@article{oai:teapot.lib.ocha.ac.jp:00042553,
 author = {Rayment, Andrew and Nadasdy, Paul and Rayment, Andrew and Nadasdy, Paul},
 journal = {Journal of the Ochanomizu University English Society},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {紀要論文, An elaborate cinematic riddle that sets a series of questions concerning its ambiguities, conflicts and paradoxes, Denis Villeneuveʼs Enemy (2013) elicits interpretation by challenging the viewer to impose order upon its disarray. Reading it as a dramatization of the protagonist’s struggle to ʻfind himself’ by reconciling the contradictory demands of his enemies ʻwithout’ and ‘withinʼ the finely woven web of his life, this article supplies Enemy with the very interpretation it elicits, thus accepting Villeneuveʼs challenge. Yet, in demonstrating how Enemy’s structure denies the possibility of there being a ʻcorrectʼ interpretation to be uncovered, this article also suggests that it is not a challenge that can simply be accepted on its own terms.
Explicating Enemy in broad terms through the framework of Umberto Eco’s notion of text as ʻunlimited territory’, re-conceptualizing his ʻcritic as an explorer’ of labyrinths as the ʻcritic as an explorer’ of webs, we argue that, while Enemy’s solicitation of what is an impossible interpretation would appear to deny communication, its effect, in point of fact, is to isolate and, thus, communicate the manner in which the film functions as a double allegory of itself in its offering of both an analogy between both the protagonist (P) in the film and the film itself (as riddles demanding solutions) and between the protagonist (P) in the film and the viewer herself (as riddle-solvers who desire solutions).
Enemy’s overlaying the ʻriddle of the self’ laterally across the ʻriddle of the film’ points ultimately both to the radical compatibility of self and film as ʻtextual webs’ and to the radical incompatibility of either with the closure of final (self-) interpretation. Enemy, then, we claim, both dramatizes and emblemizes in content and form the post-structural paradox that the hole at the centre of the ʻself-text’ is one that requires and demands a ʻcompletion’ by interpretative (self-) narration that is ultimately impossible, being endless in scope, multitudinous in pathway, and devoid of foundational ground.},
 pages = {5--20},
 title = {The Sphinx and the Bridgekeeper: Denis Villeneuve’s Enemy as Double-Riddle},
 volume = {8},
 year = {2019}
}