The Pervert's Guide to Cinema

[oscar jubis]

The Pervert's Guide to Cinema: An Intellectual's Guide to Pervert Art
by Oscar Jubis
1 April 2009

"I am convinced of my proper grasp of some Lacanian concept only when I can translate it successfully into the inherent imbecility of popular culture"
Slavoj Zizek in "The Metastases of Enjoyment"


The Pervert's Guide to Cinema could be shelved alongside Scorsese's My Voyage to Italy and Godard's Histoire(s) du Cinema as film criticism on film. However, our guide, Slavoj Zizek, appears to proceed from a desire to use cinema to illustrate philosophical or psychoanalytical notions. In the process, sometimes Zizek devotes sufficient time to a film, such as Vertigo and Blue Velvet, so that we get bona fide film readings. Just as often, although always referring to films, the need to illustrate a concept ulterior to cinema receives precedence. The congruence between film, philosophy and psychoanalysis to which Zizek subscribes and his physical placement within the sets and spaces of his chosen films carve a unique niche for The Pervert's Guide to Cinema.

There are moments in The Pervert's Guide to Cinema when a viewer might be inclined to call Zizek a "pervert". When he makes a metaphorical connection between a toilet bowl and the black screen just before a film's first image is projected or when, sailing across Bodega Bay like Melanie in The Birds, he crudely blurts out: "My God, I’m thinking like Melanie! You know what I’m thinking now? I want to fuck Mitch!" But most of the film makes apparent Zizek's standing as a reputable intellectual whose work could be, perhaps reductively, described as a unique fusion of Lacanian psychoanalysis, continental philosophy and cultural criticism. Zizek's introductory comments on the nature of desire, indicate that the word "pervert", used in the title to characterize Zizek, is more suitably applied to cinema. Consequently, a more appropriate title for the film would be: An Intellectual's Guide to Pervert Art, or something to that effect.

For Zizek, cinema is "the ultimate pervert art" because it's inherently contrary and wicked to teach us how to desire and tell us what to desire only to frustrate us by not satisfying those desires. Is this what happens when The Awful Truth introduces me to Irene Dunne’s Lucy? Even if a woman of flesh and bones could possibly display such consistent charm, wit and spunk, I wouldn't deserve her because I'm certainly no Cary Grant! Cinema gives me this fantasy object that distorts my ordinary reality but it keeps it at a safe distance. What if an id entity like the planet Solaris could realize my dream fantasy and materialize Lucy. Would I attempt to banish her like Kelvin, the psychologist in Tarkovsky's film, who wants to get rid of the spectral clone of his deceased wife? Would my inadequacy dictate I must get rid of her? After all, Zizek argues that realized fantasy has a "perfect name" and that is "nightmare".

The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema opens with the sound of a projector being turned on and images of the inkblots that make up the Rorschach personality test. These highly ambiguous visual patterns are used repeatedly as punctuation between sections of the film. I wonder if Zizek and/or director Sophie Fiennes intend to suggest that his viewpoint amounts to one of many possible interpretations of the scenes under discussion. This would contradict Zizek's exuberant performance, which exudes utter conviction. The Pervert's Guide to Cinema is teeming with interesting ideas and insightful interpretations, perhaps too many to absorb in one viewing and expound sufficiently. However, a few of his statements strike me as dubious bordering on ridiculous. For instance, when he claims that silent cinema lacks the interiority and complexity film would achieve with the advent of sound, I felt compelled to refute him on the spot. And statements like "anxiety is the only genuine emotion" require more elaboration than they get here.

Narrative art is important partly because we need the truth found in fiction to act out who we are. This helps explain our conditional belief in the world-on-film. Reality is based on the symbolic fictions that regulate it, says Zizek. So, rather than choosing between a reality pill and a fantasy pill like Neo in The Matrix, he’d want a pill that allows one to discern the reality in illusion, the truth in fiction. What interests him is to find in fictional cinema notions on the conditions of being human in the here and now. The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema proves he already has what it takes to do that, and we are the beneficiaries.

*I watched The Pervert's Guide to Cinema initially when it had its American premiere at the Sarasota Film Festival two years ago. IFC Films acquired distribution rights and released the film commercially this year.

[Johann]

Awesome post Oscar.
I'll have to check this out.

I'd refute him on the silent film slam too.
I know a librarian in Edmonton who only watches silent cinema.
I used to work at one of the branches as security and she gave me an interesting defence of silent cinema as the best cinema, the most timeless and honest, even von Stroheim, who really put on a "show". She praised Dreyer to high heaven, like our friend Jonathan Rosenbaum. She got me into those great German silents and Eisenstein.

I don't know whether or not silents are the best of all films, but I do know that I love some films very intensely from different genres, color and talkie, sepia and silent alike..

I would also take issue with "anxiety is the only emotion".
Clearly that is not true.
That's a very negative one-liner.

[oscar jubis]

Glad you enjoyed it and thanks Johann for the quick response.When Zizek made that statement about silent film, I immediately thought of Dreyer, especially La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc. He, more so in film than in print, aims to be provocative, to cause a reaction. I think that what he means to say about anxiety (and derivatives like fear and panic) is that it is the most unmediated emotion, something that seems to come suddenly out of nowhere. This is more true of anxiety than any other emotion, such as love and hate, for instance. Keep an eye open for screenings of The Pervert's Guide to Cinema at specialized theaters (cinematheques, "art" theaters, museums). I'll post an announcement when IFC releases a DVD version.

[Johann]

In that case I agree with him. I heard/read somewhere that people only do things for one of two reasons: Love or Fear.
It seems to make sense to me.
Everything we do/say/feel is a result of either love or fear.

I like films like this.
Being provoked into thinking is never a bad thing.

[cinemabon]

When we watch a film, are we not voyeurs, staring at the rectangle that reveals forbidden worlds, privvy to hidden emotions, sexual urges, the secret moments in private lives behind closed doors... isn't theater nothing but a collection of voyeurs and exhibitionists?

God, Oscar. I had to spend twenty minutes trying to figure out the philosophy of Jacques Lacan before I could begin to understand your post. Jees!

But heady stuff and well written.

PS, I'll have an announcement soon... but this post is not about me.

Also, in reading the first part, you confused me... I suppose. Did you mean to reject or accept this work along side Godard, Scorsese and others ("could be shelved") or that it should be dignified as part of a collection?

[Johann]

I keep reminding myself "how you see things depends on how you see them", and that applies to the theatre/voyeur dynamic.

Jim Morrison basically ended his band on March 1, 1969 in Miami by taking a page right from the Living Theatre's handbook.
He got right in the audience's face (drunk as only Jim could get) and called them a "bunch of fucking idiots" for being members of an audience.
What were they doing there, anyway?
They didn't come to hear a bunch of fairly good musicians play some fairly good songs. No. They wanted something else, something bigger and greater than they'd ever seen before.
Jim demanded that they admit it, do something about it.

I have never been of the opinion (except on rare occasions) that I'm just a "voyeur" in a theatre. It's real action to me, even though your ass is in a seat. I'm alive to everything that could fly by my eyes, I almost stalk the movie. I like movies that challenge me to keep up with it. That dare me to appropriate it.
I love escapist films as much as the next guy, but I prefer the conscious chase. It sometimes leads to nirvana or sharp enlightenments.

[Chris Knipp]

I too like cinemabon wanted to point out that there's a difference (in this sort of context; not so much a difference in working in a library) between shelving and filing, and that you meant the latter; not to denigrate Godard and Scorsese by putting them to gather dust with Zizek, but elevating Zizek to the level of S and G as an adept commentator-on-film about cinema. I had not heard of this film, which is essentially a documentary of a lecture brought to life by filmmaker Sophie Fiennes, sister of Ralph Fiennes. And I also learn that Zizek has written a book called 'Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock)'. In the lecture-film 'Pervert's Guide', Zizek focuses more broadly on a range of directors and movies. This is a little like Astra Taylor's 'Examined Life' (2008) (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=1245), which includes Zizek among the speakers (and Taylor made a whole film out of Zizek's talk, like Fiennes). It livens up pholosofhical musings by puting the philosopher out in space on film.

Describing Groucho, Chico and Harpo as respectively the Super Ego, the Ego and the Id, is clever enough. It makes some sense. It's also pretty obvious. But as the two Guardian film critics said two years ago when the film appeared, Zizek delivers his ideas with "brio" and "Like a ghost. . .haunts the famous locations and mock-up sets of classic movies in order to harangue us, like some intellectual Ancient Mariner. He fires off fluent reveries in his mangled, dentally challenged English like a virtuoso. Tremendously exhilarating stuff."

I never heard of Zizek till after 9/11 I got excited by Jean Baudrillarid's brilliant essay 'The Spriit of Terrorism.' Baudrillard, I'd say, is a much cooler customer than Zizek, but someone pointed out to me that Zizek dealt with much the same modern situations ('Welcome to the Desert of the Real') in a not dissimilar way. I didn't also know till now that Zizek was a psychoanalyst. He is as you say, Oscar, a fusion (maybe not so unique though?) "of Lacanian psychoanalysis, continental philosophy and cultural criticism". But he's also introduced to audiences as a Marxist and a communist, though when I've heard him talk about politics he's sounded reactionary to me. All in the cause of provocation, of course.

He's a stimulating speaker, and I'd like a look at this film by Sophie Fiennes. However, I view him with some suspicion. He seems to me to be willing to say most anything for effect--the "I want to fuck Mike" and comparison of toilet bowl with screen, and the blatantly cute and popular use of "Pervert's Guide" as a title are exxamples of Zizek's somewhat adolescent attention-grabbing. I've clicked on the 'Pervert's Guide' on my Netflix 'saved' queue; they haven't got it in stock yet.

I wrote about Baudrillard's connection with 'The Matrix'; (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/jul03_matrix.shtml) and also did a reassessment' (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/070307Knipp.shtml) of Baudrillard's ideas about Terrorism after his death two years ago yesterday.

[oscar jubis]

The voyeuristic nature of the movie camera and movie watching gets plenty of attention from film theorists, beginning in France after May '68 and quickly adopted by American academia in general, and feminists in particular. The concept of the mysogynistic "male gaze" is central to their criticism of classic Hollywood as patriarchal. For me feminist film theory is something that cannot be dismissed completely but represents a very partial, often self-serving view of classic cinema.

Chris is right about Zizek saying things for effect. But I want to point out: that happens only a few times and it's in the spirit of provoking the viewer to react and think independently, and to create some humor (the Melanie-Mitch comment, for instance). Zizek is a serious philosopher, highly respected in psychology and philosophy departments here and abroad. He does have a dark, East European sensibility (my professor thinks he's missing just a bit of the positive, American energy of Thoreau and Emerson, and he may be right.)

Originally posted by cinemabon
Also, in reading the first part, you confused me... I suppose. Did you mean to reject or accept this work along side Godard, Scorsese and others ("could be shelved") or that it should be dignified as part of a collection?
Indeed I meant "filed" or "grouped with" rather than its secondary definition: put aside from consideration. Bad choice of words by me since I should have picked a word with an unequivocal meaning.

[Chris Knipp]

It's that "filed" is neutral, while "shelved" has the sense of putting away because not wanted or needed. "Filed" or "grouped" or "classified" would be fine, just not "shelved." That's the only one that has the negative connotation.

"Shelved" tends to mean "set aside":
The police inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been shelved because of a lack of evidence

But librarians do speak of "shelving books," meaning simply putting them back in their proper places on the shelves.

[cinemabon]

I'd like to pursue your conversation a bit further if you don't mind, Oscar. I can understand the feminist point of view quite well, seeing how the vast majority of directors, being male, would see women one way and put that image on the screen. Women are frequently codified as sexual objects. Even so called independent women allow the system to use them this way.

Its funny that Penny Marshall does not seem to glorify that "glam" look very much in her films (ie "Riding in cars with boys" "Big" "Awakenings" "A league of their own" etc). Reflecting on her work, she deals with the subject of sexuality not from the glamourous starlet photographed through a gauze, but under the harsh reality of day with all the flaws apparent. I am a big fan of Marshall. I feel she is very even handed when it comes to how women are portrayed in film.

I am sorry that my experience with "foreign" film is extremely limited to classic cinema. Perhaps you could point out the current changes in attitude taking place in contemporary cinema, ie new female directors making their mark. I don't believe we, the men who make up the vast majority of writers on this site, have discussed the feminine side of cinema much.

[Chris Knipp]

We have discussed some female directors, such as Lucrecia Martel, Celina Murga, Heddy Honigmann, Claire Denis, Agnes Varda, Anne Fontaine, and Sylvie Verheyde, just to to give some names from our recent festival coverage. Claire Denis was certainly one of my favorites of the Rendez-Vous this year.

Nonetheless a focus on the feminine side of cinema is certainly a good idea.

[oscar jubis]

More busy than usual this past couple of days. Most interesting discussion. Obviously the lack of female input in this forum is lamentable. Perhaps it's significant to note that women are well-represented in the "Film Production" concentration in my school but there are few women in "Film Studies", the more cinephile types who would be interested in what goes on here.

*Perhaps only history buffs would be interested in this but....
I've been fascinated to learn recently, in a class taught by Christina Lane (currently doing research on silent cinema pioneers), that women were involved in all aspects of film production almost to the same extent as men during the first 20-30 years of cinema. Gradually filmmaking split between amateur and professional modes and became big business and women lost their position within the nascent art form. This process began in 1908 with the formation of the Motion Pictures Patent Company and ended in 1921 when Eastman Kodak and Bell&Howell colluded to make 16 mm stock the amateur format and consolidated 35 mm stock and cameras as the professional standard. The participation of women from the late silent era through the classical or Golden Era of Hollywood into the 70s was markedly decreased. A few scriptwriters and a larger number of stars (Mary Pickford, Hepburn, Stanwyck, etc.) did have some power and exercised artistic influence. But usually not as producers and directors. Exceptions like Ida Lupino and Riefenstahl notwithstanding, it wasn't until the 70s that women began very slowly to get opportunities to produce and direct (70s feminism had a great impact on the culture in general). It was very encouraging to note that 30% of last year's MIFF features were directed by women. That's an unusually high number but it's a sign that women are getting more opportunities in cinema. I'm optimistic. My little stab at contributing to their cause, my perhaps insignificant gesture, is to write about Lucrecia Martel's films as part of my academic work. Martel's work is one of my options as thesis subject.

I can understand the feminist point of view quite well, seeing how the vast majority of directors, being male, would see women one way and put that image on the screen. Women are frequently codified as sexual objects. Even so called independent women allow the system to use them this way. (cinemabon)
I find the evolution of the "femme fatale" character very interesting. During the classic noir era, the always desirable, defiant and assertive femme fatale ends up being punished for her undermining patriarchal dominance. By the end, she's either killed or domesticated. Then we have the "new noir", the noir after feminism which subverts the noir tradition. Kasdan's Body Heat is an early example; John Dahl's The Last Seduction is the ultimate one. After that we entered a post-feminist era, in which certain tensions ease and seminal feminist themes recede to allow more playfulness and romance. Soderbergh's Out of Sight with Clooney and J.Lo is a good example. Of couse I'm simplifying and generalizing here.

[Chris Knipp]

That makes sense that women got pushed back when movies became big business and there was much money to be made.

Another woman director whose work has impressed me a lot recently is Alicia Scherson. Her
PLAY (2005) (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14917#post14917) was one of my top choices from the SFIFF of 2006.

THE LAST SEDUCTION is indeed a landmark of the extreme 'vagina dentata' femme fatale type in a neo-noir.

[cinemabon]

I believe the fatalism has given way to the "gotcha" syndrome, where women become assertive and then become the avengers, destroying their male counterparts. This reversal is especially prominent in the last decade when you look at women placed in comedic roles. Look at the work of Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, Goldie Hawn, Lillie Tomlin, Gilda Radner, Kathleen Turner, Sigourney Weaver, etc. Most of the films that espouse these "gotcha" outcomes are directed by men but written by women. Jody Foster often plays assertive women, yet she is almost always directed by men ("Silence of the lambs" "Nell" "Contact").

As you've pointed out, since the business world is dominated by men, and most studios are now owned by conglomerates, they hire female stars but continue the patronage system of hiring male directors. Only independent filmmakers through outlets like Sundance offer women greater voice in the production process. Of course, Europe and South America are out of my league.