The Lacanian Mirror Stage for Theorizing Film Spectatorship - Research Paper Example

Is Screen a Mirror? Implications of the Lacanian mirror stage for theorizing film spectatorship Is screen a mirror? The notion that seeing is believing has some truth to it if not 100% true. We choose to believe or at least get the effect from what we see. But the debate gets more interesting when this seeing is about one’s own reflection in the mirror. Scientists and researchers think that that image one sees of oneself in the mirror is the key to developing ‘self’ ‘identity’ and ‘ego’. Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist delves into the phenomenon of seeing ones own reflection in the mirror (mirror stage) and how it relates to the cinematic experience. It is not surprising to see many similarities in how the same phenomenon in is in effect both in the mirror stage effect and cinema screen, turning the screen into a mirror. “Mirror stage” is a crucial early component of Lacan’s critical interpretations of Sigmund Freuds work. Lacan proposed by studying animal psychology and physiology that human infants go through a stage in their life where the external image of the body (usually reflected through a mirror) creates a psychic response giving rise to mental perception of self. The infant starts to identify with this image as it serves as a gestalt of an infant’s perceptions of self. However, the infant cannot relate the image in the mirror with the physical vulnerability he faces. Therefore this image becomes an ideal of self. Lacan goes on to say that the person strives throughout his or her life to achieve this ideal self. Louis Althusser relates this theory of the mirror stage with the cinematic experience. Althusser considers the ideological interpellation of the subject where individuals misrecognize themselves with the socially given identity, and then they start to see themselves in this form. Todd McGowan talks about Althussers theory in his book The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan (2012). According to McGowan Althusser was a critical link between Lacan’s theory of mirror states and cinematic experience for Althusser focused on the social dimension of misrecognitions connected to the mirror stage (McGowan 2). Althusser gave the much-needed political spin to Lacans theory. This is how the film theorists started to think about the cinematic experience from a psychoanalytical perspective. Jean-Louis Baudry, Jean-Louis Comolli and Christian Metz where those film theorists that are associated with the Journal Screen (McGowan 2). The British film theorist like Peter Wollen, Colin MacCabe, Stephen Heath and Laura Mulvey were among the first theorists that brought psychoanalytical concepts to the study of cinema (McGowan 2). Even though each theorist has his own approach towards understanding and interpreting, however, they all agreed about the relationship between psychic effects of cinema and ideology. According to these theorists the way a child creates an ideal for the self if spectator gets the same sense of mastery relative to the position a suspect take their occupies a the reaction to the events happening on the screen. Christian Metz elaborate this concept in his work The Imaginary Signifier; a viewer is absent from the screen but also present in the sense that the two cannot exist in isolation. In fact if the spectator is considered a perceiver then he is ‘all present’ (McGowan 2). This is a direct validation that the screen is a mirror. But the mirror is not just a reflection, it is a reflection of an ideal. In other words the spectator or the viewer is “absent as perceived and present as perceiver” (McGowan 2). The cinematic experience is a dimension where the viewer temporarily overcomes the sense of lack that exists so powerfully in real life. The spectator consider himself as a subject of the film and stimulates the imagination directly validating Lacan’s mirror stage. Film theorist Jean-Louis Baudry explicitly create the connection between Lacans mirror stage and the screen. The environment which includes the darkened hall, screen, projector, a simulation of Plato’s cave, all are necessary elements that contribute to effectively executing the mirror stage (McGowan 2). Cinematic experience is a form of self-deception that perpetuates ideology. Nonetheless, the real question is how does the screen become the mirror (assuming it does)? The way the brain works is apparent from just one example; desire can never get the satisfaction by recovering the lost object. If the soul yearns for something recovering it will not bring the desired effect; ultimately the person thinks that there is still something missing. Satisfaction is not real. However fantasy is the perfect solution for this dilemma. This is the reason why the spectator so easily identifies with the subject shown on the screen; it is a fantasy. Reality cannot live up to fantasy, similar to the way a toddler creates this fantasy of an idealistic self by looking in the mirror. The development of a child from seeing himself in the mirror to adolescent, and later on to old age, the whole process is encompassed in Lacan’s theory of reflection and the induced sense of self. The intersection of cardinal modes of cognition creates this self-image. The film theorists directly take this concept and adopt the Lacanian perspective for the cinematic experience calling it “second image stage” or “second mirror stage”, where Lacan’s mirror stage serves as the primary phase in forming the subjectivity (Debrix 103). This approach serves well in explaining the production of meaning and identity in the cinematic setting. Christian Metz agrees with the basic premise of getting an inspiration from Lacan’s theory but he is critical of blindly following the mirror stage. He does not fully agree with the notion that mirror stage completely explains the relationship between subjectivity and the visual. He says that the screen is a mirror but it also differs from primordial mirror in the sense that everything can be projected in this screen (mirror) except the body of the spectator (Debrix 103). Despite this disagreement Metz agrees that the screen is a mirror even if it doesnt possess its full characteristics. This hypothesis can be further explained by elaborating Lacan’s theory. Lacans original mirror stage directly corresponds to the imaginary, where the child sees the image in the mirror. But there is another person that is usually sees which is the mother or a guardian holding the child. The presence of both persons is crucial to form subjectivity. Daniel Dayan elaborate this; the child identifies itself with the visual image of the mother/guardian and through this identification the toddler perceives his “body as a unified whole by analogy that the mothers body” (Debrix 103). This is a better explanation of the Lacan’s mirror stage. The child thus forms a fantasy before seeing the reality as it is the image that he received from outside. However the imaginary functions of the brain interpret this image by showing a unified body with the respective parts combined together as one, eventually forming the complete self. The identity of child crucially depends upon this identification. “Identity is one effect, among others, of the structure through which images are formed; the imaginary.” (Debrix 104) To comprehend the political possibilities and tendencies of cinematic experience one needs to understand the politics of the fantasy itself. The fantasy operates in a conservative base it means for depoliticizing as well as accepting the dominant ideology. It is a form of imaginary play that gives temporary pleasure to the subject in the meanwhile convincing the subject that the actual immiseration is acceptable (McGowan 35). The most obvious example of this arrangement of illusionary pleasure is the conviction of buying a lottery ticket. The lottery tickets the form of fantasy sold to the subject; the fantasy of immediately becoming rich. It is noteworthy that most buyers of this fantasy or the lottery ticket are impoverished subject (McGowan 35). It is a passive form of accepting the state of relative poverty. It acts like a sedative to accept a situation instead of revolting against it. So as long as a person can buy the lottery ticket and its accompanying fantasy they can endure the drudgery of the dire situation (reality). It is a vicious cycle where the fantasy acts as the necessary supplement nurturing the ideology. Obedience of the subject is the greatest demand of the social law, and ideology is that tool that makes them obedient, it is a justification, a rationale for their state (McGowan 35). This politicization of the fantasy is not the perfect sedative. When a person is subjected to this ideology it leave the subject dissatisfied despite the ideology justifying this dissatisfaction. The primary tool for this justification are human nature, Original Sin, the exigencies of the free market etc. (McGowan 35). Despite this imperfection it works wonders. Then the ideology is injected into the subject he or she eventually except this dissatisfaction however a greater dissatisfaction still lurks around creating dysfunction and instability in the social order. From a cause and effect perspective the dissatisfied subject causes disruption in the social order. The vicious cycle continues because on one hand the social order depends on the dissatisfaction of the subject to function properly while on the other the dissatisfaction creates a barrier in the way of social stability (McGowan 35). Moreover the dissatisfied subject to the potential revolutionary. For this reason the fantasy momentarily pacifies them it nurtures the ideology in strengthening the social structure. The social law tends to produce the dissatisfaction and fantasy creates the necessary destruction and the revolutionary subjects. And the reason why fantasy becomes necessary is because and ideology is incomplete in its constitution; there is no such ideology that gives all answers to its subjects. Where ever the ideology fails to provide the answer the fantasy comes in to fill those holes. One of the major critiques of Hollywood movies is that it focuses on indulgence in fantasy (McGowan 36). It is an investment that obscures the ideology of which fantasy is a product. On one hand it does give the illusion of transcending the boundaries of symbolic law, however, this movie fantasy remains entirely in the boundaries of ideology (McGowan 36). There are many examples from Hollywood studios that showcase this practice. Spike Lee is a renowned Hollywood director. In his movie 25th Hour he brings in the mirror effect to politicize Lacan’s mirror stage. Monty Brogan, played by Edward Norton, launches a diatribe against several ethnic groups (McGowan 52). In one scene Lee makes it clear that fantastic Brogan’s outburst becomes an essential part of the film. Brogan does not actually pronounce the words Lee makes the character look into a mirror, his reflection speaks back. The effect is eventually disconcerting because the spectator is cut out from the realm of realism. Is similar and more exaggerated version of same technique is portrayed in Bamboozeled (2000). The movie revolves around the power of racist fantasies. Instead of directly attacking the civil rights movement or the fading overt socio-symbolic racial barriers, the racist fantasies take the main stage (McGowan 52). Racism is now more subtle but occurs on a fantasmatic stage rather than on legal grounds (McGowan 52). It is evident that the form of racism before the civil rights movement is gradually declining. It is for this reason racism is occurring as a fantasy, giving the subject the necessary pacifying dosage. The movie Summer of Sam (1999) portrays another form of politics then racist fantasies; paranoia takes center stage as a fantasy. There our montage sequences in which the audiences hear songs like “Wont Get Fooled Again” and “Baba OReilly” (McGowan 54). By using montage and coordinating image with the music, Spike Lee focuses on the enjoyment a company outbreaks of paranoid violence (McGowan 54). Each sequence ends with graphic violence but. Is it musical climax that accompanies it. It is as if the spectator is given the pleasure of violence through voyeurism. In this scene and innocent character Richie is being beaten but the way it is portrayed gives the spectators sadistic pleasure. The Dead End Gang attacks Richie mistaking him for the son of Sam well this beating is going on “Wont Get Fooled Again” is sung by Whos Roger Daltry triumphantly. It is not to attack leave direction because the way is picture eyes is the spectators feared that the assault would happen but when it does happen it heightens enjoyment of viewing. According to McGowan (54) Spike Lee demands that the spectators confront their enjoyment of the violence. Spike Lees words are great examples that forces the spectators to avow the enjoyment they get from these hidden fantasy. Lee exhibits the politics of cinema of fantasy. McGowan (54) continues to say that knees aim is not to instill a feeling of guilt in the viewers for enjoying the violence because this guilt would turn into a problem. Guilt fans more violence rather than stemming it because the subject feels guilty for enjoying violence and hence keeps this perverse pleasure hidden in the closet. Spike Lees movies ask the audience to confront this perversion. By practically turning the screen into a mirror Spike Lee is showing the audience their self-reflection. The link between Lacan theory and feminism in cinematic experience can be understood with the concept of gaze. Lacan interpreted the gaze as awareness that one can be seen. It is a sense of using some autonomy with this realization; when a person realizes that he or she is a visible to others. It is probably a more developed stage of the primal mirror stage of a child. In simpler terms the concept of the gaze is when a person realizes that an event, a character or an object on the screen gives the spectator the realization that he/she is also an object and thus can be viewed and observed. The feminist theory claims that the ‘male gaze’ is a prominent feature of the cinematic experience. It represents the gender power imbalance in film. Laura Mulvey brought this concept to the forefront, a huge contribution to the second-wave feminist movement. The highlight of her notion was the objectification of women in Cinema. It is because heterosexual men are in control of the cinematography and Hollywood nurturers this form of voyeurism (Sturken & Cartwright 76). It is the perception created in the minds of spectators that decides who is in charge. Mulvey Adds on to say that usually when there is an erotic scene in the movie the curves of a womans body are displayed for the pleasure of men. Females are portrayed as object of pleasure for the film characters and for the spectators. The feminist theory states that eventually the man ends up with the upper hand. Women become passive to the male gaze and this instills a message in the subconscious of the spectators, validating the patriarchal social dynamics. In this regard the movie JoJo Dancer Your Life Is Calling (1986) by Richard Pryor is a classic representing the male dominant mindset in cinematic experience. The start of the film shows mirrors which is undoubtedly a reference to Lacan’s mirror stage (McCluskey 42). Richard Pryor in the Jo Jo Dancer who crawls on the floor towards a large mirror. He frantically searches for cocaine. When he looks at himself in the mirror the black man sees the reflection of a beast and an infant at the same time (McCluskey 42). Here the Lacan’s mirror stage starting from infancy to adulthood is covered in one scene. This is the early scene in the movie and Jo Jo’s story turns into meditation and its symbolism of black masculinity. There is no denying that the movie symbolizes the black male gaze in many scenes. The one with the mirror image is the apex of this identity. Again, it is the perspective that is important. One needs to understand what angle the spectators have viewing the movie. The romantic movie Titanic (1997) is it classic example of the feminist theory. The male gaze is presented through the screen. There is an erotic sequence in the movie where the lead female role Rose (Kate Winslet) lies naked on the sofa. The male lead role Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) sketches her image on a canvas. The camera angles show the curves of the woman. They seem is for the pleasure of the male audiences as well as for the character or sketch in the movie. The noteworthy thing in this scene Rose asks Jack to draw her naked. It is it sort of validation that she wanted Jack to see her naked, giving him the pleasure of looking at her. The same is the case with the spectators. The screen is turned into a mirror. The adult male fantasy is portrayed; the audiences want to see a beautiful woman lying naked on the sofa smiling. Lacan’s mirror stage concept can never be fully understood without focusing on the how an infant starts to feel pleasure and displeasure. An infant first experiences his environment without any preconceived notions of judging it, which means that pleasures and displeasure are felt and measured according to the baby’s “jouissance” or what his body feels. Lacan argues that the pre-specular is integrated by insinuation, association and effect, and not by realistic recording, imprinting, the duration of loss or by intrauterine fantasy (Ragland 39). Lacan continues to extend this theory to the castrating force of the gaze (Ragland 39). It appears that the role of environment and objects is partial and fragmentary. Lacan gave his third theory of the mirror stage ego where it is reduced to the libidinal reality as the object of jouissance and alien desire (Ragland 39). The ego stays stable by predicting only what is known because its limits are already confined in corporal experiences of pleasure or displeasure (Ragland 39). Lacan disagreed with Freud about the pleasure and displeasure regarding the language. According to Freud conflict arises from libidinal push for pleasure which goes against reality. Lacan on the other hand undermines Freuds positivistic division instead he gives a frustrated, then the paranoid and divided ego that governs language. A better understanding of the concept of pleasure is not derived by separating Freud and Lacan in fact it is the convergence between the two that can give a more elaborate explanation. For instance Lacanian gaze is characterized not only by its formal characteristics it is not just a stain in the sight of gaze. The stain needs to precipitate anxiety but like can add on to this notion that stain must precipitate in turn into an object of drive. Lacan specifically called this the scope of drive which stimulates both voyeuristic and exhibitionistic impulses that work together and this give pleasure (Krips 98). The concept of pleasure is not confined only to watching nudity alone. For the purpose of this paper is best to define pleasure from the pleasure principle of Sigmund Freud; the natural impulse of deriving or making efforts to get pleasure by avoiding pain to quench psychological and biological wants (Snyder & Lopez 147). Pleasure can be derived from a variety of things it is not just one aspect in a person that gives pleasure. If it is engaging in a fantasy that gives an escape to the subject it is pleasure. If it is a comfort to the male audiences of living in a patriarchal society the comfort here can be termed as pleasure. For instance there is a possibility where the screen merges together different concepts of pleasure as well as reality. Movies like back to the future and The Wizard of Oz are examples how cinematic experience evolving around desire (McGowan terms it as the absence of gaze) and experiencing a fantasy (here that gaze is a distorted presence) (McGowan 163). This technique sustains a divide between the two only to show what occurs when the merge together. The spectators experience the direct gaze where the spectators see a subject in the movie that does not fit in the movie’s environment but that fact only puts the environment of the spectator into the moon. This direct gaze demolishes the barrier between the subject and the object and hence the spectators see themselves as being implicated in what they are viewing on the screen (McGowan 163). This is an almost identical portrayal of the mirror stage effect turning the screen into the mirror. David Lynch’s movie Blue Velvet (1986) captures this technique. Dorothy Vallens Isabela Rossellini appears in a scene that disturbs Jeffrey, played by Kyle McClellan. Jeffrey had an affair with her but in the scene he is on a date with Sandy. As Dorothy appears from the side, Sandys former boyfriend forces her and Jeffrey off the road to fight for Jeffrey for stealing Sandy. Dorothy appears out of nowhere and apparently no one even sees her. As other characters start to notice dated get disoriented. It is as if Dorothy interrupts the fantastic realm of the movie. The spectator is pulled out of the pleasure of the movie. This is how the separation works between desire and fantasy (McGowan 164). It is as if the directors want the spectators to look at the mirror and not the screen. The mirror stage effect can be analyzed from different angles and compared with the effect of the cinema screen on the spectators. There is no denying that there are many similarities between the two. In fact the similarities are so strong that the production crew and the screenwriters portray the picture on the screen by keeping the mirror effect in mind. Spike Lee plays it so well and overtly elaborates it on the screen. Film theorist and social scientists might disagree on the limits of Lacans theory but they do not question the fundamental principles of the mirror stage and how the cinema screen is a production of the same principle. References Debrix, François. Re-envisioning Peacekeeping: The United Nations and the Mobilization of Ideology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1999. Print. Krips, Henry. "The Politics of the Gaze Foucault, Lacan and Žižek." Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research 2 (2010): 91-102. Print. McGowan, Todd. The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. Albany: State University of New York, 2007. Print. McCluskey, Audrey T. Richard Pryor: The Life and Legacy of a "crazy" Black Man. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2008. Print. Ragland-Sullivan, Ellie. Essays on the Pleasures of Death: From Freud to Lacan. New York: Routledge, 1995. Print. Snyder, C. R., and Shane J. Lopez. Positive Psychology: The Scientific and Practical Explorations of Human Strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2007. Print. Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Read More