The compositor of the farce of dustiny : Lacan reading, and being read by, Joyce

"We have learnt to see Joyce as Lacan's own symptom," writes Jean-Michel Rabate, "and as the sinthome par excellence" (2006, 26). This duality of Joyce as an unreadable text permeated with enjoyment and at the same time as an enigma that Lacan wants to decipher supplies the key to an understanding of Seminar XXIII. Lacan's addition to the triad of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary of a fourth term, the Sigma (or sinthome) firms up his late shift from the speakingbeing (parletre, the Lacanian neologism that indicates the insertion of the human being into the signifying chain) to MAN (LOM, a Lacanian play on l'homme). Instead of the human being as inserted into the Symbolic Order, Seminar XXIII presents Joyce as inserting himself into language, tying the signifier to the body in a special, unique way. For Lacan, the sinthome is eccentric to the registers of the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary, yet it paradoxically links them when the Name-of- the-Father fails. The implication is carried in the concept of "nomination" that the Name-of-the-Father (or its structural equivalents, such as "Woman," "God" and "Joyce") makes language possible for the individual.

The editor as animation inbetweener

With digital compositing and digital special effects, the traditional edits of cut, dissolve and wipe, are being augmented by a more complex, yet liberating, creative process. This paper will explore how the language of film editing may be shifting and evolving due to new tools at the filmmakers disposal (and the ease with which to use them).

With the convergence of all media into the digital realm, the distinctions between animation and live-action filmmaking are continuing to blur. In fact, editing live-action film is now often similar to the process of animation. In many ways, the film editor is becoming like an “animation-inbetweener, ” of the “key posses” that have been “drawn” by the cinematographer.

This new animator/compositor/editor uses a variety of methods for creating inbetweens in order to connect two distinctly different scenes. These can include the use of; morphing, animated mattes, digital animation, and controlled complex dissolves. Not only can this process create a unique visual style, but in addition, new languages can also be explored.

Eisenstein was very interested in how new meanings can be created by the linear juxtaposition of distinctly different scenes. But what does it mean when these two scenes are allowed to evolve into each other?

Furthermore, the editor, can now easily allow selected elements to transcend between shots. It is now possible for the editor to decide what portions of the scene are most important, and what the viewer should take with them into the next scene. What should be highlighted, or what elements should be suppressed.

In order to illustrate these ideas, this paper will look at the earlier film editing theories of, Eisenstein, Pudovkin and G.W. Pabst, and the traditions and theories of animation. It will also showcase contemporary compositing/editing examples.