« | Home | »

Stalinist Self-Criticism

Tags: |

The highlight of the April issue of Cahiers du Cinéma is an interview with Slavoj Žižek. Following up on a piece he wrote about Avatar, reprinted in the March issue of Cahiers, he confesses to his interviewers that he hasn’t seen the film; as a good Lacanian, the idea is enough, and we must trust theory. Žižek promises that he will see the film and then write a Stalinist ‘self-criticism’.

The good Lacanian goes on to inform the Cahiers editors that he wrote about The Talented Mr Ripley before seeing it, and that although he has seen Psycho and Vertigo (the interviewers sound quite jittery by this point), there’s a long chapter on Rossellini in Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and out and, no, he hadn’t seen the films when he wrote it. Out of respect for Lacan? Not this time: ‘As a good Hegelian, between the idea and the reality, I choose the idea.’

Except in the case of actresses, it seems. Cash-strapped commissioning editors everywhere should take note that Žižek would love to interview Kate Winslet (‘Madame Mendes’ for not much longer) and that he’s offering to pay for the plane ticket to Hollywood (although he might have better luck in New York) himself if you can arrange it.

Comments on “Stalinist Self-Criticism”

  1. astott says:

    He admits as much in the “Zizek” documentary, though it’s unclear whether or not he’s joking. Still, not wasting one’s time on primary texts would undoubtedly speed up composition, thereby accounting for his prolific output – that and a schtick.

  2. pinhut says:

    Not watching a film is ‘the purest form of viewing’ might be one angle to take. Going to put Blockbuster out of business, but still.

    • Phil says:

      When I first saw this comment (in the RSS feed, where it floats free of the original post) I was convinced it was an oblique response to Jenny Diski’s comment about the election. (I still think it works quite well.)

      • pinhut says:

        Heavens above, I haven’t read Diski since she deigned to insult me. Is there no escape?

        I was moved to write the original comment because I maintain contact with England solely through the use of the internet, and the patterns in the media (and those commenting on stories) disclose themselves with far more clarity through not being a part of daily life there. As McCluhan said, “We don’t know who discovered water, but we know it wasn’t the fish.”

  3. Julia Atkins says:

    Žižek, as we know, is an artist; of which variety his readers have to determine for themselves. He seems to be repeating and plagiarizing a bit too much these days, which isn’t good for him or those who have to read him.

    • simonpawley says:

      Does anybody “have to”? Whatever one thinks of Zizek, it is surely the case that the moment it stops being fun is the moment one should stop reading. And anyway, anyone who has read one or two of his books and got the gist can surely form an opinion on all the subsequent ones on the basis of a glance at the back cover. Or is it impermissible to subject Zizek to such a Zizekian “reading” (just as one cannot ‘deconstruct’ deconstruction)?

  4. loxhore says:

    And had he seen The Hurt Locker when he wrote about it for you?

    • Thomas Jones says:

      Isn’t the point that it doesn’t matter?

      • loxhore says:

        Whose point?

        I think it’s intriguing that (a) in many cases, the fact is forever unavailable to the reader of his criticism and that (b) were it available, it couldn’t but change the reader’s reading of the criticism.

        Cf too the way he’s not fussed about how his first-language English editors alter his copy.

        • simonpawley says:

          I can see what you’re saying, loxhore, but I think the more important issue is that Zizek is never very interested in analyzing his examples. This is what leads many to complain that he can never stick to the point (the piece “about” Avatar quickly jumps to some remarks about ‘Titanic’ and then from ‘Reds’ that are recycled (or ‘self-plagiarized’ as it is called when students do it) from elsewhere.
          In this case, and also in his blog post about ‘Hurt Locker’, Zizek’s aim is to use these examples to illustrate a discussion about ideology. From his point of view, it doesn’t really matter whether the substance of the example is entirely accurate, because the examples are mere vehicles used to help him expound the theoretical point, which is what really matters. In this view, if he uses an inaccurate reading of Avatar (or whatever) to explain his theoretical point in a way that makes sense to his reader, he has succeeded.
          Without doubt, this has its drawbacks, and readers who are either unconvinced by Zizek’s Lacanian view of ideology, or who are bored by repetition will sooner or later tire of it all.
          Whatever one’s view of the whole exercise, the point, for me at least, is that you are unlikely to learn anything about a film from reading something Zizek has written about it (whether he has seen it or not) because his aim is not to tell you anything about a film, but to use it as an example (often repeatedly) to explain something about Lacan or ideology. I don’t particularly want to defend any of this, but I think it’s better to be clear about what the point of it all is before making a judgement about it.

          • pinhut says:

            That is a fair point, though it begs the question – would anybody be reading Zizek to learn anything about films?

            I enjoy reading Zizek despite/because of my own aversion to cinema itself, having not watched a film in more than a decade. He rather describes precisely what is so awful about them, and does so with great enthusiasm.

      • outofdate says:

        Isn’t the point that it does? Even if it only confirms what we (by which I mean those who believe him to be, as Julia Atkins so elegantly puts it, an ‘artist’) have always known? They talk about the sheer weight of evidence, don’t they, in legal circles, so the prosecution’s dreary task is just to keep piling on the flimsy pages until their accumulated mass squashes him. You say overkill; I say tomato.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


Advertisement Advertisement