Changes

Between the small Jewish barber and the dictator in The Great DictatorSince, the difference is as negligeable as that between their respective moustaches. Yet it results [[Lacan]] claims in two situations as infinitely remotehis [[Seminar]] XX: [[Encore]], as far opposed as those [[Woman]] is one of the names of victim and executioner. LikewiseGod, would it not be [[logical]] to conclude that, in Monsieur Verdoux, the difference between the two aspects or demeanors of the same manway that there is no [[sexual]] rapport, there is also no [[religious]] rapport? Perhaps, the lady-assassin and the loving husband [[uncanny]] fact of a paralyzed wife, is so thin that all his wife[[Christ]]'s intuition is required Crucifixion stands for the premonition that somehow he "changedsilent admission of this fact." /…/ In [[order]] fully to appreciate the burning question uniqueness of Limelight is: what is that "nothing," that sign the [[figure]] of ageChrist, that small difference of triteness, on account let us start with Gilles [[Deleuze]]'s exemplary [[analysis]] of which the funny clownChaplin's number changes into a tedious spectacle?<ref>Deleuze, Gilles, L'image-mouvement, Parislate [[films]]: 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]]?<ref>Deleuze, Gilles, L'[[image]]-mouvement, [[Paris]]: Éditions de Minuit, 1983, p. 234-236.</ref> 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."