此篇為2006年紀錄片The Pervert's Guide to Cinema的整理筆記 ，內含講者Slavoj Zizek發言與個人的破翻譯，第一部分可說是概論、Zizek的切入點，第二與第三部分則是Zizek對不同題材的見解。有時Zizek會講一件事中途分心，或插入電影片段作為佐證，我會適當剪接讓論點看起來簡潔一點；又，我不會總是解釋他在講哪部電影的哪個片段。
藍字=片中電影舉例
粉字=Zizek言
基本理解關鍵：一體兩面/多面、因果反覆循環
佛洛伊德/拉岡系解析"我"以及製作方、觀眾與電影的關係（幻想/渴望與現實）
PART 1
a. The Birds: 伊底帕斯情結、失衡的母子關係
In order for us to act as normal people who interact with other people who live in the space of social reality, many things should happen. Like we should be properly installed within the symbolic order and so on.
我們要表現得像個正常人，能和其他人在社交現實/場合中接觸，許多事情必須發生/準備，例如我們應該身負象徵性的規矩等等。
So the birds are raw, incestuous energy. (from mother's end)
b. Psycho: 貝茲家地下室、一樓與二樓（母親的房間=母親）→本我自我超我
當諾曼將母親扛至地下室→超我與本我的融合/解體/混亂
Superego is not an ethical agency. Superego is an obscene agency, bombarding us with impossible orders, laughing at us, when we cannot ever fulfil its demand. The more we obey it, the more it makes us guilty.
超我並非道德指標，超我是猥褻/可憎的指標，用不可能的命令轟炸我們，嘲笑我們，而我們永遠無法達到它的要求。我們越是服從，它越是令我們感到愧疚。
c. The Exorcist & The Testament of Dr. Mabuse & Aliens: 腦內的聲音、性慾破除箇制、本我衝動
Whenever we talk, there is always this minimum of ventriloquist effect, as if some foreign power took possession.
當我們說話，總有點像是在說腹語，似乎受到某種外來的力量所控制。
The lesson that we should learn and that the movies try to avoid is that we ourselves are the aliens controlling our bodies. Humanity means that the aliens are controlling our animal bodies.
我們應知道的，且電影中試著阻止的，是我們本身即是控制我們身體的外來意志。人性意味著外來意志控制我們獸性的軀體。
↓↓聲音/異體與意志的衍生討論， 其實就是b條超我自我本我打架的再衍生討論↓↓
The Great Dictator: 默片角色與聲片角色同存，比起破壞性、摧毀性、負面的呈現，更偏向兩者的並存
Red Shoes & Fight Club & Dead of Night: 物體具有自我意志所形成的威脅
什麼竟然沒有Evil Dead II
d. Blue Velvet: Zizek個人詮釋
(a) 主角父親的衰退，Frank為過度膨脹的替代父權象徵
(b) Frank為Dorothy保持生命力的幻想
e. 電影影像促成觀眾的主觀現實
Matrix: Reality in illusion itself （翻譯無能只能大略解釋1：Zizek的意思在辯論藍紅藥丸並非真的在選擇現實或虛擬，而是虛擬世界環境已為角色所認知的現實）
f. The Conversation & Blue Velvet & Vertigo: 偷窺與想像為單面向、特定角度的現實
We say the eye is the window of the soul. What if there's no soul behind the eye? What if the eye is a crack through which we can perceive just the abyss of a netherworld?
俗話說眼睛是靈魂之窗。要是在眼睛之後沒有靈魂呢？要是眼睛其實是一道讓我們窺看慘澹世界之深淵的縫隙呢？
g. The Conversation & Psycho: 人類對髒污、排泄物（可釋作性解放）的處理與恐懼；混亂慾望的掩埋與對其反噬的恐懼
Desire is a wound of reality. The art of cinema consists in arousing desire, to play with desire, but at the same time, keeping it at a distance, domescating it, rendering it palpable.
欲望是現實之創口。電影之藝術在於刺激慾望、玩弄該慾望，但同時保持一段距離，馴化，並使其處於伸手可觸之距。
Zizek直白說，基本上看電影就是在看別人和我們自己的排泄物。(lol)
PART 2
a. Matrix: 性幻想/幻想的供給；被飼養、控制的人類為何需要虛擬世界來提供母體所需的能源？Zizek假設該能源即為人類的性慾/慾望，又為何人類不能單純藉由肉體享受，為何人類需要虛擬的補給？
Our libido needs an illusion in order to sustain itself.
我們需要一種假象才能維持我們的慾望。
b. Solyaris: 幻想的物質化、現實化，類似概念可見PART 1的G項；以及影視中男性視女性/慾望為禁忌/骯髒釋放之（宗教/社會風俗影響下）觀念
It's relatively easy to get rid of a real person. You can abandon him or her, kill him or her, whatever. But a ghost, a spectral presence, is much more difficult to get rid of.
要擺脫一個真實的人類相對地簡單，你可以拋棄他、殺掉他，但要擺脫一個鬼魂、一個虛幻的存在，卻是難上加難。
c. Vertigo: 有關一對戀人被困在彼此外貌形象/表面之中的悲劇
黑格爾Jena Lectures: The human being is this Night, this empty nothing which contains everything in its simplicity – a wealth of infinitely many representations, images, none of which occur to it directly, and none of which are not present. This [is] the Night, the interior of [human] nature, existing here – pure Self – [and] in phantasmagoric representations it is night everywhere: here a bloody head suddenly shoots up and there another white shape, only to disappear as suddenly. We see this Night when we look a human being in the eye, looking into a Night which turns terrifying. [For from his eyes] the night of the world hangs out toward us. (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/jl/ch01a.htm)
呃我哲學沒讀那麼深所以我不敢造次亂翻，大家自己讀。Zizek的版本比較好理解：
The fascination of beauty is always the veil which covers up a nightmare. like the idea of a fascinating creature, but if you come too close to her, you see shit, decay, you see worms crawling everywhere. The ultimate abyss is not a physical abyss, but the abyss of the depth of another person.
美麗吸引人之處在於那層掩蓋住噩夢的屏障， 像是抱持擁有一個迷人生物的想法，但若是你靠得太近，你會看到髒污、毀敗、四處攀爬的蛆蟲。最底的深淵非物質上的，而是另一個人的裡側。
A subject is a partial something, a face,something we see. Behind it, there is a void, a nothingness. And of course, we spontaneously ten to fill in that nothingness with our fantasies about the wealth of human personality.
對象是片面的，一張臉，我們能視之物。在其之後是一個空洞，什麼都沒有。我們經常自發地用我們對人類個性之美的幻想去填補那個空洞。
d. Lost Highway & Eyes Wide Shut: （以男性性無能及男性對女性的疑惑解釋）幻想與現實的對比，當無法面對現實，人逃向夢境，當夢境太過可怕，人逃向現實。
e. Piano Teacher: 當你的幻想被實際操演，幻想不復存在，剩下的是惡夢。
When fantasy disintegrates, you don't get reality, you get some nightmarish real too traumatic to be experienced as ordinary reality. That would be another definition of nightmare. Hell is here.
當幻想瓦解，你不會得到現實，而是無法比做尋常現實的可怕現實，那是另一種等級的惡夢，地獄即在此處。
（這個舉例也太極端了吧）
f. Alien Resurrection: （複製人Ripley見到在她之前失敗的複製作）What if 的自我困境
Cinema, as the art of appearances, tells us something about reality itself. It tells us something about how reality constitutes itself.
電影作為表像藝術，多少告訴我們現實如何自我形成。
All the time our previous alternate embodiments, what we might have been but are not, that these alternate versions of ourselves are haunting us. That’s the ontological view of reality that we get here, as if it’s an unfinished universe. It is through such ontology of unfinished reality, that cinema became a truly modern art.
我們過往的化身/自己，我們可能成為的模樣但最終並非如此，這些可能的我們在擾亂我們的心神。此處指的是存在論觀點下的現實，如同該現實是未完成的宇宙，通過（呈現這樣）存在論所謂未完成的現實，電影真正成為現代藝術。
PART 3
g. The Wizard of Oz: 電影所呈現之影像之於信念的矛盾
We don’t simply believe or do not believe. We always believe in a kind of a conditional mode. I know very well it’s a fake, but nonetheless, I let myself be emotionally affected.
我們不純粹地相信或不相信，我們總是看情況來取決是否相信。我非常清楚一件事是假的，但我仍舊讓我自己在情緒上被影響。
h. Lost Highway: The Mystery Man、自我審判
This hidden master who controls the events can also be defined as ideology embodied, in the sense of the space which organises our desires.
在可說是一個組織我們慾望的空間之中，這個操控所有事情的幕後主腦可被詮釋為觀念的化身。
Imagine somebody who has a direct access to your inner life, to your innermost fantasies, to what even you don't want to know about yourself. That's the true horror of this Mystery Man. Not any evil demoniac intentions and so on. Just the fact that when he is in front of you, he, as it were, sees through you.
想像某人能夠直接接觸你的私人生活，知道你最深的幻想，看到你都不想知道的有關自己的那一面。那是神秘人真正恐怖的地方，不是邪惡的企圖等等，只是他在你面前，一如以往，將你看個透徹。
It's like the court in Kafka's novels, where the court, or the law, only comes when you ask for it.
如同卡夫卡小說中的法庭，審判或法律，只有在你自找的時候才會找上門來。
i. Lynch films (Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Lost Highway etc): 天賦人權、陰莖、階級、自我膨脹
I think that these ridiculous paternal figures are the ethical focus, the topic of practically all David Lynch's films. A normal, paternal authority is an ordinary man who wears phallus as an insignia. He has something which provides his symbolic authority. These excessively ridiculous paternal figures, it's not simply that they possess phallus, in a way, they immediately are phallus.
我想這些誇張的父權形象是道德的焦點，幾乎可說是所有大衛林區電影中的主題。一個正常的父權當權者是個普通的男人，身帶陰莖作為一種階級徽章，他有東西能提供他的象徵性權力。而這些過度誇張的父權形象，他們不只是有陰莖，從某方面而言，他們根本就是陰莖。
（雙關笑話lol）
This is the most terrorizing experience you can imagine, to directly being the thing itself, to assume that I am a phallus. And the proactive greatness of these Lynchian, obscene, paternal figures, is that not only they don't have any anxiety, not only they are not afraid of it, they fully enjoy being it. They are truly fearless entities beyond life and death, gladly assuming, their immortality, their non-castrated life energy.
這是你能想像最恐怖的經驗，直接就身為那玩意兒，想著我就是根陰莖。這些林區的猥褻父權形象偉大之處，在於他們不僅對此毫無焦慮，他們不只對此毫無疑懼，他們十分享受。他們是超越生死的無懼個體，樂於承認他們的永生不死，他們未經閹割的生命能量。
j. Ivan the Terrible P.2 & Pluto's Judgement Day: 執行恐怖行為的喜悅，判決正義制裁的喜悅，超我與掌控他人結合時的狂喜
Superego is not only excessive terror, unconditional injunction, demand of utter sacrifice, but at the same time, obscenity, laughter.
超我不僅是高度的恐怖力量，無止盡的牢籠，完全犧牲的嚴令，亦為下流且充滿歡笑的。
The Law is not only severe, ruthless, blind, at the same time, it mocks us.
法律不僅嚴峻、無情、盲目，同時嘲弄我們。
k. Stalker: 虛擬事物之投射
Our fundamental delusion today is not to believe in what is only a fiction, to take fictions too seriously. It's on the contrary, not to take fiction seriously enough. You think it's just a game? It's reality. It's more real than it appears to you.
我們最主要的錯覺不是相信一個僅是虛構的東西，將虛構之物看得太認真；相反地，我們不夠認真對待虛構作品。你覺得那只是個遊戲？那是現實，那比你看起來的還要真實。
(As a third-rate completionist gamer I have to sorta brush this topic off. It's a little silly in my opinion. He talked about adopting and enabling personas in games which reveals one's true self. I'd agree partially, but, in short, if you actually play games you'd know, that's not what gameplay is all about. I'd agree more on the aspect that all fictions imitate real life in some way, so that gamers, like cinema audience, get to experience the content, whatever it is, in a more flashy fashion, with more control. But that is not his point, he was talking about seeing your true self, your own inner conflicts, that's a dangerous assumption, people misunderstand.)
There is nothing specific about the zone. It's purely a place where a certain limit is set. You set a limit, you put a certain zone off-limit, and although things remain exactly the way they were, it's perceived as another place. Precisely as the place onto which you can project your beliefs, you fears, things from your inner space. In other words, the zone is ultimately the very whiteness of the cinematic screen.
那個「領域」沒有任何特別之處，只是個有著特定限制的地方。你設下限制，一個特定的不由人進出的領域，就算事物看起來就像過往一樣，這個地方被另眼相看。正是你能投射你的信念、恐懼，來自你內部之物。換句話說，這個「領域」就是電影的白色屏幕。
l. City Lights: 先入為主的錯覺
I think this is the metaphor of our predicament. All too often, when we love somebody, we don't accept him or her as what the person effectively is. We accept him or her insofar as this person fits the co-ordinates of our fantasy. We misidentify, wrongly identify him or her, which is why, when we discover that we were wrong, love can quickly turn into violence.
我想這是我們困境的比喻，經常當我們愛某人，我們不接受他最直接的一面，我們在一定範圍內接受他符合我們幻想之處，我們混淆、錯認這個人；這是為什麼當我們發現自己的錯誤時，愛可能會迅速轉為暴力。
There is nothing more dangerous, more lethal for the loved person than to be loved for not what he or she is, but for the fitting ideal.
被愛的人並非因其所為而被愛，卻是因一個適切的理想而被愛，沒有什麼比此更危險，更致命。
結：Zizek說的東西大概70%在我腦內是合理的思維（就算我本身並不會這樣去解讀電影）讀了字幕後覺得Zizek這人很有意思便決定整理分享，接下來大概也會順便把Guide to Ideology看一看。
0 意見:
張貼留言