![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( Why I Am Proud to be American today listening to My Country Tis of Thee- only thing about politics or the presidency in this post )
"> The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
List of Films dicussed go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Cinema
YouTube Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sFqfbrsZbw
( Synopsis from The P Guide. )
Wales and I went to see The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, described above, at The IFC Theater last night - which is housed in the old Waverly Art House in the Village on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street, next to the subway.
The IFC theater is perhaps the most comfortable theater I've been in. Cushioned arm-chairs with acres of leg room. We found good seats in the middle of the row, next to two guys we'd been chatting with in the lobby. I'd found the film through one of the film goer's meetup groups I'd joined on Meetgroups.com.
The film clocks in at about 2 hours and 35 minutes. It felt like three hours. Long film. And somewhat intense. With a narrator who has a very thick eastern european accent and speaks passionately in a staccato voice.
That said? It did fulfill my weird craving for a psychoanalytical discussion of cinema and media - which I kept, rather unsuccessfully, trying to do with people online. Although, I think it was a bit much for Wales. After Part II, she asked what time it was and when she discovered there was another hour to go, she muttered - "I'm dying here, dying."
The film was too long. Repetitive in places. And reminded me why I did not get a graduate degree in film or media criticism, and did not become a philosopher or psychologist. It is also reminded me of why I despise Freud and much prefer Jung. The psychoanalysis is Fruedian, with a capital F. Unlike Freud, Jung was not an absolutist, and questioned things, was more curious and open. Frued tends to be more absolute and unquestioning in his analysis - often ignoring the flaws in his generalizations and assumptions.
But.
It was a fascinating film and Zizek had some interesting ideas regarding the language of cinema.
Last night I wrote down what I remembered from the film. Here they are. These are my impressions of what was said and what I got from it. They are not necessarily my views, nor do I agree with everything that was disclosed by Zizek - who focused solely on films and filmmakers who supported his theories, ignoring those that did not. His presentation was at times manipulative and persuasive, but once you realized that the focus was so narrow, you began to question his theories.
( Part I - Desire : Cinema tells us what we desire and helps us define our reality, Freud's interest was not in the fact we are having sex or how, but rather, what we are thinking and imagining during it and why the libido needs to fantasize. Why are we fantasizing to enjoy it. )
( Part II: Male Fantasy - dealing with the female engima by obliterating her monsterous and dirty presence, making her little more than a reflection of the male, a part of him, which if he removes - he is free. )
( Part II, B- The Female Fantasy )
( Part III: Distintergation/Reconstruction of Self and Fantasy as a way of discovering self )
( Part III -Romantic Fantasy - Projection of Fantasy on to the other )
One additional point of interest - Hitchcock apparently loved to manipulate the emotions of his audience and found new ways to do it in each of his films through images and music.
His dream was that sometime in the future - the human brain would be hot-wired to a device and all a director had to do was push buttons to obtain the emotional response he desired.
[Hitchcock was one twisted individual - who had serious problems with women. So does Zizek in my opinion. Actually so did Freud.]
Interesting film. I recommend with one caveat - rent it, don't buy or go see in a theater. You may want to fast-forward.
"> The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
List of Films dicussed go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Cinema
YouTube Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sFqfbrsZbw
( Synopsis from The P Guide. )
Wales and I went to see The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, described above, at The IFC Theater last night - which is housed in the old Waverly Art House in the Village on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street, next to the subway.
The IFC theater is perhaps the most comfortable theater I've been in. Cushioned arm-chairs with acres of leg room. We found good seats in the middle of the row, next to two guys we'd been chatting with in the lobby. I'd found the film through one of the film goer's meetup groups I'd joined on Meetgroups.com.
The film clocks in at about 2 hours and 35 minutes. It felt like three hours. Long film. And somewhat intense. With a narrator who has a very thick eastern european accent and speaks passionately in a staccato voice.
That said? It did fulfill my weird craving for a psychoanalytical discussion of cinema and media - which I kept, rather unsuccessfully, trying to do with people online. Although, I think it was a bit much for Wales. After Part II, she asked what time it was and when she discovered there was another hour to go, she muttered - "I'm dying here, dying."
The film was too long. Repetitive in places. And reminded me why I did not get a graduate degree in film or media criticism, and did not become a philosopher or psychologist. It is also reminded me of why I despise Freud and much prefer Jung. The psychoanalysis is Fruedian, with a capital F. Unlike Freud, Jung was not an absolutist, and questioned things, was more curious and open. Frued tends to be more absolute and unquestioning in his analysis - often ignoring the flaws in his generalizations and assumptions.
But.
It was a fascinating film and Zizek had some interesting ideas regarding the language of cinema.
Last night I wrote down what I remembered from the film. Here they are. These are my impressions of what was said and what I got from it. They are not necessarily my views, nor do I agree with everything that was disclosed by Zizek - who focused solely on films and filmmakers who supported his theories, ignoring those that did not. His presentation was at times manipulative and persuasive, but once you realized that the focus was so narrow, you began to question his theories.
( Part I - Desire : Cinema tells us what we desire and helps us define our reality, Freud's interest was not in the fact we are having sex or how, but rather, what we are thinking and imagining during it and why the libido needs to fantasize. Why are we fantasizing to enjoy it. )
( Part II: Male Fantasy - dealing with the female engima by obliterating her monsterous and dirty presence, making her little more than a reflection of the male, a part of him, which if he removes - he is free. )
( Part II, B- The Female Fantasy )
( Part III: Distintergation/Reconstruction of Self and Fantasy as a way of discovering self )
( Part III -Romantic Fantasy - Projection of Fantasy on to the other )
One additional point of interest - Hitchcock apparently loved to manipulate the emotions of his audience and found new ways to do it in each of his films through images and music.
His dream was that sometime in the future - the human brain would be hot-wired to a device and all a director had to do was push buttons to obtain the emotional response he desired.
[Hitchcock was one twisted individual - who had serious problems with women. So does Zizek in my opinion. Actually so did Freud.]
Interesting film. I recommend with one caveat - rent it, don't buy or go see in a theater. You may want to fast-forward.
