Screaming Match

It is a dark, foggy night. Three huddled figures tip-toe forward with great trepidation – they must not be heard. Suddenly and without warning, Jerry is savagely pulled from the group and into the pitch-black night. The last thing they hear of him is an eerie scream…

No, wait. Re-wind. Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck are shooting a feature length film. In one of their wilder scenes, Elmer Fudd chases the two stars through an art gallery in Paris. As the duck and rabbit dash in and out of famous paintings they enter one without looking where they are going, and crash like dominoes into a wailing figure with an avocado-shaped skull. He lets out an eerie scream…

For 67 years, the cinematic universe has enjoyed the novelty of what is known as The Wilhelm Scream. The Scream by Edvard Munch has been around for considerably longer – 125 years to be exact – but there is no denying that both screams have evolved from their remarkable beginnings into cultural phenomena which play some kind of role in determining how we make meaning of our entertainment. These two pieces developed from their original form through mass reproduction and re-contextualization in various television shows and movies in popular culture. Although their roots are quite evident and uncontestable, I argue here that the sign and signifier have morphed and engulfed the copious copies, to the extent that it is nearly impossible to speak of each separately. Or rather, it is impossible to speak of the original without referencing a copy.

What was initially a replica of the original has become the only way through which the original can be verified. “The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models,” through which the real is slowly eroded from memory and replaced by the multitude of copies which manifest themselves in various contexts. Baudrillard’s idea of the “legitimate/good/beautiful” changes sides and transfers power from the sacred original to what, to some extent, can be called subconscious common knowledge. There are things that we simply know; which we do not know we know, until light is shed on that shadowy area in our brains. The power that these two art pieces holds is therefore a subconscious knowledge of themselves, which has been repeatedly planted into idle brains by repetitive contact. The knowledge of the original does not exist until the mind is made aware that there is indeed an original from which all these subconscious signposts originated.

The Wilhelm Scream developed from a mediocre sound-effect, to an inside joke, to one of the most commonly heard movie and television show sound effect since 1951. Even its origins are slightly muddy, and it is attributed to a collection of sound clips recorded for the film Distant Drums. Edvard Munch’s The Scream comes from much more auspicious origins, and is a collection of four pieces of art created between 1893 and 1910. The pieces have, like the Mona Lisa, been the victims of high-profile thefts and the subject of much philosophical and intellectual artistic discussion. Over the years however, the painting has been re-created by several human beings in possession of a computer and an internet connection. In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin explores the relationship between the authentic and the technical, citing that “The whole sphere of authenticity is outside technical – and, of course, not only technical – reproducibility.”

The “real” original can be disputed here as well, due to the fact that there are four pieces under the same name, and the lengthy amount of time it took to create said work. He does however, make a clear distinction between manual reproduction and mechanical reproduction, highlighting the loss of the authentic/real at the moment of its contact with the machine.

One can also argue that the original was destroyed as soon as Munch brushed over his first brushstroke. After all, wouldn’t it be possible that the original painting was housed in that single brush stroke, even if it did not denote an image yet? We could take it a step further, citing Baudrillard’s penchant for truth and claiming that the painting was only purely true as it existed in the artist’s mind. But that would bring us to the tree in the forest scenario. Nevertheless, there is no denying that The Wilhelm Scream and Munch’s The Scream are two works of art that have grown exponentially beyond their originals into a place where meaning is relative to an immediate context. Benjamin also writes extensively about the importance of context to authenticity in a work of art, stating that “This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.”

Before closing, I would like to briefly explore the possibility that some simulations are unable to grow beyond their originals and into the realm of the simulacrum. These originals are venerated, rather than replaced by their copied. Martin Luther King’s I Have A Dream speech can be found in countless examples of film and television, as well as in real life. I too am guilty of using those words to precede an inane desire. For example; “I have a dream, that one day Jerry will materialize.” With this example however, there are power structures in place which prevent the simulacrum from occurring. The original is preserved and strictly guarded by the laws of humanity, history, politics and socio-economic such that when an attempt is made to trivialize the legitimateness, goodness and beauty of it, the culprits are promptly shut down.

An example of crossing that line can be found in an episode of How I Met Your Mother

The show received some backlash from using the speech to cushion a much more trivial set of ideals. Perhaps this is an example that proves the importance of some originals over others. Or perhaps it is proof that mass reproduction is only permitted for originals whose gradual erosion will not pose a threat to the way meaning is made in our society. Or perhaps, it is already too late and there is nothing new under the sun.