Watch The Pervert's Guide to Cinema For Free

Powerful

Lack of good storyline.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I understood from the credits to the film that Slavoj Zizek is the sole writer. Having seen Zizek lecture in person, and interviewed him on one occasion, would appear to confirm that it is tightly scripted. This in my opinion was a mistake. Zizek is calling all the shots in the film, which exposes the director's very shaky and underdeveloped premise: just let Zizek talk. And by just letting him talk, trust in him that he will enlighten us, the audience, and that you, the director, will be able to capture that. Problem is that the director doesn't understand what he's talking about, which makes her incapable of editing him (hence the extraordinarily long running time! of over two hours!!). And since she cannot engage with his discourse all she contributes in the way of direction are a series of jokey mises en scenes where Zizek gets to live out his fantasies by appearing in his favourite films. What would have worked much better is if Zizek had had an interlocutor, someone to contradict him. Or if some of his fantasy screen idols, rather than remaining impassive and mute to his presence, had woken up. But the director can't do that because she doesn't have the confidence or knowledge of his philosophy, so instead she just lets him ramble, interminably, for over 2 HOURS, in the kind of free association mode that should only ever be heard in private from within the analyst's surgery. The film presents a one way conversation, a closed discourse, and we end up not really involved, as voyeurs. Maybe that's the point, the "pervert" of the title. But then I thought that voyeurs were supposed to get a thrill...

The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.

More akin to a lecture from a slightly eccentric professor than anything resembling a film, Sophie Fiennes sensibly allows the extravagant Slavoj Zizek to take centre stage throughout the three parts of this documentary. Zizek himself is a very amiable presence on screen, always humorous and entertaining even when putting forward some of his more extravagant theories. That's not to say it's just a series of stationary talking-head shots, in fact it is a beautifully conceived piece of cinematography. Zizek turns up appearing to actually be in the sets of the movies he is discussing, a technique that remains visually interesting even after 150 minutes. There are also numerous clips taken from the films in discussion that, for once, thankfully remain in their correct aspect ratio.I just never really understood who this was all intended for. As an aid to film-studies students some of the concepts and arguments are a little too abstruse, and the films covered are more than amply examined in any number of textbooks. At best it is a cross-pollination of Zizek's genuine understanding of Freudian theory and his obvious admiration for the works of Hitchcock and Lynch, without being particularly enlightening on either psychology or cinematic technique.An entertaining look into Freudian theory through cinema, but ultimately a little pointless.

I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.