The Kierkegaardian Existentialism of the 'Before' Trilogy - Part Three: Before Midnight

[@TheMikeyPat]

Thanks for helping me coalesce my reactions to and deepen my understanding of and appreciation for Before Midnight, as well as the whole trilogy.

[@ZacharyXavier]

Thank you Mike for all your kind comments!

[@chrisxavier2609]

Another fabulous analysis of the trilogy, Zach. Looking forward to your next video.

[@rimadichman7215]

I was looking forward to ths, thank you! I love both Kierkegaard and this trilogy very much.

[@ZacharyXavier]

Thank you, Rima!

[@nicuhosu]

Quite excellent! One thing that I do not understand is why only Celine here is being treated as someone who struggles with the ethical sphere. Jessie might be a step behind, but I feel like his urge to live close to his son in Chicago, however selfish, is a desire to fulfill his ethical duty as father. This arises in contrast to the abandonment of his wife and child at the end of the previous film where he was firmly rooted in the aesthetic. In this sense, Jessie's regret of having abandoned his son and his current commitment to Celine and their daughters creates an interesting conflict between his past aesthetic self and his current self, which tends towards the ethical, but is fractured by the irreconcilability of the present and past decisions. Likewise, Celine's cynicism is often self-defeating in this movie. She insists from the first moment that Jessie expresses the need to spend more time with his son that their relationship will now unravel. In this way, she sets the tone for what is to come. She makes some good feminist points about the way in which they divide house work and care for the girls, but does so in a way that makes me believe she is not only aware of her (ethical) duties, but secretly also wishes she had more time for aesthetic pleasures. She accuses Jessie of infidelity (something he ends up not denying) in order to show his inability to form an (ethical) commitment, while having possibly cheated herself. In particular, the revaluations of infidelity showcase how both characters struggle with leaving the aesthetic sphere behind. So, I really love these three analyses and I fully agree that Celine is always one step ahead, but this last film in particular showcases a conflict between the ethical and aesthetic not only between the two characters but also within them. Jessie selfishly promotes his cause for moving while Celine also selfishly defends the life she has built in Paris. We are pushed into the direction of agreeing with Celine somewhat because 1) she already moved to NY/London (can't remember) for Jessie's sake in the near past once and because 2) Jessie seems to "deserve" to suffer based on his past poor judgement (ie marrying someone too early and then abandoning his family for Celine).

[@ZacharyXavier]

Hi Sebastian, Thanks for your thoughtful comment; you raise some interesting points. Overall, I agree that Before Midnight brings out the struggle between the aesthetic and ethical between them as well as within each character. I do open the video stating that “the film reveals the existential stagnation that extends from the disharmony between their ethical responsibilities and aesthetic desires”, and elaborate a little later by saying, “Jesse and Céline constantly negotiate their ethical responsibilities from within the ambiguous sphere of aesthetic-irony that they collectively inhabit.” However, I think the source of the conflict is different for each because of their differing existential states. I agree Céline does seem to harbour the desire to pursue aesthetic experiences, and resents that Jesse is able to do so more freely. Yet, she is able to set those desires aside to fulfil her ethical commitments. I do mention her resentment of Jesse in the video, but I’ll clarify my take on the existence of her aesthetic desires: I view this conflict in Céline as an illustration of how the aesthetic can be preserved within the ethical, a phenomenon I mention in the video. Although, balancing these two impulses is clearly something Céline is struggling with, and is generally something easier said than done. Regarding Jesse, I don’t consider his impulse to move back to his son as a genuine indication of the ethical, or that he has moved closer to the ethical in comparison to Before Sunset. I still think he is living firmly in the aesthetic realm. Although, I’m sure he does genuinely care for his son, and want to be with him. I don’t think it implausible for an aesthete, especially a reflective one, to feel this way: they are natural human responses to one’s child after all. In Before Sunset, he spoke of his son in a similarly affectionate way and expressed that he would do anything for him. Alas, actions speak louder than words. Jesse's regret over the situation with his son somewhat reminds me of the final scene of ‘Letter from an Unknown Woman’ wherein Stefan, a quintessential aesthete much like Johannes of The Seducer’s Diary, finally realises the consequences of his philandering and expresses sincere remorse over the death of his son (who he had never met) and Lisa (who he forgot he had met). My point here is that aesthetes are capable of recognising that they have responsibilities, and can care for their children, but their mode of living doesn’t honour them. Jesse’s sentimentality over his son is very much rooted in an aesthetic vision of parenthood rather than an ethical one. There are several indications of this in the film. 1) It is established from the outset that Henry seems to manage just fine without his father’s presence. Like Céline, Henry recognises the difficulty of the situation. He clearly expresses that Jesse’s presence would exacerbate the tension with his mother, and resists his father’s proposal to visit during his recital for this very reason. Despite this, Jesse still entertains the fanciful idea of moving back to Chicago, which seems to extend from his own sentimental desires that are conjured every time he sees Henry, rather than what is best for Henry. My point here is that he is acting to satisfy his own relatively temporary emotions and desires, which is characteristic of an aesthetic mode of life rather than an ethical one. The latter would prioritise what is best for his son regardless of what Jesse desires. 2) Céline later corroborates this emotional fickleness of Jesse: “You always get like this when you drop him off. Your sad so you start a fight. He’s fine; he’s a great kid…” From this, I gather that Jesse’s sentimentality is an bi-annual response that is triggered primarily when he sees his son in person each summer and winter, rather than throughout the remainder of the year spent apart. If Jesse’s desire to be with Henry had a more ethical grounding, I would imagine his need to be with him would be more consistent. In fact, it seems that these emotions are brought up through his aesthetic reflection on their time spent together, which are then used to fuel his relocation fantasies. 3) Throughout the film, the ways Jesse wants to show up for his son are almost entirely aesthetic: he wants to watch his recital, he wants to teach him how to throw a ball (I know he uses this as a metaphor for parenthood, but that he thinks of parenthood in this way is rather telling), he expects Henry to appreciate his writing in the letters he sends him. 4) The final reason is that it is suggested that Jesse is starting to get complacent with life in Paris, and that he perhaps resented moving there to begin with. This restlessness is also characteristic of the aesthetic. In this vein, the move back to Chicago would temporarily satisfy this desire for change. This response is getting long so I’ll wrap it up here. To summarise, I don’t see any significant change in Jesse’s attitude towards his ethical responsibilities in Before Midnight. They existed in Before Sunset when, as you mentioned, he was firmly an aesthete. They still exist in Before Midnight, and his attitude towards them hasn’t changed. The ethical sphere is where one fulfils one’s duty, whereas the aesthetic sphere is when one satisfies one’s desires. This is the telling difference between the two. Jesse’s urge to move back to Chicago is rooted in his own desire to be with Henry, just as he was driven by desire to be with Céline in Before Sunset. I mean desire here in a general sense, as a yearning for something that is perceived to be lacking. There is the temptation to think that a father-son relationship would necessarily be the domain of the ethical, but it is entirely possible for a parental relationship to play out within the aesthetic. If Jesse were driven by ethical duty he would accept the situation for what it is and realise, as Céline and Henry have, that the best way for him to fulfil his duty as a father at this stage is to make the best of the arrangement they have now.

[@nicuhosu]

@@ZacharyXavier I enjoyed your long reply! You write very well and it is easy to follow. The detailed examples you bring up from bofe Sunset and Midnight do strengthen your point. As do the examples from Kierkegaard. Thanks for that! I was also wondering about the significance of the book Jessie is writing in Midnight. He admits it's pretentious, but in this stage of life where Celine no longer provides him with inspiration (perhaps since a fulfilled desire is much less potent for an aesthete than an unfulfilled one), he seems to be more interested in abstractly looking at the world from different perspectives. Again I interpreted this as a step towards a less self-centered way of life. But given what you say here, it may as well be an aesthetic escape from the mondane existance where Celine just stuffs tomatoes. Poor Celine. I also wonder then what the other couples at the retreat represent then. They all, even though at radically different stages in life, seem to be aesthetes. But perhaps such a close reading of that part of the movie is not warranted. What truly worries me about all this is Celine's resentment. I have witnessed this in life, personally, many times, that when a person who considers themselves "dutiful" comes on contact with others who like to enjoy themselves a bit more, they often have a moralistic attitude where their "sacrifices" are imbued with meaning by looking down on aesthetes. I am not familiar enough with Kierkegaard's work to know whether there is a way to transcend this envy/resentment/feeling of superiority. When I think of "La Grande Belezza" it's one of those movies that glorifies the reflective aesthete and unmask the hypocracy of those who pretend to stand for higher values. Yet the movie still ends on a very explicit spiritual note. De Beauvoir in "Ethics of Ambiguity" also sees moral development to go through stages, but also emphasises how one tfuly progresses only when there is no more resentment for the inferior stages. Anyway, sorry for name-dropping and jumping to other works, I was just typing out my stream of thought.

[@mialouise2034]

Wow Zach, another amazing video, very glad to work with you!

[@tobyhallitt7923]

This was an amazing analysis thank you. I have a question - how does the aesthetic personality (i.e. Jesse) go about adopting an ethical personality? Should they even do so, or would that result in resentment so instead they should go about life embracing that aesthetic immediacy without the pressures of familial life?

[@DeepScreenAnalysis]

I feel like Jesse is a narcissist and Celine is a realist who outgrows her infatuation with him once they actually live together.