Harold and Maude, towards an Aesthetic Hedonism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like the comparison between Maude, in the way she lives her life and presents herself to others, and the kind of hopes for the future that Nietzsche had, alongside his often dismal diagnosis of life in the Europe, and especially Germany, of his time.

I'd like to see the article developed a bit further, however. At this stage, I don't feel that its comparison between Maude's approach to life and Nietzsche's idea of what a "free spirit" might be like is adequately argued and documented. I'm also not sure that the idea of a "free spirit" in Nietzsche's work can really be equated so straightforwardly with the Übermensch, which seems to me to be a different concept. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I'd at least like to see more in order to be persuaded.

In passing, should we really be contrasting Nietzsche's view of life with a "transcendental" view? There is, on my understanding, a difference between ideas and phenomena associated with "the transcendental" and the idea of  "the transcendent" - and it is more the latter that Nietzsche is offering an alternative to. This is a large issue in trying to sum up Nietzsche, and I am expressing this concern only in a tentative way. However, the current talk about the transcendental - rather than of, say, Nietzsche's rejection of a transcendent dimension or "real world"  within or behind or beyond the empirical or sensory life that we experience - doesn't quite ring true for me, and I'd like the author to think about this some more and perhaps nail it down more carefully.

It seems odd that there is no discussion of Nietzsche's own attitude to death, and specifically to suicide. The obvious place to go for this, in the first instance, would be Twilight of the Idols, which is not discussed or cited. (In fact, Twilight of the Idols is where Niezsche expresses a variety of his views most clearly, and the author might benefit from returning to it). All in all, I feel a certain scholarly "thinness" to the discussion of Nietzsche, and thus the comparisons with the film. The fact that the article currently leans heavily on scholarly introductions to Nietzsche editions is a bit of an alarm bell for me in that respect. 

I also feel that the discussion of the movie itself is a bit thin, with, at one point, one long paragraph describing its action and dialogue, with various citations simply to the movie. I don't think the movie itself (as opposed, perhaps, to a published script or previous scholarship) needs to be cited for each statement in this way. It's obvious what film is being described and discussed, and perhaps the issue could be handled with a note to the effect that "All quoted dialogue is from ..."

At the same time, the treatment of the film's themes and dramatic intentions is a bit superficial. For example, there is mention of the fact that Maude is a Holocaust survivor, but nothing is made of this. Perhaps the significance of it for her character is cryptic or ambiguous, and it might be debated in existing commentaries on the movie, but surely something more should be said. It hints at a somewhat mysterious past containing horror and tragedy, so we can't simply say that she has had a full life. Her attitude now must relate somehow to what she's seen and experienced when she was younger (she's approaching 80 in the movie, which seems to be set at about the time of its release in the early 1970s, and in fact the story ends on her 80th birthday, so, for whatever it's worth, she would have a mature woman in early middle age during the Holocaust).

This is only an example. It feels to me as if this is not a very deep or sensitive, or even analytical, "reading" of the film. That's not to say there's anything terribly wrong with it. I just think that the article was submitted at a point when it could have benefited from some further immersion in the film and reflection on its impact and dramatic intentions.

None of this is meant to be damning. I think this article has potential and probably needs only minor revisions. Nonetheless, I'd like to see the author come back with a new version after some further thought in light of the above.

Finally, as a disclaimer, I'll have to take the author's word for what is said about Meillassoux, whose work I'm not familiar with. I hope that another reviewer will be more qualified to address that. As far as I can see, what is written about Meillassoux is plausible, but it will need to be integrated with a slightly more textured discussion of Nietzsche and the film.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful recommendations. I used the revision feature of word. I believe I have made changes towards your recommendation. Nietzsche’s complaint is not against the transcendental per-se, but oppressive morality and being towards death. Discussions about Nietzsche’s attitude towards death and voluntary death from Zarathustra are included. More about the movie plot, etc. have been added. Maude’s past is quite murky, but what I do explore more of is her attitude towards the past. I have also expanded discussion comparing Nietzsche’s aesthetic atheism with Maude’s aesthetic hedonism. Finally I have improved the section on divinology with a more in-depth discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author makes and interesting, funny and creative theoretical exercise. I really enjoy it. Congratulations.

But, despite of, I think the paper must be improved in two basic ways for becoming a real contribution for scholarship.

1. Despite the author adds references to some scholars (Meillassoux, mainly) for analysing the concept of aesthetic hedonism, his main source is the character of Maude in the film Harold and Maude. This question makes that the theoretical consistence of the analysys is too weak. I suggest the author for developing theoretically and philosophycally this interesting concept of aesthetic hedonism, analysing their limits, features, and so on. He can depart from the character of Maude in the film, but the philosophical work of constructing the concept of aesthetic hedonism must be made by the author. This is their contribution.
2. I suggest the author analyzes the aesthetic hedonism, their representations, not only through literature or cinema, but in broadly social life. This aspect is less important than the previous, but it would help to improve the text.

Author Response

        Thank you for your thoughtful recommendations. I used the revision feature of word. Many changes have been made to respond to another reviewer. In response to your recommendations I have expanded discussion comparing Nietzsche’s aesthetic atheism with Maude’s aesthetic hedonism, including more about the social context. Finally I have improved the section on divinology with a more in-depth discussion.