if you have ever be harass on the underground by a christian who say and jesus be the answer . what the question . and then perhaps you should thank god if you have never meet a lacanian . slavoj zizek and the most evangelical of lacanians and would surely exchange the word jesus in that statement for lacan or hegel . zizek star burn brightly at the moment and no doubt because we generally view film and pop culture purely a entertainment for our consumption . so it seem impressive when someone anyone come along and say and hang on and film may say something about ourselves . the idea zizek expound in this film be true purely because he say so . for example and zizek explains that three marx bros be the ego and superego and id ( god know what happen to zeppo and or gummo perhaps theyre the sinthome . or be that movie themselves . ) . this be simply what they be . in zizek output and culture be not there to be investigate but merely to be hold a an example of his ideology . people may object that he certainly have something to say but how different be what he say from the christian attribute everything to god will . what wrong with take example and from film or anywhere and to illustrate theory . well and nothing at all . a zizek seem to believe and they may even serve a a proof . however and it be merely cant and propaganda when these example be isolate from their context . without context and you can say and prove anything you want . for zizek and lacan be the answer so he go and make an example of it . everything but everything resemble the teaching of the master and culture be there to bear this out and to serve this ideology . for instance and zizek exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur be take from a scene in vertigo when jimmy stewart spy on kim novak in a flower shop . but and in the context of the film and this be not a voyeur fantasy position at all . stewart have be deliberately lead there by novak . this presentation of example isolate from their context continue throughout zizek two hour and a half cinematic sermon . his analysis of the baby want to f scene in blue velvet be laughable . touch lightly on what he appear to consider to be the horrific ( to the masculine ) truth of feminine jouissance and zizek say that isabella rossilini character not only demand her degradation but be and unconsciously and in charge of the situation . this be an example of her jouissance . well . possibly . but sorry to be prosaic where be the evidence for this . in the film and she partially undergo her humiliation because hopper have kidnap her son . zizek may object that she also evidently enjoy rough sex with kyle maclachalan . but this may be due to any number of thing . isn not that the point of so call feminine jouissance . accord to lacan and feminine jouissance and unlike phallic jouissance and can not be articulate and it be beyond the phallic capture and castration of language . if this be right and then no example can be make of it . it also mean that the entire concept be non sensical and entirely mystical . it can only be designate by dogmatist such a zizek represent there feminine jouissance for you . why be this feminine jouissance . because i say so . what example can really be garner from these film . only zizek psychology . why do he keep insert himself into his favourite film and even to the point that and when in a boat on botega bay and he say he want to f rod steiger too . be this not the wish fulfilment of someone who spend his life critique film . a the saying go and freud would have a field day with the pervert guide to the cinema but with zizek himself and nobody else . zizek theory that film show u how we desire may be right on the face of it and but these film can not be strict universal example of psychoanalytical law . this film illustrate how zizek desire and only extremely vaguely a to be almost useless how the rest of u desire . for and a any psychoanalyst know and how we desire and what we desire can not be fully separate and can not be easily universalised and if at all . zizek love of make everything an example of lacan answer bear this out represent how do we desire . like this and this be how i do it . problem be and in zizek desire and everything and everyone else be rationalise into his desire . but zizek be a leninist and they certainly do not like let the subject speak for itself . the pervert guide to the cinema be a summation zizek love of dogma and be entirely unphilosophical even if it remain very political ( what dogma isn not . ) . zizek have never question exactly what his motif might be when embark on an analysis and what he be try to discover and because the term of his exploration and and therefore his ethic in do so and be never put into question . zizek be extremely prolific but all his book and this film say the same thing . he a kind of henry ford of cultural theory represent mass production and any colour as long a it black . he be perfect for today highly consumerist society represent supposedly critical while give people the same c ap over and over and pretend that it be something different . this be popular because people largely prefer readymade answer to their problem which capitalism always claim to provide rather than investigate thing with any serious consideration at all . which be kind of like be brain dead . for me and zizek third matrix pill be a suicide capsule . ps represent i love zizek solemn remark present a a revelation about cinema and humanity that music in film can greatly affect people sympathy . do this only occur to zizek after he watch jaw .