User:Emily/proposal 0.02: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div style="width:75%;"> | <div style="width:75%;"> | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
==== | ====Introduction==== | ||
The | :A: You have something that moves you along without people knowing it. It is something crucial to you, right? If it was absent, would ruin your life. What is that called again? | ||
:B: That’s a MacGuffin | |||
Following my interest in MacGuffin, precisely the MacGuffin effect. According to Zizek, "the MacGuffin is the purest case of what Lacan calls objet petit a: a pure void which functions as the object - cause of desire. That would be, then, the precise definition of the real object: a cause which in itself does not exist - which is present only in a series of effects, but always in a distorted, displaced way. If the Real is the impossible, it is precisely this impossibility which is to be grasped through its effects." On one hand the effect of MacGuffin in fiction films maybe easier to analysis, on the contrary it may be harder to perceive in the presentation of our daily goods, like in advertising. To exam its function through cases studies of certain films and advertising works, my work here is trying to reveal the less visible mechanism of control through MacGuffin Objects. | |||
====Possible Outcome==== | |||
the real objects and its presentation are viewed at the same time. | |||
====Context & research trends==== | |||
*The MacGuffin effects | |||
*Objet petit a is any object which sets desire in motion | |||
:Lacan's objet petit a (object small a) refers to a certain excess that is in the object more than the object the object-cause of desire. We might say that it is not so much the object of desire as the desirous element that can reside in any object: the drive towards some elusive point of consummation that may be quite incidental to the object itself (e.g. a shirt that was once worn by Elvis). It is that which "authenticates" the object and/or the experience of having it (e.g. the idea of virginity in Buñuel's That Obscure Object of Desire). If we take Tarrantino's Pulp Fiction then we see that the narrative ultimately revolves around a lost/stolen object inside a case that must be retrieved by Vincent and Jules. This object cannot be seen and is only alluded to in the reflective glow of the protagonists' faces, This is the objet petit a: something whose authenticity cannot be represented or substantialized and which is but a reflection of the drive to complete the (broken) circuit of enjoyment and to be reconciled with (impossible) desire itself. | |||
*The Sublime Object of Ideology -- Slavoj Žižek | *The Sublime Object of Ideology -- Slavoj Žižek | ||
*Hitchcock interview Martin Scorsese about MacGuffin | *Hitchcock interview Martin Scorsese about MacGuffin | ||
*examples in reality(W.M.D) and in films(''North by Northwest'') | *examples in reality(W.M.D) and in films(''North by Northwest'') | ||
==== | ====Relation to Previous Works==== | ||
In the last academic year, I have been working on manipulation of audiovisual content (mainly cinematic materials), examining how could it alter the way of seeing. My work started in a quite simple manner, in which films are utilised as input to produce books (link), videos(link), browser- based works(link), and interactive installations(link). Through these works, different accessibilities are provided and meanwhile doubts are bought forward on the ability of recognition - namely the ability to recognise time and space, fiction and fact. ! | |||
Starting from my interest in video editing, the practice and research brought me back to think about montage, but in a much broader and freer manner. I started to research the “cut-up” techniques through different times, from literature to cinema works and data manipulations. All these works are more or less leave a space for the “performativity” inherited from their original materials. ! Departing from the exploration of performativity, I considered about the control on the works like for example from Gysin which I thought at first were freedom. Interestingly, the control mechanism is to hardwire conceptual frame with technologies which later on may translate to be (standard) code. The materials to feed perception become layered and less visible. It brings the question on what this control would affect on cognition, from both human level and machine level (or the architecture of technology). | |||
====References==== | |||
Hitchcock's 1962 interview with Francois Truffaut | Hitchcock's 1962 interview with Francois Truffaut | ||
:The main thing I’ve learned over the years is that the MacGuffin is nothing. I’m convinced of this, but I find it very difficult to prove it to others. My best MacGuffin, and by that I mean the emptiest, the most nonexistent, and the most absurd, is the one we used in North by Northwest. The picture is about espionage, and the only question that’s raised in the story is to find out what the spies are after. Well, during the scene at the Chicago airport, the Central Intelligence man explains the whole situation to Cary Grant, and Grant, referring to the James Mason character, asks, “What does he do?” The counterintelligence man replies, “Let’s just say that he’s an importer and exporter.” “But what does he sell?” “Oh, just government secrets!” is the answer. Here, you see, the MacGuffin has been boiled down to its purest expression: nothing at all! | :The main thing I’ve learned over the years is that the MacGuffin is nothing. I’m convinced of this, but I find it very difficult to prove it to others. My best MacGuffin, and by that I mean the emptiest, the most nonexistent, and the most absurd, is the one we used in North by Northwest. The picture is about espionage, and the only question that’s raised in the story is to find out what the spies are after. Well, during the scene at the Chicago airport, the Central Intelligence man explains the whole situation to Cary Grant, and Grant, referring to the James Mason character, asks, “What does he do?” The counterintelligence man replies, “Let’s just say that he’s an importer and exporter.” “But what does he sell?” “Oh, just government secrets!” is the answer. Here, you see, the MacGuffin has been boiled down to its purest expression: nothing at all! | ||
Hitchcock's June 8, 1972 | Hitchcock's June 8, 1972 appearance on the Dick Cavett Show | ||
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/alfred_hitchcock_with_dick_cavett.html | http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/alfred_hitchcock_with_dick_cavett.html | ||
:"It is the thing that spies are always after"+"the thing that the characters on the screen worry about but the audiences don't care" ?? +"a scene in a English train - what's the pakage above your head there" | :"It is the thing that spies are always after"+"the thing that the characters on the screen worry about but the audiences don't care" ?? +"a scene in a English train - what's the pakage above your head there" | ||
:MacGuffin is that it contains the word "guff", which means a load of nonsense. | :MacGuffin is that it contains the word "guff", which means a load of nonsense. | ||
:"but watch out for the MacGuffin. It will lead you nowhere"-- Donald Spoto. | :"but watch out for the MacGuffin. It will lead you nowhere"-- Donald Spoto. | ||
Johan Grimonprez on ''Hitchcock and Television'' | Johan Grimonprez on ''Hitchcock and Television'' | ||
http://desistfilm.com/q-a-johan-grimomprez/ | http://desistfilm.com/q-a-johan-grimomprez/ | ||
:9/11 as live version of ''The Birds''(1963)-- For Žižek, 9/11 represents the ultimate Hitchcockian threat, which suddenly shows up from nowhere. He refers to the sequence where Melanie (Tippi Hedren) comes closer to the Bodega Bay in a small boat and a seagull, at first perceived as an | :9/11 as live version of ''The Birds''(1963)-- For Žižek, 9/11 represents the ultimate Hitchcockian threat, which suddenly shows up from nowhere. He refers to the sequence where Melanie (Tippi Hedren) comes closer to the Bodega Bay in a small boat and a seagull, at first perceived as an imperceptible black spot, suddenly dives on her and hurts her to the forehead ; an image which stunningly looks like the one of the plane crashing into the second tower of the World Trade Center. | ||
:Dial H_I_S_T_O_R_Y(1997)-- Our way to access the world through its double, its representation, have changed out connection to reality. | :Dial H_I_S_T_O_R_Y(1997)-- Our way to access the world through its double, its representation, have changed out connection to reality. | ||
:Looking for Alfred (2005) | :Looking for Alfred (2005) | ||
:Double Take(2007-2009) | :Double Take(2007-2009) | ||
:For Hitchcock, what feeds into the wheel of suspense is the MacGuffin that sets the plot in motion. It's an element gives impetus to the process of narration, or that attracts the viewer's attention, but is not important by itself. | :For Hitchcock, what feeds into the wheel of suspense is the MacGuffin that sets the plot in motion. It's an element gives impetus to the process of narration, or that attracts the viewer's attention, but is not important by itself. | ||
:"We | :"We always have to do things twice"+"the misunderstanding becomes the culture, the poetry of misunderstandings begins. And the words and the things start to separate"+"Being constantly faced with the other side of things increases the feeling of irony." | ||
:Hitchcock & Magritte -- bowler hat + pipe | :Hitchcock & Magritte -- bowler hat + pipe | ||
:works takes position where we define reality by placing it precisely between fact and fiction. But it's reality itself that plays with its own representation, and this is what Elsaesser calls "the ontological changeing" | :works takes position where we define reality by placing it precisely between fact and fiction. But it's reality itself that plays with its own representation, and this is what Elsaesser calls "the ontological changeing" | ||