The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock

8/13/2019 The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock

1/21

ISSN 1751-8229Volume Six, Number Three

The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock

Kyle Barrowman - graduate of the Cinema Studies rogram atColum!ia College in Chi"ago#$%er the "ourse of a "areer that s anned si& de"ades' !eginning in (ngland in the 192)s as thesilent "inema was a roa"hing its a e& and ending in the 197)s amidst the ost"lassi"al

*meri"an "inema re%olution' *lfred +it"h"o", su""eeded in trans"ending time' genre' e%en"inema itself# Based on the fe"undity of his rolifi" "anon' +it"h"o",. has !e"ome totemi" for aremar,a!ly %ariegated /if not antinomi"0 series of theoreti"al re"e ts in the film studies"ommunity' all sym tomati" of the arti"ular a"ademi" eitgeist# Beginning with the idealisti"

and "ine hilia" %eneration of +it"h"o",-as-auteur in the 195)s and 19 )s' whi"h rea"hed itsenith with the u!li"ations of 3o!in 4ood s /19 50 heraldi" auteurist analysis and 6ran"oisruffaut s /19 70 !oo,-length inter%iew' +it"h"o", was e%entually "oloni ed !y Se"ond 4a%e6eminism. in the 197)s and 198)s' ortrayed as a misogynist whose films were %iewed asideologi"ally- redetermined sym toms of an antedilu%ian male "hau%inist and whose filmma,ingstyle allegedly e&em lified the intrinsi" ro!lems of "lassi"al +ollywood storytelling#1

*s the feminist "oloni ation of +it"h"o", ga%e way to more tem ered a raisals of hisfilmogra hy' s"holars in the field of +it"h"o", Studies. !egan trying to "onsolidate ast+it"h"o", s"holarshi in an effort to en"om ass the totality of +it"h"o", s artistry and itshermeneuti" im li"ations# ania odles,i /2))5 19880' for e&am le' sees the +it"h"o", oeuvreas housing a "lash !etween authorshi and ideology that "hallenges and de"enters' !ut doesnot "om letely de%alue' the notion of dire"torial authority# 4ood' on the other hand' in his 1989re%ision of his original 19 5 monogra h' maintained the original s"hemati ation of +it"h"o",-as-auteur' !ut rather than romulgating the u!i:uitous !inary theoreti"al "laims a ro os of

1


2/21

+it"h"o", s misogyny hallo"entrism' he sought to illuminate the "om le&ity of +it"h"o",ianmorality' whi"h' with its er%ading sense of the ine&tri"a!ility of good and e%il. /4ood 1989; ?i@e, is undou!tedly the most renowned +it"h"o",ian =a"aniane&egete# *s it relates to the "entrality of sy"hoanalysis to +it"h"o", Studies' ?i@e, s ro>e"t of

res"uing "lassi"al =a"anian do"trine from its ina ro riate *lthusserian feminist oliti"i ationfound a useful ally in +it"h"o",' whose films re resent for him fertile ground on whi"h toilluminate negle"ted misunderstood =a"anian "on"e ts# 4hat was on"e an inno"uouso!ser%ation regarding an a arent "om ati!ility !etween +it"h"o", s films and sy"hoanalysishas !een reified in the s"holarshi of theorists su"h as 4ood and ?i@e,A in an effort to e&tend!oth the 4ood-ins ired ro>e"t of analy ing the e%olution of +it"h"o", s hiloso hy of filmi"roman"e and the ?i@e,ian ro>e"t of asserting a =a"anian an"hor to +it"h"o", s films' theensuing e&egesis will ta,e as its remise that le trait unaire of +it"h"o", s "inema is the

=a"anian di"tum there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi #. *s =a"anians su"h as ?i@e, and Bru"e 6in, /19950 ha%e lamented in their writings' sin"e

the u!li"ations in 6ren"h and (nglish of =a"an s writings and seminars' many s"holars ha%edis"ussed as e"ts of his do"trine' in"luding his wor, on se&uality' des ite la",ing a firm grason his thin,ing# hey "on"ede that it is mu"h easier to fi&ate on one of =a"an s morero%o"ati%e ostulations /e#g# there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi .0 in an attem t touse it as e%iden"e in what are ultimately egregious so hismsA as ?i@e, has admira!ly shown inthe many engagements with +it"h"o", s "inema he has ro%ided o%er the years' what is

ne"essary for the most rodu"ti%e reading of =a"an /and thus for the most rodu"ti%e =a"anianreading of +it"h"o",0 is a willingness to struggle through his "ir"uitous' "ontradi"tory' at timesim enetra!le ruminations in order to isolate and assess the fundamental "on"e ts. of =a"aniansy"hoanalysis' to "onsider how re"urring "on"e ts su"h as the objet petit a' the hallus'desire' la",' et"#' are e& li"ated in arti"ular writings and le"tures and to assess their e%olutiono%er the "ourse of his rolifi" "areer# ("hoing' too' the "om laints of +it"h"o", Studies s"holars

2


3/21

a ro os the unfair feminist atta", on +it"h"o", s alleged misogyny' the fundamental ro!lemfa"ing those e& loring either the =a"anian or the +it"h"o",ian dis"ourse is to sift through theostentation and the olemi"s to lo"ate the original' trans"endental site of thought# *nd in sodoing' the unmista,a!le insight is the remar,a!le ro&imity' e%en identi"ality' of their res e"ti%e

hiloso hi"al dis"ourses# If there is any tena!ility at all in ?i@e, s "laim that S ino a' +egel'and *lthusser ser%e as atem oral re>oinders to one another /?i@e, 199e"t# Brus:uely osited' thes"andalous nature of =a"an s "laim is lainly e%ident# Beyond the ostentation' howe%er' residesa nuan"ed reading of su!>e"ti%ity that "uts to the "ore of =a"anian thoughtA a arti"ularlyelu"idatory assage from the seminar where =a"an offered his most thorough interrogation ofthe nature of lo%e and roman"e ser%es at on"e to "larify his meaning and highlight one of hisfundamental "on"e ts#.

4hat "onstitutes the !asis of life' in effe"t' is that for e%erything ha%ing to do with therelations !etween men and women DE it s not wor,ing out# It s not wor,ing out' and thewhole world tal,s a!out it' and a large art of our a"ti%ity is ta,en u with saying so#Ne%ertheless DE this se&ual relationshi ' insofar as it s not wor,ing out' wor,s outanywayFthan,s to a "ertain num!er of "on%entions andE rohi!itions /=a"an1999 197e"ti%ity has !een to reify the ideal rather than"onfront the reality# hus' +it"h"o", s "inema' in tandem with =a"anian sy"hoanalysis' stri%esto mo%e ast stereoty i"al ideologi"al "ommon la"es in an effort to enetrate the innermostregions of the "olle"ti%e sy"he#

3


4/21

=oo,ing at +it"h"o", s films' the irredu"i!le antagonisms of se&ual differen"e fre:uently"onstitute their narratologi"al "ore' arti"ularly in his *meri"an films# Grior to the start of his+ollywood "areer' +it"h"o", s ortraits of romanti" relationshi s were noti"ea!ly light and airyairings !ased more on "inemati" "on%ention than on ersonal !elief# his is not to say that the

films are worthless to the field of film studiesA in s e"ifi"ally loo,ing to e& lore his maturation asa hiloso her of filmi" roman"e' howe%er' it is his *meri"an films that offer the greatest salien"eregarding his %iews on romanti" unions !etween men and women struggling within thedis"ursi%e realm of atriar"hy# 6or 4ood' Rebecca /19 )0 mar,s the esta!lishment of the"entral stru"turing tension. /4ood 1989; 2e"ti%ity and instead see,ing toilluminate the fundamental ro!lems of su!>e"ti%ity as su"h#

he most e& li"it treatment of mutual suffering is to !e found in Notorious /19 0'

+it"h"o", s first ma>or filmi" treatise on the "om le& nature of roman"e# In an effort to analy e+it"h"o", s films en masse ' a histori"al "onte&tuali ation that situates Notorious/and later'Vertigo 1958E andMarnie 19 E0 against a set of "ontrol films "an hel to >ustify the ro ositionthat +it"h"o", s films offer a uni:ue' singular' and e%ol%ing %ision# he most o!%ious "ontrol is"lassi"al +ollywood "inema' a well-,nown model that "an ser%e to esta!lish dominant stylisti"and narrati%e ra"ti"es# 4hat ma,es the study of +it"h"o", s films so intriguing is how' as aresult of his early !attles with rodu"ers and studio ersonnel' most notoriously Ha%id $#Sel ni",' for "reati%e "ontrol o%er his films' +it"h"o", s own films /Rebecca ' Suspicion 19 1E'

and Spellbound 19 5E in arti"ular0 "an ser%e as an inde& of the "lassi"al +ollywood model'while his later films /Notorious' Vertigo' and Marnie in arti"ular0 "an ser%e as "ra",s in theuni%ersal'. as Kantian sym toms of the ontologi"al in"onsisten"y of the "lassi"al model# Byanaly ing the arti"ular mode of the narrati%e fun"tioning in his early *meri"an films and theresen"e of "ra",s in the ontologi"al sta!ility of their "lassi"al ro"esses of narration' thesu!%ersi%e nature of his later films "an !e more "learly registered in its radi"ality#

4


5/21

4ith its unam!iguous a ro riation of sy"hoanalysis as its narrati%e a&is' the treatmentof its su!>e"t matter "auses Spellbound to fun"tion as a aradigm "ase of "lassi"al +ollywooddistortion#< he rologue that introdu"es the film reads as follows;$ur story deals with sy"hoanalysis' the method !y whi"h modern s"ien"e treats the emotional

ro!lems of the sane# he analyst see,s only to indu"e the atient to tal, a!out his hiddenro!lems' to o en the lo",ed doors of his mind# $n"e the "om le&es that ha%e !een distur!ingthe atient are un"o%ered and inter reted' the illness and "onfusion disa earDand the de%ilsof unreason are dri%en from the human soul#

his saniti ed %iew of the sy"hoanalyti" ro"ess "om!ined with the rosy "on"e tion ofan ultimately untrou!led su!>e"ti%ity s ea, less to +it"h"o", s moral am!i%alen"e and more tothe "lassi"al +ollywood ro>e"t of "onstru"ting a "inema of integration#. *s "on"ei%ed !y odd" owan' the "inema of integration is "onstituted !y an intermi&ing of desire and fantasy.

wherein the "inema wor,s hand in hand with the fun"tioning of the dominantE ideology./ " owan 2))7; 1150 so as to su ort its stru"ture !y o!s"uring the "ra",s in the uni%ersal' theirredu"i!le antagonisms of su!>e"ti%ity# he "lash !etween +it"h"o", and his rodu"ers'howe%er' inad%ertently "reated /in films ostensi!ly integrated. and with the re:uisite distortion.0films that lay !are the ideologi"al fun"tion. / " owan 2))7; 1550 of the relationshi !etweenthe "inema and the dominant ideology# he infamous !attle o%er the ending of Suspicion%irtually e& oses the wor,ings of fantasy' ma,es trans arent the attem t to shield the film fromthe 3eal# he alterations made for the film %ersion ofRebecca ' wherein the rotagonist did not

really ,ill his first wife' thus allowing /an al!eit am!iguous0 re"on"iliation !etween him and his"urrent wife' wor, similarly#

+a%ing already made and fought !attles o%erRebecca and Suspicion' Spellbound "omes at a oint in +it"h"o", s "areer where his %ision has matured to a oint where it isliterally im ossi!le' e%en with Sel ni", insisting on the aradigmati" distortion of the field ofsu!>e"ti%ity' for the "ra",s in the ontologi"al sta!ility of "lassi"al +ollywood narration to remainhidden# Spellbound rogresses towards the ine%ita!le ha y ending. marriage !etween there%iously distur!ed rotagonist and his unwa%eringly lo%ing and de%oted sy"hoanalyst' !ut

due to +it"h"o", s resen"e' the hantasmati" "athe&is of this denouement is negated in fa%orof an am!i%alen"e that !orders on essimism# (arly in the film' Hr# Constan"e Getersen /IngridBergman0 is dis"ussing the du li"ity of lo%e with /the man she !elie%es to !e0 Hr# *nthony(dwardes / regory Ge",0 # Ju&ta osed with the o ening rologue' Hr# Getersen s %iews onlo%e are nothing short of radi"al er%ersity' identifying lo%e s winsome s lendor as the "olle"ti%e"an"er laguing so"iety# She feels the ro!lem with lo%e is that eo le "on"e tuali e it as one

5


6/21

thing !ut e& erien"e it as another' the %ery definition of an antinomy in the Kantian sense#=o%e. as su"h is Gedankending '. an o!>e"t-of-thought'. something that is "on"e tuallyossi!le !ut e& erientially im ossi!le /?i@e, 199e"tory of =a"an s thin,ing a ro os of theImaginary-Sym!oli"-3eal tri ty"h and the la"e therein of the se&ual relationshi "an hel toshed light on the s e"ifi"ities of +it"h"o", s e%olution as a filmi" hiloso her# (arly in his "areer'=a"an was fas"inated !y Saussurean semioti"s' asserting in early seminars the rima"y of thesignifying networ, in stru"turing su!>e"ti%ityA in his ne&t hase' =a"an am lified his

reo""u ation with the Sym!oli"' mo%ing to a stru"turalist "on"e tion that "on"ei%ed oflanguage as an ines"a a!le totali ation of su!>e"ti%ityA following this hy er!oli" fas"ination withthe Sym!oli"' =a"an su!se:uently retreated to analy ing the ways in whi"h the Imaginary' in itssear"h for homeostati" !alan"e'. is "onstantly trou!led !y the intrusion of the Sym!oli"' howsu!>e"ti%ity is essentially a !attle !etween the Imaginary and the Sym!oli"' with the 3eal !eing"ons i"uously a!sent' gi%en no more "onsideration than re resenting a fun"tioning nonentityA inthe last hase of his tea"hing' =a"an "om ensated for re%ious negle"t of the 3eal !y gi%ing itthe main a""ent. of his tea"hing' "om letely restru"turing his Imaginary-Sym!oli"-3eal triad !y

asserting that it is the Sym!oli"' not the Imaginary' that is go%erned !y the leasure rin"i leand rimarily "on"erned with a"hie%ing homeostati" !alan"e' and that the 3eal re resents a,ernel at the %ery "enter of the Sym!oli"' a traumati" element. that disru ts that !alan"e# 5

he im li"ations of these e%ol%ing "on"e tions of the struggle of su!>e"ti%ity "ome to!ear on the su!>e"t as he she a roa"hes the "on"luding moment of analysis# 6rom theers e"ti%e of =a"an s initial hase' the final moment of analysis. is rea"hed when the su!>e"t

6


7/21

is a!le to narrate. his her history in its "ontinuity'. when the su!>e"t s desire is a",nowledgedand narrati%i ed# =ater in his tea"hing' howe%er' when the Sym!oli" was "on"ei%ed as amonstrous totality ha%ing a mortifying effe"t on the su!>e"t. !y im osing on the su!>e"tE atraumati" loss'. the final moment is rea"hed when the su!>e"t is ready to a""e t this

fundamental loss' to "onsent to sym!oli" "astration as a ri"e to !e aid for a""ess to his herEdesire. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 1 5-1 70# In the last hase of his tea"hing' =a"an e&tends the"athe"ti" a",nowledgment of the la", "onstituti%e of desire in a mu"h more radi"al way' with thefinal moment !eing identified as when the su!>e"t fully assumes his or her identifi"ation with thesinthome' when he or she unreser%edly yields to it' re>oins the la"e where it was' gi%ing uthe false distan"e whi"h defines the su!>e"t sE e%eryday life. /?i@e, 199


8/21

se&ed identities# 6or =a"an' the formulae of se&uation. indi"ate the antinomi" ositioning ofmen and women in the ideologi"al framewor,# *s o!ser%ed !y ?i@e,' the ur ose of theformulae of se&uation is to solidify this antinomi" stru"turing mathemati"ally' where themas"uline. side of the fun"tion im lies the e&isten"e of an e&"e tion'. whereas the feminine.

side of the fun"tion features a arti"ular negation. whi"h im lies that there is no e&"e tion./?i@e, 199oyment' the immediate en"ounter with whom would !e un!eara!le !e"ause of its e&"essi%efullness' whi"h is why he ost ones the en"ounter.A and one who is ultimately tortured !y thewe! of his own "ontradi"tion and inde"ision /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 2180#

8


9/21

He%lin a ears at se%eral oints in Notorious to !e on the "us of a healthy relationshiwith *li"ia' !ut something in%aria!ly rohi!its the reali ation of this su""ess# +e re"ruits her tos y for the go%ernment' uts her in the arms /and the !ed0 of another man' e%en uts her inHeath s arms' all to unish her in a rounda!out effort to unish himself# 3i"hard *llen asserts

that +it"h"o", s films ose the :uestion of whether romanti" lo%e har!ors a murderous andEself-annihilating desire. /*llen 1999; 22 0' !ut >udging !yNotorious' a"ting li,e this is a :uestionfor +it"h"o", seems rather o!tuseA for +it"h"o",' romanti" lo%e is undeniably and inescapablyconstituted by such negative components ' and !ased on the in%aria!ility of something emergingas a rohi!ition to the romanti" relationshi !etween He%lin and *li"ia' it !e"omes "lear that+it"h"o", is intentionally ortraying the eroti" leasure of the !udding relationshi ' mostfamously rendered in the e&tended ,issing se:uen"e' and its fantasy of fulfillment explicitly asfantasy # By ma,ing so "ons i"uous the hantasmati" :ualities of their early and fleeting

ha iness' +it"h"o", su""eeds in illuminating the frustratingly arado&i"al fa"t that fantasy is ameans !y whi"h to ta,e its own failure into a""ount. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 1 20# he Imaginarythus senses the 3eal' senses the insuffi"ien"y of its Sym!oli" stru"turing of reality' and is thus a,ind of defense me"hanism' a !andage im otently shielding against a %irulent "an"er#

It is only from this %antage oint that the su!%ersi%e ower of the film s ending "an !efully rendered a ro os the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi # Hue to the fa"t that the filmends not with He%lin and *li"ia !ut instead with the resolution of the surrounding Na i s y lot's"holars who ha%e analy ed Notoriousin the ast ha%e failed to fully register the radi"ality of

the film s =a"anian thesis# odles,i' for e&am le' assesses the film s "entral issue as !eing theossi!ility of lo%e as a redem ti%e for"e / odles,i 2))5 1988; )0' whi"h "an !e "alled theositi%ity. inter retation' while 3i"hard *!el %iews the denouement as staging He%lin s and

*li"ia s reformation in guilt. /*!el 2))9 198 ; 1 50' whi"h "an !e "alled the ositi%e negati%ity.inter retation# 4hat is indi"ati%e in !oth inter retations is the ultimate registering of ositi%ity' ofo timism' e%en if' as in *!el s "ase' it is a signifi"antly ro!lemati ed and "ontingent o timism#Neither inter retation is a!le to register in Notorious the radi"al negati%ity of the denouement'whi"h stems from the failure to a raise the relationshi as "onfronting He%lin and *li"ia with

the falsity of theirE own su!>e"ti%e osition. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 70# He i"ting nar"issisti" lo%e atits urest' the lo%e !etween He%lin and *li"ia de i"ts a %i"ious tautologi"al loo ro%ing the=a"anian theory that one sees in one s artner what one ro s oneself u on' what one isro ed u !y nar"issisti"ally. /=a"an 1999 197


10/21

atriar"hy# He%lin wants *li"ia to !e the adonna' !ut he re eatedly for"es her to !e a whoreand then re udiates her for it# *li"ia' for her art' ,nows the "onse:uen"es of her a"tions',nows that' !y going ahead with her s ying and ,ee ing u the relationshi with the Na i shehas !een "harged with ,ee ing ta!s on' that she is alienating He%lin' yet she relentlessly

adheres to the aggressi%e self- unishing neurosis. /=a"an 2)) ; 1)10 "onstituti%e of herentra ment in the atriar"hal realm until it !rings her to the re"i i"e of death# heir finalmoment of ostensi!le re"on"iliation in the "ar near the end of the film' while a earing to !e themoment that He%lin finally fully redeems himself. !y e& ressing his re>e"tion of mas"ulinistoliti"s altogether in fa%or of identifying himself with a woman and res"uing her from%i"timi ation and death. /4ood 1989; < )0' is actually the exact opposite# 6alling in line withodles,i and *!el %is-L-%is the ina!ility of s"holars to register the radi"al negati%ity of thedenouement' 4ood misses the way He%lin fails to res"ue *li"ia from %i"timi ation and death'

the way he fails to redeem himself' indeed' that evlin is the source of *li"ia s %i"timi ation anddeath' and the way to register this radi"al negati%ity is to register it retroa"ti%ely' to "onfer u onthe film its ro er radi"ality after registering the e%en more se%ere negati%ity inVertigo' thelogi"al e&tension ofNotorious#

Sin"e +it"h"o", ne%er e& li"itly ,ills *li"ia inNotorious' he left o en the ossi!ility formore o timisti" e&egetes to surmise that there was a ha y ending waiting for He%lin and *li"iaon the other side of the end "redits# But "onsidering how +it"h"o", s essimism regardingroman"e only in"reased in the years following Notorious' the only feasi!le inter retation of its

"on"lusion is to a""e t as ine%ita!le *li"ia s death following hers and He%lin s "on"omitantreali ation of the traumati" truth that there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi # heir"ommensurate self- unishing neurosis laid !are the fa"t that ea"h' as a result of their antinomi"dis"ursi%e ositioning within atriar"hy' had nothing to offer the other !ut their own la",' and' asin"isi%ely as,ed !y ?i@e,; If the su!>e"t "annot render to its other what this other la",s' what"an it return to it if notthe lack itself . /?i@e, 199


11/21

Considering its "anoni"ity in film studies and the understanda!le u!i:uity of e&egeses in+it"h"o", Studies' Vertigo has !een thoroughly mined !y innumera!le s"holars wor,ing from%arious analyti" ositions# 4hile' in itself'.Vertigo has !een remar,a!ly elu"idated !y thes"holars who ha%e engaged it o%er the years' it has yet to !e a ro riately situated as a ste

towards +it"h"o", s +egelian =a"anian shift to !e a"hie%ed in Marnie# Both odles,i and ?i@e,ha%e shrewdly o!ser%ed the terrifying im li"ations ofVertigo %is-L-%is male su!>e"ti%ity and itsrelian"e on 4oman when 4oman' in =a"anese' does not e&ist.A !y failing to analy e +it"h"o",en masse ' howe%er' neither s"holar su""eeds in re"ogni ing in Vertigo a rogressi%e ste in+it"h"o", s e%olution fromNotorious and ointing towards Marnie#

he end of Vertigo' the most famous ortion of this "anoni"al "lassi"' has always !eenof arti"ular interest to s"holars# 6or 4ood' Vertigo is a s e"ta"ular a"hie%ement in the "riti:ueof atriar"hy' standing tall as a denun"iation of male egoism' resum tion' and intransigen"e.

/4ood 1989; 2 20# S"ottie /James Stewart0' due to his o!sessi%e fas"ination with a fantasy.4oman at the e& ense of Judy /Kim No%a,0' the real. woman in front of him' !rings a!out thedeath of !oth the fantasy. and the reality'. lea%ing him with nothing !ut the em tiness of hisown /self0destru"ti%e desire# In an effort to ma,e her mirror his desire' the desire of an'S"ottie destroys woman s otherness.A in his des erate' nar"issisti" effort to sustain a sense ofhimself'. he initiates the end of woman. / odles,i 2))5 1988; 9 0# 4hat is im ortant tore"ogni e in these "laims from ast Vertigo e&egetes is the e&a"t du li"ation of the denouementin Notorious# He%lin and S"ottie' due to their o!sessi%e fas"ination with a fantasy

*li"ia Judy adeleine 4oman' at the e& ense of the real woman in front of them' ,ill thefantasy and the reality and are left with nothing !ut their own su!>e"ti%e em tiness# hus' !yVertigo' +it"h"o", has su""essfully ,illed off 4omanA all that is left is an and his/self0destru"ti%e hantasms# 3e"alling odles,i s earlier warning a!out refusing the notion ofe:uality in the suffering of +it"h"o", s male and female "hara"ters' it would a ear' !ased onthe sy"hologi"al and hysi"al %iolen"e done to the women in his films' that +it"h"o", did'indeed' fa%or male su!>e"ti%ity !y at least rote"ting. it from death# he "ounter to thiserroneous "on"lusion' howe%er' is "ontained in the aforementioned o!ser%ations made !y ?i@e,

and' ironi"ally' odles,i herself; If' from Notorious to Vertigo' +it"h"o", s matri& has adhered tothe =a"anian di"tum 4oman does not e&ist'. i#e#' 4oman as a signifier for a uni%ersal entity isde%oid of her ontologi"al solidity' then'mutatis mutandis' it also adheres to the re%erse thatan does not e&ist#.

3e"alling ?i@e, s and 6in, s lamentations %is-L-%is sim listi" and erroneous"on"e tuali ations of =a"anian do"trine' =a"an s ro"lamation 4oman does not e&ist. is a

11


12/21

fa%orite among detra"tors who see it as indi"ati%e of =a"an s ignorant hallo"entrism# *s ?i@e,has shrewdly shown' what is missing from these insensiti%e readings of thedixit is how an snone&isten"e is ine&tri"a!ly !ound u with the none&isten"e of 4oman# he ultimate malefantasy. %is-L-%is 4oman' as saga"iously illuminated !y ?i@e,' is that' !eyond that whi"h is

su!mitted to the halli" order' there e&ists an ineffa!le' mysterious !eyond '. someunfathoma!le feminine essen"e /?i@e, 2))5; 0# So' when =a"an uses the term 4oman'. it isin referen"e to the atriar"hal "on"e tuali ation of this ineffa!le feminine essen"e' and it is

precisely this whi"h does not e&ist# *nd inVertigo' this is the horrifying reali ation towards whi"hS"ottie was always a roa"hing# Judy s first death' as adeleine' was the emergen"e ofS"ottie s sym tom' !ut in true =a"anian fashion' the sym tom is that whi"h will "ontinue not to!e understood until the analysis has got :uite a long way. /=a"an 1988 195 ; 1590# S"ottie doesnot understand that adeleine' i#e# his fantasy "on"e tuali ation of 4oman' was destined to die

as a "onfirmation of her none&isten"e' and to re ress this fa"t' he sets out' in the se"ond half ofthe film' to re"reate this s e"tral entity# But re ression is no solution' and for as hard as hetries' S"ottie ine%ita!ly e& erien"es a return of the re ressed'. of the ast trauma that onlyta,es on its %alue in the future. /=a"an 1988 195 ; 1590# his return of the re ressed is what"onfers u on the ending its la"ement among the most distur!ing and ainful e& erien"es the"inema has to offer.A !y !e"oming too aware that the fantasy is fantasy' and too aware of it asim osition on the woman. /4ood 1989; e"ti%ity s radi"al negati%ity' a ears to !e the

moment that re"edes the annihilation of the su!>e"t# *t this oint on the ath of su!>e"ti%ity' S"ottie' as the anthro omor hi ed su!>e"t'

stands /literally0 !efore a re"i i"e# he i"oni" final image of Vertigo where S"ottie standsloo,ing down into the a!yss of su!>e"ti%ity in whi"h 4oman has >ust rea"hed her demise im liesthe imminent death' too' of S"ottie as an# he notion 4oman is a sym tom of an. means'as re%iously asserted' that the death of 4oman yields the death of an' and fa"ed with thises"hatologi"al "on"e tuali ation of su!>e"ti%ity' $tto 4eininger ro osed "olle"ti%e sui"ide. asthe only remaining o tion for those see,ing sal%ation#7 In its literality' this ro osition is

anathemaA meta hysi"ally' howe%er' it is tautologi"al# he end ofVertigo stages the "ominginto o eration. of the Sym!oli" in its most radi"al. form' a moment whi"h' a""ording to =a"an;

(nds u a!olishing the a"tion of the indi%idual so "om letely that !y the same to,en iteliminates his tragi" relation to the world DE he su!>e"t finds himself to !e no morethan a awn' for"ed inside this system' and e&"luded from any truly dramati"' and"onse:uently tragi"' arti"i ation in the reali ation of truth /=a"an 1988 1955;


13/21

If an only e&ists !ua 4oman' i#e#' if the su!>e"t only e&ists!ua its sym tom' then the only wayto arti"i ate in the reali ation of truth. is to "on"ei%e of the sym tom as sinthome#. 3eturningto the re%iously ostulated +egelian =a"anian shift' what +it"h"o", s "hara"ters ha%e

gradually reali ed through their narrati%e ordeals is that the annihilation of the sym tom is notan annihilation of their ro!lem !ut an annihilation of themselves' of their %ery !eing# He%lin andS"ottie' as re resentati%es of the atriar"hal order' of the halli" regime' must re"ogni e theradi"al ontologi"al status. of the sym tom as sinthome; he sym tom is literally the only ointthat gi%es "onsisten"y to the su!>e"t'. it is the "hoosing something' the sym tom' o%er nothing'i#e#' o%er radi"al sy"hoti" autism' the destru"tion of the sym!oli" uni%erse. /?i@e, 2))8 1989;810# his reali ation of the +it"h"o", rotagonist does not' howe%er' o en the door forositi%ity. or ositi%e negati%ity. inter retations of his later wor,A more re"isely' a late film li,e

Marnie re%eals a!stra"t negati%ity'. re%eals identifi"ation with the sym tom' gi%ing u the falsedistan"e. and tarrying with the negati%e#.Spellbound ' as an Imaginary film par excellence'resol%es itself %ia the self-de"e tion of the fantasy of the fulfilled se&ual relationshi ' of themo%ing out. and away from the sym tomANotoriousand Vertigo' meanwhile' shift theem hasis from the Imaginary to the Sym!oli"' staging the denial of the ossi!ility of fantasy"onferring u on them ontologi"al sta!ility and finding the rotagonists a""e ting sym!oli""astration' of the la", "onstituti%e of desire#

4here Notoriousand Vertigo see their rotagonists err is in their !elief that' in the film

noir tradition of the hard-!oiled dete"ti%e s "on:uering of the "himeri"alfemme fatale' !y!rea,ing down the 4oman' re%ealing an entity without su!stan"e. /?i@e, 1991; 50' they would"ure themsel%es# 4hat they "ome to reali e' em!odied in the final "ri lingly ener%ated imageof S"ottie in Vertigo' is that the sym tom' while un:uestiona!ly something that "auses a greatdeal of trou!le'. should ne%ertheless !e em!ra"ed' for its a!sen"e would mean e%en greatertrou!le; total "atastro he. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 850# his total "atastro he. is what awaits He%linon the other side of the end "redits of Notorious# his is what S"ottie had the "han"e' u onmeeting Judy' to a%oid' !ut what he "ould not hel !ut reena"t through his own ignoran"e# *nd

this is what ar, 3utland /Sean Connery0 in Marniesu""eeds in a%oiding# +e is gi%en thesame se"ond "han"e as S"ottie' !ut he refuses to allow history to re eat itself and insteadidentifies with his sym tom#8

Mnli,eVertigo' the "om lete la", of "anoni"ity e%ident in the la"e Marnieo""u ies inthe +it"h"o", "anon e& lains the large-s"ale a"ademi" failure to situate it as the su!limea"hie%ement of +it"h"o", s "inemati" hiloso hi ing# (%en ?i@e, fails to see in Marnie

13


14/21

+it"h"o", s a otheosis' instead mar,ing it as the first indi"ation of +it"h"o", s artisti"disintegration. /?i@e, 1992; 50 following the "losure. of his filmi" system. with"he #irds/19 e"ti%ity' a ostulation that !rings him fa"e-to-fa"e withthe 6reudian +egelian $ngeschehenmachen '. 1) the su!limity of negati%ity# Countering !oth theositi%ity. and the ositi%e negati%ity. inter retations of +it"h"o", films from ast s"holars and

em!ra"ing a!stra"t negati%ity'. Marniene"essitates an inter retation that re"ogni es within thefilm the +egelian =a"anian ro"ess of ta,ing the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi from thee istemologi"al le%el and "on"reti ing it on the ontologi"al le%el# he end ofNotoriousser%es asa disavo%al of the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' whileVertigo ser%es as ac!uiescence

to it' !oth "ases remaining on the le%el of e istemologi"al o!sta"leA +it"h"o", a"hie%es his+egelian =a"anian shift in Marnie !y show"asing the transcendence of the e istemologi"alo!sta"le as it !e"omes ontologi"ally "onstituti%e#

*s ers i"a"iously a rehended !y 4ood' ar, re resents a new stage in thede%elo ment of +it"h"o", s heroes. !ased on the way he sees "learly and a""e ts the fa"t ofthe ine&tri"a!ility of good and e%il'. the fa"t that e%ery moral a"tion "arries within it itsine&tri"a!ly interwo%en thread of immorality. /4ood 1989; 1820# 4here 4ood goes astray in hisinter retation' though' is in his o%er ealous em!ra"ement of ar, as remar,a!ly free of inner

"om ulsions and of his own ast life. /4ood 1989; 1820# 6or 4ood' the relationshi !etweenar, and arnie mirrors erfe"tly the relationshi !etween the analyst and the analysand#ar, is an a%atar of the su!>e"t resumed to ,now.A the analyst is resumed to ,now inad%an"e the signifi"an"e' the meaning' of the analysand s sy"hologi"al dis"ordan"e' a,nowledge that is a ne"essary illusion sin"e only through this su osition of ,nowledge "anreal ,nowledge !e rodu"ed. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 21)0# It is the illusory nature of ar, s totemi"osition as the su!>e"t resumed to ,now that is missed !y 4ood !ut intuited !y urrayGomeran"e' who re"ogni es' in ar, s arrogant a""e tan"e of his totemi" status' a man in

mas:uerade. /Gomeran"e 2)) ; 1 0# Judging the relationshi from 4ood s ers e"ti%e' ar,has su""eeded in his "onstitution of an identity# *ll he has to do to a"hie%e a su""essfulrelationshi is fi&. his trou!lesome female "ounter art# 6rom Gomeran"e s more nuan"edJungian ers e"ti%e' howe%er' ar,' too' has failed in his !id for an identity' and through hisattem ts to fi& arnie he will find that he' too' is in need of sy"hologi"al o%erhaul#11

14


15/21


16/21

signifier and e& erien"es what Joe "(lhaney astutely identifies as an unwitting form of self-e& osure. / "(lhaney 2)) ; 9)0#

If ar, s em yrean tas, is to trans"end his mas"ulinity and dissol%e the oten"y of thehallus' then arnie s tas, is to dissol%e the oten"y of the maternal su erego# Seeing how the

dis"ursi%e realm in whi"h they e&ist is that of atriar"hy' it is ne"essarily from a atriar"halers e"ti%e that arnie s relationshi with her mother' Berni"e /=ouise =atham0' must !e%iewed# 6rom this %iew oint' the defi"ient aternal ego-ideal ma,es atriar"halE law regresstowards a fero"ious maternal su erego. /?i@e, 1991; 990# By restoring. atriar"hal law' ar,would a ear to !e reinstituting the halli" order' restoring the oten"y of the hallus# In reality'what a ears is an e&am le of the +egelian Mni%ersal'. that whi"h "an reali e itself only inim ure' deformed' "orru ted forms. /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 1 0# By way of an e&am le' ?i@e, tal,sof demo"ra"y and how it ma,es ossi!le all sorts of mani ulation' "orru tion' the rule of

demagogy'. et"#' !ut then oints out how' as soon as we eliminate the ossi!ility of su"hdeformations'. demo"ra"y itself is lost /?i@e, 2))8 1989; 1 0# 3eal. demo"ra"y is therefore afantasy formation that "arries with it an o!s"ene dou!le' and too far a retreat into fantasy lea%eso en the ossi!ility for this 3eal o!s"enity to emerge#

he notion of atriar"hy is a similar Mni%ersal# Gatriar"hy' li,e demo"ra"y' is ane"essary fi"tion.A as a metonym for the so"ial order' for reality'. atriar"hy itself is a metonymfor an' and for arnie 4oman' >ust as for ar, S"ottie He%lin an' she "annot e&ist withouther sym tom# She s ent her entire adult life fighting against men' against the atriar"hal order'

in fa%or of the fero"ious maternal su erego.A the ending see,s then to a"hie%e transferen"e' torenoun"e the maternal su erego and its hantasmati" /self0destru"ti%eness and to em!ra"eatriar"hy in its a!stra"t negati%ity#. 4ood adoringly re"alls the ending of the film in thefollowing assage;

*t the end of the film' after her re"alling of the ast' arnie ,neels again in the sameosition as in the !eginningE !eside her mother s "hair# Close-u of rs# (dgar s handrea"hing out to tou"h her daughter s hair# hen' instead' she mo%es restlessly; arnie'you re a"hin my leg#. arnie gets u ' resigned# ar, 3utland ta,es her' and stro,esand tidies and smoothes her hair with his hands' saying' here' that s !etter'. andarnie a""e ts the a"tion# he momentFso uno!trusi%e and unfor"edFis erha s/more e%en than the flash!a",0 the "lima& of the film; it e& resses' with that sim li"itywhi"h is the rerogati%e of genius at the height of its owers' the transferen"e towardwhi"h the whole film has !een rogressing /4ood 1989; 18


17/21

relation of one se& to the other ne"essitates the inter%ention. of that medium ,nown as theaternal meta hor. /=a"an 1979 19 ; 27 0# his tem erate relation. is what ?i@e,' in his mostins ired and arti"ulate reading of =a"an s there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi '.mar,s as the shift from there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi . to there is a non-

relationshi #.12 his shift synthesi es ?i@e, s thought on all three of its rimary le%els; Kantian/ negati%e >udgment. to infinite >udgment.0' =a"anian / there is no su"h thing as a se&ualrelationshi . to there is a non-relationshi .0' and' of "ourse' +egelian / determinate refle"tion.to refle&i%e determination.0# his shift is the ,ey diale"ti"al shift. /?i@e, 2)12; 7980' the shiftthat ma,es %isi!le the shared su!limity of +egel' =a"an' and +it"h"o",# he "ore of =a"aniansy"hoanalysis' at its most +egelian' interse"ts with the "ore of +it"h"o", s "inema at the endof Marnie' where a tem erate and deformed relationshi !etween ar, and arnie seemstena!le under the aus i"es of an im ure !ut ne%ertheless reasona!ly fun"tional form of

atriar"hy# 4hen ar, and arnie e&it arnie s mother s house' they reenter the same worldfrom whi"h they were ostensi!ly trying to es"a e' and nothing has "hanged in the e&ternal'whi"h is the ,ey to unlo",ing the ower of the +egelian =a"anian diale"ti"al shift#

he "on"lusion of Marnie' whi"h ser%es e:ually as the "on"lusion of the +it"h"o",ianro>e"t of hiloso hi ing on the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' is therefore in dire"t"ontrast to Spellbound ' Notorious' and Vertigo#Spellbound "onforms to =a"an s original'sim listi" "on"e tuali ation of the final moment of analysis. wherein the su!>e"t is a!le tonarrate his her own history in its "ontinuity'. where Hr# (dwardes is a!le to a""e t his true

identity and %er!ali e his ast trauma as a means of sy"hologi"al e&or"ismA NotoriousandVertigo' in their radi"al negati%ity' rogress to the later stage of =a"anian do"trine wherein thesu!>e"t a""e ts sym!oli" "astration' resigned to the la", "onstituti%e of desire that "annot !ee&or"i ed and from the o%erwhelming ower of whi"h one "an only wilt under#Marnie su!sumesand then trans"ends these rior "on"lusions# ar,' for his art' is ostensi!ly la"ed in thesame ositions as He%lin and S"ottie where he must a""e t his sym!oli" "astration' whereasarnie' for her art' ostensi!ly finds her "ure. in su""essfully narrating and thus e&or"i ing herast trauma# But +it"h"o", does not sto there# By in"luding the moment where arnie s

mother again ushes her away and sends her into ar, s arms' +it"h"o", for"es the reali ationthat the only thing "a a!le of "uring. the su!>e"t is neither the fantasy of a return to a re-traumati" !liss nor resignation to the la", "onstituti%e of desireA rather than trying to a!olish' toe&or"i e the negati%ity inherent in su!>e"ti%ity' one must' in +egelese' find the su reme owerof the S irit;

17


18/21

he life of S irit is not the life that shrin,s from death and ,ee s itself untou"hed !yde%astation' !ut rather the life that endures it and maintains itself in it# It wins its truthonly when' in utter dismem!erment' it finds itself# his tarrying with the negati%e is themagi"al ower that "on%erts it into !eing /+egel :uoted in ?i@e, 199ust an enormous :uestion mar,. /=a"an 1992 19 ); ust as there was no solution osited !y =a"an# ?i@e, "alls =a"an s&ncoreseminarhis ultimate a"hie%ement and deadlo",. /?i@e, 2)12; 180' a fittingly arado&i"al "om limentthat ser%es e:ually as "ountenan"e for Marnie' +it"h"o", s most insightful and !ewilderingmasterwor,# *s ers i"a"iously o!ser%ed !y Juliet it"hell /199) 197 0' sy"hoanalysis doesnot e&ist to sol%e. su!>e"ti%ityA rather' sy"hoanalysis is tas,ed with analy ing theintersu!>e"ti%e networ, in whi"h the su!>e"t s ends his her lifetime tarrying with the negati%e#.6rom this ers e"ti%e' then' *lfred +it"h"o", stands as one of the most dedi"ated' "hallenging'and am!itious sy"hoanalysts of the "inema' using the "lassi"al romanti" aradigm as the

means !y whi"h to steer his hiloso hi"al filmi" dis"ourse towards the reali ation of su!limestu idity'. whi"h =a"an defined as the highest oint of what lies !elow. /=a"an 1999 197


19/21

1

Notes

he !est "andidate for starting this trend in film studies is =aura ul%ey with her /in0famous essay

Pisual Gleasure and Narrati%e Cinema. /2))9 19750#2 ?i@e, has long hung his "on"e tuali ation of the +egelian diale"ti" of the e istemologi"alo!sta"le. %ersus the ositi%e ontologi"al "ondition. on the =a"anian hoo, of the im ossi!ility of these&ual relationshi ' !ut as his more re"ent wor, suggests' he has !egun to "on"e tuali e thisdiale"ti" as not >ust the way to understand the /im ossi!le0 se&ual relationshi !ut the way tounderstand su!>e"ti%ity as su"h# 6or this re"ent de%elo ment in ?i@e, s thought /or' at the %eryleast' his most e& li"it em!ra"ement of it0' see 'ess "han Nothing( Hegel and the Shado% ofialectical Materialism /2)120#

3 odd " owan e& lores the notion of distortion. in "lassi"al +ollywood "inema in "he RealGa)e( *ilm "heory after 'acan /2))70#4 It is re%ealed later in the film that (dwardes is a"tually a sy"hologi"ally distur!ed war %eteranwho witnessed the real (dwardes murder and fell %i"tim to amnesia as a sy"hologi"al defenseagainst his traumati" "hildhood memory of a""identally ,illing his !rother#5 6or ?i@e, s ela!oration on these shifts' see "he Sublime +bject of ,deology /2))8 1989; 1 5-1 70#6 =a"an ela!orates on this arado& of lo%e in he Signifi"ation of the Ghallus'. whi"h "an !e found

in Bru"e 6in, s translation of =a"an s -crits /2)) 0#7 ?i@e, offers a sustained reading of 4eininger in "arrying %ith the Negative( .ant/ Hegel/ and the0riti!ue of ,deology /199e"t /s ea,ing to +it"h"o", s re%iouslyasserted :uest for a uni%ersality of su!>e"ti%ity0 is fa"ed with an identi"al dilemma and is e:uallysu""essful in her !id at tarrying with the negati%e#.9 6or ?i@e, s ela!oration on "he #irds and its la"e in the +it"h"o",ian system'. see 'ooking 1%ry/19910# It would !e im ossi!le to do >usti"e to the !readth and "om le&ity of ?i@e, s %ariousinsights into +it"h"o", s "inema here' !ut suffi"e it to say that his !asi" remise /i#e#' that to whi"hhis u ling indifferen"e towards Marnie "an !e attri!uted0 %is-L-%is the +it"h"o",ian system is theindomita!le reign of maternal law'. whi"h he alleges defines the ,ernel of the +it"h"o",ianfantasy. /?i@e, 1991; 1) 0# Marnie therefore ser%es not only as the :uintessential +it"h"o", filma ro os +it"h"o", s distin"t =a"anian +egelianismA "onsidering its ultimate ro>e"t of' in =a"anese'remo%ing the %eil. that ro%ides the fun"tionality of the maternal law and thus remo%ing the %eilthat ro%ides the entire +it"h"o",ian system with the teleologi"al foundation /mis0 er"ei%ed !y?i@e, /whi"h' signifi"antly' is in dire"t "ontrast to his longstanding ro>e"t of asserting the ne"essityof em!ra"ing the negation of negation. in the %i"tory of ontology o%er e istemology0' it is also' in afashion so erfe"tly arado&i"al that e%en ?i@e, would no dou!t a re"iate the humor in it' at on"e


20/21

the :uintessential anti-?i@e,. +it"h"o", film as %ell as the most 2i3ekian Hitchcock film of all4 10 6or ?i@e, s ela!oration on this "on"e t' see ,nterrogating the Real /2))5;


21/21

" owan' odd /2))70 "he Real Ga)e( *ilm "heory after 'acan ' *l!any; State Mni%ersity ofNew Ror,#

it"hell' Juliet /199) 197 0 =sychoanalysis and *eminism ' Se"ond (dition# =ondon; Genguin#

odles,i' ania /2))5 19880 "he Comen Cho .ne% "oo Much( Hitchcock and *eminist "heory 'Se"ond (dition# New Ror, and $&ford; 3outledge#

ul%ey' =aura /2))9 19750 Pisual Gleasure and Narrati%e Cinema'V in arshall Cohen and=eo Braudy /eds#0*ilm "heory D 0riticism' New Ror,; $&ford Mni%ersity Gress#

Gomeran"e' urray /2)) 0 1n &ye for Hitchcock ' New Jersey; 3utgers Mni%ersity Gress#

ruffaut' 6ran"ois /19 70 Hitchcock ' New Ror,; Simon and S"huster#

4ood' 3o!in /19 50 HitchcockEs *ilms' New Ror,; *#S# Barnes#

4ood' 3o!in /19890 HitchcockEs *ilms Revisited ' New Ror,; Colum!ia Mni%ersity Gress#

?i@e,' Sla%o> /2))8 19890"he Sublime +bject of ,deology ' Se"ond (dition# =ondon; Perso#

?i@e,' Sla%o> /19910'ooking 1%ry( 1n ,ntroduction to 5ac!ues 'acan through =opular 0ulture 'Cam!ridge; I Gress#

?i@e,' Sla%o> /19920&verything Fou 1l%ays Canted to .no% 1bout 'acan #ut Cere 1fraid to 1skHitchcock 0' =ondon; Perso#

?i@e,' Sla%o> /199

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	igorm104
View:	238 times
Download:	0 times

The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock

Documents