Master of Arts Thesis
EurocultureUniversity of Groningen (Home) University of Krakow (Host)
July, 2015
Screening East-Central Europe:
The Representation of East-Central Europe in The
Grand Budapest Hotel
Submitted by:
Laura van Opstal Student number home university: s2055368 Student number host university: 1110547 Contact details: +31 630699433 – lauravanopstal@hotmail.com
Supervised by:
Name of supervisor home university: Dr. Margriet van der Waal Name of supervisor host university: Prof. dr hab. Czesław Porębski
Gilze, July 15, 2015
2
MA Programme Euroculture Declaration
I, Laura van Opstal, hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Screening East-Central Europe: Representations of East-Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
3 Table of Content
Preface 4
Introduction 5
Chapter 1 Conceptual Framework
1.1 Defining Representation
1.2 Constructing Meaning Through Representations 1.3 The Construction of Meaning and Intertextuality 1.4 Conclusion 10 10 12 14 17
Chapter 2 Analyzing Representations: The Application of Social Semiotics 2.1 Mainstream Semiotics 2.2 Social Semiotics 2.3 Limitations 2.4 Conclusion 19 20 21 24 24
Chapter 3 The Myth of Central Europea and the Eastern Other: The Discourse of East-Central Europe
3.1 Challenges in Defining East-Central Europe 3.2 Post-Colonialism and East-Central Europe
3.3 Historical Developments in the Construction of East-Central Europe 3.4 East-Central Europe in Contemporary Society
3.5 Conclusion 26 26 28 31 33 36
Chapter 4 Wes Anderson, Stefan Zweig and Intertextuality
4.1 A Brief Introduction to Stefan Zweig 4.2 Stefan Zweig in The Grand Budapest Hotel 4.3 Conclusion
38
39 42 48
Chapter 5 The Grand Budapest Analysis
5.1 The Grand Budapest Hotel as a Stage for East-Central European History
5.2 Geographical Analysis: Zubrowka, the (imaginary) border between East and West
5.3 Görlitz: The Border Between East and West; Imaginary and Reality 5.4 Conclusion 50 51 60 67 68 Conclusion 70 Bibliography 74
Annex 1: Opening Quotes 79
4 Preface
The movie is personal in that it’s telling a story that let me move around in a world I’ve wanted to learn more about, and that will let me use all the stuff I’ve gathered and picked up along the way – stuff that comes as much from reading as from traveling. (Wes Anderson)1
The above quote, by director Wes Anderson, for me in many ways also represents my own thesis journey through the miraculous world of The Grand Budapest Hotel. The film has become an important part of a personal journey I took this year, which is called the master thesis. I wanted to write a thesis about representations of East and Central Europe in popular culture, and Anderson’s movie has turned out to be the perfect case study. By using Anderson’s film as a case study, I have got the opportunity to explore a topic I really wanted to learn more about, while combining it with studying a film that fascinated me. It allowed me to read interesting materials, travel to interesting places, and watch a great film many times. It has been a fun interesting, educational, and, at times, challenging journey.
However, you never write a thesis all by yourself in complete isolation, and I think that the presence of other people in your thesis journey is essential to make it a successful one. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has handed me ‘stuff’, to use Anderon’s words, along this thesis journey. This varies from interesting books to travel advice, and from a cup of coffee to encouraging words to help me during the more difficult moments in the process. I would especially like to thank Dr. Margriet van der Waal from the University of Groningen and Professor Czeslaw Porebski from the Jagiellonian University Krakow, who have been my thesis supervisors during this journey. Without their great support and extensive feedback, this thesis would not have become what it is today, and I am very grateful for their support. I would also like to thank my family, friends, classmates, and the Euroculture staff in both Krakow and Groningen for their support along the way. Thank you very much for helping and supporting me throughout my journey. I have very much enjoyed my stay in the Grand Budapest, and I hope you will enjoy it as well.
5 Introduction
With four and a half out of five stars, The Grand Budapest Hotel is the number one hotel in the republic of Zubrowka according to visitors of the holiday review website TripAdvisor.2
While the reviewers seem well aware of the fictional character of the hotel and TripAdvisor also alerts the website’s visitors of its fictional character, still over 250 people wrote a fictional review of their imaginary stay at the Grand Budapest. The enthusiasm with which the fictional hotel from the film The Grand Budapest Hotel by American film director Wes Anderson is reviewed, emphasizes how the film seems to be a consolidation between a real and a fictional world, which is sensed by the audience of the film and expressed through their TripAdvisor reviews.
The film The Grand Budapest Hotel was released in 2014 and is centered around a static old hotel called the Grand Budapest, which is situated in a fictional East-Central European country named Zubrowka. The film starts off in 1985, when a character named the Author starts to disclose about a book he has written named ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, which is based on a story he heard during a visit to that same hotel in 1968. The story he was told in 1968, by the hotel owner Zero Mustafa, was set in the Grand Budapest Hotel in 1932. The story focusses on two main characters, namely a concierge named monsieur Gustave H. and Zero Mustafa himself, who at that time was the lobby boy of the hotel. The story centers around the death of a rich lady named Madam D. and a painting she bequeathed to monsieur Gustave. Since the son of Madam D., Dimitri, disputes his mother’s will and accuses Gustave of murdering his mother, Gustave and Zero decide to steal the painting and run away with it, while trying to prove M. Gustave’s innocence in the process. In the end Gustave is proven innocent, and actually turns out to be the beneficiary of all of Madam D.’s possessions, which included the Grand Budapest Hotel.
While this short summary of the plot of Wes Anderson’s film might seem to suggest that the film is a clear expression of Anderson’s imagination, the film in many ways also mirrors ideas, events, and places that have taken place in the physical world. In particular in relation to representations of East-Central Europe, one can identify many intertextual references to this region’s history, geography and conceptualization. Next to that, the film was inspired by the works of one of the most well-known Central
2
“The Grand Budapest Hotel.” TripAdvisor. (Accessed 1 April, 2015).
6
European authors of the 1920s and 1930s, Stefan Zweig, which also emphasizes the connection between the film and the region, and Zweig’s description of the region in particular. This thesis will therefore take a closer look at all these different references to East-Central Europe, and the main research question this thesis aims to answer is, therefore, how is East-Central Europe represented in Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel?
The representation, or misrepresentation, of East and Central Europe by Western media, artists, writers and filmmakers has a long tradition and it has been extensively discussed in academic research. Three key studies in this field were all published in the 1990s and are Larry Wolff’s Inventing Eastern Europe, Maria Todorova’s Imagining the Balkans, and Vesna Goldsworthy’s Inventing Ruritania. While Wolff’s and Todorova’s account focus on a more general representation of Eastern Europe in the West, Goldsworthy’s book focusses on the representation of the region in film and literature. According to Goldsworthy, fictional representations of Eastern Europe have an impact on people’s real perception of the region.3 Her argument is based on a notion called the imperialism of the imagination, which she defines as “a process through which literary creations, backed by powerful publishing and media industries, can become substitutes for real territories, influencing how people view places, countries, and societies.”4
Vesna Goldsworthy illustrates with her study that fiction film and literature can have an impact on people’s perception of reality, even though this perception might not actually match with reality. Her research, therefore, underlines the importance of the study of fictional works like The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Using popular culture, such as films and books, as a case study for research about representations can provide interesting insights, since popular culture often mirrors the social-political situation of the time of publication. According to Mike Phillips, “fiction is not an activity somehow isolated from the world in which it exists.”5
Thus, while representations of East-Central Europe in popular culture are often dismissed as fantasy, studying these areas is important since popular culture often reflects and comments on social and political issues that are present in society at the
3
Vesna Goldsworthy, Inventing Ruritania: The Imperialism of the Imagination (Hurst, 2013), ix. 4
Ibid.
7
time of production and thus often form a reflection or a commentary on the real world.6
This is clearly expressed by Anton Kaes who argues that:
Narrative fiction in film (or any other medium) do not exist in a vacuum but are part of a social and economic dynamic; they do not simply mirror society, they comment on it. In their own way, fictions intervene in on-going debates and often give shape to dominant discourses; they negotiate collective fears, hopes, and hidden anxieties; and they supply in their make-believe world precisely what cannot be had or said in reality.7
Thus, also in the discussion of East-Central Europe, representations of the concept in popular culture are not just fictional and imaginary, but can also be linked to real issues and definitions of the region, which illustrates the importance of the study of popular film in creating understanding concerning social-political discussions.
Examples of Western fiction films and books that reflect socio-political issues and debates from the time they were published are, for instance, Dracula and the James Bond Series. It has, for example, been argued that Dracula reflects the fears and concerns of late 19th century British society concerning the fate of Eastern Europe in case of the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and the effect of this collapse on Britain.8 Moreover, the novel has also been argued to show the fear for a high number of migration from Eastern and Central Europeans to Great Britain, which is often referred to as reversed colonization.9 The James Bond series, on the other hand, have been argued to reflect concerns and fears surrounding communism in the 1950s. Moreover, the series also reflect the changing attitudes concerning this topic over the years. Klaus Dodds, for example, argues that the James Bond novels more clearly oppose the Soviet Union and express anti-communist sentiments than later film adaptations.10 This is also underlined by Jonas Takors who has argued in relation to the James Bond series that “while the novels remain rooted in the social and political contexts of the 1950s, the films have responded to changing industrial and cultural circumstances.”11
These
6 Klaus Dodds, “Licensed to Stereotype: Geopolitics, James Bond and the Spectre of Balkanism”,
Geopolitics 8, nr. 2 (1 juni 2003): 134.; Theo Van Leeuwen, Introducing Social Semiotics (Psychology
Press, 2005), 124.
7 Anton Kaes. “German cultural history and the study of film: ten theses and a postscript.” in New
German Critique, Spring–Summer, 51. Qtd in Joanna Rydzewska. “Ambiguity and Change: Post-2004
Polish Migration to the UK in Contemporary British Cinema.” Journal of Contemporary European
Studies. 20, no. 2 (2012), 216.
8 Barbara Korte, “Facing the East of Europe in its Western Isles,” In Facing the East in the West, ed. Barbara Korte, Ulrike Pirker and Sissy Helff. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010), 5.
9
Goldsworthy, Inventing Ruritania, 91–93. 10
Dodds, “Licensed to Stereotype”, 134.
8
examples illustrate how the representation of East and Central Europe by Western authors and filmmakers has a long tradition. Moreover, the examples also emphasize how popular culture can reflect social-political debates of the time period in which the book or film was produced.
While the social-political relations between Eastern and Western Europe have significantly changed over the last three decades, research in the area of Western representations of the East continuous to be relevant. Researching the representation of East-Central Europe continuous to be relevant in contemporary society, since the notion of otherness within Europe continuous to exist, even after the accession of former Soviet bloc countries to the EU. This is underlined by Barbara Korte who argues that “Eastern Europe as imag(in)ed in Britain and other Western cultures today is still burdened by accumulations of clichéd images, some positive, some more negative, but always inscribing the European East as an essential ‘other’ to the West.”12 The in-between status and the image of East-Central Europe as Europe’s internal Other is also reflected in film, and research in this area can thus provide interesting and useful insights into the concept. This is for example illustrated by the research of Joanna Rydzweska. She argues that the image that is presented in British cinema of East-Central Europe in general and Poland in particular both acknowledges and resists stereotypes about the region which underlines the current ambiguous perception of the region.13 Rydzewska, for example, argues that Poles on the one hand are portrayed in a positive way as a result of their working attitudes but on the other hand they are portrayed as threat to the British job market.14
The analysis by Rydzewska illustrates that research to the representation of Eastern Europe can still provide us with significant insights, and thus continues to be relevant.
The representation of the East by the West is thus not a new phenomenon. However, as arguments by Korte and Rydzewska illustrate, recent changes within the social-political situation of Eastern Europe makes the study of those representations, again, a very relevant topic for research. A contemporary release like The Grand Budapest Hotel can thus provide us with interesting insights in the current status of representations of East-Central Europe, and the elements that influence these representations. Moreover, it might help us to develop insight into whether the
12
Barbara Korte, “Facing the East of Europe in its Western Isles,” 5. 13
Joanna Rydzewska, “Ambiguity and Change: Post-2004 Polish Migration to the UK in Contemporary British Cinema”, Journal of Contemporary European Studies 20, nr. 2 (June 2012): 223.
9
representations have changed since the accession of former Soviet states to the EU and/or whether the elements that determine how the region is represented in the West have changed. This thesis will therefore discuss how East-Central Europe is represented in Wes Anderson’s Grand Budapest Hotel.
10 Chapter 1 Conceptual Framework
To understand the representations of East-Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel, and to understand how meaning and ideas are established about the region through these representations, it is key to define what is understood in this thesis by the concept of representation. Next to that, this chapter will define the concept of intertextuality. The concept to intertextuality is studied for multiple reasons. First of all, Wes Anderson has acknowledged that the Austrian author Stefan Zweig has had a significant influence on the film, and intertextuality will allow for the identification of Zweig’s influence. The second reason for the inclusion of intertextuality is that the representation of East-Central Europe that is provided by The Grand Budapest Hotel is shaped through references to existing East-Central European historical and geographical events and places, and these intertextual references to history and geography will be central to the analysis in this thesis. Intertextuality is therefore a key concept within this thesis. This chapter will therefore focus on defining the concept of representation, the meaning making process behind representations, and the impact of intertextuality on this meaning making process.
A selection of questions in the debate concerning representation are, to what extend a representation has a direct link to reality, how the meanings of representations are constructed, where meaning is constructed and by whom. The meaning of representations can be constructed on several platforms, namely the producer, the audience, or the image itself, and this chapter will also take a closer look at these three categories. The key aims of this chapter are therefore to define the concept of representation within the context of this thesis, outline how meaning is created through representations, and illustrate the impact of intertextuality on the processes of meaning making.
1.1 Defining representation
11
representation.”15
According to Webb’s definition, representations are references to elements in the real world, and representations can be used to understand and communicate these elements in one’s social reality. Representations thus allow people to comprehend and construct meaning in the world around them. 16
Representations thus both allow people to understand reality and to communicate reality, and this is also underlined by Stuart Hall’s definition of representations. Hall defines representations as “the production of the meaning of concepts in our minds through language. It is the link between concepts and language which enables us to refer to either the ‘real’ world of objects, people or events, or indeed to imaginary world of fictional objects, people and events.”17
Representations, according to Hall, thus work on two levels. The first level is the level of concepts, which are the mental representations of reality in people head’s, or the conceptual system of representations.18 These mental representations allow people to organize and understand the world around them, and therefore to organize reality in their own head.19 However, representations do not just allow people to mentally organize reality, but also to communicate reality, which they do through a system of representations. On the second level, representations, therefore, allow people to communicate these mental concepts to others and to understand the mental concepts that are communicated to them by other people, which is referred to by Hall as the linguistic or sign system of representations.20 As Hall’s definition suggests, this communication is mainly done through language, but can also be done through for example images, which will be illustrated in this thesis. Thus, according to Stuart Hall representations consist of two layers. The first layer is the concept level, which are mental representations of reality. The second layer is the sign system which one uses to communicate these mental images, and thus are the communicative representations of reality.
Stuart Hall’s definition of representations emphasizes that the constructed world does not necessarily just exist of physical reality, but representations can also give meaning to concepts that refer to imaginary objects, like mermaids, or abstractions, like
15 Jen Webb, Understanding Representation (London: SAGE, 2008), 26.
16 Rick Iedema. “Analysing Film and Television: a Social Semiotics Account of Hospital an Unhealthy Business.” In Handbook of Visual Analysis. Ed. Theo van Leeuwen and Carey Jewitt. (London: SAGE, 2008), 191.
17 Stuart Hall, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (London: SAGE, 1997), 17.
18
12
heaven and God.21
One of the examples Hall himself employs to exemplify his theory in his book Representations: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, is the example of the mermaid. As far as we are aware, mermaids do not exist in social reality. However, when asked what a mermaid looks like or when reading about mermaids, everyone can recall and communicate a representation of a mermaid. 22
The representation of the mermaid is, thus, an image that is present in people’s cultural and historical knowledge, but not necessarily refers to something that is in the physical world. Therefore, representations allow people to understand and communicate about concepts of the real world, the fictional world, and the abstract world, and concepts are thus not limited to real world definitions.
1.2 Constructing Meaning Through Representations
Representations provide people with a tool to create meaning of the society they live in, and it is key to note that this meaning is not natural but socially constructed. According to Hall, “meaning does not inhere in things, in the world. It is constructed, produced. It is the result of a signifying practice – a practice that produces meaning that makes things mean.”23 Meaning is thus not naturally present in representations, but it is socially constructed. This construction process is based on the social interaction between representations. This is emphasized by Hall, who argues that meaning is created through the relations representations have to one another.24 These structures of representations, which allow the construction of meaning, are defined by Hall as systems of representations.25
The social structure in which a representation is read, therefore, determines how this representation fits in with other representations within the social structure, and thus determines the meaning of a representation. The creation of meaning is therefore a systematic synthetic process and not a natural one, and as a result of that it is highly context dependent.
The meaning of representations is socially constructed and is part of a system of representations, and therefore the construction of meaning also depends on the discourses in which a representation is presented and read. According to Theo van
13
Leeuwen, “discourses are resources for representation, knowledges about some aspect of reality which can be drawn upon when that aspect of reality has to be represented.”26
Paul Gee defines discourse as “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity.”27
These definitions illustrate that discourses comprise the social, cultural, and historical knowledge a person needs to understand or communicate a certain representation, and to meaningfully connect them to their social reality. Thus, discourses are the tools people need to understand and create the representations in the world around them and therefore understand the world in itself.28
Since discourses are constructed by elements that can change over time, such as history and culture, the meaning behind representations is never fixed and can also change over time.29
This is underlined by James Gee, who argues that “discourses have no discrete boundaries because people are always, in history, creating new discourses, changing old ones, and contesting and pushing the boundaries of discourses.”30 Representations thus allow people to give meaning to the world around them, and this meaning making process is influenced by the discourse through which this meaning making process takes place.
In determining how meaning behind representations is made, it is also key to determine where meaning is made. Gillian Rose argues that there are three sites where meanings of images are constructed: at the level of production, the image itself, and the audience.31
Rose also argues that it has been highly debated which of these three site should be considered the main site of the construction of meaning.32
While in past theoretical approaches to visual culture often approached the meaning making process through auteur theory, and thus focused the intentions of the producer in analyzing the meaning of the image, one of the leading arguments related to the construction of meaning in visual representations today, is that “the most important site at which the meaning of an image is made is not its author, or indeed its production or itself, but its audiences, who bring their own ways of seeing and other knowledges to bear on an
26 Leeuwen, Introducing Social Semiotics, 275.
27 James Paul Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2009), 21.
28 Gillian Rose, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials (London: SAGE, 2011), 191.
29
Hall, Representation, 32; Webb, Understanding Representation, 7. 30
Gee, An introduction to discourse analysis, 29–30. 31 Rose, Visual Methodologies, 346.
14
image and in the process make their own meaning from it.”33
The main focus in the analysis of the construction of meaning has thus shifted from the producer to the audience.
However, the argument provided by Rose does not exclude influence from the other two sites in the meaning making process. The audience is indicated in the argument as the main site of production, which underlines that it is not the only one. Moreover, the different places in which the meaning of an image can be produced also influence each other. When the audience is, for example, aware of the producer behind an image, they will use the knowledge they have of this producer to interpret his or her work “in order to understand the modalities that shaped the production.”34
Thus an image is not only a representation of the world, but it also provides the audience with elements that shape the audience’s perception of the producer, which allows the audience to understand more about the image itself and about the producer of the image.35 In the case of this thesis, the director of The Grand Budapest Hotel Wes Anderson thus has influenced my reading of the film since I have read interviews with him about the film, which contributed to my interpretation of the film. Therefore, while the audience seems to have become the main site of the construction of meaning, both the producer and the image itself contribute to the meaning making process as well.
1.3 The Construction of Meaning and Intertextuality
The meaning making process of representations and texts is not only determined by the place where the meaning is produced, but it is also influenced by the relations a representation or text has to other texts, which is the process of intertextuality. Defining intertextuality is not an easy task and definitions of the concept are highly debated. A basic definition of intertextuality is provided by David Walton who argues that “at the basic level [intertextuality] is how one text can incorporate others into itself, where one book quotes another, or to draw on cinema, where a film incorporates into itself another film.”36
Another useful definition of the concept is provided by Daniel Chandler who argues that “intertextuality refers to the various links in form and content which bind a
33 Ibid., 26-27. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.
15
text to other texts.”37
On a basic level, intertextuality thus refers to the use and references of texts within another text.
Two key theorists in the process of defining intertextuality are Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes. Julia Kristeva, who is often credited with developing the concept of intertextuality, argues about intertextuality that “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaced that of intersubjectivity and poetic language is read as at least double.”38
With this definition, Kristeva suggests that a text is built from other, already existing, texts, and that texts obtain meaning because they absorb and transform other texts which the reader then connects to the meaning of the new text.39 A text, therefore, does not acquire meaning on its own, but depends on its relations with other texts and the ability of its readers to establish and understand these connections as well.40
Moreover, Kristeva’s definition of texts is not limited to literary works, but she considers society and history also as texts, which underlines her argument that history and society are also socially constructed texts, the meaning of which is defined through other texts. This is stressed by her argument that “history and morality are written and read within the infrastructure of other texts.”41 Thus, key aspects of Kristeva’s definition of intertextuality are that texts are constructed through other texts and therefore their meaning is constructed through their connections to other texts. Moreover, according to Kristeva, texts are not just limited to literary works, but texts also comprise, for example, history and society as well.
Kristeva’s definition provided the basis for Roland Barthes’ definition of intertextuality. According to Barthes “we know that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and lash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.”42
With this definition, Barthes suggests that everything within a text is quoted and that there is nothing original to be found in a text. Moreover, according to Jonathan Culler, the only certainty one has when one identifies a quote is that one has read it somewhere before
37
Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: The Basics (London and New York: Taylor & Francis, 2007), 251. 38 Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 66.
39 Ibid. 40
Chandler, Semiotics, 197. 41 Kristeva, Desire in Language, 65.
16
which makes the quotes, according to Barthes, anonymous quotes.43
Terry Eagleton argues that according to Barthes’ reasoning, “All literary texts are woven out of other literary texts, not in the conventional sense that they bear the traces of ‘influences’ but in the more radical sense that every word, phrase or segment is a reworking of other writings which precede or surround the individual work.”44
Barthes thus seems to take intertextuality a step further than Kristeva by arguing that everything in a text is an anonymous quotation from previous texts, which suggests that the sources of these quotations are not to be determined, and interpretation of the text depends on the level of awareness the reader has of the quotations.
Barthes’ line of argumentation allowed him to proclaim what he calls “the death of the Author”, through which Barthes suggests that the meaning making process should not be governed by the presence of an author, but by the language itself.45 According to Barthes:
As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins.46
Barthes argumentation implies that from the point an author materializes his argument, the interpretation process is determined by the reader or the audience, and this process is proclaimed by Barthes as “the death of the Author”.47
Barthes argumentation suggests that in contemporary society, the Author is personified which is illustrated by Barthes through his reference to the author with a capital A, which suggests it is a name and personifies the concept.48 However, in Barthes opinion, the author has to become a subject again, and should not be considered a person anymore.49 According to Barthes “once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit to that text.”50 Through his argument, Barthes emphasizes how the author has been personified in contemporary society and how this hinders the meaning making process, because the audience takes into account the Author when they read the text, which therefore takes away the attention of the text
43 Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs (London: Routledge Classics, 2005), 126. 44
Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996), 119–120. 45 Barthes, Image, Music, Text, 143.
46 Ibid., 142. 47
Rose, Visual Methodologies, 26; Walton, Doing cultural theory, 92. 48
Barthes, Image, Music, Text, 145. 49 Ibid.
17
itself. As a result of this, Barthes argues for the death of the Author, which ensures depersonalization of the author and will result in language being the main site in which meaning is produced and found.
The definitions of Barthes and Kristeva provide certain key aspects of the concept of intertextuality that are relevant for this thesis. First of all, intertextuality illustrates that texts are not autonomous and will always be interpreted within the context of other texts.51
Secondly, intertextuality illustrate how “prior texts” contribute to the establishment of a discourse that allows readers to read new texts and to attribute meaning to these texts.52
It thus shows how texts that have been published in the past contribute to the establishment of discourses, and help to establish a system of representations that allows for interpretations of new text and representations. Thirdly, both Kristeva and Barthes underline the key role the audience plays in the construction of meaning. Even though certain theorists, like William Irwin, consider Barthes argument about ‘the death of the Author’ too drastic and argue that “authorial intention is unavoidable: intertextual connections are not somehow magically made between inanimate texts, but are the product of authorial design”, intertextuality emphasizes the current trend that the audience is the main ground for meaning-making.53 Finally, the definitions by Kristeva and Barthes illustrate that intertextuality is not limited to literary text, but that all texts present in society, for example, historical texts, geographical texts, and ethical texts, are based in intertextuality as well, and should therefore be taken into account when analyzing the meaning of a text.
1.4 Conclusion
To analyze representations it is essential to understand what representations are and how the construction of meaning of representations is influenced by other elements. This chapter aimed to define the concept of representation and provide some basic insight into the debate surrounding the meaning making process of representations and the role of intertextuality in this debate. As illustrated by arguments of Stuart Hall and Jen Webb, representations are a two tier system, which on the one hand provides us with mental concepts that allows people to order the world around them in their own head,
51
Culler, The Pursuit of Signs, 114. 52 Ibid.
18
while on the other hand representations provide people with a systems of sings that allows them to communicate with other about the mental concepts. Representations thus allow people to understand and communicate about the social cultural reality they live in. Since the interpretation and communication of representations is based within sign systems, and sign systems are culturally constructed, a key element in the meaning making process is the context in which a representation is translated, or the discourse in which a representation is read. To be able to understand the representations of East-Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel and justify my interpretation of these representations, it is therefore important to establish the discourses that have influenced me.
Moreover, other elements that play a role in the interpretation of representations are the place where the meaning is made and the influence of other actors on the meaning making process. While there have been three sites identified in the meaning making process, namely the audience, the image itself, and the producers, academics seem to agree that the main site of the construction of meaning is the audience. However, this does not mean that the other meaning making platforms have no impact on the interpretation process. While I will analyze The Grand Budapest Hotel from the perspective of an audience member, the intentions of director Wes Anderson will strongly influence my reading since I have read many interviews with him as part of research for the film. This does not mean that my interpretation of the representations in the film is also Anderson’s interpretation, but it does mean that Anderson has had an influence on my personal interpretation process.
19 Chapter 2 Analyzing Representations: The Application of Social Semiotics
Within the fields of visual research and film studies there are many methodologies that could have been applied to analyze cinematic representations of East-Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel, but in this thesis I have chosen to analyze the film through a social semiotic approach. David Bordwell argues that the meaning of film is constructed by combining comprehension, or the directly observable meanings, and interpretation, which are the hidden meanings in the film.54 One of the methods that can be used to analyze these comprehensions and interpretations is semiotics. Theo van Leeuwen argues that the application of semiotics in a visual analysis can contribute to answering two types of questions: “the question of representation (what do images represent and how?) and the question of the ‘hidden meanings’ of images (what ideas and values do the people, places and things represented in the image stand for.”55
However, the meaning making process in film is not limited to the image itself, or, in the semiotic jargon, the mode of the image, but is also influenced by other modes like, for example, sound and speech.
Social semiotics, in contrast to mainstream semiotics, does not only look at the image itself, but also at the meaning making process behind the image. Social semiotics thus allows for a multimodal analysis of the meaning making process behind representations and therefore is very suitable for the analysis of a film. This chapter will provide a basic introduction to semiotics and social semiotics and identify how this method can be applied to answer the central research question of this thesis. The chapter will first provide a brief explanation of mainstream semiotics, since social semiotics has its roots in mainstreams semiotics. After that, the chapter will provide a more extensive explanation of social semiotics and its applicability in film analysis. Lastly, the chapter will take a brief look at the limitations and weakness of social semiotics and, therefore, the chapter also outlines the limitations of this research.
54
David Bordwell, Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 2–3.
20
2.1 Mainstream Semiotics
Social semiotics has its roots in mainstream semiotics, which was developed by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. On a basic level, semiotics can be defined as “the study of signs.”56
According to Saussure, “the sign was the basic unit of language” which consists of two elements, namely a signified and a signifier.57
The signifier can be defined as “the form which a sign takes” while the signified is “the mental concept represented by the signifier.”58
In this process of signification, meaning is made, and meaning is thus made by combining a signifier, which can be a word or an image one sees, with a signified, which is the mental image to which this word or real-world image is connected to.
Roland Barthes extended Saussure’s theories by adding a second layer to the signification process, which allowed for the analysis of connotative meaning making through signification. In Barthes’ theory of semiotics, the process of primary signification is the same as with Saussure, thus the signified and the signifier together form the sign.59 However, Barthes added a second layer to the signification process, which is secondary signification, in which the sign of the primary signification is used as the signifier and paired with another signified.60 John Storey illustrates Barthes argument with the example of a dog. On the level of primary signification the sign dog consists of the word dog combined with the mental image of a four legged, barking animal. On the second layer of signification the signifier dog then is connected to the image of an impolite person, which establishes a secondary meaning to the sign dog.61
The sign of the dog in primary signification would be called the denotative reference to the sign, which means that the sign refers to concrete things the real world, while the signification on the secondary level would refer to a connotative meaning, which means that it refers to ideas and values.62
The secondary level of signification is, however, not just the place where connotative meanings are established, but also the place where myths are created
56 Chandler, Semiotics, 259. 57
Rose, Visual Methodologies, 113. 58 Chandler, Semiotics, 261.
59 John Storey, Cultural theory and popular culture: an introduction (Harlow: Pearson/Longman, 2009), 118–119.
60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.
21
according to Barthes.63
According to John Storey, Barthes defines myth as “ideology understood as a body of ideas and practices, which by actively promoting the values and interests of dominant groups in society, defend the prevailing structures of power.”64
Myths thus contribute to the establishment and the maintenance of a common culture between people living in the same society and as a result of that guide people’s understanding of society.65
According to Barthes’ argument, signs can thus not only refer to concrete items in the real world, but also to values and ideas. This allows signs to become part of certain ideological purposes, and thus, to become part of what Barthes calls myth.
2.2 Social Semiotics
While mainstream semiotics mainly focusses on the image itself and how meaning is made in the image itself, social semiotics focusses on the social environment in which meaning is made. The focus of mainstream, or traditional, semiotics on the image itself is underlined by Hodge and Kress who argue that “traditional semiotics likes to assume that the relevant meanings are frozen and fixed in the text itself, to be extracted and decoded by the analysis by reference to a coding system that is impersonal and neutral, and universal to users of the code.”66 Social semiotics, on the other hand, focusses more on the social context in which people make meaning, and a different social context can thus result in a different interpretation of a film. As underlined by Theo van Leeuwen, “in social semiotics the focus changed from the ‘sign’ to the way people use semiotic ‘resources’ both to produce communicative artefacts and events and to interpret them – which is also a form of semiotic production – in the context of specific social situations and practices.”67
Social semiotics and mainstream semiotics thus differ in their main areas of focus. While mainstream semiotics focusses on the meaning making process in the image itself, social semiotics focusses more on the social context in which meaning of an image or film is made.
63 Chandler, Semiotics, 143; van Leeuwen, "Semiotics and Iconography", 97. 64
Storey, Cultural theory and popular culture, 119. 65
Chandler, Semiotics, 143.
22
Social semiotic approaches also underline the fact that the meaning making process is influenced by social processes that contribute to the organization of meaning. Van Leeuwen has identified four dimensions that contributed to the structuring of the meaning-making process, namely discourse, genre, style, and modality.68
The analysis in this thesis will focus in particular on two of those dimensions: the dimension of discourse and the dimension of modality. Discourse has been defined in the previous chapter as “frameworks for making meanings.”69
The concept of modality, on the other hand, is “the social semiotic approach to the question of truth. It relates both to issues of representation – fact versus fiction, reality versus fantasy, real versus artificial, authentic versus fake – and to questions of social interaction.”70
Modality thus looks at the boundary between imaginary and reality, and determines how realistic an image is to be perceived by the audience. However, a representation that looks realistic does not guarantee that it reflects reality, because as van Leeuwen argues, “it is perfectly possible to represent something that does not exist as though it does. […] And it is equally possible to represent something that actually exists or has existed, as though its existence is in doubt.”71
Modality, thus, influences the meaning-making process by establishing the levels of realism of an image and, just like discourse, provides a dimension that influences how an image is perceived by the audience. Moreover, social semiotics operates from a multimodal approach, which means that meaning is made through a combination of different modes, such as, for example, sound, speech and the actual image.72
To identify the modes within the film that are relevant for the analytical approach the viewer is taking, the viewer looks for cues, which the viewer is able to identify because of the discourse one is approaching the film from. According to David Bordwell, cues are all sorts of elements within the film, that provide certain indicators onto which a certain meaning behind the film can be constructed, and which can be both directly visible or more hidden.73 When one analyzes representations of East-Central Europe within the film, one will thus look for certain cues like music, a line of speech, or even an entire scene that triggers an obvious, or nonobvious, link to East-Central Europe. These links can then be comprehended or interpreted, and thus form the starting
68 Ibid., 91.
69 Rose, Visual Methodologies, 139. 70
Leeuwen, Introducing Social Semiotics, 160. 71
Ibid.
23
point for the construction of meaning behind the film.74 A viewer is able to identify certain cues because it looks for cues from a specific discourse. However, to be able to communicate these cues and the meaning behind the cues to others, the people reading the analysis should be part and aware of the same discourse.75 The meaning-making process in film analysis is thus influenced by the viewers discourse, and its ability to identify cues that relate to this discourse and trigger a certain reading of a film. However, a viewer is only able to communicate a certain meaning to others if the people she communicates with are part of the same discourse.
The meaning making process in social semiotics is not only influenced by the social system in which the meaning is made, and by multimodality, or one’s ability to identify specific cues, but also by the logonomic system in which meaning is made. This concept was developed by Hodge and Kress, and they define a logonomic system as “a set of rules prescribing the conditions for production and reception of meanings; which specify who can claim to initiate (produce, communicate) or know (receive, understand) meanings about what topics under what circumstances and with what modalities (how, when, why).” 76 As the definition by Hodge and Kress suggests, logonomics systems distinguish between “production regimes (rules constraining production) and reception regimes (rules constraining reception)”, which means that logonomic systems provide rules that allow certain people to produce certain images and rules that allow certain people to read certain images.77 These rules, according to Hodge and Kress, are moderated and enforced by social agents, who thus determine who may produce and read images and who may not.78
As they argue:
The logonomic rules are specifically taught and policed by concrete social agents (parents, teachers, employers) coercing concrete individuals in specific situations by processes which are in principle open to study and analysis […] Logonomic systems cannot be invisible or obscure, or they would not work.79
Logonomic systems are thus rules that are dictated to individuals, through social actors, that guide that individual’s production or reading of an image.
74
Ibid., 2–4. 75 Ibid., 249–250.
76 Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress, Social Semiotics. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988), 4. qtd in Gillian Rose, Visual Methodologies,141.
24
2.3 Limitations
Just like any other methodological approach in film analysis, social semiotics also has its limitations and weaknesses, and one of the most important weaknesses of social semiotics is related to the validation of the analysis. Since the meaning making process is led by the person doing the analysis, the analysis needs to be substantiated by sufficient evidence that will convince the reader of the interpretation of the analyst as well. Rick Iedema argues that social semiotics “acknowledges that the analyst’s own reading position is likely to guide her or his interpretation, but it sees that as a strength rather than a failing.”80
However, even though the analysis is guided by the analyst’s own reading, it is essential to provide evidence and background to the reading in the analysis to convince the reader of the validity of the analysis as well and to give scientific value to ones reading.81 The person executing the analysis thus needs to present the analysis in a way that convinces the audience of its validity and thus come to an agreement with the reader of the analysis about its outcomes and the constructed meanings.82 It is therefore fundamental, when doing a social semiotic analysis to provide, concrete, well substantiated arguments that are supported by evidence, to minimize the level of subjectivity in the analysis and to reach an agreement about the analysis with the readers.
2.4 Conclusion
In spite of the limitations of social semiotics, the application of this method can provide interesting insights in this research. This chapter has illustrated that social semiotics focusses on analyzing the meaning making process behind an image in a specific social setting.83
Social semiotics therefore allows a researcher to show that there are deeper layers to a film than one initially might observe, and allows the researcher to underline the socio-political elements or commentary present in a film.84
Thus, in this context the research provides an analysis the meaning making process of representations in the film The Grand Budapest Hotel from the perspective of a Dutch Euroculture student whom
80 Iedema, “Analyzing Film and Television,” 186. 81
Ibid. 82
Bordwell, Making Meaning, 257. 83 Rose, Visual Methodologies, 137.
25
26 Chapter 3 The Myth of Central Europe and the Eastern Other: the discourse of
East-Central Europe
To be able to analyze the representations of East-Central Europe that are presented in The Grand Budapest Hotel, it is key to define what is understood in this thesis with this concept. As the previous chapters have illustrated, the meaning behind representations are not natural but socially constructed, and the meaning making process behind a representation depends on the discourses within which representations are communicated and understood. To understand the representations of East-Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel, it is therefore crucial to outline the framework surrounding East-Central Europe that has been the basis for the analysis of representations in the film and has allowed for the identification of cues and the construction of the meaning that is proposed in the analysis.
This chapter will focus on outlining part of the discourse that formed the basis of analysis by providing definitions and insights in the development of the concepts of Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and East-Central Europe. The first part of the chapter will outline some of the debates concerning the definition of East and Central Europe. The second part of the chapter will take a closer look at the relation between post-colonialism and the development of the concept East-Central Europe. The last two parts of the chapter will discuss some of the historical and contemporary developments that have influenced the concepts of Central, East, and East-Central Europe. Through these discussions, this chapter aims to answer the question how the discourses of East and Central have been constructed, and to determine how these concepts continue to influence the meaning making process of contemporary representations of the East-Central European region.
3.1 Challenges in defining East-Central Europe
27
European or Central European.85 It therefore seems important to take a closer look at these two historical, geographical, cultural, and political concepts. However, the definitions of East and Central Europe are highly debated and have undergone many changes since their establishment in the 18th century. Ivan Berend for example provides definitions that are mainly geographically and politically based. He argues that:
Central and Eastern Europe has, of course, a geographical meaning: an area east from the 19th Meridian, or along the River Elbe, that divides Europe in half. It also has a political meaning: in the 1930s and the 1940s, it was part of the Nazi Lebensraum; during the cold Cold War, it was the ‘Soviet bloc’; and currently, it is the ‘transforming’ countries, or the ‘New Europe.86
While Berend’s definition provides a basic geographical and political definition of East and Central Europe, it for example does not provide a cultural definition of these regions.
However, providing a definition of Eastern and Central Europe on a cultural level is constrained by several challenges. One of these challenges is the fact that the borders of the regions have continuously changed since the establishment of the concepts in Western thought, which means that while in one definition a certain country or cultural concept might be included, it can be excluded from another one.87
As a result of that, it becomes difficult to generalize what cultural elements can be attributed to the concept of East and Central Europe. A second challenge to the definition of the concepts Eastern Europe and Central Europe is the fact that the regions consist of a diverse range of countries, which for many cannot be described under generalizing terms.88
There, thus, does not seem to be a common culture that can be used to justify a common denominator such as East or Central Europe to represent the region as a homogeneous region. Thus, the diversity in definitions of the concepts East and Central Europe illustrates that the definition of these concepts are highly debated and shows that they have an ambiguous status.
85 The Grand Budapest Hotel. Directed by Wes Anderson. 2014. (Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2014), DVD.; Robbie Collin. “Wes Anderson Interview,” Telegraph online, 19 February, 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/10644172/Wes-Anderson-interview.html, (accessed 16 April, 2015); Jeff Labreque. “Wes Anderson on 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and the James Bond movie he wanted to make,” Entertainment Weekly Online. 18 January, 2015, http://www.ew.com/article/2014/02/26/wes-anderson-grand-budapest-hotel-ralph-fiennes, (accessed 16 April, 2015).
86 Ivan T. Berend, “What is Central and Eastern Europe?”, European Journal of Social Theory 8, nr. 4 (november 2005): 401.
87
Attila Melegh, On the East-West Slope: Globalization, Nationalism, Racism and Discourses on Eastern
Europe (Budapest/New York: Central European University Press, 2006), 36.
28
The conceptual roots of the hegemonic representations of East and Central Europe can be found in the imagination of the West. According to Attila Melegh, “the imaginary is understood as the sum of ways in which a culture perceives and conceives the world or areas within it. […] The imaginary is also a socio-historical concept which describes how different cultures cognitively structure the world.”89
Imaginary concepts thus allow people to understand the world they live in through categories that are mainly mental concepts rather than concrete ones. Examples of imaginary concepts that are constructed by people to structure the world around them are, for example, categories, such as, the first world and the third world, and Melegh also identifies East and Central Europe as such.90
Larry Wolff also accentuates the link between the concepts of East and Central Europe and the imaginary through his claims that Eastern Europe and Central Europe are socio-cultural inventions of the West.91
Wolff therefore suggests that the concepts of East and Central Europe have no roots in the concrete physical reality of these regions, but are created by the West to help them understand these areas, which makes these concepts imaginary.92 East and Central Europe are, thus, imaginary concepts in Western European culture, which allow subjects residing within this Western cultural sphere to structure the Eastern European world around them.
3.2 Post-colonialism and East-Central Europe
The development and definition of the concepts East and Central Europe are often analyzed from a postcolonial perspective, even though this approach is highly debated. One of the key objections against the application of post-colonialism to Eastern Europe is expressed by Maria Todorova, who argues that Eastern Europe cannot be approached from a postcolonial perspective, because the area was never physically colonized.93
However, other researchers have justified the postcolonial approach towards Eastern Europe, and one of the main arguments they propose is that representations of Eastern
89 Melegh, On the East-West Slope, 23. 90 Ibid.
91 Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe: the map of civilization on the mind of the enlightenment (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1994), 358–359.; Larry Wolff, “The Traveler’s View of Central Europe: Gradual Transistions and Degrees of Differenc in European Borderlands.” In Shatterzone
of Empires: Ethnicity, Identity, and Violance in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands. Ed. Omer Bartov and Eric D. Weiz. (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University press,
2013), 25. 92 Ibid., 4.
29
Europe in the West have been faced with similar difficulties as the representation of former colonies.94
An example of such a challenge would be the lack of knowledge of people in Western Europe about the Eastern Europe which prevents them from constructing realistic representations of the region.95
This discussion illustrates that the use of post-colonialism in the context of Eastern Europe is highly debated, and one of the key arguments in this debate is the fact that the region was never physically colonized.
However, while the West might not have physically colonized Eastern Europe, there are strong voices that suggest the West colonized Eastern Europe on the level of the imagination. An advocate for this perspective is Vesna Goldsworhty. In her publication Inventing Ruritania: The Imperialism of the Imagination, Goldsworthy focuses on the representation of the Balkans in popular culture, and she argues that many of the representations that are currently present in popular culture, are representations produced by the West.96 Bram Stocker’s Dracula can be considered one of the key examples of these forms of representation. Thus, while the West might not have colonized Eastern Europe in a physical way, they have been dominant in the production of representations of Eastern Europe and therefore it has been argued that the West has colonized the imaginary of Eastern Europe.
The imaginary colonization of East and Central Europe results from the need of Western European countries to distinguish themselves from other parts of Europe through the creation of an internal Other during the Enlightenment. As argued by Larry Wolff, “the Enlightenment had to invent Western Europe and Eastern Europe together, as complementary concepts, defining each other by opposition and adjacency.”97
To be able to establish a Western European identity it was thus necessary to create a European Other to construct this identity against, because, as argued by Catherine Macmillan, “identities are constructed against an Other.”98
To construct its own identity, Western Europe thus needed a contrasting concept to be able to create itself. Eastern Europe was therefore originally an imaginary cultural construct created by the West to be its
94 Barbara Korte. “Facing the East of Europe in Its Western Isles,” In Facing the East in the West, ed. Barbara Korte, Ulrike Pirker and Sissy Helff. ( Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010), 16.
95
Mike Phillips. “Narratives of Desire – A Writer’s Statement.” In Facing the East in the West: Images
of Eastern Europe in British Literature, Film and Culture. ed. Barbara Korte, Eva Ulrike Pirker, and
Sissy Helff (Rodopi, 2010), 45. 96
Vesna Goldsworthy, Inventing Ruritania: The Imperialism of the Imagination (Hurst, 2013), XXVI. 97
Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 5.
98 Catherine Macmillan, Discourse, identity and the question of Turkish accession to the EU: through the
30
European Other, which was essential to establish Western European identity.
The West was able to construct the East as its Other by appointing certain characteristics to Eastern Europe, which are reflected in representations of the region and underline the regions function as an in-between zone when it comes to levels of Otherness. These key elements include, for example, presumed lack of development in Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe and Eastern Europe’s ties to the barbaric.99
However, Eastern Europe was not considered to be as different from Western Europe as other regions in the world, such as, for example, the near East or the Far East. This is underlined by Larry Wolff, who argues that definitions of Eastern Europe in the 18th and 19th century underlined that “Eastern Europe was located not at the antipode of civilization, not down in the depths of barbarism, but rather on the developmental scale that measured the distance between civilization and barbarism.”100
David Moore therefore characterizes Eastern Europe as the West’s “nearest quasi-oriental space”, through which he links Eastern Europe to the idea of orientalism, but also underlines that within this idea of orientalism, Eastern Europe maintains a different position than, for instance, the near and far East and former colonies of Western European countries.101 Eastern Europe was thus defined by Western Europe as its European internal Other, but compared to other regions in the world, Eastern Europe was characterized as an in-between zone between the Barbaric of the oriental East and the civilization of Western Europe.
A concept that even more strongly expressed the image of an in-between zone within a European context is the concept of Central Europe. The concept of Central Europe first became prominent in 18th century travel literature and “the idea of Central Europe emerged from a [...] subjective experience of gradual transitions, moving from west to east or from east to west.”102
Thus, travelers did not feel the transition from East to West as an abrupt change, but as a gradual one which was embodied in the concept of Central Europe which travel writers developed to describe this feeling of transition.103
Central Europe was thus identified by traveling experience and literature as a separate area between East and West, and therefore the idea is also referred to as the myth of
99
Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 9. 100 Ibid., 13.
101 David Chioni Moore, “Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global
Postcolonial Critique”, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, nr. 1 (1 januari 2001): 122.
