Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Metz Imaginary PDF

    Загружено:

    Kalliope Makaronis
    19 просмотров22 страницы

    Оригинальное название

    Metz_Imaginary.pdf

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    19 просмотров22 страницы

    Metz Imaginary PDF

    Загружено:

    Kalliope Makaronis

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 22
    THE IMAGINARY SIGNIFIER Psychoanalysis and the Cinema Christian Metz Translated by Celia Britton, Annwyl Williams, Ben Brewster, and Alfred Guszetti INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS Bloomington and Indianapolis ase 3 Identification, Mirror “What conteibution can Freudian psychoanalysis make to the lowe of te emai agi that wat the question ream I posed (the siete imaginary wishing to be symbol Ine) and seems to me tha Ihave now more oles wend unwound but no more; Thave not given ian answer, [have ‘imply paid attention to what it was wished fo tay fone never now this unt one has writen down), T have only questioned sy question: this unanswered characteris one that hs tbe Aetiberately accepted, ti constiutve of any epistemelogial procedure Since Ihave wished to mark the places (as empty boxes some a which ace begining toil wo waltng be ne and To tmuch the beter) the places of diferent direcuons of work, and pautculrly ofthe lst, the psychoanalytic exploration ofthe sig hier, which concerns me cape, T must now begin to Inseribe something in thi Inet box must ake forthe, and more plainly in the direction ofthe unconscious the analysis ofthe Fv de hat make wit da var th of course this means asking a new question; among the specif {ures of the cinematie siaiier that distinguish he cinema fom Tteratare, painting, ee which ones by nature cll mest dey on the type of owledge tha psychoanalysis lone can provide? PERCEPTION, IMAGINARY ‘The cinema’s signifier is perceptual (visual and auditory), So is that of literature, since the written chain has to be read, but it involves a more restricted perceptual register: only graphernes, 2 IDENTIFCATION, JHRROR “8 ‘writing, So too are those of painting, sculpture, architecture, pho- tography, but sill within Hits, and diffrent ones: absence of auditory pereeption, absence in the visual itself of certain import fant dimensions auch ae time and movement (obviously chee i the time ofthe Took, but the object looked a isnot inscribed ina precise and ordered time sequence forced on the spectator from butside). Music's signifier is perceptual as well, but, like the others less ‘extensive’ than that of the cinema: here itis vision Swhieh is absent, and even in the auditory, extended. specch {excepein song). What frst strikes one then is thatthe cinema i more pecslut, if the phrase is allowable, than many other means of expression; it mobiles a Langer number ofthe axes of percep tion. (That is why the cinema has sometimes been presented asa “synthesis ofall the artsy which does nat mean very much, but i swe restrict ourselves to the quantitative tally of the registers of perception, itis true thatthe cinema contain within tel the sg- hifers of ether ar it ean present pictures to us, make us hear ‘musi, it s made of photographs, ete) ‘Nevertheles, this as it were numerical ‘superiority’ disappears ifthe cinema is compared with the theatre, the opera and other spectacles of the same type. The latter too involve sight and Tearing simultancously, linguistic audition and non-lingvistc audition, movement, eal temporal progression. Their difference ‘rom the cinema lies elsewhere: chey do not consist of images, the perceptions they offer tothe eye and the ear are inscribed in 9 {tue space (not a photographed one), the same one as that ace pied by the publie during the performance, everything the adic fence hear and see is actively produced in their presence, by hhuman beings or props which are themselves present, This not the problem of fetion but that of the defiaional characteristics ofthe signifier: whether or no the theatrical play mimes a fable, its action if need be mimetic, ie still managed by real persons cevelving in real time and apace, ot the same lage or ice he ‘public, The “ther scene’, which is precisely not so called, isthe ‘inematic sercen (closer to phantasy ftom the outset): what unfolds there may, as before, be more of less tional, bu the unfolding itselfis fictive: the actor, the ‘décor, the words one hears are all Absent, everything is rorded (as a memory teace which is is mediately so, without having been something else before), and {this is sil rue ifwhatis recorded is nota story" and does not aim for the fictional ilusion proper. For itis the sigifer ise, and as “ 7e BuAOINARY slostnER hl thai snd ta x bene le lle up per thing af ee ote ier Nev nel eine on Jere be nll ei eed to ae neni cen ro hast ely sonia Reha rh erat linea Meer tsine she igh any state omnes ess Scab Bemarde ur atany nt tld cesar Hemi Ath demas od wae th sue te Lin fetes ttn bce sn a wl br eye me lor sh woul be tng te nr on Sse). es {lm is a fiction film. * ed Tt at ue ot jn hector Today herrea hee anda cnuma wiht acorn Gey hee a ae elie tote he lsd exe fc yeh Cane Femara olen stearate canpe Ont hte tag tice Che pees so srr ening on the conan onc), tan ape ithe im sina ve he ean ot witnt beth vheniespecatcrce when no barore Gens ech wi ie lege een he What is character ofthe cinema is not the imaginary that may happen to represent, but the imaginary that's Pom the stat, the imaginary at costes inst 2 gner (ihe two are tot unrelated soo well able to represent it becsune However itis even when no longer represents i. The il) duplication inaugurating the tention ation proce ed in the cinema’ by’ Sra redupiation, always aleady Schieved, which inaogurater the signifier, The imaginary, By definition, combines within i a certain presence and coin absence. fn che cinema it not jus the coma signed, there isone, thas that made present inthe mode of acne, born the over the signifier. ‘Thus the nema, more pereptal’ than ceriin arts accod- sDeNiFicaTION, mIRROR 45 ing tothe ist fs sensory epsters, ie ls “les percepral than thers once the status of thee perceptions is envisaged saber than their number or diversity for fe peteepions are all n a Sense false. Or rather, the activity Of pereption which it Involves is real (the cinema fs pot a phantaey), but the peeved isnot really the objec ise shade, its phantom, ts doable, ts plc n a Yew kind of ror eile sui that hteratare, alter lh is itaelf only made of replicas (wetten words, presenting blentobjecs), Buta leant it doesnot present them fs with all the really peroived detail hat the sereen does (giving more and {aking as much, ie. taking more) The unique postion of the Slnema ies nth dl eharacter of gir nario reptual wealth, but atthe same time stamped with urvealty ar unusual degree and from the very outset. More than the fther ats on more unique way, dhe cinema involves us inthe imaginary: i drume up all perception, but to switch i immed alely over nts its own absence, which fe nonetheless the only i filer present THE ALL-PERCEIVING SUBJECT ‘Thus film is like the mirror. But it difes ffom the primordial rmirror in one essential point: although, as inthe later, ever: thing may come to be projected, thee is one thing and one thing tly that is never reflected ini: the spectator's own body. In 3 ‘certain emplacement, the mirror suddenly becomes clear glass. in the mirror the child perceives the familiar bovsehoid objects, and alo its object par excellence ts mather, who holds itp in her arms tothe glass, But above alli perceives is own image. This is where primary identification (Ih formation of the ‘ego) gets certain ofits main charactristis: the child sees itsefas fn other, and beside an other, ‘This other other isis guarantee thae the fret is really it by her authority, her sanction, in the register of the symbolic, subsequendy by the resemblance between her mirror image and the child's (both have a human form). Thus the child's ego is formed by identification with its like, and this in two senses simultaneously, metonymically and metaphorically: the other human being who is in the glass the ‘own reflection which is and isnot the body, which i like i-"The child identifies with itself as an objec. 6 ‘THE DVAGINARY SIONIFER Inthe cinema, the object remains: ition or no, theres alwavs| something on the sereen. But the reflection of the own body has disappeared. The cinema spectator isnot a child and the child really at the mirror stage ((@om around six to around eighteen months) would certainly be incapable of ollowing’ the simplest of films, Thus, what make: poste the spectators abrence from the screen or rather the ineligible unfolding ofthe film despite that absences the fact that che spectator has already known the experience ofthe mirror (ofthe rue mirror), and is thus able to fonstitute a world of objects without having first to recognise himself within it n this respect, the cinema i already on the side of the symbolic (which is only to be expected): the spectator knows that objects exist, that he himeelf exists as a subject, thet hhe becomes an objec for others: he knows himelf and he knows his lke itis no longer necessary that this similarity be literally dipicted for him on the screen, a8 it was in the mirror of his child- hnood. Like every other broadly “secondary” activity the practice ‘ofthe cinema presupposes that the primitive undiflerentation of the ego and the nan-ego has been overcome. But with oh, hen, does the spectator ientily during the projec: tion ofthe fm? For he certainly has to went: identification in its primal frm has ceased to be a current necessity for him, but he continues, the inema~ithe did not the film would become incomprehensible, considerably more incomprehensibe than te most incomprehensible fms ~ to depend on that permanent play Of identifeation without which there would be no social ie (thus, the simplest conversation presuppoces the alternation of the andthe yeu, henee the aptitude of te two interlocuors fora ‘mutual and reversible identSeaton). What form does this etn ted identification, whose een role Lacan has demonstrated ven in the most abstract reasoning” and which constituted the “roca sentiment for Freud (= he sublimation ofa homosexual Ibido, selfs reaction to the aggressive svalry ofthe members of 2 single generation after the murder ofthe ther) take fn the Special case of one social practice among others, cinematic prox jection? ‘Obviously the spetator has the opportunity to identify with the choractrofthe ton. But there stl bas tobe one: This thus only valid forthe narrativeepresentatona li, nd not forthe IDENTIFICATION, MIRROR ” peychoanalytic oonatiution ofthe sir of te cinema as sh, ‘FRc apecator can ala dently with the actor, more or xs" Aetioal msm which the ater represented a Sto, ota character, bute til fered thereby asa human being (3 per aied human belng) and thus allows Hentieation: However thi factor [even aed tothe previous one and thar covering = tery lage number offs) canvocsuice Teonly designates ‘ndary Mentifeation in certain ofits forms (ezondary i he cn fae process ie since in any other tone all Kentication ‘kept tha ofthe mitror can be regarded ae secnday) “Ar insulficent explanation, and fortwo reason, the ist of which is only the intermittent, anecdotal and superficial conse- uence ofthe second (but for that reason more viable and hat wip cali in edt dvr om hea oa8 Imnporiant poe that has often heen emphasise: often presents arith long requenes that ean (Heal) be elle inhiman the lamar thee of cinema ‘coemersocphion’ developed by trany fim theories sequence in which only inanimate cet, Tandseapes, ete. appear and shih or minutes at aimee no human frm for spetaoridentifeain: yet the ler mst be tomens the lm work just a wells doceatothers and whole fime (geographical documentaries, for example) unflt intl biy in suck condition. The seond, more radial reason tht ‘dtatiation with the human form appearing en the screen, even ‘when occu il tell ue nothing abot the plac of te seta Ugein theinauguration othe sgnfer. As Thave ut pointed ou, THis ego i already formed, Botsince i exits, the question anaes preclsy of wr 1s during the projection ofthe fm (de true Primary ientication, that the mon forme the eg, bo al ther entfeatos presuppose onthe conta, that thas een formed and can be exchanged fr the objet orth flow subject) Thus when [recognise my ikeon the sceen,and even ‘wore wien 1 doo resgeae iy where am 1? Where tat {omeone who i capable of sell reengition when need be? Tt no enough eo anawe that te cncny, like every social practice, demants thatthe psychical apparatus of Pants be filly constaned, Sd that the question Hts the foncern of general payehoanalye theory an not that of the cinema proper. or my wir does ot claim Yo go sof, oF ore precy test go hl fate question the 8 “TE DHAOIYARY SIONIFIER ‘poixt occupied by this already constituted ego, occupied during the cinema showing and natin socal fein general The spectator is absent from the sreen: contrary tothe child in the mirror, he cannot identify with hin as an object, but only with objects which are there without him. In this sense the screen i nota mirror. The perceived, this time, is entirely on the sie of the object, and there is ne longer any equivalent of the own Jmage, ofthat unique mix of perceived and subject (of other and 1) which was precisely the figure necessary to disengage the one fiom the other At the cinema, iis always the other whois on the screen; as for me, Iam thereto look a him. [take no part in the peseeived, on the contrary, Lam allpeeving. All-pereeiving as ‘one says all-powerful (this isthe Famous gift of “ubiquity” the filma makes its spectator); all-perceiving, too, because Iam enticely on the side ofthe peresiving instance: absent from the seen, but certainly present in the auditorium, a greateye and ear without ‘which the perceived would have'no. one to perceive it, the instance, in other words, which conta the cinema signifier (it J | who make the film). If the most extravagant spectacles and Sounds of the most unlikely combination of them, the combi- nation furthest removed from any real experience, de not prevent the constitution of meaning (and to begin with do not ato the spectator, do not really astonish him, not intellectually: he simply judge th fla range), thai because he krows es Inthe cinema the subj’ nog takes a very precise form ‘without which no film would be possible. This knowledge is dual {but unigue). 1 know Tam perceiving something imaginary (and that is why its absurdities, even if they are extreme, do not seriously disturb me}, and T know that itis T who am perceiving [tThis second knowledge divides in turn: I know that Lam really perceiving, that my sense organs ae physically affected that [ fam not phantsising, that the fourth wall of the auditorium (the Screen} i really different from the other thee, that theres pro- jector facing it (and thus itis not T who am projecting or at least ‘ot all alone), and Talso know that iis T who sm perceiving all ‘this, chat this peresived-imaginary materials deposited in me a3 Sen a second screen that itis im me thae it forms up into an or ‘ganised sequence, that therefore am myself the place where this IDEXTIFICATION, MIRROR 6 really perceived imaginary accedes ote symbolic by is inaugy- Tatton" the signer of cenain type of nstutionalised socal Nevity called the ‘enema’ Teter words the spectator identifier wth Keel with Nise asa pure act of perepton (ar wakefones alertnet) as the con aiuon of posibiny ofthe perce and hence asa kindof rr Seendenal subject, which somes before every ere ‘Atange mirror, then, very tke that of childhood, and very dierent, Very Ike, as Jeat-Louis Baudey hat emphased™ teause during the showing wear, ike the chil in a sub-motor End hyper perespve vats because, Hike the child gain, we are prey ta the imaginary, the double, and are s0 paradoxically rough a real perception. Very diferent, beense this itor fetum us everything but ourselves, because we Sre wholly ‘ouside i whereas the childs both in tan in Gont of Avan Strange (and in avery topographical sense ofthe word), the Sinema is more involved on the ank ofthe symbol, and Renee of secondariness, thane the miror of eitdhood. This ot sur Ptng since comes long after ut whats more important to Tes the fact that iis inscribed nits wake with an nekence at tnce to direct and wo oblique, which has ao precieequialentin ther apparatuses of igcain, IDENTIFICATION WITH THE CAMERA ‘The preceding analysis coincides in places with others which have’ already been proposed and sshich T shall not repeat analyses of guaterte patting o of the cinema itself which insist ton the role of monocular perspective (hence ofthe camera) and the ‘anishing point’ that inseribes an empty emplacement for the spectatoreatbject, an allepowerfl position shih is that of God himself, or more broadly ofsome ultimate signified. And iis crue that as he identifies with bimeelf as look, the spectator can do no ‘other than identify with the camera, to, which has looked before hhim at what he is now looking at and sshose stationing (= framing) determines the vanishing point. During the projection this camera is absent, but it has a representative consisting of Another apparatus, called precisely a "projector™Ae apparatus the spectator has behind him, athe back of is head that is, pe= cisely where phantary locates the Noeus" ofall vision. All of ws 50 Tie WWAGINARY StONTFTER have experienced our own look, even outside the so-called sales sbscrs [= cinemas, a8 a Kind of searelight curing on the axes four own nec likes pan) and shifting when we sit (2 wack ing so now): aaa cone of ight (withou the microscope dust scattered through it and streaking in the cinema. whose Veariouness draes successive and variable slices of ebscurey from nothingness wherever and whenever icomes to rest (And Jina sene that g what peresption and conscousness ar, ih as Freud put it,” in the double sense of an illumination and an pening, a8 inthe arrangement ofthe cinema, which contains both limited and wandering light that only aan a sal part ‘ofthe real but onde oer hand posses the gilt casting ght ‘on Without dis identification withthe camera cota facts ‘ould not be understood, hough they are constant one: the fact, fbr example, tht the spectator isnot seaded when the image “rotate (=a pa) and yet he Knows he has not turned his eae ‘The explanation is that he hat no need to tur really he has tured it in his all-secing capacity, his identicaton ith the ‘movement ofthe eamers being that ofa transcendental eth pirical subject. All vision consists of a double movement: projective (th “seeping searchlight) and intojecive onscowaness st 4 es dive recording surface (ass screen). Thave the impression at once thay, to use a common expresion, Tam ‘asting’ my eyes on things, and hat the ater ths illuminated, come tobe depoited ‘thin me (we then declare that ie these things that hae been "projected on my rein, sy)-Asorcof steam called the look, and explaining all the mye ofmagnettn, must besent ou over ‘the word, 3 that objects can come backup this ream inthe opposite direction (ot using itt nd thelr way) arriving a last Stour pereeption, which snow sft wax and na longer ah ee ting sours, "Fe technology of photography careilly conforms to thi {bana phantasy accompanying perception. The camera it ‘wained'on the object lie a firearm (= projection) ad the abject aries to take an imprint « tracey on the oeepive Surface of the flmstip (= intojection). The spectator hse doesnot excape these pincers, fore pat of the apparator and slbo because pincers, on the imaginary plane (Meanie Kit), ‘mark ou radon to the world whole ard sre rooted inthe ‘rimary gures of ray. During the performance te spectator IDENTIFICATION, RKOR, st is the searchlight 1 have described, duplicating the projector, wilt Heda the camer and ne ake thse {urface duplicating the serch, which itself duplicates the m= strip. There are to cones inthe auditorium: one ending onthe Sereen and starting both inthe projetion box and in the spec {ator wihion imolae a eis projective, and one stating rom the een and deposited’ inthe spectator’ pereepon instar ats trojective (om the retina, a acco sreen). When Tsay that eth fl, I tiean thereby a unique mixture of wo contrary arent: the lm is what receive, and itis alo whet I elese, Since it does not preexist my entering the autitorivm and F only ‘ee close my eyes to suppress it Relesing am the projector, ‘receiving it Lam the seren i both these Bgures together, {he camera, which pints and yet which record ‘Thus the constitution ofthe signifier in the cinema depends on 2 series of mirror-effects organised in chain, and not on a single ‘eduplication. In this the cinema 382 topography resembles that other space’, the technical equipment (camera, projector, fl strip, seren, et), the objective precondition ofthe whole insti lution: as we know, the apparatuses 100 contain a series of mirrors lenses, apertures and shucters, ground glasses, through ‘which the cone of light passes: a further reduplication in which the equipment becomer'a metaphor (as well asthe real source) forthe mental process instituted. Further on we shall see cha is alo its fetish Tn the cinema, as elsewhere, the constitution ofthe symbolic ‘only. achieved through and above the play of the imaginary Projection-introjection, presence-absence, phantases accom ppanying perception, ete. Even when acquired, the ego stil ‘depends in its underside on the fabulous figures thanks to which ithas been acquired and which have marked it lastingly with the stamp of the lure. The secondary process does no more thin ‘cover’ (and not always hermetically) the primary process which is still constantly present and conditions the very possibility of ‘what covers it Chain of many mirrors, the cinema is at once a weak and a robust mechanism: like the human body, lke a precision tool, like a social institution. And the fact i that itis really al these atthe same time 2 “THE DUAGINARY stontrteR And I, at this moment, what am I doing if motto add to all these reduplications one more whereby theory is attempting set itself up? Am I not looking at myzelflooking atthe film? this passion for secing (and also hearing), the foundation of the whole ‘edifice, am T not turning it, too, on (against) that edifice? Am T ‘not stil the voyeur I was in front ofthe screen, now that ii this voyeur who is being seen, thus postulating a second voyeur, the tone writing at present, myself again? ON THE IDEALIST THEORY OF THE CINEMA “The plac ofthe egoin he insaton ofthe sgifi, as wansce- dental yet radically deluded subject since sth ination {and even the equipment tha give this ple surely provides swith an apprecable opportunity the better understand and judge the pest epistemoloial impor fhe ieaia theory of the inet whish elma in he remarkable works oF Adee Basin Before thinking dtecty about the validity, but saply reading txts of hn hind, one cant but be stack bythe gest [recon the acute nd immediatly sensitive ineligence that they ffen demonstrat; atthe same tine tn ive the ise pression of «permanent ikfounoednee (whch affects nothing fn yes affects everything), they sugges that somewhere they Sint saehing Kea weak pont at hich shew mite Tis certainly no accident thatthe man form of idealism in cinemati theory has been phenamenaogy. Buco and other writers ofthe same period exlcy acknowedged ther debt 0 {and more imply (bars ore generalised fashion) all Conceptions ofthe dtma a mystical feveaton, at rut a “reality unfolding by righ asthe appanton of hati tn sean tpptay, dere frm i Weal know tthe numa as the git osm ito prophec tances However, ther atmophanisconspons (witcha nosy ‘xpress in an exteme orm) register athe well the Tengo tne dad ego ofthe spectator, they often ive ws exelent der Seriptons ofthis fling and fo ths eet tee someting ie about them and they have advaced out knowlege of the cinema, Bot the le of the qo i thor bind spot These theories are sill of reaintret, but they have soto speak abe BENTINCATION, MaRROR 3 [pt the ther way rnd, Hke the optical image af the il "Forti tre thatthe topographical apparatus ofthe nema resembles the conceptual apparatus of phenomenology, withthe Fesult that the latter can cat light on te former. (Berges, in 9 ‘domain, « phenomenology of the object to be understood, = “receptive description of te appearances, must be the starting” point, only afterwards can anicin begin, peyehoanalyt i Should be remembered have their own phenomenology) The “ihe is! of phenomenology proper (philosophical phenomenal ogy) as an onic revelation Fleeing to a perceving-subject (Cperceptual cgi) 10 4 rubject for which alone there can be Anything, has close and precise affinities with the installation of the cinetna signer inthe go al have tried to define, with the spectator withdraving int himselt as» pure instanceof peeeep- ton, the whole ofthe pereived being “ot there’ To this extent cinema really isthe ‘phenomenological ar it has often been tale, by Merleau-Ponty bin, for example But it can only bre so because its objective determinations make i 0, The e's Position n the cinema doesnot deriv rom a miraculous reseme ance between the cinema and the natural characteristics of ll perception; onthe contrary irs oresen and marked advance by the instacion (the equipment, the disposition of the wack torium, the mental yet that interalses the 0), and ls by Inore general characteris of the paychicl apparatus sue a8 projection, the mirror vrveture, et), which although they are {ess strictly dependent on s period of socal history and tech: nology, do not therefor express the sovereignty of 4 “hamsn Socaton, but inversely sre themselves shaped by erain specie Features of man as an animal fas the ony animal hati ot an nimi): his prmive Milage, his dependence om anthers fae (the lasting source of the imaginary of abject relations, of the great oral gues of feng), the motor prematurity ofthe Child which condemns it to an fail televecogniton by sight hence outside cl) anticipating a muscular unity i docs not 7 Rother words, phenomenology can contribute to knowledge ofthe cinema (and st has done so) isola happens to be ke it and yer is on the cinema ond phenomendlogy in thelr ‘common lusion of percpual mein that ight must beast bythe feal conditions ofsociety and man, 34 ‘THE miAoIARY sonar ON SOME SUB-CODES OF IDENTIFICATION ‘The phy tienen dis the cinema sition in it Seow et code Bu ao sc mae pee Fan nite argo a ey Irene incertae gue whch apy pee ei of precise films. Pye = Ihe UA id sou ienteaon sf acute cen! respect set fesse ea bata thet things inevitably goog) present thee ao sera pot pene Ae moment anny Inyo ae Ts pesca res ite seen cally undierentiated, evenly distributed over the whee sie Of he tren or mare precy bag Ike he ppc Tseng ey c catchon prc tsoge nee Amati otc recor eat acoder et oe Danis ats seta witout cena cit le Sevng govern ieanhaage snipe on hee al ‘ct nother ene coat ase ie Satu ea ‘ubsodes ohh Foal nc tse cane hee ade tpomble bragging the ec ere se “ich it permanent wil hs a cae ‘Mented temporary ies lhe paced) an ee ene uta dic ebins om hay oa Sera tec of hen sabe imager ott Fe Inks (ols anno onge tek bt he mer area ‘There are various sorts of subjective image and I have tried ese- where (following Jean Mitry) wo distinguish between thems Only one of them will detain me for the moment, the one which “exprestes the viewpoint of the filmmaker" formula (and not the viewpoint of a character, another t ditional sub-case of the subjective image): unusual framings, ‘sscommon shot-angle, etc as for example in one of the sketches wich make up Julien Duviview’s film Came de bal {the sketch With Pieree Blarchar, shot continuously in tilted framings) In the standard definitions one thing strikes me: Ido not see hy ‘these uncommon angles should expres the viewpoint ofthe Fling IDENTIFICATION, MIRROR % maker any more than pefelly ordinary angles, close tothe hore Tonal Hower he dfation compre een i Facouracy: precacly because iti uncommon, the neomimon angle mas us more aware of what we ad merely forgotten 10 ome extent in fr sbrenes; an entiation with the camera (ih “the authors viewpoint). ‘The ordinary feamings are finaly fle 0 be nonsamings: T espouse the film-makers look {without which na enema would e possible), but my eonscious: ‘eas no too aware of. The uncommon angle reawakens me 5 het re) eacher me wa andy tne, Ad he ‘obliges my Took to stop wandering freely over the sreen forthe tnoment and voseanialong more precise lines oforee which ae posed on me. Thus for moment T become dicey awate of the mplecenen of my cn presenceabaence in the Bn simply Tecate thas changed. Now fr os, In Sn mh cara ek a one nother, Ica happen (ad hsv already anor ‘nein he ‘hin of dentcatins) that a characte look snot whi tnamentriy oso frame, o se lone at by him we hae fone one notch farther this bezause everthing out-of ame Srna ert pct, since the peeianty ofthe ater tolvoutotame (he outtsame character this has 4 pont in ‘ominon with ms hei loking a the sren), In carta ease the ourof‘iame characters lek is weiforcd by recom to nother variant ofthe sujectve fmage, generally christened the Ghmscers point of ew’ the lamang ote scene comeaponds precisely 0 the angle fro which he ouoframe character Teak the sren. (The two figures are disable moreover we often know that te scene i being lose at by srneone other ‘han ouraeves, by «character, butt the lg he pls, oF a tleinca ofthe dialogue or «previous image that tlle sy not ‘he poston ofthe eamera, which maybe fae from the preted tmplement of the oul rane onoke) Tall quence of hs kn the wensfcaton thet founds the signer is tee lye doubly doped in ei that eas {Wihe Heart othe Bim along ibe which ino longer hovering, ‘hich fellows the nciation of the looks and sheslore overt by the Bm ial the spectators Tock (~ the bese ‘Sentfeatin), bere dispersing all over the sufaea ah serten 6 ‘Tie mAGIARY stoNIFER ina variety of intersecting lines (= Iooks ofthe characters in the frame = second duplication), must fist ‘go through’ as one goes through a town on a journey, or a mountain pass ~the look Of the character outofame (~ first duplication), himself & spectator and hence the first delegate of the true spectator, but ‘ot fo be confused with the latter since he is inside, if not the frame, then at least the fiction. This invisible character, supposed (like the spectator) t0 be secing, will collide obliquely wih the latter's look and play the part ofan obligatory intermediary, By offering himself as a crossing forthe spectator, he infect the circuit followed by the sequence of entiications and its only in this sens that he is himself seen: as we se through him, we see ‘ourselves not seeing him, Examples of this kind are much more numerous and each of them is much more complex than 1 have suggested here At the poe textal analysis of preci ins sequentes an indiopeneable intrument of knowledge Tjust wished to show that ithe end there is no breakin continuity between the chs game wich the ‘minor and atthe other extreme, certain localised gure ofthe Sinemati code, The mitror these of primary denen Teniestion with one's own look it secondary wih reapect to the minor, i fora general theory ofadult active, bat es the foundation ofthe nema and hence primary when’ later is under eiscussion: it i primey emai lta po (primary identification’ ould be naceuate om the pevchen analytic poin of view "secandary idenication’, more accurate im this respec, woold be ambiguous fora mate pees analysis). As fr identeatione with character, withthe ona Aifeent ives outa fame characte, cc) the areserondany, tertiary nematic dentfeations, ete; taken ar a whole 2 apposition tothe identieation ef the speesator with hs owe look, they connitte secondary cinemate ifenofcan i e segue? ‘SEEING A FILM Freud noted, sds the sexual at’ cha the most ordinary prac tices depend on a large number of psychical functions which are | meNFINCATION, MiRKOR 7 distinct but work consecutively, 20 that al of ther must be intact itwshat is regarded as normal performance’ toe posi (ts bbeetuse neurosis and paychosis dissociate them and pa some of them out of court tht tid ef commutation is made posible thereby they can be listed retrospectively by the analy). The Sppaventy very simple act of wang «fm eno exception to ths file. As soom as itis subjected f0 analysis it reveals to Complex, muliply interconnected imbrieatin othe uncon of the imaginary the real and the symbolic, which i alo required invone form or another for every proceure of socal if but shove cinematic manifestation especialy impressive since is payed out on a smal surface. (To ths exten the theory ofthe Sinema may some day contribute something to psychoanalysis tren if, through force of crmntnces, his seiprocation Temains very limited atthe moment, the two dicpltey beng very unevenly developed Th order tomes the ftion Bn, T must both ake sy fr character (=n magi tre) hat he benef, by analogical projection, rm all he schemata of intel ‘yeh thn ney ad ot ake mye or in the Feturn tothe ral so thatthe ction can be ental a such (= as ayebolic) hii saming- el Silay, order to under sand the fm (at all), T must perceive the photographed abject as absent ie potoraph ae prsent and the presence of hi Sbrence as sgnyng, The imaginary of the cinema presupposes the symboli, for the spectator must it ofall have Known the Primordial mirror. But athe ter instited the ogo ery angel fn the imaginary, the second mirorof the acrcm, a symbolic apparatus, ine in. turn depends on reflection and Tack However, tis ot phantasy "purl symbelic imaginary site, fr the absence ofthe object andthe cles ofthat abence are really Droded int by the ps oan eqoipment: the cinema isa bay {aorps forthe semisogia) a fe that ean be loved. 4 The Passion for Perceiving ‘The practice of the cinema is only possible through the percep- tual passions: the desire to see (= scopic drive, seopophilig, voyeurism), which was alone engaged in the art othe silent fim, the desire 1 hear which has been added to itn the sound cinema (this is the ‘fusion imceen, the invoeatory drive, one of the four ‘main sexual drives for Lacan;! it is well know that Freud isc. lated it less clearly and hardly deals with it a such). ‘These two sexual drives are distinguished from the others in that they are more dependent on a Jack, or atleast dependent on iin a more precise, more unique manner, which marks them from the outset, even more than the others, as being on the side of the imaginary. However, this characteristic isto a greater or lesser degree proper to all the sexual drives insofar a8 they differ from pucely ‘organic instiness or needs (Lacan), of in Freud from the sell preservation drives (the ‘ego dives which he tended subsequent- ly toannex to narcissism, a tendency he could never quite bring himself to pursue to its conclusion). The sexual drive docs not hhave so stable and strong a relationship with ts ‘object's do for ‘example hunger and this, Hunger can only be satisfied by food, ‘but food is quite certain to satisly it; thus instincts are simul. taneously more and less dificult to satisfy than devves; they ‘depend on a perfectly real abject for which there is no substitute, bout they depend on nothing else, Drives, on the contrary, ean be satisfied up toa point outside their objects (this is sublimation, oF else, in another way, masturbation) and ate intially capable of doing without them without puting the onganismn into immed? _t danger (hence repression). The needs of seli;preservation can neither be repressed nor sublimated; the sexual drives are more 58 "THE PASSION FOR PERCEIVING 89 lable and moe accommodating Fr ni nor ade ically perverse, aye Lacan vers, they lays remain more or les unsaid even ven thee object has been ‘tained; desi veryquletyeeborn after the brie vertigo ofits Apparent extinction, is largely sustained by fuel a desire, i Habits own myths oem qute independent of those of the pleasure obtained (wich scomed nonetheless pec ai); thea wht hes fi anda he sae ine wha always carci to leave gaping inorder to auvive a desire. the end thas no object at any rate no real objec through cea jects which ar all swstats (and al the more numero and Interchangeable for that, purses an imaginary objet (fost thject) which its trent abject, an objet tat Ra ays been Iota always desired as tc How, then, can one say that the visual and auditory drives have a stronger of mare special relationship with the absence of their ‘object, with the infinite pursuit of the imaginary? Because, as ‘opposed to other texual drives, the ‘perceiving drive’ ~ combin ing into one the scopic dive and the invocatory drive ~ cnceey represents the absence of ts objet in the distance at which it maintains it and which is part of ts very definition: distance of the lool, distance of listening. Psychophysiology makes a clasic distinc: tion between the senses ata distance’ (sight and hearing) and the others all of which involve immediate proximity and which it calls the ‘senses of contact” (Pradines): touch, taste, smell, ‘tenaestheti sent, ee: Freud notes that voyeur, lke sadism in this respect, always keeps apare the objet (here the object Tooked at) and the sure of the drive, ie. the generating organ (the eye); the voyeur does not look at his eye, With orality and anality, on the contrary, the exercise ofthe drive inaugurates 2 certain degree of partial fasion, a eoincidence (= contact, tenden- tial abolition of distance) of source and aim, forthe aim ie to obtain pleasure at the level of the source organ (= “organ pleasure’): e.g. what is called ‘pleasure ofthe mouth’ Te is no accident that the main socially acceptable acts are fbased om the senses ata distance, and that those which depend on the senses of contact are often regarded as ‘minor’ arts (eg the calinary arts, the art of perfumes, et.). Nor ist an accident that the visual or auditory imaginaries have played a much more im- 60 ‘THE mMAOIARY stonarER portant part in the histories of societies than the acl orl Tory imaginane. “The voyeur ia very crcl to mainiain a gulf an empty space, Between the object andthe ee, the objet tnd his own ba: Bis look fastens the object tthe ight distance as with these nema spectators who fake cate to avoid being toe close to orton far ffom the scree. The voyeur represents im space the Gaeta vic forever separate him fiom the objet he represents hi ‘ery dissatisfaction (which is precsely what he needs at voyeur), and thus also his “tatsacton’ instar as is of 3 Specifically voyeuraie type. To fil in this distance, would threaten co overly dhe sujet, to lead him to consume the ject the object which i mow fo lve so that he cannot set any mor), to bring im to orgasm and the pleasure of his own Body, hence to the exerse of eer divs, ming the sents feontet and puting anendt the scopic arrangement. eaton is filly part of perceptual pleasure, which ts thereby often ea, ured with analy. Orgasm isthe object rediscovered na sate of tnomentary illusion; i isthe Panty suppreson of the gap teeween abject and subject (hence the’ amorous ‘myths a ‘fusion’. The looking drive, except when itis excepionaly wll developed, i les directly slated to orgasm than are the other component deve; favours iby is excatry action, but eis tot generally suliient to produce it by is figures ste, wich thus belong tothe realm af preparative’ Ini we do ot find that illusion, however bre ofs ikl, ofa non iagnny ot afl relation to the objec, better enabled i other deen it 's truco ll desire that depends onthe inte pursuit o ts absent object, voyeuristic desire, alg with eercin for of fadism, 8 the only desie whose principe of distance symbole cally and spatially evokes this fondamental rent Thesame could best, making the necessary modifations of course, abou the nvoeatory (auditory) drive es carly tude by poychoanalyis hither, with the exception of wrters Te ean and Guy Rosle I shall rey real that oa alloc cinations~ and what reveals the dsoeation of desire and real ‘object beter than the hallucination? ~ che main ones by far are ‘isual and auditory hallucinations, those of the senses at 3 Aistance (his also tre ofthe des, another form ahaa ton) ‘He Passion FOR PeRCEIVING 61 ‘THE SCOPIC REGIME OF THE CINEMA However, although this set of features seems to me to be import- ‘an, it does not yet characterise the signifier ofthe cinema proper, bbut rather that of all means of expression based on sight or hearing, and hence, among other “languages, that of practically all the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture, music, opera, theatre, etc). What distinguishes the cinema is an extra reduphi ‘ation, a supplementary and specific tur of the serew bolting desire to the lack. Fist because the spectacles and sounds the finema “ollers” us (oflers us at a dstanee, hence as much sels from us) are especially rich and varied: a mere difference of degree, but already one that counts: the screen presents to our apprehension, but absents from our grasp, mote “things. (The mechanism of the perceiving drive is identical for the moment but its object is more endowed with matter this is one of the reasons why the cinema is very suited to handling erotic cenes ‘which depend on direct, non-sublimated voyeurism.) Tn the second place (and more decisively), the specific afinity between the cinematic signifier and the imaginary persists when film is compared with arts such asthe theatzein which the audio-visual biven i as rich as itis on the screen inthe mumber of pereeptval axes involved. Indeed, the theatre really does ‘give this given or at leat slightly more really: tis physically present, in the same Space as the spectator. The cinema only gives i in eFigy, inne czssible from the outset, in a primordial eeuher, infinitely desi able (= never possesible), on another scene which is that of absence and which nonetheless represents the absent in detail, ‘thus making it very present, but by a dilfeent itinerary. Not only am T ata distance ffom the object, 2s in the theatre, but what remain in that distance i now na longer the object isl ti delegate it has sent me while itself withdrawing. A double with- drawal ‘What defines the specifically cinematic sap rgine i not 30 much the distance kept, the ‘keeping” itself (Ses figure of the lack, common toall voyeurism), asthe abyence ofthe abject sen, Here the cinema is profoundly diferent from the theatre as aso fiom more intimate voyeuristic activites with a specially eote aim (there are intermediate genres, moreover: certain cabaret acts, striptease, ete): eases where voyeurism remains linked $0 a ‘HE miAGINARY stoNIFIER exhibiionism, where the to faces, active and passive, of the fomponent drive ae by no ments so dsociates where the ‘objet seen is present and hence presumably comple: where the perverse activity ~ aided if need be by a cetain doses bad Fath And happy illusion, varying ffom ease to case morenver, and fometimes reducible o very Tl asin re perverse couples it ‘chabitated and reconciled with tel by beng at wer une ‘dealy taken in charge by two actors assuming ity eonstaioe ules (the corresponding plants, nthe aber thesis, thas becoming interchangeable and shared by the pay of re ‘iproaldentfeaion). Inthe theatre, as indomesevoyeursrn, the passive actor (the one seen), simply because he bodily present, because he doesnt go aways presume to consent operate dliveraely.Tt-may be that he really doc, av xh Bisnis inthe clinical sented, ora ina sublinated fash, docs that oft noted triumphant exhibitions characteatie of shea ‘cing, countered even by Bait to cinema representation. Itmay aso be hat the object seen has oly anceps {ch thi condo (hs becoming anja’ ne aay sense of the word, and’ no longer ony inthe Freudian sente) Under the presute of more or lee power exeral contain, Economic ones for example. wih certain poor seippess (Fowever, they muse have consented at some pang Fare the degre of acceptance zero, except in the ease itcton eg when a fascist lia spn is prisoners the specie chars. istics of the sopie arrangement are then dered by the over Powerful intervention of another clement, sadism) Vayeuron ‘hich ot too sadist (there none whichis nt soa a) rests on a kind of ftion more or les jus in the order of the ral Sometimes ianttinalsed inthe theatre or septeaue fcsion tha stipulates thatthe object agree that i heelore exhibitionist, Or more precisely, what necessary in this eon forthe establishment of potency nd desiree presumed tobe su ficiently guaranteed by the physieal presence of the abject: Se itis there, fem ike isch, hypocriteal or no deed or ne inthe retrenchment needed bythe voyeur lng 3 sail trations are inplient to make the object real sl Co straint necessary to him. Thom despite the distance instituted by the leo ~ which traf the eject inion pe tlre Sioa) and thas tip ever into the imaginary, even int eal Presence ~ that presence, which persist ad the active consent t [THE PASSION FOR PERCEIVING 63 Which i ts real or mythical corelate (but always ral as myth) re-establish in the scopic space, momentarily atleast, he illusion ofa fllness ofthe object relation, fa state of desire whichis not just imaginary cin thie Jat recess that is attacked by the cinema signifier, itisin its precise emplacement (in its plac, in both senses ofthe word) that it installs a new Figure ofthe lack, the physical absence ofthe object seen. In the theatre, actors and spectators are present at the same time and in the same location, hence present one 10 Another, a8 the two protagonists ofan authentic perverse couple. But in the cinema, the actor was present when the speciator was rot (= shooting), and the spectator is present when the actor is ro longer (= projection): failure to meet ofthe voyeur and the txhibitonist whose approaches no longer coincide (they have ‘inissed? one another). ‘The cinema's voyeurim mus (of neces ity) do without any very clear mark of consent on the part ofthe ‘object. Theee is no equivalent hete of the theatre actor” final “pow. And then the latter could see thei voyeurs, the game was less unilateral, slightly better distributed. In the darkened hall, the voyeur is really le alone (or with other voyeurs, which is ‘worse), deprived of his other halfin the mythical hermaphrodite (G hermaphrodite not necessarily constituted by the distribution of the sexes but rather by that ofthe active and passive poles in the exercte of the drive). Yet stil a voyeur, since there is some- {hing to see, called the film, but something in whore definition thereis a great deal of Bight: not precisely something that hides, rather something that lt itself be seen without presenting sell 0 be seen, which has gone out of the room before leaving only its trace viible there. This isthe origin in particular ofthat ‘recipe’ of the classical cinema which said that the actor should never Took diretly atthe audience (= the camera) "Thus deprived of ehabilitatory agreement, of real or sup posed consensus with the other (which was also the Othe, fort hhad the satus ofa sanction on the plane of the aymbolic) cine ‘matic voyeurism, wnauthirived seopophili, i from the outet more strongly established than that of the theatre in direc line from the primal scene. Certain precise features ofthe intitution con- ‘wibbe to this afinity: the obseurty surrounding the onlocker, the aperture ofthe sereen with is inevitable keyhole effect, But 6 ‘THE macARY SONI, the any is more profound. ees itn the spectators slic tude fn the cinema: those attending a cinematie projection do. ‘not asin the theatre, consitore a hue ‘audiences emporary Coley hy ar ection finda who dee appearances, more closely resemble the fragmented gros of fenders ofa novel Te ies onthe other hand the fact ha the fie spetace the object see, is more radially ignorant ots spectator, since he snot there, than the thea apocace can ver bes A third fetor, closely linked tothe other two, abo playa Par: the seat of space that characeraes»cineina parlor nce and nota theatrical one. The sage and the audit tre no longer two areas set Up in oppesiton to each ether within Single spac: the space ofthe Alm, represented bythe secon try htrogeno, no lng smear with ae he fuditorium: one i real, the other perspective: a strong break than any line of fotight, For is spectator the fim unfolds that simultaneously very elose and definitively inaccessible le, ‘where’ in which the child va the amorous play ofthe parental Coupe, who are similarly ignorant and lene it aloné spare op whore pariptn i incncae nthe the Cinematic signifier is not only ‘psychoanalytic’ more pres Gel Oedipal intype, Tharsis ® 1 hse of difeeness een the ing and the theatre ti lificl to be precise about the relative importance of wo typet, of condoning, and yet they are defiey dint om the one hand the charactersies ofthe igi (alone envisaged here, ie the supplementary degree of absence tha T have teed eo Analyse, and on the ther the socieologicl circumstances that marked che hioreal birth ofthe two ar ins divergen ‘manne. Thave bronchi the later tote egewhere ny cos Inon to the Hnmage& Emde Beet (= Pat of ts book) and [shall only reall hat the cinema was fon inthe mit of the capitalist epoch in a largely aneaonistc and fragmented sec ba nda ad the rence ly father-mother-cldren), in an especially super-egosite bow. sols society, especially concerned with ‘elevation (or lage) Especially opaque toltself. The teste ia weryancont ae coe Shih saw the ght in more authentically cereronal soactea ‘nore integrated human groups (even sometimes, an Ancient | | | “THE PASSION FOR PERCEIVING 6 Greece, the cost ofthis integration was the reection into a nom Suman extesior of whole seca category, that ofthe slaves), in Cltures which were in some sense closer to thei desire (= pga: bism): the theatre fetaine something ofthis deliberate ive ten: dency towards ludicodiorgiesl“eomranion, even in the degraded state ofa fashionable rendezvous around those plays iow a pie de baad Testor reasons ofthis kind too that theatrical voyeurism, less cutoff from ta extbionietcorelate,tende more towards feconcled snd communty-orientted practice ofthe cope per Seon fhe smponent drive Ciena oyna eas Secepted, more shame faced Tar isnot jst quention of lobal determinations (by the siguteror by history), there ae also the personal efforts ofthe titers, producers and actor. Like all general tendencies, the ner | ave signalled are unevenly manifest rom work to work ‘There is no need to be surprised that certain fms accept their ‘eoyeurism more painy than do certain play. Tat this point thar the problems of pela cinema and poll theatre would tome inyand also those of pois of the enema and the theate ‘The militant use ofthe two signifier is by no means identical. In this respect the theatre is clearly ats great advantage, thanks ite Yesser degre ofimaginarines hanks tothe direct eontat allows with the audience, The fm which aime to be 2 fm af intervention must ake this into account in este, As wwe know this by no means easy The difficulty also lies in the fact that cinematic seopophila, ‘which isnon-authorised” inthe gense T have just pointed out is ‘at the same time authorised by the mere fact fits instcutionalis- ‘ation. The cinema retains something ofthe prohibited character ‘peculiar tothe vision ofthe primal seene (the latter i always sur- Pprieed, never contemplated at leisure, and the permanent ‘inemas of big cites, with their highly anonymous clientele enter- ing a leaving furtvely, in the dark, inthe midale ofthe action, represent this tranegeession factor rather well) ~ but also in 3 kind of inverse movement which i simply the ‘repite’ ofthe ime aginary by the symbolic, the cinema is based on the legalisation and generalisation of the prohibited practice. Thus itshares in miniature in the special regime of certain activites (such as the 66 THE MUAGINARY stostrTER frequentation of nas de tan very well mane inthis respect that are both ofa and nnd, a either ofthese wo characters evr ule seen craig the ther. For the vst aero the skeen ima (rie ie the dea na epee te closure or serve whch ereape the fly wp cee atthough tis accepted and preseibed byt gue hes is one lawl activty among ster wits actin sane Sue pasties ofthe day onthe week and yer tnt pa we in the social clot, baphs opening 08 to soviet "ore crys les approved than wha coe dos een THEAT E FICTION, CINEMA FICTION Ginema and theatre do not have the same relation to fection Theres a fctonal cinema, junta there sa tonal thee ‘nopction’ cinema una there fa non-edontheate teee Seton ia great hisoricl a socal figure parGculay ereoas our Westen tradition and perhaps in other), endowed ain force fis own which lea i eo invest various spe fred inversely, tobe more ores expeied fom them onsen it does not follow that these signifiers have an even and uniform: iy witht (hao ane, ae als parser uncon. fia and yet there is such a thing a pogesmine ee he Sinematic simier lends isthe beter te felon ie toy hg itself five and “abient. Aemprs to deictonalise the see tace notably since Brece, have gone frther in the then he inthe cinema, and not by chance Be what interests me heres rather the fac that this uneven: "esis ll apparent if one compares only the fetonal Gentes ‘withthe tional cinema, ‘They are not ‘etomle yee same wa, and it was this that Thad been strvek bye 1S ches 1 compared the mmpression of reali produced Ey thee te forms of speciacle."Ax that tine my approach waa purdk pre, ‘omenological one, and it owed vay Taleo parents However heater eonfims mein my earlier ophtor Gedy ing al fiction there he alec restonsip een sl Instance and an imaginary instance, the emer ob beta, minis he later: there i the representation, inline fa ae “THE Passion FoR PERCEIVING 7 tesials and ations, andthe represented che Sesion prpesy speaking, But the balance established between thse wo pole dhs hence the precise nuance ofthe reine of Bl tha the spe tstor wil adopt varies tlerably Irom one Rctonl technique to the other. In the cinemas inthe theatre the represented i by

    Вам также может понравиться