The House that Lars Built. The Architecture of Transgression

Małgorzata Stępnik

doi:10.3390/arts9040127

Abstract

This article discusses the motif of the “architecture of transgression”, which is present most implicitly, in Lars von Trier’s The House that Jack Built. The analysis concerns both the construction of cinematic narrative itself and the subtle allusions, inserted in the script, to two architectural metaphors: the Nietzschean (and Jungian) labyrinth and the Heideggerian die Hütte. Von Trier’s film may be read as an oeuvre immersed in literary tradition—from Dante’s Divine Comedy to the modern Bildungsroman—as well as inspired by modern philosophy, particularly George Bataille’s philosophy of transgression, (as expound in his Erotism and his short 1929 essay on Architecture).

Highlights

The Hut—The Tower—The LabyrinthIn 1922, Martin Heidegger moved into a humble hut in Todtnauberg in the Black Forrest (Schwarzwald)—the legendary Hütte, given to him by his wife, Elfriede
It is “transgression”, as a key notion in Bataille’s heterology, that will serve as a main reference point in my analysis of Lars von Trier’s disquieting cinematic oeuvre—The House that Jack Built (2018)
In the context of this article’s topic, it is worth mentioning that a Polish scholar, Mieczysław Porebski—referring to Jakobson’s thought—draws a similar dichotomy between metonymies and metaphors present in the “language” of architecture

Summary

Introduction

In 1922, Martin Heidegger moved into a humble hut in Todtnauberg in the Black Forrest (Schwarzwald)—the legendary Hütte, given to him by his wife, Elfriede. It is worth mentioning here that “the transgressive” intrinsically signifies “transcended of oneself” and slipping into the domain of “the uncanny” It is “transgression”, as a key notion in Bataille’s heterology (hétérologie), that will serve as a main reference point in my analysis of Lars von Trier’s disquieting cinematic oeuvre—The House that Jack Built (2018). In the context of this article’s topic, it is worth mentioning that a Polish scholar, Mieczysław Porebski—referring to Jakobson’s thought—draws a similar dichotomy between metonymies and metaphors present in the “language” of architecture In his view, for example, “a paleolithic cave”, as a symbol of a “Mother’s womb” (uterus), may be read as “the underground kingdom of metonymy” (“podziemne królestwo metonimii”); for rituals celebrated within a cave are always “rites of participation”. Analogically: Bodensträndigkeit contradicts Unheimlichkeit, the regularity of construction contrasts with its irregularity, the specific “certainty” of “spiritual purposes” with the incomprehensibility (of a human psyche), the objectivised vision with the subjective story (Jung’s “innermost thoughts”12 ), the “totality” (Figure 1)[13] with the “wholeness” understood as “a familial wholeness in which all sorts of domestic animals likewise participate” (Jung [1962] 1989, p. 224), and, last but not least—the terror of (natural) order with the human error (Errare humanum est . . . ), with the symbolic journey towards illumination

Jack’s Iterology

Eugène

The of Crime and the Sacred

Bataille’s “Upturned Eye”—Reconciling Eros and Thanatos

Great Edifices and Miserable Ruins