Turning Danger into Performance – Anti-Phallic Voyeurism

Enduring works live from an unbearable inner tension. They negotiate the conflict between what they want to say — their moral, political, or humanistic intention — and what they actually do — their libidinal, formal, and often cruel dynamics. A work that exhausts itself completely in its intention is not a work of art but a tract. What concerns us are works in which the author or director unconsciously betrays himself — where the camera or the text desires or performs something that the intellect ought to question.

*

Power produces blindness as a luxury. Subordination produces insight as a survival strategy.

*

There are no separate worlds. In the end, everything revolves around the question of who provides the intensity and who possesses the structure to channel it.

*

Every cultural achievement rests on this exploitation of intensity. There is no innocent archive.

*

“But the basic problem remains: the talents you need to win a campaign are not the talents you need to govern successfully.” — Richard Sennett

*

“Unlike eating and sex, gossip knows no point of saturation.” — Adrianus Franciscus Theodorus van der Heijden

*

“In our cells, the belief still prevails that we are living in the Stone Age.” — Yael Adler

*

Inferiority means being trapped. Georges Bataille as the curator of Laure’s willingness for self-expenditure; Luchino Visconti as the beneficiary of relations of domination, who arouses no suspicion when he displays Laura Antonelli in humiliating poses. In some Laura Antonelli film there is a scene that Bataille would certainly have incorporated into Blue of Noon. The master of the house tears up a piece of paper in front of his maid, and she eagerly drops to all fours to gather up the scraps. There can be no doubt that Laura willingly grants him the spectacle of her submission within the framework of domination itself. The staging codes submission as voluntary complicity.

*

Inferiority constitutes itself in such a way that every act of supposed freedom internally reinforces the external structure of oppression. But once inferiority learns to speak the code of dominance so flawlessly that dominance can no longer distinguish it from itself, the entire script begins to tremble.

The Blindness of the Ruler / Cognitive Dressing Gown / From Neorealism to the Aesthetics of Exhaustion

When Luchino Visconti revolutionized Italian cinema with Ossessione and La terra trema, the explosive force of the films lay in their relentless realism. The director strips reality bare. He clears away narrative debris. His camera is interested in bodies under economic pressure. Neorealism is a method of disenchantment.

La terra trema marks an extreme point of political cinema. The Sicilian fishermen appear as people squeezed dry. The landscape possesses no romantic quality. It is a site of production. The film insists on maximum ethnographic harshness. Visconti investigates not private neuroses but historical mechanisms. Human beings are fully embedded in their material reality. It explains them.

Visconti is communist, intellectual, aristocrat, and aesthete. Beginning in the 1950s, reality in his films loses its raw materiality. Films such as The Leopard, Death in Venice, and L'Innocente breathe the fatalism of history. The central figure is no longer the struggling human being but the exhausted representative of an obsolete order.

Visconti’s obsession becomes the aesthetics of historical fatigue. The aristocratic interiors of his films symbolize epochal exhaustion. Furniture, fabrics, candlelight, and music form a dispositif of terminal delay. One watches a beautifully photographed dying process.

Visconti contemplates decadence with melancholic intimacy. His late work asks: how and why does the death of a class continue to be culturally prolonged long after that class is already historically dead?

From Action to Agony

Figures such as Prince Salina in The Leopard or Gustav von Aschenbach in Death in Venice no longer act. The central figure is the moribund aristocrat who sees the new world approaching while remaining inseparably entangled with the old one. Here Visconti performs a radical rotation of perspective. The gaze no longer moves from below upward — from the exploited toward the actors and mechanisms of power — but from within outward. The Prince of Salina, portrayed by Burt Lancaster, knows: “We were the Leopards, the Lions; those who replace us will be the jackals, the hyenas.”

The fact that Visconti chose a novel by Gabriele D’Annunzio for his final film points to an internal contradiction. The co-founder of anti-fascist neorealism takes leave of cinema through the author whose aesthetics historically constitute one of the major proto-forms and high forms of Italian fascism.

Cult of style, aristocratic pose, politics as theater of intensity.

D’Annunzio’s occupation of Fiume became a model for aestheticized politics. Visconti’s decision feels like a late capitulation. D’Annunzio offers him something neither Cesare Pavese nor Alberto Moravia can provide: the fusion of decadence, eroticism, and domination. Moravia analyzes the bourgeoisie; D’Annunzio eroticizes its decay. Pavese describes existential emptiness; D’Annunzio transforms it into aristocratic pose.

L'Innocente functions as a key text of the late work: a clinically critical anatomy of male cruelty and simultaneously an affected contemplation of cruelty itself. As in Bataille, the female figure embodies excess, pain, and expenditure, while the male intellect and the male camera transform this intensity into meaning, style, or theory.

Excess is female. Analysis is male.

Patriarchal visual orders are sublimated through reproduction.

The founding father of anti-fascist cinema films the testament of the father of fascism.

Luchino Visconti descended from one of Italy’s oldest aristocratic families. Gabriele D’Annunzio, by contrast — born Gabriele Rapagnetta — was the parvenu who acquired his title, Principe di Montenevoso, through aesthetic and martial excess.

That Visconti chose Laura Antonelli for his cinematic testament corresponds to Bataille’s fixation on Laure. A serious character actress would have performed the psychology of a class. The erotic star brings bodily intensity with her. Visconti uses her erotic aura and seals it inside the golden mausoleum of his sets. Every decorative detail bears an ornament of decline.

Contradiction

You read L'Innocente as though the film were a sadistic assault by Visconti on Laura Antonelli, analogous to Bataille’s destructive amour fou with Laure. In doing so, you wrong Visconti. He was no Bataille. He was a dying melancholic, already partially paralyzed during the shoot.

Laura Antonelli was, after Malizia, the highest-paid star in Italian cinema. She sought collaboration with Visconti in order to shed the stigma of mere sex-bomb cinema and gain recognition as a dramatic actress.

In L'Innocente, the privileges of the patriarch Tullio Hermil (played by Giancarlo Giannini) function like a cognitive dressing gown that protects him from the necessity of understanding either himself or the system. He never catches himself in the act and therefore falls victim to his own illusions. But Laura must perceive the deceptions clearly. The subordinate analyzes; the superior shrugs and says: so what?

Tullio confesses to her that he has a mistress, Teresa Raffo. At the same time, he demands that Laura remain pure, available, and sister-like as his possession. When Laura breaks out of this tyranny and begins an affair with the writer Filippo d’Arborio, Tullio’s marital desire suddenly reawakens.