ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Six, Number Three

The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock

Kyle Barrowman
- graduate of the Cinema Studies rogram at Colum!ia College in Chi"ago#
$%er the "ourse of a "areer that s anned si& de"ades' !eginning in (ngland in the 192)s as the silent "inema was a roa"hing its a e& and ending in the 197)s amidst the ost"lassi"al *meri"an "inema re%olution' *lfred +it"h"o", su""eeded in trans"ending time' genre' e%en "inema itself# Based on the fe"undity of his rolifi" "anon' -+it"h"o",. has !e"ome totemi" for a remar,a!ly %ariegated /if not antinomi"0 series of theoreti"al re"e ts in the film studies "ommunity' all sym tomati" of the arti"ular a"ademi" 1eitgeist# Beginning with the idealisti" and "ine hilia" %eneration of +it"h"o",-as-auteur in the 195)s and 192)s' whi"h rea"hed its 1enith with the u!li"ations of 3o!in 4ood5s /19250 heraldi" auteurist analysis and 6ran"ois 7ruffaut5s /19270 !oo,-length inter%iew' +it"h"o", was e%entually "oloni1ed !y -Se"ond 4a%e 6eminism. in the 197)s and 198)s' ortrayed as a misogynist whose films were %iewed as ideologi"ally- redetermined sym toms of an antedilu%ian male "hau%inist and whose filmma,ing style allegedly e&em lified the intrinsi" ro!lems of "lassi"al +ollywood storytelling# 1 *s the feminist "oloni1ation of +it"h"o", ga%e way to more tem ered a raisals of his filmogra hy' s"holars in the field of -+it"h"o", Studies. !egan trying to "onsolidate ast +it"h"o", s"holarshi in an effort to en"om ass the totality of +it"h"o",5s artistry and its hermeneuti" im li"ations# 7ania 8odles,i /2))5919880' for e&am le' sees the +it"h"o", oeuvre as housing a "lash !etween authorshi and ideology that "hallenges and de"enters' !ut does not "om letely de%alue' the notion of dire"torial authority# 4ood' on the other hand' in his 1989 re%ision of his original 1925 monogra h' maintained the original s"hemati1ation of +it"h"o",-asauteur' !ut rather than romulgating the u!i:uitous !inary theoreti"al "laims a ro os of

+it"h"o",5s misogyny9 hallo"entrism' he sought to illuminate the "om le&ity of +it"h"o",ian morality' whi"h' -with its er%ading sense of the ine&tri"a!ility of good and e%il. /4ood 1989; 2<0' s ea,s to neither misogyny nor hallo"entrism' !ut instead' to an artist "onfli"ted a!out the er"ei%ed -im ossi!ility of su""essful human relations within an ideologi"al system that "onstru"ts men and women in ho elessly in"om ati!le roles. /4ood 1989; <780# 4or,ing from this latter %antage oint' 4ood5s ostulation that inter retations of +it"h"o",5s films ne"essitate a - sy"hoanalyti"al a""ount. of the nature of lo%e and roman"e /4ood 1989; <770 !e"omes a&iomati"' and if there is anything that "an unify the a"ti%ities of +it"h"o", Studies s"holars o%er the ast two de"ades' it is the fre:uen"y with whi"h s"holars ha%e a ealed to sy"hoanalyti" "on"e ts' es e"ially of the =a"anian %ariety' in their e&egeti"al efforts# $n this front' Sla%o> ?i@e, is undou!tedly the most renowned +it"h"o",ian9=a"anian e&egete# *s it relates to the "entrality of sy"hoanalysis to +it"h"o", Studies' ?i@e,5s ro>e"t of res"uing "lassi"al =a"anian do"trine from its ina ro riate *lthusserian9feminist oliti"i1ation found a useful ally in +it"h"o",' whose films re resent for him fertile ground on whi"h to illuminate negle"ted9misunderstood =a"anian "on"e ts# 4hat was on"e an inno"uous o!ser%ation regarding an a arent "om ati!ility !etween +it"h"o",5s films and sy"hoanalysis has !een reified in the s"holarshi of theorists su"h as 4ood and ?i@e,A in an effort to e&tend !oth the 4ood-ins ired ro>e"t of analy1ing the e%olution of +it"h"o",5s hiloso hy of filmi" roman"e and the ?i@e,ian ro>e"t of asserting a =a"anian an"hor to +it"h"o",5s films' the ensuing e&egesis will ta,e as its remise that le trait unaire of +it"h"o",5s "inema is the =a"anian di"tum -there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi #. *s =a"anians su"h as ?i@e, and Bru"e 6in, /19950 ha%e lamented in their writings' sin"e the u!li"ations in 6ren"h and (nglish of =a"an5s writings and seminars' many s"holars ha%e dis"ussed as e"ts of his do"trine' in"luding his wor, on se&uality' des ite la",ing a firm gras on his thin,ing# 7hey "on"ede that it is mu"h easier to fi&ate on one of =a"an5s more ro%o"ati%e ostulations /e#g# -there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi .0 in an attem t to use it as e%iden"e in what are ultimately egregious so hismsA as ?i@e, has admira!ly shown in the many engagements with +it"h"o",5s "inema he has ro%ided o%er the years' what is ne"essary for the most rodu"ti%e reading of =a"an /and thus for the most rodu"ti%e =a"anian reading of +it"h"o",0 is a willingness to struggle through his "ir"uitous' "ontradi"tory' at times im enetra!le ruminations in order to isolate and assess the -fundamental "on"e ts. of =a"anian sy"hoanalysis' to "onsider how re"urring "on"e ts su"h as the objet petit a' the hallus' desire' la",' et"#' are e& li"ated in arti"ular writings and le"tures and to assess their e%olution o%er the "ourse of his rolifi" "areer# ("hoing' too' the "om laints of +it"h"o", Studies s"holars

a ro os the unfair feminist atta", on +it"h"o",5s alleged misogyny' the fundamental ro!lem fa"ing those e& loring either the =a"anian or the +it"h"o",ian dis"ourse is to sift through the ostentation and the olemi"s to lo"ate the original' trans"endental site of thought# *nd in so doing' the unmista,a!le insight is the remar,a!le ro&imity' e%en identi"ality' of their res e"ti%e hiloso hi"al dis"ourses# If there is any tena!ility at all in ?i@e,5s "laim that S ino1a' +egel' and *lthusser ser%e as atem oral re>oinders to one another /?i@e, 199<; 1B)0' then "ertainly a similar relationshi "an !e imagined !etween +it"h"o", and =a"an as trans"endentally lin,ed hiloso hers# 3ather than !eing situated in o osition to one another' howe%er' their "ontem oraneous struggle to formulate a stan"e regarding the foundational antinomy of su!>e"ti%ity' the /im ossi!le0 se&ual relationshi ' found them ultimately united in the unmista,a!ly +egelian - aralla& ga . of e istemologi"al tenuity %ersus "onstituti%e ontologi"al in"om leteness#2 6or =a"an' -there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi . ser%es as the solidifi"ation of years of theori1ing the nature of desire in the human su!>e"t# Brus:uely osited' the s"andalous nature of =a"an5s "laim is lainly e%ident# Beyond the ostentation' howe%er' resides a nuan"ed reading of su!>e"ti%ity that "uts to the "ore of =a"anian thoughtA a arti"ularly elu"idatory assage from the seminar where =a"an offered his most thorough interrogation of the nature of lo%e and roman"e ser%es at on"e to "larify his meaning and highlight one of his -fundamental "on"e ts#. 4hat "onstitutes the !asis of life' in effe"t' is that for e%erything ha%ing to do with the relations !etween men and women CDE it5s not wor,ing out# It5s not wor,ing out' and the whole world tal,s a!out it' and a large art of our a"ti%ity is ta,en u with saying so# Ne%ertheless CDE this se&ual relationshi ' insofar as it5s not wor,ing out' wor,s out anywayFthan,s to a "ertain num!er of "on%entions CandE rohi!itions /=a"an 19999197<; <2-<<0# (m!ra"ing notions of mediation' rohi!ition' et"#' is "ru"ial in =a"anian sy"hoanalysis' for desire' as su"h' is ne%er -fulfilled'. in"luding in the ideal se&ual relationshi where the two hal%es of the human su!>e"t are alleged to unite in !liss to form a whole# In mar,ed disa%owal to this osition' for as long as narrati%e has !een the dri%ing for"e of film' the rimary narrati%e "on"ern of -mainstream. "inema a ro os of su!>e"ti%ity has !een to reify the ideal rather than "onfront the reality# 7hus' +it"h"o",5s "inema' in tandem with =a"anian sy"hoanalysis' stri%es to mo%e ast stereoty i"al ideologi"al "ommon la"es in an effort to enetrate the innermost regions of the "olle"ti%e sy"he#

=oo,ing at +it"h"o",5s films' the irredu"i!le antagonisms of se&ual differen"e fre:uently "onstitute their narratologi"al "ore' arti"ularly in his *meri"an films# Grior to the start of his +ollywood "areer' +it"h"o",5s ortraits of romanti" relationshi s were noti"ea!ly light and airy airings !ased more on "inemati" "on%ention than on ersonal !elief# 7his is not to say that the films are worthless to the field of film studiesA in s e"ifi"ally loo,ing to e& lore his maturation as a hiloso her of filmi" roman"e' howe%er' it is his *meri"an films that offer the greatest salien"e regarding his %iews on romanti" unions !etween men and women struggling within the dis"ursi%e realm of atriar"hy# 6or 4ood' Rebecca /19B)0 mar,s the esta!lishment of the -"entral stru"turing tension. /4ood 1989; 2<10 of +it"h"o",5s *meri"an films' that of the im ossi!ility of a harmonious romanti" union !etween a man and a woman that su""essfully sutures the wounds of su!>e"ti%ity# 8odles,i "autions against minimi1ing +it"h"o",5s misogyny and against asserting -e:uality in suffering. /8odles,i 2))591988; 270 !etween the male and female "hara"ters in +it"h"o",5s films' !ut this is as a result of her olemi"al feminist agenda rather than from something determined through inter retation to !e intrinsi" to +it"h"o",5s "inemati" e& ression# +er !iased reo""u ation with e& loring what in +it"h"o",5s films were not his intention /a holdo%er from the !lea, -death of the author. days in film studies0 "aused her to miss the o!%ious fa"t that the +egelian -essen"e. of +it"h"o",5s "inema is this %ery -e:uality in suffering'. with +it"h"o", fa%oring neither male nor female su!>e"ti%ity and instead see,ing to illuminate the fundamental ro!lems of su!>e"ti%ity as su"h# 7he most e& li"it treatment of mutual suffering is to !e found in Notorious /19B20' +it"h"o",5s first ma>or filmi" treatise on the "om le& nature of roman"e# In an effort to analy1e +it"h"o",5s films en masse' a histori"al "onte&tuali1ation that situates Notorious /and later' Vertigo C1958E and Marnie C192BE0 against a set of "ontrol films "an hel to >ustify the ro osition that +it"h"o",5s films offer a uni:ue' singular' and e%ol%ing %ision# 7he most o!%ious "ontrol is "lassi"al +ollywood "inema' a well-,nown model that "an ser%e to esta!lish dominant stylisti" and narrati%e ra"ti"es# 4hat ma,es the study of +it"h"o",5s films so intriguing is how' as a result of his early !attles with rodu"ers and studio ersonnel' most notoriously Ha%id $# Sel1ni",' for "reati%e "ontrol o%er his films' +it"h"o",5s own films /Rebecca' Suspicion C19B1E' and Spellbound C19B5E in arti"ular0 "an ser%e as an inde& of the "lassi"al +ollywood model' while his later films /Notorious' Vertigo' and Marnie in arti"ular0 "an ser%e as -"ra",s in the uni%ersal'. as Kantian sym toms of the ontologi"al in"onsisten"y of the "lassi"al model# By analy1ing the arti"ular mode of the narrati%e fun"tioning in his early *meri"an films and the resen"e of "ra",s in the ontologi"al sta!ility of their "lassi"al ro"esses of narration' the su!%ersi%e nature of his later films "an !e more "learly registered in its radi"ality#

4ith its unam!iguous a

ro riation of sy"hoanalysis as its narrati%e a&is' the treatment

of its su!>e"t matter "auses Spellbound to fun"tion as a aradigm "ase of "lassi"al +ollywood distortion#< 7he rologue that introdu"es the film reads as follows; $ur story deals with sy"hoanalysis' the method !y whi"h modern s"ien"e treats the emotional ro!lems of the sane# 7he analyst see,s only to indu"e the atient to tal, a!out his hidden ro!lems' to o en the lo",ed doors of his mind# $n"e the "om le&es that ha%e !een distur!ing the atient are un"o%ered and inter reted' the illness and "onfusion disa of unreason are dri%en from the human soul# 7his saniti1ed %iew of the sy"hoanalyti" ro"ess "om!ined with the rosy "on"e tion of an ultimately untrou!led su!>e"ti%ity s ea, less to +it"h"o",5s moral am!i%alen"e and more to the "lassi"al +ollywood ro>e"t of "onstru"ting a -"inema of integration#. *s "on"ei%ed !y 7odd 8"Iowan' the "inema of integration is "onstituted !y an -intermi&ing of desire and fantasy. wherein the "inema -wor,s hand in hand with the fun"tioning of Cthe dominantE ideology. /8"Iowan 2))7; 1150 so as to su ort its stru"ture !y o!s"uring the "ra",s in the uni%ersal' the irredu"i!le antagonisms of su!>e"ti%ity# 7he "lash !etween +it"h"o", and his rodu"ers' howe%er' inad%ertently "reated /in films ostensi!ly -integrated. and with the re:uisite -distortion.0 films that -lay !are the ideologi"al fun"tion. /8"Iowan 2))7; 1550 of the relationshi !etween the "inema and the dominant ideology# 7he infamous !attle o%er the ending of Suspicion %irtually e& oses the wor,ings of fantasy' ma,es trans arent the attem t to shield the film from the 3eal# 7he alterations made for the film %ersion of Rebecca' wherein the rotagonist did not really ,ill his first wife' thus allowing /an al!eit am!iguous0 re"on"iliation !etween him and his "urrent wife' wor, similarly# +a%ing already made and fought !attles o%er Rebecca and Suspicion' Spellbound "omes at a oint in +it"h"o",5s "areer where his %ision has matured to a oint where it is literally im ossi!le' e%en with Sel1ni", insisting on the aradigmati" distortion of the field of su!>e"ti%ity' for the "ra",s in the ontologi"al sta!ility of "lassi"al +ollywood narration to remain hidden# Spellbound rogresses towards the ine%ita!le -ha y ending. marriage !etween the re%iously distur!ed rotagonist and his unwa%eringly lo%ing and de%oted sy"hoanalyst' !ut due to +it"h"o",5s resen"e' the hantasmati" "athe&is of this denouement is negated in fa%or of an am!i%alen"e that !orders on essimism# (arly in the film' Hr# Constan"e Getersen /Ingrid Bergman0 is dis"ussing the du li"ity of lo%e with /the man she !elie%es to !e0 Hr# *nthony (dwardes /Iregory Ge",0#B Ju&ta osed with the o ening rologue' Hr# Getersen5s %iews on lo%e are nothing short of radi"al er%ersity' identifying lo%e5s winsome s lendor as the "olle"ti%e "an"er laguing so"iety# She feels the ro!lem with lo%e is that eo le "on"e tuali1e it as one earDand the de%ils

thing !ut e& erien"e it as another' the %ery definition of an antinomy in the Kantian sense# -=o%e. as su"h is -Gedankending'. an -o!>e"t-of-thought'. something that is "on"e tually ossi!le !ut e& erientially im ossi!le /?i@e, 199<; 1)90# Hr# Getersen "ontends in this early segment that it is all too easy to imagine lo%e and far too diffi"ult to lo"ate it em iri"allyA the fa"t that the romanti" "ou ling at the film5s end is in mar,ed "ontrast to its re%iously asserted "ontention that su"h a harmonious union is sensu stricto im ossi!le is far from a hy o"riti"al "om romise of +it"h"o",5s osition' howe%er# +it"h"o", a"hie%es the limit of his su""ess !y introdu"ing the "ra", in the uni%ersal' !y e& osing the wor,ings of fantasy while Sel1ni",' meanwhile' was im otently attem ting to use it as a means of sedu"tion# 7he e& onentially greater su!%ersi%eness of Notorious is due to +it"h"o",5s a!ility' as rodu"er and dire"tor' to foreground his ro>e"t of e& osing the wor,ings of fantasy as the main narrati%e "on"ern rather than !eing for"ed to surre titiously insert it as narratologi"al su!terfuge# Notorious is una!ashedly "on"erned with the -astringent "riti"ism. of the -male system. of atriar"hy "on"omitant with +it"h"o",5s growing fas"ination with the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi /4ood 1989; <220# 7o understand the diale"ti"al tra>e"tory of +it"h"o",5s treatment of this theme' a "om arison to the tra>e"tory of =a"an5s thin,ing a ro os of the Imaginary-Sym!oli"-3eal tri ty"h and the la"e therein of the se&ual relationshi "an hel to shed light on the s e"ifi"ities of +it"h"o",5s e%olution as a filmi" hiloso her# (arly in his "areer' =a"an was fas"inated !y Saussurean semioti"s' asserting in early seminars the rima"y of the signifying networ, in stru"turing su!>e"ti%ityA in his ne&t hase' =a"an am lified his reo""u ation with the Sym!oli"' mo%ing to a stru"turalist "on"e tion that "on"ei%ed of language as an ines"a a!le totali1ation of su!>e"ti%ityA following this hy er!oli" fas"ination with the Sym!oli"' =a"an su!se:uently retreated to analy1ing the ways in whi"h the Imaginary' in its sear"h for -homeostati" !alan"e'. is "onstantly trou!led !y the intrusion of the Sym!oli"' how su!>e"ti%ity is essentially a !attle !etween the Imaginary and the Sym!oli"' with the 3eal !eing "ons i"uously a!sent' gi%en no more "onsideration than re resenting a fun"tioning nonentityA in the last hase of his tea"hing' =a"an "om ensated for re%ious negle"t of the 3eal !y gi%ing it the -main a""ent. of his tea"hing' "om letely restru"turing his Imaginary-Sym!oli"-3eal triad !y asserting that it is the Sym!oli"' not the Imaginary' that is go%erned !y the leasure rin"i le and rimarily "on"erned with a"hie%ing homeostati" !alan"e' and that the 3eal re resents a ,ernel at the %ery "enter of the Sym!oli"' a -traumati" element. that disru ts that !alan"e# 5 7he im li"ations of these e%ol%ing "on"e tions of the struggle of su!>e"ti%ity "ome to !ear on the su!>e"t as he9she a roa"hes the "on"luding moment of analysis# 6rom the ers e"ti%e of =a"an5s initial hase' the -final moment of analysis. is rea"hed when the su!>e"t

is a!le to -narrate. his9her history -in its "ontinuity'. when the su!>e"t5s desire is a",nowledged and narrati%i1ed# =ater in his tea"hing' howe%er' when the Sym!oli" was "on"ei%ed as a monstrous totality -ha%ing a mortifying effe"t on the su!>e"t. !y -im osing on Cthe su!>e"tE a traumati" loss'. the final moment is rea"hed -when the su!>e"t is ready to a""e t this fundamental loss' to "onsent to sym!oli" "astration as a ri"e to !e aid for a""ess to Chis9herE desire. /?i@e, 2))891989; 1B5-1B70# In the last hase of his tea"hing' =a"an e&tends the "athe"ti" a",nowledgment of the la", "onstituti%e of desire in a mu"h more radi"al way' with the final moment !eing identified as when the su!>e"t -fully assumes his or her identifi"ation with the sinthome' when he or she unreser%edly Kyields5 to it' re>oins the la"e where Kit was'5 gi%ing u the false distan"e whi"h defines Cthe su!>e"t5sE e%eryday life. /?i@e, 199<; 2)0# His"erni!le in this "om le& matri& is the "ons i"uous +egelian a""ent on the later stage of =a"an5s thin,ing a ro os the -final moment of analysis#. ?i@e,5s fondness for the +egelian diale"ti" has !een anything !ut a se"retA all the same' the e&tant =a"anian e&egeses of +it"h"o",5s films' in"luding those "ondu"ted !y ?i@e, himself' ha%e yet to gi%e suffi"ient fo"us to +it"h"o",5s Hegelian =a"anianism# $ne way to do so is to identify in the +egelian matri& of =a"an5s e%ol%ing "on"e tuali1ation of the sy"hoanalyti" ro"ess the diale"ti"al tra>e"tory of +it"h"o",5s "inema' from his early' "lassi"al films su"h as Suspicion and Spellbound through his owerfully su!%ersi%e transitional films su"h as Notorious and Vertigo u to Marnie' his "ulminant dis:uisition# =oo,ing at his early films' the re%iously dis"ussed ro>e"t of mas,ing the traumati" 3eal through a hantasmati" %eil of ha iness and fulfillment is the im etus' re"ei%ing' !y +it"h"o", standards' its most aradigmati" reali1ation in Spellbound# *lready resent in the aradigm' howe%er' is the "ra", in the uni%ersal' the ,ernel that fore%er resists sym!oli1ation' and it is the failure of sym!oli1ation' the assum tion of the "onstituti%e la",' that !e"omes the fo"us of the transitional films' first in Notorious and then in its most radi"al negati%ity in Vertigo# 4hat !e"omes %isi!le !y the end of Marnie' what ma,es it the logi"al "on"lusion of +it"h"o",5s "areer of film hiloso hi1ing %is-L-%is his ro&imity to =a"an' is the +egelian shift from e istemologi"al dou!t to ontologi"al "ertainty# Grior to ma,ing that +egelian shift' though' !oth +it"h"o", and =a"an endured years of meta hysi"al struggle' returning again and again to the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi # 6or +it"h"o",' this fo"us manifested' in its Sym!oli" determination' in e%ery film made from Notorious u to Marnie' regardless of genre and time eriod# 8ar,ing the first e& li"it treatise on the su!>e"t' Notorious re%eals many of the fundamental narrati%e elements ma,ing u +it"h"o",5s films# 6irst and foremost' the narrati%e an"hor is the ine%ita!le de i"tion of a relationshi !etween a trou!led man and a trou!led woman' ea"h of whom is suffering in their

se&ed identities# 6or =a"an' the -formulae of se&uation. indi"ate the antinomi" ositioning of men and women in the ideologi"al framewor,# *s o!ser%ed !y ?i@e,' the ur ose of the formulae of se&uation is to solidify this antinomi" stru"turing mathemati"ally' where the -mas"uline. side of the fun"tion -im lies the e&isten"e of an e&"e tion'. whereas the -feminine. side of the fun"tion features -a arti"ular negation. whi"h -im lies that there is no e&"e tion. /?i@e, 199<; 520# 7he "on"lusion to !e rea"hed is' of "ourse' that the relationshi !etween -mas"uline. and -feminine'. i#e#' !etween men and women' is antinomi" as o stereoty i"al "on"e tion of men and women !eing situated at "ontrary oles# 7he radi"ality of the formulae of se&uation is in the form of its "ontradistin"tion to the "ommon la"e notion that men and women' as o osite oles a,in to the yin and yang' -fill out. the other' that' together' they ma,e u a ositi%e' ontologi"ally-"onsistent unit "harged with the ower to resol%e the antagonisms of su!>e"ti%ity# *nalogously' the radi"ality of +it"h"o",5s -formulae of filmi" se&uation. is in its "ontradistin"tion to the "ommon la"e notion that the male lead and the female lead' after e& erien"ing narrati%e "onfli"t and after ha%ing their relationshi threatened' "ome together in the end to li%e ha ily e%er after# Notorious and Vertigo are the two most nota!le films "on"erned with reifying the antinomi" fun"tionality of the +it"h"o",ian formulae of filmi" se&uation' the latter ser%ing as a more aggressi%ely negati%e rendering of the former5s "on"lusion# 7he roman"e that an"hors Notorious is !etween a M#S# go%ernment agent named He%lin /Cary Irant0 and the daughter of a "on%i"ted Na1i "ons irator' *li"ia +u!erman /Ingrid Bergman0# *s 8odles,i notes' e%en though it does not seem to offer mu"h !y way of a feminist reading' Notorious does manage' !y %irtue of a diale"ti" of e&"ess and la",' to e& ose some of the ro!lems inherent in women5s ositioning in atriar"hy /8odles,i 2))591988; 520# 3e"alling the saga"ious remar, from =a"an a!out how the atriar"hal system does not >ust create 4oman !ut - uts her to wor,. /=a"an 19999197<; 1<10' Notorious "an !e seen as a -swee ing denun"iation of mas"ulinist oliti"s. /4ood 1989; <2)0 that "asts the male lead in the role of the antagonist "harged with ro%ing that there is indeed -a male way of !ot"hing the se&ual relationshi . /=a"an 19999197<; 580# *ssessing He%lin sy"hoanalyti"ally' he :uite "ons i"uously re resents the ar"hety e of the -o!sessional neuroti"'. one who stages unishment for reali1ing his desireA one who -!uilds u a whole system ena!ling him to ost one the en"ounter. with the objet petit aA one who er"ei%es in the $ther too much en>oyment' the immediate en"ounter with whom -would !e un!eara!le !e"ause of its e&"essi%e fullness' whi"h is why he ost ones the en"ounter.A and one who is ultimately tortured !y the we! of his own "ontradi"tion and inde"ision /?i@e, 2))891989; 2180# osed to the

He%lin a

ears at se%eral oints in Notorious to !e on the "us of a healthy relationshi

with *li"ia' !ut something in%aria!ly rohi!its the reali1ation of this su""ess# +e re"ruits her to s y for the go%ernment' uts her in the arms /and the !ed0 of another man' e%en uts her in Heath5s arms' all to unish her in a rounda!out effort to unish himself# 3i"hard *llen asserts that +it"h"o",5s films ose the :uestion of whether romanti" lo%e -har!ors a murderous CandE self-annihilating desire. /*llen 1999; 2220' !ut >udging !y Notorious' a"ting li,e this is a :uestion for +it"h"o", seems rather o!tuseA for +it"h"o",' romanti" lo%e is undeniably and inescapably constituted by such negative components' and !ased on the in%aria!ility of something emerging as a rohi!ition to the romanti" relationshi !etween He%lin and *li"ia' it !e"omes "lear that +it"h"o", is intentionally ortraying the eroti" leasure of the !udding relationshi ' most famously rendered in the e&tended ,issing se:uen"e' and its fantasy of fulfillment explicitly as fantasy# By ma,ing so "ons i"uous the hantasmati" :ualities of their early and fleeting ha iness' +it"h"o", su""eeds in illuminating the frustratingly arado&i"al fa"t that fantasy is a means !y whi"h -to ta,e its own failure into a""ount. /?i@e, 2))891989; 1B20# 7he Imaginary thus senses the 3eal' senses the insuffi"ien"y of its Sym!oli" stru"turing of reality' and is thus a ,ind of defense me"hanism' a !andage im otently shielding against a %irulent "an"er# It is only from this %antage oint that the su!%ersi%e ower of the film5s ending "an !e fully rendered a ro os the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi # Hue to the fa"t that the film ends not with He%lin and *li"ia !ut instead with the resolution of the surrounding Na1i9s y lot' s"holars who ha%e analy1ed Notorious in the ast ha%e failed to fully register the radi"ality of the film5s =a"anian thesis# 8odles,i' for e&am le' assesses the film5s "entral issue as !eing the ossi!ility of lo%e as a redem ti%e for"e /8odles,i 2))591988; 2)0' whi"h "an !e "alled the - ositi%ity. inter retation' while 3i"hard *!el %iews the denouement as staging He%lin5s and *li"ia5s reformation -in guilt. /*!el 2))991982; 1250' whi"h "an !e "alled the - ositi%e negati%ity. inter retation# 4hat is indi"ati%e in !oth inter retations is the ultimate registering of ositi%ity' of o timism' e%en if' as in *!el5s "ase' it is a signifi"antly ro!lemati1ed and "ontingent o timism# Neither inter retation is a!le to register in Notorious the radi"al negati%ity of the denouement' whi"h stems from the failure to a raise the relationshi as "onfronting He%lin and *li"ia with ro%ing the -the falsity of CtheirE own su!>e"ti%e osition. /?i@e, 2))891989; 270# He i"ting nar"issisti" lo%e at its urest' the lo%e !etween He%lin and *li"ia de i"ts a %i"ious tautologi"al loo ro ed u !y nar"issisti"ally. /=a"an 19999197<; 870# *dding a arado&i"al %i"iousness to this tautologi"al loo ' it is for what she is not that *li"ia e& e"ts to !e desired for and lo%ed !y He%lin'2 a result of her dis"ursi%e ositioning within =a"anian theory that -one sees in one5s artner what one ro s oneself u on' what one is

atriar"hy# He%lin wants *li"ia to !e the 8adonna' !ut he re eatedly for"es her to !e a whore and then re udiates her for it# *li"ia' for her art' ,nows the "onse:uen"es of her a"tions' ,nows that' !y going ahead with her s ying and ,ee ing u the relationshi with the Na1i she has !een "harged with ,ee ing ta!s on' that she is alienating He%lin' yet she relentlessly adheres to the aggressi%e -self- unishing neurosis. /=a"an 2))2; 1)10 "onstituti%e of her entra ment in the atriar"hal realm until it !rings her to the re"i i"e of death# 7heir final moment of ostensi!le re"on"iliation in the "ar near the end of the film' while a earing to !e the moment that He%lin finally -fully redeems himself. !y -e& ressing his re>e"tion of mas"ulinist oliti"s altogether in fa%or of identifying himself with a woman and res"uing her from %i"timi1ation and death. /4ood 1989; <2)0' is actually the exact opposite# 6alling in line with 8odles,i and *!el %is-L-%is the ina!ility of s"holars to register the radi"al negati%ity of the denouement' 4ood misses the way He%lin fails to res"ue *li"ia from %i"timi1ation and death' the way he fails to redeem himself' indeed' that evlin is the source of *li"ia5s %i"timi1ation and death' and the way to register this radi"al negati%ity is to register it retroa"ti%ely' to "onfer u on the film its ro er radi"ality after registering the e%en more se%ere negati%ity in Vertigo' the logi"al e&tension of Notorious# Sin"e +it"h"o", ne%er e& li"itly ,ills *li"ia in Notorious' he left o en the ossi!ility for more o timisti" e&egetes to surmise that there was a ha y ending waiting for He%lin and *li"ia on the other side of the end "redits# But "onsidering how +it"h"o",5s essimism regarding roman"e only in"reased in the years following Notorious' the only feasi!le inter retation of its "on"lusion is to a""e t as ine%ita!le *li"ia5s death following hers and He%lin5s "on"omitant reali1ation of the traumati" truth that there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi # 7heir "ommensurate self- unishing neurosis laid !are the fa"t that ea"h' as a result of their antinomi" dis"ursi%e ositioning within atriar"hy' had nothing to offer the other !ut their own la",' and' as in"isi%ely as,ed !y ?i@e,; If the su!>e"t "annot render to its other what this other la",s' -what "an it return to it if not the lack itselfN. /?i@e, 199<; 12<0# 7he antinomi" formulae of se&uation thus "onfer the "aliginous "ertainty that' as o osed to -the mutual filling out of their res e"ti%e la",s'. all that e&ists on whi"h to form e%en the most tenuous male9female "onne"tion is -the %ery la", they ha%e in "ommon. /?i@e, 199<; 12<0# 6rom Notorious u through Vertigo' +it"h"o",5s attitude towards this undesira!le truth was one of ure negati%ity# 7here is nothing ositi%e to ta,e away from the relationshi !etween He%lin and *li"ia in Notorious' and as if he felt he did not ma,e the oint strongly enough' +it"h"o", set out in Vertigo to show' with not a tra"e of am!iguity' the ines"a a!ility of the reali1ation that the harmonious romanti" union is merely a /self0destru"ti%e fantasy#

10

Considering its "anoni"ity in film studies and the understanda!le u!i:uity of e&egeses in +it"h"o", Studies' Vertigo has !een thoroughly mined !y innumera!le s"holars wor,ing from %arious analyti" ositions# 4hile' -in itself'. Vertigo has !een remar,a!ly elu"idated !y the s"holars who ha%e engaged it o%er the years' it has yet to !e a ro riately situated as a ste towards +it"h"o",5s +egelian9=a"anian shift to !e a"hie%ed in Marnie# Both 8odles,i and ?i@e, ha%e shrewdly o!ser%ed the terrifying im li"ations of Vertigo %is-L-%is male su!>e"ti%ity and its relian"e on 4oman when 4oman' in =a"anese' -does not e&ist.A !y failing to analy1e +it"h"o", en masse' howe%er' neither s"holar su""eeds in re"ogni1ing in Vertigo a rogressi%e ste in +it"h"o",5s e%olution from Notorious and ointing towards Marnie# 7he end of Vertigo' the most famous ortion of this "anoni"al "lassi"' has always !een of arti"ular interest to s"holars# 6or 4ood' Vertigo is a s e"ta"ular a"hie%ement in the "riti:ue of atriar"hy' standing tall as -a denun"iation of male egoism' resum tion' and intransigen"e. /4ood 1989; 2B20# S"ottie /James Stewart0' due to his o!sessi%e fas"ination with a -fantasy. 4oman at the e& ense of Judy /Kim No%a,0' the -real. woman in front of him' !rings a!out the death of !oth the -fantasy. and the -reality'. lea%ing him with nothing !ut the em tiness of his own /self0destru"ti%e desire# In an effort to ma,e her mirror his desire' the desire of 8an' S"ottie -destroys woman5s otherness.A in his des erate' nar"issisti" effort to -sustain a sense of himself'. he initiates -the end of woman. /8odles,i 2))591988; 920# 4hat is im ortant to re"ogni1e in these "laims from ast Vertigo e&egetes is the e&a"t du li"ation of the denouement in Notorious# He%lin and S"ottie' due to their o!sessi%e fas"ination with a fantasy *li"ia9Judy98adeleine94oman' at the e& ense of the real woman in front of them' ,ill the fantasy and the reality and are left with nothing !ut their own su!>e"ti%e em tiness# 7hus' !y Vertigo' +it"h"o", has su""essfully ,illed off 4omanA all that is left is 8an and his /self0destru"ti%e hantasms# 3e"alling 8odles,i5s earlier warning a!out refusing the notion of e:uality in the suffering of +it"h"o",5s male and female "hara"ters' it would a ear' !ased on the sy"hologi"al and hysi"al %iolen"e done to the women in his films' that +it"h"o", did' indeed' fa%or male su!>e"ti%ity !y at least - rote"ting. it from death# 7he "ounter to this erroneous "on"lusion' howe%er' is "ontained in the aforementioned o!ser%ations made !y ?i@e, and' ironi"ally' 8odles,i herself; If' from Notorious to Vertigo' +it"h"o",5s matri& has adhered to the =a"anian di"tum -4oman does not e&ist'. i#e#' 4oman as a signifier for a uni%ersal entity is de%oid of her ontologi"al solidity' then' mutatis mutandis' it also adheres to the re%erse that -8an does not e&ist#. 3e"alling ?i@e,5s and 6in,5s lamentations %is-L-%is sim listi" and erroneous "on"e tuali1ations of =a"anian do"trine' =a"an5s ro"lamation -4oman does not e&ist. is a

11

fa%orite among detra"tors who see it as indi"ati%e of =a"an5s ignorant hallo"entrism# *s ?i@e, has shrewdly shown' what is missing from these insensiti%e readings of the dixit is how 8an5s none&isten"e is ine&tri"a!ly !ound u with the none&isten"e of 4oman# 7he -ultimate male fantasy. %is-L-%is 4oman' as saga"iously illuminated !y ?i@e,' is that' !eyond that whi"h is su!mitted to the halli" order' there e&ists an -ineffa!le' mysterious K!eyond5'. some unfathoma!le feminine essen"e /?i@e, 2))5; 2B0# So' when =a"an uses the term -4oman'. it is in referen"e to the atriar"hal "on"e tuali1ation of this ineffa!le feminine essen"e' and it is precisely this whi"h does not e&ist# *nd in Vertigo' this is the horrifying reali1ation towards whi"h S"ottie was always a roa"hing# Judy5s first death' as 8adeleine' was the emergen"e of S"ottie5s sym tom' !ut in true =a"anian fashion' the sym tom is that whi"h -will "ontinue not to !e understood until the analysis has got :uite a long way. /=a"an 19889195B; 1590# S"ottie does not understand that 8adeleine' i#e# his fantasy "on"e tuali1ation of 4oman' was destined to die as a "onfirmation of her none&isten"e' and to re ress this fa"t' he sets out' in the se"ond half of the film' to re"reate this s e"tral entity# But re ression is no solution' and for as hard as he tries' S"ottie ine%ita!ly e& erien"es a -return of the re ressed'. of the ast trauma that -only ta,es on its %alue in the future. /=a"an 19889195B; 1590# 7his return of the re ressed is what "onfers u on the ending its la"ement -among the most distur!ing and ainful e& erien"es the "inema has to offer.A !y !e"oming -too aware that the fantasy is fantasy' and too aware of it as im osition on the woman. /4ood 1989; <870' S"ottie e& erien"es -su!>e"ti%e destitution'. that whi"h' at this low oint in the e& erien"e of su!>e"ti%ity5s radi"al negati%ity' a moment that re"edes the annihilation of the su!>e"t# *t this oint on the ath of su!>e"ti%ity' S"ottie' as the anthro omor hi1ed su!>e"t' stands /literally0 !efore a re"i i"e# 7he i"oni" final image of Vertigo where S"ottie stands loo,ing down into the a!yss of su!>e"ti%ity in whi"h 4oman has >ust rea"hed her demise im lies the imminent death' too' of S"ottie as 8an# 7he notion -4oman is a sym tom of 8an. means' as re%iously asserted' that the death of 4oman yields the death of 8an' and fa"ed with this es"hatologi"al "on"e tuali1ation of su!>e"ti%ity' $tto 4eininger ro osed -"olle"ti%e sui"ide. as the only remaining o tion for those see,ing sal%ation#7 In its literality' this ro osition is anathemaA meta hysi"ally' howe%er' it is tautologi"al# 7he end of Vertigo stages the -"oming into o eration. of the Sym!oli" -in its most radi"al. form' a moment whi"h' a""ording to =a"an; (nds u a!olishing the a"tion of the indi%idual so "om letely that !y the same to,en it eliminates his tragi" relation to the world CDE 7he su!>e"t finds himself to !e no more than a awn' for"ed inside this system' and e&"luded from any truly dramati"' and "onse:uently tragi"' arti"i ation in the reali1ation of truth /=a"an 198891955; <250# ears to !e the

12

If 8an only e&ists !ua 4oman' i#e#' if the su!>e"t only e&ists !ua its sym tom' then the only way to arti"i ate in the -reali1ation of truth. is to "on"ei%e of the sym tom as -sinthome#. 3eturning to the re%iously ostulated +egelian9=a"anian shift' what +it"h"o",5s "hara"ters ha%e gradually reali1ed through their narrati%e ordeals is that the annihilation of the sym tom is not an annihilation of their ro!lem !ut an annihilation of themselves' of their %ery !eing# He%lin and S"ottie' as re resentati%es of the atriar"hal order' of the halli" regime' must re"ogni1e the -radi"al ontologi"al status. of the sym tom as sinthome; 7he sym tom is literally -the only oint that gi%es "onsisten"y to the su!>e"t'. it is the "hoosing something' the sym tom' o%er nothing' i#e#' o%er -radi"al sy"hoti" autism' the destru"tion of the sym!oli" uni%erse. /?i@e, 2))891989; 810# 7his reali1ation of the +it"h"o", rotagonist does not' howe%er' o en the door for - ositi%ity. or - ositi%e negati%ity. inter retations of his later wor,A more re"isely' a late film li,e Marnie re%eals -a!stra"t negati%ity'. re%eals identifi"ation with the sym tom' -gi%ing u the false distan"e. and -tarrying with the negati%e#. Spellbound' as an Imaginary film par excellence' resol%es itself %ia the self-de"e tion of the fantasy of the fulfilled se&ual relationshi ' of the -mo%ing out. and away from the sym tomA Notorious and Vertigo' meanwhile' shift the em hasis from the Imaginary to the Sym!oli"' staging the denial of the ossi!ility of fantasy "onferring u on them ontologi"al sta!ility and finding the rotagonists a""e ting sym!oli" "astration' of the la", "onstituti%e of desire# 4here Notorious and Vertigo see their rotagonists err is in their !elief that' in the film noir tradition of the hard-!oiled dete"ti%e5s "on:uering of the "himeri"al femme fatale' !y !rea,ing down the 4oman' re%ealing -an entity without su!stan"e. /?i@e, 1991; 250' they would "ure themsel%es# 4hat they "ome to reali1e' em!odied in the final "ri lingly ener%ated image of S"ottie in Vertigo' is that the sym tom' while un:uestiona!ly something that -"auses a great deal of trou!le'. should ne%ertheless !e em!ra"ed' for -its a!sen"e would mean e%en greater trou!le; total "atastro he. /?i@e, 2))891989; 850# 7his -total "atastro he. is what awaits He%lin on the other side of the end "redits of Notorious# 7his is what S"ottie had the "han"e' u on meeting Judy' to a%oid' !ut what he "ould not hel !ut reena"t through his own ignoran"e# *nd this is what 8ar, 3utland /Sean Connery0 in Marnie su""eeds in a%oiding# +e is gi%en the same se"ond "han"e as S"ottie' !ut he refuses to allow history to re eat itself and instead identifies with his sym tom#8 Mnli,e Vertigo' the "om lete la", of "anoni"ity e%ident in the la"e Marnie o""u ies in the +it"h"o", "anon e& lains the large-s"ale a"ademi" failure to situate it as the su!lime a"hie%ement of +it"h"o",5s "inemati" hiloso hi1ing# (%en ?i@e, fails to see in Marnie

13

+it"h"o",5s a otheosis' instead mar,ing it as the first indi"ation of +it"h"o",5s artisti" -disintegration. /?i@e, 1992; 50 following the -"losure. of his filmi" -system. with "he #irds /192<0#9 $nly 4ood' due to his re"ognition of the redominan"e in +it"h"o", of the failed se&ual relationshi ' has !een a!le to see in Marnie a "ulmination# 7hrough the !ewildering relationshi !etween 8ar, and the titular 8arnie /7i i +edren0' +it"h"o",5s am!ition at last sees him ostulate a uni%ersality of su!>e"ti%ity' a ostulation that !rings him fa"e-to-fa"e with the 6reudian9+egelian -$ngeschehenmachen'.1) the su!limity of negati%ity# Countering !oth the - ositi%ity. and the - ositi%e negati%ity. inter retations of +it"h"o", films from ast s"holars and em!ra"ing -a!stra"t negati%ity'. Marnie ne"essitates an inter retation that re"ogni1es within the film the +egelian9=a"anian ro"ess of ta,ing the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi from the e istemologi"al le%el and "on"reti1ing it on the ontologi"al le%el# 7he end of Notorious ser%es as a disavo%al of the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' while Vertigo ser%es as ac!uiescence to it' !oth "ases remaining on the le%el of e istemologi"al o!sta"leA +it"h"o", a"hie%es his +egelian9=a"anian shift in Marnie !y show"asing the transcendence of the e istemologi"al o!sta"le as it !e"omes ontologi"ally "onstituti%e# *s ers i"a"iously a rehended !y 4ood' 8ar, -re resents a new stage in the de%elo ment of +it"h"o",5s heroes. !ased on the way he -sees "learly and a""e ts the fa"t of the ine&tri"a!ility of good and e%il'. the fa"t that -e%ery moral a"tion "arries within it its ine&tri"a!ly interwo%en thread of immorality. /4ood 1989; 1820# 4here 4ood goes astray in his inter retation' though' is in his o%er1ealous em!ra"ement of 8ar, as remar,a!ly -free of inner "om ulsions and of his own ast life. /4ood 1989; 1820# 6or 4ood' the relationshi !etween 8ar, and 8arnie mirrors erfe"tly the relationshi !etween the analyst and the analysand# 8ar, is an a%atar of the -su!>e"t resumed to ,now.A the analyst is resumed to ,now in ad%an"e the signifi"an"e' the meaning' of the analysand5s sy"hologi"al dis"ordan"e' a ,nowledge that is a ne"essary illusion sin"e -only through this su osition of ,nowledge "an real ,nowledge !e rodu"ed. /?i@e, 2))891989; 21)0# It is the illusory nature of 8ar,5s totemi" osition as the su!>e"t resumed to ,now that is missed !y 4ood !ut intuited !y 8urray Gomeran"e' who re"ogni1es' in 8ar,5s arrogant a""e tan"e of his totemi" status' -a man in mas:uerade. /Gomeran"e 2))B; 1B20# Judging the relationshi from 4ood5s ers e"ti%e' 8ar, has su""eeded in his "onstitution of an identity# *ll he has to do to a"hie%e a su""essful relationshi is -fi&. his trou!lesome female "ounter art# 6rom Gomeran"e5s more nuan"ed Jungian ers e"ti%e' howe%er' 8ar,' too' has failed in his !id for an identity' and through his attem ts to fi& 8arnie he will find that he' too' is in need of sy"hologi"al o%erhaul#11

14

Nowhere is 8ar,5s insuffi"ien"y more "learly dis"erni!le than in the film5s "ontro%ersial ra e s"ene# *fter getting married' 8ar, and 8arnie em!ar, on a honeymoon that "annot see its traditional "onsummation due to the fa"t that 8arnie is sy"hologi"ally in"a a!le of engaging in se&# *t first' 8ar, "a%alierly a""e ts this as >ust one of the many hurdles he will ha%e to o%er"ome in winning 8arnie5s heart' !ut after a while' he !e"omes agitated and se&ually frustrated' and following a night of hard drin,ing' he enters 8arnie5s !edroom and' o%er her rotests' for"es her to ha%e se& with him# Gomeran"e oints out how' in a so"iety where the droit du seigneur was still largely un:uestioned'. 8ar,5s ra e was' for +it"h"o",' an indi"ation of male des eration' he was showing -a male s e"ta"ularly failing. /Gomeran"e 2))B; 15<0# *nd this failure is of the utmost im ortan"e %is-L-%is 8ar,5s failure in "onstituting an identity# 3eturning to the =a"anian notion of se&ed identities' 8ar, o!%iously !elie%es himself to !e a male' to !e "onstituted !y a mas"uline identity# +is hy er!oli" mas"ulinity' howe%er' rather than a ositi%e as e"t of his ersonality' is his greatest hindran"e# +is -sym!oli" death'. whi"h follows his ra ing of 8arnie' is therefore his death as a se&ed !eing' as a stereoty i"ally mas"uline su!>e"t# In short' his sym!oli" death is the death of 8an# 6or Gomeran"e' 8ar, -must learn to !e in life without the agen"y of mas"ulinity. /Gomeran"e 2))B; 1B20' he must trans"end -his need to !e male in all things !efore !eing human. /Gomeran"e 2))B; 1B70' and the only way he "an do this is !y re"ogni1ing the im oten"e of the halli" order' indeed' of the hallus itself# Contrary to some of the more sim listi" a raisals' in =a"anian do"trine' the hallus is not the male se&ual organ# *s =a"an himself e& li"itly states' the relationshi !etween a su!>e"t and the hallus -forms without regard to the anatomi"al distin"tion !etween the se&es. /=a"an 2))2; 5720# 7he hallus is' at its most er%ersely arado&i"al' -an inde& of its own im ossi!ility. /?i@e, 2))891989; 1750A for 8ar,' howe%er' the ositi%ity of the halli" signifier has not yet registered its "onstituti%e la",' he has not yet re"ogni1ed it as a signifier of "astration# It is %ia his a!ysmally failed se&ual "on:uest that 8ar, e& erien"es the -for"ed "hoi"e. that defines "astration; -If he "annot' he "annotA !ut e%en if he "an' any attesting to his ower is doomed to fun"tion as a denial'. as a -mas,ing of his fundamental im oten"e'. whi"h ->ust "onfirms' in a negati%e way' that he "annot do anything'. and -the more he shows his ower' the more his im oten"e is "onfirmed. /?i@e, 2))891989; 1720# 8ar, !elie%es' !ased on his familial im ortan"e' his dignified so"ial status' and a myriad of other hollow "orro!orations' that the ositi%ity of the hallus "onstitutes his identity' and !y e& erien"ing the horrifying im oten"e that "omes with his ra ing of 8arnie and his "ausing her to attem t sui"ide' 8ar, ,ills the halli"

15

signifier and e& erien"es what Joe 8"(lhaney astutely identifies as an -unwitting form of selfe& osure. /8"(lhaney 2))2; 9)0# If 8ar,5s em yrean tas, is to trans"end his mas"ulinity and dissol%e the oten"y of the hallus' then 8arnie5s tas, is to dissol%e the oten"y of the maternal su erego# Seeing how the dis"ursi%e realm in whi"h they e&ist is that of atriar"hy' it is ne"essarily from a atriar"hal ers e"ti%e that 8arnie5s relationshi with her mother' Berni"e /=ouise =atham0' must !e %iewed# 6rom this %iew oint' -the defi"ient aternal ego-ideal ma,es C atriar"halE law Kregress5 towards a fero"ious maternal su erego. /?i@e, 1991; 990# By -restoring. atriar"hal law' 8ar, would a what a ear to !e reinstituting the halli" order' restoring the oten"y of the hallus# In reality' ears is an e&am le of the -+egelian Mni%ersal'. that whi"h -"an reali1e itself only in

im ure' deformed' "orru ted forms. /?i@e, 2))891989; 1220# By way of an e&am le' ?i@e, tal,s of demo"ra"y and how it -ma,es ossi!le all sorts of mani ulation' "orru tion' the rule of demagogy'. et"#' !ut then oints out how' -as soon as we eliminate the ossi!ility of su"h deformations'. demo"ra"y itself is lost /?i@e, 2))891989; 1220# -3eal. demo"ra"y is therefore a fantasy formation that "arries with it an o!s"ene dou!le' and too far a retreat into fantasy lea%es o en the ossi!ility for this 3eal o!s"enity to emerge# 7he notion of atriar"hy is a similar Mni%ersal# Gatriar"hy' li,e demo"ra"y' is a -ne"essary fi"tion.A as a metonym for the so"ial order' for -reality'. atriar"hy itself is a metonym for 8an' and for 8arnie94oman' >ust as for 8ar,9S"ottie9He%lin98an' she "annot e&ist without her sym tom# She s ent her entire adult life fighting against men' against the atriar"hal order' in fa%or of the -fero"ious maternal su erego.A the ending see,s then to a"hie%e transferen"e' to renoun"e the maternal su erego and its hantasmati" /self0destru"ti%eness and to em!ra"e atriar"hy in its -a!stra"t negati%ity#. 4ood adoringly re"alls the ending of the film in the following assage; *t the end of the film' after her re"alling of the ast' 8arnie ,neels again in the same osition Cas in the !eginningE !eside her mother5s "hair# Close-u of 8rs# (dgar5s hand rea"hing out to tou"h her daughter5s hair# 7hen' instead' she mo%es restlessly; -8arnie' you5re a"hin5 my leg#. 8arnie gets u ' resigned# 8ar, 3utland ta,es her' and stro,es and tidies and smoothes her hair with his hands' saying' -7here' that5s !etter'. and 8arnie a""e ts the a"tion# 7he momentFso uno!trusi%e and unfor"edFis erha s /more e%en than the flash!a",0 the "lima& of the film; it e& resses' with that sim li"ity whi"h is the rerogati%e of genius at the height of its owers' the transferen"e toward whi"h the whole film has !een rogressing /4ood 1989; 18<0# 7his transferen"e is the restoration of the atriar"hal order' !ut in an -im ure. and -deformed. arti"ulation# *s noted !y =a"an' -any shelter in whi"h may !e esta!lished a %ia!le' tem erate

16

relation of one se& to the other ne"essitates the inter%ention. of -that medium ,nown as the aternal meta hor. /=a"an 19799192B; 2720# 7his -tem erate relation. is what ?i@e,' in his most ins ired and arti"ulate reading of =a"an5s -there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi '. mar,s as the shift from -there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi . to -there is a nonrelationshi #.12 7his shift synthesi1es ?i@e,5s thought on all three of its rimary le%els; Kantian /-negati%e >udgment. to -infinite >udgment.0' =a"anian /-there is no su"h thing as a se&ual relationshi . to -there is a non-relationshi .0' and' of "ourse' +egelian /-determinate refle"tion. to -refle&i%e determination.0# 7his shift is -the ,ey diale"ti"al shift. /?i@e, 2)12; 7980' the shift that ma,es %isi!le the shared su!limity of +egel' =a"an' and +it"h"o",# 7he "ore of =a"anian sy"hoanalysis' at its most +egelian' interse"ts with the "ore of +it"h"o",5s "inema at the end of Marnie' where a tem erate and deformed relationshi !etween 8ar, and 8arnie seems tena!le under the aus i"es of an im ure !ut ne%ertheless reasona!ly fun"tional form of atriar"hy# 4hen 8ar, and 8arnie e&it 8arnie5s mother5s house' they reenter the same world from whi"h they were ostensi!ly trying to es"a e' and nothing has "hanged in the e&ternal' whi"h is the ,ey to unlo",ing the ower of the +egelian9=a"anian diale"ti"al shift# 7he "on"lusion of Marnie' whi"h ser%es e:ually as the "on"lusion of the +it"h"o",ian ro>e"t of hiloso hi1ing on the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' is therefore in dire"t "ontrast to Spellbound' Notorious' and Vertigo# Spellbound "onforms to =a"an5s original' sim listi" "on"e tuali1ation of the -final moment of analysis. wherein the su!>e"t is a!le to narrate his9her own history -in its "ontinuity'. where Hr# (dwardes is a!le to a""e t his true identity and %er!ali1e his ast trauma as a means of sy"hologi"al e&or"ismA Notorious and Vertigo' in their radi"al negati%ity' rogress to the later stage of =a"anian do"trine wherein the su!>e"t a""e ts sym!oli" "astration' resigned to the la", "onstituti%e of desire that "annot !e e&or"i1ed and from the o%erwhelming ower of whi"h one "an only wilt under# Marnie su!sumes and then trans"ends these rior "on"lusions# 8ar,' for his art' is ostensi!ly la"ed in the same ositions as He%lin and S"ottie where he must a""e t his sym!oli" "astration' whereas 8arnie' for her art' ostensi!ly finds her -"ure. in su""essfully narrating and thus e&or"i1ing her ast trauma# But +it"h"o", does not sto there# By in"luding the moment where 8arnie5s mother again ushes her away and sends her into 8ar,5s arms' +it"h"o", for"es the reali1ation that the only thing "a a!le of -"uring. the su!>e"t is neither the fantasy of a return to a retraumati" !liss nor resignation to the la", "onstituti%e of desireA rather than trying to a!olish' to e&or"i1e the negati%ity inherent in su!>e"ti%ity' one must' in +egelese' find the su reme ower of the S irit;

17

7he life of S irit is not the life that shrin,s from death and ,ee s itself untou"hed !y de%astation' !ut rather the life that endures it and maintains itself in it# It wins its truth only when' in utter dismem!erment' it finds itself# 7his tarrying with the negati%e is the magi"al ower that "on%erts it into !eing /+egel :uoted in ?i@e, 199<; i&0# 6or =a"an' the su!>e"t is -"ured. u on reali1ing that the ath of su!>e"ti%ity is not from a :uestion to its answer' !ut instead' is >ust -an enormous :uestion mar,. /=a"an 19929192); <250 re"alling the 8O!ius stri .1< 7his notion su orts the am!iguity with whi"h +it"h"o", ends MarnieA 4ood oints out the la", of -a ositi%e for"e that "an destroy the sense of re"ariousness and fragility. inherent to the -im erfe"t and !ewildering world. /4ood 1989; 1970 de i"ted' a la", that +it"h"o", has ta,en from the e istemologi"al le%el and "on"reti1ed on the ontologi"al le%el' re"alling =a"an5s identi"al +egelian a"hie%ement# 7here is no -solution. osited !y +it"h"o", to the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' the fundamental antinomy of su!>e"ti%ity' >ust as there was no solution osited !y =a"an# ?i@e, "alls =a"an5s &ncore seminar his -ultimate a"hie%ement and deadlo",. /?i@e, 2)12; 180' a fittingly arado&i"al "om liment that ser%es e:ually as "ountenan"e for Marnie' +it"h"o",5s most insightful and !ewildering masterwor,# *s ers i"a"iously o!ser%ed !y Juliet 8it"hell /199)9197B0' sy"hoanalysis does not e&ist to -sol%e. su!>e"ti%ityA rather' sy"hoanalysis is tas,ed with analy1ing the intersu!>e"ti%e networ, in whi"h the su!>e"t s ends his9her lifetime -tarrying with the negati%e#. 6rom this ers e"ti%e' then' *lfred +it"h"o", stands as one of the most dedi"ated' "hallenging' and am!itious sy"hoanalysts of the "inema' using the "lassi"al romanti" aradigm as the means !y whi"h to steer his hiloso hi"al filmi" dis"ourse towards the reali1ation of -su!lime stu idity'. whi"h =a"an defined as -the highest oint of what lies !elow. /=a"an 19999197<; 1<0' and it is on this su!lime and suita!ly arado&i"al meridian that !oth men will s end eternity tarrying with the negati%e in their amaranthine "ulti%ation of S irit#

18

Notes
7he !est "andidate for starting this trend in film studies is =aura 8ul%ey with her /in0famous essay -Pisual Gleasure and Narrati%e Cinema. /2))9919750#
2

?i@e, has long hung his "on"e tuali1ation of the +egelian diale"ti" of the -e istemologi"al

o!sta"le. %ersus the - ositi%e ontologi"al "ondition. on the =a"anian hoo, of the im ossi!ility of the se&ual relationshi ' !ut as his more re"ent wor, suggests' he has !egun to "on"e tuali1e this diale"ti" as not >ust the way to understand the /im ossi!le0 se&ual relationshi !ut the way to understand su!>e"ti%ity as su"h# 6or this re"ent de%elo ment in ?i@e,5s thought /or' at the %ery least' his most e& li"it em!ra"ement of it0' see 'ess "han Nothing( Hegel and the Shado% of ialectical Materialism /2)120#
3

7odd 8"Iowan e& lores the notion of -distortion. in "lassi"al +ollywood "inema in "he Real It is re%ealed later in the film that (dwardes is a"tually a sy"hologi"ally distur!ed war %eteran

Ga)e( *ilm "heory after 'acan /2))70#

4

who witnessed the real (dwardes5 murder and fell %i"tim to amnesia as a sy"hologi"al defense against his traumati" "hildhood memory of a""identally ,illing his !rother#
5

6or ?i@e,5s ela!oration on these shifts' see "he Sublime +bject of ,deology /2))891989; 1B5=a"an ela!orates on this arado& of lo%e in -7he Signifi"ation of the Ghallus'. whi"h "an !e found ?i@e, offers a sustained reading of 4eininger in "arrying %ith the Negative( .ant/ Hegel/ and the *nd 8arnie' too' for her art as the -other half. of the Su!>e"t /s ea,ing to +it"h"o",5s re%iously

1B70#
6

in Bru"e 6in,5s translation of =a"an5s -crits /2))20#

7

0riti!ue of ,deology /199<; 187-1890#

8

asserted :uest for a uni%ersality of su!>e"ti%ity0 is fa"ed with an identi"al dilemma and is e:ually su""essful in her !id at -tarrying with the negati%e#.
9

6or ?i@e,5s ela!oration on "he #irds and its la"e in the -+it"h"o",ian system'. see 'ooking

1%ry /19910# It would !e im ossi!le to do >usti"e to the !readth and "om le&ity of ?i@e,5s %arious insights into +it"h"o",5s "inema here' !ut suffi"e it to say that his !asi" remise /i#e#' that to whi"h his u11ling indifferen"e towards Marnie "an !e attri!uted0 %is-L-%is the +it"h"o",ian system is the indomita!le -reign of maternal law'. whi"h he alleges -defines the ,ernel of the +it"h"o",ian fantasy. /?i@e, 1991; 1)20# Marnie therefore ser%es not only as the :uintessential +it"h"o", film a ro os +it"h"o",5s distin"t =a"anian +egelianismA "onsidering its ultimate ro>e"t of' in =a"anese' -remo%ing the %eil. that ro%ides the fun"tionality of the maternal law and thus remo%ing the %eil that ro%ides the entire +it"h"o",ian system with the teleologi"al foundation /mis0 er"ei%ed !y ?i@e, /whi"h' signifi"antly' is in dire"t "ontrast to his longstanding ro>e"t of asserting the ne"essity of em!ra"ing the -negation of negation. in the %i"tory of ontology o%er e istemology0' it is also' in a fashion so erfe"tly arado&i"al that e%en ?i@e, would no dou!t a re"iate the humor in it' at on"e

the :uintessential -anti-?i@e,. +it"h"o", film as %ell as the most 2i3ekian Hitchcock film of all4
10 11

6or ?i@e,5s ela!oration on this "on"e t' see ,nterrogating the Real /2))5; <<-<B0# In 'ess "han Nothing' ?i@e, ma,es referen"e to Jung5s astute o!ser%ation %is-L-%is the ?i@e, e& lores at length the insights stemming from =a"an5s &ncore seminar in 'ess "han 6or =a"an5s ela!oration on this "on"e t' see "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan #ook ,6(

sym tom; -4e do not "ure itFit "ures us. /Jung :td# in ?i@e, 2)12; <)10#
12

Nothing /2)12; 7<9-8)20#

13

,dentification/ 7897:789;#

References
*!el' 3i"hard /2))9919820 -Notorious; Ger%ersion ar (&"ellen"e'. in 8arshall Heutel!aum and =eland Goague /eds#0 1 Hitchcock Reader' Se"ond (dition# 8alden; Bla",well# *llen' 3i"hard /19990 -+it"h"o",' or the Gleasures of 8etas,e ti"ism'. in 3i"hard *llen and S# Ishii-Ion1alQs /eds#0 1lfred Hitchcock( 0entenary &ssays# =ondon; B6I# 6in,' Bru"e /19950 "he 'acanian Subject( #et%een 'anguage and 5ouissance' New Jersey; Grin"eton Mni%ersity Gress# =a"an' Ja":ues /19889195B0 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan/ #ook ,( *reud<s =apers on "echni!ue' Cam!ridge; Cam!ridge Mni%ersity Gress# =a"an' Ja":ues /1988919550 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan ,,( "he &go in *reud<s "heory and in the "echni!ue of =sychoanalysis/ 78>?:78>>' trans# !y Syl%ana 7omaselli' New Ror,; 4#4# Norton# =a"an' Ja":ues /19929192)0 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan #ook V,,( "he &thics of =sychoanalysis/ 78>8:789@' trans# !y Hennis Gorter' New Ror,; 4#4# Norton# =a"an' Ja":ues /19220 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan #ook ,6( ,dentification/ 7897:789; /un u!lished0' trans# !y Corma" Iallagher# *%aila!le at htt ;99www#%alas#fr9I8I9 df97+(S(8IN*3-$6-J*CSM(S-=*C*N-ITUidentifi"ation# df# =a"an' Ja":ues /19799192B0 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan 6,( "he *our *undamental 0oncepts of =sychoanalysis/ 789?' trans# !y *lan Sheridan' +armondsworth; Genguin Boo,s# =a"an' Ja":ues /19999197<0 "he Seminar of 5ac!ues 'acan/ #ook 66( &ncore( +n *eminine Sexuality/ "he 'imits of 'ove/ and .no%ledge/ 78A;:78AB' trans# !y Bru"e 6in,' New Ror,; Norton# =a"an' Ja":ues /2))20 -crits/ trans# !y Bru"e 6in,' New Ror,; Norton# 8"(lhaney' Joe /2))20 "he eath of 0lassical 0inema( Hitchcock/ 'ang/ Minnelli' *l!any; State Mni%ersity of New Ror,#

8"Iowan' 7odd /2))70 "he Real Ga)e( *ilm "heory after 'acan' *l!any; State Mni%ersity of New Ror,# 8it"hell' Juliet /199)9197B0 =sychoanalysis and *eminism' Se"ond (dition# =ondon; Genguin# 8odles,i' 7ania /2))5919880 "he Comen Cho .ne% "oo Much( Hitchcock and *eminist "heory' Se"ond (dition# New Ror, and $&ford; 3outledge# 8ul%ey' =aura /2))9919750 -Pisual Gleasure and Narrati%e Cinema'V in 8arshall Cohen and =eo Braudy /eds#0 *ilm "heory D 0riticism' New Ror,; $&ford Mni%ersity Gress# Gomeran"e' 8urray /2))B0 1n &ye for Hitchcock' New Jersey; 3utgers Mni%ersity Gress# 7ruffaut' 6ran"ois /19270 Hitchcock' New Ror,; Simon and S"huster# 4ood' 3o!in /19250 HitchcockEs *ilms' New Ror,; *#S# Barnes# 4ood' 3o!in /19890 HitchcockEs *ilms Revisited' New Ror,; Colum!ia Mni%ersity Gress# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /2))8919890 "he Sublime +bject of ,deology' Se"ond (dition# =ondon; Perso# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /19910 'ooking 1%ry( 1n ,ntroduction to 5ac!ues 'acan through =opular 0ulture' Cam!ridge; 8I7 Gress# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /19920 &verything Fou 1l%ays Canted to .no% 1bout 'acan G#ut Cere 1fraid to 1sk Hitchcock0' =ondon; Perso# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /199<0 "arrying %ith the Negative( .ant/ Hegel/ and the 0riti!ue of ,deology' Hurham; Hu,e Mni%ersity Gress# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /2))50 ,nterrogating the Real# (d# 3e& Butler and S"ott Ste hens# =ondon; Continuum# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /2))20 "he =arallax Vie%' Cam!ridge; 8I7 Gress# ?i@e,' Sla%o> /2)120 'ess "han Nothing( Hegel and the Shado% of =ondon; Perso# ialectical Materialism'