Les œuvres de l'écrivain française Lydie Salvayre et des cinéastes américains Tim Burton et Terry Gilliam présentent une même dénonciation de la société du simulacre à travers une esthétique grotesque. Ils contestent dans leurs œuvres la pratique de la novlangue, celle du politiquement correct et le mélange de la réalité avec la fiction. Le fonctionnement dialectique du grotesque et sa capacité à procurer un vertige étonnant lui permet de rendre visible ces contradictions. La modification de l'imaginaire par la société de consommation et du simulacre les préoccupent particulièrement, car les auteurs observent que la transformation des signes en simples signifiants, dont le postmodernisme illustre le fonctionnement, conduisent l'individu à avoir un rapport déformé à la réalité, à la conscience historique et au symbole. Le grotesque est cette esthétique qui leur permet de former des mélanges dans leurs œuvres en préservant l'identité des signifiés et de restaurer ainsi un rapport à l'Histoire et au symbole. Le grotesque est cette esthétique qui permet le mélange sans équivalence, car elle donne à voir les contraires et leur confère du sens. Les auteurs lient leurs œuvres grotesques au mythe, cette fiction particulière qui permet d'avoir un rapport instinctif à la connaissance par le biais d'images particulièrement fortes. Le grotesque, dans sa dimension anthropologique et ontologique, réhabilite en définitive des fictions qui échappent aux problématiques du simulacre. / The works of Lydie Salvayre, American movie directors Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam present a similar criticism of a society of simulacrum, by their use of the aesthetically grotesque. In their work, they question the use of newspeak, of the politically correct, and the mixing of reality and fiction. The dialectical working of the grotesque and its ability to produce an astonishing sense of vertigo enables it to bring out these contradictions. They are particularly concerned by the extent to which a society of consumption and simulacrum has modified the imaginary. These autors have observed that the transformation of signs into mere signifiers, something the workings of which are demonstrated in postmodernism, leads the individual to have a distorted relationship with reality, historical awareness and the symbol. The grotesque is that aesthetic form which allows them to make mixes in their work whilst preserving the meaning of the signified and which thereby allows them to restore a relationship to history and the symbol. The grotesque is that esthetic form which allows them to make mixes with no equivalent, since it shows opposites whilst conferring sense on them. The autors link their grotesque works to myth, that kind of fiction which enables us to have a instinctive relationship to knowledge by the means of particularly strong images. When all is said and done, the grotesque, in its anthropological and ontological dimension, reinstates a fiction which avoids the problems of simulacrum.

The type of commentary a narrative is able to make is fully dependant on the type of narrator who is relating it. The visual elements present in a film are the true narrational forces which guide it. The presence of the camera, the use of lighting, the architecture, and the objects present in the film each have their own meaning. These elements come together to make a greater commentary than the dialogue. How these meanings interact with each other is what defines what type of narrator is present in the film. By analyzing what type of narrator is relating the story it is possible to examine what commentary the film is able to make. Mike Nichols? 1967 film The Graduate and Terry Gilliam?s 1998 film adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson?s 1971 literary work Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas make commentaries that act as bookends for the ideals of the youth culture during the late 1960?s. Where as The Graduate is condemning the shining emptiness of 1967 suburban California society which its narrator inhabits, Fear and Loathing?s narrator is depicting the twisted abomination which grew within the emptiness of that society during those four years. The fact that Gilliam?s adaptation came 27 years after the source material was created allows for an even more specific translation of Thompson?s message. The Graduate is looking towards the unknown future where as Fear and Loathing is look backwards at the results. The Graduate is commenting on the current situation and looking forwards where as Fear and Loathing is looking backwards to see what has happened in the interim. It is this difference that forces the type of narration and the visual style employed by the films to be diametrically opposed.