Difference between revisions of "In His Bold Gaze My Ruin is Writ Large"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | What's wrong with The Wrong Man? | + | What's wrong with [[The Wrong Man]]? |
| − | To comply with the dialectical axiom that the only way to reach the underlying law of an universe is through its exception, let's begin with The Wrong Man, a film which clearly sticks out from the totality of Hitchcock's oeuvre:<ref>Further proof of Hitchcock's personal commitment: he renounced his director's fee for The Wrong Man.</ref> | + | To comply with the [[dialectical]] axiom that the only way to reach the underlying law of an [[universe]] is through its exception, let's begin with The Wrong Man, a [[film]] which clearly sticks out from the [[totality]] of [[Hitchcock]]'s oeuvre:<ref>Further proof of Hitchcock's personal commitment: he renounced his director's fee for The Wrong Man.</ref> |
| − | On the one hand, The Wrong Man is Hitchcock at its purest. His special attachment to it is attested by the exceptional character of his cameo-appearance in the prologue; Hitchcock addresses the viewers directly, informing them that they will see a tragedy taken from real life. This prologue sounds like an implicit apology-"sorry, but you will not get the usual comic-thriller stuff here, things are for real, I shall throw my cards on the table and deliver my message directly, not wrapped up in the usual comedian's costume…" | + | On the one hand, The Wrong Man is Hitchcock at its purest. His special attachment to it is attested by the exceptional [[character]] of his cameo-[[appearance]] in the prologue; Hitchcock addresses the viewers directly, informing [[them]] that they will see a [[tragedy]] taken from [[real]] [[life]]. This prologue sounds like an implicit apology-"sorry, but you will not get the usual comic-thriller stuff here, things are for real, I shall throw my cards on the table and deliver my [[message]] directly, not wrapped up in the usual comedian's costume…" |
[…] | […] | ||
| − | The classical Marxist reproach to this would be that the ultimate function of such an allegorical procedure, through which the product reflects its own formal process, is to render invisible its social mediation and thereby neutralize its social-critical potential-as if, in order to fill out the void of social content, the work turns to its own form. Indeed, is this reproach not confirmed per negationem by The Wrong Man which, because of its suspension of the allegory, among all Hitchcock's films comes closest to social criticism, dreary everyday life caught in the irrational wheels of judicial bureaucracy? Yet one is tempted to defend the opposite argument:<ref>….to which even Jameson succumbs, at least for a moment-Fredric Jameson, "Allegorizing Hitchcock," in Signatures of the Visible, New York: Routledge 1990, p. 127.</ref> the strongest ideological-critical potential of Hitchcock's films is contained precisely in their allegorical nature. In order for this potential of Hitchcock's benevolent sadistic playing with the viewer to become manifest, one has to take into account the strict concept of "sadism" as elaborated by Lacan. In "Kant with Sade," Lacan proposed two schemes which trace the matrix of the two stages of the Sadean fantasy:<ref>Jacques Lacan, "Kant with Sade," in October 51, Winter 1990~ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.</ref> | + | The classical [[Marxist]] reproach to this would be that the ultimate function of such an allegorical procedure, through which the product reflects its own [[formal]] [[process]], is to render invisible its [[social]] mediation and thereby neutralize its social-critical potential-as if, in [[order]] to fill out the [[void]] of social [[content]], the [[work]] turns to its own [[form]]. Indeed, is this reproach not confirmed per negationem by The Wrong Man which, because of its suspension of the allegory, among all Hitchcock's [[films]] comes closest to social criticism, dreary everyday life caught in the [[irrational]] wheels of judicial [[bureaucracy]]? Yet one is tempted to [[defend]] the opposite argument:<ref>….to which even [[Jameson]] succumbs, at least for a [[moment]]-[[Fredric Jameson]], "Allegorizing Hitchcock," in Signatures of the [[Visible]], New York: Routledge 1990, p. 127.</ref> the strongest [[ideological]]-critical potential of Hitchcock's films is contained precisely in their allegorical [[nature]]. In order for this potential of Hitchcock's benevolent [[sadistic]] playing with the viewer to become [[manifest]], one has to take into account the strict [[concept]] of "[[sadism]]" as elaborated by [[Lacan]]. In "[[Kant]] with [[Sade]]," Lacan proposed two schemes which trace the [[matrix]] of the two [[stages]] of the Sadean [[fantasy]]:<ref>[[Jacques Lacan]], "[[Kant with Sade]]," in October 51, Winter 1990~ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.</ref> |
| − | V as Volonte designates the Will-to-Enjoy, the fundamental attitude of the sadist subject, his endeavor to find enjoyment in the pain of the other, while S stands for this other subject, suffering and-therein consists Lacan's point-as such, non-barred, full: the sadist is a kind of parasite in search of the corroboration of his being. In suffering, the other-his victim-is confirming himself as much as resisting solid substance: the live flesh into which the sadist cuts authenticates the fullness of being. The upper level of the scheme, V--> S, thus denotes the manifest sadistic relationship: the sadistic pervert gives body to the Will-to-Enjoy, which torments the victim in order to obtain the fullness of being. Lacan's thesis is, therefore, that this manifest relationship conceals another latent relation, which contains the truth of the first one. This other relation, the object-cause of desire to the split subject, is represented in the lower level of the scheme. The sadist as aggressive Will-to-Enjoyment is but a semblance whose truth is the object a: that of an object-instrument of the Other's enjoyment. | + | V as Volonte designates the Will-to-[[Enjoy]], the fundamental attitude of the [[sadist]] [[subject]], his endeavor to find [[enjoyment]] in the [[pain]] of the [[other]], while S stands for this other subject, [[suffering]] and-therein consists Lacan's point-as such, non-[[barred]], [[full]]: the sadist is a kind of parasite in [[search]] of the corroboration of his [[being]]. In suffering, the other-his [[victim]]-is confirming himself as much as resisting solid substance: the live flesh into which the sadist cuts authenticates the fullness of being. The upper level of the scheme, V--> S, thus denotes the manifest sadistic [[relationship]]: the sadistic [[pervert]] gives [[body]] to the Will-to-Enjoy, which torments the victim in order to obtain the fullness of being. Lacan's [[thesis]] is, therefore, that this manifest relationship conceals [[another]] [[latent]] relation, which contains the [[truth]] of the first one. This other relation, the [[object]]-[[cause]] of [[desire]] to the [[split]] subject, is represented in the lower level of the scheme. The sadist as [[aggressive]] Will-to-Enjoyment is but a [[semblance]] whose truth is the [[object a]]: that of an object-[[instrument]] of the Other's enjoyment. |
[…] | […] | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Source== | ==Source== | ||
| − | * [[In His Bold Gaze My Ruin Is Writ Large]]. ''Lacanian Ink''. Volume 6. Fall 1992. pp 25-42. <http://www.lacan.com/frameVI2.htm> | + | * [[In His Bold Gaze My Ruin Is Writ Large]]. ''[[Lacanian]] Ink''. Volume 6. Fall 1992. pp 25-42. <http://www.lacan.com/frameVI2.htm> |
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]] | [[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:19, 25 May 2019
What's wrong with The Wrong Man?
To comply with the dialectical axiom that the only way to reach the underlying law of an universe is through its exception, let's begin with The Wrong Man, a film which clearly sticks out from the totality of Hitchcock's oeuvre:[1]
On the one hand, The Wrong Man is Hitchcock at its purest. His special attachment to it is attested by the exceptional character of his cameo-appearance in the prologue; Hitchcock addresses the viewers directly, informing them that they will see a tragedy taken from real life. This prologue sounds like an implicit apology-"sorry, but you will not get the usual comic-thriller stuff here, things are for real, I shall throw my cards on the table and deliver my message directly, not wrapped up in the usual comedian's costume…"
[…]
The classical Marxist reproach to this would be that the ultimate function of such an allegorical procedure, through which the product reflects its own formal process, is to render invisible its social mediation and thereby neutralize its social-critical potential-as if, in order to fill out the void of social content, the work turns to its own form. Indeed, is this reproach not confirmed per negationem by The Wrong Man which, because of its suspension of the allegory, among all Hitchcock's films comes closest to social criticism, dreary everyday life caught in the irrational wheels of judicial bureaucracy? Yet one is tempted to defend the opposite argument:[2] the strongest ideological-critical potential of Hitchcock's films is contained precisely in their allegorical nature. In order for this potential of Hitchcock's benevolent sadistic playing with the viewer to become manifest, one has to take into account the strict concept of "sadism" as elaborated by Lacan. In "Kant with Sade," Lacan proposed two schemes which trace the matrix of the two stages of the Sadean fantasy:[3]
V as Volonte designates the Will-to-Enjoy, the fundamental attitude of the sadist subject, his endeavor to find enjoyment in the pain of the other, while S stands for this other subject, suffering and-therein consists Lacan's point-as such, non-barred, full: the sadist is a kind of parasite in search of the corroboration of his being. In suffering, the other-his victim-is confirming himself as much as resisting solid substance: the live flesh into which the sadist cuts authenticates the fullness of being. The upper level of the scheme, V--> S, thus denotes the manifest sadistic relationship: the sadistic pervert gives body to the Will-to-Enjoy, which torments the victim in order to obtain the fullness of being. Lacan's thesis is, therefore, that this manifest relationship conceals another latent relation, which contains the truth of the first one. This other relation, the object-cause of desire to the split subject, is represented in the lower level of the scheme. The sadist as aggressive Will-to-Enjoyment is but a semblance whose truth is the object a: that of an object-instrument of the Other's enjoyment.
[…]
References
- ↑ Further proof of Hitchcock's personal commitment: he renounced his director's fee for The Wrong Man.
- ↑ ….to which even Jameson succumbs, at least for a moment-Fredric Jameson, "Allegorizing Hitchcock," in Signatures of the Visible, New York: Routledge 1990, p. 127.
- ↑ Jacques Lacan, "Kant with Sade," in October 51, Winter 1990~ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Source
- In His Bold Gaze My Ruin Is Writ Large. Lacanian Ink. Volume 6. Fall 1992. pp 25-42. <http://www.lacan.com/frameVI2.htm>
