The Pervert's Guide to Cinema (2006) User Reviews

He Lost It at the Movies

[rysiek_kinoman · 8/10 · 18 February 2007]

He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we – the film viewers – perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well…? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.

Slavoj Žižek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by Žižek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting Žižek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide… is Žižek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, Žižek's views or Žižek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (Žižek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide… is dominated by his voice – delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.

What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being – think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.

Most notable are Žižek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of Žižek's lecture memorable and – unlike others – difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).

The question isn't whether Žižek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are Žižek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) Žižek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing…? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes…? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to Žižek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when Žižek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. Žižek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of Žižek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films – but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.

The ultimate question is: did Žižek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach Žižek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer.

Isn't It Perverse To Have Artificial Desires?

[loganx-2 · 9/10 · 11 August 2008]

Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.

For those of us in the minority like myself, I found "The Perverts Guide To Cinmea"....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.

A little like Scott Mclouds' "Understanding Comics", director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from "The Birds"(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).

Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.

Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.

Why is "The Sound Of Music" kinda fascistic, why is "Short Cuts" about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in "The Birds", what is there to learn about the mind from "Alien Resurrection", what does the planet of "Solaris" want, what does "Psycho" and "The Marx Brothers" have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.

The role of the voice in both "The Excorcist" and "Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith", is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).

Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.

And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than "Reality Of The Virtual", and more direct than "Zizek!", two other pseudo-docs, about "the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism", as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world.

"The Perverts Guide To Cinema" is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches "how to desire, and not what to desire", and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most "stimulating" movie watching experiences I've ever had.

Made me think a little more deeply about the films

[mcnally · 8/10 · 26 December 2006]

I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).

I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.

My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.

Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.

Very entertaining, though you probably shouldn't take its analysis very seriously

[Andy-296 · 9/10 · 1 February 2014]

In this two hours and a half documentary, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek uses psychoanalytic theory to analyze clips of many classic films. As a theory of human behavior, psychoanalysis is quite outdated, surpassed by more biologically centered theories of the brain. However, psychoanalysis has undeniably influenced many famous directors in the past (for instance, Alfred Hitchcock or David Lynch, and Zizek analyzes here clips of their films), so in this sense this movie is interesting to have a hint of what these directors might be getting at. This film is very entertaining (Zizek is quite a character in his own right, with his thick accent, gesticulating body and wildly hypothetical theories) even if the ideas put forward here are probably wrong and outdated. The films Zizek spent more time analyzing here are Vertigo, Blue Velvet, Psycho, The Birds and Lost Highway, but aside from Hitchcock and Lynch, there are clips from other directors, such as Kubrick, Chaplin, Tarkovsky and others. And in a one of the more interesting parts, he shows us a Disney cartoon from 1935 called Pluto's Last Judgment, and we see how it surprisingly mirrors the Stalinist show trials of a few years later. Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph and Joseph) directs. She wisely makes Zizek talk from sets that mimics some of the movies he is analyzing.

one naughty ride

[awalter1 · 9/10 · 5 March 2010]

"Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire."

So begins "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema," in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at "Persona," "The Conversation," "Three Colors: Blue," "Dogville," "Fight Club," and "The Exorcist." Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the "coordinates of desire," and from Gnosticism to "partial objects."

"The Pervert's Guide" will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of "The Birds." And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs?

Freud on brilliant parade with a mind-expanding look at the powers of cinema, and what makes up fantasy and/or reality

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 22 February 2007]

There's the danger with the critic/philosopher Slavoj Zizek with his film, directed by Sophie Fiennes, which takes together a wonderful amalgam of silent, horror, sci-fi, surreal and other contemporary thrillers together to make his points ofr Freudian comparisons to overload. But in the Pervert's Guide to Cinema he also makes even the more far-reaching points a point of departure from any other analysis I've seen on a collective section of films. While it doesn't cover the expansive territory Scorsese's movie documentaries cover, the same attachments are there, and Zizek has a definite love for all of these "perverse" examples and films, primarily the work of Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin and Tarkovsky. Yet one shouldn't go into seeing this- if you can find it that is, I got to see it almost by luck- thinking Zizek will just try and dissect all of the psycho-sexual parts or parts referring it in an obtuse, deranged manner. If anything he opens up one to points that might never be considered otherwise- would one think of three of the Marx brothers as representations of the Id, Super-Ego and Ego (Harpo's example is most dead-on for me).

He's not just one to take on the classics though, he also considers the food for thought in The Matrix and Fight Club- in representations of the split between fantasy and reality and if the matrix needs the energy as much as the energy needs the matrix for the former, and in the attachment of violence in dealing with one's own self as well as ones double in the latter. He even throws in a piece from the pivotal moment in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin becomes Darth Vader, and the implications of shunning away fatherhood under that back mask at the very moment his children's births happens elsewhere. The ideals of fatherhood, male sexuality, the male point of view in turning fantasy into reality (at which point Zizek rightfully points to as the moment of a nightmare's creation), and female subjectivity, are explored perhaps most dead-on with Vertigo. This too goes for a scene that Zizek deconstructs as if it's the Zapruder film, where he dissects the three colliding points of psycho-sexual stance in the 'don't you look at me' scene in Blue Velvet.

Now it would be one thing if Zizek himself went about making these sincere, excited, and somehow plausible points just face on to the camera or mostly in voice-over as Scorsese does. But he goes a step further to accentuate his points of fantasy and reality, and how they overlap, intersect, become one and the same, or spread off more crucially into some netherworld or primordial feeling for some characters (i.e. Lost Highway) by putting himself IN the locations the films take place in. Funniest is first seeing him in the boat "heading" towards the same dock Tippi Hedren's boat heads to at the beginning of the Birds; equally funny is as he waters the Blue Velvet lawn he goes on to explain the multi-faceted points of Frank Booth; only one, when he's in Solaris-like territory, does it seem a little cheesy. But Zizek seems to be having a lot of fun with this set-up, and after a while one bypasses the potential crux of this gimmick and Zizek's words come through.

There were some films I of course would've expected, chiefly from Hitchcock and Lynch, but a treat for movie buffs come from seeing two things- the movies that one would never think of seeing in a film about films titled the Pervert's Guide of Cinema (top two for me would be the Disney Pluto cartoon and the exposition on Chaplin's films, albeit with a great note about the power and distinction of 'voice'), and the ones that one hasn't seen yet (i.e. the ventriloquist horror film, Dr. Mabuse, Stalker, among a few others) that inspire immediate feelings of 'wow, I have to see that immediately, no questions asked.' Zizek is a powerful writer with his work, and puts it forward with a clarity that reminds one why we watch movies in the first place, to be entertained, sure, but also to have that actual experience of sitting down and having something up there, as he put it, looking into a toilet. It's probably one of the greatest films about cinema, and in such a splendidly narrow analysis of how Freud works its way into films regarding desire, the Id/Super-Ego/Ego, and of the supernatural in fantasy, that you may never see...unless distribution finally kicks in, if only on the smallest levels.

This is a film about critical theory!

[chubbybunny47 · 9/10 · 22 October 2008]

The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.

Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.

That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.

Who is the pervert?

[drunk-drunker-drunkest · 6/10 · 14 March 2007]

More akin to a lecture from a slightly eccentric professor than anything resembling a film, Sophie Fiennes sensibly allows the extravagant Slavoj Zizek to take centre stage throughout the three parts of this documentary. Zizek himself is a very amiable presence on screen, always humorous and entertaining even when putting forward some of his more extravagant theories. That's not to say it's just a series of stationary talking-head shots, in fact it is a beautifully conceived piece of cinematography. Zizek turns up appearing to actually be in the sets of the movies he is discussing, a technique that remains visually interesting even after 150 minutes. There are also numerous clips taken from the films in discussion that, for once, thankfully remain in their correct aspect ratio.

I just never really understood who this was all intended for. As an aid to film-studies students some of the concepts and arguments are a little too abstruse, and the films covered are more than amply examined in any number of textbooks. At best it is a cross-pollination of Zizek's genuine understanding of Freudian theory and his obvious admiration for the works of Hitchcock and Lynch, without being particularly enlightening on either psychology or cinematic technique.

An entertaining look into Freudian theory through cinema, but ultimately a little pointless.

psycho analytics of film in 3 chapters

[dumsumdumfai · 8/10 · 15 September 2006]

Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.

Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost.

And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola)

There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end.

But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.

Perv!

[Spuzzlightyear · 6/10 · 8 November 2006]

Slavoj Zizek sure is a strange man. philosopher and psychoanalyst does something that very few others, for some unknown reason, have done, and that's taking movies that we know and love, and putting them on the couch for analysis. This is a startlingly simple yet brilliant concept. I am not sure why this hasn't been done before. Zizek takes movies that are obvious for analyzing, eg, Blue Velvet, Psycho, and some that are not so.. eg The Conversation and The Birds. Although Zizek is hard to understand sometimes because of his theeeck accent, the images come fast and furious, so that's fun, also Zizek takes great pains to recreate locations of scenes, which also adds to the entertainment value of this otherwise talky film. .

Famous movies on the psychoanalyst's couch

[rasecz · 9/10 · 23 April 2007]

Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.

Enough with the spitting and sweating, already!

[fedor8 · 22 March 2008]

Already his first claim, that desires are always artificial, is totally fallacious.

When a Jehovah Witness reject gets his own documentary on movies – or anything for that matter - it's time for anyone to get their own. Although far, far more intelligent than, say, Paris Hilton, Zizek's mouth spews just as much baloney as hers, just a different kind. He combines the worst from both his professional worlds: psychoanalysis and philosophy. Both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert b*lls***osopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories, to rant without a beginning or end, and to connect concepts almost randomly, in the process misusing the English language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. Example: there are three main Marx brothers hence what a "great" idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness, the id, the ego and the super-ego. I'm kind of surprised he didn't play a clip from "Snowhite" and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of Gahannah (Moslem hell). It's like the premise of Schumacher's "The Number 23": play with numbers long enough, and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want, even linking Ancient Greeks with Princess Di's death.

However, there is an entertainment element to TPGTC: watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. Why watch "Cuckoo's Nest" or any other madhouse drama when you can have Zizek for more than 2 hours? It's like watching an amusing train wreck. Admittedly, he is almost funny on one or two occasions.

I have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie-making into an exalted intellectual social science. Giving idiotic movies like "Birds" this much thought, hence this much credit, probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. The raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value, and the few ones that do have some intelligence don't require a shrink-turned-philosopher to draw one a map to understand them – unless one is a complete idiot. Zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. Hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in Slovenia these days...

When Zizek showed the bathtub hole in the "Psycho" shower scene, I thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes; how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in Janet Leigh's blood. Or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents Leigh's vagina, with the blood flowing into it instead of out, this representing some kind of "clever (Zizekian) irony". Speaking of which, the real irony is that if Hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene his movies wouldn't have been the illogical, far-fetched crap that they often are. The point of these bathtub hole analogies was to illustrate just how easy it is to improvise about "hidden, deep meanings". And when you add Zizek's fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology, layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations, you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated - i.e. the easily impressionable and the gullible.

Zizek utters a number of unintentionally bits of poppycock, one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates Anthony Perkins's cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with "the satisfaction of work, of a job well done". Don't laugh... Neither Hitchcock nor the writer of "Psycho" could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that Perkins might be enjoying a job well done - the cleaning of a blood-stained toilet - while they were conceiving/directing that scene. Talk about putting words into one's (dead) mouth, but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to "say".

I like Zizek's initial thoughts on Tarkovsky's terrific "Solaris", but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in "anti-feminism" and other nonsense into his theory.

Zizek's attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. "I just want to play with it all day!" Logic has its rules, and is not supposed to be raped - at least not publicly - by the likes of him. He seems to regard logic, proof, common-sense, and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys; concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated. Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.

The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility. I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently; that's another lame director who writes inept scripts. Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway". There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.

Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker.

However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious". Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.

I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...

Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.

For depressed, frustrated, confused film students only.

Duffy Duck and Mr. Hide

[rotildao · 7/10 · 21 May 2008]

I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.

The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.

Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.

Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.

I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood.

Keep off the pills

[nick-401 · 1/10 · 30 October 2006]

If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".

Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."

The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo … perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?

What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer – so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.

His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so."

What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.

Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.

The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.

Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.

PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

[george.schmidt · 10/10 · 23 April 2007]

THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.

In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.

Although I had no idea who Zizek was – he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese – with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.

Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.

There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes – even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault – then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.

Good fun, although I only agreed with bits of it

[Red-Barracuda · 8/10 · 28 June 2011]

To be honest, I really wasn't sure if I was meant to take this documentary seriously. It's host, Slavoj Zizek, is a Slovenian psychoanalyst who is simultaneously interesting and ridiculous. One third of the time his theories went straight over my head, another third of the time I found them (unintentionally?) hilarious, while the final third of the time I saw where he was coming from. Although I can't in all honesty say that I came away from The Pervert's Guide to Cinema with a feeling that I had a greater understanding of the subtext of the films discussed. I didn't really agree with a lot of what Zizek said, his (over)analysis was very entertaining though. The documentary as a result feels much more about Zizek himself than the films. However, it does have to be said that the selection of movies covered is really pretty good, so from that basis alone this is a film documentary worth seeing.

It's not especially clear who this is aimed at mind you. The title is very misleading. It makes it sound like it should be a guide to sexploitation films or something. Well, of course it isn't. Zizek examines Freudian theories in cinema specifically in the case of films by Alfred Hitchcock and David Lynch, but also with extensive clips from many other movies ranging from The Wizard of Oz to The Matrix. Zizek is the only person in this feature, so it works like an extended - if rambling - essay. Director Sophie Fiennes makes things a little more visually interesting by having Zizek appear to be in the film set himself - we see him in the cellar in Psycho, the hotel room in Vertigo and in a speedboat in Bodega Bay in The Birds. It's a neat touch, and quite funny too. As are much of Zizek's throwaway comments such as his view that 'flowers should be forbidden to children' or when he states that Stalinism was all about totalitarianism, mass murder and musicals. Even if you don't agree with this guy, you have to admit he is never exactly boring.

Zizek engages and entertains, but don't expect to understand

[metamerc · 9/10 · 27 September 2007]

His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.

Slavoj Zizek discusses his ideas on cinema.

[treywillwest · 1 August 2011]

For Zizek we are all perverts in that human consciousness is the attempt to postpone the confrontation with real experience- the horror of death and the misery of our toil, as well as the terror of achieved orgasmic bliss- through the construction of a less frightening fantasy life. Cinema is the ultimate means by which we project our fantasies of a more tolerable world. Zizek argues that the acute suffering of the oppressed of the current social order is tolerable only through the construction of a particular type of fantasy- that of the class struggle. It is an added dimension of fantasy for those who suffer the most in society. The difficulty with the progressive project is that it too is a form of postponement. The class struggle often finds itself drawn to the Utopian project- to the impossible-task as such. It imagines its own failure and this is its success as fantasy. Both the USSR, in the post-revolutionary period, and the USA, after the Cold War, imagined themselves the End of History. But this pronouncement of the End was actually a fantastic postponement of the real end- the fall of a given social order, or the death of the individual (or species). If we live in the End the present will never pass. The USSR had to face the end of its present. Zizek thinks capitalism is about to face a similar confrontation with the Terrifying Real.

To see and review especially for the multitude of examples.

[vjdino-37683 · 9/10 · 21 November 2020]

To see and review especially for the multitude of examples. A remarkable and interesting work done by the Slovenian sociologist Slaoj Zizek, assisted by the direction of Sophie Fiennes (English director from a family of artists: sister of Ralph Fiennes). With his Lacanian psychoanalytic approach, he is able to grasp the deep meanings of some films and to transmit his considerations to a wide audience in a passionate and original way!

Psycho

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 28 June 2007]

More like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them!

Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.

Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)!

My rating: 9

[kekca · 9/10 · 23 December 2014]

An episode of our walk in the world of cinema, which was missing in our blog. Slavoj Zizek breaks through his philosophical gaze directorial ideas and techniques, plunging us into an ontology of the film, a philosophy of the cinema.

Revealing us (again ontologically) the position in which we are when we watch movies, the relationship between our reality and our imagination (the movie), transferring the last two in the film, revealing the minds of male and female characters, walking along the edges of our notion of normality and last but not least, presenting to us great directors.

Indeed, the focus here is on the ideas of film art, not the techniques that it uses. Chronologically used titles implicating us in reasoning Zizek, who, was sensed, stressed the Freudian psychoanalysis. And so on and so forth.

It is certain that more great names (e.g. Kurosova, Wenders and many others) are not affected, but the disclosure of directorial techniques and accents allow us alone to carry them on any other title.

http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/

It's only kind of what you think.

[estreet-eva · 7/10 · 6 December 2011]

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

Mind-bending at times, sickening at others, but definitely worth The effort it tales to sit through.

[Barev2013 · 7/10 · 26 December 2014]

Viewed at Seattle IFF, 2007. The day's opener, an 11 AM screening at the Egyptian was "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema", one I was dying to see but had missed previously because of a scheduling conflict (with another flick I was even more dying to see).

"Pervert's Guide" is a Dutch-Austrian production directed by British documentarian Sophie Fiennes'(39)i in which Slovenian Psycho-(ahem -"analytic") film philosopher and culture- theoretical guru, Slavoj Zizek disquisses in grammatically correct but perfectly outrageous English, on a hilarious range of sexual perversions and their possible interpretations in a broad variety of flicks from Hitchcock to David Lynch, via Kubrick and other collective libido obsessives — with cleverly selected excerpts from the "perverted" sequences of the films in question — goes on and on for two and a half excessive hours! (150 minutes). The first hour and a half was interesting, informative, revealing, psychologically insightful, and often highly amusing– in a scatological vein — but eventually I began to fidget when I realized this psychoanalytic orgy was going to last far longer than bargained for, and was beginning to cut into my Ali Baba time.

By the third take on Dennis Hopper (one of the most disgusting psychos ever to disfigure a silver screen) in "Blue Velvet", I was beginning to get sick to my stomach — even more so when my illuminated Casio wristwatch revealed that I was missing the beginning of Ali Baba. Somehow I couldn't quite bring myself to stalk out before the end, but I did then scurry immediately over to the SIFF theater under the Opera House in time to catch the second half of Ali Baba — which turned out to be the perfect antidote to the mental illness that had gone before at the Egyptian.

Mind-bending at times, sickening at others, but

definitely worth The effort it tales to sit through.

Free Association

[korr007 · 4/10 · 31 May 2011]

I understood from the credits to the film that Slavoj Zizek is the sole writer. Having seen Zizek lecture in person, and interviewed him on one occasion, would appear to confirm that it is tightly scripted. This in my opinion was a mistake. Zizek is calling all the shots in the film, which exposes the director's very shaky and underdeveloped premise: just let Zizek talk. And by just letting him talk, trust in him that he will enlighten us, the audience, and that you, the director, will be able to capture that. Problem is that the director doesn't understand what he's talking about, which makes her incapable of editing him (hence the extraordinarily long running time! of over two hours!!). And since she cannot engage with his discourse all she contributes in the way of direction are a series of jokey mises en scenes where Zizek gets to live out his fantasies by appearing in his favourite films. What would have worked much better is if Zizek had had an interlocutor, someone to contradict him. Or if some of his fantasy screen idols, rather than remaining impassive and mute to his presence, had woken up. But the director can't do that because she doesn't have the confidence or knowledge of his philosophy, so instead she just lets him ramble, interminably, for over 2 HOURS, in the kind of free association mode that should only ever be heard in private from within the analyst's surgery. The film presents a one way conversation, a closed discourse, and we end up not really involved, as voyeurs. Maybe that's the point, the "pervert" of the title. But then I thought that voyeurs were supposed to get a thrill...

how you like it

[dragokin · 4/10 · 18 April 2014]

At a certain point i started wondering what Slavoj Žižek actually wants with this movie. It is clear that he is a philosopher and psychoanalyst, but without doubt he craves our attention. His narrative is rooted in Lacanian analysis and this is where my issues start.

To quote Bryan Magee and his book The Story of Philosophy: "...when these complicated sentences were unraveled and analyzed, they often turned out to be rhetorically hollow, saying something only vaguely focused, or perhaps saying nothing at all, or else something trivial, or false, or self-contradictory."

Therefore,i regard The Pervert's Guide to Cinema as a persiflage on the topic of cinema and its influence on our thoughts. Even philosophy is not spared of fashion. This is why Slavoj Žižek might claim to be a Stalinist and there would be people listening to what he might have to say. And he surely enjoys our discussion since it keeps him afloat until the next lecture.