Satrapi’s commentary on Iran’s revolutions and wars through the means of a cartoon is an interesting, but rather unnerving, mix. The cartoon form immediately makes you think of Sunday morning cartoons in the paper and lighthearted, funny skits. These feel-good thoughts, however, are not those invoked by Satrapi’s cartoons. It took me by surprise the intensity of such descriptions of tortures, deaths, and rapes that could be relayed by a cartoon. Satrapi is not overly graphic, but graphic enough; she narrates in the voice of a child listening to her parents and repeating what they say. Her childhood innocence and corresponding blunt descriptions in cartoon form leave the reader with an eerie, unsettled feeling. This mixing of childhood innocence with the horror of life in Iran at the time has a greater impact than just words alone written by an adult. We have become desensitized to news reports concerning violence in the Middle East, but the voice and pictures of a child-like narrator demand attention and open our eyes to a different emotional side of the conflict. I am a very visual person, and while the pictures were not gory or overly graphic, they gave me enough of a visual to make the situation feel real.
The section at the end of the novel on pages 145-46 concerning the fate and virginity of the young, 18-year old revolutionary thoroughly disturbed me. To be honest, Acosta was gross but didn’t bother me; this segment actually made me feel sick to my stomach. And all from a “cartoon”?
It would be remiss not to mention the moments of humanity revealed through the cartoon that Marjane has with her family. It is obvious the love her family has for each other, and their ability to still live and laugh despite everything else going on. However, this is, for example, juxtaposed immediately to a scene of bombing and seeing her friend's arm lying out of the wreckage. What do you guys think about this mix of child-like cartoons with very adult issues? Am I the only one who found it rather unsettling?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I definitely found it unsettling. Cartoons also make me think of childhood. By using the form of a graphic novel, Satrapi words and emotions are seen coming directly from Satrapi as a child, not as an adult looking back on her life. The images are simple, as if drawn by a child. The descriptions of "tortures, deaths, and rapes" unnerve the reader, who can better understand the child's emotions through the images.
I'm actually more inclined to say that Satrapi worked hard to keep the cartoons from actually being very graphic. Throughout the novel, Satrapi shows dead people but not how they died; her mother tells her that a revolutionary was raped, but Satrapi doesn't actually show the rape; the torture described by characters like Siamak is more discussed than actually shown. I agree that the subject matter is not quite "your typical Sunday morning cartoon," and that there is potential for violence to be shown given the subject, but Satrapi, for the most part, refrains from doing so.
Satrapi shows just enough violence, however, to hint at the extent of the crimes remaining unseen. She was very graphic when illustrating torture scenes and the injured victims in the hospital. Satrapi is showing her story through her own eyes when she was a child, revealing what was described to her and what she actually saw. This gives the cartoons a sense of childlike innocence despite their graphic depictions, which is a disturbing combination.
I feel like the use of a cartoon creates a sense of distance between her story and reality. What particular function this serves, I'm not really sure. Satrapi could be emphasizing the "unreal" and seemingly inhumane nature of her life. Therefore, by drawing the story, Satrapi will distinguish between a typical childhood story with which you associate the comic and the actual, more tumultuous story. She could also find the picture are a better means for her of recreating the pathos of her life.
Post a Comment