Quote:
Originally Posted by
kid-glove
The failure of 'real' Communist measures/regimes, the wildly pervading but evasive absence of centralization (the absent center), of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (as in Nolan's fiction, and in reality) is his point. And an ongoing discourse of Zizek on impracticality of 'pure ideology' (in expansive works like "Mapping Ideology" and "In defense of Lost causes", it's much unlike Orwell's mode of chronicle ala 'Homage to Catalonia', where the meaninglessness of the mobilized of any multitude of ideas into singular frame as such, 'anarchists', and (in)distinction of communists to anarchists at different levels is merely presented. Zizek actually goes on to ask very many questions, which is all rooted from ideal-real prism)
He isn't offering a solution to resolve the very inherent failure in application of this 'dictatorship of the proletariat' by even the best of ideologies, and how this could be cloaked as a non-violent 'negation' (hence the part about Seeing, I'd also add the sequel Blindness as a companion piece), and how it still carries the immanence (arguably more) than as portrayed (brutal caricature), and the dangerous potential of such mobilization (To extremities) is possible, the holistic premise to panic and invite violence on to itself.
"Sublime Object of Ideology" and "Violence", describes further on the aforementioned and the plurality of mobilized unit of some size mapped as responses to impossible-real kernel.
Key to reading Zizek: Never do it in one go. Would even prescribe a in-sequential reading, key is to latch on to the many hooks in each of the chapters.
Mannikkanum, idhukku Zizek-e paravaa illa! :lol: :oops:
Quote:
Recall the old French story about a wife who complains that her husband’s best friend is making illicit sexual advances towards her: it takes some time till the surprised friend gets the point – in this twisted way, she is inviting him to seduce her… It is like the Freudian unconscious which knows no negation: what matters is not a negative judgment on something, but the mere fact that this something is mentioned – in The Dark Knight Rises, people’s power IS HERE, staged as an Event, in a key step forward from the usual Batman opponents (criminal mega-capitalists, gangsters and terrorists).
Here we get the first clue – the prospect of the OWS movement taking power and establishing people’s democracy on Manhattan is so patently absurd, so utterly non-realist, that one cannot but raise the question: WHY DOES THEN A MAJOR HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER DREAM ABOUT IT, WHY DOES IT EVOKE THIS SPECTER? Why even dream about OWS exploding into a violent takeover? The obvious answer (to smudge OWS with accusations that it harbors a terrorist-totalitarian potential) is not enough to account for the strange attraction exerted by prospect of “people’s power.” No wonder the proper functioning of this power remains blank, absent: no details are given about how this people’s power functions, what the mobilized people are doing (remember that Bane tells the people they can do what they want – he is not imposing on them his own order).
This is why external critique of the film (“its depiction of the OWS reign is a ridiculous caricature”) is not enough – the critique has to be immanent, it has to locate within the film itself a multitude signs which point towards the authentic Event. (Recall, for example, that Bane is not just a brutal terrorist, but a person of deep love and sacrifice.) In short, pure ideology isn’t possible, Bane’s authenticity HAS to leave trace in the film’s texture. This is why the film deserves a close reading: the Event – the “people’s republic of Gotham City”, dictatorship of the proletariat on Manhattan – is immanent to the film, it is its absent center.
"This is why" - WHICH is why?