I am both fascinated and very confused by Lacan’s presentation of the subject and the gaze. I find it interesting that the world
is looking at us but that this gaze isn’t particularly located. At one point, Lacan says that this
omnipresent gaze isn’t a function of others seeing us, but at the end it does
seem to be a result of others also seeing or desiring what we are seeing or
desiring. I think I missed quite a
bit of his train of thought here, but I am left with a sense of
interconnectivity. The one thing
that resonates with me is that the gaze of the self is inextricably tied up
with the gaze and desire of others.
This reminds me of Vertigo and the emphasis in Modleski’s analysis on
(cross) identification and the trope of reflection. We see Johnny who sees Madeline (Judy) through a mirror, who
herself is really a projection of Elski’s manipulative gaze. Judy acts as surface for both men. This is a series of refractions, which
according to Wikipedia is essentially a surface phenomenon, light bouncing off
of personas in different directions and ultimately (at least according to
Modleski) indicating the unstable foundations of each subject as separate. This, to me, makes perfect
intuitive sense, although I didn’t completely understand it from Lacan. If the premise of the subject is a
separation from the real/world/maternal (also articulated by Freud), then this
is what seeing threatens because it reveals the interplay of mirrored
desires, and (maybe?) brings into the light (literally) the violence with which
we have become ontologically separate from others. I didn’t quite see Lacan saying this, but this is the way
that I understand his and Freud’s obsession with castration. If at the root of our desire and our
subjectivity is repressed need and a visceral break from the rest of the world,
then it makes sense that entering the field of representation translates into a
dance of mastery and vulnerability.
Both in Scottie’s character and in Vertigo in general, especially
interesting to me is the theme of multiple, overlapping identities and how this
appears in names, something I don’t think Modleski explicitly addressed. Johnny is Scottie to acquaintances,
John to those who know him, Mr. ___ to strangers, Johnny-O or Johnny-boy to
Midge – he is far from a stable character. Similarly, the line between Judy and Madeline becomes
disconcertingly blurry when we realize one was the other all along. Somehow, I think this connects with a Lacanian
view of subjecthood and the way it is constituted – or threatened – by the
gaze. I want to know if there is a
less tragic way of engaging desire, consciousness and sight. In a different Lacan reading I did for
another class, he seemed to be talking about the futility of
sex/love/desire. Because sexual
encounters are inherently based on repressed demand, there is no way for them
to actually fulfill us. Despite
the intense mutual reflection of need and want, this is a superficial
reciprocity, like the abstraction of signifiers, tilting at windmills. This seems very clear to me in
Vertigo. Even when the characters
are themselves aware of the precarious role that they play in the dynamics of
vision – Judy sees right through Johnny’s motivation for being with her, just
as he recognizes that she has just been “made up” by both him and Elski for
their own purposes – they are overpowered by their desires in a way that seems
inescapable, like light refracting and reflecting without end. Judy’s death mirrors Madeline’s
exactly. Johnny suffers a double
loss. Is this kind of ending
inevitable? If being a subject
means being a victim of the gaze and castration and deflecting this fear and
repressed need onto the surfaces of others, is there anything redeeming that
can be learned from the symmetry of our losses and desires? Is there anything else we can be?
No comments:
Post a Comment