he stocky and sweaty and slightly cross eyed and restless . he stand in front of u and call himself a pervert . he claim that we the film viewer perceive the screen a a toilet bowl and and be all secretly wish for all the st to explode from the inside . he unpredictable and scary . well . come on and you could have guess by now represent he one of the lead philosopher of our age . slavoj iek be both a narrator and a subject of sophie fiennes extraordinary new film and a pervert guide to the cinema . fiennes illustrate a feature long lecture by iek and and do so in two way represent by provide exemplary film clip and put iek on real ( or reconstruct ) location from the movie he speak about . it always nice to watch neatly caption scene from great movie ( although revenge of the sith get here as well ) and but the main attraction of a pervert guide be iek himself . what make the movie such fun to watch be the unanswerable question one can not help but ask over and over again represent what be more outrageous and iek view or iek screen presence . in a documentary by astra taylor ( iek . and 05 ) and slovenian philosopher at one point confess his fear of be silent . because and he claim and he feel like he doesn not exist in the first place and the only way to make all other people believe he do be to talk constantly and feverishly . and talk he do and and how . also a pervert guide be dominate by his voice deliver perfect english in most crazy way and and make some astonishing point about the cinema . what be those . well and for example he see chaplin reluctance towards talk picture a a sign of an universal fear of voice itself ( kind of alien force taking over the human be think the ventriloquist segment of dead of night [ 45 ] ) . he say that the perverse nature of cinema be to teach u to desire certain object and not to provide u with them . he identify groucho marx a super ego and chico a ego and harpo a id . he say a million other interesting thing and and all the time we can not take our eye off him and so persuasive ( and captivate ) be his look . at some point i couldn not help but stare at his thick and scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lay store underneath . crave and of course and for more insight . most notable be iek reading of lynch and hitchcock ( which come a no surprise since he have write about both of them ) . the cumulative effect of many brilliantly edit clip from their respective work make those part of iek lecture memorable and unlike others difficult to argue with and since he seem to really have get thing right on these two director . this doesn not go for his reading of tarkovsky for example and upon whom he relentlessly impose his own utterly materialistic view of reality and dismiss precisely what so remarkable in all tarkovsky ( namely strong religious intuition and image ) . the question isn not whether iek be inspire and brilliant and because he be while or whether fiennes film be worth watch and because it be likewise . the real question be rather represent be iek view coherent . one smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride and but after the whole thing be over and some doubt remain . for example represent while consider vertigo ( 58 ) iek state that what hide behind human face be a perfect void and which make face itself only a facade represent something of a deception in it own mean . however and when in the final sequence we hear about the ever shatter finale of city light ( 31 ) a be a portrait of one human be fully expose to another and it hard not to ask represent what happen to the whole facade thing . why should we grant chaplin face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive kim novak of this same privilege in two bold stroke . or maybe that incoherence might also be read in lacan term . ( the name of the notoriously unreadable french psychoanalyst be fundamental to iek thought . ) the film have all the virtue of a splendid two and a half hour lecture represent lot of ground be cover and many perspective employ and even some first rate wisecrack make ( when iek travel on a melanie daniel boat from the bird [ 63 ] and try to think a she do and he come up with represent i want to fk mitch . ) . but it have also one shortcoming that isn not inherent to two and a half hour lecture a such represent it almost obsessively digressive . iek yarn about how far be we from the real be as good a any other psychoanalytic yarn and but after some 80 minute it become quite clear that one of iek perverse pleasure be to ramble on and on and change subject constantly . overall effect be this of be sweep away by a giant and cool and fizz wave represent youre simultaneously take by surprise and refresh and in mortal danger and confuse no end . a you finish watch and your head be brim with idea not of your own and youre already plan on re watch some film but you also share a sense of have survive a calamity . the ultimate question be represent do iek lose it . or haven not we even come close to the real thing . once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment and we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other ( not have any movie around to turn our face to ) . i dare you all represent who will have enough gut to approach iek and defy him . my guess be that once you look into those eye in real life and you become a believer .