Il n'y a pas de rapport religieuxSlavoj Zizek.Lacanian Ink 18. {{BSZ}}
Since, as [[Lacan]] claims in his [[Seminar]] XX: [[Encore]], [[Woman]] is one of the names of God, would it not be [[logical]] to conclude that, in the same way that there is no [[sexual]] rapport, there is also no [[religious]] rapport? Perhaps, the [[uncanny]] fact of [[Christ]]'s Crucifixion stands for the silent admission of this fact. In [[order]] fully to appreciate the uniqueness of the [[figure]] of Christ, let us start with Gilles [[Deleuze]]'s exemplary [[analysis]] of Chaplin's late [[films]]:
SinceBetween the small [[Jewish]] barber and the dictator in [[The Great Dictator]], the [[difference]] is as negligeable as Lacan claims that between their respective moustaches. Yet it results in his Seminar XX: Encoretwo situations as infinitely remote, Woman is one as far opposed as those of [[victim]] and executioner. Likewise, in [[Monsieur Verdoux]], the difference between the names two aspects or demeanors of God, would it not be logical to conclude that, in the same way that there is no sexual rapport, there is also no religious rapport? Perhapsman, the uncanny fact lady-assassin and the loving husband of Christa paralyzed wife, is so thin that all his wife's Crucifixion stands intuition is required for the silent admission of this factpremonition that somehow he "changed. In order fully to appreciate " /…/ the uniqueness burning question of [[Limelight]] is: what is that "[[nothing]]," that [[sign]] of the figure age, that small difference of Christtriteness, let us start with Gilles Deleuzeon account of which the funny clown's exemplary analysis of Chaplin[[number]] changes into a tedious [[spectacle]]?<ref>Deleuze, Gilles, L's late films[[image]]-mouvement, [[Paris]]:Éditions de Minuit, 1983, p. 234-236.</ref>
Between The paradigmatic [[case]] of this imperceptible "almost nothing" are the old [[paranoiac]] [[science]]-[[fiction]] films from the early 50s [[about]] aliens occupying a small Jewish barber American town: they look and the dictator in The Great Dictatoract like normal Americans, we can distinguish [[them]] only via the difference reference to some minor detail. It is as negligeable as that between their respective moustachesErnst Lubitsch's To Be Or Not To Be which brings this [[logic]] to its [[dialectical]] climax. Yet it results in two situations as infinitely remoteIn one of the funniest scenes of the [[film]], the pretentious [[Polish]] actor who, as far opposed as those the part of victim and executioner. Likewisea [[secret]] mission, has to impersonate the cruel high [[Gestapo]] officer Erhardt, does this impersonation in Monsieur Verdouxan exaggerated way, reacting to the difference between the two aspects or demeanors remarks of his interlocutor about his cruel [[treatment]] of the same manPoles with loud vulgar [[laughter]] and a [[satisfied]] contestation, "So they call me Concentration Camp Erhardt, the ladyha-assassin and ha!" We, the loving husband of spectators, take this for a paralyzed wiferidiculous caricature — however, is so thin that all when, later in the film the [[real]] Erhardt appears, he reacts to his wife's intuition is required for interlocutors in exactly the premonition that somehow he "changedsame way.Although the " /…/ the burning question of Limelight is: what is that real"nothingErhardt in a way imitates his imitation," that sign of age, that small difference of triteness, on account of which the funny clown's number changes into a tedious spectacle?1plays himself."
The paradigmatic case of this imperceptible "almost nothing" are the old paranoiac science-fiction films from the early 50s about aliens occupying a small American town: they look and act like normal Americans, we can distinguish them only via the reference to some minor detail. It is Ernst Lubitsch's To Be Or Not To Be which brings this logic to its dialectical climax. In one of the funniest scenes of the film, the pretentious Polish actor who, as the part of a secret mission, has to impersonate the cruel high Gestapo officer Erhardt, does this impersonation in an exaggerated way, reacting to the remarks of his interlocutor about his cruel treatment of the Poles with loud vulgar laughter and a satisfied contestation, "So they call me Concentration Camp Erhardt, ha-ha!" We, the spectators, take this for a ridiculous caricature — however, when, later in the film the real Erhardt appears, he reacts to his interlocutors in exactly the same way. Although the "real" Erhardt in a way imitates his imitation, "plays himself."==References==<references/>
1==Source==* [[Il n'y a pas de rapport religieux]].Deleuze, Gilles, L'image'Lacaniank Ink'' Volume 18. Spring 2004. pp 80-mouvement, Paris107. <http: Éditions de Minuit, 1983, p//www.lacan. 234-236com/frameXVIII6.htm>
From[[Category: Lacanian Ink 18.Available: http://lacan.com/frameXVIII6.htm Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Essays]]
