The Dude & The Duke

Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) pioneered a literary theory that focused on narration, metaphysics, language, ethics, social science, and the art of storytelling. His most recognizable pieces include Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Rabelais and his World, and The Dialogic Imagination. In each case, Bakhtin did not move on after initial publication. He continued to grapple with these texts over the course of decades and released more detailed revisions that are the most famed editions in the present day. Substantial engagement with Bakhtinian theory did not arise until the 1980’s on account of censorship in the Soviet Union.?

In covering such a wide range of subjects, Bakhtin discussed one recurring concept which seems to transcend any other: liberation. Because of his keen emphasis on the ambiguous nature of liberation as a literary/rhetorical instrument, this paper also aims to prioritize the concept. After presenting a detailed summary on relevant Bakhtinian theory, this paper will prove Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) directed by Terry Gilliam to be a modern adaptation of Bakhtin’s beliefs. The analysis will be compared with Benjamin Paloff’s likewise argument regarding The Big Lebowski (1998), directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote (1605), commonly acknowledged as the quintessential Bakhtinian text will also be briefly mentioned.?

Unfinalizability is a philosophy coined by Bakhtin, which claims the world to be a constantly evolving place. The evolutionary processes are unpredictable. So are an individual’s future endeavors, yet these endeavors shape the unpredictable evolution. All Bakhtinian readings entail an adventure, as defined by Bakhtin himself to be the meandering into the undefined or unpredictable. A narrative reality consisting of free movement and free contact amongst people must be apparent to be an adventure. In other words, there is no context in which the adventure is defined based on circumstances of the narration. This idea is contrary to traditional Russian literature in which there is a sequence of narrative events, or episodes that collectively define the plot. The connotation is in the consequentiality, and therefore the story is predictable.

A Bakhtinian text also requires an adventure hero, who is liberated from purpose and consequence. He can become anything, and anything can happen to him. Like the adventure in which he is embarking, the hero cannot be defined by circumstances, but does not need to be completely independent of circumstance either. In short, he is organically connected to his spatial/temporal construct, a relationship defined by Bakhtin as chronotope. He is dynamically intertwined with his world, or chronotope, and not just a prop being manipulated within it. Instead, reverting back to the idea of unfinalizability, the hero’s experiences change the world in which he is experiencing. The author’s relationship with the hero is what makes this phenomenon possible. The hero must have complete independence from the person that is telling the story (narrator, author, or storyteller). The author does not determine what happens, but instead merely spectates the hero’s experiences. Thus, the author must not position the hero to fulfill missions or embody a fate. When the story is the hero’s own, then his fate defines him and he is no longer free to act according to his own whim. In this scenario, he now has work that he must carry out on, otherwise the story isn’t the story anymore. The hero can only be liberated from definitions when he repeats a received story or stories with unpredictable differences that are his own, or adopts newly found roles that are not his own.

On top of Bakhtin’s theories on adventure heroes, his illustration of travesty/parody is at least as important. Travesty is the repeating performance of a script that simultaneously reasserts and deforms the original performance. There can be several different types of travesty within a story. Travesty in language occurs when the meaning of a message is recognized and the repetition of that same message possesses a different meaning. More importantly, the act of repeating that message destroys the initial message’s meaning entirely. Another common form is the travesty in plot, which is often referred to as a parody. Travesty in plot occurs when the adventure hero repeats a situational script that is purely performative, and therefore free of the consequences that the same situation might demand in its original embodiment. The repetition implies the absurdity of the initial situational performance while simultaneously accrediting it. Travesty in character can be seen when any person is attempting to be someone they are not. For example, the imitation of someone else’s speech in order to perform a role travesties that person being imitated.?

Finally, the role of carnivalesque behavior functions as a prominent aspect in much of Bakhtin’s work and is connected to adventure and travesty in a fascinating way. Carnival activity is any attempt to provoke laughter. Again, there are a few different types, the first being a travesty in behavior. This travesty is characterized by the act of mocking, or the liberation from a dominant social order. One can assert superiority over an object by separating from that object. This idea of laughter took shape in Aristotle’s poetics, in which he claimed comedy to be one’s sense of ascendancy over any hero that is enduring certain trials. It is also consistent with what George Orwell had once said: “Every joke is a tiny revolution.” Another form of carnival seeks to achieve the opposite, that is, seeking a universal social cohesion. It is the sublimation of individuality, and thus the direction towards solidarity. One well known description of this type of laughter is conducted by German philosopher Max Scheler, who believed this emotional infection with laughter to be in its most pure form when an individual laughs without knowing why he/she is laughing. The laugher is merely an echo of observation. Scheler’s insights had a profound impact on Bakhtin’s analysis of carnivalesque behavior. Bakhtin identifies the immense power that is acquitted by the infected laugher so that he/she can instead feel a sense of inclusion, or being in on the joke. The mere act of echoing emotion robs the infected laugher’s capacity to affirm his/her own sense of unofficial truth, which is in blatant violation of what makes a Bakhtinian hero. A hero, instead, refuses to be implicated in the social order caused by carnivalesque behavior entirely. He refuses to be positioned as the object of ridicule. He is never ridiculous to himself. Additionally, a hero refuses to enter the conspiracy of laughter of others. This second refusal asserts a third party's ridiculousness, and by affirming his own truths he is placed on the highest possible point in social hierarchy, even higher than the forces of subjugation. This elevated status gives the hero a privileged position from which he can more readily identify acts of travesty.?

Even prior to the rolling of opening credits, “the Dude,” is introduced by the storyteller as a Bakhtinian hero in The Big Lebowski. “What’s a hero?... He is the man of his time and place, he fits right in there. And that’s the dude in Los Angeles. And even if he is a lazy man, and the dude was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest of Los Angeles county, which would place him high in the running for laziest worldwide. But sometimes, there is a man. Sometimes, there is a man. (2:25)” As described by the storyteller (unnamed in script), the Dude is organically connected to his time and place. He is a lazy man in the lazy city of 1990’s Los Angeles. This organic connection between the Dude and his chronotope remains apparent throughout the film’s development, and is characteristic of Raoul Duke (based on Hunter S. Thompson, a well known journalist and author of the autobiography, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) as he meanders through his world of 1971 Las Vegas. Also before the actual start of the movie, a quote by Hunter S. Thompson is displayed on the screen that reads “He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pains of being a man” (1:15). This spirit is embodied by Duke throughout the movie, and also can be used to describe the attractive nature of Las Vegas, especially in 1971 when Vegas policies were less regulated. In the very last line of the film, Duke fancies himself to be “just another freak in the freak kingdom” (1:52:01).?

In each film, the hero is not completely independent of circumstance, which Bakhtin regards with validity so long as the circumstances do not define the hero. Various entities are repeatedly phone calling the Dude to give him tasks to complete which may seem like he is given a story that is his own. However, while he does have these missions, the Dude is liberated from essential definitions because the nature of these missions have a purpose that is unpredictably changing. In comparison, circumstances influence Duke in a much different way. Professionally, he is a journalist, and is tasked by his employer to fulfill the ultimate goal of covering a motorcycle race in Las Vegas. It may be assumed, then, that this ultimate purpose prevents Duke from being purely liberated. The mission defines the story, and therefore the hero. However, Duke elects to make the trip on account of his own whim, not because he feels any obligation. Although he attends the motorcycle event, he has no intention of covering it the way his employer wants him to. When arriving at Las Vegas, he is met by a photographer who is tasked with covering the event with Duke as a partnership. Shortly after, Duke fires the photographer simply because the photographer wanted the job to be fulfilled in the proper way that it was meant to be. Duke saw him as an obstacle to his purpose, a purpose that does not exist. Duke is freely adopting new roles that are not his own, and thus liberated from essential definitions. He is a journalist that does close to zero journalism. The Dude is not a detective, but the more he pretends to be one, the more a real detective like DaFino admires the Dude for being an actual detective. “I dig your work. Playing one side against the other, betting with everyone. Fabulous stuff, man (1:33:15).” Unsurprisingly, the Dude is not flattered.

Relatable to DaFino’s comment, “playing one side against the other,” is travesty, which is used in a number of different ways in these films. Paloff indicates that the number of travesties in language in The Big Lebowski is what initially sparked his now comprehensive analysis linking the film to Bakhtinian theory. One example can be identified in the opening scene, which is the same scene that establishes the Dude as a hero. As he is paying his $0.69 check at the grocery store, he looks up and notices the TV showing a press conference with President George Bush. “This aggression will not stand,” says the President. Fast forwarding now to the Dude’s first meeting with the Big Lebowski, the two are verbally showing their conflicted intesterest towards each other before the Dude shows that he has had enough. “No, I do mind. The dude minds! This will not stand. This aggression will not stand, man.” The dude copies the language he observed on TV to a tee. Although the messages are linguistically identical, the meaning of one pertains to the United States’ involvement with Kuwait while the other is in reference to the Dude’s desired rug compensation. One more example out of many will be given that can be observed in this same meeting between the Lebowskis, which in so many ways expresses travesty. When asked about employment status, the Dude responds by saying “Let me explain something about the dude. I’m not Mr. Lebowski, you’re Mr. Lebowski. I’m the Dude!” (13:10). Later on, Maude is revealing the possibility to the Dude of them having a child together. After choking on his White Russian, the Dude, while waving his finger in a way that appears to signal the preparation of a serious or prolonged monologue, says “Let me explain something about the dude,” before being immediately interrupted by Maude (1:30:52). Again, while the words are strung together in exactly the same way, the dude intends a different meaning in each case.?

While it won’t be discussed in great detail, the resumes of the film’s directors reflect their mastery in the production of parody. In fact, it is possible that the Coen brothers were conscious in the plot relationship between The Big Lebowski, and their film preceding it, Fargo (1996), to be directly inverted with one another. Many details defend this claim, and one can be seen in the locations, one being in North Dakota and the other in southern California, opposite type places. Additionally, DaFino identifies Bunny Lebowski’s hometown to be Morehead, Minnesota, which is in the same metropolitan location as Fargo. Gilliam, on the other hand, has steady experience directing Monty Python films. The sole purpose of these films is to compile a series of parodies, the most notable being Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). One scene in this film parodies the medieval duel between knights. In this scene, anticipation implies a high profile fight between good and evil. However, the duel is abrupt, as “the Black Knight” quickly finds each of his arms and legs to be amputated and still refuses to give up. “Tis but a flesh wound,” he proclaims. The scene points to the absurdity of medieval plots while also accrediting them.?

While it is the job of any actor to travesties the character in which he is playing, Johnny Depp takes it to an extreme when playing Duke’s role. In anticipation of the project, Johnny Depp spends extensive amounts of time with Hunter S. Thompson, the real life figure Duke is based on and the author of the autobiography, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971). Depp even went so far as to move into Thompson’s basement for a matter of months. He is even candid about his frequent psychedelic drug experience with Thompson. In depicting these episodes in the movie, he wanted to provide an accurate travesty by doing it in real life with the same man he is imitating. After Thompson’s death in 2005, Depp called Thompson “a mentor, a brother, and a father”.?

The drug experience defines Duke through behavioral travesty that is very much comparable to the quintessential Bakhtinian text, Don Quixote. In the passionate attempt to lead a more chivalric life, Don Quixote constantly reads books that he believes will benefit him in this pursuit. Through his overwhelming experience in reading these fairy tales, he loses his grip on reality. He begins to see things the way they are depicted in a book. For example, when he looks at a windmill, it is not a windmill, but is instead a giant. Explained only by the process of repetition, his delusion makes him less chivalric than he was after he read the very first book. Similarly, Duke yearns for the sense of exploration and discovery, and like Quixote with his books, sees psychedelic drugs as the most effective way of accomplishing this goal. However, because of the constantly repeating drug use, Duke only sees the world through the eyes of a drug user. Thus, what he thinks to be a state of discovery is in reality the opposite, because this intoxicated state is no longer a unique experience to him by any means. For example, when experiencing an influx of psychedelics including LSD in the hotel lobby, he sees all of the people as dinosaurs, but is able to cope with his vision to a remarkable degree because it is no longer unfamiliar to him. “I’m used to things like seeing my dead grandmother crawling up my leg with a knife in her teeth” (18:37). Duke’s delusion is identical to Quixote’s, both caused by a behavioral travesty.

However, perhaps the most fascinating comparison is that between the two films regarding the Bakhtinian reading of carnivalesque behavior. It is interesting to note that both of these films are generally regarded as comical, yet neither of them feature a scene in which any character is laughing except for a select few occasions. This seems to imply that these occasions are important moments. In particular, one of these moments from each film will be discussed. When the Dude is summoned by Maude to “meet immediately” (1:01:36), he fulfills this request but is greeted by a newly introduced character named Knox Harrington. The Dude seems to be annoyed by Harrington’s presence, at least partially due to Harrington’s unjustified laughter. As the scene concludes, Harrington picks up the phone and begins breaking out in uncontrolled laughter. “It’s Sandra about Biennale” (1:04:14), he says, directed to Maude, and ignoring the Dude in an attempt to invite Maude to join the call with him. Maude finds this to be important, as she accepts the invitation, joins the call, and joins him in what is now a combination of outlandish laughter. The Dude, being left out of the joke, stands there unwilling to participate in the cohesive laughter. According to Bakhtin, this is a decision that is made by a hero. The Dude refuses to be affected by the unofficial truths of others, and thus remains loyal to his own truths. He is looking down on Maude and Harrington on the social hierarchy, whereas the opposite would be said if he elected to join the emotional cohesion.?

A more exaggerated example of this can be observed in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas when Duke and his attorney wind up at a police conference. The topic of discussion is illicit drug use. The leader of the seminar is asked to project his opinion on whether or not Margaret Mead’s recent peculiar behavior is a consequence of a private marijuana addiction. Surprisingly, Duke is approving of the inquiry. He turns around to face the asking officer and says “good question” (1:22:21). However, Duke apparently is not so approving of the response to the question. “I don’t know if I can answer that. But what I can tell you sir, is if Margaret Mead at her age smoked grass, she’d have one hell of a trip!” says the conference leader, who then breaks out in an uncontrollable laughter. Everyone that occupies the room joins in on the laughter. Duke’s attorney, Dr. Gonzo, is an agreement with Duke’s disapproval. “Fucking bullshit,” he says. “I’ll meet you at the casino.” As Gonzo gets up to leave, he also begins to laugh only so that he can be involved in the social cohesion. Despite all of the pressures that include being intoxicated at a police conference, having a friend join the police community to feel inclusion in an act of betrayal, and feeling left out of the joke, Duke remains seated with a blank expression. He refuses to be implicated in the social order entirely and affirms his unofficial truths. In doing this, he remains liberated from being a prop and is instead a free moving actor.

Even more noteworthy than the two film’s lack of laughter is their lack of hero laughter. Between the Dude and Duke, the number of scenes in which they laugh is a grand total of zero. They are neutral entities in the most pure sense, and are subjugated by nothing other than their own personal values. In comparison to the social cycle of carnivalesque behavior that the common person decides to reside in, these heroes remain both outside and above the same cycle. This status gives them the distinguished opportunity to clearly identify uses of travesty, which the Dude does explicitly. Walter gives a speech before the spread of their now dead acquaintance’s ashes. As he intends to spread them over the side of the cliff, the wind blows the ashes into the Dude’s face instead. Infuriated by the entire nature of Walter’s gesture, he screams at him. “Everything with you is a fucking travesty, man!” (1:48:40)

“I’m sorry dude,” Walter says.

Such a profoundly unique combination of words from a figure that is characterized by stereotype as a “bum,” but in reality is a hero. Similarly, but in a more pleasant context, Duke and Gonzo give their farewells near the end of their story. Duke reflects on his time with his lawyer with a warm sentiment. “He is too weird to live, and he is too weird to die.” The Dude and Duke have an opinion about their best friend that is identical: their best friend nurtures the concept of travesty.?

As a conclusionary note, while the values of both The Dude and The Duke are suspect, the actual set of values are irrelevant and the importance is in the personal handling of those values, according to Bakhtin. While his texts focus on literature, there is something to be said about the reality of unfinalizability. The constant evolution in the world is unpredictable, but when loyal to his/her unofficial truths, one has more authority in determining the evolution’s direction.?

Fred Hammer

Miami University