"I AM HERE. WHO ARE YOU?": BRUGES AS A PHILOSOPHER OF DIGITAL REFUSAL (MARTIN MCDONAGH'S "IN BRUGES" (2008))

Keywords: digital refusal, city-as-code, Bruges, glitch aesthetics, temporal dissonance, ontological lag, algorithmic morality, film aesthetics

Abstract

This article proposes, for the first time, a philosophical reading of the film «In Bruges» through the lens of the «digital refusal» concept. In contrast to traditional interpretations focusing on the crime plot or existential motives, this research unveils a unique metaphysical dimension of the film, where the medieval city of Bruges emerges as a fully-fledged philosophical subject resisting the algorithmic logic of modernity. The innovative approach lies in treating the urban space not as a scenographic backdrop, but as an active actant influencing the temporal and ethical parameters of the narrative. The author's concept of «city-as-code» opens a fundamentally new perspective on understanding the urban environment as a proto-algorithmic structure operating according to a logic distinct from digital perceptions of time and space. This view radically differs from existing interpretations of urban semiotics in cinema and urban studies.

The paper identifies a previously unarticulated problem of «ontological lag» – a specific state of the digital modern subject who finds themselves in an environment incompatible with the logic of algorithmic operations and network communication. This interpretation allows for a new understanding of the film's visual strategy as a deliberate media glitch that prevents a cathartic perception of the main characters' ethical drama.

The proposed interpretation of the aesthetics of slowness and opacity in the film is fundamentally new, not as a stylistic device, but as a philosophical gesture that exposes the fundamental contradiction between digital temporality and the analog mode of presence. These reading challenges conventional notions of a unidirectional process of the digitalization of cultural experience.

Of particular value is the proposed typology of «digital subjects» in a state of glitch, which opens a new approach to analyzing characters in contemporary cinema as carriers of various forms of temporal dissonance. For the first time in the context of film analysis and media philosophy, the problem of «ethics without an audience» – moral choices that occur outside the logic of digital publicity – is articulated.

The research paves the way for the formation of a new interdisciplinary field combining media theory, the philosophy of ethics, and digital aesthetics to understand the transformations of subjectivity in the post-digital age.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Artem Perchyk, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Perchyk Artem V.

PhD Student, Faculty of Philosophy

V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

4, Maidan Svobody, Kharkiv, Ukraine

References

Agamben, G. (1995). Homo sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Einaudi.

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacres et simulation. Éditions Galilée.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

Baumgarten, S., & Bourgadel, C. (2024). Digitalisation, neo-Taylorism and translation in the 2020s. Perspectives, 32, 3, 508-523. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2285844

Benjamin, W. (1982). Das Passagen-Werk. Suhrkamp. (Original work written 1927–1940)

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.

Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press.

Bratton, B. H. (2015). The stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Castells, M. (1996–1998). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vols. 1–3). Blackwell.

Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. MIT Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Mille plateaux. Les Éditions de Minuit.

Derrida, J. (1967). L'écriture et la différence. Éditions du Seuil.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.

Fuchs, C. (2019). What is Critical Digital Social Research? Five Reflections on the Study of Digital Society. Journal of Digital Social Research, 1(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v1i1.7

Fussey, P., & Roth, S. (2020). Digitizing Sociology: Continuity and Change in the Internet Era. Sociology, 54(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520918562

Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.

Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004). Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Kittler, F. A. (1986). Grammophon Film Typewriter. Brinkmann & Bose.

Kittler, F. A. (2002). Optische Medien. Merve Verlag.

Lacan, J. (1973). Le séminaire, Livre XI: Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse. Éditions du Seuil.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. MIT Press.

Menkman, R. (2011). The glitch moment(um). Institute of Network Cultures.

Metz, C. (1971). Langage et cinéma. Larousse.

Nancy, J.-L. (1986). La communauté désœuvrée. Christian Bourgois éditeur.

O’Hara, K. (2020). The contradictions of digital modernity. AI & SOCIETY, 35, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0843-7

Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Cornell University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Basil Blackwell.

Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press

Published
2025-06-30
Cited
How to Cite
Perchyk, A. (2025). "I AM HERE. WHO ARE YOU?": BRUGES AS A PHILOSOPHER OF DIGITAL REFUSAL (MARTIN MCDONAGH’S "IN BRUGES" (2008)). The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series Philosophy. Philosophical Peripeteias, (72), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.26565/2226-0994-2025-72-16
Section
Articles