University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF ARTS School of Humanities Unmaking the remake: Lacanian psychoanalysis, Deleuzian logic, and the problem of repetition in Hollywood cinema by Dan Varndell Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May, 2010 1 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF ARTS SCHOOL OF ENGLISH Doctor of Philosophy UNMAKING THE REMAKE: LACANIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS, DELEUZIAN LOGIC, AND THE PROBLEM OF REPETITION IN HOLLYWOOD CINEMA by Dan Varndell Repetition is inherent to cinema. From the complex interweaving of genre cycles and Hollywood stars to the elementary mechanism of film projection (twenty-four times per second): cinema is repetition . It is perhaps little wonder then that psychoanalysis is often thought of as one of the discourses with which to write about film in the 20 th century. However, this thesis problematises both cinematic repetition and psychoanalytic film theory, stressing that each is haunted by a spectre: the remake, and the film-philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, respectively. Despite its critical opprobrium, I explore the remake not only as a viable object of cinematic scholarship, but one necessary in moving past the impasse of film studies identified by Timothy Corrigan (1991) as ‘historical hysteria’. My research turns to Deleuzian film theory as a counterpart , rather than replacement, of the predominant Lacanian model. This is, however, neither a defence of the remake nor of psychoanalysis, but, rather, an attempt to submit both to a radical reassessment that, as Lacan says, aims at giving you a ‘kick up the arse’ (1998:49). Eschewing the ‘example’ as a remnant of film theory’s current collapse in form, I suggest two ‘case studies’ for consideration, augmented by a cache of film references: (1) Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake (1998) of Alfred Hitchcock’s original Psycho (1960) as a ‘symptom’ of Hollywood’s self -cannibalisation; and (2) George Sluizer’s The Vanishing (1993), a Hollywood ‘auto-remake’ of his own Dutch original, Spoorloos (1988), as a ‘fetish’ of Hollywood’s desire in the European ‘Other’. Rather than expose Deleuze to a Lacanian framework I subject the one to a reading of the other in a möbius relation, turning them inside-out, so to speak. Mediating these two thinkers is Slavoj Žižek, a cultural theorist whose own ‘filmosophy’ is revealed from amongst his often frenetic writings. In so doing, I expose a dark underside to Hollywood repetition, one which provides some new tools for understanding the popularity of cinema’s most critically neglected discourse. 2 3 LIST OF CONTENTS List of figures – p. 6 Author’s declaration and acknowledgements – p.8 Preface – p.10 1. Introduction – Rethinking Remaking: Psychoanalysis, historical hysteria, and cinematic repetition – p.14 2. Chapter 1 – An ‘encounter’: Deleuze and Lacan pervert the remake – p.36 3. Chapter 2 – Case study I: Psycho and the ‘scene’ fetish – p.76 4. Chapter 3 – Case study II: The Vanishing and the man who wanted to know – p.112 5. Chapter 4 – The ‘irrational remake’: Time and memory in unmaking – p.150 6. Conclusion – The four fundamental concepts of the remake – p.186 Appendices – p.200 Bibliography – p.204 Filmography – p. 214 Websites – p. 219 4 5 LIST OF FIGURES All images are either original screen shots or else have been retrieved from a creative commons source. All sources have been duly acknowledged. 0.1. Psycho (1960) and Psycho (1998) 0.2. Andy Warhol, ‘Marilyn’ (1967), image reproduced courtesy of oddsock, uploaded on 17/02/2006, at http://www.flickr.com/photos/oddsock/100943517/ [retrieved 01/12/2009] 0.3. Andy Warhol, ‘Marilyn Monroe’s Lips’ (1962), image reproduced courtesy of Cle0patra, uploaded on 09/01/2008, at http://www.flickr.com/photos/cle0patra/2180521574/ [retrieved 15/01/2010] 1.1. M. C. Escher, ‘Moebius Strip II (Red Ants)’ (1963), image reproduced courtesy of Mistico, at http://my.opera.com/utraj/albums/showpic.dml?album=150700&picture=2194085 [retrieved 10/01/2010] 1.2. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) 1.3. The Invasion (2007) and Body Snatchers (1993) 1.4. Alien (1979) 2.1. Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation (1989) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) 2.2. Psycho (1960) and Psycho (1998) 2.3. Psycho II (1983) 2.4. Psycho III (1986) 2.5. Shower scene tabulation 2.6. Psycho (1998) 3.1. L’homme qui voulait savoir (1988) 3.2. Spoorloos and The Vanishing (1993) 3.3. The Maltese Falcon (1941) and À bout de souffle (1960) 3.4. Spoorloos and Nattevagten (Night Watch , 1994) 4.1. Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 4.2. The Conversation (1974) 4.3. Psycho (1960) 4.4. Psycho II (1983) 4.5. The Conversation (1974) and Psycho II (1983) 4.6. Les Diaboliques (The Fiends , 1955) and Psycho (1960) 4.7. Psycho (1960) and Psycho (1998) 5.1. Hans Holbein, The Ambassadors (1533), image reproduces courtesy of kerim, uploaded on 03/02/2005, at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kerim/4212198/ [retrieved 01/02/2010] 5.2. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 6 7 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP I, Dan Varndell, declare that the thesis entitled ‘Unmaking the remake: Lacanian psychoanalysis, Deleuzian logic, and the problem of repetition in Hollywood cinema’ and the work presented in the thesis are both my own, and have been generated by me as the result of my own original research. I confirm that: - this work was done wholly or mainly while in candidature for a research degree at this University; - where any part of this thesis has previously been submitted for a degree or any other qualification at this University or any other institution, this has been clearly stated; - where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly attributed; - where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work; - I have acknowledged all main sources of help; - where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made clear exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself; - none of this work has been published before submission. Signed: ……………………………………………………………………….. Date: 21/05/2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks first and foremost to Professor Linda Ruth Williams for supervising this project and providing continuous encouragement. Thanks also to Dr. Penny Phillips for her enthusiasm and long-distance discussions about Freud and fractals. Finally, thanks to Paul Whitcher, who from a chance encounter followed by a great injustice, reminded me of the ugly side of academia. 8 9 PREFACE “It’s the same movie, only completely different. It follows the same plot, except where it changes everything.” - Desmond Howe (1993) Critically scorned, and yet (paradoxically) commercially successful, remakes have never been half as popular in academia as they have in cinemas. In fact, critics and academics seem united in their mistrust of the remake, with most lamenting the end of ‘original stories’ in Hollywood resulting in an increasingly “rear-view mirror culture” (Groen, 1998). However, like them or loathe them, remakes are more popular than ever, are here to stay, and deserve not only the acknowledgement of film studies, but a serious theory to read them with. In fact, in accordance with the möbius topology of this study, one should be directed first to my appendix, for it tells its own story about the proliferation of the remake across film history, space, and genre. One is inclined to reach for Freud to deal with this phenomenon, given his advancement of repetition compulsion, the return of the repressed, and the Oedipus complex, however, Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalytic film theory has fallen out of favour of late as cinema theorists increasingly turn towards Deleuze and Foucault to break the perceived sovereignty of the psychoanalytic discourse. A deadlock exists between these two seemingly incompatible and antagonistic schools of thought. Perhaps we should reach instead for Deleuze then, as the incumbent thinker of film theory? Alternatively, maybe we should attempt to reconcile the two by inviting them both to the cinema for the latest remake, and see what happens? This thesis suggests something far more explosive. If Freud and Lacan are missing from recent Deleuzian theoretical contributions from philosophers like Daniel Frampton (2006), and presumed dead by film theorists like Steven Shaviro (1993), it at first seems tempting – as a psychoanalyst – to send out the search party and apply the kiss of life. However, what if we assume instead that these obituaries are fully appropriate ? Our only correction would be to state that psychoanalysis is not simply dead, but, rather, it is un dead, like the protagonists of so many horror remakes. Compounding this, what if Deleuze – far from emerging as the father of a new rebirth in film theory – has yet to be fully conceived; is un born, so to speak? The problem with Deleuze is that he is mostly known through his work on Anti-Oedipus , which as the name suggests, is highly critical of psychoanalysis, and attempts to move past the oedipal family and reject Lacan’s forms.