User reviews

The pervert's guide to ideology is a thought provoking documentary, but at the same time enjoyable and full of wit.

Ideology is so ingrained in society that it has affected our dreams. If we want to change our reality we need to change our dreams first. That seems to be the main theme of the film. Applying psychoanalytic theory to film interpretation, Slavoj Zizek attempts to uncover the hidden meaning of many Hollywood films.

The first film commented by Zizek is 'They Live' which is about a man who finds a special pair of sunglasses that allows him to see the real, scary and subliminal message behind posters and adverts in magazines, but also the real monstrous face of some of those living around him. This sets the tone for the film. For the next two hours Zizek attempts to uncover the hidden, subliminal and controlling messages of a number of films produced over the last 50 years. His argument is that Hollywood dictates our fantasies, dreams and desires through ideology. Taking this further, Zizek comments that the ultimate engineered fantasy is not 'to take what we want but to want to be desired'.

Desire, is not just a desire for something, but also a 'desire for desire itself'. This is the main way that capitalism works. There is an urge to consume: 'people nowadays are made to feel guilty because they don't enjoy themselves enough', he claims.

For Zizek, there is no 'big other', no guaranteed, inherent meaning. We are alone and we have to live with that. All ideology is constructed for manipulation and control. The Titanic for instance, demonstrates that 'it is OK for the high classes when they are in low vitality to mix temporarily and sexually exploit the lower classes'. Vampires and the undead are also a demonstration of the class struggle, with the blood sucking vampires representing the high classes.

Similarly, the shark in Jaws represents all fears of American people; Americans may fear natural disasters, aliens, immigrants or other, and the shark unifies all those fears. This ideology was adopted by the Nazis who unified the enemy in the face of the Jews, according to Zizek.

Are Zizek's psychoanalytic explanations to films 'real'? This is up to you to decide; however, they sound plausible and are worthwhile for consideration. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, Zizek will change the way you watch films and Hollywood will never be the same again.

A superb documentary which takes a sample of Zizek's capitalism critique and delivers it in bite-sized chunks complete with film illustrations and a dash of wit.

While less focused than his Pervert's Guide to Cinema, here we see him take the ideas from film and open them out to our social and ideological (obviously) reality. He questions the very nature of ideology (often coming close to utilising the process of deconstruction, something he has rejected previously) and how it filters out reality. The film, one could say, is an attempt to make us aware of our ideological constraints. At times it's hard to know if his point is throwaway witticism or central point, but that is the nature of his writing too.

Zizek does look to the future in a positive way, commenting on how OWS and the Arab Spring are examples of society finally looking beyond neo-capitalism (whose ideology is that there is no other ideology), though it would be good to delve further into these examples. But Zizek is aware that solutions are not easy to come by, and finishes more on a question than an answer.

This is a strong documentary that occasionally lags but for the most part is engaging and provocative.

The accent is brave, hardly penetrable. Captions are really necessary. But the title of the movie says it all: it IS Slovenian humor at an abstract, high-brow level. The host mitigates the Freudian legacy as he perverts - in a decreasing order - (1) Marx (2) Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School at large (3) Lacan. His universalizing framework comes from Lacanian psychoanalysis, although he is as 'revealing' as Lacan. The greatest apparent influence on Zizek seems to be that of Roland Barthes's 'Mythologies'. As if he were kinda Roland The Hip Semiologist, Zizek analyzes everything from the perspective of the 'myth,' revealing at every opportunity a new approach, criticizing our surrounding, culturally globalized habitat, and insinuating what might be its intrinsic authenticity. The film is essentially an illustrated conference in the style of other mass culture analysts such as Jacob Bronowski, John Berger, Robert Hughes, Kenneth Clark. Zizek is not interested in the respective ideology of the filmmakers he quotes. He uses fragments of films as illustrative of real life processes and their 'myths', not specifically Nazism or Communism, but rather the way we all shape our lives and the universal themes that connect our 'mythological' subconscious needs.

Like The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, the second installment in what one might hope will be a series (though who knows what else the man can say about what else in the world with the medium of cinema and so on), Slavoj Zizek commands the screen in a documentary-cum-performance piece that is him trying to use movies and also propaganda films in this case to illustrate a thesis about Ideology. Of course, ideology can mean a lot of things in the world, so he has to make sure his points come across. And he has a ton of them. But the main one I think is presented right up front (They Live) and then subsequently the final film discussed in depth (Seconds) makes the point about what it means to live your life in a certain way and then for that life to be turned completely upside down.

Whether it's putting on - or fighting a guy for 9 minutes to put on - a pair of sunglasses as an "ideology critique machine", or putting on a new face to get a new identity - what ideology means in this context is... how are we told to exist in society, who are we subservient to or have to look up to, and what does society do to keep the wheels moving? Zizek certainly doesn't pick anything obscure, and of course this is one of the keys to possibly, maybe, bringing in people who have no idea who this man is or what his many philosophy books espouse (i.e. Less Than Nothing, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, etc). In fact he goes more mainstream in some ways than in 'Cinema', which had more art-house directors (Kieslowski, von Trier, Tarkovsky, Haneke). Here it's big guns like Spielberg (Jaws), Scorsese (Last Temptation in a really big set piece, which I'll mention again in a moment, and Taxi Driver), Cameron (Titanic), and stuff like the Dark Knight, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, etc. The main consistent director carried over, at least for a couple of points regarding Beethoven and how to function in the military system, is Kubrick, but then how could he not be.

The effect of this is that we see how in THE most popular cinema of the world, the films that have made by and large the most money, the messages conveyed carry a lot of significance, sometimes of the hidden sort underneath the exterior of high-class entertainment. He juxtaposes this with a movie like The Eternal Jew, which was a Nazi movie to show what the Jewish people were "really" like in society, but making a clear point that is shown: when dealing with a big "other" like a racist regime, you point out the highly intelligent intellectuals and the scummy filth; the enjoyment of life and the need to make enjoyment unattainable for others. In fact this concept of the "Big Other" is a cornerstone of the film. Hell, if you can buy into it, that's what Bruce the Shark is all about in Jaws.

The key thing that carries the film, aside from how Zizek has the most uncanny, strange but fascinating ability to keep one's attention through his screen presence (he looks like a college professor, albeit often put into the clothes and set pieces from the movies as was Perverts Guide part 1), is just the quantity of things to ponder. I've seen the movie three times now and only now feel like I've grasped most of what he's talking about. This is not to say it's too dense on a first viewing so much as to say that you get such a massive spectrum on what society does with its people - how Capitalism and Communism have certain very similar structures, what music has a role in shaping ideology, the figures of single mothers and rioters in Britain respectively (but not by much), and ultimately what Christianity and Atheism have to do with one another.

The Atheism part may be a tough to swallow; this was one of the things that kept me from fully loving the film the first time, not that I didn't get the theory, but it seemed borderline crap. But as I rolled around the concept, particularly with the scene presented from Last Temptation (the crucifixion scene of course), it was provocative and made me rethink how I see what a belief structure is. I don't know if the film will be as deep as it is for everyone, or if it's even as memorable as Perverts Guide to Cinema, which is THE study of David Lynch for, like, all time. But Zizek and Fiennes present an entertaining, sometimes very funny tableau (i.e. the Stalin line) and you get to see certain movies you may have not seen before and may want to once it's done, and so many questions come up: is there any way to change thinking about how we live and function? What do we do when we can't confide in others for fear of the "Big Other" concept? Do all fascist leaders love cats and small children? Things like that.

This guide is also highly rated in comparison with the film guide. Although abstracted in more to the theory and the world of ideas, than to the movies again it introduces us to the field of film art by already well known manner.

I dare say that the selection of movies here is better. Some movies and directors that were missed in the previous guide were caught up and the final result is quite satisfactory. The opposition, which this time Zizek introduces to us is between free choice and hidden orders, which implicitly enshrined in its variants. Making a kind of circular proof, starting from one place and returning again to the starting position, the modern philosopher has moved us a step forward in iconic films concerning the relationship of the nondescript subject and revealing over him multiple authorities. In this mental shift The Castle of Kafka was moved to Brazil, The Taxi Driver dispensed justice, Titanic was named the edge of the abyss, which does not divide the love of the two lovers, but rather immortalises it, attempts to live another life were made, possibly away from a career in the army and so on, and so forth.

Slovenian humor on an abstract level. Mitigating the impact of Freud to raise that of Marx and Lacan. Reveals us the opportunity for a new way to watch every film, being critical of the surrounding habitat and to remain fully authentic. Ladies and gentle man - Zizek!

http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/

In Marx Reloaded, Zizek's previous film, this hyperactive Slovenian philosopher was forced to share the screen with some of the world's most clued-up thinkers. It was a great thought-provoking spectacle, full of provocative statements (including his definition of communism as "a world where everyone is allowed to dwell in their own stupidity"). But for me Zizek works best in the company of others. Let him loose, as does Fiennes here, with the freedom to write a script which I felt at times she was struggling to follow, and the insights dry up pretty soon. I wasn't made to think here. And frankly the title was a bit lame - why not call it "A Pervert's Guide to Cinema 2"? Since the formula is exactly the same as the previous film Fiennes directed him in. The sketches in which Zizek appears in locations from famous movies (The Sound of Music was my favorite) are relentless, and at over 2 hours needed reigning in. I mostly enjoyed it, but only as a silly romp. I took nothing away from the cinema except a belly full of popcorn.

Sophie Fiennes' film, 'The Pervert's Guide To Ideology', is essentially just an illustrated lecture, given by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek. The illustrations come from the movies, but in the main, Zizek isn't interested in the ideologies of the film makers - rather, he uses selections from the films' content as illustrative of the processes of real life, and the ideology he is interested in is not Nazism, or communism, but rather the way we all frame our own lives, and the universal themes linking our need for and use of such frames. Some of this universalist framework comes from psychoanalysis, although Zizek's Freudian perspective only really manifests itself in occasional unproven assertions that the it is the analytic process that has revealed the truth. Finnes shoots this well, and Zivek is intermittently interesting, but overall, the message is both highbrow and yet strangely unrevalatory; I found it hard to understand what I was meant to take away from this film, or in other words, what the film's own ideological case actually was. It's almost better enjoyed as a simple piece of discursive criticism than a coherent (or, for want of a better word, we might say "ideological") discussion of ideology.

Love it! I tend to respect movies which consist of one or more rolling spoken expositions, and this one is a series of lectures on film products as more or less witting commentaries on ideology.

Zizek works for me: He gets me to pay attention, and usually to have little "breakthrough(s) in grey room". Some are truly mind-blowing, the rest less so... but one of the great takeaways is to remind me of my own tendency to mine narrative products for ideological subtext. Zizek does what *I* do, tho arguably significantly better than I do; so he encourages me to do better.

Some points of style: I noticed one commenter accused Zizek of speaking in "broken" English. Zizek's English is *not* broken. I know: I teach ESL. Zizek may very well speak English better than that commenter. Zizek does have a thick accent, but to me this is just a spur to pay closer attention.

The spirit here is a wedding of thoughtful insight and just plain ol' FUN. Zizek is having *fun*, here. Enjoy the show *with* him!

The hyperactive Slovenian philosopher Zizek uses extracts from movies to show to us how the things we believe in (our ideology) are created by the external society. He goes in the sublime message of several scene's of famous movies. Once again the sound of music is his favorite. The only question that must be raised is the chicken and egg problem. Do these messages make society or do the desires of society make these messages. With advertisements it is of course clear that the message brings the ideology of the maker has to be pushed to us, but with movies we can have more doubt. This is not addressed in this movie. Furthermore I question if movie is the right medium to bring the message of Zizik. I thought in many moments that the images of the movies distracted from the story he was telling, my mind went into the movie, not into Zizek's story. For personal use I recorded the sound and listening to that I was much more able to think about the messages of Zizek.

But all in all a worthwhile evening

I haven't seen "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema"; now I wonder if I want to. Sophie Fiennes is credited as the director of "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology" but this is Slavoj Zizek's movie; he is never off the screen either in person or just his very annoying voice in broken English, (worse even than Mark Cousins' as he narrates his "The Story of Film"), as he explores the concept of 'ideology' through film, newsreel or music as used in film and since the examples he uses are far from what we might expect in such a highly intellectualized essay as this we are left in something of a void. I mean, is this man, Slavoj Zizek, for real or is Feinnes pulling the wool over our eyes by putting him at the centre of her film?

Of course, things would be a lot different if our guide were someone else; someone speaking fluent English or if Zizek were allowed to speak in his own language but then his torrent of words could never be adequately represented by subtitles. So we must take this film purely on face value. An 'ideological' version of this film wouldn't perhaps be what's up on the screen but perhaps that's the point. Film-buffs will, of course, love the clips even if Zizek's voice-over doesn't always make it easy for us to understand what is being said, (or what point he may actually be making), but there is a certain tongue-in-cheek fun to be had from seeing Zizek place himself 'into' the films or at least into the settings of the films, ("Taxi Driver" one minute, "Triumph of the Will" the next and sitting on the toilet from "Full Metal Jacket" at one point).

I'm sure intellectuals will positively wet themselves in paroxysms of ecstasy at having depth and meaning bestowed on such commercial 'classics' as "Jaws" and "The Sound of Music" and may even have them racing back to view them in a totally different light. Others may run screaming from the cinema and may never want to watch "West Side Story" again. For now I'm sitting on the fence with a foot in both camps, torn by the validity of Zizek's arguments (or the lack of), and the catch- penny, if undeniably entertaining, style in which they are presented.

For those of you who saw: "The Perverts Guide to Cinema", the first answer you'll want is no, Slavoj Zizek's near-impenetrable accent and lisp has not improved. Occasionally, the film will throw sub- titles on the screen to assist in understanding Zizek's musings on the devotion humans have to various "isms" and how they related to very early (Hitler's "Triumph of the Will") and very recent (Nolan's equally unrealistic "The Dark Knight). Presumably one can turn on the closed captioning feature on their laptop and it would be a great help.

Once you get past this communication hurdle you'll hear Zizek cover a fair amount of obvious ground - "The Triumph of the Will", "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Full Metal Jacket" have clear and unambiguous agendas which their audiences came to see. More Trojan Horse offerings make for more interesting discussions. Kudos to Zizek for leading with and praising the wildly underrated "They Live" John Carpenter's condemnation of modern consumer society. In other cases, say "Titanic" his argument that it contains a coherent agenda seems stretched and in others - particularly Taxi Driver (which is a study of the decent into madness in an insane environment) - his contention of it being an ideological argument seems to miss the mark.

In short, not as interesting as his review of the psychoanalytic elements of, particularly Hitchock, movies from the original "Perverts Guide" but of interest to the cinephile.

The documentary may have a point. But it's unwatchable because of the monologue, the horrible accent and the lack of incentives to watch it. I really wanted to watch this, but it's torture. He should have learned from other documentaries how to make one. It can't be just about filling the audiences head with tons of philosophical and political thoughts. If that would be the case, he should have written a paper. But as a documentary, this is a fail.

As a philosopher Slavoj Zizek has impressive credentials and ideas worth studying. In this movie however, he seems to present a skeptics point of view on his opinion and subject which can be dangerous. Many the counter facts presented are just plain incorrect. The arguments are presented as a "Don't believe them, believe this" structure which is unusually, I'd expect a offering of information rather being told what to believe. The movie is worth watching if you're willing to follow up with your own research to get better information and answers than presented in this movie. If not, then viewing this movie alone is dangerous and it stands as irresponsible product.

All you really need to know about this hectoring piece of long-winded cinematic philosophizing is revealed in the first few minutes of the film, in which the film's star and subject, one Slajov Zizek (whose accent is so thick that it occasionally requires subtitles) proclaims "They Live" -- the grindhouse science fiction film starring aging wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper -- one of the most important films ever made. For those of you who may not know, the basic plot of this film is that Rowdy Roddy discovers a case of sunglasses in an abandoned church, and when he puts them on, he can see aliens who live among us, and read their secret invisible (to others) messages. Somehow, this concept of aliens, sunglasses, and secret messages is central to Mr. Zizek's main thesis, which seems to be that everything you think you know is wrong. So I guess we all need a pair of those magic glasses. If you're one of the lucky few who thinks "They Live" is a masterpiece of cinematic creativity, congratulations - The Pervert's Guide will be your new favorite movie. For the rest of us, not so much.

A largely unfocused analysis of films across the history of motion pictures similar to the first.

Screenplay...................................... 8 / 10 Visuals................................................ 8 Sound................................................... 5 Editing................................................ 5 Music....................................................... 5 Timeless Utility................................. 6 Total.................................................... 37 / 70 ~= 5.3 (rounded to 5) Verdict................................... Passable.