Zizek, The Hitchcockian Cut... "Looking Away"

Excerpt from above:

The Hitchcockian Cut

Montage: Montage is usually conceived as a way of producing, from fragments of the real pieces of film discontinuous individual shots, an effect of cinematic space, ie - a specific cinematic reality. That is to say, it is universally acknowledged that cinematic space is never a simple repetition or imitation of external effective reality, but an effect of Montage. What is often overlooked, however, is the way this transformation of fragments of the real into cinematic reality produces, through a kind of structural necessity, a certain leftover, a surplus that is radically heterogeneous to cinematic reality, but nonetheless, implied by it, part of it. That this surplus of the real is, in the last resort, precisely the "Gaze qua object," is best exemplified by the work of Hitchcock.

We have already pointed out that the fundamental constituent of the Hitchcockian Universe is the so-called spot, the stain upon which reality revolves, passes over into the real. The mysterious detail that sticks out, that does not fit into the symbolic network of reality, and that as such, indicates that something is amiss. The fact that this spot ultimately coincides with the threatening gaze of the other is confirmed in an almost to obvious way by the famous tennis court scene from "Strangers on a Train" in which Guy watches the crowd watching the game. The camera first gives us a long shot of the crowd, all heads turn alternately left and right following the path of the ball, all except one, which stares with a fixed gaze into the camera, ie, at Guy. The camera then quickly approaches this motionless head. It is Bruno, linked to Guy by a murderous pact. Here we have, in pure distilled form, the stiff motionless gaze, sticking out like a strange body and thus disturbing the harmony of the image by introducing a threatening dimension.

The function of the famous Hitchcockian tracking shot is precisely to produce a spot. In the tracking shot, the camera moves from an establishing shot, to a closeup of a detail that remains a blurred spot, the true form of which is accessible only to an anamorphic view from a side. The shot slowly isolates from its surroundings the element that cannot be integrated into the symbolic reality, that must remain a strange body if the depicted reality is to retain its consistency. But what interests us here is the fact that under certain conditions, Montage does intervene in the tracking shot, ie- The continuous approach of the camera is interrupted by Cuts.

What, more precisely, are these conditions? Briefly, the tracking shot must be interrupted when it is subjective, when the camera shows us the subjective view of a person approaching the object spot. That is to say, whenever, in a Hitchcock film a hero, a person around whom the scene is structured approaches an object, a thing, another person, anything that can become uncanny, unheimlich, in the Freudian sense.

Hitchcock as a rule alternates the objective shot of this person in motion, his/ her approach toward The Uncanny thing, with a subjective shot of what this person sees, ie-  with a subjective view of the thing. This is, so to speak, the elementary procedure, the zero degree of Hitchcockian Montage.

Did the Universe Just Get Clumpier?

A Cringey Post

Inter-Cultural Jouissance Run Amuck

Slavoj Zizek, "In Russia and Israel, national derangement runs wild." (9/4/23)

Whenever a country's social contract unravels, conditions become ripe for rumours and absurdities to circulate. Even when these are outrageous and obviously nonsensical, they can give expression to a people's deepest fears and prejudices.

Such is the case in Russia today, where Sergei Markov, a former adviser to President Vladimir Putin, has warned that Ukraine is creating "gay super-soldiers" to wage war against his country: "Military theorists and historians know which army in Greece was the strongest, remember? The Spartans. They were united by a homosexual brotherhood. They were all homos. These were the politics of their leadership. I think they are planning the same for Ukraine's Armed Forces."

Of course, this mixture of homophobia, fake history, and Marvel comic-inspired ideas of super-soldiers indicates that Markov is not interested in encouraging critical thinking and reasoned analysis. No matter: such idiotic statements apparently resonate with at least some important segments of Russian society.

The same derangement also increasingly applies to Russian historical memories of major national traumas and crimes. At a recent ceremony in Velikiye Luki, in Russia's Pskov region, a priest known as "Father Anthony" doused holy water on a 26-foot statue of Stalin. Though "the Church suffered" during Stalin's long reign of terror, he observed, Russians today should be grateful that they have so many "new Russian martyrs and confessors to whom we now pray and are helping us in our Motherland's resurgence."

Such perverse reasoning is just a step away from arguing that Jews should be grateful to Hitler for opening the way for the State of Israel. In fact, precisely that has already effectively happened. According to a 2019 investigation by Channel 13 news in Israel, future Israeli army officers at the state-funded Bnei David military prep school are taught, by rabbis, that:

"The Holocaust was not about killing the Jews. Nonsense. And that it was systematic and ideological makes it more moral than random murder. Humanism, secular culture – that is the Holocaust. The real Holocaust is pluralism. The Nazi logic was internally consistent. Hitler said that a certain group in society is the cause of all the evil in the world and therefore it must be exterminated. … For years, God has been screaming that the Diaspora is over but Jews aren't obeying. That is their disease that the Holocaust must cure. … Hitler was the most righteous. Of course, he was right in every word he said. His ideology was correct. … [The Nazis'] only error was who was on which side."

The lesson does not end there. Students also learn that:

"With the help of God, slavery will return. The non-Jews will want to be our slaves. These people around us have genetic problems. Ask an average Arab what he wants to be. He wants to be under occupation. … They don't know how to run a country or anything. … Yes, we are racists. We believe in racism. Races have genetic characteristics. So we must consider how to help them."

To be sure, this extreme rhetoric is openly endorsed by only a tiny, fanatical religious minority. And yet, it hints at the underlying premise behind the current far-right government's policies in the West Bank. To compare the situation in Israel and its occupied territories to Nazi Germany may appear a ridiculous exaggeration, and if a non-Jew makes this comparison, he is instantly dismissed as anti-Semitic; but if leading Jewish figures do so, they ought to be listened to. When a society has wrapped itself in layers of tendentious self-justification, it takes insiders to pull back the shroud.

Consider the case of Amiram Levin, the former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Northern Command. Speaking recently to Israel's public broadcasting station about the situation in the West Bank, he contends that "there hasn't been a democracy there in 57 years, there is total apartheid. … the IDF, which is forced to exert sovereignty there, is rotting from the inside. It's standing by, looking at the settler rioters and is beginning to be a partner to war crimes.

When asked to elaborate, Levin invoked Nazi Germany: "It's hard for us to say it, but it's the truth. Walk around Hebron, look at the streets. Streets where Arabs are no longer allowed to go on, only Jews. That's exactly what happened there, in that dark country."

That a retired IDF general could come to such a conclusion attests not only to his extraordinary ethical stance, but also to just how bad things have gotten there. But as long as there are Israelis like Levin, there is hope, because it is only with the solidarity and support of people like him that the West Bank Palestinians have a chance.

In both Russia and Israel today, the social pact is fracturing under the weight of colonialism and fundamental disagreements about foundational principles. These conditions lend themselves to increasingly absurd and extreme forms of rationalisation. But just because you can come up with a reason for doing something does not mean that you should do it. When societies fragment, resisting wrong reasons often requires more strength than following right reasons.

Democrats & Republicans - Rejecting Common Knowledge

Me: Biden's taking bribes

D: No he's not

Me: Here's the check receipt

D: The note says its' a loan repayment

Me ; Where's the loan paperwork?

D:  It was a verbal arrangement

Me:  So where's the interest payment?

D:  It was a no interest loan

...etc. etc. etc.

Common Knowledge avoidance.

The Propulsion & Trip Duration Problems...

Metamorphosis of a Monarch?

Jonathan Jones, "Jonathan Yeo’s portrait of Charles III review – a formulaic bit of facile flattery"

A psychedelic sea of lurid reds and a clunking monarch butterfly cannot save this superficially observed and carelessly executed bland banality

t’s hard to be objective about an artist you like as a person. I recently met the painter Jonathan Yeo – whose portrait of King Charles has been unveiled in a storm of crimson hype – on a radio show and was instantly charmed. It’s easy to see why famous people enjoy being portrayed by Yeo. He’s intelligent, relaxed, unassuming. We talked about a studio visit. But then I had a look at his works online and cringed. And that was before I saw this right royal banality.

Yeo’s portrait of the king is replete with all his vices. It is technically superficial and unfelt. There’s no insight into the king’s personality here, just a weird allegory about a monarch butterfly that Yeo says is a symbol of his metamorphosis from prince to king.

Nice flattery. So it’s no surprise King Charles is said to be pleased with his first official portrait since being crowned. As he courageously copes with cancer, who’d begrudge any pleasure this glowing red homage gives good old King Charles? But the pleasing effect of joy and uplift as Charles’s red military uniform melds with a pinkish psychedelic splurge is bought at the price of any genuine artistic perceptiveness or purpose.

Yeo’s art is formulaic and this one follows the formula. He does a pedantic study of someone’s features then – daringly! – collides this staid depiction with a free burst of lurid abstract wallpaper. He did Cara Delevingne in a vague subaqua setting and Taron Egerton in purple and pink rain. To me this is an evasion of actual portraiture which is based on acute, hard observation.

Royalists are never going to want portraits that look at their idols too astutely. Only one great artist in recent times has been allowed near a royal head: Lucian Freud’s searching, cruelly honest portrait of Queen Elizabeth II will never be loved by sentimentalists because it dares to treat the regal personage as just another person. And to be fair, Yeo too has seen Charles in the same way he sees everyone – blandly. I would say his portrayal of that kindly face adds nothing to what we see of Charles in photos and TV images, except that isn’t fair to photographers and camera people who often capture awkward, complex moments in the royal interaction with reality. Even the deferential coverage of the accession gave us those less than jolly glimpses of Charles infuriated by a pen.

It’s tempting to laugh at this painting, but if you care about art it’s a bit sad too. Yeo seems to be saying that painting itself is just a cheery bit of fakery and razzle dazzle. Who cares about truth when you can beautify? A serious portrait would look hard and long at Charles (or anyone), not combine facile pseudo-portraiture with the cheery serotonin of random colour. We all know the king is more complex than this. The king knows he is more complex than this. It is a masterpiece of shallowness by an artist so ludicrously upbeat he should be called Jonathan Yo! 

Get thee to a tattoo parlour, Charles.  Buterflies?  Really? 

Charles wants to be "seen" as a "person" with "helping hands", and NOT as a king!  He's a 100% Virtue Signal....@@

Lucian Freud, Queen Eleizabeth II

See the Crown Charles?  Now THAT's a Monarch!

Segmentation - Enabling Time's Walk Around the Whole

Glueballs?

...with no String's attached???