Žižek’s second film in The Pervert’s Guide To... definitely came out better technically. The scenery in which he leads his narrative has become more closely consistent with the films he talks about. The narrative itself has become more structured: if earlier the relationship of the films he cites as an example was very weak and far-fetched, now one conclusion smoothly flows into the beginning of the explanation of the next, one film really corresponds to another, in the context of Žižek’s speech.
The problem the second film didn't fix is the content. Take Carpenter’s first film, They Live. The protracted scene of the fight between the main character and his friend because of the latter’s unwillingness to wear glasses that show the true meaning of the world around him, Žižek explains by the fact that this friend realizes that it will hurt him to see the world as it is, that he, anticipating suffering from the loss of illusions, resists for so long. At the same time, there is another explanation for this drawn-out fight scene: the actor playing the role of John Nude in real life wrestler, so he was actually chosen for this role, and the director simply used his ability to spectacularly fight. Zizek may be a connoisseur of psychoanalysis or Marxism, but he often forgets the fundamental philosophical principle of Occam’s razor in his interpretations.
Therefore, when in Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony a philosopher finds a critique of ideology, it is simply ridiculous how he multiplies entities unnecessarily. Indeed, how does Beethoven know that hundreds of years from now his music will be linked to anything ideological?
His other thoughts are slightly more logical, such as explaining the 2011 London pogroms and the Breivik massacre, or presenting his point of view on the nature of Nazism and capitalism by referring to the same films or music. In any case, references to events in the real world, rather than fixating on films alone in an attempt to tell about abstract things, is already a step forward.
I am not trying to say that I do not agree with the author’s views because he is wrong, as in the previous film of Žižek “Pervert Cinema”, one can find rational seeds in his inventions, but the way he tries to convey his point of view using elements of popular culture does not withstand any criticism. Well, anyway, it was interesting to hear.
The whole Hollywood movie has long been perverted. It is written to him: Glory to Žižek reading.
Looking back at the history of mankind, it is easy to notice how prominent a role in it was played by philosophers, thinkers, writers, scientists, who often coexisted in one brilliant personality that moved forward the development of civilization. Tsars, clergy of the highest rank wrote them grateful, enthusiastic letters. The whole nation boasted of having such pillars of wisdom as Leibniz, Descartes, and Kant. Of course, there were others. Living "in the underground", from which they sprinkled their notes (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza). In any case, obviously, they opposed the ideology of modernity or developed it, but they were still connected with it and with the world as a whole. But what can a philosopher do in a world with a mobile, ever-elusive ideology consumed by the development of mass media and the means of communication? How can he squeak anything original through the impenetrable thickness of an all-consuming mass culture? What seemed unthinkable recently became reality. Žižek came to the masses.
Do not think that K. I. some one-of-a-kind insight in the career of a philosopher. After all, almost half of all his literary works are exclusively about cinema (the second is politics). And mass cinema. Although the word mass has many interpretations, one thing is clear - we have seen these films, and we know them. What we do not know is what hidden mechanisms, implicit ideological postulates are contained in them.
And here we come to one of the most critical positions of Žižek, for which he is most often accused of one-sidedness. He interprets almost all films using Lacano/Marxian instruments. For reference. Lacan is perhaps the last of the most serious theorists of psychoanalysis of modern times. Developing Freud’s ideas in adaptation to modernity, he reached truly unprecedented heights in explaining the principle of reality, desire and fantasy. Well, Marx is Žižek’s faithful assistant in all questions concerning politics (better than capitalism, which has already declared the whole world, no one has yet explained it). In short, these are the most progressive and informatively rich theories of our time, capable of helping to comprehend reality and what is its opposite. In my opinion, the attacks are determined not by the alleged “perversion” of philosophy, but by the fact that Žižek dared such a decisive interpretation.
After all, it should be understood for a long time that the idea that the film is more brilliant the clearer and clearer it can be traced direct, strict and clear author’s position – complete nonsense. On the contrary, the film’s discourse is richer and fuller the more it allows for interpretation (maybe it only comes to life thanks to it). That is why Žižek so often dwells on Lynch films, considering him a real genius of our time. Another famous master of cinema, Alfred Hitchcock, also becomes the object of a close “look” of the philosopher, literally reanimating black and white films of 50 years ago, claiming that for all the time that has passed, nothing better was invented. It is obvious that Hitchcock’s view of the camera (as an object, a character, a God) was perfected. There is a lot of material in his films.
In the analysis of all kinds of blockbusters and pop movies, the most interesting thing is to observe the mechanisms of hidden political messages and the ideology of capitalism. Why are Americans so afraid of the Jaws shark? This is the absolute Other, which in Hollywood is often the USSR (and Russia – John Wick (2015), the Great Equalizer (2015)). Why does the Avatar wear the false mask of communism? Why does the proletarian Jack of the Titanic hide in the dark waters of Antarctica and the bourgeois Kate Winslet live to be 100? Many, many questions find in Žižek ... not the answer, but rather their interpretation.
Philosophy has not died, but has adapted to modernity and its tastes. In fact, perhaps, thanks to such innovators as Žižek, people begin to marvel at the diversity and diversity of what seems to have the most banal and everyday color. As old Montaigne said, “Philosophy begins with wonder.”
One of the most anti-capitalist philosophers of our time Slavoj Žižek and his third documentary turned out to be simply enchanting! Once again, with his Eastern European English speaking, he conveys to the viewer the idea that reflections on philosophical topics can be truly fascinating.
Ideology is so ingrained in society that it has influenced our dreams. If we want to change our reality, we must change our dreams first. That seems to be the main theme of the film. The application of psychoanalytic theory to film interpretation, Slavoj Žižek tries to reveal the hidden meaning of many Hollywood films.
The first film commented by Žižek is The film tells the story of a man who accidentally finds sunglasses, allowing him hidden messages everywhere - in outdoor advertising, in TV screens, on food packages. Before him appears not the outer shell of things, but their inner essence. It is an ideology that makes people turn into consumers. For whom God is a currency.
That sets the tone of the film. Over the next two hours, Žižek tries to reveal the hidden, subconscious messages of a number of films shot from the twentieth to the twenty-first century. His main argument is that Hollywood dictates our fantasies, dreams and desires through ideology. All this leads to the fact that “we know what we don’t want, but what do we really want?” This is the main argument that capitalism works.
All ideology is built for manipulation and control. The film Titanic, for example, shows that this is only good for the upper classes, being on a low-class level, they feel privileged caste. Therefore, the film fully depicts the exploitation of one social layer over another. Vampires and undead are also part of the demonstration of class struggle. All vampires are high class and only they are allowed to suck blood In fact, in every movie you can find some ideology. Another example is the shark in Jaws. It represents all the fears of the American people. Yankees may be wary of natural disasters, foreigners, immigrants and more. But Steven Spielberg combined all these fears in the image of a predatory fish. The same ideology was adopted by the Nazis forty years earlier, who unified the enemy in the face of the Jews.
And all that thinking. Žižek draws incredible ideological parallels. Stanley Kubrick, Nolan with his Batman, Dostoevsky, Stalin, Milos Forman. Many famous personalities fall under the skating sarcastic language of Žižek. Everywhere he sees a murderous society, an ideology. The most important thing is that his reasoning smoothly flow from each other and absolutely do not make him fall into boredom. Very diverse views of things.
His psychoanalytic explanations are truly fascinating. Many of Žižek's judgments will make him fall into a stupor. How the hell did he see that? Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the author will simply force you to change your view of the environment and the way you watch movies. Many Hollywood movies will never be seen again. The view of what is happening behind the screen will change.
It is wonderful that in the world there are still original philosophers with their Unique vision of the world who can explain the essence of their thoughts without any pathos and profitably. A great reason to escape and everyday vision of the world and enjoy a 2-hour trip cleansing the brain of any garbage.
9 out of 10
Žižek hid too cleverly behind a strong ideological block in the first part to believe that something other than his own curiosity could make him remove such a block in the second. By this Ideology and more interesting than the previous Cinema Guide - there all the philosopher in the company of a chronic runny nose postulated his humor through revealing mainstream cinema, here - tries to openly regain power through deep psychoanalysis of Kinder-surprise, and this gives him a beard.
At its core, the whole entertaining lecture of Žižek is a partisan sortie of philosophy in the war against Coca-Cola, which the latter, as we know, won long ago and crushingly. Philosophers rejoiced at the ideological primacy of a century and a half from the general history of our era (which, in fact, is a very good result, physicists have a figure twice shorter), missed the reins with the death of Sartre and have since been forced to write about the Matrix or Lenin, to at least sometimes be called popular. Žižek, of course, loves cinema, but of course uses it not out of love, but because it is the only reliable bridge between him and the audience - philosophy does not care if it is not the philosophy of the Taxi Driver, at the same time who cares. Taxi driver without philosophy, and here on this shaky design Žižek has been balancing for a year. He is literally forced to sympathize with popular cinema, so that someone sympathizes through this movie with Žižek himself.
And what is more important is not how, under the guise of debunking an ideology of which we are all happy slaves, there is a struggle for the power of one ideology with another, but how Žižek does not resist such a struggle, although he fully understands its presence in his own ideas (the man who calls ethnic conflict a form of capitalism cannot but know that his documentary conflict is a form of competition), for him this is a conscious experiment, and not over the crowd (the man who watched the Titanic cannot not know how few people will watch the Kinogid) and not even over himself. The main question is not how to get out of the dome of the ideology of consumption, capital, socialism or Batman, to this question and the answer is obviously fatal, they say, there is no need, and nothing pushes to the exit – on the contrary, Žižek willingly languishes in the scenery of our favorite films, drinking our beloved Starbucks, and he is probably the only sixty-year-old man who can explain the artistic function of the Ledger Joker better than any flock of students. The question is: how long can one argue within this framework without entering into an absurd peak, that is, at what point does criticism of ideology by the methods of ideology itself become absurd? And as the main and only hero of the film moves from Carpenter to Marxism, and from there to the tanks in Prague, one begins to readily believe that such a border does not exist at all, and Žižek is able to peck endlessly.
Ideology is the urn from which we all eat.
“If you can’t go to the movies, go to the bathroom.”
This film is just a feast for moviegoers and can not be called. It gives hope that the intellectual public has not yet translated. But I was particularly pleased that I finally saw many of the classic paintings in full form (on "celluloid"), even if only in fragments. And I felt myself to be like Comrade Bender, who once exclaimed: “The dream of an idiot has come true!”
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek is one of the most popular and inexhaustible suppliers of aphorisms for the Russian-language blogosphere and social networks. He has long been actively feeding the Internet space with his pearls – paradoxical and witty at the same time. “Pervert’s Cinema: Ideology” is not always a logical, consistent, and intelligible set of conclusions. And at the same time - it is a brilliant citation book, spiritualized by an expressive and eccentric author, who with such ecstasy and self-forgetfulness performs his assigned role that it is impossible not to fall under the influence of his specific charm.
His conclusions are sometimes fragmentary and incoherent, but he seems to have learned the truth perfectly well that we live in a time when the part is more important than the whole: the frame is the episode, and the episode in turn is the whole film. Therefore, it makes no sense to especially care about the logic of reasoning and the harmony of the narrative. Žižek is not a film critic, but this is interesting. You won’t get bored with him: if he doesn’t tell you anything fundamentally new in these more than two hours, at least he will sniff your nose. The spectacle is, I tell you, the funniest. It's almost like Einstein's tongue sticking out - the joke of a genius coming down from a pedestal.
You feel a little crazy with Žižek. He juggles philosophical theses so deftly that you don’t have time to track the course of his thought, which spreads across the screen, aki waxa in the gutalin factory. Žižek is Zhirinovsky plus Mussolini in one bottle. In terms of talk, artistry, focus on the audience and unshakable conviction in every word spoken. He jumps so confidently on the horse of left radicalism, which a hundred years ago was zealously toured by Lenin’s comrades, that only wonder.
Movies are crazy about him. And although Žižek’s filmography is not all that extensive, it is also enough to be called the most successful modern philosopher, at least among those in demand by cinema. Analyzing the peculiarities of ideological manipulation, mainly how ideology is incorporated into our everyday experience – the experience of consumption, he himself is somewhat like a political juggler who deftly throws colorful balls of intelligible idioms at an attraction whose purpose is to thin the brains of those present on this show. Žižek looks at the pink snot of famous creations of the mass cult through the dark glasses of the crusher of myths and debunks them one by one, just with varying degrees of persuasiveness.
Watching it and listening to it is little comparable to masochistic pleasure. A gloomy little man with black circles around his eyes (Count Dracula can no longer get out of the coffin), with a monstrous accent similar to lisp (just like Brick in a popular TV series), constantly snorting, and in addition to everything gestures like a psychopath - is it enough to stop doubting that a real freak reigns on the screen? Just with a degree in philosophy and radical leftist views, with which he confidently drills the space of mass cinema, interpreting and thereby “popularizing” it for intellectuals. He almost ceaselessly sprinkles paradoxes from the screen, just like a confectioner - sugar beads on Easter cakes.
Catching Žižek at his word is almost impossible. Any lecturer could envy such freedom of expression, and I am simply silent about film students. I have no doubt that Žižek would find an ideological provocation in the most innocent screen opuses, but he is more interested in dealing with films that are famous, even very famous, because this a priori allows him to reach a deliberately wider audience. Hilarious theses, coupled with thoughtful marketing, are a reliable scheme to promote the most radical Marxist ideas to the right target audience in the consumer market.
To the envy of other critics, he so deftly and effortlessly disposes of the world's film heritage, talking a lot and willingly, like an ideology, but actually about everything in the world. “The Cinema of the Pervert: Ideology” is a dozen very famous paintings – from “Triumph of the Will” and “The Fall of Berlin” to “Titanic” and “The Dark Knight”, as well as chronic shots of varying degrees of freshness illustrating social cataclysms, such as the recent pogroms in London, or socio-cultural comments explaining the phenomenon of popularity of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” in totalitarian regimes. Žižek will not deny the ability to intrigue, me in particular - the only unknown film in his collection of Frankenheimer's Seconds, which I immediately found and watched on my return from the session. What is not an illustration of the ideological work that used me as an object of manipulation?
Who is this Žižek? A pop idol for initiates, a deideologizing fetish of consumption? A dexterous manipulator and charlatan, throwing into the furnace of sometimes very dubious conclusions everything that can burn in the fire of his emotions? Being on the periphery of the film process, teaching mainly in his homeland, in Ljubljana, this Slovenian philosopher, meanwhile, manages to keep his finger on the pulse of advanced cinematic thought, bringing his very ambiguous beliefs to the court of a not so narrow audience. And at the same time, using famous British film companies as intermediaries, if not exploiting them. Who else of the thoughtful humanitarians of the former socialist camp can boast today of such an influential position among the same British filmmakers, behind whom are listed expensive art projects like “Slumdog Millionaire”?
I felt like I was left alone in the room to wait for the final credit, after which Žižek performed his last trick: repeating after DiCaprio in Titanic, going underwater, just with his trademark provocative prank. I will not say what it is that those who have already left the session at that time, or have not yet watched this movie, had a reason to find out for themselves what kind of foam released under the curtain this cheerful Slovenian, who became a movie star among advanced cinephiles. A star illuminating with its special, unique radiance the modern film landscape.
Slavoj Žižek creates a continuation of his series on the analysis of movies through a combination of the conscious and the unconscious. At the same time, in my opinion, this series has very little in common with the first part.
This is a whole separate story telling the viewer about the issues raised in reflections and observations by Slava Žižek. At first glance, we have a close way of narration, which Slavoj Žižek used in the “Cinema of a Pervert”. The difference is in the very concept of the film, which appears before the viewer. Despite the large number of video material and examples from the works of various directors, the author of the film begins to reflect on the structure of the modern world and step-by-step steps aimed at the formation of this reality in the perception of people.
Issues of ideology, freedom, honesty, pleasures, fears are raised - the list goes on for a long time. Slavoj Žižek draws parallels between what is seen, created, programmed in the consciousness of modern society. All together allows you to create your own vision for each viewer. The process of storytelling is like reading a book. The author shares his work and the viewer / reader plunges at his usual speed - he concentrates on something and misses something. There is an element of discussion in the film – the material is revealed in a way that creates a dialogue with the author of the picture.
As I watched it, I felt like I could go out for a cup of coffee and go back to the next scene without losing the overall meaning. Therefore, the film is certainly very interesting considering its observations and the questions raised in it. That method of sequence, chosen by the author, allowed to connect on the example of actual movies questions seemingly far from each other. Show what a simple game of meaning lies in what you see, especially on the example of cinema after the 2000s. But while watching, you catch yourself thinking that you start to focus not only on what the author of the film says. You pay attention to the sometimes very strong chaotic movements of the author in his monologue and a certain discrepancy between words and the frames shown. Maybe there is another secret meaning in this – to do and shoot? But if, as the author himself says – do not complicate the analysis – then what he saw at times will unbalance from the film itself.
8 out of 10
2. Everyone will find something for themselves.
3. Practical benefits
4. Confronting Capitalism as a Key Message
5. Popularity of Žižek in Russia
6. Contrideology
1. Does Žižek sell himself in the film? As a philosopher, as a brand, does he prep his new book? Or is the film a genuine search for truth? Both answers are correct. Philosophers need to sell themselves in an environment like publicity. As soon as a philosopher ceases to replicate himself and his judgments, he falls into oblivion, in other words, he dies in life. But even within the framework of these sales, the philosopher is able to find explanations for modern phenomena, is able to search for answers to eternal questions. In parallel, the philosopher has another moral task: to preserve the sincerity of the search, to define the search as an end in itself. But this task is only the inner requirement of the philosopher. People who consume the results of the search for a philosopher, however cynical it may sound, should not feel discomfort from whether the philosopher sincerely tries to think or stupidly tries to make money by describing reality attractively. It doesn’t matter to me whether Žižek bought a bag of milk for the film’s fee, or whether he bought a house by the ocean. The most important thing for me is his experience, his thinking process. Even if we assume that Žižek is dependent on the money that the film will bring in the future or has already brought in, his method of analysis is unique. And only the process of studying this method, paid or not, triggers interesting mechanisms already in our method of analysis. We're getting rich. Perhaps later, after a longer analysis, in the course of life, we can find errors or deceptions in Žižek’s judgment. But at the moment, he's sharing a new tool of thought with us. For some time he gives to hold the baton of the philosopher-thinker. Ignoring this experience is stupid.
2. Everyone will find something interesting for themselves in the film, will make an individual benefit. But will everyone really be able to find something interesting, will it benefit? Is the “pervert” (modern spectator) whose “guide” is Žižek so independent and mature? “Everyone will find something interesting in the movie.” It is important to understand that this is an evaluation. Today it is used as a substitute for self-assessment. A kind of visibility of the analysis. A veiled deception. You have to forbid yourself to think and talk like that. We are not social critics, first of all we are critics of our ideas about the world, and all the films we watch must be subjected to our personal subjective analysis. It is only after each of us has formed our own judgment as a result of analysis that we can try to move to the next level: the discourse on social significance, the collective benefit. Thus, we make a natural transition from the personal to the general, shifting the focus from the smaller to the greater, and not vice versa.
3. It is important to get practical benefits from the film, to gain a unique experience. The problems in the film are recognized, they are known to us. What is unknown is their origin. Žižek tries to explain how and how these problems arose, how they continue to exist today. It's a lesson in independence. Watching the film, we dissect the familiar world around us. We cut off extra, extraneous parts, and we do this throughout the tape. By the end of the film, we realize that absolutely everything that surrounded us in our usual life has been cut off. The culmination is the coming to complete nihilism. Žižek plunges us into total loneliness. Loneliness is a way to focus on your sincere dreams and desires. Consciousness acquires originality, we return to the caves, forget the language, the whole way of modern life. My eyes open in a new way. At some point, even he, Žižek, becomes alien to us. He's being pulled away by us. This is the moment of truth. The world has finally changed. Not a fake catharsis!
4. Many of the problems, or the appearance of problems, in the film constantly refer us to capitalism. Continuous crisis and growth of prosperity, like a conveyor for the creation and destruction of money, things, ideologies. Everything brings us back to an economic system that, according to Žižek, disrupts our perception of reality. We eat, drink, think, even dream in the frame of reference of capitalism. Our perception is hyperemic, our consciousness is painful, and our ego is deceived. The world we lived in before the movie was an illusion. It is very important to determine, to understand: are we really comfortable to exist in this system? Are we capable of deceiving capitalism at all: to exist and think independently of it, even playing by all its rules?
5. Žižek is gaining popularity in Russia as a philosopher. Films and books are becoming more interesting for the Russian reader. In his interview, he admits that Russia is of great interest to him because the ideology of the Soviet Union is Stalinism, one of the most unexplored ideologies in the world today. That is why Žižek emphasizes the importance of the Russian viewer, his thinking. That's why we like each other. But the reason for his popularity lies not only in this.
6. The modern world is full of original philosophers and scientists who have a unique vision of reality. Studying their works can certainly enrich our philistine thinking, destroy stereotypes, change consciousness. Perhaps the ideas of such people can make society more satisfying. Žižek, in the eyes of the viewer, is a person who shares his unique vision of reality. And that's the key to his popularity. But despite the fact that throughout the film Žižek treacherously tries to teach the viewer to overcome dependence on any ideologies, a paradox arises: the viewer gets the experience of overcoming and recognizing the forms of ideologies, but at the same time experiences ideological hunger. This hunger, in turn, provokes the search for alternatives. That is why the popularity and interest in Žižek is based on his vision of the necessary counter-ideology (let’s call it that). But this counterideology is almost incomprehensible and is not a fixed theoretical formula, but a constantly changing process of thinking of Žižek himself. The “pervert” cannot keep up with this counter-ideology. Most likely, Žižek knows about this, and this is the perfect deal: the “pervert” receives inspiration, a sense of selectivity, a sense of liberation, and the “guide” successfully replicates itself, continues to live like a philosopher. Speaking, he gains the strength to speak again because he sees that he is being listened to, perhaps listened to.
When we raise the subject of philosophy, and it does not matter who is our interlocutor – whether it is your classmate at the university or a philosophy teacher, parents or yourself, here all the attention is paid to the search for the truth of the one that we do not know, but pretend that we have disclosed in detail its contents. The search for answers to eternal questions are tasks that lead to one main goal. We have been contradicting ourselves for decades, betraying our own beliefs and betraying ourselves, this is confirmed by this quote: “You cannot not believe in God and be angry with him at the same time.” I think it is the most relevant at the present time, for its inconsistency conveys a very accurate picture of the human soul, which can only be understood by oneself. Here fits a certain personification of the well-known sculpture "The Thinker".
Glory takes as a basis different films, with the help of which it shows how people in different versions are ideologically interpolated. His original philosophical views are interpreted in detail by himself, and in normal language, not scientific, which makes the essence of many things clear to every interested person in his reality. Žižek gives excerpts of films, which are a common inseparable thread between the facts of the past and the events of the present. To get even closer to a valuable philosophical interpretation of hidden moments, "brother Marx" perfectly integrated into famous film masterpieces, playing the role of a guide to the material just traveled. He explores meaning in the very sense, thereby avoiding false ideology and seeking the truth, will go through the pictures, ranging from John Carpenter’s Alien Among Us to Cameron’s immortal blockbuster Titanic, where all sorts of delicious things will appear, after which you will tell many about this golden mine of intellectual monologue.
Education is now going nowhere, because it is easier to govern an uneducated herd than a thinking people. Ideology is full of us from birth, and the essence of the documentary is to make people think, to show what a stinking and nasty place they are now, to prove once again that physical measures will not lead to anything good, and even more will be dragged into the quagmire of gray routine despair. You have to think about it, friends.
Based on the above, we can conclude that this documentary masterpiece is an encyclopedia, which contains all the most interesting, important, necessary, reasonable, even timekeeping is not a hindrance to the mind, since it is food. The film indicates the most general essential characteristics and fundamental principles of reality and cognition, human existence, the relationship of man and the world, and these words are confirmed after viewing their own reflections on the constant wearing of "pink glasses". Do they affect vision? Nope! Do they affect the brain? Yes! Here you will learn about the most atheistic religion in the world - Christianity. And this is just an iceberg on the way to a whole iceberg of incompatible things that will be demonstrated.
9 out of 10