The Pervert's Guide to Ideology Page #7

---

We have two

superficial levels.

All the fascination of

the accident, then

the love story - but all this

which is quite acceptable

for our liberal

progressive minds -

all this is just a trap.

Something to lower

our attention -

threshold, as it were,

to open us up -

to be ready to accept the

true conservative message

of rich people having tried

to revitalise themselves

by ruthlessly appropriating the

vitality of the poor people.

There's no one here, sir.

There is a wonderful detail

which tells everything.

Come back.

When Kate Winslet notices

that Leonardo DiCaprio

is dead, she, of course,

starts to shout

"I will never let go,

I will never let go"

while at the same moment...

- I will never let go.

- I promise.

... she pushes him off.

He is what we may call ironically

a vanishing mediator.

This logic of the

production of the couple

has a long history

in Hollywood.

Whatever the story is about -

it may be about the end of

the world, an asteroid

threatening the very

survival of humanity

or a great war, whatever.

As a rule we always

have a couple whose

link is threatened and

who somehow through

this ordeal at the end

happily gets together.

This logic does not hold

only for Hollywood films.

In the late forties,

in Soviet Union,

they produced arguably

one of the most expensive

film of all times:

The Fall of Berlin.

The chronicle of the

second World War

from the Soviet standpoint.

And it's incredible how

closely this film

also follows the logic of

the production of a couple.

The story begins just before

the German attack

on the Soviet Union,

when the model worker

who is in love

with a local girl but is too

shy to propose to her,

is called to Moscow to get

a medal from Comrade Stalin.

There Stalin notices his

confusion, distress,

and Stalin gives

him some advice -

which poetry

to quote and so on.

This part unfortunately

was lost

because in the background

of this scene there was Beria -

a Soviet politician who

after Stalin's death

became a 'non-person' -

was shot as a traitor.

But we know from the

screenplay what was there.

If Stalin gives you love

advice it has to succeed -

so the couple embraces.

He carries her probably

to make love.

At that very moment

there is the triumphant,

violent entrance

of the obstacle:

German planes come,

dropping bombs.

The girl is taken prisoner.

The boy of course joins

the Red Army

and we follow him through

all the great battles.

The idea being that in a

deeper logic of the film -

what these battles

were about -

was really to

recreate the couple.

The boy has to get his girl.

This is what happens

at the end,

but in a very strange

way which reconfirms

Stalin's role as the supreme

divine matchmaker.

The scene itself, Stalin

emerging himself into

a crowd of ordinary people

never happened.

Stalin was totally paranoid

about flying,

about taking planes.

But none the less when he

saw this scene he cried.

Of course he himself as you

know, wrote the lines.

When the couple

encounters each other

the girl first sees Stalin,

then she turns around

and, surprised,

sees her lover

for whom she was waiting

all the time of the war.

So it's only through

the presence of Stalin

that the couple

gets reunited.

This is how ideology works.

Not the explicit

ideology of the film -

which we hear at the

end Stalin saying:

now all the free people

will enjoy peace

and so on and so on.

But precisely ideology

at its more fundamental.

This apparently totally

subordinated motive -

unimportant in itself -

the story of a couple, this is

what is the key element,

which holds the

entire film together,

that small surplus element

which attracts us,

which maintains

our attention.

This is how ideology works.

Nice.

Everything clean.

Oiled.

So that your action

is beautiful.

Smooth, Charlene.

We usually think that

military discipline

is just a matter of mindlessly

following orders.

Obeying the rules.

You don't think - you do

what is your duty.

It's not as simple as that.

If we do this, we just

become machines.

There has to be

something more.

This more can have

two basic forms.

The first more benign form

is an ironic distance.

Best epitomised by the

well known movie

and TV series'M.A.S.H.'...

Hawkeye?

...where the military

doctors are involved

in sexual escapades,

make jokes all the time.

Some people took Robert

Altman's movie M.A.S.H.

as a kind of antimilitaristic,

satiric product,

but it's not.

We should always bear

in mind that these

soldiers with all their

practical jokes -

making fun of their

superiors and so on -

operated perfectly

as soldiers.

They did their duty.

This one's for you, babe.

Much more ominous

is a kind of obscene

supplement to

pure military discipline.

In practically all movies

about U.S. Marines,

the best-known embodiment

of this obscenity

are marching chants.

A mixture of nonsense...

- I don't know but I've been told.

Eskimo p*ssy is mighty cold.

...and obscenity.

This is not undermining,

making fun of military discipline.

It is it's inner most constituent.

You take this obscene

supplement away -

and military machine

stops working.

Well, no sh*t.

What have we got here?

A f***ing comedian?

Private Joker.

I admire your honesty.

Hell, I like you.

You can come over

to my house and

f*** my sister.

You little scumbag!

I've got your name!

I've got your ass!

You will not laugh.

You will not cry.

You will learn by the numbers.

I will teach you.

Now get up!

Get on your feet!

You had best unfuck yourself

or I will unscrew

your head and sh*t

down your neck.

- Sir, yes, sir!

- Private Joker,

why don't you join

my beloved corps?

I think that the

drill sergeant -

the way it is played in

an exemplary way in

Stanley Kubrick's

Full Metal Jacket -

that the drill sergeant

is rather a tragic figure.

I always like to imagine

him as the person who

after his work returns home,

is quite decent and so on.

This is my rifle,

this is my gun.

All this obscene shouting

is just a show put on

not so much to impress

ordinary soldiers

whom he is training

as to bribe them

with bits of enjoyment.

It's not just a question

of these obscenities,

which sustains the

military machinery;

it's another more general rule

which holds for

military communities,

but even more

I would say, for all

human communities.

From the largest nations,

ethnic groups,

up to small university

departments and so on.

You don't only have

explicit rules.

You always, in order to become

part of a community,

you need some implicit

unwritten rules

which are never

publicly recognised

but are absolutely crucial

as the point of

the identification

of a group.

In the U.K. everyone

knows about

the obscene

unwritten rituals,

which regulate life

in public schools.

That'll be all. Thank

you, Finchley.

I want to see all whips

in my study after break.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes