Changes

What's wrong with The Wrong Man? To comply with the dialectical axiom that the only way to reach the underlying law of an universe is through its exception, let's begin with The Wrong Man, a film which clearly sticks out from the totality of Hitchcock's oeuvre:1 On the one hand, The Wrong Man is Hitchcock at its purest. His special attachment to it is attested by the exceptional [[character ]] of his cameo-[[appearance ]] in the prologue; Hitchcock addresses the viewers directly, informing [[them ]] that they will see a [[tragedy ]] taken from [[real ]] [[life]]. This prologue sounds like an implicit apology-"sorry, but you will not get the usual comic-thriller stuff here, things are for real, I shall throw my cards on the table and deliver my [[message ]] directly, not wrapped up in the usual comedian's costume…"

The classical [[Marxist ]] reproach to this would be that the ultimate function of such an allegorical procedure, through which the product reflects its own [[formal ]] [[process]], is to render invisible its [[social ]] mediation and thereby neutralize its social-critical potential-as if, in [[order ]] to fill out the [[void ]] of social [[content]], the [[work ]] turns to its own [[form]]. Indeed, is this reproach not confirmed per negationem by The Wrong Man which, because of its suspension of the allegory, among all Hitchcock's [[films ]] comes closest to social criticism, dreary everyday life caught in the [[irrational ]] wheels of judicial [[bureaucracy]]? Yet one is tempted to [[defend ]] the opposite argument:2 <ref>….to which even [[Jameson]] succumbs, at least for a [[moment]]-[[Fredric Jameson]], "Allegorizing Hitchcock," in Signatures of the [[Visible]], New York: Routledge 1990, p. 127.</ref> the strongest [[ideological]]-critical potential of Hitchcock's films is contained precisely in their allegorical [[nature]]. In order for this potential of Hitchcock's benevolent [[sadistic ]] playing with the viewer to become [[manifest]], one has to take into account the strict [[concept ]] of "[[sadism]]" as elaborated by [[Lacan]]. In "[[Kant ]] with [[Sade]]," Lacan proposed two schemes which trace the [[matrix ]] of the two [[stages ]] of the Sadean [[fantasy]]:3<ref>[[Jacques Lacan]], "[[Kant with Sade]]," in October 51, Winter 1990~ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.</ref>

V as Volonte designates the Will-to-[[Enjoy]], the fundamental attitude of the [[sadist ]] [[subject]], his endeavor to find [[enjoyment ]] in the [[pain ]] of the [[other]], while S stands for this other subject, [[suffering ]] and-therein consists Lacan's point-as such, non-[[barred]], [[full]]: the sadist is a kind of parasite in [[search ]] of the corroboration of his [[being]]. In suffering, the other-his [[victim]]-is confirming himself as much as resisting solid substance: the live flesh into which the sadist cuts authenticates the fullness of being. The upper level of the scheme, V--> S, thus denotes the manifest sadistic [[relationship]]: the sadistic [[pervert ]] gives [[body ]] to the Will-to-Enjoy, which torments the victim in order to obtain the fullness of being. Lacan's [[thesis ]] is, therefore, that this manifest relationship conceals [[another ]] [[latent ]] relation, which contains the [[truth ]] of the first one. This other relation, the [[object]]-[[cause ]] of [[desire ]] to the [[split ]] subject, is represented in the lower level of the scheme. The sadist as [[aggressive ]] Will-to-Enjoyment is but a [[semblance ]] whose truth is the [[object a]]: that of an object-[[instrument ]] of the Other's enjoyment.

1. Further proof of Hitchcock's personal commitment: he renounced his director's fee for The Wrong Man.==References==2. ….to which even Jameson succumbs, at least for a moment-Fredric Jameson, "Allegorizing Hitchcock," in Signatures of the Visible, New York: Routledge 1990, p. 127.3. Jacques Lacan, "Kant with Sade," in October 51, Winter 1990~ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. From: Lacan.comAvailable: http://lacan.com<references/frameVI2.htm>

[[Category:ZizekArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]]