The Fright of Real Tears [Hardcover]

it's difficult to access Zizek's work especially if you have no points of reference,and refuse to delve deeply into the sources of his thought not only Lacan, but Hegel Marx,and Badiou.

Zizek yes many times drops shibboleths, quips and sarcasm but that's his style. What makes Zizek interesting to read however (no matter what he writes) is that he disrupts and tests the given symbolic order of things, What's That? that is what is usually shuved down our throats(via CNN,MTV,celebrated talk shows) as analysis or theoretical renderings that simply amount to the same "mantra" of views usually the liberal kind that is suspect of philosophic/cultural theory or "critique" especially when one so high powered a thinker as Zizek comes into the field of play, since you cannot understand him or say anything critically of him, He is deemed then"Dangerous".

In reality Zizek's sensibility is wholly suited to speak about Kieslowki's work, Lacan works quite well into getting behind what triggers desire,or wantings,fears and anxieties,where the "symbolic" order exists how it is continually nurtured through cultur as film. "The Decalogue" is one such film that tries to test the high symbolic order through the word of god or "g-d" and it inspires fear in all of us, we fear what we don't know, isn't that what religion (any of them) do they instill fear in us, because we don't know, or are told we don't know,"You want to know? follow us. . . " Kieslowski's language is,modern threadbare,very straightforward, we get wonderful views of Poland,Warsaw; yet he's able to instill a kind of "mystery" in the common shape of things;and this 'unknown' of the word of "g-d" or god; ten commandments,his own spirituality interfaces with our own which makes these ten short films quite powerful. Zizek I think is claiming a kind of "stasis" in Kieslowski,that we should view the "Decalogue" as one film not as ten little ones a distinction; an interesting view,very modern, and since his films have a kind of lean functionalism,things just simply move without gimmick unfolding the narrative logically.When viewed this way I think the ten shorts comes across in all its diverse richness;almost as if ten novellas all have inter-referenced schemes and threads that link them all in known and unknown way. Zizek explores various Lacanian topics without specifically mentioning them, as "sinthome", "object petit a" something you really don't need but needs to be there anyway,something we think of ourselves that needs to fit in someplace but cannot for it doesn't know what it is yet.Lacanian analysis claims to not expose what you don't know(as Freud) but merely affirms who and what you are right now in order to at least maintain some coherancy and stable moments within yourself.Like a young man's love for a mature woman he cannot have.The young boy has a series of unknowns he's working with,stalking her, watching her 'peeping-tom like'in this way the boy is not threatened and remains in the stable realm he knows best, his own bedroom where he masterbates;but soon this stability is brokened,with an actual meetings with the woman,like stepping on thin ice, you never know where you will fall in,,including your own suicide, Kieslowski I think often caps many of the "Decalogue"sequences too quickly,as the young boy simply stabbing himself for his oefish awkwardness and has no problem in utilizing gut-wrenching techniques in "Though shalt Not Kill" as the killing of the young boy who killed an innocent cabdriver.People simply die,or their lives robbed previously,as a concentration camp survivor, or fall into an abyss as the young boy not returning home with messages of his demise from an early computer.

If you keep with Zizek I think he delivers insights you will not find within the normal course of theoretical film critic discourse, all you get there is time and tested cliques,predictable "mantras" that really explain the complexity of films like a cooking show, "this was added to intensify. . . ", ". . . this moment will make shudder. . . ",like all you are looking for is what will I get for my money.

I'm reviewing this book as a fan of Kieslowski. I'm saying this because the Zizek's approach is literary or, more specifically, Marxist-Lacanian. (Don't ask me what that means.)For starters, it's far more entertaining and insightful than Insdorf book on Kieslowski. For instance, Zizek talks about Kieslowski's movies while mentioning David Lynch's. Also, I was particularly intrigued by Zizek's analysis of "The Dekalog." How each episode leads to the next by not engaging on the specific commandment it should be representing. What you get with this book is a grab bag of meditations on post-modern cynicism, Plato via Marx Brothers, and Hitchcock-Lacan connection. Oy vey! For those interested in the cinema of Kieslowski, this might be a book for you if you're either immersed or have a passing knowledge with (drum rolls, please) Post/Theory. Otherwise, this book is a drag!

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  4.0 out of 5 stars