preoccupations

A person’s silence can mean different things. Being silent after an argument can mean resentfulness or acceptance of defeat. Silences imply something and sometimes can result in “ambiguity, uncertainty, an uneasy feeling” (Grant-Davie 2013). Silence is an obvious theme in Babette’s Feast (1987), and I would like to discuss two cases of silence in the film: Babette’s silence about her trauma and the congregation’s silence during the dinner. I will discuss these silences through Keith Grant-Davie’s (2013) five scales or continua that describe and differentiate forms of silence according to their ‘rhetorical strength,’ that is, voluntary-involuntary, significant-incidental, unexpected-expected, active-static, and temporal-topical.

Scales of silence

Rhetoric refers to the “techniques of language and thought that can be used to construct effective discourses” (Culler 1997, 69) and thus encompass speech. It may seem strange to consider silence as a rhetorical element, but Grant-Davie clarifies that silence can work rhetorically to draw the audience’s attention to something they would not notice otherwise.

Grant-Davie differentiates between silence that is voluntary (when the speaker chooses not to speak) and involuntary (which I think is when the speaker does not have anything to speak about). A voluntary silence has more rhetorical effect because it implies ‘control over silence.’ Meanwhile, significant silence is intentional (and therefore more rhetorical) while incidental silence is merely incidental. These two scales “focus on the silent person’s level of control and intentionality in the silence” (3).

The unexpected-expected scale of silence, on the other hand, relies on the listener’s expectation of silence. An expected silence is more rhetorical than an unexpected one. Furthermore, the active type of silence is more rhetorical since it foregrounds silence (the listener is aware of the ‘silence as a silence’) while a static silence is in the background as some other activity takes place. These two scales rely on the listener’s perception of silence.

Finally, the temporal-topical silence scale differentiates between silence that can be measured in units of time (temporal) and silence on a particular topic (topical). A topical silence is not an absolute silence and can be quite noisy. Of the two, a temporal silence is more rhetorically impactful than a topical silence.

Babette’s trauma and silence

Babette came to Jutland from France due to a civil war raging in her home country, and it is explicitly stated that she fled from Paris. I believe Babette was traumatized, especially since her “husband and son were killed like rats” (Babette's Feast 1987). Throughout the 14 years she worked for Martine and Philippa, she never talked about the death of her family. This silence is seen in the film because Babette is only shown to be working for the sisters—cooking food, serving tea, buying from the grocer, cleaning windows.

Her silence is both voluntary and intentional. and therefore more rhetorical in effect. Babette chose not to talk about her traumatic experiences in France which amplifies the rhetorical implications of trauma. It was not merely an upsetting experience but a harrowing once which drove Babette to silence. In one part of the movie, Babette is depicted crying while looking at the setting sun—an impactful silence as well. It is also shown as a temporal silence and not just a topical one. She did not talk about her traumatic experience, and not even about her personal life; her employers did not even know she was the head chef in a high-class restaurant in France, Café Anglais. She did not limit her silence to just the topic of her trauma.

But while her silence about her trauma is impactful, as a listener or audience, I saw her silence as leaning towards the expected and static silence, both of which are at the less rhetorical end of their scales. It is expected for traumatized people not to speak of their experiences because they can trigger painful memories. As I watched the film, I never thought about the fact that she kept silent because I already expected it in a way. My attention was also directed to other things because the silence was in the background (static) and I was more aware of the things Babette did as a servant. My readings of Babette’s silence as an audience (less rhetorical) and as an interpreter (more rhetorical) are different, which verifies Grant-Davie’s comment that “silences may be interpreted quite differently by listeners and by those who are silent” (2013, 4); similarly, I think listeners or audience may also interpret the silence differently.

I think Babette’s silence is rhetorical for the character herself but not so much for audiences (or me, at least). If I would interpret the silence further, I think trauma is a difficult experience and situation for a person and that someone who interacts with a traumatized person should be able to understand how and why that person chooses to stay silent.

Silence at the feast table

The congregation’s silence during the French meal, on the other hand, is voluntary and significant, like Babette’s silence. However, it is different because it is an expected and static silence that is rhetorical. It is also different because it is a topical silence. It is voluntary because the members of the congregation already agreed not to say a word about the dinner: “We shall not say a word about either food or drink” (Babette's Feast 1987). I believe it is significant for the congregation members themselves because it meant not giving staying true to their faith, being Lutheran Christians. Yet again, this means the silence is rhetorical for the members of the congregation.

In my interpretation as an audience, I would like to argue that it is a silence that is both expected but highly rhetorical. I already knew that the members would remain silent about the food, but it is rhetorical because it meant to express the steadfast faith, so to speak, of the congregation. Looking at it, if the silence had been unexpected (the members did not speak about the food during the dinner without first agreeing about it), it would be more rhetorical. Grant-Davie mentions that “[p]redictable silences may be highly rhetorical, but unexpected ones tend to be more so” (2013, 3). Meanwhile, the congregation’s silence is also a static silence that is rhetorical; their silence is put in the background because the meal they are having comes to the fore. But I believe it remains rhetorical because the silence still sends the same message as being an expected silence. Also, the static silence becomes more difficult to perceive precisely because it is concealed, unnoticed.

Finally, this silence is a topical silence because the congregation specifically agreed to keep silent regarding the food that was to be served. They talked about other things such as their memories of their founder; their topical silence still consisted of speech. It is less rhetorical in the temporal-topical scale, but the topical silence shows the congregation’s refusal to appreciate the more beautiful things in life. Being a voluntary and significant silence, if I would interpret it as a reader, also implies the same thing. In a sense, I think the person who watches the film will be reminded of the phrase ‘carpe diem’ or seize the moment, or even the more millennial phrase YOLO, ‘you only live once.’

I have analyzed here the two significant silences in Babette’s Feast, and the rhetoric significance of these silences is implicit and can be gleaned from the nature of their silence themselves. Silences, while a possible carrier of emptiness or defeat, can also mean other things such as I discussed—trauma, faith, carpe diem. Thus, we may have different interpretations of different types of silences which makes studying silence interesting.

References

___. 1987. Babette's Feast. Directed by Gabriel Axel. Performed by Stephane Audran, Bodil Kjer and Birgitte Federspiel.

Culler, Jonathan. 1997. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grant-Davie, Keith. 2013. “Rhetorical Uses of Silence and Spaces.” In Silence and the Silenced: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Corrado Federici, Ernesto Virgulti Leslie Boldt, 1-11. New York: Peter Lang.

This paper was submitted to the course BLL 197: Special Topics in Language and Literature (Food, Literature, and Culture).