Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 311–325 | Cite as

The singularity of the cinematic object

Article
First Online:
  • 341 Downloads

Abstract

In order to avoid the reduction of desire to demand and to produce a theory in keeping with the insights of psychoanalysis, Lacan had to move beyond Hegel’s theorization based on recognition. To do so, Lacan had to come up with a new form of object, an object irreducible to the signifier but with the power to arouse the desire of the subject. The theorization of the objet a enables Lacan to make an important advance on Hegel’s theory of desire, an advance that effectively reverses the priority that Hegel establishes between the object and the Other. Despite the widespread association of Lacan with the signifier and its laws, his one great theoretical breakthrough concerns what remains absolutely irreducible to signification. My central contention in this essay is that Lacan’s theory of desire allows us to understand how singularity appears in the cinema, despite the medium’s inherent resistance to it. I examine this appearance of singularity through two filmic occasions—Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin and Michael Mann’s Heat. It is a medium in which recognition predominates, and yet the singularity of the objet a nonetheless emerges and animates the desire of the spectator.

Keywords

Objet a Gaze Singularity Gesture Irreducible Subject 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 2000. Means without end: Notes on politics. Trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balázs, Béla. 1972. Theory of the film: Character and growth of a new art. Trans. Edith Bone. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  3. Baudry, Jean-Louis. 1985. Basic effects of the cinematographic apparatus. In Movies and methods, vol. 2, ed. Bill Nichols. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, Walter. 2003. The work of art in the age of reproducibility (Third Version). In Selected writings: volume 4, 1938–1940. Trans. Harry Zohn and Edmund Jephcott. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Copjec, Joan. 2002. Imagine there’s no woman: Ethics and sublimation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Deleuze, Gilles. 1989. Cinema 2: The time-image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenstein, Sergei. 1949. Film form: Essays in film theory. Trans. Jay Leyda. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  8. Lacan, Jacques. 1974. Unpublished. Le Séminaire XXI: Les non-dupes errent, 1973–1974, unpublished manuscript, session of April 9, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Lacan, Jacques. 1978. The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Lacan, Jacques. 1992. The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis, 1959–1960. Trans. Dennis Porter. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Lacan, Jacques. 2007. The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power. In Écrits: The first complete edition in english. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. McGowan, Todd. 2007. The real gaze: Film theory after Lacan. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. Trans. Steven Corcoran. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, Scott. 2008. The order of joy: Beyond the cultural politics of enjoyment. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  15. Žižek, Slavoj. ed. 1992 Everything you always wanted to know about Lacan (But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock). New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations