantino uses this homage as just that - a homage, to pay respect. In Withnail and I Robinson, however, is clearly using semiotics in his mise-en-scéne to highlight what is an underlying metaphor for the film as a whole, that time is changing, thus the old contains within it the acceptance of the presence of the new. What then of synthesis? Where, specifically, do we see examples of synthesis between the old and the new depicted in Withnail and I?
It can be asserted that in order to find examples of a Hegelian synthesis we must consider what such a synthesis of old (which we have associated with the past) and new (associated with the present) in this story would be. We have already suggested that the juxtaposition of “old” and “new” as the oppositional forces of thesis and antithesis can lead to the logical conclusion of “future” as synthesis, but is this also concurrent with the idea of “synthesis as future.” Is the reconciliation of past and present for these characters really a synthesis and if so does that synthesis mediate their “future?”
Marwood and Withnail part company because Marwood is offered the lead role in a play. We see Marwood pack up his things and move out of their shared apartment. He leaves with “A last look around the room he knows he’ll never see again” (125). We even see an example of Foster’s “self-contradictory” categories in the semiotic of Marwood’s new haircut which is ironically an old style haircut from 1914, clearly done for his upcoming theatre performance (125). Again the new holds within it the old. As the pair walk through Regent Park Zoo on their way to the train station Withnail offers Marwood his bottle of 1953 Margaux wine:
WITHNAIL… his bottle is half drunk and he attempts to hand it over again. But this time Marwood shakes his head.
MARWOOD: No. No More, thanks.
So WITHNAIL drinks another mouthful. MARWOOD is almost in pain. (126)
Deep within the line “No. No more, thanks” lies Marwood’s synthesis. To all intents and purposes Marwood has learned from his past behaviors, from his debauchery. He is making an attempt to synthesize his past and present to allow himself the opportunity to embrace his future. Within the line “So WITHNAIL drinks another mouthful,” we see Withnail’s lack of synthesis, he is intent upon remaining drunk and very much within his present predicament. Marwood parts company and “WITHNAIL watches him evaporate into rain.” (127). The reality of the film for us as viewers is that both characters simply disappear, perhaps one into a new future and one back to his past but we, the audience, are left alone with only the present, the antithesis, and a slight Existentialist taste in our mouths.
Hegel’s dialectic, we must remember, re-instates the synthesis, what Hegel calls the “negative of the negative at which we have arrived” (649), back into the fray by considering each synthesis as a new thesis which must by definition contain within it the origins of its own antithesis. Marwood attains some potential “future” which we could consider to be the synthesis of his past and present, and Withnail is content, for now, to avoid synthesis altogether, but despite this the audience are not provided with any opportunity to witness synthesis, or as Foster describes it “determinate negation.” (132).We are not even offered the opportunity to synthesize our experiences let alone those of the protagonists. Robinson does not give us that privilege. Or does he?
As Withnail walks away we are left very much alone in the characters’ present of 1969. But we must remember that their present is in fact our past. Even when the film was released in 1985 the characters’ present was the audience’s past. With this knowledge we are immediately confronted with the very thesis and antithesis which the film has portrayed for us from the character’s point of view. Now as the music swells and the film ends we can see that there is a personal Dialectic for all of us in this film. It is our responsibility to synthesize the past and the present. It is our responsibility to find a future in synthesis and a synthesis that is a future thesis. Whether we chose the thesis to be that of Withnail and Marwood, or that of our own experiences, or even that of our experiences of watching Withnail and Marwood, is individual and different for all of us. What can be said for definite is that the story is finished here:
Withnail walks across the park until he is a tiny figure in the distance. The sweet and sour music rises into appropriate orchestral perfection as he finally, and far away, disappears. (128)
Oh, and it is raining.
Works Cited.
Bibliography
Foster, Michael “Hegel’s dialectical method”
The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Ed. Frederick C. Beiser. NY. Cambridge UP. 1996
Kolker, Robert. Film, Form and Culture.
USA, McGraw-Hill College, 1999
Hegel, G.W.F., “Dialectics”
Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. J. Rivkin & M.
Ryan. MA, Blackwell, 2004 p.647- 649
Lauer, Quentin, S.J. Essays in Hegelian Dialectic
USA, Fordham UP., 1977
McTaggart J. Ellis “The Changes of Method in Hegel's Dialectic.(I.)”
Mind, Oxford University Press,1892 p56-71
Mueller, Gustav, E. “The Hegel legend of “Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis”
Journal of the History of Ideas Vol.19, No.3
(Jun, 1958) p411-414.
Robinson, Bruce Withnail and I: The Screenplay: 10th Anniversary
Edition. London, Bloomsbury, (1995)
Rotenstreich, Nathan. “Some Remarks on the Formal Structure of Hegel's Dialectic” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research International Phenomenological Society,
(Dec 1944) p242-254
Filmography
Withnail and I (1985) (Robinson, Bruce Writer, director.)
Staring Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann.
Withnail and Us (1995) (Gordon, Yvonne Producer, director.)
Documentary on the production of the film.