Psychoanalyzing Cinema: A Productive Encounter with Lacan, Deleuze, and Zizek
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The essays within this collection explore the possibilities and potentialities of all three positions, presenting encounters that are, at times contradictory, at other times supportive, as well as complementary. The collection thereby enriches the questions that are being raised within contemporary cinematic studies.
Lacan develops in Seminar VXII), Žižek articulates what are the stakes to be a Master—for instance, Lacan (Žižek, 1998, 75–78). In effect, le sujet suppose savoir is a master signifier, the doubled S1. Or, perhaps the ‘truth’ Event has already arrived? The primary instance of its display could be heard and seen at Birkbeck Conference, London, on March 13–15, 2009, called “On the Idea of Communism.” The prestigious gathering seemed to confirm a new|old white vanguard (Žižek, Badiou, Hardt, Negri,
inverse side, where structures and signifiers are replaced with what Deleuze and Guattari (1983) call Lacan’s strange domain of multiplicity, “a multiplicity so complex that we can scarcely speak of one chain or even of one code of desire,” but of signs that are not in themselves signifying but are part of a polyvocal connectivity (38). Taking a close look at Mulholland Drive and the events at Club Silencio from a Deleuzian perspective yields an expanded understanding of these tears in time and
difficulties that they encounter. But the politics of Éloge de l’amour never touch on the relationship itself as in Le mépris or À bout de soufflé. Instead, through the course of their relationship, the couple encounters the politics of the French Resistance and the power of American imperialism 122 TODD MCGOWAN manifesting itself, though this power doesn’t infiltrate their relationship. The couple and the film comment on politics without showing how the relationship itself bespeaks the
Shot-reverseshot sequence features her confusion and frustration, and her father’s smug self-assuredness in his own position; another impasse. “The people who live here are doing their best under very hard circumstances,” Grace explains, arguing that material circumstances such as abject poverty may not be the best ground for cultivating a sense of other-centered ethics. Grace initially empathized with the townspeople, assuming that, given the circumstances, she could have easily engaged in
its desire as the desire of the other (the subject desires what it thinks the other desires, in the illusion of thinking that the other possesses the Real). According to Žižek, the Lacanian/Hitchcockian subject is a guilty subject, always already guilty of wanting enjoyment, jouissance, which has its impossible origin in the Real. Here we see what Žižek meant by Jansenism based on guilt and God.11 If we look at Hitchcock’s film in a Žižekian Lacanian inspired analysis, we could say that the hero