| Abstract: | The spectatorial paradigm proposed here develops directly from the Freudian concept of Nachträglichkeit, which developed out of Freud’s work on traumatic neuroses and the abandoned seduction theory. Afterwardsness, Laplanche’s reworking of Freud’s concept, and the cinema both share a concern with temporality. They also share a common interest in memory and are both bound to a particularly Laplanchean notion of translation. Film has always been thoroughly intertextual and has always sought to remake or (re)translate itself for differing generations and different nations. What I am suggesting in this essay is that spectators also remake films as part of the very process of spectatorship and that beyond the actual cinematic experience they carry a remade and remembered “film” with them. This view of spectatorship therefore takes afterwardsness as its motivating force. The experience of watching a film coincides also with the temporal directionalities described by Laplanche in relation to afterwardsness. Not only is the spectator left with memories from, and of, the film after it has ended, but any number of (frequently traumatic) enigmatic signifiers or messages may have been unconsciously recorded, requiring subsequent de‐ and re‐translation. Following a Laplanchian model, one might surmise that the cinematic spectator develops a cinematic unconscious on the basis of the “repression” of the messages received via the screen. This “repression” occurs as a result of the sheer volume and traumatic intensity of the visual and aural stimuli, which cannot be immediately ordered, understood, de‐ and re‐translated. These enigmatic messages, structured by the temporality of afterwardsness, provoke the spectator into a process of reconstruction, re‐translation. At the same time the visual and aural stimuli of the cinematic experience may also have an immediate effect on conscious perception or trigger the traumatic recollection of a previously unconscious trauma. Subjectivity in this context would thus be, as Laplanche asserts, a process of “auto‐translation”, provoked by the message of the other (see Laplanche 1992a). This other may well be partially or totally inflected by the hegemony of Hollywood; however, the de‐ and re‐translation that is part of the process of auto‐translation might enable an active “cinematographic performance” that may ultimately open up a critical space beyond the dominant discourses. (This notion of “cinematographic performance” is discussed in Guattari (1977).) These (traumatic) memories, enigmatic signifiers, the de‐translated remnants of one’s cinema history are re‐translated and remade, engendering a remaking of oneself around these fragments in a process of “auto‐translation”, what might also be thought of as a kind of re‐narration. There is an active, almost performative, dimension to this process of repetition in translation, in difference; an emphasis on re‐narration as part of a process of translation or re‐writing, a process of transformation. Thus it has been argued that: Forward movement in life is achieved through a backward movement in memory, but one that is more than a simple regression. In place of the blocked nostalgia or nausea of the perpetual return, the past is transformed in such processes as “working through” and “deferred action”. This is …] performance that is iterative and interrogative—a repetition that is initiatory, instating a differential history that will not return to the power of the Same. (Burgin , p. 273) The idea of a Nachträglichkeit spectatorship is to express the very dynamism of the spectatorial experience, to speak of the reconstructive and creative aspect of spectatorship. This process of spectatorship recreates the films it “remembers” and articulates a certain kind of love at first sight (always already at second sight) of the cinema, the expression of a kind of après‐coup of the coup de foudre. |
