Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folger.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Folger Shakespeare Library is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Shakespeare Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Dismember Me: Shakespeare, Paranoia, and
the Logic of Mass Culture
LINDA CHARNES
Whatever we may be, for better or for worse, we are thus initially and "naturally"
"idiots of the family."
Peter Sloterdijk
. . . the logic-and-deduction novel still relies on the consistent big Other: the
moment, at the novel's end, when the flow of events is integrated into the sym-
bolic universe, narrativized, told in the form of a linear story (the last pages of the
novel when, upon identifying the murderer, the detective reconstructs the true
course of events), brings about an effect of pacification, order and consistency are
reinstated, whereas the noir universe is characterized by a radical split, a kind of
structural imbalance, as to the possibility of narrativization: the integration of the
subject's position into the field of the big Other, the narrativizatidn of his fate,
becomes possible only when the subject is in a sense already dead, although still
alive, when 'the game is already over,' in short: when the subject finds himself at
the place baptized by Lacan 'the in-between-two-deaths' (l'entre-deux-morts).2
This big Other, as Lacan defines it in his second Seminar, is that fantasmatic
(non) Entity that doesn't " ex-sist" separately from the subject but nevertheless
calls the subject into "the being of the other," into identification within the
symbolic order.3 It is that hypostatized phantom to whom we all address the
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Shakespeare
Association of America in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and at Wayne State University, Detroit,
Michigan, in November 1994.
1 Peter Sloterdijk, Critique-ofCynicalReason,trans. Michael Eldred (Minneapolis: U of Minne-
sota P, 1987), 73. Quotations of Hamletfollow the Oxford Shakespeare Hamlet,ed. G. R. Hibbard
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
2 Slavoj Ziiek, Enjoy YourSymptom! JacquesLacan in Hollywoodand out (New York and London:
Routledge, 1992), 151.
3Jacques Lacan, TheEgo in Freud'sTheoryand in the Techniqueof Psychoanalysis1954-1955, Book
2 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
constitutive question: " Chevuoi?" or "What is it that you want of me?"4 Purely
structural-that is to say, devoid of any particular content-the big Other is
effective only when misrecognized as an essential "being" that guarantees the
existence of subjective and social formations. In patriarchal culture the place
of the big Other may be occupied by God, King, Pope, Lord, Father-
placeholders who quilt a paternal allegory over a fundamentally antagonistic
social formation and call things to order and account within it.5 Such inter-
pellations, however, can operate successfully only if the paternal metaphor
remains neutral, or "in the background," as Zizek puts it. By holding itself in
reserve, the big Other allows the subject to fantasize a site-always else-
where-of absolute knowledge, authority, and control which organizes the
subject's narrative integration into the social order, assigning him or her, as
it were, a place in the story.
Against this "neutral" structuring paradigm, Zizek aligns the emergence of
the noir universe with a disturbance in the field of the big Other, one that
makes the mandates of identification ambiguous. This disturbance is brought
about by the revelation of another father, a figure who emerges as "the
obscene, uncanny, shadowy double of the Name of the Father":
... insteadof the traditionalfather-guarantor of the rule of Law,i.e., the father
who exerts his power as fundamentallyabsent,whose fundamentalfeature is not
an open displayof power but the threat of potential power-we obtain an ex-
fatherwho, as such, cannotbe reducedto the bearerof a symbolic
cessivelypresent
function.6
II of The SeminarofJacquesLacan, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Sylvana Tomaselli (New York
and London: W. W. Norton, 1988), 155 and 72.
4 Cf. Joan Copjec, Read My Desire:Lacan Against the Historicists(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1994), 28.
5 Cf. Ziiek, The SublimeObjectof Ideology(New York and London: Verso, 1989), 97-101 and
passim.
6 Ziiek,
Enjoy YourSymptom.!, 158.
7 Ziiek discusses these terms in Enjoy YourSymptom!I,
149.
8
Ziiek, Enjoy YourSymptom!,158-59. In the chapter "Why Are There Always Two Fathers?"
Ziiek mentions Hamlet only elliptically before returning to his discussion of Wagner's Parsifal.
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 3
This seems to me to be a symptomatic near-oversight: Ziiek notices that the Ghost's knowledge
"concerns a dark, licentious side of the father-king who is otherwise presented as an ideal figure"
(159); yet, like Prince Hamlet himself, Ziiek proceeds to ignore the implications of this, arguing
as he does that paranoiac noir emerges as a postwar phenomenon of the twentieth century (cf.
149-52 and passim).
9 In addition to her superb editorial suggestions, I am very grateful to Barbara Mowat for
4 SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
questioning my tacit assumption, in an earlier version of this essay, that there was on the English
Renaissance stage a "tradition" of logic-and-deduction revenge drama which Hamletbroke with.
Rather, as Mowat pointed out to me, very little textual evidence of a specifically English subgenre
of revenge tragedy exists, apart from Kyd's play and the purported Ur-Hamlet.In our conversa-
tions about this matter, we became fascinated that, in the light of this slim "tradition," not only
readers and audiences but centuries of critics (myself included) had been convinced that Hamlet
was breaking with a longstanding tradition, not because of anything much already out there on
the English stage but because the play encourages us to identify so fully with Hamlet's own sense
that he's not living up to established expectations. I hasten here to add that Mowat and I are in
complete agreement that there was for Shakespeare, as for Kyd, a classical and Latin (Senecan)
tradition of revenge tragedy that obviously made its presence felt on the Renaissance stage. But
it seems at least as much a function of the play's legerdemain that we feel Hamletto be diverging
from a tradition of English revenge tragedy rather than inaugurating one.
For a thorough and useful discussion/analysis of the Western tradition of revenging, see John
Kerrigan's rich study RevengeTragedy:Aeschylusto Armageddon(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996),
esp. chaps. 5-7. See also Louise Schleiner, "Latinized Greek Drama in Shakespeare's Writing of
Hamlet," ShakespeareQuarterly41 (1990): 29-48; and Fredson Thayer Bowers, ElizabethanRevenge
Tragedy1587-1642 (1940; rpt. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1959).
10 Terence Hawkes sheds brilliant light on the strange and layered recursivity or backward
narratologic of Hamlet in " Telmah"in Shakespeareand the Questionof Theory,Patricia Parker and
Geoffrey Hartman, eds. (New York and London: Methuen, 1985), 310-32.
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 5
rather the very status of the paternal logos itself. Unable to assume the sym-
bolic existence that paternal identification confers but not yet physically dead,
Hamlet (like the noir detective) finds himself entre-deux-morts, in the place
"between two deaths." Incapable of narrativizing himself, of finding his place
in the story, Hamlet literally "lack[s] advancement" (3.2.322). "The time is
out of joint," he says, "0 cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!"
(1.5.196-97). The shift from the classical to the noir universe instantiates a
vertiginous jolt out of the sequential and into the synchronic. Within this
multiplicitous miasma in which time cannot be accounted for, the whole
meaning of solving a crime changes.
The figure of Claudius provides Hamlet with a temporary respite from the
lassitude of noir, serving as the supplement who will embody the obscene
enjoyment of the anal father. Like all good Derridean supplements, however,
Claudius cannot contain everything he is supposed to stand for. There must
be other sites of displacement. As Zizek points out,
The failure of the paternalmetaphor... renders impossiblea viable, temperate
relationwith a woman;as a result,womanfinds herself occupyingthe impossible
place of the traumaticThing. The femmefatale is nothing but a lure whose fasci-
nating presence masksthe true traumaticaxis of the noir universe,the relation-
ship to the obscene father, i.e., the default of the paternal metaphor.... The
crucial point not to be missed here is that the femmefatale and the obscene-
knowingfathercannot appearsimultaneously,within the same narrativespace.'3
As long as the real obscene father hovers unacknowledged in the noir back-
ground, Gertrude, as well as Ophelia, can take on for Hamlet the function of
"traumatic Thing." With a circuit of disavowal which runs from the obscene
father to Claudius to Gertrude to Ophelia to Gertrude and finally back to
Claudius, we see Hamlet's desperate efforts to construct himself as a classic
revenger in a world where corruption, crime, licentiousness, and decay can be
seen everywhere but in the place of the Father.
For in Shakespeare's play, the King may be a thing that demands, but the
King must not be a thing that enjoys.If he enjoys, he becomes a different kind
of thing, something that produces noir paranoia because his authority is no
longer guaranteed by disinterestedness. It is, therefore, no accident that in
Shakespeare's play the only cure for the noir must come from outside the
social formation, in the form of exogenous rule. Fortinbras (a true logic-and-
deduction type) enters after the occupants of the noir universe are all dead.
And his way will be paved not by Hamlet's "election" (5.2.66) but by Hora-
tio's mediation. Charged by Hamlet with the task of telling Fortinbras "the
occurrents, more and less, / Which have solicited" (11.310-11), Horatio-
the literally nominated voice-of-reason(s)-has an impossible task. In the
noir universe the story exists only in the gaps between causes and effects-a
space that Horatio's philosophy cannot cope withal. Hamlet's story, such as it
is, takes place in the interstices of an intersubjectivity that the play always
already debars.'4 No one in this play "knows" anyone else; and it is precisely
this missing "intersubjective" knowledge, and not "occurrents" or events,
Hamlet and the Henriad in "William's Excellent Adventure: Shakespeare in the Age of Virtual
History," presented at the 1996 World Shakespeare Congress in Los Angeles, California.
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 7
that constitutes Hamlet as a noir tragedy. While Hamlet would, perhaps, have
been better served by Habermas than by Horatio, the state of Denmark is best
served by the latter, whose efforts can result only in a crude translation of a
noir tragedy into a "classical" detective fiction-into a story of what "really"
happened, both "more and less." By presenting us in Hamletwith two-fathers-
in-one, Shakespeare undermines the structure of the social by making it
impossible to separate the excrescences of paternal Law from those of state
politics. There can be in Shakespeare's world no decay of the paternal logos
which does not also dismember the body politic and erode the foundational
authority of the state. With Horatio's "translation," then, the humiliated
father may be erased, along with the subjectively mortified son, and paternal
Law can be reinstated for a more suitable defender.
II
A letter alwaysreaches its destination.
JacquesLacan
A letter sometimes (never) doesn't reach its destination.
JacquesDerrida15
If Shakespeare's Hamletmaps out the social and subjective indeterminacies
of noir paranoia long before Ned Beaumont is even a gleam in Dashiell
Hammett's eye, Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film version attempts to return the
play to the world of classical revenge, plucking out the heart of the play's
mystery by restoring the father to his proper place through the "classical"
psychoanalytic logic of Oedipus. The very casting of the film initiates the
oedipal feint before its action even begins, performing what Barbara Klinger
has called the "inferential walk." Urging the inclusion of all of a film's "di-
gressive" production processes in our interpretation of its significance as a
cultural product, Klinger argues that "films circulate as products, not in a
semantic vacuum, but in a mass cultural environment teeming with related
commercial significations." This "adjacent territory," as Klinger calls it, is
constituted by epiphenomena-promotion, advertisements, star interviews,
and spin-off product lines-that "create not only a commercial life-support
system for a film, but also a socially meaningful network of relations around
it which enter into reception. "16 The territory also includes what I call the
cultural logic of commodity casting: celebrities who already exist in the cul-
ture as signifying products, beyond the formal boundaries of their respective
"texts." This is how commodity casting instantiates the "inferential walk," a
term Klinger borrows from Umberto Eco's semiotic theory of intertextuality.
According to Eco, such "walks" occur when "the reader digresses to gather
the intertextual support necessary to decipher a moment within the narra-
tive."17 Within the narrative of Zeffirelli's Hamlet, the oedipalism is literally
encrypted in the film's opening scenes in the family tomb, a moment that
15
Lacan, 205; and Jacques Derrida, The Postcard:FromSocratesto Freud and Beyond,trans. Alan
Bass (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987).
16 Barbara Klinger, "Digressions at the Cinema: Commodification and Reception in Mass
Culture" in Modernityand Mass Culture,James Naremore and Patrick Brandinger, eds. (Bloom-
ington: Indiana UP, 1991), 117-34, esp. 119. I am indebted to Courtney Lehmann for bringing
Klinger's article to my attention.
17
Klinger in Naremore and Brandinger, eds., 130.
8 SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
18
Gibson continues this pattern in the recent Braveheart,a film in which the character he plays,
William Wallace, is spurred by the slaughter of his Scottish bride to lead a suicidal rebellion
against English occupiers.
19Barbara Hodgdon has made a similar observation about the cultural logic of the film's
casting, in which she reads Gibson's body from the point of view of a female spectator/consumer;
for a wonderful meditation on the commercial uses and visual deployments of male bodies, see
her "The Critic, the Poor Player, Prince Hamlet, and the Lady in the Dark" in Shakespeare Reread:
The Texts in New Contexts,Russ McDonald, ed. (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell UP, 1994),
259-93, esp. 282-88.
20 Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus:Capitalismand Schizophrenia (Minneapolis: U
of Minnesota P, 1983), chap. 2 and passim. For several brilliant, psychoanalytically oriented
discussions of Hamlet which avoid the rigid limitations outlined by Deleuze and Guattari's cri-
tique, see Janet Adelman, SuffocatingMothers:Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare's Plays,
Hamlet to The Tempest (New York and London: Roudedge, 1992), 11-37; Marjorie Garber,
Shakespeare's GhostWriters:Literatureas uncanny causality(New York and London: Methuen, 1987),
124-76; and Ned Lukacher, Primal Scenes:Literature,Philosophy,Psychoanalysis(Ithaca, NY, and
London: Cornell UP, 1986), 178-235. To this list I would also add Jacques Derrida, whose
meditation on Hamlet and Shakespeare in chapter 1 of spectersof marx is far more Lacanian in
spirit than perhaps he would wish to admit ("specters of Lacan," we might even say, given that
Lacan's name appears nowhere in the text while Freud's is often invoked); see Derrida, specters
of marx:thestate of the debt,the workof mourning,and the new international,trans. Peggy Kamuf (New
York and London: Roudedge, 1994), 3-48, esp. 18-42.
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 9
By cleaning up the king's body and downloading the "other" father into
Claudius, Zeffirelli offers Oedipus as the logic-and-deduction answer to what
in Shakespeare's play is a noirquestion. In Zeffirelli's version it is Claudius who
looks "grossly ... full of bread" and not the Ghost (played with St. Thomas
More-like probity by Paul Scofield), who appears wan, gaunt, and elderly.
Taking Hamlet's words literally- "My father, in his habit as he lived!"
(3.4.130)-Zeffirelli's Ghost is dressed austerely in a monk's habit. In this way
the film defenestrates the obscene-knowing aspect of the Father, retaining
only an ascetic hologram that diverts our attention from the contradiction
inherent in the paternal signifier.
By offering up Claudius as the anal father manque, Zeffirelli underwrites
Hamlet's own "necessary route through misrecognition."24 The "question-
able shape" of the Ghost in Shakespeare's play becomes in Zeffirelli's film the
unquestionable shape of Claudius's desire, as he-and not the Ghost-is
assigned the role of "Master of Enjoyment." In Shakespeare's play, Claudius
functions as Hamlet's identifiedsymptom-the site at which the knowledge of
"fenjoyment," or the unseemly pleasure of "foul crimes," can be imagined
without the subjective destitution of disidentification with the paternal. But in
literalizing this symptomology, Zeffirelli falls for Shakespeare's own oedipal
feint, taking it for the truth of Hamlet's desire by crudely parading it in the
vaudevillian winks, heated glances, passionate kisses, and lubricious encoun-
ters between Gibson's Hamlet and Close's Gertrude.
Encouraged by Zeffirelli to cast our lot with the lad, we too can direct our
loathing toward a corrupt Claudius because, while he may be lewd, he doesn't
inspire paranoia, since (after all) he doesn't know anything that we don't
know. His obscenity-predicated on the readily comprehensible and ulti-
mately banal motivations of ambition, lust, and envy- can be contained within
the confines of his overblown body. Neither spectral nor noir,it doesn't threat-
en the integrity of the symbolic order because we know what his enjoyment is
about. We can attribute it, as Hamlet does, to a corrupt individual, leaving the
paternal metaphor, the symbolic order, and by extension the state respectfully
intact. Reassuring the audience by getting us to "enjoy" Hamlet's symptom as
our own, Zeffirelli instructs us about what everyone in the play "really" wants.
By substituting oedipal organization for the terrifying ontological indetermi-
nacy of noir, Zeffirelli eliminates the paranoia induced precisely when Oedi-
pus fails to overdetermine the subject-positions of its "members." As Deleuze
and Guattari have put it,
Oedipus is ... only the represented,insofar as it is induced by repression.Re-
pressioncannot act without displacingdesire, withoutgiving rise to a consequent
desire,all ready,all warmfor punishment,and without putting this desire in the
place of the antecedentdesireon which repressioncomes to bear in principleor in
reality ["Ah, so that'swhat it was!"I]Y
25
III
Thus Zeffirelli's Hamlet reinstalls the father at the top of a hierarchy that
guarantees the stability of the paternal metaphor and the unquestionable
nature of paternal Law. But there is another, comedic version of Hamlet,also
produced for mass culture in 1990, that doesn't take the name of Shake-
speare's play. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the "something in Hamlet more
than Hamlet"29and is, in its particular form of meconnaissance,more true to
the noir spirit of Shakespeare's Hamlet than Zeffirelli's "tragic" version. This
is Steve Martin's L.A. Story,a film that is arguably the paradigmatic postmod-
ern Hamlet.The movie begins with the edited words of another Shakespear-
ean father, John of Gaunt (from RichardII), who is soon to join the ranks of
the dead:
26
Deleuze and Guattari, 81. i
27
According to Copjec, the orthopsychic subject is "the scientific subject ... constructed by
the institution of science, . . . it is always thereby obliged to survey itself, its own thinking, not
subjectively, not through a process of introspection to which the subject has privileged access, but
from the position of the scientific institution" (Read My Desire, 27).
objectively,
Initially posited by Bachelard, this "objective relation to the self" is precisely what gives rise to
the sense of something hidden or secret to the self/observing subject, an uneasy (guilty?) sus-
picion that there is something else that the subject always "really" wants that hovers just beyond
the ken of the scientific institution's instruments of surveillance. Oedipus, then, in Deleuze and
Guattari's formulation, provides this something else, this secret desire that the orthopsychic
subject can then renounce in order to achieve its "proper" consistency.
28 Cyril Tourneur, TheRevenger'sTragedy(1607), reprinted in Drama of theEnglishRenaissanceII:
TheStuartPeriod,Russell A. Fraser and Norman Rabkin, eds. (New York:Macmillan, 1976), 21-54,
esp. 51. Gravest thanks to Bryan Loughrey for this reference.
29
Cf. Ziiek, The SublimeObjectof Ideology,76-84, esp. 76.
12 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
Narrated against the image of a fitness park, these lines celebrate a utopian
Los Angeles that is, in its luminosity, the opposite of a rank and rotten Den-
mark. Of course, the "original" dramatic context of these lines is one of
admonishment, asJohn of Gaunt addresses an unruly "son" (Richard II) who
is bankrupting the kingdom. Richard's response to the dying Gaunt, who uses
his own name in a series of grim puns on the starving state of England, is
contemptuous: "can sick men play so nicely with their names?" This son has
no wish to be bothered by the injunctions of fathers.
In L.A. Story the lines are imported while their site of enunciation (a dying
father predicting disaster for the state) is jettisoned. The protagonist of the
film, Martin's character Harris K. Telemacher, isn't bothered by parents-he
has no father in the film, and his mother, whom we never see or hear, exists
only telephonically as a number programmed into his automatic voice-dial
machine. And yet, even without the burden of parents, Harris finds himself
brooding over his condition. In one of his many soliloquies, he tells us: "I was
deeply unhappy, but I didn't know it because I was so happy all the time."
Like Hamlet, Harris lacks advancement. Overeducated and philosophically
inclined (he has a Ph.D. in "Arts and Humanities"), he works as a television
weatherman, reporting the- "wacky weekend weather." Humiliated by the
need to put on an "antic disposition" to keep ratings up, his life, he says
(momentarily lapsing into Macbeth), is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound
and fury, signifying nothing."
In other words, Harris suffers from the postmodern equivalent of Hamlet's
ontological despair: he is, he writes in boldface on his living-room window,
"Bored Beyond Belief." One night as he drives home from yet another shal-
low social event with his vain girlfriend, his car stalls on the side of the freeway.
As he checks under the hood, he is "hailed" by a huge electronic signpost
that normally broadcasts traffic bulletins:
SIGNPOST HIYA.
I SAID HIYA....
RUOK? ...
HARRS Who are you ?
SIGNPOST I'M A SIGNPOST...
I C PEOPLE N TROUBLE & I STOP THEM ...
L.A. WANTS 2 HELP U ...
U WILL KNOW WHAT 2 DO
WHEN U UNSCRAMBLE...
HOW DADDY IS DOING...
ITS A RIDDLE ...
HARRIS Whose Daddy? Who's Daddy?
Like Hamlet, Harris knows he has been given a wakeup call to change his life;
but he is unable to make any sense out of the signpost's riddle because he
literally cannot rememberDaddy ("Who's Daddy?"). So he procrastinates and
attempts to ignore the injunction.
It isn't until later in the film, in an almost verbatim replay of the gravedig-
ger's scene, that the Hamlet motif openly emerges to remind him (and us) that
there is something to be, or not to be, re-membered. Harris and his new,
suitably British love, Sarah, are strolling through a cemetery, where they
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 13
30
H. R. Coursen has made a similar point about the romantic effect of this moment in Martin's
film in his discussion of different film and videotape treatments of the gravedigger's scene from
Hamlet; see "Alas, Poor Yorick!" in WatchingShakespeareon Television(Rutherford, Madison, and
Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1993),
57-69, esp. 67-68. I am grateful to Coursen for bringing his work to my attention.
14 QUARTERLY
SHAKESPEARE
31
Deleuze, quoted in Avital Ronell, CrackWars:LiteratureAddictionMania (Lincoln and Lon-
don: U of Nebraska P, 1992), 64.
32 Hawkes in Parker and Hartman, eds., 316.
SHAKESPEARE,PARANOIA, AND THE LOGIC OF MASS CULTURE 15
its cinematic frame.33 The film's vision of a white, prosperous L.A. that op-
erates "on its own" is based on a denial of the fundamental antagonisms (and
their obscene enjoyments) that constitutivelyfracture the social formation.34
However "light" Martin's version of Hamlet may seem, its relief is apotro-
paic-a bulwark against the racial and class conflicts that in 1990 were mak-
ing Los Angeles, and American culture more generally, a pressure cooker
ready to explode.
Ultimately, Martin's film offers a fantasy of unaccountability-both to the
Law and, most importantly, of the Law. It is also no accident that L.A. Storywas
released virtually on the eve of the Rodney King beating.35 The film may
eliminate the problem of the two fathers by replacing Daddy with Diddy, but
the enjoyment that underwrites paternal Law reappears with a vengeance
outside its frame, in Stacy Koon and the other "law-enforcement officers"
who clearly took obscene pleasure in showing Rodney who was really King. As
Zizek puts it, "we fear the policeman insofar as he is not just himself ... that
is to say, insofar as he is experienced as the stand-in for the big Other, for the
social order."36
The moment that the stand-ins for the big Other reveal their enjoyment is
the moment we enter the noir.And in the noiruniverse the personal is always
the political. As Shakespeare clearly demonstrates in Hamlet (and as Zeffirelli
and Martin refuse to acknowledge in their versions), every "idiot of the fam-
ily" is also an idiot of the state. Noir paranoia may infect individuals, but it
originates in the structure of the symbolic and its articulation of the social. If
there are always two fathers, then the noir paranoid is always right. By substi-
tuting a comedic narrative that ends in nonsense for the destitution inflicted
by the obscene father's "terms compulsative," L.A. Storyanswers Hamlet's
"To be or not to be" with "Don't worry, be happy." But Martin's upbeat
Hamlet exhibits the same fetishistic disavowal that will lead, a few years later,
to the acquittal of the policemen who brutalized Rodney King and to the
' 33 I am deeply indebted to Carolyn A. Mitchell for conversations about the racial implications
of L.A. Story,which were instrumental in helping me formulate my conclusions about the mass-
cultural symptomology that underwrites Martin's postmodern Hamlet.I also thank her for bring-
ing Teresa de Lauretis's concept of the "space-off" to my attention. See Mitchell's sharp analysis
of the televisual choreography of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in "Choicelessness as
Choice: The Conflation of Racism and Sexism" in DiscoveringDifference:Contemporary Essays in
AmericanCulture,Christoph K. Lohmann, ed. (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1993),
189-201, esp. 190-91; and de Lauretis, Technologiesof Gender:Essays on Theory,Film and Fiction
(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1987), 26.
34 Ziiek's claim that "Society doesn't exist" derives from the work of Ernesto Laclau and
Chantal Mouffe, who argue that the social formation doesn't transcend or exist in despite of
fractures and antagonisms but, rather, is constituted precisely by these "fundamental antago-
nisms"; see Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemonyand SocialistStrategy:Towardsa RadicalDemocraticPolitics
(London and New York:Verso, 1985), passim.
35 I refer here of course to the notorious 1990 incident in which four Los Angeles police
officers savagely beat Rodney King, an African American whom they had chased and stopped for
erratic driving. Unbeknownst to the police, a witness made a videotape of the beating, which,
when broadcast on television, horrified the nation and the world. Two years later, when the
officers were finally brought to trial on a charge of excessive force, an all-whitejury in Simi Valley,
a suburb of Los Angeles (in the "space-off" of Los Angeles, we might say), acquitted them. This
triggered the worst racial riots in Los Angeles since those of the 1960s. In the aftermath the two
main offenders were convicted of violating King's civil rights.
36 Ziiek, Tarryingwith the Negative:Kant, Hegel, and the Critiqueof Ideology(Durham, NC: Duke
UP, 1993), 234.
16 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
subsequent L.A. riots: a logic that attempts to ignore the debts that the social
subject cannot-without disastrous consequences-avoid. If Shakespeare's
Hamletmakes us ask what Daddy did before telling us that the rest is silence,
L.A. Storyasks us how Daddy is doing before trying to convince us that the rest
is nonsense.
Finally, if the "beyond-reproach" paternal metaphor always contains its
own obscene double, we must ask what happens when a culture no longer
believes, however fetishistically, in the integrity of the paternal logos. To raise
this question is not to nostalgize for a time when we all believed (if we ever
believed) that father knows best. Rather, it is to observe the increasing diffi-
culty the placeholders of paternal authority have in hiding their own obscene
doubles, whether they are presidents of nations, of savings-and-loans, junk-
bond kings, supreme-court justices, political-party leaders (or strategists), fed-
eral judges, angst-ridden filmmakers, priests, police officers, or football he-
roes. It is not for nothing that currently the most famous fathers in American
mass culture are both absurd "masters" of enjoyment: the crude Al Bundy of
"Married With Children" and the moronic Homer Simpson. Perhaps even
more alarming than Zizek's notion of two fathers is the possibility that there
might be only one left-the obscene father, the excrescence of a paternal
logos that has deconstructed itself from the inside out.
One thing, however, seems clear: the paternal metaphor can no longer
proclaim itself the guarantor of Law because it cannot sustain the fiction of its
own disinterestedness. It cannot help but reveal the pleasure it takes in its
experience of arbitrary entitlement at the very sites where it proclaims itself
"beyond reproach." The noir,detective learns to his disgust that the local
crimes he uncovers originate in the very law that authorizes his actions-that
the Name of the Father covers over a metastatic corruption that reproduces
its crimes at precisely the same moment and in precisely the same way that it
reproduces its authority. To wit, a preposterously illuminating anecdote: On
9 September 1994 Vladimir Zhirinovsky announced to the Russian news
agency Interfax that he had a plan "to combat Russia's declining birth rate:
He personally will father a child in every region of Russia in the coming year.
Zhirinovsky, the fax stated, had given orders "to ensure that at least one child
by the chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia personally [that is,
himself] be born in each regional branch of the LDPR in 1995." It seems
natural that, having posed naked in the shower for photographers, spread-
eagled in the sauna, leering at strippers and cavorting with prostitutes (see the
Sunday New YorkTimesMagazine, 19 June 1994), Zhirinovsky should offer to
repopulate Russia "himself." Crudely conflating the personal with the politi-
cal by eliding the metaphoricity of political office -the fact that all politicians
are placeholders-Zhirinovsky gives new meaning to the concept of the Fa-
therland. At a time when such a figure stands poised, among others to be sure,
as a New World Master of fascist enjoyment, we cannot rope him off as merely
an individual aberration. Rather, he should be seen as the obscene double of
our own leaders, whose "terms compulsative" mandate a new world order
structured as a forced choice. If we accept the proposition that therearealways
two fathers, then we can discern within postmodern diplomacy's paternalistic
insistence on global free enterprise what Shakespeare's prophetic soul fore-
shadowed in Hamlet: the emergence of the Noir World Order.