Arts & Entertainment
I
!
*
*
!
U
Philosopher’s theories
and Nazi background
contrasted in new book
By Lisa Donovan
Senior Reporter
A second book about Nazi col
laborator and Yale University profes
sor Paul de Man will be published as
early as this spring by University of
Nebraska Press.
The 1987 discovery of de Man’s
articles written for the Belgian Nazi
controlled newspaper Lc Soir spurred
the University Press’s November
publication of “War Time Journal
ism: 1939-1943“ and the upcoming
“Responses.”
“War Time Journalism: 1939
1942” is a compilation of someof the
articles de Man wrote for the paper.
According to Dr. William Regcar,
editor in chief of University Press, the
controversy over de Man centers on
his anti-Semitic articles.
“It came as a shock to many of his
admirers that he worked with the
Nazis,” he said.
Dc Man, who lived from 1919
1983, came to the United States in
1947. After he taught and worked on
his deconstruction theories, de Man
spent the final 13 years of his life as a
professor of humanities at Yale Uni
versity.
Students and Colleagues alike
touted dc Man, founder of the modern
school of philosophical criticism
called deconstruction, as one of
America’s premier literary critics.
According to Regcar, a major
international storm nas developed
among literary critics about whether
it was right for dc Man to suppress his
past.
Some critics question dc Man’s
honesty, while others claim he was
trying to rebuild his life and that his
past shouldn’t be linked to his theo
ries.
The whole debate, Regcar said, is
, covered in “Responses.”
“Responses” is a compilation of
theories about de Man’s decon
struction theory and how it relates to
his activities as a Nazi collaborator.
‘ ‘The essence of the arguments (in
“Responses”) is what constitutes
ethics in literary criticism,” Rcgcar
said. “Should a book be judged by
the likes of its author?”
“Deconstruction is linguistic
analysis which pays attention to the
suppression of categories,” he said.
When one talks about people, for
example, they primarily refer to
“he” and suppress the “she,” Re
gear said. This is what the dccon
structionists studied, he said.
Bruce Erlich, associate professor
of English and Modern Languages,
expanded the definition.
Deconstruction is a theory in the
analysis of language and literature,
Erlich said.
Its basic argument, he said, is that
all language is inherently indetermi
nate.
“Language has no assignable
fixed meanings,” Erlich said in refer
ence to the deconstruction theory.
According to Erlich, this is true. A
dog, for example, is called a dog in
the English language, but it could be
called something else and still be the
same object, he said.
Deconstructionist theory says that
language can’t refer to objects at all,
Erlich said.
“The second claim by the dccon
structionists,” Erlich said, . . is
that the only way we can know life is
in terms of experience -- that our
mental processes arc entirely de
pendent on language.”
Erlich said if all thinking depends
on language, then there really isn’t a
world of experience for the dccon
struclionists, only a world of lan
guage. This world of language is
called icxiualily.
See DeMAN on 12
Pleasant, poetic' Cousins' excites and delights reviewers
The New Shut Up and Watch
the Movie is written by William
Rudolph, a sophomore English
major and Lisa Donovan, a jun
ior news-editorial major.
William Rudolph: It’s going to
hurt me to admit it, but I loved
“Cousins.” Yes, I planned on hal
ing it, but something just hap
pened.
movip
Lisa Donovan: At first, I was
gnashing my teeth and hem-haw
ing, but this romantic work of art
would warm the coldest heart. Ted
Danson and Isabella Rossellini
were completely, utterly charm
ing.
WR: You know I hale Danson,
Lisa. I’ve told you that many
times. But in this movie, he re
deemed himself. I actually wanted
him to win Rossellini, instead of
winning something else, like a trip
to hell in a garbage disposal with
out a continental breakfast.
LD: Redeemed himself? Wil
liam, this may change his entire
career - he may be a respectable
actor after all. In fact, the whole
movie was simply poetic. From the
candid lighting to the beautiful
innocence of die children. Every
essence of the beauty of life -
birth, childhood, marriage and
death - was captured in this flick.
WR: You really can’t use any
other word than “beautiful” for
“Cousins,” although “warm,
wonderful, tender, funny, magical
special, etc., etc., etc.” all come tc
mind. At the risk of sounding ex
tremely pompous, I’d have to say
that “Cousins” is a lot like life;
it’s funny, it’s sad, it’s romantic
and glad. Oh, I rhymed, how po
ctic. Don’t wc sound like idiots
Lisa?
LD: Yeah, right, William -
let’s just get to it. Remember the
first wedding? It was just like
watching a home movie. It had all
the regulars - a drunk relative, the
embarrassing relatives, the argu
ing relatives, the crotchety grand
parents, and all the wonderful
characters that make up the family
unit. It was a great way to start i
movie that just sort of flowed.
WR: How do you explain the
story behind “Cousins?” Well
it’s like this: A man and a womar
(Danson and Rossellini) who arc
loosely related by marriage have
an affair. But it gets more compli
catcd. It’s also about this man am
woman's spouses who arc slccpinj
together. And their families, wh<
arc getting increasingly more con
ncctcd*by a string of marriages
And Danson’s multi media artist
teen-age son, who’s kind of bi
zarre. And his father (Lloyi
Bridges), who’s wild and funnie
than heck. And so on. And so on
Take it away, Lisa, before I los<
control.
LD: 1 need to talk a little mor<
about Danson and Rossellini’s re
lationship. It was so neat. It was sc
natural and unpretentious - every
thing someone wants in a relation
ship, physical or not. The way
their relationship evolves is so
beautiful - it brings back the im
portance of human interaction that
the media has stripped away from
many movies.
WR: The technical crafting is
flawless. The scenes arc beautiful,
from the sets to the settings. The
music swells at the right moment,
accentuating the scene but never
directing it. The lighting is very
rich and romantic. But the movie
wouldn’t succeed if the cast wasn’t
fantastic.
LD: It was very European, from
the “dry” humor to the costum
ing. It was probably hard to stray
from the original French film
“Cousin, Cousinc.” But hey, why
mess with greatness?
WR: “Cousins” was very Eu
ropean, as far as the technique and
the storytelling. But it did have its
American touches, like Ros
sellini’s BMW salesman husband
and Scan Young as the Cosmopoli
tan Girl of the ’80s gone w ild.
LD: Young has got to go . . .
apparently she’s related to some
one in Hollywood, but her charac
ter, although fairly humorous, is,
well - repulsive. She’s a ... well,
I don't want to be judgmental, so
let’s just say she really enjoys sex.
WR: I really enjoyed the movie,
Lisa, and I don’t think you need to
knock her, just because she was
very thin and very irriiating and
very chic, in a Joan Collins sort of
way. Rossellini, on the other hand.
was flawless. If anybody has any
doubts that she’s anything besides
Ingrid Bergman’s daughter,
“Cousins” shows that she’s an
actress in her own right. And OK,
I’ll admit it; Danson is more than
just a “Cheers” alumnus.
LD: No doubts about this movie
at all -• it’s a winner all the way.
WR: Don’t worry about trying
to make sense out of our confusion.
Just go to “Cousins.” Go now.
Don't think about it. Just do it.
LD: We never thought before
we did it and now look what hap
pened - we actually liked it, the
movie, that is.
WR: You are so romantic. I
could cry in the face of such feel
ing. I hope you’ve got insurance.
