Doubles and Doppelgangers

" Zelig " - By Woody Allen

In respect to the Zelig the Woody Allen film, the product itself is an imitation. The fact that Zelig is a 'mockumentary' so to speak ( a fictionalized movie in the form of a documentary) is in itself copying. I enjoyed the movie tremendously. There was a very creative element to the film. In that sense it was poignantly original. The element of transformation to invariably 'fit in', as Zelig does, and does so well is shown and scrutinized by Allen as something that is innately human. When we are in groups we try to fit in. The character of the doctor shows how there is a disorder in the way that this idea has turned Zelig into a chameleon. Ironically, Zelig who tries to blend in with everyone else, is actually very different. He is alone because he does not have an identity. The idea of a human chameleon intrigues people, but in it has a circus-like spectacle air to it; Just as we adore celebrities today (and even in the 30's the time of Zelig) Zelig is has the adoration of everyone because he is different. This juxtaposition of difference and sameness in the idea of transformation shows not only the positive elements of transforming, but the negative elements as well. As we see when the doctor cracks Zelig by mirroring his actions (showing himself to himself so to speak), Zelig transforms into a person becoming of identity. It is when his celebrity status as the human chameleon catches up to him and he has an abundance of lawsuits thrown at him that he changes back into his original state. Allen shows us here that like animals who use blending in as a means of survival, so to do we. Zelig blends in not only to feel like he's a part of something, but also as a survival tool, to avoid being imprisoned.

Warner "Doubling" from Metamorphosis and Other Worlds

I thought this was a fantastic article about the history and mythology of the doppelganger portrayed through western culture. The idea of the inner eye intrigued me. Everyone sees an image or shadow of oneself, a sort of likeness. It really does make sense. It reappears regularly in our literature and in our art. There are so many examples throghout the ages from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Peter Pan to Fight Club. The inner eye seems to be a Freudian world though, one of the superego, one seen in fantasy in dreams. It is interesting how it surfaces. For the sake of argument, how does it surface? How is one even able to conceive of an idea if it belongs only in the back of our minds. How does it reflect on our conscious mind?

Another element of the article I enjoyed was the part about James Hogg's novel the "The Private Memoirs" where the main character ponders whether he "had a second self, who transacted business in (his) likeness, or else (his) body was at times possessed by a spirit over which it had no control". And he asks how would that be possible to be "in a state of consciousness and unconsciousness, at the same time" (181). It would seem impossible, and yet it is still explored. We see the same idea in Fight Club where the main character (the narrator) paradoxically has a doppelganger (Tyler Durdin) that is in actuality his (the narrator's) unconscious-self that operates in his body when his conscious body is asleep.