“First they don’t notice you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. And then you win. It’s actually a quote from Gandhi about his political struggles with ideological opponents, but it’s a good way to describe my viewing of the film.
I have long known about the existence of this film, but everything put it in a long box, “watching” the films from the list mentioned in this picture, because judging by the title I had something extraordinary, and just wanted to be ready.
After watching more than half of the films on this list, I finally got to this tape, and at first it was unimaginably amazing. In the paintings I had seen before, Žižek found incredible meanings according to his own point of view, which was very different from mine. As they say, Monsieur knows a lot about perversions - the name is fully justified.
Then, as I watched, I became more and more irritated not only by the author’s very one-sided views, but also by the fascination with the connection of all the films that he watched to present his point of view. I really wanted to turn off this illogical nonsense, but my habit of watching even the worst films to the end prevented me from doing it.
Then I began to notice that even though I did not share the author’s views, I began to increasingly agree with his conclusions. No, the one-sidedness of the consideration and the illogicality of the presentation did not disappear, just in his stream of thoughts I increasingly began to find reasonable seeds.
The text spoken by Žižek does look like a stream of thoughts, rather than a structured narrative read on paper, as is usually the case in documentary films. It feels like sitting in a lecture with an experienced and passionate professor, the type who comes into the audience without everything - books, papers or a computer with the material of the lesson, just with a cup of coffee, sometimes interrupting to wet your throat, and then continue to write again. And judging by what's in that coffee, the lecturer added something stronger. It may not be coffee at all.
But the point of view is interesting, although it is difficult to share. And just like after an interesting lecture by a philosophy professor, you leave the audience with a slightly changed worldview, and after this film by Slavoj Žižek, I will watch the movie a little differently, paying attention to all these Freudian problems too.
“Cinema Pervert” was released at the most appropriate period in the history of cinema, when almost all the classics, one way or another, are subjected to systematic and impartial analysis by those who have a lot of technical and scientific means to build new and original judgments. Slavoj Žižek does not belong to the younger generation of critical thinkers, but his advantage is a great scientific experience and rather curious views on many problematic humanitarian issues. In addition, a specialist from Slovenia, apparently, also loves cinema with some strange, psychoanalytic love, and therefore, prepare for a long and difficult marathon in the Looking Glass of great films with him and a couple of ingenious names, the main of which is Freud.
The first part of the project is devoted to the problem of using reality in cinema and contrasting it with the realms of the imaginary and symbolic, which fully corresponds to the fundamental principles of the teachings of Žižek. Immersing the audience in both more and less well-known paintings, more precisely, in the prepared excerpts, the director sees behind the surface layer of each of them a deeper and often beyond the control of those who do not have a certain kind of knowledge in some areas. The conclusion that the main purpose of cinema art is to awaken the desire, encourage it in every possible way, but also keep it at a safe distance. As a result, the second part, which addresses these words, gives the most interesting examples of the Freudian method in cinema. The main tool of Žižek is the masterful operation of philosophical concepts, the clarity of speech and the originality of the approach to each example. It seems that the author is really interested not only as a specialist, but also as a person. The third part of the lecture is the most difficult to master, since it is generalizing and at the same time methodological in nature. Perhaps it was in it that the most convincing thought was voiced that the main human error lies not in the hyperbolization of their fantasies, but in their belittling, while people constantly strive to show themselves and not only who they really are.
The drawbacks of the picture can be attributed to some kind of authoritarian nature of the presentation of the material. After all, any, even the most plausible interpretation of the phenomenon to some extent remains purely personal. And the author’s swing to understand the problems of film methodology was too short and narrow. It would be interesting to know the author’s opinion on the depreciation of modern cinema as a cultural phenomenon, which at one time happened to literature.
However, as the first and so far only of this kind of work, "The Pervert Cinema" is quite good and interesting for its original reading of Chaplin, Hitchcock and younger filmmakers. This film once again proves that cinema was and is the most versatile art form, the most magical of the mirrors of civilizational culture, capable not only to reflect, but also to reflect in each of us.
Philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek in his documentary films conducts a whole study using the plots and images of world cinema. Žižek’s view is that of a psychoanalyst. A Freudian and Marxist in his convictions, he makes an attempt to interpret the familiar (or unfamiliar) films of famous directors (A. Hitchcock, A. Tarkovsky, M. Scorsese, S. Eisenstein, D. Lynch and many others). Žižek tries to cultivate new meanings in the territory of psychoanalysis, peppered with a postmodern performance typical of this philosopher. Fame constantly subjects the conclusions of psychoanalysis. This is easily seen in his films and books. As he prepares to make a "horse move," he says something like "let's go further," "now let's take a radical step," or finally this (my favorite) -- "suppose the exact opposite" or "let's look at it from the other side." A certain counterversion, an attempt to go beyond the usual interpretations, an ineradicable desire to generate new meanings - this is the very performance that can be blamed on the pop philosopher of modern times. Fame needs only to attract attention, not the search for truth.
The first film is divided into three parts. The second picture lacks such a structure. The first is an abstract study of cinema, emotions and human instincts in general. The second film is devoted to the theory of the formation of ideology and the reflection of ideology in art. It seems that the mass viewer both tapes (especially the second) will seem boring. And thoughtful “boring” may on the contrary seem that the author lacks logical analysis, because it is not enough just to report facts, put them in an unusual context, you need to draw conclusions and understand the consequences. Apparently, this work remains on the shoulders of those viewers who (as real heroes) will be able to watch the film(s) to the end.
I don’t know if I can call it a review. In general, I want to share my impressions about this tape and some conclusions.
1) I never thought you could see a movie like that. Glory tells about a certain tape and the hidden meaning in it. For example, I perceived the movie at the level of sensations interesting / not interesting. Already in the process of watching this tape, you get an impulse of energy, interest. What meaning did the directors listed in the film Glorious tapes want to convey? Now it is already ingrained in the brain to understand what message the director wants to convey every movie you see!
2) In the beginning, when you first see the Glorious, the impression is that he is crazy, crazy, pervert of course. In the process of viewing came the idea of what a normal person is. That many of our desires, the most secret ones that we disguise, we don’t want to notice, are a step toward meeting the phrase “Know thyself.” And if you admit yourself so with your desire, admit that you are so “not normal” is normal.
You may already know and understand this. I'll tell you to watch the movie. At least to understand the meaning of some movies.
This film belongs to a separate group. It's a completely different way of looking at our reality and the way we perceive. Creating a picture, Slavoj Žižek offers to pay attention to what is happening with his eyes. The viewer can either play this game or step away from the complex combination of the conscious and the unconscious.
We have a large number of films, combined with some important scenes. Analyzing each presented author, combining themes and ways of transmitting material to the viewer, Slavoj Žižek immerses the viewer in what is hidden from view. This psychoanalytic approach opens up several directions. Did the directors create their films specifically to the smallest detail or did this unconscious play with the material lead to such interesting developments? Did they want us to awaken our minds or instincts? Do filmmakers immerse us in our personal desires through film, or do they set the line between reality and fantasy?
You can watch this movie from a different angle every time. Very multivariately, despite the straightforwardness of the description, Slavoj Žižek analyzes the presented material. You can take everything on faith or doubt what you see. The most important thing for me was to see a completely new way of analyzing the paintings I saw. When not only the script, visual part, actors, symbols and ambiguity. When there are primal instincts that form the basis of all films of certain directions. Slavoj Žižek speaks to the viewer - let's look at everything through the presented picture of the world. What is he like? What do we see, what do we fear, and what attracts us?
One of the main motives of this film is our fantasies and reality. The power of our personal fantasies may be so remote from the present that when we encounter them, we may not get the effect we expect. Or even worse, to be horrified by the transition from the imaginary to the real with all the consequences. An additional scary event is when the director creates conditions or characters that speak directly to the audience. They see right through him. The illusion of penetrating into the very depth of consciousness. When it seems that the viewer is just looking at the picture, and the picture is already inside him in the depths.
To retell the Glory of Žižek is both difficult and meaningless. He is very accurate in what he describes. He reveals secrets even more immerses the viewer in what he sees. Artificially showing the rules of the game, he invites you to play by these rules. The viewer begins the game and enters a new world even deeper than previously imagined. Glory to Žižek as a magician exposing tricks. The illusion of security allows you to unconsciously get closer to what you see. Through the lines, the author warns that his philosophy and analysis are the same game with the audience as those of the directors listed. Everyone makes their own conclusions.
The film is extremely interesting for lovers of psychology in general and, in particular, for lovers of psychedelic horror - a genre that throughout its history sins with some protractedness.
For example, Hitchcock – well, why, one asks, is the viewer shown thorough laundering of a snow-white tile bath after the murder? (In ten minutes!—that’s a lot of time.) The discovery that this is an allegory of the subconscious laundering of the soul from dirt, gives an explanation not only to this episode, but also in principle shows how our subconscious is working on the disposal of the negative that storms it from the outside - all my life! - that there are some ten minutes.
“Cinema pervert” is akin to the interpretation of dreams, only thrown on the screen gloomy lace riddles from the dimension of the subconscious.
The anthology of the most famous scenes from the “golden fund” of cinema is given from a psychological perspective, while opening the background of many more films that seemed incomprehensible before, or too conceptually drawn out.
For example, an allegory with the fusion of sewage in the closet (also Hitchkovskaya):
She also appears in the “Country of the Tides” (Terry Gilliam) in little Dalyse, merging the horrors of reality into nothingness, or, according to Žižek, into the lower world.
And in "The Rippers" (Miguel Sapochnik) in the careless killer Remi, enthusiastically plowing people up to a psychological shift, when "excrement begins to come back from another dimension" (S. Žižek).
Not to mention Lynch with his labyrinths of the subconscious, imho - heavy; well, no wonder that some, the most unpleasant of them Slavoj Žižek analyzes in his film directly before our eyes.
All the nuances of the film can not be conveyed in a nutshell, you can only guarantee adherents of Hitchcock, Lynch (living with them psychedelic peppers), revision of your favorite films with a new understanding, and, most importantly, the opening of some secret windows of your own soul.
In the second part of the film, I had a lot of objections, and at the same time a flood of new thoughts on all the questions raised further, which is also not bad.
The score is not ten just because part of the pleasure of traveling through the floors of consciousness, subconsciousness and unconsciousness kills translation with subtitles. Unfortunately, there is no translation...