Zizek, Cinema, and Desire: The Socialization of the Self to Acquaint with Reality and Fantasy

This week’s meeting is perhaps the most thought provoking and stimulating discussion for me. The reason for this is twofold: on the one hand, I am challenged to negotiate and converse with the theoretical parameters and assumptions of Zizek, not to mention his sarcastic remarks just when you thought he was attempting to make a point; on the other hand, his animated, dramatic, and comically vulgar performance juxtaposed with the magnificent creation of the Pervert’s Guide to Cinema compel me to think beyond the traditionally structured approach of examining and watching films and question the line that divides, or connects, the Reality and Fantasy, the Superego and the Id, and the Symbolic and the Real, the Self and the Society.

As discussed in class, Zizek’s philosophy has been shaped dominantly by three philosophers: Hegel in terms of the dialectical methodology, Marx as in the exploration of ideology, and Lacan in the realm of Imaginary, Fantasy, and Psychoanalysis. For Zizek, there are three dimensions of human existence – the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. The Imaginary emerges from the creation of the ego in the mirror stage, a process that necessarily involves the identification with a counterpart, and in due course also leads to alienation. This is where the id and the objects of desire flourish and are nurtured. The Symbolic order covers the real of order and language, whereby the child separates from the mother and is placed under the law of the father, the rules and the laws of the society. Lastly, the Real is a state of fullness, as mentioned in the lecture. It is not only contradictory to the Imaginary but also transcend further than the symbolic. The Real has no fragmentation, no fissure, and in inevitably outside the realm of the language.
Beyond his theorization, I was also captivated by the range of sensitive and challenging points he raised in the documentary mentioned above. His opening statement is absolutely revealing: he argues that the issue is not about the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of desire but what to desire. According to him, there is nothing spontaneous, nothing natural about human desire. Our desire is artificial. We are taught to desire – in particular, how to desire. Cinema, he further argues, does precisely that – to show us how to desire without giving us exactly the object of our desire. It is where cinema produces a realm of reality that complicates things and in turn a reality that transposes the intricacies of fantasy and desire. As such, cinematic art in its highest form achieves the blurring of the dimensions between what is real and what is imaginary – between illusion and authenticity. It is then a dimension when the Self meets the society – and interrogates it. In this sense, Zizek then explores the development and say convolutions in the evolution of films and narratives of some of the most important cinematic creations ever and dissect each of them, albeit only in parts, into clear yet stimulating particles and allows the audiences to perceive things and themes that were not there when they first saw the films alone.
Zizek, in his own erudition and style, reveals the concealed language and meaning of cinematic narratives and portrayals – and more significantly, in his doing so, he was also in a way telling the audiences something to know about themselves. As I watch the film, I get a sense – that he was talking beyond the film but he was talking to me and teaching things that I do not know or do not acknowledge about myself. Zizek’s approach is stunning. It is an exploration of cinema and an exploration of society and the individual in the society. At the end of the film, I questioned not just the cinemas I watched – but I tended to interrogate who I am, what makes me the person that I am, and what aspects of my tell me about my multifarious dimensions. By using real locations, props, and various convincing replicas of the films he discussed, the documentary and Zizek in it, masterfully persuade the spectator of the legitimacy of Zizek’s statements – as it seemed to come from inside and within the films themselves. As such, I was led to think, and to feel, and to question various things – the films, the ideology, what is hidden, and the construction of Self as opposed to Others and the society: that I surmise is the triumph of the documentary.