[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
7/10
It's only kind of what you think.
6 December 2011
Slurring, lisping Slovenian-accented psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies a Freudian lens to the films of Alfred Hitchcock, David Lynch and other directors. The title comes from the psychoanalytic belief that all people become twisted by their upbringing and thus are perverted to some degree by the time they hit adulthood. As nonsensical as that notion is, it is still the most intuitive of the hodge-podge of Freudian malarkey Zizek pitches in his classic professorial, self-agreeing delivery. Beyond being hard to follow these reinterpretations are unnecessary when it comes to more comprehensible movies such the Hitchcock films (or ?fill-ims? in Zizek?s accent) that he covers. Yes, ?The Birds? can be interpreted as an Oedipal struggle between the mother and new girlfriend but it can also be enjoyed as a creature-feature. Yes, ?Psycho? can be viewed as the struggle between the superego (apparently the mother?s corpse when it is in the hotel) and the id (apparently the mother?s corpse after Norman moves it down to the fruit cellar) but it can also be enjoyed as a slasher movie. And yes, ?Vertigo? can be understood as James Stewart?s ?mortification? of the lost Madeline through Judy but it can also be enjoyed as a crackling good murder mystery. Zizek?s cartography rises in value when he surveys more alien territory - most especially David Lynch. Put simply, Zizek?s explanation of why Dennis Hopper?s Frank in ?Blue Velvet? is both a violent rapist and just a guy who just needs a hug may not be correct but it beats trying to figure it out for oneself. His explanation of ?Mulholland Drive? is welcome precisely because the film makes so little sense. ?Lost? fans would probably appreciate any help he could provide on its final episode. Ultimately what we learn from Zizek comes from the director Sophie Fiennes? excellent conceit of reshooting famous scenes with the hairy, frumpy, corduroy-clad Zizek replacing Jimmy Stewart, Anthony Hopkins and others. We learn that movie actors a bring glamour and charm necessary for the illusion of cinema and that putting an ordinary-looking person in their place makes them suddenly very ordinary. In summary, ?Pervert..? is the strangest of mixes: it is a must see but isn?t very good, it is educational without making any sense and it informs while it entertains.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed