Die Hard and the Comfort of Crisis [A Discussion with Slavoj Zizek]

Die Hard and the comfort of crisis [a discussion with Slavoj Zizek] [The interviewer sits, playing with his tape recorder. Zizek enters. They shake hands, and Zizek sits. He drinks from the glass of water already prepared for him.] Mr. Zizek, I’d like to jump straight in, if you don’t mind. Certainly. I actually have a plane to catch later, and I always like to be there at least four hours ahead of the flight. An irritating habit of mine, I’m afraid. Not that strange though. I can’t fly at all. [The interviewer laughs. Zizek doesn’t.] An extreme…interesting. The flying? Yes, your fear of it. Not that you’re alone, but there is, I believe, a construction of weakness within the anxiety of an extreme, or someone who has withdrawn into such an anxiety. [The interviewer puts his right leg on his left knee. Zizek takes a sip of his water.] Well, like you said, it’s not an unusual state… Yes, I agree. But there is still a position of weakness involved, an almost pathetic self abuse or unravelling. I think…I’d say pathetic might be a little strong… Not in the philosophical sense. Still, I’m not sure about the terminology of ‘self abuse’…Jung, I think, said that it wasn’t so much the conscious self that was responsible, but more like a trigger that… Oh yes, the mind is a terrible master, that old debate. I believe I stand with Popper on that one, I’m afraid. There is control, or can be control. Really…Popper… Yes, Karl Popper. A remarkable thinker, wouldn’t you say? [The interviewer smiles and switches his left leg onto his right knee. Zizek stares at him.] Ok, if we can leave Popper for another time and move onto the film. I’ve been told you watched it for the first time last night? Yes, on cable. First impressions? You mean did I like it? [The interviewer laughs, awkwardly?] Not exactly, but that probably should’ve been the question. Debate often gets in the way of the fundamentals. Yes, agreed. So…yes, I did like it. On an emotional level, very much so. On a technical level, it was very well composed by the director, McTiernan, I believe…a lot of the angles were well constructed, the low shots, the Homeric delineation of McClane as he first enters the building. It was very accomplished. Yes, it was. Did you also notice the portrayal of the terrorists, the size of Hans Gruber positioned against his men as they walk up to the party? Hans Gruber? Yes, the main villain. The antagonist. Yes, I noticed it. The thinker and the brutes. I actually recognised it a little earlier than you, perhaps…when the terrorists arrive outside the building, and the two vehicles come together in what you might call antagonistic unity…and they drive parallel to each other before separation…the larger, more sinister looking van goes down out of shot, and the smaller, more acceptable public face of the threat, the car, stays on ground level. Interesting. A representation of duality perhaps? Well, yes, that’s quite obvious. The van is the true nature of the threat, and the car is merely the facilitator, a thing to be discarded once parked. And furthermore, there is the schematic of the environment itself, which is of course never an accident in film, where the road leads directly to the building, the castle of the city, we can presume, as the structure is shown in long shot throughout the film, dominating the landscape, which implies that the corporation, the entity boasting its success, is also inviting its doom. This, of course, applies to any object with an entrance, but is especially pronounced when the subject matter is capitalism, and as a consequence the endgame it begs for, which is destruction. Well, you might have to consider the security guard and CCTV cameras in the building. There is always a defence somewhere in the invitation… Yes and no. In this film, the security guard is the first to die. He doesn’t even move, or doesn’t have time to move. Therefore the defence is not sufficient, it is reactive, a shop dummy. But it is inherent in its nature to be reactive, is it not? Yes, and that is its failing. But defence as a warning can be very effective… Until the one time the warning is not heeded and, in this film, is the destruction of the building, or potentially so. And this is the interesting aspect, the placement of defence, any defence against potential intrusion of destruction of the concept…and the building in this film is very much an embodiment of concept, of ideal, an abstract wearing glass and concrete and wondrous fountains…and it is doomed from inception. As soon as you create an ideal it becomes finite and the inevitable outcome is destruction, not necessarily the end, but an end. To quote Spinoza, ‘belief and comprehension of an idea occur at the same moment,’ so once the ideal is comprehended it can only be negated, and the final negation is destruction. I see. So you would argue defence is ultimately superficial? Actually, it’s not an argument, it’s theoretical fact. Really? But aren’t we debating it now? Not at all. You merely do not understand the full complexity of it. I do. I’m not sure I’d agree with that… I’m sure you wouldn’t. In the same way, a 12 th Century scholar wouldn’t agree the earth was round. Never mind. [The interviewer takes a sip of his water and spills a little.] Ok, so how about the defence that works, John McClane? How do you place him in your dialectic? McClane is particularly interesting as a protagonist as, naturally, he shares a lot of characteristics with the antagonists, with Gruber especially. Is each a mirror to the other? Not exactly, but they are similar. They are both willing to kill to achieve their endgames, and neither of them are what you would call socially adept. Gruber seems to play that part, but it is an illusion. The best illustration of the point is his similarity in appearance to the man he shoots…I forget his name… Ellis? Perhaps. The second man he shoots, holding the cola… Yes, Ellis. Ok, so Gruber is costumed in a similar way to Ellis, the beard, the grin, the suits…both men represent the face of a concept. Ellis, the smooth face of capitalism, even drinking capitalism when he is shot, and Gruber the face of politicized violence. The difference between them is the truth underneath, the inner stream of self. Ellis’ face is genuine as it is a construction of what he believes, what he loves, which is capitalism, the system which allows him to drink, have sex, take drugs. The procedure of the act is false, of course, but the act is easy enough to unravel. Gruber, in contradiction, is the many layered fraud, the Babushka doll of true intention. He acts out the political terrorist role yet it is later revealed he is a thief. He practises violence yet seems to have no real love for it. To him, it is simply a means to an end. So what is the truth of Gruber? Is it revealed? I would say, yes. If you look closely enough you can see what he is. Which is? Simply, he’s the Edmond of capitalism. Its worst face if you will. A man who is cold, detached, who can act out the face of political reason and empathy, but has no real attachment to it. And as the film’s antagonist it is implied that he is intent on destroying the capitalist ideal, the balance to the excesses of the ideal, yet as the film turns, ultimately he reveals himself to be the concept itself. The concept stealing from the concept? Not precisely, more like the concept eating itself. The idea eats me or I eat the idea, that kind of problematic. In this case, it’s probably the case that the idea has eaten Gruber, possibly without his cognition, as he reveals his classical education and his knowledge of industrialisation and fine suits. This is a man who knows and lives the concept and ultimately is so informed by it that he can only be its destroyer. The concept invites participation and is constructed in such a way as to prevent any kind of final victory, as it is a concept designed for the individual and one victory for one individual makes no difference to the system, a system which has, in fact, been manufactured by its first successes, and forced into compatibility with a very selfish, individualistic ideal. Yes, one success, I suppose, means many losses for others… Well, yes, obviously. So the stakes get higher and higher until you have a Gruber type, the macro-sized snake’s tail trying to eat the rest of the body. Ok, so, following this logic, McClane would play the role of…? A flake of the snake’s skin, I believe. The small man, the flea taking little chunks out of the antagonists. Little chunks? He does kill them all… Yes, clearly, but look at the technique, the choreography of the violence. The first man he kills proves the point. McClane is dwarfed physically, and the only way for him to succeed is to jump on the man’s back like a child.

Load more