Abstract

This essay explores the ability of carnivalesque rhetorical strategies to challenge hegemonic
social hierarchies and the social order in general. Working through grotesque realism, the
inversion of hierarchies, structural and grammatical experimentation and other tropes, the
carnivalesque encourages audiences to achieve a critical distance through laughter and realize the
constructed nature of the social world. In analyzing The Big Lebowski as a carnivalesque text, the
film’s critical stance becomes clear—it proposes an alternative worldview contrary to that which
dominated the political and social landscapes of the United States at the time of the first Gulf
War in 1991. The film encourages receptive audiences to question both the nature and the values
of that social world, as well as their place in it. A “person’s place” is thus revealed to be more of
a malleable choice than a concrete dictate. However, because carnivalesque texts challenge the
status quo (and are often offensive to dominant tastes and values), they tend to meet with
denigration and derision. Such was the case with The Big Lebowski. By employing a
carnivalesque lens and working against the grain of mainstream value systems, cultural critics
can help to rescue such texts from pop culture oblivion (as Lebowski was by its cult-like
following) and highlight their potential to help us realize more humane, more egalitarian, and
more pacific ways of being and interacting in our communities.

“The Man for His Time”

The Big Lebowski as Carnivalesque Social Critique

When The Big Lebowski was released in 1998, it was paradoxically derided by critics for
being both ostentatious and vapid. Nine years later, for at least one critic, it has become the cult
film of our times (Palopoli, 2002). This claim is validated by the abundance of “Lebowskifests,”
conventions where hundreds of fans come together to watch the film, bowl (this being the central
motif of the film), and compete in costume and trivia contests (Buchanan, 2004; “Lebowskifest,”
n.d.; Parks, 2004). The movie has attracted a broad following, from U.S. Marines to Wall Street
moguls (Palopoli). Such steadily increasing popularity for a film originally regarded as a
cinematic failure is intriguing.

When The Big Lebowski (TBL) entered theaters in the late 1990s, the United States was
enjoying a period of economic and social prosperity (Easterbrook, 1999). Consequently, most
Americans were not receptive to social critiques that TBL had to offer. However, in the
intervening years, the cultural landscape has shifted in several important areas. With a flagging
economy, an extended and bloody war with Iraq, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, the
United States has increasingly become a place where the mainstream media tends to legitimate
only official points of view and political dissent is unpopular. The latter tends to be “swallowed
by the big official spin” (Griffen, 2002, p. 279), creating a void in popular critical discourse.
With this void begging to be filled by those left voiceless and powerless, The Big Lebowski has
become even more relevant today. TBL provides a critique of the dominant culture not only in
the content of the film, but through the very cinematic and narrative techniques critics lambasted
upon its release, all three of which are carnivalesque in nature. As described by Mikhail Bakhtin
(1963/1984; 1965/1984), carnival “is the place for working out, in a concretely sensuous, half-
real and half-play-acted form, a new mode of interrelating between individuals, counter-posed to
the all-powerful socio-hierarchical relationships of non-carnival life” (Bakhtin, 1963/1984, p.
123, emphasis in original).

Carnival, then, is used as a vehicle of social critique. While scholars within the fields of
linguistics, literary criticism, and communication in general have been intrigued by Bakhtin’s
work since it was first translated into English in 1984, it is only recently that communication
scholars have begun to look closely at Bakhtin’s analysis of carnivalesque rhetoric (Harold,
2004; Bruner, 2005). While this work focuses on the efficacy of carnivalesque tactics in
generating social and political change, this article speaks to carnival’s ability to inspire such
agency—encouraging audience members to recognize the constructed and thus changeable
nature of society. Understanding the architecture of carnivalesque media forms and the
implications they have for communication is also valuable because such critiques are particularly
well suited to social environments where the dominant ideology functions to silence dissent.
In this essay, we demonstrate the ways in which TBL employs carnivalesque rhetorical
strategies within such a discursively restricted setting in an effort to encourage audiences to see
that the social world is not a predetermined and “natural” reality, but one that is shaped by
powerful groups. Such a change in perspective is significant for it can embolden those who make
this shift to realize that they can have agency working to re-form the social fabric. We begin by
providing a brief synopsis of the film, then go on to describe the carnivalesque and delineate the
debate concerning its capacity to encourage social change, after which we offer a detailed
analysis of the film’s most salient carnivalesque qualities. Finally, we make the argument that
rather than dismissing carnival as just another form of parody characterized by innocuous,
prescriptive, and negative critique (Eco, 1984; Sobchack, 1996; Frank, 1998; Harold, 2004),
carnival’s particularly ambivalent form of parody serves to reveal that established social
structures are constructions that are open to debate, competition, and revision.

The Big Lebowski

Loosely based on several films and corresponding techniques from the film noir and
detective story genres (Robertson, 1998), TBL is a Los Angeles crime story at heart. The main
character, Jeff Lebowski (known as “Dude”), is involved in a case of mistaken identity. Dude’s
rug is urinated upon by thugs seeking to harm another Jeff Lebowski (known as “Mr.
Lebowski”), a wheelchair bound millionaire whose “trophy wife” (Coen & Coen, 1998, 50:35),
Bunny, has accrued a massive debt with a prominent producer of pornographic films. Dude seeks
recompense for his soiled rug and becomes embroiled in a kidnapping plot full of double crosses.
In the process of trying to save Bunny from her kidnappers, Dude meets Mr. Lebowski’s
daughter Maude, a feminist avant-garde artist, who helps him unravel the crime. In the end,
Dude exposes Mr. Lebowski as a devious and heartless fraud and makes time to conceive a child
with Maude before happily returning to his simple life.

Due to the wandering structure of the narrative, TBL appears incoherent. Yet when
viewed with less concern for narrative conventions, the film dissects mainstream American
values and more specifically Americans’ diverse approaches to conflict resolution. The
carnivalesque tropes in the film focus in part on United States’ foreign policy under Presidents
Reagan and Bush. In the film’s first lines of dialogue, the narrator establishes the setting of the
first Gulf War for the audience and then introduces the protagonist of the film, Dude, as “the
man for his time and place” (2:10). The narrator’s monologue is interrupted shortly thereafter by
then President (George Herbert Walker) Bush whom Dude sees speaking to reporters on
television, telling them “this will not stand, this aggression, against, uh, Kuwait” (3:05;
Friedman, 1990, p. A1). Shortly after this introduction, the viewer meets Mr. Lebowski, a man
who happily employs violence to satisfy his desires, and who not coincidentally bears a striking
resemblance to then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The film includes other direct and
indirect references to the Gulf War and makes various critiques regarding the use of violence to
resolve conflict. Characters such as Mr. Lebowski, the kidnappers, and Dude’s friend Walter rely
on violence to satisfy their desires. In contrast, Dude, the protagonist and the touted “man” of the
film, is a pacifist, something Walter sees as a psychological problem (19:01). Through both
subtle and explicit commentary, TBL challenges the values and the dominant national policies of
1991 America and celebrates the qualities of the common, if pacificistic, citizen.
1
The Carnivalesque and Social Transformation
Carnival is marked by the reversal of hierarchies, the abandoning of convention, and,
most importantly, by what Bakhtin describes as grotesque realism wherein all that is high is
brought down to earth (1965/1984). Within a rhetorical artifact, the symbolic inversion typical of
carnivalesque humor helps liberate audiences from social norms (Stallybrass & White,
1986/1997) and encourages them to reflect on and ultimately reject their fears of power, law, and
the sacred (Bakhtin, 1965/1984; Boje, Luhman, & Cunliffe, 2003). Yet the carnivalesque is not
negative, rather it is ambivalent as it “contests and tests all aspects of society” (LaCapra,
1983/1999) and produces a regenerative, affirmative, healing, and politically progressive
laughter (Booth, 1982/1986). Through carnival, audiences can be freed “from conventions and
established truths, from clichés, from all that is humdrum and universally accepted” (Bakhtin,
1965/1984, p. 34). Carnivalesque texts thus provide a “route to knowledge” (Emerson, 2002, p.
6), not simply a negation of the status quo.

Caryl Emerson (2002) writes that “carnival-type laughter dissipates fear, encourages free
inquiry…. [and] is in fact a rebuttal of power based etiologies” (pp. 6-7). This ambivalent
laughter to which Emerson refers is rooted in parody, “the privileged mode of artistic
carnivalization” (Stam, 1989, p. 173). Booker argues that pushing stereotypes to their “extreme
in spectacle” (1991, p. 226) helps to destabilize them. Carnival also serves as “a theatrics of rant
and madness seeking to repair felt separation and alienation… a release from corporate power”
(Boje, 2003, p. 8). Booth (1986) suggests that the carnivalesque has the potential to regenerate,
affirm, and heal individuals within their communities. One of the few communication scholars to
study carnival, Bruner (2005) recognizes that carnival allows “subjects to enter a liminal realm
of freedom and… create a space for critique that would otherwise not be possible in ‘normal’
society” (p. 140).
2
Other scholars see carnivalesque tropes as working to question and thus alter the
established meanings of signs within given social structures. Kristeva (1969/1980) finds the
actual discourse within carnival to be structurally reformative, arguing that it “breaks through the
laws of a language censored by grammar and semantics” (p. 65). Gardiner (1992/1999) also
argues that carnival can be effective in generating semiotic disruption, suggesting that its
capacity for “the ‘making strange’ of hegemonic genres, ideologies, and symbols” (p. 261)
reveals new perspectives to its participants. Gardiner’s reference to the strange-making qualities
of carnival highlights its similarities with other rhetorical strategies, namely Brecht’s
Verfremdungseffekt, or alienation effect (1957/1964), but also Burke’s perspective by
incongruity (1954), Moylan’s critical utopia (1986), and Nietzsche’s stance regarding Dionysian
festivity (Stam, 1989).

The reception of carnivalesque strategies has not always been positive or without
qualification. The humorous and crass tropes of carnival have been largely denigrated by
scholars from the Middle Ages to the present day (Bakhtin, 1965/1984; Stam, 1989). Morson and
Emerson (1992) argue that while Bakhtin’s carnival can be advantageous to the oppressed, they
suggest that without a positive and directed liberating force, carnival can simply be a celebration
of nihilism. For Harold (2004), the parody of carnival serves only to present a different social
binary and thus provides no meaningful avenue for social transformation. While Ladurie
disagrees, finding that “a binary system does not always apply” in carnival (1979, p. 314), he
nonetheless maintains that carnival offers only the possibility to move “society as a whole in the
direction of social change” (p. 316). He states, “anti-Semitic Carnivals (Montpellier, Rome) can
hardly be deemed progressive” (p. 316, emphasis in original). Stallybrass and White (1986/1997)
share this position, arguing that carnival effectively reinforces the social hierarchy, demonizes
the weaker members of society, while Russo (1995) adds that it can actually encourage brutal
violence against the powerless. La Capra goes further, arguing that Bakhtin fails to address
certain aspects of carnival, namely “victimization, repressive social control, and the
manifestation of ordinary social grievances or conflicts” (1983/1999, pp. 240-241). Still others
argue that carnival is an activity, licensed by the powerful, without any real ability to effect
change (Eco, 1984; Sobchack, 1996). Both Eco and Sobchack suggest that the carnivalized
content ubiquitous in mass media proves its innocuous nature.
3
Simply because a text employs a selection of carnivalesque tropes does not necessarily
qualify it as being carnivalesque. A closer assessment of such texts suggests that many of them
tend toward those carnivalesque tropes that provide shock and spectacle rather than employing
those devices, such as grotesque degradation or structural experimentation, that also encourage
social awareness and critical distance (Bakhtin, 1965/1984; Suarez, 1993; Stam, 1989). Bakhtin
observes that while grotesque laughter prevails throughout humorous texts from the Middle Ages
on, it devolved into mere “erotic frivolity” (p.103) and ephemeral “festive luxury” (p. 95) bereft
of the inversions and degradations it once had. This trend has continued through today in texts
that otherwise borrow heavily from carnival’s traditions (Stam). Without the critical elements,
such texts are greatly hampered in their ability to carry carnival’s central purpose. Rather than
seeking to direct the perspective of audiences to question the social structure, these ersatz and
pseudo-carnivalesque forms deliver only diversionary entertainment and “distorted versions of
carnival’s utopian promise” (Stam, p. 226). The popular program Jackass, aired on MTV,
depends entirely on the disgusting and the absurd for its content
4
and seems geared to do nothing more than draw the eyeballs of a coveted marketing demographic to advertisers. This and other spectacular texts should not be confused with those that are true to the carnivalesque spirit.Moreover, carnival does not operate through negation, but ambiguity. The hierarchical
inversion of carnival, itself only one of its defining elements, does not aim to supplant other
hierarchies with its own, as Harold (2004) contends in her discussion of pranking rhetoric.
Rather, in its parodic inversions, carnival reveals that the established social hierarchy, indeed all
of social reality, is a human construct. Viewed thus, pranking can be understood as being largely
carnivalesque in nature. Butler (1999) reinforces this position. Speaking to gender, she argues
that the proliferation of parody works to disrupt “naturalized or essentialist” (p. 120) claims and
binaries. Furthermore, throughout his argument Bakhtin asserts that carnivalesque humor is
ambivalent humor (1965/1984). The laughter it engenders “becomes the form of a free and
critical consciousness that mocks dogmatism and fanaticism” (Stam, 1989, p. 87), but does not
establish an alternate version of truth. Booker (1991) emphasizes this point, noting that the
ambivalent parody within carnival disrupts “the Aristotelian ‘either-or’ principle of
noncontradiction” (p. 236). Given this, we hold that carnival does not seek to reinforce binaries
and hierarchies, but interrogate them.

Whether a carnivalesque text communicates a progressive message to its audiences or
one that serves to reinforce existing power structures can also be explained by looking at the
decoding practices of audiences. According to Hall (1980/2006), the alternating celebration and
denigration of a text by audience members, including the divergent responses elicited by TBL,
can be credited to the various ways, from dominant to resistant, that individuals decode it.
5
Rather than seeing parodic inversions as challenging the norm, they may in fact see them as
reinforcing and promoting it. While we acknowledge the validity of such varied interpretations,
we argue that the overwhelming number and nature of the carnivalesque elements within TBL
merit its being identified as a progressive carnivalesque film.

Carnival in The Big Lebowski

Through an analysis of Bakhtin’s work, critics can identify a litany of qualities that
characterize the carnivalesque theoretical perspective. Working from Bakhtin’s Problems of
Dostoevsky's Poetics (1963/1984)
6
and Rabelais and His World (1965/1984), in addition to
Stam’s reading of the latter, we discern three tropes that are central to both the carnivalesque and
TBL: 1) grotesque realism, 2) inversion of hierarchies, and 3) structural and grammatical
experimentation. Of these elements, the first two are key to providing the socially critical
elements of carnival, while the third complements them by encouraging audiences to achieve a
critical distance from viewing the film as pure entertainment.

Grotesque Realism

Among all of the carnivalesque qualities outlined by Bakhtin and elaborated by Stam,
grotesque imagery is the most salient. TBL is rife with grotesque details in all of their
manifestations, each of which encourages viewers to remember the fact that all of them are earth
bound animals, linked to it and one another by those very vibrant, if “dirty,” biological processes
that this truth entails. In general, the grotesque is degradation, a “lowering of all that is high,
spiritual, ideal, abstract… to the material level, to the sphere of earth and body” (Bakhtin,
1965/1984, pp. 19-20). Specifically, grotesque imagery includes references to and examples of
“copulation, pregnancy, birth, growth, old age, disintegration, [and] dismemberment” (Bakhtin,
p. 25) as well as defecation, the use of billingsgate, or abusive language, and profanity. In the
West, after the Renaissance, the body was “isolated, alone, fenced off from all other bodies”
(Bakhtin, p. 29), and biological functions were viewed as dirty and base. Grotesque realism
strives to break these molds and promotes the idea that everyone’s body, not just those of the
privileged classes, is a deeply positive, even heavenly entity. As such, audiences exposed to the
grotesqueries in TBL are encouraged to see the imposed limitations and divisions of the
established order and can thus wonder about the possibility of existing within other modes of
social organization.

The Big Lebowski demonstrates a preoccupation with the “lower stratum of the body, the
life of the belly and the reproductive organs” (Bakhtin, 1965/1984, p. 20)—critical components
of the grotesque. When the Coen brothers introduce the viewer to a character named Jesus, he is
wearing skin-tight jeans with a clearly discernible bulge in his crotch, an effect intentionally
created by the filmmakers (Robertson, 1998). There are many other minor inclusions of
grotesque body imagery. In the aforementioned scene, Jesus encounters a man with a large
“beer-belly” with a thoroughly food-stained shirt draping over it. Throughout the film, the Coens
also include shots and angles that reveal Dude’s somewhat large gut and Walter’s greatly
distended stomach. In addition to these shots, the opening credits are full of images of heavy-set
bowlers. Though not dramatic as isolated instances, the preponderance of imagery focused on
excessive bodies throughout the film grounds audiences in an awareness of the biological body.
The film’s preoccupation with grotesque imagery continues with its focus on bodily
processes which provide often humorous stand-ins for death, fertility, and rebirth, concepts that
are central to carnival in that they encourage an awareness of the similarity among all human
beings. The plot’s central motif, for example, is a rug that is soiled with urine. Such “drenching
in urine [represents] the gay funeral of [the] old world” (Bakhtin, 1965/1984, p. 176) and
prepares the way for the birth of a new world and new perspectives, given audiences read it from
the “proper” position (Hall, 1980/2006). Other such references to bodily functions and their
related body parts occur throughout the film. For example, when Dude’s stolen car is recovered,
it smells like it was “used as a toilet” (56:15). For Bakhtin, the degradation of all that is high to
the earthly plane is captured in such “acts of defecation” and concerns with “the lower stratum of
the body” (1965/1984, p. 20).

In addition to a focus on the body itself, TBL is rife with visual and narrative references
to dismembered body parts, another common trope of the grotesque. For example, Mr. Lebowski
informs Dude that he lost the use of his legs during the Korean war; the kidnappers try to coerce
Mr. Lebowski by sending him what appears to be Bunny’s toe; and Walter bites off one of the
kidnappers’ ears and spits it into the sky as the camera follows the ear’s arc in slow motion.
While none of these three dismemberments necessarily moves the plot forward, they do situate
the film within the carnivalesque. The trope is employed most effectively, however, through
Maude, who has adorned her studio with art pieces composed from a variety of mannequin body
parts. Most of her sculptures are of bare women’s torsos, one of which is a pregnant mannequin
whose hinged belly opens to reveal the head of another mannequin. With these details, the film
combines several grotesque tropes: the naked body, the dismembered body, and the pregnant
body. By situating this and the other art pieces in the art studio of a feminist, the film parodies
the hegemonic codes that dictate women’s roles in traditional United States society and, in turn,
may encourage viewers to question these roles. This challenge to women’s alienation from their
bodies is echoed for men in that the threat to cut off Dude’s penis is a recurring motif. All of the
references to the body and its parts seek to establish that the world within the film is a space
outside of the norm, a deviant space that challenges the status quo. Orchestrated with countless
other challenges throughout the film, these dismemberments serve to refract the world through a
lens that encourages the audience members’ critical engagement with it. However, should some
audiences embrace established social norms to the point where they find such degradations
offensive or inappropriate, it is unlikely that they will be able to find humor in them or be
compelled to take a critical and potentially challenging perspective on their own social reality.
Grotesque realism is evident within the dialogue as well, marked as it is by an
overwhelming preponderance of sexual verbiage, both implied and explicit.

7
Many of the interactions between characters are intensely sexualized, especially during initial encounters.
By doing so, the film may promote audiences to look differently at the nature of human interaction
and human relationships. When Dude first meets Mrs. Bunny Lebowski, she coquettishly asks
him to blow on her freshly painted toenails, simpering “I can’t blow that far” (15:45). Abruptly,
she adopts a husky, business-like tone, and tells him, “I’ll suck your cock for a thousand dollars”
(15:59). Positioned as a “trophy wife” here and throughout the film, she would seem relatively
powerless. Yet through her sexual advances and blatantly open speech, she subverts the
expectations one might have of a woman in her position, especially as constructed in mainstream
American cinema and television. As Stam argues, carnival “promotes the subversive use of
language by those who otherwise lack social power” (1989, p. 18). The subversive use of
language can also be seen in the conversations between Maude and Dude. In their first meeting,
Maude opens with a comment about her art, telling Dude, “my art has been commended as being
strongly vaginal” (43:49). In this and the rest of her conversations with Dude she also employs
various euphemisms for male and female genitalia. This is a prime example of “the linguistic
corollary of carnivalization [for the scene] entails the liberation of language from the norms of
good sense and etiquette” (Stam, 1989, p. 99). Grotesque language, as all grotesque devices,
seeks to encourage audiences to be mindful of their physicality, inviting them to revel in the
body and its processes in the hope of inspiring an interrogation into the conservative and
hierarchical constraints society imposes upon and between them.

Inversion of Hierarchies

The inversion of the hierarchical structuring of society represents another focused
rejection of social standards. Similar to the grotesque, which brings the cosmos down to the
earthly plane, the inversion of hierarchies within carnival results in the dethroning of rulers while
the lowly take their places. Through carnival, a suspension of all “hierarchical structure… and
everything resulting from sociohierarchical inequality” occurs (Bakhtin, pp. 122-123). This
suspension and inversion highlights the existence of often accepted if not invisible social
hierarchies, thus encouraging a rethinking of such a system of values and potentially opening the
way for social structures that are less elitist and more popular in scope. From the beginning of
the film to its end, TBL celebrates many such crownings and uncrownings.

In the opening sequence of the film, Dude is hailed as the man for his time and place.
One might therefore expect Dude to look the part of the typical Hollywood studio hero. Standing
slightly hunched, wearing slippers, a bathrobe, a threadbare undershirt, and Bermuda shorts,
peering intently through his sunglasses at the dairy section in a grocery store, it is clear he is
quite the opposite. To punctuate the dissonance the protagonist embodies, the audience is told
that Dude may be the laziest human being on the planet. Thus, from the outset, the filmmakers
place a self-admitted “deadbeat” (1:38:08) in the role of hero, thereby inverting the standards of
the American, capitalist ideal of success by placing this “bum” at the top of the social ladder. Of
course, because TBL is a carnivalesque film, Dude is himself a target for degradation. When
Dude returns from his errand at the grocery store, thugs have broken into his apartment and
attack him, repeatedly dunking his head in the toilet and literally bringing his crown down to the
muck of the earth and into the realm of the grotesque. Such thronings and dethronings of fools
and kings is a common trope of carnivalized rhetoric (Bakhtin, 1965/1984; Stam, 1989; Suarez,
1993), and one with the potential to encourage a critique of established social structure.
Dude is not unaware of his important, if volatile status. He introduces himself to Mr.
Lebowski, apparently a very powerful and wealthy business man, as “the Dude, or His Dudeness
or… El Duderino” (13:00, emphasis added). As for Mr. Lebowski, his wealth and status are mere
illusion. As the film progresses, the viewer learns that Mr. Lebowski is a total failure in business
and actually subsists on an allowance from the trust of his deceased spouse. Thus the narrative of
the film literally reveals the “unvarnished truth under the veil of false claims and arbitrary ranks”
(Pomorska, 1984, p. x), enabling audiences to wonder, “which character really is the big
Lebowski?” The inversion of social hierarchies in TBL not only works to question the idea that
wealth goes to those who work hard or that success is only measured out in dollar signs; a major
component is that it can function to assuage fear of enemies, monsters, and the unknown.
As “the acute awareness of victory over fear is an essential element” of carnival (Bakhtin,
1965/1984, p. 91), in carnivalized media one can see the degradation of enemies of the people to
servile, ridiculous, and laughable positions (Gardiner, 1992/1999). Set in 1991, the film plays on
the tensions between Iraq and the United States that eventually led to war with Saddam Hussein.
In the film, when Dude’s second dream takes him to a bowling alley, Saddam is there working as
a bowling shoe attendant. He offers Dude a unique pair of silver and gold bowling shoes thereby
reinforcing Dude’s kingly position against Hussein’s own lowly status. By placing characters
into such grossly inverted roles, receptive audiences are enabled to see social reality as a
construct and are thus encouraged to question it (La Capra, 1983/1999; Rockler, 2002).
Structural and Grammatical Experimentation

In addition to content, narrative structure is also an effective vehicle for carnivalesque
influences. While the literary carnivalesque seeks to destabilize normative forms in its use of
language (Stam, 1989), cinematic carnivalesque devices strive to reveal the constructedness of
social norms by disrupting established cinematic styles. Applied to film structure, carnival can be
a particularly effective tool to resist hegemonic domination “because it deploys the force of
dominant discourse against itself” (Stam, p. 173). By breaking “through the laws of a language
censored by grammar and semantics… [carnivalesque discourse] is a social and political protest”
(Kristeva, 1969/1980, p. 65). Disrupting expectations and guidelines in the language of
film—through the application of “asymmetry, heterogeneity, [and] the oxymoron” (Stam, p. 94)
in its narrative, visual, and aural structure—establishes antigrammaticality in form that
encourage a critical distance from the content of the film and an awareness and curiosity
regarding the nature of its construction. The opening scene of TBL is an exceptional
demonstration of these techniques. The film begins with the sounds of a twangy, country music
guitar and the image of a tumbleweed blowing through the desert as a thickly drawled narrator
sets the stage. Suddenly, the tumbleweed crests a ridge and the audience realizes this desert is
actually just outside of the urbanized city of Los Angeles, California. The Stranger (as identified
in the credits) tells the audience the story is set here in 1991, and the incongruity of his voice to
this setting is compounded as the camera pursues the tumbleweed down the dark city streets of
nighttime L.A. to its final destination—the beaches of Malibu. In a manner similar to Burke’s
perspective by incongruity (1954), these disjointed and thus carnivalesque elements “jar viewers
out of their willing suspension of disbelief through the incongruous juxtaposition of the musical
soundtrack and the narrative action” (Vande Berg, 1989/1996, p. 252).

Similar incongruities can be observed through the role of the film’s narrator in that he
breaks with structural standards on at least three occasions. As he is concluding the opening
scene with a description of Dude and why he is “the man,” he loses his train of thought. Halfway
through the film and again at its conclusion, the Stranger physically enters the action—sitting at
the bowling alley bar, he talks with Dude and offers him some advice—a device reminiscent of
Bertolt Brecht (1957/1964). Subverting the familiar role of the narrator helps shift the viewer’s
attention away from the content to focus “our attention to our assumptions and expectations
about … film itself” (Nichols, 2001, p. 128). Indeed, carnival is “the ‘making strange’ of
hegemonic genres, ideologies, and symbols” (Gardiner, 1992/1999, p. 261). Forcing the
disruption of a viewer’s expectations thus enables viewers to break away from conventional
ways of perceiving a narrative, empowering them to “see fresh generic features and
expectations” (Vande Berg, 1989/1996, p. 239). If genre norms can be viewed as a form of
hegemony (Stam, 1989; Vande Berg), then such mixing can be seen as establishing a “critical
relation to the structures of discursive authority” (Stam, p. 105).

In addition to their haphazard combination of generic forms, the Coens’ narrative
structure is equally chaotic, a move that elicited derision in most early criticism of the film.
Critics compared the film’s structure to a “convoluted funhouse ride” (Glieberman, 1998, ¶ 1)
and its plot to a “rubberized freak at a circus sideshow” (“The Big Lebowski,” n.d.). While the
critics’ complaints that the Coens wallow in “meaningless diversion” (Shargel, 1998, ¶ 12) seek
to penalize it for going against standard Hollywood convention, they unwittingly highlight the
film’s carnivalesque qualities. The critics fail to recognize that the plot is intentionally confused.
Despite the film’s apparent narrative anarchy, the Coens are meticulous in how they plan their
films (Horowitz, 1991). One could argue that their disruption of this most fundamental and
hegemonic of narrative conventions is purposefully done to create an entirely new art form—a
notion supported by a semi-autobiographical character in another of their films who claims he
wants to create a “new cinema, of, for, and about the common man” (Coen & Coen, 1991, 6:30).
If this is indeed the case, such an endeavor seems geared to revolutionize how people perceive
their worlds. To quote Bakhtin, “a new type of communication always creates new forms of
speech or a new meaning given to the old forms” (1965/1984, p. 16).

Conclusions and Implications

In both form and content, TBL typifies carnival in that it encourages the viewer to see the
world through a different system of evaluation. From the disjointed opening scenes through its
anticlimactic dénouement, the film pushes viewers to be aware of the constructed nature of
society. The filmmakers constantly remind us that they have utter freedom in how they construct
the universe of their film and in doing so, demonstrate that a film need not be confined to generic
limitations to be successful. This parallels the story the filmmakers tell about Dude. He is a man
without a job, much less a career, and is even ignorant as to what day it is. In a lifestyle appalling
to button-down conservatives like Mr. Lebowski, Dude is at peace living by his own ethics in a
world that does its very best to make him conform. At the conclusion of the film, he has not
become wealthy, gained any social status, found true love, nor has he saved the day. Instead, as
he casually prepares for the upcoming bowling tournament, he tells us, “‘the Dude abides’”
(1:50:25). TBL thus encourages viewers to question the norms upon which we base our lives and
positions us to follow Dude’s lead.
Dedicated Lebowski fans have done just this, realizing the film’s carnivalesque qualities
within a festival of their own. Itself “a pageant without footlights” (Stam, 1989, p. 93),
Lebowskifest (www.lebowskifest.com) has become an annual event where the action takes place
on screen and off. Held in bowling alleys, bars, and conference halls, participants come dressed
in costume to exchange witty dialogue, discuss the film’s minutiae, and revel in debauchery with
Dude’s favorite drink. Reminiscent of the midnight costume parties held at showings of The
Rocky Horror Picture Show, the boundary between screen and seat, and even between
participants, is erased as everyone engages in the world of TBL. The film thus generates a
tripartite carnival through its content, structure, and audience participation. Unlike earlier
carnivals that may have had diminished social impact as they were sanctioned by the church,
state, or both (Eco, 1984; Averintsev, 1993/1999), a Lebowskifest can take place wherever and
whenever a group decides to host one. Moreover, this and other carnivalized texts can be viewed
by anyone, anywhere, at anytime without the license of the powerful, making them even more
effective tools for spurring the questioning of authority. Ultimately, how effective such media
are at challenging social norms is, of course, dependent on the audience and how receptive they
are to such carnivalizations (Hall, 1980/2006). In general, carnivalesque art forms can reveal to their
audiences that they have the libertyto choose the perspective through which they understand their own realities.

8
Audiences need not see the social world through a lens entrenched over time and propped up by an established power elite. Instead, they may recognize that the nature of social reality is malleable, as is their place within it. This, in turn, allows audience members to substitute alternative codes for those that
may have unconsciously dictated their actions and perspectives before.This study has enhanced the understanding of the potential for carnival to liberate people from the confines of rigid, hierarchical ideology and points to the ways in which a carnivalesque perspective enables scholars to evaluate rhetorical artifacts in new and enlightening waysHumorous, popular culture texts need not be dismissed as trivial. Instead, this research provides scholars with new tools to evaluate this and other popular texts as cultural critiques. In searching for other carnivalesque texts, scholars may identify those in which multiple carnivalesque tropes are at work, especially those texts in which hierarchical inversion and grotesque imagery play a significant role. Should patterns of cultural criticism be discerned, the text should be revisited in order to identify when and where carnivalesque devices occur. Scholars can then highlight the socially critical enthymemes woven within the carnivalesque layers. Still, more work needs to be done evaluating carnivalesque rhetoric and its impact in amedia saturated world. We wonder, is there a point at which there is too much carnival in media, so much so that audiences become inured to its ability to encourage critical distance? Or, instead of desensitizing viewers, is it possible that a flood of such strategies could actually revolutionize how we engage with media and encourage a relatively constant level of critical distance? Beyond these questions, another avenue of inquiry could explore whether audiences who are receptive to carnivalesque tropes are moved to act based on their new perspectives, and if so, whether these actions will in fact be progressive in scope. A related line of questioning would involve comparing the different impact carnivalesque media has on audiences against the effect of physically participating in a true carnival. While the latter is likely to be a more potent, the
opportunity for repeat exposures and the inherent liberties that media affords suggests the former
can have powerful effects as well.

The carnivalesque perspective offers a rich and liberating tool for the critical/cultural
scholar. It reveals, underneath the apparent nihilism of a carnivalesque text, clear social
criticism. One of carnival’s detractors, Umberto Eco (1979), argued “a democratic civilization
will save itself only if it makes the language of the image into a stimulus for critical reflection,
not an invitation to hypnosis” (p. 15). While some aspects of carnival can serve as a tool of
distraction, scholars must recognize that it can also be used as a tool to foment a critical
perspective as well. Within a mediascape well populated with the spectacular, there exist texts
that employ a range of carnivalesque devices with the hope of breaking viewers out of their
established ways of seeing the world, encouraging them to revel in something totally new to their
experience. To say that all carnivalesque texts are simply spectacles that seek to either lull us
into political apathy or give us another push toward reckless consumerism is to deny the long
tradition of carnival’s challenge against authority and to oversimplify its potential to encourage
social progress.

References

Averintsev, S. (1999). Bakhtin and the Russian attitude toward laughter (T. Cunningham,
Trans.). In C. Emerson (Ed.), Critical essays on Mikhail Bakhtin (pp. 278-282). New
York: G. K. Hall & Co. (Reprinted from Ot mifa k literature: Sbornik v chest’
semidesiatiletiia elizera moiseevicha meletinskogo, 341-345, 1993)
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1963)
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press. (Original work published 1965)
Boje, D. M., Luhman, J. T., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). A dialectic perspective on the organization
theater metaphor. American Communication Journal, 6(2). Retrieved November 23,
2004, from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol6/iss2/articles/boje.pdf
Booker, M. K. (1991). Techniques of subversion in modern literature: Transgression, abjection,
and the carnivalesque. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Booth, W. C. (1986). Freedom of interpretation: Bakhtin and the challenge of feminist criticism.
In G. S. Morson (Ed.), Bakhtin, essays and dialogues on his work (pp. 145-176).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brecht, B. (1964). Brecht on theatre: The development of an aesthetic (J. Willett, Ed. & Trans.).
New York: Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957)
Bruner, M. L. (2005). Carnivalesque protest and the humorless state. Text and Performance
Quarterly, 25 (2), 136-155.
Buchanan, W. (2004, September 27). Bowling, “The Dude” and 200 “achievers”: Showing of
cult film The Big Lebowski draws the faithful. San Francisco Chronicle, p. B1.
Burke, K. (1954). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
Coen, E. (Producer/Writer), & Coen, J. (Writer/Director). (1991). Barton Fink [Motion picture].
United States: Circle Films.
Coen, E. (Producer/Writer), & Coen, J. (Writer/Director). (1998). The Big Lebowski [Motion
picture]. United States: Universal Studios.
Eco, U. (1979) Can television teach? Screen Education, 31(12), 15-24.
Eco, U. (1984). The frames of comic “freedom.” In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.) & M. E. Erickson (Asst.),
Carnival! (pp. 1-10). New York: Mouton Publishers.
Easterbrook, G. (1999, January 4 & 11, 1999). America the O.K. New Republic, 221(1/2), 19-25.
Emerson, C. (2002). Coming to terms with Bakhtin's carnival: Ancient, modern, and specie
aeternitatis. In R. B. Branham (Ed.), Bakhtin and the classics (pp. 5-26). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Frank, T. (1998). Blasters of deceit. Artforum International, 37(1), 19-20.
Friedman, T. L. (1990, August 6). The Iraqi invasion: Bush, hinting force, declares Iraq assault
“will not stand;” proxy in Kuwait issues threat [Electronic version]. The New York Times
[Late Edition], p. A1.
Gardiner, M. (1999). Bakhtin's carnival: Utopia as critique. In C. Emerson (Ed.), Critical essays
on Mikhail Bakhtin (pp. 252-277). New York: G. K. Hall & Co. (Reprinted from Utopian
Studies, 3 [2], 21-49, 1992)
Griffen, B. (2002). “Our world will never be the same.” Let us hope so. Educational Studies,
33(3), 277-288.

Hall, S. (2006). Encoding/decoding. In M. G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and
cultural studies: Keyworks (Revised ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. (Reprinted from S.
Hall, D. Hobson, A. Love, & P. Willis [Eds.], Culture, media, language, pp. 128-138,
1980. London: Hutchinson.)
Harold, C. (2004). Pranking rhetoric: “Culture jamming” as media activism. Critical Studies in
Media Communication, 21(3), 189-211.
Horowitz, M. (1991). Coen brothers a-z: The big two-headed picture. Film Comment, 27(5), 27-
32.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue, and novel (T. Gora, A. Jardine & L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). In
L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), Desire in language: European perspectives (pp. 64-91). New York:
Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1969)
Ladurie, E. L. (1979). Carnival in Romans (M. Feeney, Trans.). New York: George Braziller.
LaCapra, D. (1999). Bakhtin, Marxism, and the carnivalesque. In C. Emerson (Ed.), Critical
essays on Mikhail Bakhtin (pp. 239-245). New York: G. K. Hall & Co. (Reprinted from
Rethinking intellectual history: Texts, contexts, language, 1983, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press)
Lebowskifest. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2004, from
http://www.lebowskifest.com/default.asp
Moylan, T. (1986). Demand the impossible: Science fiction and the utopian imagination.
London: Methuen.
Morson, G. S., & Emerson, C. (1992). Introduction. In G.S. Morson & C. Emerson (Eds.),
Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics (pp. 1-12). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Palopoli, S. (2002). As The Big Lebowski plays the Nick, Metro Santa Cruz talks to the real-life
Dude about cult-movie stardom. Retrieved September 16, 2004, from
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.25.02/lebowski1-0230.html
Parks, L. B. (2004, June 23). The Dude abides. Houston Chronicle, p. 1.
Pomorska, K., (1984). Foreword. In M. Bakhtin (Author) & H. Iswolsky (Trans.), Rabelais and
his world (pp. vii-xii). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Robertson, W. P. (1998). The Big Lebowski: The making of a Coen brothers film. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company.
Rockler, N. R. (2002). Overcoming "it's just entertainment": Perspective by incongruity as
strategy for media literacy. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 30, 16-22.
Russo, M. J. (1995). The female grotesque: Risk, excess, and modernity. New York: Routledge.
Shargel, R. (1998). Contrasts in crime [Electronic version]. The New Leader, 81, 20-21.
Sobchack, T. (1996). Bakhtin's "carnivalesque" in British comedy. Journal of Popular Film and
Television, 23(4). Retrieved November 23, 2004, from
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=9399992&SrchMode=
1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=11540
31275&clientId=17862
Stallybrass, P., & White, A. (1986/1997). From carnival to transgression. In K. Gelder & S.
Thornton (Eds.), The subcultures reader (pp. 293-301). New York: Routledge.
(Reprinted from The politics and poetics of transgression; pp. 4-20, 26; 1986; Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press)

Stam, R. (1989). Subversive pleasures: Bakhtin, cultural criticism, and film. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins Press.
Suarez, J. I. (1993). The carnival stage: Vicentine comedy within the serio-comic mode.
Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
The Big Lebowski [Review of the motion picture The Big Lebowski]. (n.d.). Retrieved January
13, 2005, from http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?trkid=73&movieid=1181532
Vande Berg, L. R. E. (1996). Dramedy: Moonlighting as an emergent generic hybrid. In S. K.
Foss (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice (pp. 238-259). Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press. (Reprinted from Communication Studies, 40 [Spring], 13-28, 1989)

Footnotes

1.The Coens’ body of work tends to focus on the plight and perspective of the common, working-
class citizen. This is a major theme common to carnivalesque texts (Bakhtin, 1965/1984).
Moreover, in Barton Fink, the semi-autobiographical namesake of the film is a screenwriter who
tries to “‘make a difference’” (Coen & Coen, 1991).

2.Analyzing the efficacy of carnivalesque tactics in social protests, Bruner (2005) suggests that
their results differ greatly depending on the setting. Such protest strategies are most effective
given such protests operate within a liberal (social) democracy where “checks and balances to
state power” (p. 143) exist. These tactics can also be moderately effective when the control
mechanisms in an otherwise totalitarian state are temporarily relaxed to allow for limited public
protest. Bruner goes on to propose that “carnivalesque protest is simply not possible if the state is
so oppressively humorless that it utterly eliminates all public opposition” (p. 149). Finally,
within conservative (market) democracies, carnivalesque protests are endured, though they are
not very effective given the populace tends to “crave certainty and discourage dissensus” (p.
137).

3.Yet if spectacular media is common and popularly appreciated, why was TBL so reviled? We suggest that viewers did not find humor in the Coens’ carnivalizations, if they perceived them at all. Nor is it surprising that the pundits of mainstream media condemned a film that challenges the status quo on so many fronts.

4.One episode involved “poo-diving,” where a member of the Jackass crew donned a diving-
mask and snorkel and attempted to skin-dive at a sewage treatment plant.

5.Hall specifies three different positions from which a text can be decoded: 1)
dominant/hegemonic, 2) negotiated, and 3) oppositional. Those who interpret a text from the first
position see the text as its creators intended. Those who negotiate the meaning of the text may
see some of the carnivalesque tropes as challenging the status quo, but only those that speak to
their experience—thus they might see a gross generalization as an accurate portrayal. Those who
read TBL and other carnivalesque texts from the oppositional position would not see its
hierarchical inversions and its parodies as socially transformative but as representations that
reinforce stereotypes and the status quo.

6.While Dostoevsky's Poetics focuses on Menippean satire rather than carnival per se, we turn to
this work given Menippea is a genre that is “profoundly” carnivalesque (Bakhtin, 1963/1984, p.
156). For Stam, Menippean satire is “intimately linked to a carnivalesque vision of the world”
(1989, p. 9) and paves the way for the carnivalization of literature in general.

7.For example, the word “fuck” and its variants are employed 281 times in the film.

8.However, carnivalesque strategies are not bound solely to the arts or limited to the analysis of
academics. See Harold’s work on pranking rhetoric (2004), Bruner’s analysis of carnivalesque
protests (2005), Oring’s discussion of humor as an organizational tool (2003), and Stam’s
carnivalized election-campaign strategies (1989) for examples. Moreover, the introduction of
relatively inexpensive digital media production and the abundance of Internet forums allows
laypeople to produce and distribute their own carnivalesque media.

Back to Other Media