Search

Inspiriran radom Erica Santnera (1996, 2011) o političkoj teologiji i kraljeva dva tijela, u ovom radu propitujem političku teologiju filma, tj. kako drugo tijelo kralja, tijelo njegove moći, migrira u novo tijelo, tijelo naroda, te sablasno, u raznim tragovima, prati filmski način proizvodnje koji je obilježio dvadeseto stoljeće. U radu dovodim u imaginarnu vezu dva lika (jedan stvarni, drugi fiktivni) koji na određeni način utjelovljuju to migriranje: (1) sudca Daniela Paula Schrebera (čiji je autobiografski zapis mentalne bolesti, od trenutka kada je objavljen 1903., okupirao pažnju ne samo psihijatara i psihoanalitičara nego i raznih teoretičara), i (2) doktora Caligarija, hipnotizera u filmu Kabinet doktora Caligarija (red. Robert Wiene, 1920.), jednog od najpoznatijih junaka njemačkog ekspresionističkog filma, kako bih analizirao kako njihovi slučajevi utjelovljuju »sublimno rojalističko meso« u nacionalnim fantazmagorijama dvadesetoga stoljeća (koje se sve više vraćaju i u naše vrijeme u doba rastućeg populizma i brojnih teorija zavjere)., Inspired by the work of Eric Santner (1996, 2011) on political theology and the king’s two bodies, in this paper, I question the political theology of film. I analyze how the carnal dimension of sovereignty (or king’s second body, the body of his power), migrates into a new body, the body of the people, and in various traces appears in the filmic mode of production that marked the twentieth century. I analyse or instead bring into imaginary connection two characters (one real, the other fictional) who in a way embody this migration: (1) Judge Daniel Paul Schreber (whose autobiographical record of mental illness, from the moment it was published (in 1903), occupied the attention not only of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts but also of various theorists) and (2) Dr. Caligari, a hypnotist in the film The Office of Dr. Caligari (dir. Robert Wiene, 1920), one of the most famous characters of German expressionist film.

Surprisingly, mere religious difference is not the only source of fear in Marlowe’s The Massacre at Paris despite the play’s focus on the religious violence of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. Instead, like Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV, representation of mimetic desire perpetuates the threat of internecine violence that haunts the play. Indeed, Marlowe’s Massacre and Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV both illuminate the way in which a gendered interpretation of the agentic, or self-determining subject, incites and reinforces an uncanny “zone of indistinction . . . at which techniques of individualization and totalizing procedures converge.” This troubled intersection is evident in Marlowe and Shakespeare’s representations of the sovereign and subjects’ struggle to establish and maintain power. In fact, the plays suggest how this gendered discourse shapes representations of the subject’s desire for power, or even recognition, and in the same instance the sovereign’s dependence on popular appeal. Most significantly, however, the plays trace the roles the discourse of gender and desire play in the changing political order from feudalism to an emergent merchant capitalism and the stirrings of liberal democracy. La différence religieuse n'est paradoxalement pas l'unique origine de la peur dans Massacre à Paris, bien que la pièce de Marlowe porte sur les violences de la Saint-Barthélémy. Au contraire, c'est la représentation du désir mimétique qui y perpétue, tout comme dans la première partie du Henri IV de Shakespeare, la menace de violence intestine qui hante la pièce. La pièce de Marlowe et celle de Shakespeare éclairent toutes deux la façon dont une interprétation genrée de l'agentivité ou de l'auto-détermination du sujet permet de faire émerger et de consolider une inquiétante "zone d'indistinction" qui voit la convergence de "l'individuation et la totalisation des structures du pouvoir moderne". Cette intersection complexe apparaît de manière évidente chez Marlowe et Shakespeare dans les représentations des luttes du souverain et des sujets pour établir et asseoir le pouvoir. Ces œuvres suggèrent en réalité que le discours genré façonne les représentations de la soif de pouvoir et de reconnaissance du sujet en même temps que la dépendance du souverain au peuple. De manière plus signifiante encore, ces pièces montrent l'importance du discours sur le genre et le désir dans le passage du féodalisme à un premier capitalisme marchand et aux prémices d'une démocratie libérale.