Changes

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 small Jewish barber and the dictator in The Great Dictator, the difference is as negligeable as that between their respective moustaches. Yet it results in two situations as infinitely remote, as far opposed as those of victim and executioner. Likewise, in Monsieur Verdoux, the difference between the two aspects or demeanors of the same man, the lady-assassin and the loving husband of a paralyzed wife, is so thin that all his wife's intuition is required for the premonition that somehow he "changed." /…/ the burning question of Limelight is: what is that "nothing," that sign of age, that small difference of triteness, on account of which the funny clown's number changes into a tedious spectacle?1 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." 1.Deleuze, Gilles, L'image-mouvement, Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1983, p. 234-236.

From[[Category: Lacanian Ink 18.Available: http://lacan.com/frameXVIII6.htm  Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]