What do you think?
Rate this book
وحشت از اشکهای واقعی
ژیژک، مدعیست که امروزه در حال نزدیک شدن به تجربهی زیستی جدیدی هستیم که درک جدیدی از زندگی و فرم روایت خطی و متمرکز را ازهم میپاشاند، و زندگی را بهشکل جریان چندخطی عرضه میکند. سه فیلم کیشلوفسکی، مشخصاً چنین تجربهای را بازسازی میکند: بخت کور، زندگی دوگانهی ورونیک و قرمز. آنچه باعث پیوند این سه فیلم را بههم میشود، مفهوم اخلاقیِ انتخاب بین «زندگی آرمانی» و «رسالت» است. ولی سؤال مهمی پیش میآید: آیا وقوف بهاین زندگیهای چندگانه واقعاً رهاییبخش است؟ تصویر این زندگی ممکن است غیر از آنی باشد که درحال حاضر هست، و امکانات متفاوت این جهانِ بدیل ممکن است بهطریقی تحقق یابند؛ جهان خفقانآوری را مجسم کنید که در آن آزادی برای هیچگونه انتخابی نیست. وقوفِ رعبآور بهاین بستار را در فریاد مستأصلانهی آغاز بخت کور شاهد هستیم: سیمایی که هر بار با بازگشت بهزندگیای که توان زیستن آن را داشته است، از وحشت انتخاب هر یک به هراس میافتد و جیغ میکشد.
کتاب وحشت از اشک های واقعی ترجمه فتاح محمدی از روی مجموعه ای از درس گفتارهایی برآمده است که اسلاوی ژیژک ارائه کرده است. این کتاب به بحث مربوط به مابعد نظریه و شناخت گرایی از طریق بررسی فیلم های کریستف کیلوفسکی بر بنیان مبارزه و آگاهی طبقاتی می پردازد. به طور مثال در بخش اول این کتاب تحت عنوان امرکلی: بار دیگر دوخت، از طریق گفت و گوی انتقادی با ما بعد نظریه ی شناخت گرا تلاش می شود نشان داده شود چگونه آثار کیسلوفسکی، پایگاه مبارزه ی طبقاتی در هنر می باشند. هدف ژیژک در کتاب وحشت از اشک های واقعی این است که به آثار کیسلوفسکی رجوع کند تا به کار و نظریه بپردازد.
کتاب وحشت از اشک های واقعی ترجمه فتاح محمدی از روی مجموعه ای از درس گفتارهایی برآمده است که اسلاوی ژیژک ارائه کرده است. این کتاب به بحث مربوط به مابعد نظریه و شناخت گرایی از طریق بررسی فیلم های کریستف کیلوفسکی بر بنیان مبارزه و آگاهی طبقاتی می پردازد. به طور مثال در بخش اول این کتاب تحت عنوان امرکلی: بار دیگر دوخت، از طریق گفت و گوی انتقادی با ما بعد نظریه ی شناخت گرا تلاش می شود نشان داده شود چگونه آثار کیسلوفسکی، پایگاه مبارزه ی طبقاتی در هنر می باشند. هدف ژیژک در کتاب وحشت از اشک های واقعی این است که به آثار کیسلوفسکی رجوع کند تا به کار و نظریه بپردازد.
319 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1999
10 people are currently reading
351 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj Žižek
642 books7,582 followersSlavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 16, 2020
کتاب دیگری از فیلسوف و منتقد مشهور اسلاوی ژیژک که اگر اشتباه نکنم متن یکی از سلسله سخنرانی های وی است.اسلاوی ژیژک از اون فیلم بین های بسیار ماهر است و کتاب ها و مقالاتی درباره هیچکاک و لینچ و... نوشته است.دراین کتاب به بررسی تکنیک هایی در سینما و فلسفه سینما می پردازد و این تکنیک ها رادر نهایت در فیلم های کیشلوفسکی مورد بررسی قرار می دهد.همچنین از دیدگاهی نو به بررسی فیلم های کیشلوفسکی می پردازد.این کتاب ارجاعات بسیار زیادی به فیلم های دوره های مختلف تاریخ سینما دارد.
November 24, 2019
Some good stuff, if you ruthlessly skip past the customary Lacanian obfuscation and ignore the often tasteless humour.
Zizek provides some stimulating and at times insightful perspectives on the films of Kieslowski, taking in many other works along the way, never omitting to hagiographisize Hitchcock and lynch (both of whom I idolise too, so it's not a massive imposition on this reader).
Central to his argument is the liminal zone between the fictional and the real, which Kieslowski eventually crossed and never returned from. Real tears, we're led to believe, were just too fakey to satisfy him as a film maker, hence his abandonment of the documentary form for more easily manipulated aesthetics. This is a convincing argument and well developed for the most part.
Zizek provides some stimulating and at times insightful perspectives on the films of Kieslowski, taking in many other works along the way, never omitting to hagiographisize Hitchcock and lynch (both of whom I idolise too, so it's not a massive imposition on this reader).
Central to his argument is the liminal zone between the fictional and the real, which Kieslowski eventually crossed and never returned from. Real tears, we're led to believe, were just too fakey to satisfy him as a film maker, hence his abandonment of the documentary form for more easily manipulated aesthetics. This is a convincing argument and well developed for the most part.
November 13, 2021
افتضاح. نقد محتواییِ آوانگارد ژیژک از آثار سینمایی، با خط مشیای که لااقل بهنظر من برای نقد یک اثر هنری در زمینه هنر نمایشی درست است، اشتباهیست اندر اشتباه.
October 30, 2020
This traipse through cinema is classic Zizek, which means you can probably take your gut feelings towards the Slovene and figure out how you will feel while reading this book. Wikipedia is 100% right to say he tangentially discusses Kieslowski's films. However, the Zizek that does violence to a film to extract the theory from inside its gaping chest wound (I forgot who wonderfully and accurately described the Pervert's Guide to Cinema this way) is not fully on display here. For the most part he is often making smaller, more nuanced observations of the films he talks about. However, when he goes full Lacanian, he does lose me. I still cannot make sense of "woman does not exist" and I'm not sure I care to put more effort into trying to make sense of it. When he writes in a footnote: "...is Ripley [from Alien] a woman confronted with a phallic monster, or a man (a masculinized/desexualized being) confronting a primordial horrible (M)Other?" I'm not sure if this an elaborate groan-worthy joke or a pretentious trite attempt at analysis. Oh and of course there's plenty of sex and crude humor, including a lengthy footnote casting philosophy in terms of "fucking" such as Descartes' "I fuck, therefore I am." Classic Zizek.
That being said, I do appreciate Zizek's discussion of Kieslowski's films when he finally gets around to it. In my opinion, he does hit upon many of the great moments in his ouvre. While he gestures at a totalizing interpretation of the Dekalog series, offering a mapping of the episodes onto distinct commandments that is not entirely satisfying, the discussion of the themes present throughout the series is worth commending.
If you aren't here for the theory discussion, then I think it's entirely possible to skip through the book and digesting the bits that get down to the business at hand. There are fairly long sections devoted to philosophers and movies that are not strictly necessary, and I would consider the low points of the book. Even having conceded that, there is plenty of grist for the mill here and you'll come away with new thoughts on Kieslowski's films and likely a desire to revisit them.
That being said, I do appreciate Zizek's discussion of Kieslowski's films when he finally gets around to it. In my opinion, he does hit upon many of the great moments in his ouvre. While he gestures at a totalizing interpretation of the Dekalog series, offering a mapping of the episodes onto distinct commandments that is not entirely satisfying, the discussion of the themes present throughout the series is worth commending.
If you aren't here for the theory discussion, then I think it's entirely possible to skip through the book and digesting the bits that get down to the business at hand. There are fairly long sections devoted to philosophers and movies that are not strictly necessary, and I would consider the low points of the book. Even having conceded that, there is plenty of grist for the mill here and you'll come away with new thoughts on Kieslowski's films and likely a desire to revisit them.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews