literary practices and paradigms of interpretation because it fascinates and compels the spectator/subject: Strong enou

prohibition.

In view of this, one may ask whether psychotic delusion and its underlying mechanism of foreclosure can also be under
comparable to the signifying mechanism operative in neurotic symptom formation, one is tempted to expect a way of en
'madness' lies the very failure of signification, the failure to symbolise a traumatic instance of interpellation or, in se
Derrida's general formula that 'speech ... is able to open the space for discourse only by imprisoning madness'.1 My assum
a lack, at the level of the signifier'2 (1981, 201) which in turn leads him to reassess the status of delusions so that they are n
foreclosed phallic signifier.3

If non-determination is comparable to the semiotic mechanism at work in psychosis and if 'filling a void in the absence o
questions. As foreclosure was shown to be a constitutive mechanism in the shaping of the rational and moral subject, one
is not foreclosure but the return of the foreclosed that presents society with something unbearably intimate, the retur
subjectivity. The assumption that foreclosure and the return of the foreclosed are the two sides of the same coin stakes ou
seeks to cure or exorcise delusional systems, a psychoanalytic approach conceives the return of the foreclosed as the rever
subject has been appropriated by exponents of deconstruction, notably Judith Butler:

If the subject is produced in speech through a set of foreclosures, then this founding and formative limitation sets th
foreclosure. This is not the agency of the sovereign subject, one who only and always exercises power instrumen
delimited in advance but also open to further and unexpected delimitation. Because the action of foreclosure does n
A structure only remains a structure through being reinstated as one.5

It is against this background of an originary and iterative barring of the subject that I want to look at emerging delusion
subject as a citizen) is fictional reality - for reasons yet to be shown. Let us look at Hitchcock's film adaptation (1963) of du
birds gather and attack. It is very tempting to interpret the birds as the symbol for the deadlock in the developing relatio
of any sexual relationship for her son, would present the obstacle to their match in an otherwise perfect setting, a seclud
the possessive mother's disapproval falls short for the following reason: the massive attack of the birds cannot be said to
be sure, the birds appearance in the credit sequence, perceived as an animated wallpaper of aggressive shapes, and the
events and the second symbolises the fact that something is going on between the protagonists. We should even conce
mother's warning against getting involved with her son, something she soon expresses thereafter when introduced t
condensation of the story line and clearly blocks its unfolding the moment when the birds attack the town and spre
overshadowed by the horrifying intrusion of the birds to the extent that its signification is hindered and fails to be reso
decisive transition: their widening attack no longer 'signifies' the conflictual relationship but embodies and materialize
something radically absent. What, then, is the void that is being filled by the aggressive birds?

Having identified the irrational attack of the birds as a return the foreclosed qua failure of symbolisation, we are pressed
locate the original conflict in a character trait - the mother who is supposedly 'possessive' - even though such 'psycholo
Instead, we must look for a conflict that leads to the developing relationship between Mitch and Melanie and at the s
symbolisation nor by a narrating an intrigue? Is there anything barred from the diegetic reality that would return to bl
referred to in the film only through double talk - the very scandal that enabled the meeting between the two, i.e. its fore
outrage in public and that this scandal must have caught the eye of the public - including the one of Mitch Brenner in the
bluff at the end of the sales talk:

Putting the escaped bird back into its cage.

MITCH: (Loud and clear, as if addressing the bird) Back in your gilded cage, Mrs Melanie Daniel.
MELANIE: What did you say?
MITCH: I was merely drawing a parallel.
MELANIE: How did you know my name?
MITCH: The little birdie told me. (Bows) Good day, Mrs Daniel.
MELANIE: Hey, wait a minute .... I don't know you.
MITCH: But I know you.
MELANIE: How?
MITCH: We met in court.
MELANIE: I've never met you in court or anywhere else...
MITCH: That's true, I'll rephrase it. I saw you in court.
MELANIE: When?
MITCH: Don't you remember one of your practical jokes that resulted in the smashing of a plate glass window?
MELANIE: (Determined) I didn't break that window.
MITCH: Yes, but your little prank did...The judge should have put you behind bars.
MELANIE: What are you, a policeman?
MITCH: I'm merely a believer in the law, madam. I'm not too keen on practical jokes.
MELANIE: Well, what do you call your lovebird-story if not a...
MITCH: Oh, I really wanted the lovebirds.
MELANIE: Well, you knew I didn't work here! You deliberately...
MITCH: (Cutting her off) Right, I recognised you when I came in. I just thought you might like to know what it's like to
MELANIE: I think you're a louse.
MITCH: (Smiling sheepishly) I am. Good day, Mrs Daniels, (bowing to shopkeeper) madam (walks out).
MELANIE: (Shouting after him) And, I'm glad you didn't get your lovebirds.
MITCH: (Leaving the shop) Oh, I'll get something else. See you in court!
[my transcription]

In the double-talk of these 'flirtatious' threats - 'Back in your gilded cage Mrs Melanie Daniels', 'The judge should have pu
time captures the interest of the accused, Melanie, who then hastens to find out Mitch's address. The incriminating agency
judge should have put you behind bars' does not merely indicate that the verdict was too lenient but also indicates a fa
Melanie Daniels'. Precisely since the minor damage is named (a smashed plate glass window) its pettiness merely increase
occlude the 'unfathomable' crime whose contours are delineated precisely by the accusatory force of the speech act and
same time construed as the point of departure is some sort of female enjoyment, an unheard of and ineffable violation o
scandal. In other words, the birds do not 'stand for' an articulable conflict but give body to an unspeakable scandal that has t

It is only in the face of the destructive power of the birds, which threaten to wipe out all of civilization, that Mitch's mothe
 t so y t e ace o t e dest uct e po e o t e b ds, c t eate to pe out a o c at o , t at tc s ot e
originary foreclosure; in other words, she manages to bar Melanie's 'secret excesses' from reappearing by containing them
'key detail' supports also our reading of the film:

At the very end of the film, Mitch's mother 'accepts' Melanie as her son's wife, gives her consent, and abandons her
and that is why, at that moment, they are all able to leave the property that is being threatened by the birds: the birds

The secret logic of the The Birds would then be that the incomprehensible attack of the birds is the visible failure of barrin
have advanced before as a working assumption - the distinction between primary and secondary paranoia - can now be
paranoia) is but the reverse side of subjectivation, the 'mad' founding act of the subject (primary paranoia). At this point w
and a pre-semiotic status. Since they embody the failure of symbolisation and the victory of a more archaic order, we are
original, mimetic language of 'things'. The latter is effected by the film's camerawork: suffice to recall the 'impossible' s
record the panicking residents from above as if the camera was part of the birds' 'conspiracy'. Imitating the movements
behind. By assuming this impossible perspective the camera sacrifices representation for a sensual imitation of the bird's m
means of camerawork is also a central part of Daphne du Maurier's story. Here is an extract from the beginning of The Bir

In spring the birds flew inland, purposeful, intent; they knew where they were bound, the rhythm and ritual of thei
pass the winter were caught up in the same driving urge, but because migration was denied them followed a patt
themselves in motion; now wheeling, circling in the sky, now settling to feed on the rich new-turned soil, but even
drove them to the skies again. (7)

Unlike Hitchcock's mimetic camerawork, however, du Maurier's detached description of the birds fails to render the pre
vocabulary and didactic syntax reminiscent of an ornithologist, while Hitchcock presents us with 'a cage in search of a bir

1. Derrida, Jacques (1967). 'Cogito and the History of Madness'. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. London: Routledge

2. Lacan, Jacques (1981). The Psychoses: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book III 1955-1956. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans.

3. In "On the possible treatment of psychosis" Lacan formulates this relation: 'It is the lack of the Name-of-the Father in tha
the signifier from which the increasing disaster of the imaginary proceeds, to the point at which the level is reached at w
(1966). ƒcrits: A Selection. Trans. by Alan Sheridan. London: Routledge, 1977.