The Cinema Ideal : An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Studies of the Film Spectator 9781315855783, 131585578X, 9780415838658, 9780415726733, 0824074920

Table of contents :
Content: 1. Idols of the Theater --
2. Cinema and the Psychic Apparatus --
3. Perception of the Image --
4. The Willing Suspension of Disbelief --
5. Participation: Group or Individual --
6. Film and Phantasy --
7. The Cinema Ideal/ The Ideal Cinema.

Citation preview

THE CINEMA IDEAL An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Studies of the Film Spectator Harriet E. Margolis

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: CINEMA

*

R O U TLED G E LIBRARY EDITIONS: CIN EM A

Volume 17

THE C I N E M A IDEAL

This page intentionally left blank

T H E C IN E M A ID EA L An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Studies of the Film Spectator

H A R R I E T E. M A R G O L I S

O Routledge jjj

Taylor & Francis Group,

LONDON AND NEW YORKI

First published in 1988 This edition first published in 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, M ilton Park, A bingdon, Oxon, 0 X 1 4 4RN Sim ultaneously published in the USA and C anada by Routlcdge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business E, 14, p.

22

U;

H allucination par l a te n d a n c e à c o n f o n d r e des ni v eau x de r é a l i t é d i s t i n c t s , par un l é g e r flottem ent temporaire d a n s l e j e u d e l ' é p r e u v e de r é a l i t é en t a n t que f o n c C i o n du Moi. . . . Il lui ma n q u e c e caracCère, propre à l'h all u c i n a c i o n v é r i c a b l e , de p r o d u c C i o n p s y c h i q u e i n C é gr a le m e n C endogène" ( L S I , p. 126).

104

ist,

even

that

"the

provided it

is

if

by t h e

content

tion"

of

86-87). makes

the

film

with

fashion

dream

the

it,

a repressed

paranoia idea--the reality,

in

also

opposi­ terms

makes

"experience

of

of the

satis­

hallucination. "experience from

which

an

of

anew a s

it

argues

therefore

perceived

a

of

rise

in

re-presents

satisfactions.

presents

is

comparison

the

the

relief

earlier

as

a symptom;

of

Rose

speaks

itself

this

resemble use

not,

a rejected

reappears

into

hallucination

she

of

m anifests

momentary

an

When

a sense

describes

provides

37

do

regression

projection

positive

associated

for

In

experience

Freud

full

itself."

repression

a more

presenting

a

a desire--w hich

spectator* s faction,"

represented

to

outward

which

perception

tion"

film

the

(pp.

As

objects

counter-flux

"as

against

the

tension

by

perceptions

In

hallucinatory

satisfac­

a

sim ilar

satisfaction

desire.

The c o m p le tio n of the d re a m - p r o c e s s con­ sists in the thought-content-regressively t r a n s f o r m e d and w or ke d o v e r into a wishful phantasy--beeoming con­ s c io u s as a sense-perception. . . . The dream -w ish, as we s a y , is h a l l u c i n a t e d , and, as a hallucination, meets with belief in the r e a l i t y of i t s f u l f i l m e n t ( " M e t a p s y c h o 1 o g i c a l S u p p l e m e n t , " p. 2 2 9 ) .

Because realities

17,

"our

judgement

from

ideas

and

is

very

well

wishes,

J a c q u e l i n e Rose, " P a r a n o ia No . 4 ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 8 9 .

and

able

however

the

Film

to

distinguish

intense

they

System,"

may

Screen

105

be,”

Freud

argues

unconscious become

against

wishes

conscious."

"for

any

compulsion

realities

whe n

to

once

take

they

have

Still,

it seems justifiable to assume that b e l i e f in r e a l i t y i s bound up w i t h p e r ­ ception through the s e n s e s . When o n c e a thought has f o l l o w e d the p a t h to r e g r e s ­ s io n as far back as to the u n co n scio u s raem ory-traces of o b j e c t s and thence to p e r c e p t i o n , we a c c e p t the p e r c e p tio n of it as real. So hallucination brings b e l i e f in reality with it (ibid., p. 230) .

"What," of

Freud

then

asks,

a hallucination”;

tion

of

the

ated

with

cases

leads

absent

desired an

bearers

the

the

answer

seems

to

and

the

reality-testing

Metz

to

coming lie

into

in

being

a relaxa­

mechanism

associ­

it.

This "an

ego

"determines

object

with

can

enough

the

wish"

be

force"

"apprehension" of

say

can

that

in

certain

hallucinated (IJ5_,

associated

p.

if

113)

with

circumstances

its so

"the

presence

that

in

is

s ome

memory-traces,

be

h y p e r c a t h e c t e d to the p o i n t of h a l l u c i n a ­ tion, t h a t i s t o s a y , up t o t h e p o i n t o f v i v i d n e s s where they are confused with perceptions: t o t h e p o i n t , i n sum, w h e r e t h e y a c t i v a t e , i f not the sense o r g a n s in their ordinary physiological functioning, a t l e a s t the system of p e r c e p t i o n i n s o f a r as i t i s a p s y c h i c a l a g e n c y and s p e c i f i c visée de c o n s c i e n c e ( " r o u g h l y , ’ o r i e n t a ­ t i o n of consciousness'" (p. 143)] (p.

However, during

such

sleep;

actually

in

fact

film"

(p.

promise,

at

the

39

but

For

the

is

not

the

cinematic the

is

and

the

image

is

Bu t

because

relation

the

average

and

to real

s/he

c om­ sees and

it

must

spectator on d e m a n d .

the

the

the

cinematic

did,

judgment

recalled

between

the

s/he

in

of

product

if

by a n y t h i n g

(spectacle)

what

Hence,

"has

Metzian

internal

conscious

not

s a me mo me n t

sounds

believes

stim ulus.

is

the

typically

an

does

spectator

images

subject

only

So Me t z c o n c l u d e s

at

triggered

spectator

film.

this

occur

spectator

what

level, for

the

there,

hallucinate.

faculty

usually

cinematic

To r e p h r a s e

an e x t e r n a l

faculty

Morin

the

an h a l l u c i n a t i o n

does

environment, between

really

hallucinating

his/her

this

that

was

an u n c o n s c i o u s

retains On c e

watching

104).

cinema

spectator be

while

perceived:

be r e a l ,

the

that

what

the

can

reminded

ambivalently

hallucinated

to

hallucination

we a r e

sleep

somewhat

he

an

cinematic

distinction

world.

perception

and

hal-

"Un o b j e t peut être halluciné si sa présence est d é s i r é e avec a s s e z de force" (L SI, p. 138); "las traces m n é s i q u e s p o r t e u s e s du d é s i r a i e n t é t é s u r i n v e s t i e s j u s q u ' à l'h allu cin atio n , c ' e s t - à - d i r e j u s q u ' à un p o i n t d e v i v a c i t é où e l l e s s o n t c o n fo n d u e s avec des p e r c e p t i o n s : j u s q u ' à un p o i n t , e n s omme , o ù e l l e s mettent en action, sinon les o rg a n e s des sens dans leur fonctionnement physiologique o r d i n a i r e , du moins l e s y s t è m e de la perception en t a n t q u 'i n s t a n c e psychique e t que v i s é e de c o n s c i e n c e s p é c i f i ­ q u e (pp. 139-40). "A h a l l u c i n é c e q u i é t a i t vraiment là , c e q u ' a u même mo me nt i l p e r c e v a i t en e f f e t : l e s images et les s o n s du film" (p. 126).

107

lucination

is

the

for

basis

boundary tive an

more d i r e c t , all

where

;

40

hallucination

signs.

„41

'modeled

and

includes 130).

for

"objective" of

though— sometimes

noted,

non-real in

atures).

transformation

and

sense),

in

frames

onto

selves

the

lucination

to

not

entails

(as,

Mitry

constant

forms of in

perception

is

this what

to

might

have

of

projection

ob­ a nd

psychoanalytic of

rational

identify

them-

perception."

transformation Mor i n

the

mini­

from p r o c e s s e s

objective

(p.

even

involving

then

of

successfully

projection which

is

which

perception,

a strictly

forms

42

contributes

(through

apparent

objec-

basis

vision"

can

results

in

the

mysteriously

cinema

"the

"crossroads"

is

into

as

perception the

effects

subjectivation

it

the

A major

special

although

that

with

of

is

as h a l l u c i n a t i o n s

cinema

real

This

identification,

of

because--the

case

on

psychological

hallucination

as

'all

perception

processes"

the

jectivation

this,

managed

nature

images

hallucination

becomes a b s o l u t e l y

invert

by a

"imaginary

transformation

present

to

Morin

regulated

such The

or,

sees

"Hallucination

vision

correctly

Thus

he

perception:

subjective

perception

since

calls

"la

of

43

hal­

vision

_ _ _ _

"L'hallucination est la vision subjective l i m i t e qui d e c e n t p e r c e p tio n absolument o b j e c t i v e " (p. 138). "Toute p e r c e p tio n est une hallucination correctement c o j j ^ u i t e à p a r t i r de s i g n e s " ( p . 1 4 6 ) . " M o d e l é e , r é g l é e p a r une v i s i o n p s y c h o l o g i q u e . " "La p r o j e c t i o n d e s c a d r e s r a t i o n n e l s s u r d e s f o r m e s a p ­ parentes q u i v o n t s ' i d e n t i f i e r aux f o r m e s c o n s t a n t e s de l a p e r c e p tio n o b j e c t i v e " (p. 126).

108

ps y c h o 1 og i q u e , " crossroads of objectivations and subjectivations, o f t h e r e a l and i m a g i n a r y , from which t h e y b o t h r a d i a t e . The common p ro cess is p r o j e c t i o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , but whereas the affective projectionidentifications l e t themselves get c a r ­ r i e d away b y t h e i m a g i n a r y p r o c e s s e s , t h e objective projective-identifications guide the imaginary processes into the frame of reference of practical determination: The s u b j e c t p r o j e c t s r a ­ t i o n a l i z i n g s t r u c t u r e s which i d e n t i f y t he t h i n g not with the s u b j e c t but with i t ­ s e l f t h a t i s to sa y, with a type or genre. This

psychological

mimics,

involves

perception whole, plains

from

vision,

a high degree

identified

by

m ultiplicity

cinema's

w h i c h Mo r i n s a y s

ability

the to to

of m o b i l i t y

the and

film that

Gestaltists--frora unity

provoke

(p.

127).

camera

It

form of part

to

also

ex­

" p h e n o m e n a o_f p r a c t i c a l

p e r c e p t i o n and . . . phenomena of affective participa45 t i o n ." Again a compr omise: Mori n r e d e f i n e s h a l l u c i n a t i o n so

that

the

cinematic

spectator

is

unquestionably

hal-

"Carrefour d ' o b j e c t i v a t i o n s comme de s u b j e c t i v a t i o n s , d e r é e l comme d ' i m a g i n a i r e , à p a r t i r d u q u e l s ' i r r a d i e n t l e s uns et les a u tre s. Le p r o c e s s u s commun e s t l a p r o j e c t i o n identification, mais alors que les projectionsidentifications a f f e c t i v e s se laissent entraîner par l e s processus i m a g i n a i r e s , l e s p r o j e c t i o n s - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ob­ jectives entrainent les processus imaginaires dans les cadres de l a d é t e r m i n a t i o n p r a t i q u e : l e s u j e t p r o j e t t e l e s structures r a t i o n a l i s a t r i c e s q u i i d e n t i f i e n t l a c h o s e , n on à l u i , mais à elle-même, c ' e s t - à - d i r e à un t y p e ou g e n r e " (P45l 3 1 ).

" De s p h é n o m è n e s de p e r c e p t i o n pratique et p h é n o m è n e s de p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t i v e " ( p . 13 2 ) .

.

.

. des

109

lucinating--but

then

so

is

everyone

else

a nd

at

all

times . The

relation

nebulous tion,

and

provide

seems

cases, a

of

to

be a d ead

D.

Summar y

an

considered

machine,'

of

only

to

In

like

or

cinema

remains

Morin's we

posi­

look

for

t h e o r y may p e r h a p s

either

instance,

perception i t s e l f ,

evil,

study

"a

who

does

to

cinematic

as

it

it

is p.

is

of

not

them.

necessary

(Andrew, but

the

a producer

perceive

insofar

pertains the

, 47

a spectator

learns

a necessary

studies

psychoanalytic

theorists

re-working"

marginally

we t a k e

general,

explication.

perception

interesting

be

film

for

rather

artistic

which

hallucination,

imaging

spectives but

in

and

the

seems

end .

Current as

Either

uselessly

workable

discussion

hallucination

unconvincing.

which

marginal

between

apparatus

images

naturally

An e a r l i e r process

ma d e 20).

a nd

perceive aesthetic

w hi ch becomes

significant Perception

fortunately

per­

through may w e l l

one which

psychoanalytical1 y

only

influenced

spectator.

The h u mo r b u i l t i n t o t h i s p o s i t i o n m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n a c u r r e n t bumper s t i c k e r wh i c h r e a d s " W a r n i n g : I brake for hallucinations ! ” Patricia Mellencamp, "B uttercup P o p c o r n ," Cine-T r a c t s 3, No. 3 (1980), p. 2; T e r e s a d e L a u re tis , Alice Doesn't ( B l o o m i n g t o n : I n d i a n a U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 8 4 ) , p . 38.

110

This

discussion

cinema

at

the

level

raised

several

filmviewing me a n

that

from

both

count the

as

well

real

see

s o me l o s s

of

perceiving

spectator,

cinematic then

w illingly This

simultaneous

ear

being which

but

the of

the

image

image

of

image

differs

The

qua

self-

image m i g h t

involvement

presumed

s ome

seems

cinematic

precludes

is

already

circumstances

perception.

this

the

in

the

in

expres­

degree

of

participation,

im plicit

in

the

process

of

in

must in

the

presents wonder

a certain

the

for

him /herself eye

the

passivity

see” attitude

necessity for

for

the

the by

perceives

spectator

to

a

defensive him/her

spectator

is

said

duration

of

the

the

spectator's

countered to

mentally (along

real

prevent

on

which i s

as the

which

e n t i r e l y . 4® Often

implies a nd

about

spectator

disbelief

itself

with

bring

by t h e

the

film

processing

the

the

sounds

the

hears). Still,

48

of

a cinematic

suspend

a "wait

images

nature

image

we

taken

into

of

consciousness

from

part,

The

f i l m . ” Th u s

operating

film.

points.

involvement

mechanisms

to

however,

of

a film.

the

being

has,

hallucinatory

such a

image

perception

perception,

and

perception

the

spectator's and

spectator's

the

as

perception

"to

If

as

real

film,

sion

of

the

important

the

conscious

of

If another

the set

just

as

the

subject

dreams

s p e c t a t o r d o e s r e a c t to the o f d e f e n s e m e c h a n i s m s comes

unique

dreams

even

image as r e a l , into question.

then

111

whe n

those

spectator because past

each

disrupt itself

conclude

spectator's that

the

face

to

is

or

have not

all-news

radio

thrived,

and

rivals,

greatest

are and

a mong

the

the

film.

(see

yet

ability

consciousness.

We c a n

both

not

pp.

130-31

their

limited

too as

sectors

of

the

so.

to

49

success

such

as

by t h e m ­ While

survived their has

ef-

Tradi­

theaters.

have

the

cinema's

reality,

p r e v a l e n t as

financial

ambivalent

a program

stations

me a n s

ability

does

commercial

the

below).

the

near

about

which

towards

never

taken

so

right

film ique,

it

of

general

contribute

in

fashion

factors

i n / a c c e p t s an

which push

well

each

These

The me d i u m h a s and

a unique

cinema's

' image

television

these

in

Met2 a r e

newsreels done

to

placed

then,

films

selves,

1

disavowal

a s medium,

those

tertaining

to

seem g e n e r i c ,

d i f f e r e n t background

spectator's

M i t r y and

reality.

documentaries,

been

the

factors,

of

itself

tionally,

even

diminish

on

film

a

and

submission

Various impression

brings interests

that

akin

given

a nd

spectator

situation,

anxiety dreams,

the

spectator

experiences

impose

only

like

experiences

therefore to

dreams,

and en­

c o mmo n l y

populace.

50

The

_ _

Heath arg u es a g a i n s t the assu m p tio n t h a t the pleasure of c l a s s i c cinema l i e s in the . . . intended transparency of a kind of a b so lu te ' r e a l i s m ' from which a l l signs of production have been e f f a c e d . " Heath f a u l t s the a s s u m p t i o n because c l a s s i c cinema " c o n t a i n s " r a t h e r than e f f a c e s such s i ^ g s of p r o d u c t i o n (Q u e s t i o n s , pp. 5 1 -5 2 ). Ted T u r n e r ’ s Cable News Network may be a passing phenomenon o r i t may r e p r e s e n t a new trend. S t i l l , that t e l e v i s i o n ' s i n s t a n t a n e o u s q u a l i t y makes i t the most p o t e n t ne ws me d i u m h i g h l i g h t s t h e f a c t t h a t t e l e v i s i o n and c i n e m a

112

cinema, not

usually

afford

sequently Metz

is

one

to

the

attend

why t h e

that

perception

ment,

theory

we

must

presume

gests

perception

Kuhn

level,

also

argues

participation, he

does

be

not

but

it

oust

perception

s o me e a r l y which

cannot

is

be

would

component

then

a

if

as of

desire

it

to

this

that an the

total

(IS,

be

of

the

Fenichel

model

element

to

spectato r's

in­ sug­

at

s ome Thoma s

perception

a nd

be d e m o n s t r a t e d ,

be m a i n t a i n e d any

and/or

supra) .

can

On c e

involve­

might,

93

is

spectator's

emotional

between

of be

(pp. the

62-64).

spectator

factored

In

experience,

more d o m i n a n t

success.

the

though,

physiological

p.

the

isolated.

from

of

becomes

and

chapter,

how i t

by o t h e r ,

survive

it.

cannot

(see

can

the

power

participation.

s h o ws

in

question

participation

it

seem

with

with

distinction he

con­

desire,

presume

separable

overlaid

equated

we

largest,

Effectively

this

apparatus

i.e.,

s h ow how

Therefore take

from

can­

a

the

to

associated

a nd

for

for

to

s ome d e g r e e

involvement,

prim itive

order

us

the

scale,

possible.

submits

once

than

Once a g a i n

cinematic

i.e.,

financial

create

participation

tellectual that

in

learned

and

the

perspective,

cinema

returns

we h a v e

we a p p r o a c h

must

spectator

psychoanalytical

less

audience

13-16).

This

What

anything

cinema

L S I , pp.

cinema.

on a l a r g e r

general,

right;

6-9; of

attract

most

spectator pp.

to

operating

elements.

as but

Chapter The W i l l i n g

The cinema

subject are

not

the

other

of

variables

ity

in

of

Suspension of

the

world

exclusive

fluctuates

at

related

and

the

simultaneously

forgetting

imaginary event general to

events

those are

it

may b e

events.

perceived cinema

is

and

largely

allowed

cinema

not

indicated

so

a freedom

that

place by t h e

because

As

an

to

the

qual­

art

form,

experience-by

an In

p.

17).

conditions

us

to

perceived means

they are

not

emotional

of cinema as

of

we know we

to

real,

react

status

that

reaction

for

o f one

(Lotman,

the

specifically

the

confronted

it"

this

of

a multitude

spectator,

you a r e

to

to

a twofold

emotional

labeling

proportion

forth.

society

cinema of

spectator

the

"requires

that

the

precisely a

film,

according

For

the The

forgetting

said

Disbelief

cinema a c c o r d in g

the

particularly,

a nd

states.

the

to

projection,

Four

the

events

because release,

escapist

the as

entertain­

ment . This

chapter

perience"

described

resembling

what

connection

with

the

lone

therefore

Freud

Jurij

calls

fetishes.

individual

ask whether

by

a nd

disavowal,

examines

the

Lotman,

disavowal. Since

the

which c e r t a i n l y

an

at

exist large,

occurs

ex­

experience

Disavowal

fetishes

community

"twofold

at

occurs both

in for

we s h o u l d the

in­

11 4

dividual

level,

also

occurs

chapter

will

focus

the

next

an

individual

looks

A.

at

arguments

a

tion and

complex, can

and

some

been

of

or

a

group

in

favor

audience,

support

must

be

subjective,

ma de o f

this

this

both

ma de b e t w e e n

of

this

While either chapter

positions.

to

etc.,

relation

in

which

the

a

greater His

(p.

101).

scious

in

constructing

film

would

be n o t h i n g

screen,

or

at

images

per

second."^

subjectivity" cinematic

the

other

physical

in our

Much c a n

between

the

physical

a nd

two

halves of

Che

participation,

or

an a c t i v e ,

"without

a f l u t t e r i n g of

con­

which

a b r o w n i e n movement

turn

has

proposes

passivity

plays

thef i l m ,

than

emotional,

Morin

"R e a lity ," for

needs

labeled

interior

distinc­

participation

example,

spectator

v e r y most

which means world

For

participation

An i n i t i a l

participation.

subjectivity role

shown,

participation,

proportional

leads

has

concept.

distinction.

division,

spectator

perception

multi-leveled

non-physical

inversely

of

the

phenomenon.

on a r g u m e n t s

which might

discussion

mental,

an

a group

Participation As

is

spectator

as

on

pe r s o n a 1

"the

the

twenty-four

Morin, " t r a n s c e n d s

Chat

the

objectivity

participation

our of in

"Sans l e q u e l le film ne serait rien qu'un mouvement b r o w n i e n s u r l ' é c r a n , ou tout au plus un battement de v i n g t - q u a t r e im ages-seconde" (Morin, p. 205).

order

co

Morin

Cake

shape

proposes

boch

cranscendencal Marxism a g r e e This tinction The

a nd a

in

physical

non-physical

that

situation

simultaneously

of

awareness

therefore,

to

this is Cion

of

and

dreaming,

a

of

attempts the

question

of

conscious of

an

Co-be-perceived

and

Che

process

as

a a nd

It

is

refers

dreaming,

the

and be

a

a dis­ useful,

dream which

which

involves

a

non-participation. philosophical

run

into

participaCion .

perceiver

dis­

participation.

might

to

his

w h i c h he

s/he

akin

exiscencial

of

and

of

participation

Che r e c o g n i c i o n

Che

to

situation

spectator

which em p h a siz e s

perceiver's

usefulness

who kn ows

apply

to

discussion

the

physical

to

chac

psychoanalysis

non-physical

film

is

reality

non-participation. the

here

boCh n o C i o n s .

involving

perception

his

problem

participation

dreamer

consciousness

W allon's of

the

think of

we know we a r e peculiar

againsc negates

resembles

tanced

The

cranscendenc

arguing

between of

2

subjecc/speccacor;

by no m e a n s

sort

form.'

definitions

difficulties A case

definicion of

boch

him/herself

of

in

with point

percep-

Che o b j e c c as

pare

of

perceiving.

In o r d e r f o r C h e r e Co be p e r c e p c i o n , w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y f o r me to a f f i r m presence o f Che objecC. To affirm p r e s e n c e of Che o b j e c C i s Co affirm "La réalicé Cranscende j e c C i v i C é du mond e du c i n é m a Cion p e r s o n n e l l e po u r p r e n d r e 152-53; s ee pp. 1 6 1 - 6 2 ) .

ic Che Che my

noCre s u b j e c Civicé " ; "l'oba b e s o i n de noCre p a r C i c i p a c o r p s eC e s s e n c e " ( M o r i n , p p .

116

own p r e s e n c e . . . . Buc . .. that presence is c o r r e l a t i v e to t h a t which I can a f f i r m on the basis of my i n n e r sensibility. Well now, what is there a b o u t my inner s e n s i b i l i t y which allows me t o a f f i r m my p r e s e n c e ? I t i s an e n ­ t i r e ensemble of i m p r e s s i o n s and s e n s a ­ t i o n s w h i c h a r e no l o n g e r t h e s e n s o r y i m­ pressions l i n k e d to the e x t e r i o r m i l i e u , but w h i c h a r e a b o v e a l l l i n k e d t o my own p e r s o n , t o my physical, psychical, and moral p e r s o n a l i t y .

"With

the

to g iv e to

cinema,"

all

the

our

m ilieu

distinguishes response

to

however,

attention in

w h i c h we

real

events

touch

spectator's

knowing ment, in

the 3

turn

therefore that we a r e world

it

is

a visual find

occurring

in

It

would

from s p e c t a c l e

conditioned on t h e

to

"it

by how

series

ourselves." in

terms

for

entirely 4

of

before

him/her,

closely

the

us

alien

Wallon

thus

the

subject's

a

response

perceived

events

experience.

follows

that

a socially

predisposed presented

be n e c e s s a r y

because

structured

against

before

we e n t e r

us

artistic

physically rather

the

than

cinema

environ­

participating occurring

be-

“Pour q u ' i l y a it perception, il f a u t que j ' a f f i r m e l a p r é s e n c e de l ' o b j e t . A f f i r m e r l a p r é s e n c e de l ' o b j e t c ' e s t a f f i r m e r ma p r o p r e p r é s e n c e . . . . Mais . . . cette présence e s t c o r r é l a t i v e d e c e que j e p u i s a f f i r m e r d e ma propre s e n s i b i l i t é . Eh bien, qu'y a - t - i l d a n s ma p r o p r e s e n s i b i l i t é q u i f a i t que je puis affirmer ma p r é s e n c e ? C 'est t o u t un e n s e m b l e d ' i m p r e s s i o n s e t de s e n s a t i o n s qui ne s o n t p l u s l ’ impression s e n s o rie lle en r a p p o r t avec l e milieu e x t é r i e u r , m a i s q u i s o n t s u r t o u t e n r a p p o r t a v e c ma propre p e r s o n n e , a v e c ma p e r s o n n a l i t é p h y s i q u e , p s y c h i q u e , m o r a l e “ ( “L ' a c t e p e r c e p t i f , " pp. 9 9 - 1 0 0 ) . "Il f a u t a v e c l e f i l m que n o u s d o n n i o n s t o u t e notre a t­ t e n t i o n à une s é r i e visuelle toutà fait étrangère au m i l i e u dan s l e q u e l nous nous t r o u v o n s " ( p . 1 0 4 ).

117

fore

us.

For V i c t o r

responsibility cle.

In

fact,

ourselves ins

can

and

as

our

distinguish

just

a morphous

spectator

marginally state

be

ambivalent

bringing The

itself

films have

"one

basis

of

cannot

attempt

film 's

effect.”

an

of

examine on

or

do n o t , "

Perk­

the

danger."^

must

Other

also

be

and

basis

court,

as

Perk­

at

least

ambivalent of

with

it." manifests with

of

a

sample

groups

of

spectators.

and

cinema,

of

well

received.

role

of

an

the

isolated

experiment in

given

other

i_n

itself

"effects

impact

film

such

hallucination,

conjunction

the

not

If

instances

ambivalence

entirely

of

i n w h i c h we know we a r e

reality

a laboratory The

from

experience,

dream

understand

isolated

separate

organised

s/he

in

specta­

on

contradictory

this

the

the

been

cannot

from

f r om

from dream

tout in

freedom

experiences

desire

the

viewed

a

"remains

disavowal.

a "belief

not

says,

of

dream,

when

groups

an

Such a

include

importance

which

a nd

"detached,"

the

studies,"

studies

is

states

immediately

of

can o f f e r

called

or

film

spectacle

"engaged."

can

dreaming,

the

fantasy

means

disengagement

own d r e a m s

"Movies

ins'

this

a mental

because

"shape." an

Perkins

film

or Such

As M o r i n

c i n e m a on t h e audience; vitro

words,

on might

one the be

^ F i l m a s F i l m ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n , 1972 ) , p . 1 4 0. "On ne p e u t , à partir d'un film isolé et d'un public isolé, c o m p r e n d r e l e r ô l e d u c i n é m a ; o n ne p e u t t e n t e r une expérience de l a b o r a t o i r e i_n v i t r o sur l ' e f f e t du f i l m " ( " L e r ô l e du c i n é m a , " in EsprTt Î85 (1960), p. 1069). M o r i n r e a c h e s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t we c a n n o t d i s c u s s t h e i n ­

118

viewed

by i n d i v i d u a l

phenomenon. studies is

An d r e w

are

Tudor

films does

it

may

" 7

not

follow that

attitudinal

emotional

involvement"

Tudor

is

a

specific

effect.

but

one-to-one

it

did

Tudor's city

unlikely

coalition

tempting

t o ba n

As

the

movie

very d if f e r e n t

"it out­

[because]

long­

[from]

short-term

(ib id .). about

relation

thei m p o s s i b i l i t y

between

a

given

may

have

not

cause

the

war.)

actually

i n mi nd d u r i n g

of

while

an

Cabin

councils

any

impact,

therefore

persuasion

there

and

that

( Uncle Tom's

point

various

causes

is

of

effects

only " th a t

he a r g u e s

are

a social

best

emotional

movies

absolutely right

claiming

part,

change

at

between

immediate

p o w e r f u l me di um

remains

that

Consequently

the

it

demonstrating

relation

o b v i o u s l y h a v e an

standingly term

have.

yet

finds

"inconclusive,"

no s i m p l e o n e - t o - o n e

effect

bear

spectators,

throughout feminists

the the

and

pornography because

on-going country,

text

the

and

a

played

a

We s h o u l d debates

in

i n w h i c h an

conservatives of

of

physical

are

at­

ha r m i t

women. Ellen

pornography

is

Goodman w r o t e harmful,

then

in

1984,

"if

shouldn't

we c a n the

prove

victim

that have

dividual s p e c t a t o r ; t h a t may w e l l b e , b u t i t s t i l l may be p o s s i b l e to c o n s t r u c t a theoretical mo d e l for the in­ d i v i d u a l s p e c t a t o r t a k e n a s an a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t . I ma g e a n d I n f l u e n c e ( L o n d o n : George Allen and Unwi n, 1974) , p i 76. The P a y n e Fund S t u d i e s o f t h e ' 3 0 s a l s o o c ­ casionally, i f p e r h a p s r e l u c t a n t l y , a d m i t t e d t h e same c o n ­ clusion .

119 g

legal and

rights?"

A case

immediately pragmatic

infamous Spring

New B e d f o r d , 1983.

"Hustler

ferences woman

for

between

enjoyed

(ib id .). because

her

(Goodman's

Hustler

it.

on

In

harms

law b ecau se

it

pact

of

real

world.

3

and

the

case

that

conflicts

the

in

rape

like

a

t wo d i f ­

Hustler,

Hustler

the

rape"

feature

restricting

pornographic

spectacles

real

the

reads

In

pornography) world.

Goodman c a n n o t with

rape the

just

the

ordinance

visual

the

that

is

woman c h a r g e d

a nd

on a c i t y

in

wome n,

the

gang

before

were

serious

issue

hall

life.

life,

emphasize

problem

with

Goodman d e s c r i b e s

ble

real

real

the

need

Agreeing

quite

to

have

that

support

protect

a

the

the

right

at

least

speech.

Another

tiveness

There

to

the

shortly

crime. a nd

on b e h a v i o r

pool

feature

basis

examples

of

a photo

focuses

the

pornography

as

actual

column

impact

free

reports,

Goodman m e n t i o n s

pornography

direct

Massachusetts,

printed

the

points

ram ifications

As Goodman

magazine

blueprint

to

which v i v i d l y

spectacles,

of

This films

reliable

it,

the is

ordinance,

that

pornographic just

or as

is

not

it or

so.

propaganda;

9

implies not, If

advertisements if

though,

direct

on b e h a v i o r it

would it

the

were, be m o r e

were,

the

in

i m­ the

effec­

predicta-

then,

for

ex-

Persuasive P o r n O r d i n a n c e Woul d S t r a n g l e F r e e S p e e c h , I n d i a n a D a l l y S t u d e n t , 17 J a n . 1 9 8 4 , p . 4. A flawed but s t i l l i n : r i g u i n g film , Michael C r ic h to n 's Looker f o r e s e e s the (im minent) n e f a r i o u s use of h y p n o t i c techniques t o , a mong o t h e r t h i n g s , i n c r e a s e t h e e f f e c t i v e ­ ness of t e l e v i s i o n a d v e r t i s e m e n t s .

120

ample,

every

aspiring

would

kidnap

Johnny

everyone go o u t

and

of

cutting

b u y s ome a l o n g agreed

cinema, my

thus

own e a r l i e r

as

Tudor's

distinction

fers

tinguish plex

a social

short-term to

is

far

order

to

I find

the

or

ma y n o t b e c a p a b l e

suasion

which o c c a s i o n s is.

alterations

in

psychoanalysis

of

long-term

Long-term the

to

as

a larger,

sort

for of

with

change he

re­

to

dis­

more

com­

individual

powerful

change

of

apparatus.

attitudinal

personality,

"object

always

Tudor,

under­

agree

what

cinematic

attitudinal

subject's

refers

and

the

of

im­

importance

I still

tried

would

direct

danger

However,

the

with

the

the

or

Olympics.

attitudinal

I have

l i e s my d i s a g r e e m e n t

cinema

in

force.

success,

the

myself

films

cinema,

for

about

o f C omedy

Cheerios,

about

involvement.

individual

achieve

Tudor

long-term

whereas

The K i n g

say,

a ticket

with

between

emotional

between

for,

political

movies

the

saw

assertions

a nd

"movies,"

structure,

Herein

in

with

however,

cinema

and

Carson

who

who s a w a n a d v e r t i s e m e n t

Having pact

comedian

change,

would

per­ but

involve

especially

what

r e l a t i o n s . ”^

In 19 27 C u r t M o r e c k w r i t e s t h a t cinema c r e a t e s a new type of person through a m o d if ic a tio n of p e r s o n a l i t y caused by constant filraviewing. Because the flow of images does not allow for ra tio n a l a n a ly sis, i t l e a d s to a " g e i s t i g e r Erschlaffung" ( S i t t e n g e s c h i c h t e des Kinos ( D r e s d e n : A r e t z , 1927), p. 70). I n ma ny ways, M o rec k 's analysis predates that of Cohen-Séat a nd the American anthropologists; s p e c i f i c a l l y , he w r i t e s o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f f i l m v i e w i n g as overwhelming the s p e c t a t o r ' s c o n s c i o u s n e s s (p. 75), of the m e r g e r of i n d i v i d u a l s p e c t a t o r i n t o gr ou p a u d i e n c e ( p . 7 5 ) , and of v i c a r i o u s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( p . 77) which s e r v e s a c a th a r tic function (p. 81).

121

B. D r i v e s

and

The

m ent's

effect

effect

(instincts).

on

dependent

of

the

organism

into

. as

a

not

from

without

can

avail

the

against

from

it."

through

1 2

and

the

of

and

which

"since

'sa tisfa c tio n '

which

relatively

always

the

drives

stim uli

in­

pressure "operates

it

organism,

from

the

involved

itself,"

the

both

'o b ject' of

Finally,

with

environ­

existence

within

Desire

that

a stimulus

Relief

the

implies

theory

Such

of

interactions

of

environment

action.

but

or

people),

organism

external

Containment

sense

the

constant" force.

comes

impinges no

pressures provided

flight of by

the ob-

13

j ec t s .

A lternatively, ergy

The

assumes

within

.

The

environment

Freud's

^ Freud

"from

drives

his/her

from

originate

.

(including

on h i m / h e r .

derives

Or,

object-relations,

surroundings

su b ject's

the

Relations;

su b ject's

his/her

here

Object

of

the

drives

the

tension

ma y b e

created

controlled

by

not

the

amassed

through

en­

satisfac-

"By a n r i n s t i n c t ' i s p r o v i s i o n a l l y t o b e u n d e r s t o o d t h e p sy c h ic a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of an endosomatic, continuously flowing source of stim ulation, as contrasted with a ' s t i m u l u s ' , which i s s e t up by s i n g l e e x c i t a t i o n s coming from w i t h o u t . The c o n c e p t o f i n s t i n c t i s t h u s o n e o f t h o s e lying on t h e f r o n t i e r b e t w e e n t h e m e n t a l a nd t h e p h y s i c a l " (Three E s s a y s on t h e T h e o r y o f S e x u a l i t y ( 1 9 0 5 ) , SE , 7, d

16?h

Instincts

llh I n

.

and

Their

V icissitudes"

(1915),

SE_,

14,

o.

e f f e c t , f o r Freud, the o b j e c t forms p a rt of a t r i a d i n c l u d i n g the d r i v e ' s s o u r c e ( w i t h i n the b o d y ) , i t s aim (of elim inating t h e t e n s i o n c r e a t e d by t h e d i s c h a r g e o f e n e r g y t h r o u g h th e b o d i l y s t i m u l u s ) , and i t s o b j e c t (w h ic h e n a b l e s th e d r i v e to a c h i e v e i t s a i m ) .

1 22

tion

but

through defensive

censorship,

or

citation. outward if

the

from

the

danger

the

of

of

its

role

(reality)

a nd

defensive

reaction,

bances

The

the

the

relations;

or

associations

that

delim ited.

®

For

creates

special

a

14

.

. The

anxiety

is,

in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g Whether the

"a

point the

projection

threatened but

projection between

through is

ex­

ego b e h a v e s

impulse

That

by p r o t e c t i n g

it

not

from

the

invokes

perception

satisfaction to

satisfy

subject

as

from

or the

distur­

quo.

in

drive the

of

.

projection,

instinctual

involves

instinctual

though,

status

"object"

satisfies

an

illusion.^

principle

to

danger.

a perception."

e g o a nd

pleasure

example,

a development of

such as

which d i v e r t

for

instinctual

direction

direction the

sublimation,

Projection,

of

mechanisms,

object-relations which

subject the

initially may

choice

example, relation

the

have of

ma y be

anything

prompted

the

objec t-

developed

such

precise

objects

becomes

satisfying

"experience

between

the

of

that

satisfaction"

infant

a nd

the

ob-

^ j ” The U n c o n s c i o u s " ( 1 9 1 5 ) , SE^, 14 , p . 1 8 4 . Freud says elsew here th a t t h i s use of p r o j e c t i o n " f o r p u rp o ses of d e f e n c e , " because of i t s d e n i a l of a c t u a l r e a l ­ ity through a s u b s t i t u t i o n of a n o th e r p e r c e p tio n of ' r e a l ­ ity' , a m o u n t s t o an " a b u s e o f t h e m e c h a n i s m o f p r o j e c t i o n " which i s o t h e r w i s e c o mmo n l y e m p l o y e d in normal l i f e ( " E x ­ tracts from the F l i e s s P a p e r s : D r a f t H. P a r a n o i a " ( 1 8 9 5 ) , S E ^ l , p. 209). The s a t i s f y i n g o b j e c t may c h a n g e " a n y n u m b e r o f t i m e s . . . It may h a p p e n t h a t t h e s a me o b j e c t s e r v e s f o r the satisfaction of s e v e r a l i n s t i n c t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . . . . A p a r t i c u l a r l y c l o s e a t t a c h m e n t of the i n s t i n c t to i t s o b j e c t is distinguished by t h e t e r m ' f i x a t i o n ' " ( " I n s t i n c t s , ” p. 123 ) .

123

ject

which

initially

establishes dynamic

the

pattern

relation

vestment

ofthe

unconscious stituted without

by

with

constantly

tions

affect

p.

That

the

is a

say

of

also

desire

as

"the

towards

the

rein­

that

because

our

and

decisive

relations

It

perception"; ^

body

to

fluctuate

needs.

drive

relations,

play

present

the

that

object

others

tions

of

"form

1 8

its

unconscious

directs

memor y

objects."

relation

for

which

desires

thus

satisfies

such

being,

not

by

drives

"experiences

past,

of

the

9 Such

rela­

introjected

rela­

role."

1

con­

through

projection

broadly

according

( i b i d .,

47).

Freud sexual

or

energy ergy. phase

divides

the

self-preservative

associated

20

He

the

narcissistic

with

locates

labeled

cathect

instincts

ideas

of

libido

sexual

this

primary

nature,

c a l l i n g the

instinct

energy

objects into

with

their

psychical

"libidinal"

originally

narcissism — “t i l l

to

the

libido,

o b j e c t - 1 i b i d o ."

2 1

in

the

en-

ego--a

ego

begins

to

transform

Having

to

move d

" La r e l a t i o n dynamique qui f a i t t e n d r e la p u l s i o n vers le réinvestissem ent du souvenir de cette perception" ( L ^ g a c h e , “ La p s y c h a n a l y s e , " p . 2 0 ) . "Forment le corps de n o t r e être, ainsi c o n s t i t u é par les r e l a t i o n s d ' o b j e t , e t non p a r d e s p u l s i o n s s a n s o b j e t " ( ifrfrd . ) . "Les e x p é r i e n c e s de l a r e l a t i o n a v e c a u t r u i j o u e n t un rô^g d é c i s i f " ( ib id . ) . S c o p o p h i l i a , o r t h e d e s i r e to s e e , i s c l a s s i f i e d as one of the s e x u a l l y r e l a t e d instincts. Fenichel notes that scopophilia, " l i k e o t h e r com po ne nt i n s t i n c t s , i s l i a b l e to repression and may give rise to fixation" ("The S c o D t o p h i l i c I n s t i n c t , " p. 3 7 6 ) . "An O u t l i n e o f P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s " (1 9 4 0 ) , SE_, 2 3 , p . 1 5 0 ,

124

beyond to as

primary

a secondary an

object

"never

of

form

being

,.2 3 v e r s a ."

the

22

ceases.

Lacan,

present

In

.

.

Freud

to

says,

. N arcissistic

ideal

such

ma y a l w a y s

by r e v e r t i n g

fact,

into

the

for

subject

narcissism

transformed

For

perpetually

of

cathexis.

completely

stantly

p.

narcissism ,

stands

a narcissistic

the

libido

as

self

narcissism

o b j e c t - 1i b i d o , ego

regress

is

con­

and

vice

ideal

image

cathexis

( ISEM,

188). Lacan

a division drivingforce

speaks of

of

instincts, of

the

desire

role

su b ject's

the

with

h u ma n

t io n between in

demand,

and

need, desire

subject /

the object

ideal

and

desire

being 2 4 For ego

"the Lacan

plays

more

than

of

fundamental the an

rela­

important

relations:

D esire, alienated, is perpetually reintegrated anew, reprojecting the Ideal-Ich t o c he exterior. It is thus that desire verbalizes i t s e l f . It is a s e e s a w i n g b e t w e e n t wo i n v e r t e d r e l a t i o n s . The specular re la tio n of the ego, th a t the subject takes upon itself and r e a l i z e s , and p r o j e c t i o n , a l w j j s r e a d y to be r e n e w e d , i n th e I d e a l - I c h .

"The relationship of physical sim ilarity between M i l d r e d and Ve d a [ i n M i l d r e d P i e r c e ] r e p r e s e n t s i n F r e u d i a n terms M i l d r e d 's c h o ic e of a love o b je c t b a s e d on n a r c i s ­ sis m , the dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p which the Oedipus complex a t ­ t e m p t s t o r e s o l v e " (Pam Coo k , " D u p l i c i t y i n M i l d r e d P i e r c e , i n EN, p . 8 2 ) . 2 ^ "An A u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l S t u d y " ( 1 9 2 5 ) , SE_, 2 0 , p . 5 6 . John M u l l e r and W i l l i a m R i c h a r d s o n , L a c an and L a n g u a g e ( Ne w Y o r k : I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , 1982 ) pT 1 9 7 " Le d é s i r , aliéné, est perpétuellem ent réintégré à nouveau, reprojetant à l'ex térieu r 1 'Ideal-Ich. C 'est ainsi que l e d é s i r se verbalise. Il y a l à un j e u de bascule entre deux relations inversées. Le rapport

125

"The d i a l e c t i c fects " The

the

subject's

subject

desire

in

of n e e d ,

the

has

entry

to

find

structure

already established fant's

demand

f o r me d is

is

through

derground

the

dergoes

symbolic

repression;

order"

the

p.

28

cycle,

gender

the

282).

other In

other

the

is

constituting

(Muller,

p.

336).

"desire

symbolic

process

29

the

in­

desire

is

language." (e_n is

2 6

This

proie

de)

forced

un­

system"

fundamental

initiation

of his

which a r e

t o whom

of'

af­

symbolic.

structure

words

to

mercy

through "the

person

Because

the

(language),

relation

the 27

and

constituting

of s i g n i f i e r s

'at

filtered

developmental

into

subject's

"is

(Muller, and

in

and d e s i r e ” p a r t i c u l a r l y

addressed.

because d e s ire

language"

demand

it

un-

to

the

into

Since d e s i r e

is

the re-

spéculaire de l ' e g o , que l e s u j e t a s s u m e e t r é a l i s e , e t l a p r o j e c t i o n , t o u j o u r s p r ê t e à ê t r e r e n o u v e l é e , dans 1 ' I d e a l I c b ^ ( I SEM, p . 1 9 7 ) . J o h n E l l i s , " I d e o l o g y and S u b j e c t i v i t y , " Wo r k i n g P a p e r s i n ^Ç u l t u r a l S t u d i e s 9 (1 976 ) , p . 2 1 1 . Octave Ma n n o n i notes that psychoanalysis and l i n g u i s t i c s s h o u l d be distinguished o ne from the other because l i n g u i s t i c s does not deal with d e s i r e ( C le f s pour 1 ' imagin ai re ( P a r i s : S e u i l , 1969 ) , p . 55). C e r t a i n l y the introduction of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s to film s t u d i e s has s h i f t e d d i s c u s s i o n f r om l i n g u i s t i c o r s e m i o t i c i s s u e s t o s u c h q u e s t i ^ g s as t h a t of d e s i r e . Repression p revents the passage i n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s of v a r i o u s s i g n i f i e r s w hi c h, i n L a ca n i a n t h e o r y , " o r g a n i s e the structure of the u n c o n s c i o u s . These a r e f o r e x a m p l e wh a t L a c a n c a l l s ' t h e name o f t h e f a t h e r ' ( t h a t i s t h e o r g a n i s a ­ t i o n of d e s i r e a c c o r d i n g to p a tr ia r c h a l so c ial formations in which the p h a l l u s i s a c e n t r a l t e r m ) . These s i g n i f i e r s e n s u r e the p o s i t i o n s for the r e p r o d u c t i o n of the s p e c i e s through the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s e x u a l d i f f e r e n c e " ( E l l i s , p.

21^;

The O e d i p u s Compl e x allows access to desire only through rep ression" (Johnston, FN, p. 102). Thus, ac­ co rd in g to W i ll e m e n 's analysis of Out of the Past as

126

pressed

it

must

guise

of

an

itself

in

the

This and

the

places

to the

indirect

(fantasy)"

seem

to

way— " u s u a l l y

(Muller,

suggest

interact

the

system

M etz's

denying

of

p.

under

287)--to

suture;^

and

in

other

within and

difference. the

desire,

symbolic.

the

difference

that

that

the

instead

by s e x u a l

finds

in

analysis;

spectator

implied

Heath

an

the

express

symbolic.

cinema

imaginary, threat

image

would

narrative;^ cording

find

visual

the

However,

through

perception ways,

the

thereby

spectator,

the

realm

ac­

cinema of

controlling

the the

32 pleasure

provided

by

Oedipal phantasy, "in psychoanalytic terms, the film d r a m a t i s e s the ' r e t u r n ' of the r e p r e s s e d . Having f a i l e d to successfully resolve his encounter with the elem ents con­ stituting the O e d ip a l s c e n e . . ., the he ro dro pp ed out of circulation, c h a n g e d h i s na me ( a l w a y s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e subject's i n a b i l i t y t o c ome t o t e r m s w i t h t h e Name o f c he Father) and a c c e m p c s co s c a r c a new life. Inevicably, a ne w l o v e o b j e c c i s s e l e c c e d a n d w i c h i c , a l l Che p r e v i o u s l y repressed m aterial forces its way back into his life" ("Notes Towards the C o n s t r u c t i o n of Re a d i n g s o f T o u r n e u r , " in Claire Johnston and P a u l Willeaen, eds. , Jacques Tougneur (Edinburgh Film F e s t i v a l ' 7 5 ) , p. 28). " C la ss ic a l n a r r a tiv e serves a general id e o lo g ic a l funcC i o n - - f i x i n g Che self-as-subjecC wichin che fluccuacing i d f » ^ c i c i e s and o p p o s i c i o n s o f che i m a g i n a r y " ( I & I , p . 1 6 7 ) . For Ro s e Che syscem of Che suCure maincains Che speccacor in a s p e c i f i c r e l a c i o n co che i m a g i n a r y b e c a u s e Che i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s e n c o u r a g e d by the shot/reverse shot formacion are of an i m a g i n a r y r a c h e r chan symbolic sore ( " l ^ r a n o i a , " p. 9 2 ) ; s e e HeaCh, E F F , p . 38. From c h i s p e r s p e c C i v e che assercion ma de by Laura M u l v e y , Ra ymond B e l l o u r , a n d o c h e r s c h a c Che i m a g e o f woman "speaks c a s c r a c i o n and n o c h i n g e l s e " b e g i n s co ma ke s e n s e . The i m a g e o f woman r e p r e s e n c s che ch reac of sexual d i f ­ ference, d i m i n i s h i n g Che p l e a s u r e w h i c h l o o k i n g ac h e r i s ocherwise s e c up co p r o v i d e ( M u l v e y , " V i s u a l P l e a s u r e and N a r r a c i v e C i n e m a , " S c r e e n 1 6 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , p . 6 ) .

127

cinema the

through

its

images

imaginary

and

desire.

sociated

with

gender

provides

"the

setting

image, and

with

the

visual

pleasure,

in

texts. for

to

get

the

„3 3

the

tempt

with

for

production

The

shows, beyond

the

it

is

in

which in

become

with

the

a tautological

plays

reading

Lacan’ s

explain

that

As

what

is

and

focus

189).

Like

satisfying

a fundamental of

narrative

concept Linda

as­

cinema

desire

a mutually

"desire

both

aim--the

( Que s t i o n s , p .

evident. to

so of

the

to

inherently

movement

maintains

and

easier

relates

are

spectator

ideal"

difficulties

uninitiated

images

ideal

narrative

desire,

form

sexual d if f e r e n c e ,

o f an

the

t h e h u ma n Such

and

body

purpose--of

relation role

the

of

of

desire

W illiam s1 a t­ not

meant

than

definition.

The t e r m d esire is understood here in a r a t h e r s p e c i a l way. I t d o e s n o t r e f e r to the p u r s u i t and p o s s e s s i o n o f a l o v e o b j e c t - - P i e r r e B a t c h e f f ' s p u r s u i t of Simone M a r e u i l i n Un Chien andalou or Gaston M o d o t ’ s p u r s u i t o f Lya Lys i n L 1 Age d ’ o r - b u t to the v i s u a l f i g u r e s of the t e x t that e l a b o r a t e a s t r u c t u r e of o p p o s i t i o n which expresses not so mu c h the d e s i r e f o r an o b j e c t as the psychic pro c e ss of d e s i r e i t s e l f (p . x v ).

33

Kari Hanet, The N a r r a t i v e Text of Shock C orridor, e n 1 5 , No. 4 (1 9 7 4 - 1 975 ) , p . 2 3 . "A s e n s e both of the forbidden nature of certain d e s i r e s and of t he incom patibility of reality with our desiring i m a g i n a t i o n makes t h e n e g a t i o n of d e s i r e i n e v i t a ­ b le. . . . Repressed desire is repeated, disguised a nd sublimated. I t s r e a p p e a ra n c e s in various forms at dif­ ferent l e v e l s of m e n t a l l i f e . . . c o n s t i t u t e the c o h e r e n t self" ( L e o B e r s a n i , A F u t u r e f o r As t y a n a x ( B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 6 ). Sc

128

Desire be

said

may b e r e p r e s s e d ,

to

stimulated

result

a

by a n a b s e n c e . "

positive

side,

compares

desire

parison

from

but

not

lack;

it

However,

for

"it

is

never

to

the

experience

w h i ch makes

the

infant

eliminated. is

desire

only of

It

"an also

can

appetite has

a l a c k . ” Leo satisfaction,

a more Bersani a c om­

an a r t i s t of s o r t s in t h e s e n s e t h a t he invents and is excited by imaginary equivalents of remembered s a t i s f a c t i o n s . The a c t i v i t y of d e s i r i n g is in s e p a ra b le from the a c t i v i t y of f a n t a s i z i n g . There is no s c e n e of d e s i r e which i s n o t an e l a b o r a t i o n , a kind of v i s u a l i n t e r p r e t a ­ tion of other scenes (p. 1 0 ; see J o h n s t o n , FN_, p . 1 0 2 ) .

Fr om

this

perspective

the

spectator's

significance.

desire

"to

its

relative reality bod y and the

return

own

For

to

forms o f

narcissism , .

. the

spectator

argument

attendance

ferent

with

the

.i n

.

at

Baudry,

.

.a n

desire

motivates

cinema

takes

on a d i f ­

it

early

is

an

state

satisfaction."

This

.

a aode

.

which

.

towards

the

separation

exterior

world

with

special

a

the

that

is

not kind

well of

"unrecognized" of

development

"return of

towards

relating

between

one's

defined" pleasure.

a to

own

provides 3 5

Fr om

" Th e A p p a r a t u s , " p. 119; " c e s e r a i t le d é s i r , évidem­ m e n t n o n r e c o n n u comme t e l p a r l e s u j e t , d e r e t r o u v e r . . . un s t a d e p r é c o c e de d é v e l o p p e m e n t avec ses formes p r o p r e s de s a t i s f a c t i o n . . . . R e t o u r v e r s un n a r c i s s i s m e r e l a t i f , . . . v e r s une f or me de r e la tio n à la r é a l i t é . . . dans laquelle les l i m i t e s du c o r p s p r o p r e e t d e l ' e x t é r i e u r ne seraient pas s t r i c t e m e n t p r é c i s é e s ” ( p . 4 4 ) . Se e K u n t z e l , p . 63: " The Mo s t D a n g e r o u s Game i s u n c a n n y b e c a u s e i t c o n -

1 29

Baudry's

vocabulary

from a r e t u r n Th u s

to

the

"inevitably"

the

it

is

clear

this

pleasure

derives

imaginary.

c i n e m a may so,

that

be c h a r a c t e r i z e d

N o w e l l - S m i t h would

as

regressive,

say:

The film is p resent ( d u r i n g v i e w i n g ) to the spectator, but only as something which i s a l r e a d y p a s t a nd which has a l ­ ready fixed a r e s o l u t i o n fo r the problems i t evokes. I n so f a r a s t h e f i l m i s s u c ­ cessfully contained within its h i s t o r i c ­ i t y — b o t h i t s p a s t n e s s and i t s p l e n i t u d e - i t i s i n e v i t a b l y r e g r e s s i v e , p l a c i n g the spectating subject not beyond but s h o r t of d e s i r e , in an imaginary fulfilm ent ( EFF , p . 3 0 ) .

This

regression

and

to

"the

repression desire

unconscious desire

in

the

might

to

.

archaic

subject,

recall

its

the

cinema

to

the

because

it

enables

return

to

'that

(Augst,

cinema

rediscover for

ties

.

p.

100).

.

[are]

forms to

put

of in

Because at

the

desire,

compulsion the

cinema

scene'," "the

s a me and

to to

repeat satisfy

i.e.,

the

very workings

time the

representation

the

desire

desire of

own o p e r a t i o n , ” c i n e m a may be

to

form, seen

as

of to

stage what "the

stitutes a m i s e e n s c è n e o f my ' l o v e ' of the cinema; t h a t i s what I go t o see ( a g a i n ) with each new f i l m ; my own desire--endlessly repeated--for re-presen t a t ion"; "in­ quiétante é t r a n g e t é de The Mos t D a n g e r o u s Game : i l me t en s c è n e mon ' a m o u r ' du c i n é m a , c e q u ' à c h a q u e n o u v e a u f i l m j e vais ( r e ) v o i r , mon d é s i r , q ui t o u j o u r s se r é p è t e , de r e ­ p r é s e n t a t i o n " (p. 189).

130

answer

to

a desire

Filmviewing partial the

experience

argues the

p.

from

cinema

vited

36

therefore

return

paratus,"

inherent

by t h e

our

potentially

more

of

118;

this as

to

in

'archaic'

p.

perspective

a post-oedipal phantasy

to

(see

the

spectator but

back

s/he to

a

least

a

particularly

Baudry,

Willemen,

subject,

regress

at

processes,

186). that

structure."

represents

satisfaction Pratt,

psychical

"The

for

Ap­

example,

may c ome is

then

to

"in­

pre-oedipal

B a u d r y , " T h e A p p a r a t u s , " p p . 118 a n d 1 1 3 ; " l ' e n j e u même du d é s i r s à l ' o e u v r e d a n s l e c i n é m a . . . [ i s ] à l a f o i s l e désir de r e t r o u v e r d e s f o r m e s d e s a t i s f a c t i o n a r c h a ï q u e s . . , e t l e d é s i r de m e t t r e en s c è n e p o u r l e s u j e t , d e m e t ­ tre en r e p r é s e n t a t i o n , ce qui p o u r r a i t r a p p e l e r son p r o p r e fonctionnem ent" (p. 4 3 ).; " l ' e f f e t d'un d é s ir in h é re n t à la s t r u c t u r a t i o n du psychisme" (p. 36). Se e Angelo Montani and Giulio Pietranera, "First Contributions," Psychoanalytic R e v i e w 33 ( 1 9 4 6 ) , pp. 177-79. Münsterberg says t h a t the p h o to p la y "has the m obility of our ideas w h i c h a r e n o t c o n t r o l l e d by t h e p h y s i c a l n e c e s s i t y o f o u t e r e v e n t s b u t by t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l la ws f o r t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f i d e a s . . . . The p h o t o p l a y obeys the laws of the mi n d r a t h e r than those of the o u te r world" (p. 41). "For the s u r r e a l i s t s the f i l m i s a paradig m of the mind. It has a conscious a n d an u n c o n s c i o u s dimension. Cinematic syntax and p h o t o g r a p h i c i l l u s i o n i s m are the c l o s e s t a n a l o g u e you will g e t to primary process t h i n k i n g " ( Ha mmo n d , p. 21). Cinematic language, with its sim ilarities to unconscious modes of e x p r e s s i o n , in v o lv e s the s p e c t a t o r in a degree of regression (Serge L ebovici, "Psychanalyse e t c i n é m a , " RI F 2 , No. 5 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , p . 50; M o n t a n i a n d P i e t r a n e r a , p p . 181 a n d 1 8 3 —84 ; No r ma n H o l l a n d , The D y n a m i c s of L i t e r a r y Response ( New York: Oxford Un iv . P r e s s , 1 9 6 8 ) , p. 7 3 ) . Because the cinema e x p r e s s e s i t s e l f through visual images, it must forego t h e a b s t r a c t i o n s and l o g i c a l i t y o f l a n g u a g e ( Z a z z o , p. 1 6 0 ; J o h n P r a t t , " N o t e s on C o m m e r c i a l Mo v i e T e c h n i q u e , " In tern atio n al Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34, oarts 3-4 ( 1 $43 ) , p"I 1ÏÏ6; V i r m a u x , Le s s u r r e a l i s t e s , p . 2 3 ) . It also entails a high degree of s y m b o liz a tio n , not w ithin a con­ ventional s e n s e , b u t w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e mode o f e x ­ pressio n (L ebovici, p. 51).

131

structure.

i.

Disavowal From

it

.. 37

is

what

obvious

has

been

said

already

of

Lacan's

imaginary,

that

vision offers a peculiarly privileged b a s i s t o an i m a g i n a r y r e l a t i o n of t h e i n ­ d i v i d u a l to the world. This imaginary relationship is characterised by the plenitude i t c o n f e r s on b o t h s u b j e c t and object, c a u g h t as they are o u t s i d e a ny definition i n t e r m s of d i f f e r e n c e — g i v e n in a full substantial unity ( Ma c C a b e , " T h e o r y , " p. 1 3 ) .

With

a few s u b s t i t u t i o n s ,

MacCabe's

description

of

the

in-

As Willemen c o n t i n u e s , "the n ise -e n -sc e n e a d o p t e d by Tourneur provides a d e p i c t i o n of this process of e n t r a p ­ ment: t h e v i e w i n g s u b j e c t i s l o c a t e d t h i s s i d e of t h e b a r ­ r i e r , which i m p l i e s a recognition of t h e symbolic order, but the p h a n t a s y sc ene i s l o c a t e d on t h e o t h e r s i d e . The r e s u l t of such a m ise-en-scene could be d e s c r i b e d as: a representation of a p r e - o e d ip a l phantasy in r e l a t i o n to a post-oedipal s u b j e c t ; t h a t i s t o s a y , t h e d r a m a t i s a t i o n of t h e p r o c e s s o f t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t wo s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e subject. The t e x t i s o r g a n i s e d i n t h i s way so t h a t i t i n ­ vites t h e r e a d e r t o i d e n t i f y w i t h an i d e a l e go r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e t e x t by t h e h e r o , who i n h i s / h e r t u r n i s a s i g n i f i e r within a pre-oedipal phantasy. By inviting such an identification, the tex t im plies a viewing s u b je c t w illin g to be c a u g h t i n / b y t h i s p h a n t a s y . Fr om t h e p o i n t o f v i e w of t h e r e a d e r w i l l i n g to occupy the vantage point from which t h e t e x t i s s u p p o s e d t o be v i e w e d , t h e p h a n t a s y c o n ­ stitutes the return of the repressed. The attendant a n x i e t y w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e s s u c h a r e t u r n i s d e f l e c t e d by t h e distortions to which the unconscious material of the p h a n t a s y has been s u b j e c t e d , s o m et hin g wh ich, combined with the paranoid s u b j e c t - p o s i t i o n implied by the process of filmic enunciation, allows the viewer to m i s r e c o g n i s e h i s own d e s i r e " ( T o u r n e u r , p . 2 5 ) .

1 32

dividual's pattern

"imaginary

for

the

apparatus. order in

to

it.

perceive

ferences, of

the

is

film.

of

hension

hension

genital world

of

118).

to

The

38

fetish

is

the

into

only

the

is

disavowal

the

of

the

male

that

be

of

to

appre­

leaves

child

to

return

into

end

world,

the

child

dif­

sense

must

enter

said

of

at

with

in

ourselves

a different

is

For

lose

child's

"It

to

film,

erasure

spectator

the

cinematic

a

rewritten the

that

and of

the

psychoanalysis

classic

genitals,

as

becomes

the

this

the

world appre­

particularly

difference

through

a fetish.

reality

female

by be

imaginary

which c o n s i s t s the

to

by e n t r y

difference

leading

defence

recognise

(ib id .).

genital

creation

the

judgment

some e x t e n t

out

difference of

spectator

continues,

film:

In Freudian of

ruptured

symbolic" of

Ma c Ca be

the

the world

caused

rubbed

outside of

to

plenitude

just

traumatic, the

be

our

we m u s t

difference,

comfortable the

the

And,

must

the world

of

it

to

between

critical

momentarily

plenitude a world

interaction

Ho w e v e r

This

relation"

of

in a

example

and

some o b j e c t

the

disavowal the

subject's

traumatic is

the

"lack"

present

at

to

he

first sees

traumatic

" a mode

refusing

perception"

boy's

which the

refers

to

(LP,

p.

of

the

view

there. mome nt

The which

--

" As s p e a k i n g s u b j e c t s we c o n s t a n t l y o s c i l l a t e between the symbolic and the im aginary--constantly imagining o u r s e l v e s g r a n t i n g s ome f u l l m e a n i n g t o t h e w o r d s we s p e a k , and c o n s t a n t l y being s u r p r i s e d to f i n d t h e m d e t e r m i n e d by relations outside our control" (Ibid., p. 14); see J o h n s t o n , S F F , p. 5 4 ) .

133

the

b oy r e t a i n s

stituting

for

genitals

tion

The

to F r e u d ,

lack

since

(Pictures,

pp.

the

the of

the

disavows

"the

disavowal

119).

by t h e

the

female

boy o f

however,

absurdity

the

male,

set

between

this

assump­

up t o

male

the have

of

on an a r b i t r a r y

ac­

be

the

and

female

for

fetish

film

of

from

poses

of

w h i c h he

which

Freud

reaches

infantile

at

the

same

a nd

attitude time:

fact

defence,

a perception")

of

he

problems Lacanian

the

mental

fetishes

retain

to

Freud

by h o l d i n g

"the t wo

simultaneously

feminine

disavowal "is

and

about

According

an

the

serious

Freudian

disavowal

cheory.

As a n e g o of

example

castration"

(by

directed

definition towards

ex­

reality" (ibid. ) .

Disavowal characteristics;

39 ..

the

and a c k n o w l e d g e s

p.

of

foundations

positions

(LP,

ternal

of

perpetuates

incompatible

noting

the

existence,

a nd o t h e r s ,

definitive

development

interest

fetishist

into

denial

an o p p o s i t i o n

conclusions

the

some way s u b ­

assumes

c ome s

rests

position

concept

threaten

theory,

it

in

44-45).

Although his

he

a form of

female

n or m i n

their

thus

scenario,

determining

results

fetish

this

positive

which

which

as

the

derives

penis

against of

of

representative

c a s t r a t i o n . 39 Lovell

of

argued sense

a mental

the

lack.

cording threat

as

Fetishism"

and both

( 1 927 ) ,

projection are

S_E,

defensive

21,

pp.

thus

share

mechanisms

15 2-53 .

various

entailing

a

134

"refusal avowal

refers

though, nal.

to r e c o g n i s e "

40

projection

involves

internal

things,

process"

brings

ference

to

originate b e c ome 232-33).

from

of

a projection :

too p a i n f u l ,

the

external,

something

inter-

"a dr e a m i s

Supplement,"

and

perception the

dis­

an e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n

perception

within

of

that

( "Metapsychological

subject's

Wher e

something

a refusal

Freud s p e c i f i e s

together

the

perceived.

méconnaissance

Fo r e x a m p l e ,

among o t h e r

Freud

to a

something

p.

projection

in

. of

.

. an

223). re­

of

unreal

stimuli

which

subject's

body.

When

these

subject

simply

projects

t he m ( p p .

I n so d o i n g , we are recognizing the e x i s t e n c e o f t wo s t a t e s — one i n w h i c h s o m e t h i n g i s d i r e c t ­ ly g i v e n t o t h e s e n s e s and t o c o n s c i o u s ­ ness ( th a t is , is present t o t h e m ) , a nd alongside i t a n o t h e r , in w h i c h t h e same thing is latent but capable of re­ appearing. I n s h o r t , we a r e r e c o g n i z i n g the co-existence of perception and me mor y, o r p u t t i n g i t mor e g e n e r a l l y , t h e e x i s t e n c e of u n c o n s c i o u s m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s a lo n g s i d e the conscious ones.

40

L a p l a n c h e and P o n t a l i s p r o v i d e t wo a p p o s i t e d e f i n i t i o n s of projection: P r o j e c t i o n may h a v e " a s e n s e c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e c i n e m a t o g r a p h i c one: the s u b j e c t sends out i n t o the external w o r l d an i ma g e o f s o m e t h i n g t h a t e x i s t s i n hi m i n an unconscious way.” In this case, the s u b j e c t can "recognise i n o t h e r s p r e c i s e l y wh a t he r e f u s e s t o a c k n o w ­ ledge in h im s e lf." Second, p r o j e c t i o n may mean "a q u a s i r e a l p r o c e s s of e x p u l s i o n : t h e s u b j e c t e j e c t s s o m e t h i n g he does n o t wa n t and l a t e r r e d i s c o v e r s i t i n o u t s i d e r e a l i t y . . . t h e f i r s t meaning c o n f i n e s p r o j e c t i o n to the status o f an i l l u s i o n , w h i l e t h e second roots it in a primal d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n s u b j e c t and o u t s i d e w o r l d " ( L P , p. 3 5 4 ) . To t e m a nd Ta b u ( 1 9 1 3 ) , SE, 1 3 , p p . 9 3 - 9 4 .

135

Projection what

Freud

a nd

disavowal

describes

phenomenon

as

are

the

thus

both

splitting

of

associated

with

the

This

ego.

involves

the c o e x is te n c e at the h e art o f t h e ego o f t wo p s y c h i c a l attitudes towards ex­ ternal reality i n so f a r as t h i s s t a n d s i n t h e way o f a n i n s t i n c t u a l d e m a n d . The f i r s t of t h e s e attitudes takes reality i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , whil e the second d i s ­ a v o ws i t a n d r e p l a c e s i t by a p r o d u c t o f desire. The t wo a t t i t u d e s p e r s i s t side by s i d e w i t h o u t influencing each other ( L P , p. 4 2 7 ) . For F r e u d as

"there

an o b j e c t , "

itself

during

least.

Its

The tot h i s

film of

spectator

in

the

is

cinematic

would to

be

42 Freud, troductory 58 .

come

of

" t h e e go its

e go

of

Although

take

split;

itself

it

splits

functions — temporarily

in

again fact

we h a v e

can

therefore

apparently

universal

already while

seen,

might

situation, be

the

The

places

the

other tend

disavow al's

appeal

prone

ego.

aspects

to weaken

seem t h a t

argued

at

,42

especially

of

involved

it

afterwards.

be

disavowal, as

can

c a n be

together

perception

ego.

"the

splitting

apparatus,

It

that

should

an a n x i o g e n i c

reassure.

the

can

of

a position

spectator's

ego

that

temporary

nature

the

hence

spectator

ambivalent

of

no d o u b t "

a number

parts

sort

is

a split function

that

of

the

" D is s e c tio n of the Personality," in New InLectures on P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s ( 1 9 3 3 ) , SE, 2 2 , p.

136

realise film is a t t r i b u t a b l e co a d e e p s c r u c c u r a l mechanism of r e a s s u r a n c e w h ic h is i n C r i n s i c Co a l l m a i n s c r e a m H o l l y w o o d cinema. T h i s m e c h a n i s m c a n be d e s c r i b e d in L acanian c e r m s 3S Che d e n i a l of^the s u b j e c c ' s p r o d u c c i o n i n che S y m b o l i c .

Fecishism

binds

insulaced

from

che che

' e a p c i n e s s ' — Che realm"

Text

on he

pocencially

'radical

Barches,

Che

an e q u a l l y suggescs

Oedipus. one's

inco

che

imaginary,

disrupcive

and

h e c e r o g e n e i c y ' — of

"safely

challenging Che S y m b o l i c

(ib id . ) .

For resCs

specCaCor

Isn'c

origin,

appeal,

broad

ehac

basis.

"every

scoryeelling

speaking

Pam C o o k e l a b o r a c e s ,

Che

che

one's

pleasure, In The

narracive always

pleasure

of

Che

che

P l e a s u re

of

wich cexc

cexc

of

che

back

co

searching

for

laad[s]

a wa y

confliccs

of

»

che Law?" is

44

As

chus

generated by Che possibilicy of che r e C u r n o f i n f a n c i l e w i s h e s and p h a n c a s i e s repressed by che passing Chrough che Oedipus complex. I n Che ' c l a s s i c ' n a r r a ­ t i v e knowledge is suspended f o r a limiCed amounc of Ci me and Truch is re­ established ac the end through the r e s o l u t i o n of the enigma: thus ' c l a s s i c ' n a r r a t i v e r e - e n a c t s th e O e d i p a l drama i t ­ self: the passage from misrecognition (the pre-Oedipal stage of bisexuality when b o t h ma l e and f e m a l e a r e t h o u g h t t o

D i c k H e b d i g e and G e o f f Hurd, "Reading and Realism," S c j r g e n E d u c a t i o n 28 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p . 7 2 . Trans. R i c h a r d M i l l e r ( New Y o r k : H i l l a n d Wa n g , 1 9 7 5 ) , p. 47; " t o u t récit ne se ramène-t-il pas à l'Oedipe? Raconter, n ' e s t - c e pas t o u j o u r s c h e r c h e r son o r i g i n e , d i r e ses démêlés avec la L oi, entrer dans la dialectique de l'attendrissem ent et de l a h a i n e ? " (1^ p l a i s i r du t e x t e ( P a r i s : S e u i l , 1973), pp. 7 5 - 7 6 ) .

137

possess a penis . . .) to knowledge (th e discovery of the fact of castration through sight of the mother’s body w ithout a penis . . .)• ’C lassic1 narra­ tive affirm s this heterosexual stru c tu re , the m ain sta y of the family unit and of s o c i a l r e o r o d u c t i o n , a g a i n a n d a g a i n ( ? N, p. 7 7 ) .

Johnston, between

following narrative

and

Barthes,

stresses

the

childhood

discoveries

of

connection sexual

dif­

ference .

The c h ild ’s refusal to recognise the reality of such a tr a u m a t i c p e r c e p t i o n . can be likened to that of the r e a d e r / v i e w e r , who k n o ws t h e s e a r e j u s t words/ im ages, and yet derivesh is/h er pleasure and s e c u r i t y from f o l l o w i n g t h e n a r r a t i v e t h r o u g h to th e end. . . . I t is t h i s mechanism of disavowal of sexual d i f f e r e n c e which is at the h e a r t of t h e d o m in a n t forms of understanding in our culture. . . . I t is in t h i s sense t h a t Barthes s tip u la te s that to construct a narrative is indeed to search for one's cultural o r i g i n s , t o c o n f r o n t t h e Law o f the F a th e r.

The

s p e c ta to r’s desire

which

s/he

escape a

obtains

from

Total

from

reality,

(sometimes

quite

for it

and

the can

the

consciously)

regression,

whether

imaginary,

is,

for

the

explaining

reasons

and

therefore

choice

Lacan’s all

cinema

to

be

however,

Freud's

the

as

an

cinema

is

act. unconscious

impossible

the

pleasure

described

attend

regressive to

the

at

s p e c ta to r’s

the

or

to

cinema,

retention

of

-of

Claire J o h n s t o n , " F e m i n i n i t y and the Masquerade: th e I n d i e s , “ in J a c q u e s T o u r n e u r , pp. 3 6-37 .

Anne

138

consciousness. if"

between

scious

The

the

and

spectator

imaginary

unconscious

reassured

by

provided

an o p p o r t u n i t y

comforting This imaginary

the

total

therefore

and

the

reactions experience for

a

hovers

symbolic, to

the

of

a

in

an

between

"as con­

film,

eventually

film

which

satisfying

regression

between

symbolic

has and

a

r e t u r n . 46 ambivalent

hovering

can

within

be

noted

specific

film

and

narratives

as

well: Double Indem nit y poses a social rea lity constructed in the . . . interface, b e t w e e n t h e S y m b o l i c a nd t h e I m a g i n a r y o f a particular social order — that of the male u n i v e r s e of the i n s u r a n c e b u s i n e s s — an o r d e r which a c t i v a t e s / r e a c t i v a t e s the t r o u b l e of c a s t r a t i o n for the male in patriarchy. I t is in relation to the women i n t h e film . . . th a t thei n t e r n a l contradictions of th e p a tria rc h a l order (the Oedipal tr a je c to r y of male desire focused in Neff) are t o be played out. The 'woman' is thus produced as the s i g n i f i e r of t h e l a c k , of h e t e r o g e n e i t y - the ' f a u l t ' i n h e r e n t i n p a t r i a r c h y a s an o r d e r ( J o h n s t o n , FN, p . 1 0 3 ) .

The

cinematic

exemplifies

i mage

the

of

women,

uncertainties

in built

other into

words, films

frequently

which

attem-

46 " A tte m p t to d e p r i v e the viewer too c o m p l e t e l y of his I m a g i n a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e f i l m a n d he w i l l d i s a p p e a r . C l e a r l y t h i s l e s s o n has pervaded Fassbinder's film [ The B i t t e r T e a r s o f P e t r a von K a n t ] , c o u p l i n g h i s a p p a r e n t d i s ­ t r u s t of t h e Imaginary with an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to s e p a r a te the v ie w e r from it altogether. T h e a t e r , as a n a l y z e d by Metz, is h is compromise — l e s s Imaginary than film, but I m a g i n a r y enough to hold the viewer" (Catherine Johnson, " T h e I m a g i n a r y , " Wi de A n g l e 3 , No. 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p. 2 4 ) .

139

pt

to

re-present

"closure" bance might

is

the

said

inherent

in

deemphasize

from a s u r e r ,

less

patriarchal

to

order.

reincorpórate

such

a

film 's

this

function

unsettling

However,

a nd

control

any d i s t u r ­

ambivalence. of

Other

closure

point.

narrative

films

by c o m m e n c i n g

E.g.,

the f u n c t i o n of the 'S y m b o l ic ' i s to i n ­ t e r v e n e i n t h e i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n and t o i n t e g r a t e the subject into the Symbolic Order. . . . Th e n a r r a t i v e o f The Revo I t o f Mami e S t o v e r i n that it presents a p a r t i c u l a r model o f t h e w o r l d h i s t o r i c a l ­ ly, c u ltu ra lly a nd ideologically over­ determined, c o u l d be said to perform a symbolic ^function for the absent spectator.

Inherent however,

is

reassured between

to the

than

idea

achieves.

vary

with

the

for

that

their

imaginary

tive

quences

Johnston's

male

a nd This

sexes

feminist

analysis female

implies

which that

recognition

artists

as

these

spectators

counterparts

symbolic

(a

of

by

the

well

as

may

the

be

less

resolution

cinematic

narrative with

t wo w o r k s ,

narra­

pleasure

important

may

conse­

theorists).

0

In

_ _

Pam Cook a n d C l a i r e Johnston, The P l a c e of Women i n the Ci n e ma o f R a o u l W a l s h , " i n R a o u l W a l s h , e d . P h i l H a r d y ( E ^ n b u r g h Film F e s t i v a l 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 1 0 2 - 0 3 . "Given the d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e wa ys men and women e x ­ perience th e ir lives, it i s not s u r p r i s i n g to find that 'n arrativ e pleasure' can sometimes mean very different t h i n g s t o men a nd women. . . . Too o f t e n f e m i n i s t c r i t i c i s m im plies that th ere is only one kind of pleasure to be d e r i v e d from narrative and that it is an essentially m asculine one. Hence, it is further implied, feminist artists mu s t f i r s t of a l l c h a l l e n g e t h i s p l e a s u r e a nd t h e n o u t o f n o t h i n g b e g i n t o c o n s t r u c t a f e m i n i s t a e s t h e t i c s and feminist form. This is a mistaken p o sitio n , i n my v i e w ,

140

f ac t ,

the f e m a l e s p e c t a t o r may f i n d h e r s e l f so out of key w i t h the p le a s u r e on o f f e r , with its 'm asculinisation', that the spell of f a s c i n a t i o n is broken. On t h e o t h e r h a n d s h e may not. She may find herself secretly, unconsciously almost, enjoying the freedom of a c t i o n and c o n ­ trol over the diegetic world that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a hero p ro v id e s.

Laura

Mulvey's

pleasure female

disapproval

echoes

loudly

spectator's

relation

"dominant

cinema

address

which,

least

kinds only

of

looking,

subjectivity

this

through

because

at

of

is

to

feminist

actually

available"

its

cinema

of

evocation

p.

of

by an certain

subjectivity 63).^

the

precisely

distinguished

masculine (Kuhn,

unconscious

discussions

patriarchal

through

advances

secret,

Kuhn

as

the con-

for i t k e e p s u s c o n s t a n t l y i n a n a d v e r s a r y r o l e , a l w a y s on th e d e f e n s i v e , a lw a y s , as i t were, complaining about the f a m i l y b u t n e v e r l e a v i n g h o me . F e m i n i s t a r t i s t s d o n ' t have to s t a r t from n o t h i n g ; r a t h e r , th e y can l o o k f o r c l u e s to women's p l e a s u r e which a r e already present in existing fo rm s , even if this pleasure is c u rre n tly placed at the s e g j j i c e of p a t r i a r c h y " ( M o d l e s k i , pp. 1 0 3 - 0 4 ) . Laura M u l v e y , "On D u e l i n the Sun," Fr amewor k 15-17 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , p. 1 2 . For S i l v i a Bovenschen t h i s l a t t e r choice may be e l a b o r a t e d i n t wo e q u a l l y n e g a t i v e w a y s : The f e m a l e s p e c t a t o r "could e i t h e r betray her s e x and i d e n t i f y with the masculine point of view, or, in a state of a c c e p t e d passivity, she could be m asochistic/narcissistic and i d e n t i f y with the o b j e c t of the m asculine r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " ("Is There a Feminine A e s t h e t i c ? , " t r a n s . Beth W eckm ulle r, N e y ^ G e r m a n C r i t i q u e 10 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p. 1 2 7 ) . Se e Judith F etterley's no tio n of " i mmas c u l a t i o n , " i n The R e s i s t i n g R e a d e r (Bloomington: Indiana IJniv. Press, 1 9 7 8 ) , p. xx). Willemen, however, criticizes Mulvey's argument f o r not c o n s i d e r i n g " t h a t in p a t r i a r c h y th e d i r e c t object of s c o p o p h i l i c d e s i r e can a l s o be m a l e . " I n a c u r ­ rent project Janet Bergstrom also develops a different

141

eludes

that

"it

certainly

masculine

in

that,

a condition

as

de-feminise however,

culture

the

extend

consciousness

that of

female an

speaks dominant being

position

them " p e c u l i a r l y

able"

to

ology

to

whatever female some

" may"

spectator's extent

transvestite

ii.

be,

at

phantasy

clothes"

Castration

offers

possibility,

cinema

with

( " O n D u e l , " p.

She

does,

itself,

women's

may

make

from t h e

( i b i d . ).

of m a s c u l i n i s a t i o n

purposes

effect

that

concludes is

the

in

society

themselves

ultim ately

^

of

an a d d r e s s

must

64).

within

patriarchal

cross

(p.

distance

Mu l v e y

hegemony

meaningful,

alternative

their

the

cinema

spectator"

of

inherent

to

ide­

Still, that

"the

always

restless

in

to its

15).

and F e t i s h

v e r s i o n of M u l v e y ' s a n a l y s i s , a v e r s i o n w h i c h c o n s i d e r s t he use o f male i mages i n M u r n a u ' s f i l m s as s i m i l a r to t h a t of female images a c c o r d i n g t o M u l v e y ' s a n a l y s i s , b u t f o r d i f ­ f e r e n t r e a s o n s ( ” F . W. M u r n a u , " The S e m i o t i c s o f Ci n e ma I I , Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America, Bloomington, I n d ., 13 O c t . 1 9 8 4 ) . As W i l l e m e n c o n t i n u e s , "if s c o p o p h i l i c p l e a s u r e r e l a t e s p r i m a r i l y to the o b s e r v e r of o n e ’s sexual l i k e (as Freud suggests), then the t wo l o o k s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by Mu l v e y a r e i n f a c t v a r i a t i o n s o f one single mechanism: the repression of homosexuality" ( " V o y e u r i s m , " p. 4 3 ) . T h i s a c c o r d i n g to W i l l e me n , l e a d s to "the n a r c i s s i s t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h an i d e a l e go i n t h e diegesis," which in turn leads to ma l e buddy films. Further, Mu l v e y i g n o r e s t h e f a c t t h a t m e c h a n i s m s w h i c h s h e a t t r i b u t e s to n a r r a t i v e f i l m a l s o f u n c t i o n in n o n - n a r r a t i v e f i^ij ( i b i d . ) . Se e B o v e n s c h e n , p. 1 1 4 , who c i t e s de B e a u v o i r ; a n d a l s o Heath's c r i t i q u e o f L a c a n ' s a n a l y s i s of t he 3 e r n i n i s t a t u e of S t . Theresa (in "D iffe re n c e ," Screen 1 9 , No. 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 5 1 - 1 1 2 .

142

A splinter argued tion"

against is

faction within the

"claim t h a t

fetishistic,

the the

Screen

editorial

structure

of

board

representa­

for

t h e r e i s no equivalent of the initial discovery of t h e w o m a n ' s l a c k o f a p e n i s in the f e t i s h i s t s i t u a t i o n . A l l t h e two s i t u a t i o n s h a v e i n common i s a s t r u c t u r a l sim ilarity in t h a t in both something is d i s g u i s e d from t h e people involved and t h a t d i s g u i s i n g process allows the people to c o n tin u e to f u n c t i o n but in ig norance of t h e i r r e a l p o s i t i o n . Nevertheless, ly

referred

As

to

Johnston

far

the in

was

i mages

that

changed

the

function:

cinema

use of

. . .

in

of

much mo r e

of

from t h e

man as

has

.

the

frequent­

.

novel

a

inside

because

..53

cinematic

of

that

female

Before i ma g e

Johnston male

stereotypes.

fact

than

threats. f e t i s h i 2 ed

sight.

treatment

use

rapidly

is

of s te r e o ty p e s .

the

stereotypes

.

a r o s e , her

terms

the

in

p l e a s u r e of

fetish

we c a n s e e

to r e p r e s e n t

"probably

than

between

terms

cinema d e v e l o p e d , otypes

women a r e

discussed

in

fetishes

p l a y s on t h e

distinguishes

female

and c a s t r a t i o n

o f woman as

frequently

again

terms of

the

cinema

discussions

the cinema

observes,

mor e w i t h i n . . the

i ma g e o f woman i n

ma l e

and "As

stere­

stereotypes

specific

ideological

history,

a nd woman as

_ _

E dwa r d 3 u s c o m b e , C h r i s t o p h e r G l e d h i l l , Al a n L o v e l l , and C h r i s t o p h e r W i l l i a m s , " S t a t e m e n t : P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and F i l m , " S c g g e n 1 6 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 1 2 9 . E. Ann K a p l a n , " I n t e r v i e w w i t h B r i t i s h C i n e - F e m i n i s t s , " i n Women and t h e C i n e m a , e d s . K a r y n Kay and G e r a l d P e a r y (New Y o r k : B u t t o n , 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 4 0 2 .

143

eternal

and u n c h a n g i n g ,

outside

passivity,

the message of her

unpleasure"

( Mul vey,

"Visual

threat,

one whi c h n a r r a t i v e

tain.^

Suc h c o n t a i n m e n t

the

castration

history.

Despite

image— " c a s t r a t i o n Pleasure,"

cinema

rests

, 54

on t h e

has

p.

and h e n c e

13) — p o s e s

learned

two ma l e

her

to

a

con­

reactions

to

threat:

preoccupation with the re-enactment of the o r i g i n a l trauma (investigating the woman, demystifying her mystery), counterbalanced by the devaluation, p u n i s h m e n t or s a v i n g of t h e g u i l t y o b j e c t (an avenue t y p i f i e d by t h e c o n c e r n s of the film n o i r ); or else complete dis­ avowal o f c a s t r a t i o n by t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of a f e t i s h o b j e c t or turning the re­ presented f i g u r e i t s e l f i n t o a f e t i s h so t h a t i t b e c o me s r e a s s u r i n g rather than dangerous (hence o v e r v a l u a t i o n , the c u l t of t h e f e m a l e s t a r ) . This second avenue, f e t i s h is tic scopophilia, builds up the p h y s i c a l beauty ofthe object, trans­ forming i t i n t o something s a t i s f y i n g in itself. The f i r s t a v e n u e , v o y e u r i s m , on the contrary, has associations with sadism: pleasure lies in ascertaining guilt (immediately associated with castration), asserting control and s u b ­ j e c t i n g the g u i l t y person through p u n is h ­ me n t o r f o r g i v e n e s s ( i b i d . , pp. 1 3 - 1 4 ) . - -

"Dorothy A r z n a r , " in Claire Johnston (London: 1 5 55

The ’f o r k o f Dor o t h y Arzner, ed. British Film I n s t i t u t e , n d ) , p.

To g a i n s e l f - k n o w l e d g e and to give meani ng to the memor i es of t h e p a s t , [the hero] i s i m p e l l e d towards the primal s c e n e and t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e of s y m b o l i c c a s t r a t i o n . For t h e ma l e h e r o , t h e f e m a l e p r o t a g o n i s t b e c o me s an a g e n t within t h e t e x t of t h e f i l m wher eby h i s h i d d e n s e c r e t can be b r o u g h t t o l i g h t , f o r i t i s i n woman t h a t h i s ' l a c k ' i s located. She r e p r e s e n t s a t one and t h e same t i m e t h e d i s ­ t a n t memory of his maternal p l e n i t u d e and the f e t i s h i z e d o b j e c t of h i s p h a n t a s y o f c a s t r a t i o n — a p h a l l i c r e p l a c e m e n t a nd t h u s a t h r e a t " ( Coo k and J o h n s t o n , W a l s h , p. 9 5 ) .

144

Mulvey's

analysis

the

origin

for

the

two,

one

of

the

original part

precisely

tallies

with

fetish,"

he

instinctual

undergoing

on a c c o u n t

of

F reu d 's,^ found

that

intimate

"in

tracing

"it

is

possible

to

be

split

representative

repression,

this

for,

while

the

in

remainder,

connection,

undergoes

i d e a l i z a t i o n . " ^7 The holds

the

("Visual action. Mulvey,

passive

"display"

look,

plays

Pleasure," In

contrast,

actively

would modify

In

p.

this

fact,

of to

11); the

furthers

woman " a s and it

male

sexual

signifies

therefore role

narrative

in

object mala

impedes film,

action.

.

.

desire" narrative

according 58

.

to

Silverman

slightly:

the

only

truly

productive

gaze

And i s t h e r e f o r e open t o t h e s ame s o r t s of c r i t i c i s m l e v e l e d a t h i s work. ^ " R e p r e s s i o n " ( 1 9 1 5 ) , S_E, 1 4 , p. 1 5 0 . "The p r e s e n c e o f woman i s a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e e l e m e n t of s p e c t a c l e in normal n a r r a t i v e f ilm , yet her v i s u a l pre se n c e tends t o wo r k a g a i n s t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a s t o r y l i n e , to f r e e z e the f lo w of a c t i o n i n mo m e n t s o f e r o t i c c o n t e m p l a ­ tion"; " t h e s p l i t b e t w e e n s p e c t a c l e and n a r r a t i v e s u p p o r t s the m a n ' s r o l e as t h e active one of f o r w a r d i n g the s to r y , making t h i n g s happen" ( i b i d . , p p . 11 and 1 2 ) . Since th a t which s e r v e s as a f e t i s h i s u s u a l l y some p a r t o f t h e b o d y , it is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e image o f woman w h i c h a p p e a r s on t h e screen is often fragmented (through close ups or fra m in g , fo r exam ple). Heath sees this fragmentation as c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e c i n e m a t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e huma n f o r m for both s e x e s , so t h a t ci ne ma in g e n e r a l is f e t i s h i s t i c . "The body i n f i l m s i s a l s o mo me nt s , i n t e n s i t i e s , o u t s i d e a simple c o n s t a n t u n i t y of t h e body as a w h o l e , t h e p r o p e r t y of a some o n e ; f i l m s a r e f u l l of f r a g m e n t s , . .. f e t i s h points — if we t a k e f e t i s h i s m h e r e as i n v e s t m e n t in a b i t , a fragment, f o r i t s own s a k e , as t h e e nd o f t h e a c c o m p l i s h ­ me n t of a d e s i r e " ( Q u e s t i o n s , p. 1 8 3 ) . Se e M o d l e s k i , p. 99 .

145

i n c h e c i n e m a i s c h a c o f Che c a m e r a . . . [ w h i c h ] ' l o o k s ' che viewer as subjecc. However, j u s c as a shoe of s e e i n g f u n c c i o n s co c o v e r o v e r che c a m e r a ' s c o e r c i v e gaze, so c h e r e p r e s e n c a c i o n o f c h e ma l a s u b j e c c i n c e r m s o f v i s i o n h a s Che e f f e c c of a c c r i b u c i n g co h i m q u a l i c i e s w h i c h i n facc belong Co chac s a me apparaCus— q u a l i c i e s of poCency and auchoricy (p. 22 3) .

Ev e n when woman c o n c r o l s mentary, and

for

Che n a r r a c i v e

che woman' s

Cheir

analysis

power,

as

o f Mami e

che

look,

evenCually Cook

a nd

ic

is

only

mo­

concains

chac

look

Johnscon

observe

in

SCover.

Assercing h e rse lf a s Che subjecc racher Chan c h e o b j e c c o f d e s i r e , c h i s [ o p e n i n g ] look [by J a n e R u s s e l l / M a a i e S c o v e r ] i n c o che camera represencs a reaching ouc b e y o n d Che d i e g e c i c s p a c e o f Che f i l m a nd Che my c h s of r e p r e s e n Ca c i o n w h i c h e n c r a p her. The c e n c r a l c o n e r a d i c Ci o n of her s i c u a e i o n i s c h a c s h e c a n o n l y a c c e m p e co a s s e r c h e r s e l f as s u b j e c c c h r o u g h che e x ­ p l i c a t i o n o f a f a t i s h i z e d i m a g e o f woman co be e x c h a n g e d w i c h i n c he c i r c u l a c i o n of mon e y ( W a l s h , p. 1 0 0 ) . Consequencly, new c i n e m a , voyeurism, has

one a nd

which che

cradicionallv challenge

che

feminises

scopic

specular C i o n of

.

sore

of

offered.

as

icself,

Mu l v e y

escapes

. che

drive"

cexc che

.

like

che

visual This

which

inscripcion

of

as

call

confines

fecishism,

pleasure

a nd

"che

involves Che l o o k

of

which

"feminise

fecishiscic well

a nd J o h n s c o n

cinema

sadiscic

encire going as

c he

aspeccs

c he

discourse

a

cinema

mus e

nocion

beyond

for

of

.

. of

che

quesco

che

146

mo r e

general

the

spectator

What

such a

of

of

other

sexual

and

the

from

a nd

readings" Judith

of

with

"In

these

consists

an a l t e r n a t i v e order

it

to

in

wa y s

for

attaining

to

the

opens must

an no­

me a n s

assertion it

of for

Barthes'

cinema and

50).

"speak

terms,

difference

disrupt

new

the

feminist

p.

can

reference

its

inception

of

true

feminist

been p.

contained

127).

older

Williamson,

film

femininity,

u n iq u e n e s s — though

always

(3ovenschen,

that

places

EFF,

is

possibility

fundamental

in

achieve

text

up.

of 59

assert

restructure

the

( ib id .).

"aspects

have

one

specular

(Johnston,

must

for m so

suggests

the

wa y "

heterogeneity."

words,

resistance

way

cinema

patriarchy

order

Yet

the

certain

female

difference

symbolic

of

representation,

on

castration

that

the

"radical

attack

In

a

Gledhill

alternative tion

in

feminist

representing women."

question

This

in

as

does

which

also

has

argued

of

female

instances

often

in

the

disguised

artistic

possibility

films,

theory

holds

out

product"

permits

a further

form--

"rescue

suggestion

hope

for

by

future

f ilms . Although I accept that a lot of the p l e a s u r e in mainstream films is gender based — the p le a su re of l o o k i n g a t women and so on— I know that I still get a n o t h e r k i n d of pleasure from watching 59

Christine G ledhill, Recent Developments in Film C r i t i c i s m , " Q u a r t e r l y Review of Film S t u d i e s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p. 4 3 1 .

Feminist 3 , No. 4

147

films which c o me s from particular c o m b i n a t i o n s of camera movements, from o t h e r movements, from m u s i c , and t h i n g s like that. So t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r t o produce p le a su re or combat it becomes broader— a a u e s t i o n o f s t y l e a n d how you make f i l m s .

This on

sort

the

pleasure,

satisfaction

present

iii.

of

to

be

of

satisfied

Scopophilia As a d r i v e ,

in

other

the in

words,

depends

scopophilic

spectators

of

on v i s i o n ,

drive, either

a

drive

gender.

and S u b l i m a t i o n scopophilia

depends

on

t h e p l a y o f p l e a s u r e and u n p l e a s u r e . Ac ­ tive scopophilia demands, in its pleasurable aspect, a distance between subject and o b j e c t , i n t h a t i t i s i n t h e play o f a b s e n c e a nd d i s t a n c e t h a t d e s i r e is activated. Given t h a t in cinema the object of t h e s p e c t a t o r ' s l o o k i s i n d e e d both d i s t a n t and a b s e n t . . . t h e f i l m i c state must be particularly prone to evoking the pleasurable aspects of l o o k i n g (Kuhn, p. 58; see Rosen, pp. 412-13). For

Bellour,

the

cinema

exaggerates

scopic

drive

because

of

"the

camera

and

object.

" ^ 1

The

the

variation

effects

in d is ta n c e

important

point

of

the

between is

that

Dee Dee G l a s s , Laura Mulvey, Griselda Pollock, and Judith W i l l i a m s o n , " F e m i n i s t Film P r a c t i c e and P l e a s u r e , " F o r a t i o n s o f P l e a s u r e 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 1 6 1 . "Hitchcock, The S n u n c i a t o r , " C a m e r a Obscura 2 (1977 ), p. 6 8 ; s e e P r a t t , p. 1 8 7 .

148 scopophilia The

" o b j e c t i f [i e s ] the

scopophilic

above

all

voyeuristic.

respond

to

punished

for

involves

a kind

major

pleasure

the

looking.

sources

of

its

to

scopophilia,

tangled and In

with

"the

identifies this

3

"Cinema,

references

spectator

derives

pleasure,

first

does

s/he

according

are

this

and

this

is

p.

58).

to S c h a u l u s t

narcissism.of

the

spectator

of

with

some

star"

identification

both a v o y e u r i s t i c

from

the

the

pleasure

pleasure

has

image.

64

Three

t o be

argument, o ne o f

rather

the

than

factor"

en­

who p r o j e c t s p.

187).

projection

the

and

an e x h i b i t i o n i s t i c

of

looking

be c ome h i m / h e r s e l f ,

of knowing

therefore

(Montani,

and

6 2

and c a n n o t

to

( Ku h n ,

gaze."

expect

an " a c t i v e

through

same

need not

is

identification,

that

nor

is

where S c h a u l u s t

through

plate

the

by c i n e m a

seeing',

pleasure"

himself

complex

object

'lawless

E a r l y European 6

provided

through

The s u b j e c t

cinematic

of

other

that

others

factors

enable

at

what,

and

second,

also

conteta-

this

double

effect: --Identification w i t h s t a r s ( I l o o k and I am l o o k e d u p o n ) . . . . 2--Collectivisation of t h e s p e c t a t o r in the m a s s , wh e n c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e

1

g2

Jenny Taylor and Dave Laing, "Disco-PleasureDi g t j o u r s e , " S c r e e n E d u c a t i o n 31 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p. 4 4 . Mo r e c k , f o r example, r e f e r s to a need to s e e as b o t h " S e n s a t l o n s h u n g e r " a nd " Wo1 1 u s t des Schauens." He notes that, culturally, Schaulust has negative connotations b e g j i u s e of i t s r e l a t i o n t o b l o o d t h i r s t i n e s s ( p p . 7 1 - 7 3 ) . Fans " wo u l d l i k e t o be l i k e a mo v i e s t a r , t h e o b s e r v e d o f a l l o b s e r v e r s " ( P r a t t , p. 1 8 6 ) .

149

h e r o and e q u a l i z a t i o n of all spectators i n r e l a t i o n t o hi m. . . . 3— I n f a n t i l e narcissism helped by the special surroundings of the mo v i e theater. Darkness . . . lower[s] the r e s i s t a n c e s , h e l p s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and r e g r e s s i o n and prepares an oscillating surrounding between dream a nd reverie (Montani, pp. 1 8 8 - 8 9 ) .

The

contemporary

further

suggests

identification of

a star

parts

of

but it.

evident"

by

.

.

. Here a nd

spectator's

triggered

not

the

just of

p.

59). results

also

from

of

body,

or

narcissistic

the

mirror

suggests an

appearance

human

between

identifications It

narcissistic

by t h e

the

connection

apparatus

phase

that

the

identification

with

cam era.^

which film that,

for

5

is

obvious

theory.

In

to

a minor

detail

reasons

takes

fact,

elementally,

a desire 6

the

cinematic

the

voyeurism

Scopophilia

fy

of t h e

"representations

(Kuhn,

spectator's the

that

may be

identification is

framework

current

spectators

in

on g r e a t e r film

view

s e e F e n i c h e l

psychoanalytic

theory

films tries

importance often

in o r d e r to

theory

to

in

assumes satis­

differentiate

" I n a v o y e u r i s t i c r e l a t i o n , when t h e s p e c t a t o r o c c u p i e s the p la c e of the camera as source of the lo ok, the s u b j e c t in t h e c i n e ma t i c apparatus is s e t up as t h e c e n t r e and o r i g i n o f m e a n i n g , b e c a u s e t h e i ma g e and t h e p o i n t s - o f - v i e w of spectator, camer a — and indeed pro j e c t o r — c o i n c i d e " (ib^d.). ^ C o h e n - S e a t woul d t a k e t h i s even further: "The me a n s becomes t he end a nd s u b o r d i n a t e s i t s o r i g i n a l ends to i t ­ s e l f " ; " l e moyen d e v i e n t f i n et se subordonne ses fins premières" ( Problèmes du cinéma (Paris: Presses u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1 9 6 1 ) , p. 1 2 6 ) . He a l s o s u g g e s t s

150

between forms

"ordinary of

antithesis"

He

although

between

t h e m:

of every

when t h e does

than

ordinary

eye

but

upon

the

the

seeing

find

is

that

world,

is

not

Libidinal

looking

(ibid.),

and

threat

of

seeing

often

ma kes

but

.

that

merely

does

which i s

becomes

is

mor e

mor e a c t i v e

not

'devour' "the

sexual the

ga z e has 69

.

"archaic"

"fundamental

an o n s l a u g h t

to

takes

castration.

no

looking

looking

perception

.

or

ibid in iz e d . " ^

order

who l o o k s

fixed

finds

" Th e w o r l d

in l i b i d i n a l

the

of 1

looking in

he

libidinal

looking: person

"libidinal"

"Evidently

act

Furthermore,

the

and

seeing,

characteristic manifest

seeing"

the

with

eye

it"

his

the

person

gratification.

cultural

of a

fixed

associations

notes

68

( i b i d . ).

aim of

form

Mu l v e y

approach

the

.

.

.

gaze" with

sadistic

t h a t t h i s e f f e c t i n c i n e ma h a s l e d to an i n c r e a s e d r e l i a n c e on t h e v i s u a l in o t h e r media (p. 123). Willemen arg ue s that " it is essential if cinema i s to c o n t i n u e to e x i s t t h a t the scopophilic drive be g r a n t e d some s a t i s f a c t i o n " ("Voyeurism," p. 4 4 ) . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n c a n a l s o l e a d t o an a n a l y s i s of a d i r e c t o r ' s wo r k i n r e l a t i o n to h i s / h e r play with cinema's scopophilic potential. E.g., "in a very r a d i c a l se ns e That Obscure Ob jec t of D e s i r e e x p lo r e s the Imaginary s t r u c t u r e at the heart of t he scopic drive — a p a s s i o n _to_ s e e t h a t i s b a s e d upon t h e f u n d a m e n t a l a b s e n c e o r s e p a r a t i o n f r o m t h e o b j e c t one w i s h e s t o s e e " ( L . W i l l i ­ a m s . p. 1 9 5 ) . " T h e S c o p t o p h l l i c I n s t i n c t , " p. 3 7 9 . For F e n i c h e l " t h e s c o p t o p h i l i c wo ul d s e e m t o h a v e r e g r e s s e d w h o l l y o r i n p a r t t o a mor e p r i m i t i v e mode o f s e e i n g " ( i b i d . ) . This devouring associates scopophilia with i n c o r p o r a ­ tion, a "primitive object relatio n , the p r e c u r s o r of love and„hate" (p. 378). " Th e h e a d o f Me d u s a and other objects the sight of which i s f a t a l have been conclusively demonstrated t o be symbols f o r the female g e n i t a l , and so t o be t u r n e d i n t o stone s y m b o l i z e s t h e s h o c k of c a s t r a t i o n w i t h w h i c h s u c h a

151

aspect

of

looking;

Fenichel

sadistic

impulses

enter

looking:

one w i s h e s

£o_

looking ready

at

it,

acquired

destruction" Less involves seen

or e l s e the

explains

into

the

destroy the

that

a c t of

significance

instinctual

something looking of

"very

a

by

itself

often aim

of

means

of

ha s

modified

al­

f or m

of

( i b i d . ) . 7l~>

negatively, "the

object's]

desire

Fenichel to

share

experience."

adds by

that

means o f

Empathy,

scopophilia

also

empathy i n

[the

whatever

else

it

may

sight is v isite d . . . . When we r e f l e c t t h a t the o bject which turns people i n t o stone is v e r y o f t e n a g l a r i n g eye ( b a s i l i s k , snake, h y p n o t i s t ) , i t is natural to conclude t h a t s uch an eye is another s y mb o l for the terrible, d e v o u r i n g , female g e n i t a l " ( i b i d . , pp. 389-90). Thus t h e connection between eye, penis, mouth, which in the unconscious are l i n k e d by " t h e vagina, . . . a b o u t whi ch the ch ild is u n c e r t a i n whether it conceals within it a p e n i s o r i s a k i n d of d e v o u r i n g m o u t h . In t h e u n c o n s c i o u s , c o n t r a d i c t i o n s can e x i s t s i d e by s i d e . To be t u r n e d i n t o rigid s t o n e s y m b o l i z e s not only e r e c t i o n but als o c a s t r a ­ t i o n , j u s t as t h e eye s y m b o l i z e s not on ly a penis but a v a g i n a (and a mouth)" (p. 390). Violence enters the spectator's involvement not j u s t through the s c o p o p h ilic gaze but t h r o u gh d e s i r e as w e l l . "For p l e n i t u d e to r e p l a c e a b s e n c e , t h e w o r l d we d e s i r e mu s t r e p l a c e t h e w o r l d we p e r ­ ceive. Desire is i n t r i n s i c a l l y violent both because it s p o n t a n e o u s l y a s s ume s t h i s a n n i h i l a t i o n of e v e r y t h i n g a l i e n t o i t , and b e c a u s e i t s f a n t a s i e s i n c l u d e a r a g e f u l r e c o g n i ­ t i o n of t h e w o r l d ' s c a p a c i t y to resist and survive our desires. But t h e w o r l d a l s o o f f e r s i ma g e s of d e s i r e i t ­ self. O b j e c t s o f p e r c e p t i o n w h i c h c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d as a lack e a s i l y bec ome m e t a p h o r s f o r d e s i r e " ( 3 e r s a n i , p. 13). Again we s e e t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i ma g e o f woman on the s c r e e n and v i o l e n c e , s i n c e t h a t i ma g e n o t o n l y c o n t r i ­ butes to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of d e s i r e b u t also, at le a st according to Mulvey's a n a ly s is , plays a distinct r o le in s a ^ s f y i n g the s p e c t a t o r 's scopophilic d e s ir e s . Hi s example, however, is h a r d e r to swallow: "Thus, for instance, t h e c o m p u l s i o n so f r e q u e n t l y met w i t h i n women t o look a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a ma n ' s g e n ita ls is r e a lly a modified e x p r e s s io n of a c t i v e c a s t r a t i o n t e n d e n c i e s . "

15 2

be,

"has

something

11o n " ( p .

377 ) .

with

it

looking

puts

this

longer

a neutral

energy

within quo.

satisfied

a

which

hood,

subjected

sublimation

situdes to

of

the

sexuality,

tions

in

The

drives,

to

plains

a

are

on.

can

be

free

or

of

partially

time.

early of

the

which

attraction

child­

connection reac­

scopophilia

such of

powerful

energy,

for

the

society

through

in­

vicis­

repressive

source

are,

repression

their

satisfy

explained

c a n be

both

words

That

a

restrictions

in

measure

with

a powerful

tremendous

which

conditions

threat to

maintain

exhibitionism ,"

other

no

sublimation.

by n e g a t i v e ,

ability

period

an a i m,

look,

a f l ow of

to

numerous

instincts,

the

The

from

expression

In

" 71

against

its

to

a considerable

d r a w on s u c h of

has

argued,

Scopophilic

strives

normal

determined

cinema's

part

is,

"subject

scopophilic

an e x t e n d e d

filmgoing

to

rather

counterpart,

allowed

later

defense

poses.

over

are

ident if ic a -

chapter

context:

always

Under

of

involvement.

gratification

"its

transform ations.

stincts,

and

that

through and

previous

derives

that

look,

mechanism

a different

Abraham n o t e s ,

are

of

quantity,

The

Scopophilia

and

within

the the

degree

a system

either

as Karl

do w i t h

Perception,

brings

status

to

the

ex­

masses

sanctions cinema's

7 l Karl Abraham, "Restrictions and Transformations of S c o p t o p h i l i a i n P s y c h o - N e u r o t i c s ; w i t h R e m a r k s on A n a l o g o u s Phenomena in F o lk -P sy c h o lo g y , ” in Selected Papers , t r a n s . D o u g l a s B r y a n a n d A l i x S t r a c h e y ( L o n d o n : H o g a r t h , 1 9 4 3 ) , p. 169) .

153

control

of

providing

libidinal

energy,

a

a sublimated

pleasure

in

control the

achieved

form o f

by

scopophilic

spec t a c l e . Sublimation, from an a

thereby

and

plays

idea

retreats basic

form of

unacceptable,

higher

The

a

plank

sickness

a crucial denied

sickness

not

for

retreat

of

Freud's

explanation

of

Everyone

phantasizes

A rtists,

through avoiding

maintaining

and

tion,

sublimated

of

therapeutic

of

(pp.

obtain

real

part

world

In on

one

72

It

health. patient forms

That

a

mo r e

from t h e a nd

al­ the

consumption:

of

human

express

infantile (p.

a different

rests

and

gift,

an

to

p h a n t a s y . 7 ^ He n c e

production

desires. art

49- 50).

through

"mysterious"

the

the

sublimation

a necessary

with

mental

results

aim

object

satisfaction,

through

to

the

aim.

reality,

argues,

available

as

readers

value

Freud

regression

listeners,

ersatz

artistic

their

contact

in

therapeutics

satisfaction

related,

in m ain tain in g

an

available

shifts

unobjectionable'

role

occur,

degree

thereby

sexually

satisfaction

in F r e u d 's

does

ternative

usually

consequently

that, to

displacement,

theirs,

world

50).

sort

life.

of

either premise:

and

Viewers, satisfac­ case Since

the the

_ _

" F i v e L e c t u r e s " ( 1 9 0 9 ) , S_E, 1 1 , p. 2 3 . As Lagache d e s c r i b e s Fenichel's position on s u b l i m a ­ t i o n , i t " i s a very p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n s i v e mechanism; i t is a 'successful' defense which requires the abolition of defense"; "est un m é c a n i s m e de d é f e n s e très p a rtic u lie r; c'est une défense 'réu ssie' et qui a pour condition l ' a b o l i t i o n de l a d é f e n s e " ( " L a p s y c h a n a l y s e , " p. 3 2 ) .

154

unconscious ter

is

t o weaken

bringing

mo r e p o w e r f u l the

them i n t o

beneficial

effect

than

the

representatives the

(p.

conscious,

53).

74

conscious, of

the

where

Through

it

is

bet­

unconscious

they

may e x e r t

by a

sublimation

the energy of the i n f a n t i l e w i s h f u l i m­ pulses is not c ut o f f but remains ready for use— the unserviceable aim of the vario u s impulses being replaced by one that is higher, a nd perhaps no longer sexual. I t happens to be p r e c i s e l y t h e component s of t h e sexual instinct that a r e s p e c i a l l y marked by a capacity of t h i s kind f o r s u b lim a tio n , for exchanging t h e i r s e x u a l a i m f o r a n o t h e r one w h i c h i s comparatively r e m o t e and s o c i a l l y v a l u a ­ ble (p. 54). Ab r a h a m

posits

scopophilic of

sexual

an

inverted

behavior activity

he a r g u e s

in l i n e

desirable

behavior,

proportional

and s e x u a l

by i n d u l g i n g

with

Freudian

activity. the

relation

The s u b l i m a t i o n

scopophilic

theory,

between

leads

instinct,

to c u l t u r a l l y

s u c h as

the d e s ire for knowledge ( i n a general s e n s e ) , the impulse towards i n v e s t i g a ­ tion, interest in the observation of Nature, p le a s u re in t r a v e l , and t h e i m­ pulse towards artistic treatment of t h i n g s p e r c e i v e d by t h e e y e ( f o r e x a m p l e , p a in tin g ) (p. 208; s ee "Five L e c t u r e s , " p. 5 4 ) . ~~7 4

This, i n f a c t , has been r e c o g n i z e d as s p e c i f i c to the a i ms and me a ns o f t h e analysis. . . . That which was unconscious b e c o me s c o n s c i o u s . . . . The Ego mu s t e x t e n d i t s e l f at t h e e x p e n s e of t h e I d " ; " d e s b u t s e t d e s moye ns de l'analyse. . . . Ce qui é t a i t i n c o n s c i e n t d e v e n i r con­ scient. . . . Le Moi d o i t s ' é t e n d r e a u x d é p e n s du Ça" ( " L a p s y c h a n a l y s e , " p. 3 1 ) .

155

Bersani (and

takes

other

line,

works o f a r t ,

sublimating Marxist

this

activity"

(p.

interpretation

sufficiently

explain

it

concluding follows]

10).

argues

is

that in

On t h e

that

t h e d r a w of

"literature

part, other

sublimation

artistic

always

a

hand,

a

does

not

works.

Cultural productions are articulated structures of feeling and s e n s i b i l i t y which d e r i v e from c o l l e c t i v e , s h a r e d e x ­ perience as well as from individual d e s i r e s and pleasures. The p l e a s u r e o f t h e t e x t s t e ms a t l e a s t i n p a r t from c o l ­ lective utopias, social wish f u l f i l m e n t a nd s o c i a l a s p i r a t i o n s , and t h e s e a r e n o t simply t h e s u b l i m a t e d e x p r e s s i o n o f mor e basic sexual d e sire s (Lovell, P ictures, p. 6 1 ) . Eve n

Bersani

back to within 3-9). mo s t

acknowledges

familial social

patterns

of

structures

constraining

i n ways w h i c h e x p l o d e shapes

and

Terry

rhythms

all

works

of a r t ,

of

which a r e

best

others

by

porary

theorists

of

pleasure

family

is

well

the to

by

desire

"serves

the

nevertheless

of d e s i r i n g of

(pp.

the

fantasy

'natural'

x i ). taken;

pleasure

explained

tend not

(p.

desires

structures"

it

own n a r r o w v i e w s

point

provided

. enclose[s]

the o p e r a t i o n s

its

to

.

enterprises,"

provides

reference

.

of a l l

thus

of d e sire "

Lovell's

on

tracing

psychoanalysis

cultural

"outlines

"the

desire

based

Although Freu d ian

simultaneously

talk

that

cinema,

in vario u s

reference

individual. talk

the

of

to

the

ways,

some

g r o u p and

Although contem­

sublimation,

by t h e c i n e m a .

like

What

this

t h e y do section

15 6

has

argued

plained

is

as

that

pleasure

arising

both

scopophilic

drive

and

disavowal.

It

possible

tion,

as

that

is

psychoanalytic

C.

Analogical Comolli

the

by i m p l i c a t i n g phasizes of

the

the world,

us

in

a

although

less,

cinematic

in

bring

the

of

provided

together

previous

the by

percep­

chapter,

and

of d e s i r e .

and D i s a v o w a l

i n us

nature that

c a n be e x ­

satisfaction reassurance

to

process

analogical

not

individual

w i t h H e b d i g e a nd a desire

certainly the

used

Representation

cinema c r e a t e s

the

now

treatment

agrees

the

through

through

t e r m was

the

for

Hurd's

for

reassurance,

of

disavowal.7^

of

cinema's

representation

a "reduplication"

argument

of

the

that

provided He

em­

representation is

"false"

world.

and

Neverthe­

representation

produces ef f e c t s of repetition and a n a l o g y which imply t he d i s a v o w a l ( o r the repression) of these differences and which t h u s make o f t h e d e s i r e f o r i d e n t ­ ity, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , r e c o g n i t i o n , of the d e s i r e f o r t h e s a m e , one of t h e p r i n c i p l e driving f o r c e s of a n a l o g i c a l f i g u r a t i o n . In o t h e r words the s p e c t a t o r , the i d e ­ o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l s u b j e c t , and n o t j u s t the t e c h n i c a l a p p a r a t u s , is the o p e r a to r of t he a n a l o g i c a l mechanism (p. 1 3 8 ) . For

Comolli

^"Machines pp. 1 2 1 - 1 4 2 .

"there

of

is

no s p e c t a t o r

the V i s i b l e , "

other

i n The

than

one

Clneaat ic

aware o f

Apparatus,

157

the

spectacle,

herself is

to

be

for

with

and

the

appear

film

in "the

term

sexual

of

to

As

movement,

Freudian

question Rose

concept

is

that of

Comolli,

as

starting

which

point.

feminist as

a nd

fully

disavowal results

that

when

they

perspective

both

the

model

through

but

in of

which

maintained," of

of

Ro s e

a larger "ignore[s]

" 77

as

the

key

others

takes As

of

concepts

psychoanalysis

a nd

already

surprise

representative

disavowal

tion

its

to

it

comment s

no

these

difference.

a misappropriation

came,"

representation

as

.

or

13 9) . ^ ^

as

taken

hi m

.

theoretical

from a is

essay

ated,

she

explanation

constructed

sexual

Metz,

with

machine

these

c ome s

of

appeals

identifies

which

it

image

Comolli's one

places

Thus

process

difference

or

characteristic

theory.

a

he

b e l i e v e " (p.

difficulties

allowing

fictioning

that

the

cinematic

for

criticizes

the

the

phallocentrism, have

and

that

context

feminists

which

by

vocabulary

fetishism.

Freud's

in

(provisionally)

"the w ill

Comolli's within

if

taken

precisely

equipped

even

psychoanalytic

have

analogical

Me t z

develops

misappropri­ representa­ the

idea

in

—7 6 Fenichel w o u l d a g r e e , t h o u g h f o r hi m i t i s n o t so much a w i l l to b e l i e v e as a will to identify ( " On Acting," P s y c h o a n a l y t i c Q u a r t e r l y 1 5 , No. 2 ( 1 9 4 6 ) , p. 1 5 3 ) . "This is a l l the mo r e s t r i k i n g , " s h e notes, "in that the appeal continually draws on concepts from p s y c h o a n a l y s i s which were only produced in r e s p o n s e to t h a t question and h e n c e c a n o n l y be j u s t i f i e d by i t — o r n o t , as the case may be (feminism's c ritiq u e of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s ) " ("The Cinematic A pparatus: Problems in C u rren t T h e o ry ," in The C i n e m a t i c A p p a r a t u s , p . 17 2 ) .

158

relation

to

the

representation

spectator,

positions

the

according

to

spectator

in

Rose,

analogical

a m i r r o r - i m a g e of t h e e r r o r u n d e r p i n n i n g an i d e a l i s t o n t o l o g y of f i l m ( ci ne ma as a ceaseless and g r a d u a l l y p e r f e c t e d a p p r o ­ priation of r e a l i t y ) . More i m p o r t a n t l y , i t made t h e d e l u s i o n o f t h e s p e c t a t o r t h e e f f e c t o f t h a t o n t o l o g y , so t h a t w h a t was seen t o be a t wo r k c o n s t a n t l y c o r r e c t i n g the d e l u s i o n was an a w a r e n e s s t h a t the cinematic i ma g e . . . was i n f a c t not real, an a w a r e n e s s p r e s e n t a l o n g s i d e t h e d e l u s i o n i t s e l f ( Ro s e, p. 1 7 3 ) . Thus,

Ro s e a r g u e s ,

avowal

to

sexual

“ the v i s u a l At speaks

leaving neither

female

Metz's

simply p e r c e p t u a l " perceptual

castration p.

psychoanalytic

difference,

a simply

Pleasure," schema,

as

where

6

).

78

speak nor

the

nothing

else”

Ro s e

implies

that

remains

with a obtain

tied

passive

relates

confines

dis­ it

to

174).

and

sexuality

t h e woman

analysis

(p.

level,

theory

role

"female

form

(Mulvey, within to

the

.

.

.

"Visual

the Lacanian imaginary,

in which

she

can

her d e s ir e . 79

— — . . . . .

"As l o c u s o f l a c k / c a s t r a t i o n , a s t h e s i t e w h e r e r a d i c a l difference is ma r k e d negatively, ' wo ma n ' is the pivot around which t h e c i r c u l a t i o n o f ma l a d e s i r e is playe d out i n t h e t e x t , a nd i t is this process of circulation of d e s i r e w h i c h f i x e s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f women i n t h e t e x t . Phyllis Dietrichson/Barbara Stanwyck, celebrated female s t a r and femme f a t a l e , r e p r e s e n t s N e f f ' s a t t e m p t t o d i s a v o w castration in his r e p r e s s e d h o m o s e x u a lity and t o t e s t t h e Law, w h i l e L o l a f u n c t i o n s as t h e t e r m i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h an a c c e p t a n c e of c a s t r a t i o n and t h e Symbolic O r d er i s i n s c y j j b e d " ( J o h n s t o n , F_N, p. 1 0 3 ) . "This not on ly b e c a u s e of her n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n to the privileged sig n ifie r of d i f f e r e n c e in the p a t r i a r c h y but also because the O e d i p a l n o r m a t i v i s a t i o n which i s e x p r e s -

159

Woman Chen s t a n d s i n p a C r i a r c h a l c u l C u r e a s s i g n i f i e r f o r c h e m a l e o c h e r , b o u n d by a symbolic orde r in w h i c h man can l i v e ouC h i s p h a n c a s i e s a n d o b s e s s i o n s C h r o u g h l i n g u i s c i c command by imposing chem on Che s i l e n c i m a g e o f woman s c i l l C i e d co h e r p l a c e a s b e a r e r o f m e a n i n g , noc m a k e r of meaning ( i b i d . ) * Mecz's lusion

of

of

real

remains

wichin

co

Ro s e

imaginary chac

theory

as

che

by block well.

of

discussion address

relacion

ocher for

as

imaginary of

film co

of

Che

Co c he

in

by c h e

(p.

relacion

woman Co c h e cheoriscs; theory,

from

175).

c o n n e c c i o n wich

of

chucking

il­

imaginary

icself"

102).

psychoanalytic

Short

solely

p.

feminise

"che

Che d i f f e r e n c e

challenge

icself

("Paranoia,

problemaCic

noced

scumbling

Ce r ms

because

challenged

(difference any

" mu s e

Rose

is

ChaC i s ,

says,

regiscer"

The been

che

bochers

idencicy

Che i m a g e

objecc);

InsCead, che

chus

im aginary

unrealiCy che

posicion

of

woman

imaginary ic and

has

remains for

psychoanalytic

a

film theory

sive of t h a t r e l a t i o n demands o f h e r t h e r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f the primordial object which n e c e s s a r i l y p e r s i s t s " (Rose, " P a r a n o i a , " p. 102). That n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n r e s u l t s both from w o m a n ' s l a c k o f c h e p h a l l u s a n d Che c a s c r a c i o n c h r e a c wh|gh she p o s e s . “ I n W a l s h ' s o e u v r e , woman i s noc only a sign in a s y s c e m o f e x c h a n g e , b u t an e m p t y sign. . . . The ma l e protagonist's castration fears, his search for selfknowledge a l l c o n v e r g e on woman: it is i n h e r t h a t he i s finally f a c e d wich che r e c o g n i c i o n of ' l a c k ' . Woman i s Cherefore che l o c u s o f e m p t i n e s s : she is a sig n which is defined negatively: something th a t is missing whi c h must be l o c a t e d so that the n a r c i s s i s t i c aim of the male protagonist c a n be a c h i e v e d " ( C o o k a nd J o h n s t o n , W a l s h , d 95).

.

160

altogether, solved.

the

argues of

while

would

tioning of

unlikely

within

arguing

for

ference pleasure that The

which

it

is

who h a v e

by

ignore

change.

who

No l o n g e r

sexuality, "the and

"castration ' f a c t ' ” for

it

is

the

at

the

reject

content

to

reject

Because not

wome n ,

Gledhill

argues

of

dif­

spectator

the

him/her

into

cinema,

think­

made

the

their

image o f to

but

spectator

s h o ws

denied

the

thereby

experience

psychoanalytic

them

psychoanalytic

a threat

the

use

reality.

it,

be

she

posi­

a self-conscious

the

an a l t e r n a t i v e

accepted or

and

reminds

by d u p i n g

cinema

traditional

for

refuses

of

the

In e f f e c t ,

be

Lacanian

spectator

and

wo ma n ” o f f e r e d

cinema.

by

form

soon

of

imaginary

looking

for

women m u s t

fetishized the

reality

call

by f e m i n i s t s those

the

provides,

actually

feminist

sort

formation. of

problematic

different

created

ironically

avoiding

s/he

a

problem w i l l

the

the

constantly

which

of

shot

a cinema

o ne w h i c h and

alter

imaginary

shot/reverse

cinema,

this

retains

the

against

that

however,

radically

plenitude

ing

is

Mulvey,

framework, which

it

an

both

model

a nd

need

for

own v o i c e

a nd

themselves

as

by p s y c h o a n a l y s i s theory

already

holds

that

accomplished

that

i s d i f f i c u l t . . . n o t t o I m a g i n e women . . p i c k i n g up t h o s e c o d e s i n t h e c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n o f c h a r a c t e r s and o f t h e f e m a l e discourse which signal other con­ tradictory a s p e c ts in the d e te r m in a tio n of women--socioeconomic factors, psychological elements, cultural attri­ b u t e s — the notion of c a r e e r, for in sta n c e

16 1

(Judy in Dance, G i r l Dance); or selfexpressive sexuality (Lucille Ball as B u b b le s ) ; or p r o b l e m s of female employ­ me n t (the dancing troupe) ("Recent D e v e l o p m e n t s , " p. 4 8 8 ) . In e f f e c t rect"

she a r g u e s

concept

view fi lm s

even

the

o f woman i m p l i e s

differently

As S i l v e r m a n argument

that

initiated

that

t h a n ma l e

notes,

the

psychoanalytically female

"cor­

spectators

will

spectators.

suture

by Mu l v e y b e a r

theory

and t h e

"a s t r i k i n g

feminist

resemblance,"

since both p o s i t a c i n e m a t i c a d v e n t u r e in which plenitude i s f r a c t u r e d by d i f f e r e n c e and lack, o n l y t o be s e a l e d o v e r o n c e a g a i n . . . . F o r Mu l v e y . . . the l a c k which mu s t be both dramatized and contained finds i t s locus in the female body ( p . 224). The

crux of

lies

in

that

formation spectacle

former

provides

the

approaches imaginary.

s y s t e m of they

also

shot

between

suture speak

position within

on t h e

ideal

take If

an

the

vision

vehicle

shot/reverse

force

the

"to

the

the

symbolic

on

of

order."

the

alignment

other,

in

but (p.

the

formations

into the They

can

a

two h a l v e s

latter"

interest shot

only

the

the the

spectator

insecurity

Not

and

for

especial

t wo a p p r o a c h e s

between

one h a n d ,

w i t h ma l e the

these

formation.

c o n n e c t i o n be e s t a b l i s h e d

female

Bo t h

connection

"shot/reverse

metaphoric of

the

the

of the

225).

role of

of the

imaginary,

female do so

subject's by d i s -

162 rup t i n g the s t a b i l i t y of the symbol ic o r d e r by calling i n t o q u e s t i o n the f i x i t y of i t s subject positions. They introduce into t h e n a r r a t i v e p r o g r e s s i o n an a g g r e s s i v i t y and p a r a n o i a w h i c h — l i k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of w o m a n - a s - f e t i s h — t h r e a t e n to disrupt i t ( i b i d . ). This l e a ds

not

disruptive

potential

of

haunts

system of

suture.”

the

potential ity',

for

but

surprisingly

"not only

for

tions"

(p.

Wh i l e

throwing

Mul vey

of the

against

that

me nt

into

In

"maximizing

that

excess

lies

of a r e p r e s s e d

jeopardy

the

e x c e s s whi ch a l wa y s

for d e s t a b i l i z i n g

accurately

pleasure

the

'feminin­

the

i t s Oedipal

cannot

be

in

1972,

has made s e v e r a l

films,

the

pinpoints

provided

and N a r r a t i v e

ironically,

for

for

imaginary

the r e t u r n

pleasure

"Visual Pleasure

Mul ve y

calls

symbolic

identifica­

235).

aspects

i n 1975;

the

the p o s s i b i l i t y

order,

to

p r o v i s i o n of

reprehensible

by c i n e m a , accepted

Ci ne ma " Peter

in

h e r a r g u me n t its

entirety.

appeared

in Screen with

whom

provided a convincing

argu­

pleasure

Wo l l e n ,

and t h e

satisfaction

desire. In a s i t u a t i o n in wh i c h s u r v i v a l i s — a t least r e la tiv e ly — non-problematic, the pleasure-principle and the realityp r i n c i p l e a r e a n t a g o n i s t i c and, s i n c e the reality-principle is fundamentally adap­ tive, it i s f r om the p l e a s u r e - p r i n c i p l e that c h a n g e mus t s t e m. T h i s means t h a t desire, and its representation in

of

163

f a n t a s y , f a r from b e i n g n e c e s s a r y en e m ie s of revolutionary p o l i t i c s — and its cinematic auxi1 ia ry --a re necessary condi­ tions. 1

D.

Summa r y The

gree

of

chapter

last

participation has

"aesthetic perience ity,

to

drawal

from

action. work

is

itself

work

it

the

art

end

isolated, not

art," .

.

our

and

point

it

beyond

concept

an

physical

action

as

exclusive.

to

and

fulfills i t s e l f ” (p.

Ac ­ with­

emotionally

commitment

says,

ex­

activ­

general

participate any

of

aesthetic

of

immobility us

This

lack

investing

wh e n

that

s ome d e ­

a film.

traditional

Miinsterberg .

that

by w a t c h i n g

on o u r

permit

without

conclusion

maintains

emotion

world

the

implied

tradition,

the

does

the

views

this

of

in

"We h a v e

and

is

considered

depends

because

the

reached

d i s t a n c e ” which

cording

in

chapter

through

"only

whe n

every

demand

the in

69).

Whatever e n t e r s i n t o our p r a c t i c a l sphere links i t s e l f with our impulses to r e a l a c t i o n and t h e action would involve a c h a n g e , an i n t r u s i o n , an i n f l u e n c e from without. As l o n g a s we have th e d e s i r e to c h a n g e a n y t h i n g , t h e w o r k i s n o t com­ p le te in i t s e l f . Th e relation of the wo r k t o us as p e r s o n s m u s t n o t e n t e r i n t o our awareness of i t at a l l ( i b i d . ) .

81

“ God ar d and (London: Verso,

Counter Cinema," 1 8 8 2 ) , p. 8 3 .

in

Re a d i n g s

and

Writings

164

Insofar

a s we do

depicted

on

Y e t we a r e

noc

the

physically

screen,

also

we

participant

depends

on many v a r i a b l e s .

server]

may i n t e r a c t

film.

He

project

certainly

his

his

social

. . .

the

selves,

and

ately. for

it

is

we s e e

we d o ,

principle,

direct Society

us has

spectacle havior

in

toward thus

the

real

the

and b e c a u s e

a nd

the

socially that

cinema

world

In

to

subject

t he m t o is

react

them­

appropri­ as

promptings

a guide of

the

agencies

appropriate

behavior

mu s t

the

to

response. for

from a p p r o p r i a t e

because

of

world,

things

testing

not

fabric

real

critical

differs

ob­

a fictional

the

the

that

[the

He

the

appropriate

precisely

the

sense

of

to

the

way

a nd u s e s

part

reality

observers.

a

of

events

spectacle

participate

a

be­ is

_in t h e

world. What

should

impossibility

32*

the

as

and

ego,

the

pleasures.

interests

using

determined

s u c h as

real,

real

the

t he m

75).

in our best

Generally

real

correspond

o u r own s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n ,

reality

not

images

with

and

p.

in

characters

culture

(Tudor,

82

a very

the

identifies

He u s e s

life"

however,

"In

needs,

to

non-participant

observers

with

emotions,

brainwashed.

are

respond

of

be c l e a r discussing

from t h e s e the

t wo

cinematic

chapters

is

the

experience

in

"In the term t h a t Perkins [in Film as FIlm] aptly s t e a l s f r o m s o c i a l s c i e n c e m e t h o d o l o g y , mo v i e a u d i e n c e s a r e 'p articip an t observers'. In their various ways they p a r t i c i p a t e in the world o f f e r e d to t he m by t he movies" ( T u d o r , p. 7 4 ) .

165

dichotomous favor

cerms.

o f Che

percinenc

percepcion

argumencs

maincained,

jusc

lucinacing blem

have

and

b e c o me s

where

Wh i l e

as

consciously one of

and

basic

cinema.

Disavowal

fecish,

wi c h

planacion etc.,

further.

imply,

spectator

too,

that

do mi n a n C e l e m e n c s such elemencs

the

'real'

experience

that

t h e c i n e m a wo u l d The p r e v i o u s wich

percepcion

co g i v e

of

(che

illusion

as

for

cinema's

and an

from

chapter

some

suggests argumencs f i l m as

for

of ex­

part

to

of

the

validity provide

reality,

satisfying support

and

againsc

so

each for Che

real.

presupposed rasa

by che

Willians,

ability

escape

che

Cake che

A certain

of

a tabula

for

concepc

on t h e

real.

ics

realicy.

Christopher

exists

issues

offered

reassurance,

film

generally

spectator,

of)

problemaCic

(and

chrough

explanacion

Comolli,

che

scand

pleasure

s e e m t o be c a p a b l e

of

when c h e y

echical

mor e

ics

when and

on che

a desire

a

naive

be

The p r o ­

done so)

for

Metz,

both

the

also

a

p r o v i s i o n of

arguments

The s p e c t a t o r

can

caking

che

the

specCaCor's

in

equally

film.

c he e x p e r i e n c e

to p e r c e i v e

conclusion,

che

desire

to

Chis

posicion

one

adheres

desire.

reality,

provides

and

cheir

arguing

of

abilicy

represencacion

speccacor's

for

as

perceiving

finally,

one h a s

Scopophilia

chis

evaluacing

by Che c i n e m a ' s

manipulacive

cinema

recognizing

been l o c aC e d; chac

exist

Che s p e c c a c o r may seem co be b o c h h a l -

of

raised

of

againsc

chey o c c u r ;

recognizing

reasons

open

so to

far

the

has been

impressions

166

provided as

by t h e

an e n t i r e l y

film

theorists

orists

as

case

point

in

and p e r h a p s

is

world,

the

t o mor e the

world

the in

learned

(p.

r e me mb e r

that

real

constant

of

actually erects

the

We mu s t

learn

We

should,

instead,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

are

for

film

the­

that

the

of

the

This

i mage

results,

learned

he

me t h o d

of

perception

of

perceive

the

to

not

faux

entirely

educated

no l o n g e r in events

know how

misread

8

protection,"

the

A

naive

cinematic

spectator

screen

of

value.

we n a t u r a l l y tend

participating

non-real,

to

correspond 3

distances so

that

faux

a

a mi s

can e x i s t . behind

to c o n s c i o u s l y

they

that

the

"shield

thrust

because

For

how t o

a s we

on t h e

awareness

us

.

a

i mages

The m o r a l

much

16).

l a n g u a g e w h i c h we h a v e

i ma g e s

conscious

quality

we ' k n o w '

In c o n t r a s t ,

the

accept

thing

p.

a negative

spectator's

we a s s u m e

cinema,

has

subject's

the

no s u c h

importantly

spectator.

the

Because

4).

him/herself,

of

is

suggests

readily

to

a foreign

people

who

"there

(Panofsky,

naivete

trained

L o t ma n a r g u e s ,

perceive

though

mor e

Lot man,

images.

a mi s w o r d s

.

this

from a t r a n s f e r r a l

cinematic

to

beholder"

tha n does

perceiving

to

'naive'

tends

real

says,

even

educators,

spectator as

cinema,

an

Lotman's evaluate

inaccurate

base our

position

the

images

is

bombarding

representation

daily

actions

clear:

of

life.

on s o m e t h i n g

.

And, in the case of a l l f i c t i o n and some d o c u m e n t a r y f i l m s , who w e r e originally only enacting or recreating e v e n t s w h i c h we r e o f t h e m s e l v e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e .

157

ocher

Chan r e p r e s e n c a c i o n s , o r

curace

represencacions.

speccacor

aCCuned

principle,

we n e e d

cescing

co

ac l e a s e

Inscead che

and mor e u n c o n s c i o u s

desires

icy.

Locman's

chus

depends

on

on

psychoanalytic spectator,

for

unconscious responses

speccacor

level,

which

films

as

different,

l'écriture," Barthes

which u se s tive

mode

modes.

8

4

ily

its

to

the

"zero

refer

relative He c i t e s

qualified

as

as B a r t h e s

it

mo s t

f r om l i f e

insofar

derives

is

subordinacing fuCure

cescing,

is

that

often

also

the

through

the

real­ accepc

however, poinc

of

cinematic

affected

to to

it

art

has

at

the

emotional

generally

by v o l u n t a r i l y works

terms

toward

it,

degree"

this phrase

the n e u t r a l the

journalism

t o mean j o u r n a l i s m ' s

practice.

realicy

evoke.

where

itself

apply

quincessencial

especially

Furthermore, tinguished

a

pleasure

cacicly

Realicy

studies

good o r b a d ,

che

co a b e c c e r co

inac-

unconscious

of

s e e ms

sublimación.

consciousness;

an

of experience,

mor e

ideas

patently

who ' n a t u r a l l y '

co mor e and mor e a r e a s

Freud's

of

dirección

speccacors

reasoning

less

labeling a "degré

no

status

as an e xampl e

As he d e s c r i b e s

itself zéro

de

holds.

from l i n g u i s t i c s ,

subjunctive

ideal

longer

dis­

rather

of and of

the

indica­

imperative the

style,

than ne c e ssa r­

it,

_ _ _ _

Roland B a r t h e s , ' W r i t i n g Degree Zero," i n W r i t i n g De­ gree Zer o and El e me n t s o f S e m i o l o g y , t r a n s . A n n e t t e L a v e r s and C o l i n S m i t h ( B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1 9 6 7 ) , pp . 7 6 - 7 7 ; jLe d e g r é z é r o de 1 ' é c r i t u r e ( P a r i s : S e u i l , 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . 5 5 - 5 6 .

168

t h i s t r a n s p a r e n t form o f speech achieves a s t y l e of a b s e n c e w h i c h i s a l ­ most an i d e a l a b s e n c e of s t y l e ; w r i t i n g i s th e n reduced to a sort of negative mood i n which the social or mythical c h a r a c t e r s of a language are ab o lish e d in favour of a neutral and i n e r t s t a t e of form ( p . 7 7 ) . 8 5

Contrast

this

with

realism:

"For

Bazin,

what the

is

in

question

rendering

aesthetic Th e

of

a

MacCabe's as

is

for

just

reality

ma de

("Theory,"

problem

is

that

p.

life

distinguishable

from a r t

espoused

Surrealists,

by t h e

almost

not

device"

or

description all

realist

a rendering mo r e

of

real

Bazinian theorists,

of

reality

by

the

but

use

of

9). itself

becomes

spectacle for

(a

example).

less goal The

and

less

actively ensuing

"Cette parole tran sp aren te . . . a c c o m p l i t uns t y l e l ' a b s e n c e qui e s t pre sq u e une absence idéale du style; l ' é c r i t u r e s e r é d u i t a l o r s à u n e s o r t e d e mode n é g a t i f d a n s lequel les c a ractères sociaux ou m y t h i q u e s d'un langage s ’ a b o l i s s e n t au p ro fit d'un état neutre et inerte de l a forme" (p. 56). W r i t t e n o r i g i n a l l y i n 1 9 5 3 , L£ d e g r é z é r o praises s u c h c o n t e m p o r a r y a u t h o r s as Camus f o r c r e a t i n g a " n e u t r a l " (p. 49) s t y l e of w r i t i n g . ( R e a l i s m , he s t r e s s e s , is definitely not n e u t r a l . ) M ystical overtones adhere to Barthes' call f o r t h e new s t y l e , a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e f o l ­ lowing: "The w r i t e r s of today f e e l this; for them, the search for a n o n - s t y l e o r an o r a l s t y l e , for a zero le v e l or a spoken l e v e l of w r i t i n g i s , a l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , the a n tic ip a tio n of a homogeneous s o c i a l s t a t e ; most of them understand t h a t t h e r e c a n be no u n i v e r s a l l a n g u a g e o u t s i d e a concrete, a n d no longer a m y s t i c a l or merely nominal, universality of society" (p. 87); "les écrivains d ' a u j o u r d ' h u i le s e n t e n t : pour eux, la r e c h e r c h e d ' u n nons t y l e , ou d'un sty le o r a l, d ' u n d e g r é z é r o ou d ' u n d e g r é p a r l é de l ' é c r i t u r e , c ' e s t en somme l'anticipation d'un é t a t a b s o l u e homogène de l a s o c i é t é ; l a p l u p a r t c o m p r e n n e n t q u 'il ne p e u t y a v o i r de l a n g a g e u n i v e r s e l e n d e h o r s d ' u n e u n i v e r s a l i t é c o n c r è t e , e t n o n p l u s m y s t i q u e ou n o m i n a l e , du mon de c i v i l " ( p . 6 4 ) .

de

169

blur

between

entertainment

disconcerting, mammot h panied the of the

to

create

distinction

me di um h a s

itself

or

That

of is

in

which

"punish" These

why

point

us

the

us

sort

real

its

deaths

is

We l o s e

a nd its

report

the

accom­

our

staged

failure

to

be

on a

c o mmo n l y h e a r d

effect.

through

of

for

films out our

at

sense

because identify

function

as

presenter

Psycho

or

Peeping

within

(according

to

some

like

the

dangers

pleasure

spectacles

confusion

of

remind

ourselves socially

of

in us

what

imposed

it, of our

of can the

voyeurism, be

a nd

so d i s t u r -

penalties

response

reality

Tom,

should

principle)

for be to

we s e e . This

aspects into

the

sometimes

news

in m ultiple

of

between

can

television

'eerie'

terms

also

explicitly

what

an

life

entertainment.

which

86

music

confused

clearly

reality

bing.

j am r e s u l t i n g

by b a c k g r o u n d

the

real

a s when a F r e n c h

traffic

movies

and

of

the

side the

of

the

argument

spectator's

cinema.

The o t h e r

emphasizes

unconscious side

of

the

but

the

negative

willing

argument

escape

rests

on

The " m o r a l f u n c t i o n " o f H i t c h c o c k ' s f i l m s i s c i t e d a l ­ most as f r e q u e n t l y as their voyeuristic quality. Z.g., " t h e v e r y ' s u s p e n s e ' i n H i t c h c o c k has a mor al f u n c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to the s u f f e r i n g the viewer i s f o r c e d t o u n d e r g o as expiation for the sin of being as p e c t a t o r , th a t is, a v o y e u r , a nd f o r i d e n t i f y i n g u n c o n s c i o u s l y w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l and thus e x p e rie n c in g p le a s u re " ( V itto r io G iacci, "Alfred Hitchcock," i n Wi de A n g l e 4 , Mo. 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p. 4 ) . Another example, A C l o c k w o r k O r a n g e , may be m e n t i o n e d a s e v e n mor e explicitly t y i n g pu ni sh m ent to v o y e u r i s t i c p l e a s u r e , i . e . , when t h e p r o t a g o n i s t i s c o n d i t i o n e d to get sick at the s i g h t of t h e v i o l e n c e w h i c h he o n c e l o v e d .

170

the

f u n d a m e n t a l human n e e d

its

ability

sarily

about

this

spectator a group

cussion

of

ritual.

the Whi l e

anthropological case

t h e y wo u l d

spectator of

the

be

mor e

That

in

this

turn

all

brings

Before

us

or

inevitably

to

spectator

be s a i d

of as

the

whether a member

leads

in

into

wor k t o g e t h e r three

below.

question

experience

neces­

cinema's

remains

the

with

the

an i n d i v i d u a l

and s o c i o l o g i c a l seem t o

and n o t of

discussed

particularly as

phantasy,

impossible

though,

filmviewing

studies,

others.

will

participates

audience.

Into

The d e s i r a b i l i t y

subject,

participation,

escape

otherwise

desires.

satisfaction

broaching

of

satisfy

conscious

ersatz

the

to

for

to d i s ­

relation

to

realm

of

studies,

in t h i s

with

psychoanalytic

complementing

the weaknesses

Chapter Participation:

Fundamentally viewing

have

hibitor ble

to

for

film

ideal

just

alone

with

the

audience.

The

money.

as

state,

for

degree

of

diegetic

as

the

spectator's group's

in

of

the

one

and

experience.

of

response

to

the

film.

This

in

possi­

in

for turn

good the

a ex­

print

contem­

often

commercial

as­ set­

an i n d i v i d u a l

spectator

speaking

the

of

a mong o t h e r in

ma s s things

non-dichotomous

conscious/unconscious his/her

external

between

we m u s t

What

a

as

study

a

argued

between

participation

this

An e x ­

time

while

within

a s me mbe r o f

hand,

in

spectator

in

people

a reasonably

question

the

fluctuating

many

film-

1890s.

The a u d i e n c e

of

chapter

participation

individual On

of

the

Oddly e n o u g h ,

instead

fluctuating

world

as

presuppose

previous

commercial

pre-arranged

conditions

film

example,

spectator an

in

often

consideration

terms,

as

as

a

screening

screening

they

attract at

of

since

attraction.

theorists

ting,

for

its

little

to

location

a professional

porary sume

very

announced

exchange

Group o r I n d i v i d u a l

circumstances

attempts

a given

pects in

changed

still

previously

the

Five

simultaneous

world

chapter

and

in

considers

participation

in

the

the the film

a group.

ask

whether

the

film

factors

wo u l d

the

differs cause

the

individual from

the

spectator

172

to

participate

the

cinematic

subject's

the

other

the

hand,

we mu s t and

also

the

group

be a b l e

to

entertainment,

be

that

position

considered

follow,

mo s t

of which r e a c h of

both

film

the

audience

as

approach

psychoanalytic the

contributions stand

question

of

spectator

whether

occurs

at

In

'50s

the

filmologists America.

the

in

Wh i l e

which

force.

of

it

From issues

in

nature,

this

the

France

spectator's

latter

yet

study,

approached

sees

the

a nd

the

exclusively

make f u n d a m e n t a l they

interaction

straddled various

studies

frequently

particularly

individual

and

almost

trends

another,

t wo g r o u p s

which

phenomenon,

studies,

group or

the

the

question

spectator

focuses Both

t o o ne

in

ritual,

ma s s

spectator.

in o p p o s itio n

If

a harmless

ethical

boundaries

through

approach,

to

ways.

however,

practical

established

unified,

individual

cinema

individual,

as

If,

a nd

and

the

the

itself.

may be

a

political

beyond

off

a nd p o l i t i c a l

theoretical

studies

A dichotomy between

of

the

then without

a social

a n u mb e r

it

pastime.

eji m a s s e ,

as

to

shrug

a me r e

groups

would

indeed

Does

much f r o m t h e

in d i f f e r e n t

we may p e r h a p s

must

that

ask whether

restricted

affects

in another?

differ

remains

cinema

film

really

now

impact

form of

on

fashion,

experience?

individual

cinema's

then

o ne

experience

everyday

On t h e affects

now i n

on t h e with

the

division,

the

anthropologists

in

level. this

the

audience

from

173

their

professional

steeped

in

that

of

ran

the

filmologists to c u l t u r a l nascent

perspective, popular g a mu t

of

implied

group/individual

nature

The personal

ritual/group space,

ferentiated

circumstances, tion

of

the

recuperation fluenced speak about way

the

the

of

the

audience

individual

class,

society

as a

which a c c o u n t s

for

the

spectator

of

t h e Ego and

the

start

k.

Groups

Freud's

find

spectator

the

dif­

economic incorpora­

a

it

even

denial

these as

Turner's

in­ to

to g e n e r a l i z e Ist h e r e

two b o d i e s belonging

a degree

or

difficult

experience.

to

a nd t h e

a

of wor k the

o f aut onomy

Gr o u p P s y c h o l o g y

in V ic to r

on

no room f o r

on t h e

whol e or

between

In

the

Psychoanalytically

spectator's

retaining

addressing

through

in c o n tr a s t

gap

simultaneously

the

gender,

instead

the

individual?

individual

age,

to brid g e

while

to

irresolution

such d i f f e r e n c e s . studies

psychoanalysts

approach leaves

the

into

The

audience.

focuses

individual of

of

is

psychology.

without

their

audience

tt

spectator

about

of

lines

etc.

studies by

no c o n c e p t

along

Freudian

Ea c h g r o u p c o n t r i b u t e d

spectator

contradictions

terminology

from p r a c t i c i n g

anthropologists.

field

their

for

mass the

Analys i s

wor k on l i m i n a l i t y

lies

of a c o mp r o mi s e .

Considered

simply

in

numerical

terms,

the

film

174

a u d i e n c e w o u l d s e e m t o be a g r o u p . fers

to

the E n g lis h

which takes

"the

government's

public

as

determinant.

1

mersion of

the

individual

into

so

notion

that

the

of g r o u p s

he a t t e m p t s

basis

Either

sees

to e x p l a i n

of c ha n ge s

in

position

character

situation"

Freud's

Alternatively,

the

of case

the

Kuhn r e ­

on p o r n o g r a p h y

the

film-viewing

suggests

mass.

the

In

sub­

contrast,

t h e m a s made o f

individuals,

"the

of groups

psychology

psychology

of

the

on

individual

mind. “^ When between

Freud

short-lived

am M c D o u g a l l , group,

mu s t

another,

a

first

a nd l o n g

"have

cording

to v arious

i n some

a u d i e n c e wo u l d

seem

although . i n a ny

psychological

groups,

term g r o u p s .

object,

be

or

of

may v e r y

to

common a

other"

( G£,

he

cites,

which excluded

" a me r e c o l l e c t i o n

group

order

i n an

criteria

collection

in

distinguishes

He q u o t e s W i l l i ­

in

situation

to

he

something

common i n t e r e s t

bias

.

about

f o r whom i n d i v i d u a l s ,

tional

Still,

talks

of

people easily

from

the come

one

similar

emo­

p.

is

3

84). the

Acfilm

category. not

tendency to

a

with

the

people

form

the

to

a group f or m a

fore"

(p.

^ " I t i s i m p l i e d t h a t f i l m v i e w i n g , c a l l i n g as i t does f o r s p e c ia l premises as we ll as f o r public displays and a d ­ v e r t i s e m e n t s a i me d at a t t r a c t i n g p a sse rs-b y , ma ke s f i l m a s o c i a l l y v i s i b l e me di um" ( p . 1 2 4 ) . As J a m e s S t r a c h e y in d ic a te s in his e d ito r ia l note to Gr o u p P s y c h o l o g y a nd t h e A n a l y s i s o f t h e Ego ( p . 6 8 ) . 1) C o n t i n u i t y o f e x i s t e n c e ; 2) i n d i v i d u a l awareness of the g r o u p ' s f u n c t i o n ; 3) i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r g r o u p s ; 4) traditions, e t c . , common to the g r o u p ; a nd 5) s t r u c t u r e ( i b i d . , p. 8 6 ) .

175

100) .

One

reason

individual's which

in

removed, in

the

stand

extraordinarily

no

critical It

sociation" dividual

(p.

in

in

and

the

images,

78).

with

.

groups

the

development

of

dissim ilarities,

is

and

open

to

led

almost

not

one

another

he

compares while

of ex­

"a g r o u p

influence, does

individual

similar

Because

therefore

improbable call

are

74). is

77);

basis

the

.

in

which

(p.

.

(p.

which

On t h i s

a group

view"

group

credulous

faculty,

thinks

"a

that

the

such

to

unconscious"

is

is

foundations,

exposed

that

by t h e

says,

s h o ws

unconscious

he b e l i e v e s

it.

Freud

superstructure,

individuals

and

clusively

this,

"mental

everyone,

this

for

it

has

exist

for

up by a s ­ the

in­

dreaming

or

in h y p n o sis .^ As t h e scientific interest needs

in

study

of

of

or

cases

the

Gilbert

of

the

(Essai,

a nd

as

aimed had

a group.

models

cinema pp.

which

Cohen-Seat

audience

models,

A science

individual

film ologie,

cinema,

considering

paradigms

reductive. with

founder

are

therefore

158 a n d

182),

at

the

a vested A science

by d e f i n i t i o n cannotdeal neither

the

In f a c t , Freud d e s c r i b e s the r e l a t i o n between h y p n o t i s t a nd s u b j e c t as "a group f o r m a ti o n w i t h t wo members" ( p . 115). When Le Bon s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n t h e group u n d e r g o e s h y p n o s i s , F r e u d w o n d e r s who t a k e s t h e h y p n o t i z e r ' s place (pp. 7 5-77). The g r o u p l e a d e r o c c a s i o n a l l y obtains s u c h p o w e r f u l c o n t r o l o v e r t h e g r o u p ; on t h e o t h e r h a n d, i d e a s o f t e n t a k e t h e p l a c e of l e a d e r s as t h e u n i f y i n g point a r o u n d w h i c h l e a d e r l e s s g r o u p s come t o g e t h e r ( s e e p. 95).

176

individual

film

filmologie

nor

explain

spectators

into

s p e c ta to r ’s filmiques" and

must in

of

to

perceive the

natural

process

and

because

encouraged

of

its

presentation

on

world

"a

"by

the (see

cinema it

screen p.

87

The

psychical

the

of

physical cause des

images

26-28,

that

the

spectator

s/he

would

p.

objects

but,

Cohen-Séat

objects

from t h e i r

the

liable Through

normal

communication

pseudo-hypnosis

a natural

the

psychological

sp ectator's in

to

pp.

s u p r a ),

state

control."^

means

(Essai,

as

information

of

which

separates

changes

23).

the

usual

asserting

power and

subject's

in

p.

individual

"objectivation

correct

( Problèmes, creates

and

images

gathering

does

surrendering by

circumstances

to

the

of

spectator

reaction

environments,

spectator

the

from t h e

objects

off-screen

fashion

of

viewing,

may be

How

audience?

power,

differ

spectator.

transformation

"interprétation"

Mitry

counters,

ego

speaks

physiological

37).

the

mechanical

circumstances

individual

a group

Cohen-Séat cinema’s

the

of

to weaken its

the the

physical

expression,

bor-

^ " Un é t a t p s y c h i q u e s u s c e p t i b l e d ' a f f a i b l i r l e moi e t s o n p o u v o i r de c o n t r ô l e ” ( p . 2 3 ) . To a d e g r e e , t h i s c o n c e p t o f the ego e c h o e s developments in t h e ego p s ychology which dominated psychology a f t e r W o r l d War II, against which Lacan a r g u e s so f o r c e f u l l y . C ohen-S éat does not a d h e r e to ego p s y c h o l o g y ' s image o f a u n i f i e d ego w h i c h becomes t h e focal p o i n t of p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t . Throughout the E ssai Cohen-Séat argues a g a in s t the ' f a l s e ' notion of a u n i f i e d e g o , t o t h e f r a g m e n t a t i o n o f w h i c h t h e cinema in f a c t c o n t r i b u t e s . Like Lacan, Cohen-Séat de­ f l a t e s the C a r te s ia n cogi t o .

177

rowing

che

direccly

forms

of

a nd

of m y t h , " ^

Co Che u n c o n s c i o u s ,

processes

common co a l l

unconscious

and

personal

and

nacional

characceriscics For

of

Che

argues,

p.

leveling

speccacor

results

from a f a l s e

(Essai,

169).

Because

themselves idea

in

This

with

the

the

s ame

spectator

independence

of

from

techniques

distinguishes

of

activities.

leisure

equal

before

ignorant, as

the

the

connoisseur

Cohen-Séat

hopes

the

the

unity

and that

ego d u r i n g

ics

from

of of

of

all

away,

in­

bellicose)

it

As

cinema

posi-

"1 ' habitude

du

unity

the

a mu s e

world

creates

a false society.

traditions historical

sense

7

che

individual

ma k e s

receives

adept.

has

civilized

other

the

filmgoer

the

out

bound

In e f f e c t ,

the

causes

Co f a l l

cinema

culturally

in

mencal Che

cinema

around

films

film

of

bypassing

efface

sense

people

screen

inexperienced

Che

speaks

47).

Moi" which p.

Through

pocencially

cinema's che

cinema

reposicory

characCeri s c ics

( Problèmes,

Caking

che

individual

(and

Cohen-SéaC

value

chac

spectators.

Cohen-Séac

discinccions

cluding

co

fragmencing

pseudo-hypnosis,

cive

art

all that

the

others will

a nd forms

spectators the

most

s ame w e l c o m e before

h i m,

fulfill

its

^ ” Au moye n d ' u n e expression naturelle, empruntant les f o r m e s de l ' a r t e t du m y t h e " ( p . 1 6 9 ) . One a i g h t a r g u e t h a t t h e g r o w t h o f a mor e s o p h i s t i c a t e d a u d i e n c e e n a b l e s f i l m s t o be made w i t h s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the least common denominator in mind, but the basic technique of the overwhelming majority of films still r e m a i n s a c c e s s i b l e to t h e most n a i v e o f v i e w e r s .

178

tremendous

potential

for

it

a triumph

of

becomes

simultaneously masses

(p.

Th e

2 0

the

Séat

that,

are

submerged

of

with

76).

before

the

75).

1

) from

and

is

the

(because

and

film,

of

self

by

the

other

theater

is

the

spectator's

the

playgoer's

stage. —

w ill.

8

André

the 3)

never

satisfy of

the

playgoer This

quoting

all

the

and

since

the

emotional

both

2)

the

during

freedom

a certain

the

a

results

the

darkened

sees play

like

the

p. l ay d o e s

not

as

a greater

with

retains

playgoer

The

same

attitude

This

specifically with

the

playgoer

in which

greater

film

world,

filmgoer.

Cohen-

passions

spectator's

the

the

as

for

life " — stay

interm issions. gaze

me a n s

degree,

completely

identification

Bazin,

of

playgoers,

the

leaving

in

also

a

that

environment

direct

at

and

external

comparing

absent

during

interpret

individual

curiosity,

to

the

notes

and

thus

can

differentiates

only

from

cinema)

film,

of

a "representation

physical

seen

Indeed,

it

autonomy

This

but

Jean Deprun,

consciousness

together.

because

the

exception

(p.

in

play

of

individual

mechanisms — w ith d r a w a l

(p.

civilization

demands

audiences,

involvement

people

).

loss

theater

bringing

in

does freedom

turn

actors

Rosenkrantz,

to

blocks on

9

the

the

agrees

—

Jean D e p r u n , " Le c i n é m a e t l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " i n R I F 1, NOg 1 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , p p . 3 6 - 3 7 . Me t z r e f e r s to th is passage in Bazin, but ap p a re n tly n e i t h e r B a z i n n o r Me t z g i v e a c c u r a t e b i b l i o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a ­ t i o n on t h e original article p u b l i s h e d by R osenkrantz in 1937 (?). At a n y r a t e , I h a v e n o t b e e n a b l e t o l o c a t e i t .

179

with

Cohen-Séat

about

the

theater

audiences — th at

degree

of conscious

tends

mo r e

rantz's

readily

reasoning,

the

differences film

awareness

to

merge

however,

spectator

a nd

into

between

that

the

a unified

differs

cinema

and

retains

a lesser

cinema

audience

entity.

Rosenk-

slightly

from Cohen-

Séat ' s .

'The c h a r a c t e r s on t h e screen are q u ite naturally objects of identification, while those of the s t a g e are r a t h e r ob­ je c ts of mental o p p o sitio n , because th e ir real presence gives them an objective reality, and b e c a u s e t h e a c t i v e w i l l of the s p e c t a t o r , t h e w i l l t o make a b s t r a c t t h e i r p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y , must i n t e r v e n e in order to t r a n s p o s e them i n t o o b j e c t s of an imaginary world. That a b s t r a c t i o n i s the fruit of an intellectual process which c a n o n l y be e x p e c t e d o f f u l l y c o n ­ scious i n d i v i d u a l s . ' The film sp ec ta to r tends to i d e n t i f y him self w ith the hero through a psychological process which results in the constitution of the audience as 'crowd' and in the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of emotions. ' J u s t as in algebra, whe n t wo q u a n t i t i e s a r e r e s p e c ­ tiv e ly equal to a t h i r d , they are equal to e a c h o t h e r , one c o u l d s a y : I f t wo i n ­ dividuals identify with a third, they i d e n t i f y with each o t h e r ' .

^"'L es p e r s o n n a g e s de l 'é c r a n sont tout naturellement des objets d 'id e n tific a tio n , a l o r s qu e c e u x de la scène s o n t b i e n p l u t ô t d e s o b j e t s d ' o p p o s i t i o n m e n t a l e , p a r c e que leu r présence e f f e c t i v e l e u r donne une r é a l i t é o b j e c t i v e , et q u e p o u r l e s t r a n s p o s e r e n o b j e t s d ' u n monde i m a g i n a i r e l a v o l o n t é a c t i v e du s p e c t a t e u r d o i t i n t e r v e n i r , l a v o l o n t é de f a i r e a b s t r a c t i o n de l e u r r é a l i t é physique. Cette ab­ s t r a c t i o n est le f r u i t d'un processus de l'intelligence qu'on ne p e u t d e m a n d e r q u ' à des i n d i v i d u s p le in e m e n t con­ scien ts'. Le s p e c t a t e u r d e c i n é m a t e n d à s ' i d e n t i f i e r au h é r o s p a r un p r o c e s s u s p s y c h o l o g i q u e q u i a p o u r c o n s é q u e n c e de c o n s t i t u e r l a s a l l e e n ' f o u l e ' e t d ' u n i f o r m i s e r l e s émo­ tions: ' D e même q u ' e n algèbre, si deux grandeurs sont

180

Emotional

sympathy

characterizes the

cinema

rantz

and B a z i n woul d

whel ms

our

that

me mo r y

who

large, sense

imposes

have

exclusion

critical

it. ability,

an a p t i t u d e

turn

of

self

thus

a characteristic in

the

film,

of

Rosenk­

suggest.

Cohen-Seat

of

in

participation

interpretation

pathological

the

identification,

audience's

By a n d

so

to

only

maintains, judgment

occurs

The

cinema

to

produce

for

during

after has

the

3

them.

over­

a screening,

a viewing

as

special,

almost

suggestions

receiving

cinema

11

in This

our

filmgoers, situation

respectivem ent égales à une troisième, elles sont égales entre elles, on pourrait dire: si deux individus s ' i d e n t i f i e n t à un t r o i s i è m e , ils s'id e n tifie n t l'un à l ' a u t r e ’ " ( A n d r é B a z i n , " T h é â t r e e t c i n é m a , " E s p r i t 1 9 , No. 180-81 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , P a r t 2, p. 235; internai citation from Rosenkrantz). Deprun l a r g e l y a g r e e s with th is reasoning, particularly the consequences of a nd reasons for the th eatrical sp ectator's greater retention of c o n s c i o u s n e s s ci n éma e t l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " pp. 3 6 - 3 7 ) . What C o h e n - S é a t c a l l s s p e c i a l , H e n r i B e r g s o n i d e n t i f i e s merely as the f u n c t i o n of a r t : "The o b j e c t of a r t i s to b e g u ile the a c t i v e power o r r a t h e r r e s i s t a n c e of o u r p e r ­ s o n a l i t y , a nd t o g u i d e us t h e r e b y to a state of p e r f e c t d o c i l i t y where we r e a l i z e t h e i d e a s u g g e s t e d to u s , where we s y m p a t h i z e w i t h t h e sentiment expressed"; " l ' o b j e t de l ' a r t . . . e s t d ' e n d o r m i r l e s p u i s s a n c e s a c t i v e s ou p l u t ô t résistantes de n o t r e p e r s o n n a l i t é , e t de n o u s a m e n e r a i n s i à un é t a t de docilité parfaite où n o u s réalisons l'id ée qu'on n o u s s u g g è r e , où n o u s s y m p a t h i s o n s a v e c l e s e n t i m e n t exprimé" ( c i t e d in M itry, p. 1 8 ) . Münsterberg d escribes the " s p e l l b o u n d a u d i e n c e ” as b e ing " i n a s t a t e . . . ready to r e c e i v e s u g g e s t i o n s , " a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h , he p o i n t s o u t , parallels th at of hypnosis (p. 47). For Gertrude Keir, b e c a u s e t h e f i l m a u d i e n c e d e v e l o p s a s e n s e o f ma s s i d e n t i t y a n d b e c a u s e f i l m ' s t e c h n i q u e and c o n t e n t a r e e s p e c i a l l y e f ­ f e c t i v e , t h e cinema would seem t o " i n c r e a s e s u g g e s t i b i l i t y , diminish logical thought and criticism , and enable opinions, s e n t i m e n t s and a t t i t u d e s in the film t o be a c ­ c e p t e d mo r e e a s i l y by t h e audience" ("Psychology and t h e F i l m , " P e n g u i n Fi l m Revi ew 9 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , p. 6 8 ) .

181

creates

a

'special

vertige

remains,

154).

changes

accentuated

by

discernment

agitation

other

like

both

pleasing

of

this

identified

agitation

for

our

curiosity.

lurking

vertige as

spectator

seek out

of

2

the

a nd

The a n s w e r

the

(p.

the

film

155).

three

in

a nd in

occurs

Why,

follow

part

with hi m

the

it

the

c a n be

emotional and

an o v e r t

call

cinema.

outside

submit

lies

upon

Verfremdungseffekt

with

their

each

c a n be

involvement

the

Cohen-Séat asks,

voluntarily

mentale.

this

emotional

wings,

or 1 2

itself, in

com­

with

Displeasure

rupture

commitment

for

judgment

vertige

Brecht's

involvement

critical

depending

our

mentale

well.

emotional

judgment?

in

of m o r a l

situation

ses

in

when a

breaking

some s o r t Th e

rhythm

occurs,

distracting be

of

associa-

in which emotions

and d i s p l e a s i n g ,

specifically

to

state,

largely

reaction

the

or

connected

between

define

dynamique

constant,

a certain

gaps

"s uper im p o sitio n s"

factor

by

disturbance,

— which

"mysterious"

seems

the

schéma

which are

Nonetheless,

s t a t e s — "meaning,

without The

emotional

(p.

ponent

s t a t e ' — or

mentale— ch aracterized

unconscious tively

emotional

to

cinematic does

these

loss in both

of

the

proces­ conscious

need

a nd

S i g n i f i c a t i o n , é b r a n l e m e n t , r é a c t i o n a v e c ou s a n s d i s ­ cernement" (p. 155). Like the J a m e s - L a n g e t h e o r y , CohenS é a t ' s v e r t i g e m e n t a l e s u g g e s t s t h a t s o m e t h i n g a p p e a r i n g as a representation in the i m a g i n a t i o n accompanied by a c u t e emotional involvement w i l l , u nless c o n s c i o u s judgment in­ t e r v e n e s , evoke a somatic reaction as though the re­ p r e s e n t a t i o n were a c t u a l .

182

pleasure. infants, games learn

He

recognizes

since

both

between and

Séat

makes

sort

of

"spectacle." these

less

is

mo r e

collective

of

conventions

complicated

and

spectator;

fits

to

The m i d n i g h t

have

other

dependent

movie

also

Its

who

in

this

film as

case

art

phenomenon

one

Cohenof

the

spectator. challenging

serves of

with

an

elite,

responses, the

spectacles

passage

g r o w mo r e

mo r e

of

the

transmutes

again

into

art.

but

the

itself form

have

to

between

basis

less

art

its

status

critical

Cohen-Séat's since

order

demanding

pattern,

fits

the

status

cultural

the

contemporary

reasons,

t o do w i t h

reception. critics,

from i t s

causal

less

spectacle

Cohen-Séat's

derive

in

of

in

the

c ommon,

genres

form of

and M i t r y ,

on

While

specialized,

the

other

a common d e n o m i n a t o r

within

eventually

Melodrama

art.

the

r e a c t i o n s . 1 3 However,

causing time

than

and

in

and

distinctions:

Bergson

evoke

routine

for

t wo

largely

they

spectators

activities)

"p e r s o n n a l i t é ,"

which

a i m mo r e

stimuli

makes

Like Henri

re-creating

spectacles

for

He

distinctions

involvement

between

(recreational

im itation.

Spectacle

seems

external

" p e r s o n n a g e " and

"art"

and

use

and s p e c t a c l e s though

a kinship

art

reception.

pattern,

although

conventions

involved

than with is

merely

created

as

again

its

determined

recognized by

audience

the

by

an

in­

public

at

Again the p o s i t i o n t a k e n by many F r e n c h i n t e l l e c t u a l s of the '50s resembles th a t of t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y L e a v i s i t e s in England.

183

larg e . 1*

Sim ilarly, while

the

the

personnage

undifferentiated. "factories" which

for

function

dividuals

en

ity.

this

In

partakes a nd

personnalité

of

Spectacles creating

they bloc

serve

the

attend.

for

"routine,"

satisfies

the by

contact

this

and

(if

providing with stars

of

the

speaks

of

even

from

need

to

in

and

exceptional

h u ma n s

screen).

in­

inevitabil­

spectacle

also

re-creating),

audience

c a n be

escaping

escape

version

the

personnages,

"self."

another

on

as

the

that

the

therefore

Yet

not

and

convincing

necessity

reason

spectator's

by

teach.

creation,

routine

reinforcing

Cohen-Séat

"boredom,"

the

i d e o l o g y 1 '*

recreational

to

by t h e

be v i e w e d

spectacles

induced

carnated

may

sense,

largely

as

of

ideology's

is

well

and

an i n d i v i d u a l

mo r e

of

it

lim itations

partakes

is

the

from cinema

his/her

of (the

the

world

own as

'gods’ in-

16

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

At a showing of one i n s t a n t c u l t film in Bloomington within t h e c o n t e x t of an a r t h o u s e s c r e e n i n g , t h e a u d i e n c e was c l e a r l y s p l i t b e t w e e n t h e m o r e a c a d e m i c a l l y d r e s s e d a r t house r e g u l a r s and the lo c a l p u n k s , who were n o t i c e a b l y younger ( w h i c h c a n n o t be u n r e l a t e d to the fa c t t h a t they p r o b a b l y were t oo young t o e n te r the bar where the film would g e t i t s o t h e r in-town screenings). One punk was heard to r e a c t to a c o u p le d r e s s e d in w i r e r i m s , tweed, and S o ^ h Ame r i c a n s w e a t e r s w i t h a c r y of " A r t s y ! " Coh e n -S é a t does not a c t u a l l y use the word, a l t h o u g h h i s m e r g i n g seems c l e a r . Se e M o r i n , Les s t a r s ( P a r i s : S e u i l , 1 9 5 7 ) . Morin a l s o c l a i m s t h a t "t h e cinema r e s p o n d s to needs . . . which practical l i f e cannot s a tis f y " ; "le cinéma répond a des b e s o i n s . . . que la vie pratique ne peut satisfaire" ( L' homme i m a g i n a i r e , p . 1 1 7 ; Cohen-Séat, Es s a i , p. 89). Its p a r t i c u l a r s u c c e s s among f o r m s o f f i c t i o n d e r i v e s f r o m " l a ga ma e potentiellement infinie" that it offers for

184

Working

from J a n e t ' s

réaliste"

and

grees

Cohen-Séat's

For

with

Deprun,

"une

distinction

attitude

the

consideration

religious

rituals

to

create

a new s p e c t a t o r .

cle

since

the

cinema

"at

betrayed taken

is

the

theater's

spectator

falls

into

"the

asked

only with

affected

by

conclusion

renounce

Cohen-Séat's the

cinema,

from t h i s

this

"excludes

filmic all

of

he d r a w s

as

the

with

a lost

myself.

"the

ability

a specta­ Because

religious

values

concludes At

that

the

attitude,

While

the

" 17

complicity" 19

spectacle.

therefore

instance.

m yself.' model

is

I remain

to

in

s t a t e " which

agree

Theater

film

me a n s

attitude

Deprun d i s a ­

connection

also

reinstate i8 theater" Deprun

filmic

to

origins

place

of

lost

spectacle,

able

by t h e

its

"une

spectaculaire, ”

theater's of

between

it

has

cinema

the

better because

Deprun

spectator

a different,

as more

the "I

am

s e e ms

to

passively positive

statement.

At t h e t h e a t e r I r e m a i n e d m y s e l f , I s t i l l p l a y e d my part. Here [ a t the cinemaj I a b d i c a t e and I relieve myself of this ego; I esc a p e t h e s e lo o k s which c o n s t r a i n me t o k e e p a y f o r a 7(_a nd to respond to th eir expectations.*

e s ^ p e and s a t i s f a c t i o n . " Au spectacle, je reste moi-même" ("Le cinéma et l ' | ^ e n t i f i c a t i o n , " p. 3 7 ) . "La r e l è v e des valeurs religieuses trahies par le t h | | t r e ” (p. 36). " L ' a t t i t u d e , mieux l ' é t a t f i l a i q u e " w hic h " e x c l u t t o u t e c o ç g l i c i t é " b e c a u s e " o n ne a e d e m a n d e que d e s ' a b a n d o n n e r . " " Au th é â tre je r e s t a i s aoi-mêae, j e j o u a i s e n c o r e mon personnage. Ici [at the cinema] j'abdique et je me d é c h a r g e de c e moi ; j ' é c h a p p e à ces regards qui ae c o n -

185

For

Cohen-Séac

posicion For

of

Deprun

escape

Che s p e c c a c o r ' s

an e x c e r n a l chis

s a me

escape.

In e i c h e r Ic

parcicipace

while

Cinguish

as

In demands

us

us

ic

che

film

also

provided

enables on

removes

ira-

cinema.

speccacor

by

aC l e a s e

excernal

Co c h e

by c h e

Che

him/her

provides

from che

leads

co

Che o u c s i d e Cwo f o r m s

worlds

Che b o u n d a r i e s

of

i n w h i c h we which d i s -

individuals.

Cohen-Séac's for

imposed

case,

removes

personalicy passivicy

Che p e r s o n a l i c y

world.

passivicy

view

subjecc

chis

maccer

sicuacion

presenced

in

creaces

cercain

films.

We do n o c l i k e a n y c h i n g c h a c h a s a d i r e c c conneccion wich our i n c e r e s c or wich our p e r s o n ; buC we do l i k e co f i n d i n c h e i n crigue sencimencs sim ilar co ours, evencs, conflicCs like Chose which we have lefc behind. . . . We a s k o n l y co give up o u r c o l o r l e s s e x i s c e n c e i n o r d | j : co y i e l d co o u r s e n s e o f Che m a r v e l o u s . CraignaienC de g a r d e r ma f o r m e e c de r é p o n d r e à l e u r s a c CenCes" ( i b l d ) . " L ' a C C i C u d e s p e c c a c u l a i r e ," according co J a n e c , " i s an a c c i v i c y whose s e c o n d a r y p a r c s a r e i n c o m p l e c e a n d r e d u c e d co some s o c i a l a n d p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r " ; " e s c un e a c c i o n donc l e s p a r c i e s secondaires sonc incomplêces ec réduices à quelques conduices sociales ec personnelles" ( P i e r r e J a n e c , _D£ 1 'angoisse ^ 1 'excase, Vol. II, pp. 1 7 ^ 7 6 ; c i c e d by D e p r u n , p . 3 7 ) . " No u s n ' a i m o n s r i e n q u i a i e un l i e n d i r e c c avec nocre incérêc ou avec nocre personne; mais nous voulons r e c r o u v e r , d a n s l a e r a me, des sencimencs semblables aux nôcres, des événem encs, des c o n f l i C s pareils à c e u x qu e n o u s a v o n s q u i c c é s . . . . No u s ne d e m a n d o n s q u ' à r e n o n c e r à nocre exiscence décolorée pour céder à nocre sens de f é e r i e ” (p. 89). T h i s p o s i c i o n r e s e m b l e s Che e x p l a n a c i o n ofeen given for che p o p u l a r i c y o f m u s i c a l s and comedies during Che D e p r e s s i o n , i n c o n t r a s t co Che l e s s e r d e g r e e of p o p u l a r i c y a c c o r d e d che s o c i a l p r o b l e m f i l m w h i c h a d d r e s s e d Che r e a l i c i e s o f c h e c o n c e m p o r a r y e c o n o m i c , p o l i c i c a l , a nd s o c ia l sicuacion; see, for example, Molly Haskell, Fr om

186

Whi l e

extremely

provocative,

ultimately

unsatisfying.

extremes

spectator

tion

of

and

attempt

to is

leaving

the

bore

the

o ne

ferences

to

in

gone

with

tive

thought

collective

tion

the

thought

the

characterized

Reverence

that

to

point

to

the

termed

type

two

aliena­

and d e g r e e

of

the

short

film.

of

of The

clarity,

variables

interest

does

but

follow

films

to our

Cohen-Séat

not

to

enough

which

interests

inevitably

spectators the

that

from t h i s

do^

fact

do

present

wo u l d be

implies

matter, that

less

that

dif­

despite

wh a t

he c o n c l u d e s

cinema can e x p r e s s

even has

pas­

the p o t e n t i a l

his

collec­ to

change

processes.

work,

Problèmes

Cohen-Séat's

by " t h e

du c i n é m a e t

view

A collective

cinema

Rape

referring

individual

those

connected

suggestion

slightly.

to

stops

and

and d e s p i t e

a later

dividuals,

it

be e n o u g h

and p e r h a p s

visuelle,

shifts

but

individual

Essai

In

us,

before

is

a nd p r e s e n t a t i o n

important

directly

acceptable

remains

spectator.

By s u g g e s t i n g

something

has

might

statement

w h i c h may be

connects

intuition

given

Still, sage.

topic

to

d e t e r m i n e what to

he

admirable, it

Cohen-Séat

reaction,

involvement;

reaction

this

produces

the

institution "a

paradoxical

(New Y o r k :

of

de film

Penguin,

1974),

audience

catering

p h e n o me n o n solitude

l ' informa­

of of

pp.

to

in­

masses" each

9 5-96 .

in-

187

dividual

in

the

still

supports

does

try

and

three of

the

to mo r e

of

notion

account

reaction

cites face

to

the

midst

the

for

that of

a mass

film. in

favor

22

While

audience

individualized

s a me

reasons

mass."

In of

identity,

audience the

Cohen-Seat 23

he

perception

end,

though,

he

a unified

audience

in

film:

1 ) The i n s t i t u t i o n of cinema c o n c e r n s the s p e c t a t o r s i n a s much a s t h e y s u b m i t e q u a l l y and i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o a r i t e , a d o p t i n g an a p p a r e n t l y i d e n t i c a l c o n d u c t , w i t h t h e a i m i n mi n d o f s a t i s f y i n g a n e x ­ pectation which i t i s n e c e s s a r y to su p­ p o s e c o n s i s t s o f s o m e t h i n g [ h e l d ] i n com­ mon. 2) The d i s c o u r s e o f the film f u l f i l l s in i t s p r i n c i p l e a type of communication grasped by a l l i n a f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n i q u e f a s h i o n , c o n s t i t u t i n g a n a g e n t w h o s e c o m­ mon v a l u e , i n t u r n , i s n o t c o n t e s t e d . . . 3) F i n a l l y , the s u b je c t m a t t e r of t he informational contents diffused by the film, which constitutes the cinemato­ graphic universe in the exact i ma ge of the universe. So that if all the s p e c t a t o r s do n o t a l l s e e t h e same f i l m s , strictly speaking, i t is at least . . . _____

_____

"Un p h é n o m e n e de m a s s e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by " l a s o l i t u d e paradoxale de c h a q u e i n d i v i d u a u s e i n d e c e t t e n a s s e 1' ( p~p. 18-19). C o h e n - S é a t t h u s r e t a i n s f r om h i s e a r l i e r wor k t h e idea t h a t , " f r o m t h e p s y c h i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w , " c i n e m a ( now mo r e s p e c i f i c a l l y a s an i n s t i t u t i o n ) c r e a t e s "a model o f the o r g a n i z e d c r o w d ” ; " d u p o i n t de vu e p s y c h i q u e , c ' e s t un m o ^ | l e de ' f o u l e o r g a n i s é e ' ” ( p . 8 0 ) . A s u p p o r t t h a t r e s t s on some g e n e r a l i d e a s e x e m p l i f i e d by the fo llo w ing: "A l l r e g u l a r , c u s to m a r y a u d i e n c e s , even a p a r t f r o m t h e common i n t e r e s t w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s t h e m , s u p ­ p o s e some p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i c a l s u b s t r a t u m w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r t h a t i n t e r e s t " ; " t o u s l e s p u b l i c s r é g u l i e r s , c o u t u m i e r s , en dehors même de l ' i n t é r ê t commun qui le s c o n s titu e , sup­ posent q u e l q u e s u b s t r a t p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i q u e q u i r e n d e com­ p t e de c e t i n t é r ê t " ( p . 4 9 ) .

188

the s a me g r a s p o f t h e w o r l d by cinematography proposing to a l l t h e s a me of visualization universe.

For

Cohen-Séat

rêves ) :

"From t h e

alienation that

the

fers

an

of

gamut

the

group

gives

states

for

audience,

strongest.

It

psychoanalysis However,

in

fam iliar

with

formation, 24

'in

inexhaustible

Cohen-Séat

since

to

of

attitude

Of a l l

the

understand

the

the

psychoanalytic hypnosis

is one

greatest

resembles

is by

(botte to

the

certain film

reasons

spectator's

certainly the

it

offered

pseudo-hypnosis

offer

box"

hypnosis',

distraction 25

same them the

a "dream

individual

this

can

the

a sort of

is

spectacular

richness. the

is

order

cinema

simplest

self of

the

the of of

of-

which

merger

into

perhaps

the

for

which

clarification.

explanation

one

model

personality

and

for

functions

must

be

through

"1) L' i n s t i t u t i o n du c i n é m a c o n c e r n e l e s s p e c t a t e u r s en t a n t q u ' i l s se s o u m e t t e n t é g a l e m e n t e t de f a ç o n s e m b l a ­ b l e à un r i t e , a d o p t a n t une c o n d u i t e a p p a r e m m en t i d e n t i q u e , e n v u e d e s a t i s f a i r e un e a t t e n t e d o n t i l f a u t b i e n s u p p o s e r q u ' e l l e c o m p o r t e q u e l q u e c h o s e de c ommun. 2) Le d i s c o u r s du f i l m r é a l i s e d a n s s o n p r i n c i p e un t y p e de c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a i s i e p a r t o u s de f a ç o n f o n d a m e n t a l e m e n t unique, c o n s t i t u a n t un a g e n t dont, à son tour, la valeur c ommune n ' e s t p a s c o n t e s t é e . . . . 3) La m a t i è r e e n f i n des contenus d 'in fo rm a tio n d iffu sé s par le film et qui c o n s t i t u e 1 ' u n i v e r s c i n é m a t o g r a p h i q u e à l ' i m a g e e x a c t e de l ' u n i v e r s . En sorte que si tous les s p e c t a t e u r s ne v o i e n t p a s t o u s l e s mêmes f i l m s à p r o p r e m e n t p a r l e r , c ' e s t du m o i n s . . . l a même s a i s i e du mo nde p a r l a même c i n é m a t o g r a p h i e l e u r p r o p o s a n t à t o u s l a même s o r t e de v i s u a l i s a t i o n de l ' u n i v e r s " ( p p . 5 6 - 5 7 ) . "De l ' a t t i t u d e s p e c t a c u l a i r e l a p l u s s i m p l e à l ' a l i é n a ­ tion de s o i ' d a n s u n e s o r t e d ' h y p n o s e ' , i l e s t c e r t a i n que la gamme d e s é t a t s de d i s t r a c t i o n p r o p o s é e p a r l e f i l m o f ­ f r e un e r i c h e s s e i n é p u i s a b l e " ( p . 6 3 ) .

189

various

B.

processes

Personality Writing

as

involved

in

such

formations.

Formation

in

1958,

Daniel Lagache

speaks

of

personality

a structure

that time differentiates in the in­ dividual, a dynamic s e t , . . . o r g a n i z e d and moving, of psycho-physiological formations, themselves organized and moving; t h e y n e v e r t h e l e s s g u a r a n t e e some regularity in the r e l a t i o n s of a person with h i s p e r s o n a l wo j£d , which i s to say w ith h i m s e l f as w e l l . The

processes

"formations

a nd

ously. that life;

but

For

these

occur

the

three

hence

perienced

26

transference,

human r e l a t i o n s .

isolation,

to

the

creation

psycho-physiologiques” include

projection, all

which c o n t r i b u t e

in

the

Such

it

processes spectator these

are

processes

multiply,

cinema

using

and

becomes occur c o me s

to

to

do

not

processes

be

and/or

important

present operate

as

cinema a me a n s

in in

simultane­ to

continuously the

such

identification,

said

partially,

of

remember in

daily

already of

ex­

interac-

"Que l e t e m p s d i f f é r e n c i e d a n s l ' i n d i v i d u , un e n s e m b l e d y n a m i q u e , . . . o r g a n i s é e t m o u v a n t , de f o r m a t i o n s p s y c h o ­ physiologiques, elles-mêmes org a n isé e s et mouvantes; e l l e s a s s u r e n t c e p e n d a n t a v e c q u e l q u e r é g u l a r i t é l e s r e l a t i o n s de l a p e r s o n n e a v e c s o n monde p e r s o n n e l , c e q u i v e u t d i r e a u s ­ s i a v e c e l l e - m ê m e " ( " L a p s y c h a n a l y s e , ” p. 7 ) .

190

tion

with Of

mental

the

the

cinema

three,

role.

identification the

operates

is

the

individual's

(prim arily initial the

the

parents).

contribution

tional

it tie

between tie

tion,

empathy,

tion,

a mong o t h e r s

the

force,

the

internal

subject

mental

( L P , p.

and

some

the

the

funda­ form

of

development modeling

s ome

such

makes

sense

external

contagion,

and

of

worlds

nebulous)

experiences

the

a crucial

external

and/or

of

of

objects

developing and

of

infancy

surrounding

subject's

encompasses

while

on

(ambivalent

sympathy,

Generally, structive

an

in

27

most

stages

Identification

between

involves

nebulous

to

the

earliest

through

agencies

life.

that

mechanism

personality,

psychical

plays agree

from t h e

important

distinction

because

This

most

from d a i l y

identification

Psychoanalysts

and

subject's

transferred

e mo ­

object. as

even

im ita­ projec­

206).

identification

projection

serves

functions as

a

as

a con­

defensive

Th o ma s S l s a e s s e r acknowledges the s p e c t a t o r ' s previous experience w ith i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , f o r e x am p le, bu t s p e a k s as w e l l of an e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e cinema. " S i n c e any identification must to some extent d e p e n d on r e c o g n i t i o n , we s t i l l h a v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n whether we r e c o g n i s e w h a t t h e i m a g e s r e f e r t o a s s o m e t h i n g t h a t might happen/has happened w i t h i n the purview of o u r own e x p e r i e n c e s , o r w h e t h e r we r e c o g n i s e i t a s f o r m i n g p a r t of o u r c i n e m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e , i e t h a t i t r e m i n d s us of o t h e r m o v i e s . . . . T h e r e may w e l l be a c a s e f o r a r g u i n g t h a t a l l our responses only s t a r t to become u s e f u l f o r a e s t h e t i c analysis when we can distinguish the second-degree r e s p o n s e s — w h a t we know a b o u t t h e c i n e m a — f r o m r e s p o n s e s t o what we know a b o u t l i f e " ( " T a l e s o f S o u n d a n d F u r y , " Mo n o ­ g r a m 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , p. 9 ) .

191

mechanism,

responding

maintain

tension

at

projection

counters

displeasure

negative the

affects.

presence

stead ternal

the

ject

is

involves

the

freedom

from

of

a

the

on t h e to of

in

something

the

in­

another,

ex-

is

in

onto

goal

of

is

the

maintenance

identifica­ the

sub­

involves

the

something

out­

projective

admissions

of

of

from t h e

projection

within

projection

of

it

Whe r e

"The

to

recognize

elements

subject;

from w i t h i n

to

m o v e me n t

object.

without,

intolerable

liberation

refuses

qualities

desire

Specifically,

unacceptable

these

something

level.

subject

replacement

mechanism] from

itself

principle's

through

identification

subject.

defensive

the

from s u b j e c t

the

of

lowest

influence

by s o m e t h i n g

displacement side

In

o b j e c t ’s

mo v e me n t

tion

28

pleasure

its

(projects)

object.

external

the

When

within

locates

to

process

[as

self-esteem,

inferiority

or

g u i l t . ..2 n i y9 While between side other 2

g

this is

particularly

analyst

and

specific 'presumed

associated

analysand, situation, to

with

transference “in

know'."

30

any

the

may o c c u r

relation

Within

relation

where

out­ the

psychoanalysis,

By treating internal s t i m u l i as external, projection wards off their intensity by an internal, protective "shield against stim uli" (Freud, "Beyond the Pleasure P r j g c i p l e " ( 1 9 2 0 ) , SE, 1 8 , p. 2 9 ) . H e n r y M u r r a y , " F o r e w o r d , " i n Ail I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P r o j e c ­ t i v e T e c h n i q u e s , e d s . H a r o l d and G l a d y s A n d e r s o n ^New Y o r k : Prentice-Hall, 1 9 5 1 ) , p. x i 1 ; s e e J e a n D ep r u n , "Cinema e t t r ^ g s f e r t , " RI F 2 , No. 1 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , p. 2 0 5 . Jane G a l l o p , The Daugh t e r ' s S e d u c t i o n ( I t h a c a , V.Y.: C o r n e l l U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 7 3 .

19 2

transference

sometimes

analytic

situation,

original

sense of

specific

relation

restricted. a nd

the

emotions

existing

cathexes

all

be

the

a

perceived

ference

the

patient

This

usually

taken

another

boss _ _ _ _

the

parents. p o we r

is

relations. boss

just

In t h i s

can

as

s/he the

has

ba d

re­

of

pre­

attach idea

it­

s e e ms

to

because

of

trans­

in him/her

onto

identification from t h e the

reacted

subject

previously

455),

finally,

another

For e x a m p l e ,

wa y ,

attributed

the

a

are

psychoanalytic

analyst.

person with

his/her

the

its to

p.

and,

underlying

the

on e

to h i s / h e r

In

of

in a n t i c i p a t i o n , "

cathexis

projects

with

react

ready

the

b e c o me s

Freud speaks

i ma g e o n t o

t hem.

(LP, them

plates,”

the

o f on e

meaning

with

both

identifies

object

its

person.

phrases

something

re-emerge"

"held

with

When a p p l i e d

formerly

current

between

retains

people

"stereotype

a nd

infantile

t wo

which a r e

these

associated

across'.

to a n o t h e r

superimposition fit

always

prototypes

to which the

In

^ 1

anything

'carrying between

regard

"prototypes,"

self.

it

associated

in

"imagos,"

but

"Infantile

produced

of

me a ns

subject's

subject

the

may

t o one o f

transfers to

of

to

the

parent.

32

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

" T h e D y n a mi c s o f Transference" (1912), SJi, 1 2, pp. 99^08 t he L a c a n i a n framework t h i s p o we r d e r i v e s f r o m t h e In control over langua ge a t t r i b u t e d to the o t h e r . "According to Lacan, t r a n s f e r e n c e occurs in r e l a t i o n to a 'subject presumed to k n o w '. I n t r a n s f e r e n c e one c o n s i d e r s t h e o t h e r as t h e Other . . . . The O t h e r me a ns wh a t s / h e s a y s and does wh a t s/he means. The Other's language is not a l i e n a t e d and t h e O t h e r knows wh a t t h e s u b j e c t ' s own d i s ­ c o u r s e m e a n s " ( G a l l o p , p. 1 0 8 ) .

19 3

Projecting jectifies

the

bad,

it,

" means

tion

other

the

the

cure,"

fact

be

hand,

patient

Identification

of

may i n

the

enabling

successfully. the

on

is

with

a ' sign

mo r e o f

a

externalizes

to

deal

the of

me a n s

with

analyst, the

to

cure

than

and it

ob­ mo r e

while

not

. 33 ; projec­

a sign

of

the

cure.

i.

Identification In

Group

and P r o j e c t i o n

Psychology

Freud

speaks

of

three

types

of

ident if ic a tio n : First, identification is the original form of e m o t i o n a l tie with an object; secondly, i n a r e g r e s s i v e way i t b e c o m e s a s u b s titu te for a l i b i d i n a l object tie , as i t w e r e by me a n s o f i n t r o j e c t i o n of the o b j e c t i n t o t h e e g o ; and t h i r d l y , i t may a r i s e w i t h any new p e r c e p t i o n of a common q u a l i t y , s h a r e d w i t h some other p e r s o n who i s n o t a n o b j e c t o f t h e s e x u a l instinct. The mo r e i m p o r t a n t t h i s common quality i s , t h e mo r e s u c c e s s f u l may t h i s p a r t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b e c o m e , a nd i t may t h u s r e p r e s e n t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a new t i e (pp. 107-08). The

first

involves enabled the

ego,

type

mo ye n

identification,

imitation through a nd

superego/ego 33

of

the

and a s s i m i l a t i o n ,

incorporation. related

ideal.

primary

This

The

agencies sort

of

Mais c e t t e id e n tific a tio n est de g u é r i s o n " ( D e p r u n , " C i n é m a

of

a sort second the

identification, of

cannibalism

type

ideal

involves

ego and

identification

the

entails

signe de g u é r i s o n , n o n e t t r a n s f e r t , " p. 2 0 7 ) .

194

object

cathexes

defense. group

as we ll

Finally,

level,

pathy.

which a r i s e s

between the

cinema

as

tion.

well

identification tact,

c omes

perience cinema

of

has

the

on t h e

it

Already

the

it

ject/spectator

i.a.

Identification Identification

contribution

postulates

be a

The

and

for

the a

the

mo s t

inter­

primary

social in

con­

the

what

effect

mechanisms

substantive to

nature

of

identify

between

ex­

of the

with.

the

sub­

of

given

subject/spectator

and P e r s o n a l i t y F o r m a t i o n contributes

agencies to

is

the

distinction

the

identifica­

well-versed

spectator

the

thus

through

question

the

of

general

through

o f c i n e m a and

interdependent

through

at

identification;

t wo s o r t s spectator,

then

employs

34

may

a nd

of

as a

o f common s ym­

society

sorts

these

cinematic

i.nplies

identification

to

third

spectator,

film s.

ego

a nd

Identification

a feeling

cinema a l r e a d y

provides

this

of

individual

identification.

identification material

of

second

first

to

use of

through

overarches

Obviously

the

Freud s peaks

The r e l a t i o n

locks

as

as

the

formation

to id, of

important

happy e x i s t e n c e

the ego, the

for for

formation

the

ego film

a nd

of

superego;

ideal

and

theory.

infant

such

before

its

ideal Freud it

has

- -

Stephen Heath, Identification," Colloquium on o t i c s of C i n e ma , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Summer I n s t i t u t e for o t i c a nd S t r u c t u r a l S t u d i e s , T o r o n t o , 22 J u n e 1 9 8 4 .

Semi­ Semi-

195

learned

to

worlds. sense this are

differentiate Taking

of

unity

point,

ject

perfectly

the

seeks

this ideal

to the

the

narcissism world

recathecting tinguishes the

mo r e

it

stage ego

of

as

state,

healthy cathexes

an

seeks

and in

it

infant for

its

extreme

of

this

identification Oedipus

parents

a model object

regress

from

sort

of

involved

in

which

the

narcis­

a secondary external

itself) 36

a

(recognized

and

Fenichel

dis­

identification

from

in

im itation.

identification with

sub­

relations.

the

than

Ap­

the

primary

into

own e g o .

At

„3 5

own e g o

objects

libido

and

its

renounces

external

complex

other.

narcissism

later

its

onto

regain.

identification

each

becomes

its

to

and

image of

may l a t e r

libido

the

an e d e n i c

primary

this

image o f

experiences

from

other

the

internal

after

object-choices

limited

and

"object-cathexis

subject

the

During idealized

forever

by w i t h d r a w i n g

(from

external

object,

recapture

s i s m and d e v e l o p s such),

it

says,

satisfied

Although

as

as

indistinguishable

during

takes

subject

which

Freud

no d o u b t

parently

itself

between

the

37

with

superego

of

an the

j c ’On N a r c i s s i s m " ( 1 9 1 4 ) , S_E, 1 4 , p . 7 5 . Se e F r e u d , " T h e Ego a nd t h e I d " ( 1 9 2 3 ) , S_E, , p. 29; " O ^ M a r c i s s i s m , " pp. 7 3 - 1 0 2 . " Th e i m i t a t i o n o f i d e a l i z e d p e r s o n s o f t e n r e p r e s e n t s an attempt t o ' t r y o u t ' t h e i r wa y s o f f e e l i n g , w i t h o u t l o s i n g the knowledge of the 'tria l' character. The 'te st' character of such l i m i t e d ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ' in the s e r v i c e of some p u r p o s e o f t h e e g o , d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i m i t a t i o n from full i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , which takes place u n c o n s c i o u s l y a nd independently f r o m t h e e g o ' s w i s h e s " ( " On A c t i n g , " p. 1 5 1 , f n .- 9 ) .

196

grandparents the

child

the

ego

leads

to

(Lagache,

ideal

the

"La

formation

of

the

p s y c h a n a l y s e , ” p.

superego 14).

within

Similarly,

originates

in the convergence of primary n a r c i s s i s m and identifications with the parents, with t h e i r s u b s t i t u t e s , a nd w i t h c o l l e c ­ tive id eals; i t s functions are e s s e n t i a l ­ ly the moral c o n sc ie n c e , the o b s e r v a tio n of s e l f , c e n s o r s h i p ; the regulation of the s e n s e of personal value depends in v a r y i n g d e g r e e s on narcissism, the e go id e a l , and^gthe contribution of object relations. For L a g a c h e because Ideal in

to

order

Taken

"the

superego

Superego

way by w h i c h

to

respond

together the

these

and

ego

corresponds

the

personality, ~~33

the

to t wo

the the

ideal to

can

himself

expectations

authoritarian

distinguished

authority,

subject

agencies

be

of

should

the

Ego

behave 39

authority.

"reproduce,

Parent-Child

and

inside

the

relation."

40

— — —— — — ——

" D a n s l a c o n v e r g e n c e du narcissisme primaire et des i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s aux p a r e n t s , à leurs substituts et aux idéaux c o l l e c t i f s ; ses fonctions sont e s s e n tie lle m e n t la c o n s c i e n c e m o r a l e , l ' o b s e r v a t i o n de soi, la censure; la r é g u l a t i o n du s e n t i m e n t de la v aleu r p e r s o n n e lle dépend, dans d e s p r o p o r t i o n s v a r i a b l e s , du n a r c i s s i s m e , d e l ' i d é a l d u M o i , e t d e l ’ a p p o r t d e s r e l a t i o n s o b j e c t a l e s ” ( i b i d . , p. 3 7 ^9

Le S u r m o i c o r r e s p o n d à l ' a u t o r i t é , e t l ' I d é a l du Moi à la façon dont le s u j e t d o i t se c o m p o r t e r pour r é p o n d re à l ' g g t e n t e de l ' a u t o r i t é . ” "Reproduit, à l ' i n t é r i e u r de l a p e r s o n n a l i t é , l a r e l a ­ tion a u to ritaire Parent-Enfant" (ib ld ., p. 39). "That which i s i n t e r i o r i z e d is not t h e image of the o t h e r , but t h e model o f a r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r ; t h e c h i l d i n e f f e c t o b j e c t i v i z e s h i s own being only in a dopting the p o s i t i o n and a t t i t u d e of the o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t to h i m s e l f ; t h r o u g h that r o u t e he becomes c a p a b l e of s p l i t t i n g himself into S u b j e c t - E g o and O b j e c t - E g o " ; "ce qui e s t i n t é r i o r i s é , ce

197

Lagache as

speaks

of

a narcissiscic

whac

he c a l l s

Chese

personal

ideal

"heroic

wich o u c s c a n d i n g

and

cion,

passes

the

person

on

process

for

his

iCs by

of

parent figure

does as

figure,

to

a

from

.

the .

stands

the

child,

subject

collective

ego

then

When c i n e m a

calls

identification

the

function reality and

of of

stepped the other

into

other

the

ego

things"

hypnosis

Freud the

hand,

group

models

spectator's

(GjP, finds place the

activity

its

reality

ideal p. it of

the

ideal.

group

is

subject possessed

generación,

(LP,

to

p.

144).

a group

group

as

the

can

take

that

Identifying

with

that

on

"that

to

of

of v a rio u s

it

since

on e

testing

the

hypnotist

( GP, the

play,

identification

the

ideal"

him/her.

into

ability,

business

c o me s

In a d d i -

on w h i c h

Discussing

ego

Through

principle

testing

obvious the

42

co

behavior

"the

Co

" id e n e i f i c a C ion

a nd h y p n o s i s

114).

leads

another

based"

relation

the

affects

IC

substitutes

the

is

then

personnel )

and d e m a n d s .

. i s

in

or

generación

prohibicions

"which

41

personalic ie s.

hu ma n g r o u p s

When a f i g u r e

( 1 ' idéal

oonipocence.

admirable

ego-ideal

constitution

of

ideal"

i d e n c i f i c a c i o n ,"

id e n e i f i c a c i o n s ,

society

the

"che

p.

114).

cinema

past

or

has On a ny

experiences

n ' e s t p a s l ' i m a g e de l ' a u t r e , m a i s l e m o d è l e d ' u n e r e l a t i o n avec l ' a u t r e ; l ' e n f a n t , en e f f e t , n ' o b j e c t i v e sa p e r s o n n e p r o p r e q u ' e n a d o p t a n t à son ég ard l a p o s i t i o n e t l ' a t t i t u d e de l ' a u t r e ; c ' e s t par c e t t e voie q u ' i l d e v i e n t c a p a b l e de s e ^ é d o u b l e r en M o i - S u j e t e t M o i - O b j e t " ( i b l d . ) . ^ 2 "Un i d é a l n a r c i s s i q u e de t o u t e - p u i s s a n c e " ( p . 4 1 ) . "Identification . . . à des person n ages e x c e p t i o n n e l s e t p r e s t i g i e u x " ( " L a p s y c h a n a l y s e , " p. 4 1 ) .

198

of

identification

certain

which have

n u mb e r o f c o l l e c t i v e

Marion Milner d e s c r i b e s an o r i g i n a l l y depending with

upon t h e

another

tionally is

primary

is

obviously

is

in

t o be

essential"

144).

the

of

interest

transfer

to a

same.

for

in him/her

p.

reality

the

created

i d e a l s “ (LP,

identification

that

felt

object

already

secondary of

the

"this

.

from i t

She s a y s

that

process

of

"from .

primary

different " 43

one

"a

. as

object but

emo­

"phantasy fusion

or

identification,” sin c e i t is only in phantasy that two d is s im ila r objects are fused into one. Bu t . . . i l l u s i o n i s a l s o n e e d e d b e c a u s e . . t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n t o an e x t e r n a l object of feeling, even though a phantastic one, since the person producing the fusion believes that the secondary o bjec t i ^ the p r i m a r y one ( p . 8 6 ). The

mo v e me n t

from

identification

in

an a b i l i t y

to

temporary

giving

apart and

and

tolerance

43

in

adult,

to M i l n e r ,

tolerate

tries

without

the

identification

up o f to

see

emotional

c ome s

the

according

a temporary

loss

the

of

sense

the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g things

ability

"to

find

(p.

to

"requires of

self,

a

ego w h i c h s t a n d s

objectively

colouring"

infant

and

97).

rationally Wi t h

new o b j e c t s ,

to

this find

Mari on M i l n e r , ' Th e Role of I l l u s i o n i n Sy mb o l F o r m a ­ t i o n , " i n New D i r e c t i o n s i n P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s , M e l a n i e K l e i n , e t a l . (New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 5 7 ) , p. 8 2 .

199

the

familiar This

in

the

point

unfamiliar"

highlights

infant

a s mo d e l

F o r one

thing

for

it

the

ject

but with

continually ignores

the

identity. in

the

role

a

and

provoked

the as

with other

which a r e

not

the

result

with

point,

viewed

system. diverse,

as

a whole

totally

o ne

and

in

with

the

Finally,

an

which a c t u a l l y

"that

are

a group

a displacement

Laplanche

Demands c o e x i s t conflicting

identifies itself.

original

an

ob­

from a s i t u a t i o n

may i n v o l v e

Thus

"essential"

it

in c o n s t i t u t i n g

wo u l d

partial

an e n t i r e

Second,

simultaneously

than

of

o b j e c t — which o c c u r

subject.

the o b j e c t

with

the

formation.

possibility

identification.

identifications relational

the

of that

an o b j e c t

in using

of p e r s o n a lity

identification

identifies

trait

insist,

adult

subject(s)

identification onto

of

traits

Suc h an i d e n t i t y

which t h e

object

process

44

drawbacks

identification

certain

in

certain

deemphasizes

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s — the

( i b i d . ).

and P o n t a l i s a

subject's

no way a c o h e r e n t

within

an a g e n c y

disorderly"

.

(LP,

.

. p.

20S ).

" _ 44

Ernest Jones suggests that i t i s e a s i e r , and t h e r e f o r e p l e a s a n t e r " and mor e interesting to note resemblances. Once n o t e d t h e y c o n t r i b u t e t o " t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n o f new e x ­ p e r i e n c e s " ( " T h e T h e o r y o f S y m b o l i s m , " i n P a p e r s on P s y c h o A n a l y s i s (London: B a i l l i e r e , T i n d a l l and Cox, 1950), p7 133). For P r a t t , the c l o s e up h a s an e s p e c ia lly strong i d e n t i f i c a t o r y e f f e c t because i t affords "a greitly in­ creased p o s s i b i l i t y for the a ud ie nc e to i m i t a t e , as t h e y f r e q u e n t l y do, t h e f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n of t h e a c t o r , and i n this way to affirm an already existing feeling of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " (p. 186).

200

i.b.

Identification Heath

to

the

which ning

pinpoints

spectator,

they from

tions.

and

three

the

through

image

there

is

with

along

possible

there

physiological and

into

the

Mo s t focused

is

the

as

p.

i.e.,

p.

instance

45

Heath

as

the

prepositions

identification

gamut

up

of

to

w ith,

well

overlap

the

as

the

which

me a n s

characters,

t wo

mo v e me n t

run­ rela­

with

these

of,

social

types.

i n t o , meaning

into

spectator's with,

notes,

but

from t h e

would

resolution

part

has

secondary;

24)

camera

which c o n s t i t u t e s

towards

the

of

itself,

mo v e me n t

as

the

identification

narrative

Me t z

is

identification

discussion

equilibrium

into.

through

specific

45

an a l m o s t

of

the

film,

narration.

on

132),

the

identification

c h a r a c t e r s , 46 of

there

identification

identification

identification

Finally,

of

distinguishable First

the

Spectator

types

require.

Then

with

the

of

what

labeled

this

for of

(which

correspond

with

disruption

then

final by

identification prior

itself

largely

the

of

to H e a t h ' s

with

m o v e me n t

through

closure"

the

(Kuhn,

identification with

characters

identification

cannot

has

a fictional

beginning,

H e a t h means

him a p r i m a r y ,

seeing

particularly

also

its

and

identification

be

seen)"

"with ( EFF,

identification

As we h a v e s e e n ( p p . 4 0 a n d 1 40 s u p r a ) , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the camera t r a d i t i o n a l l y e n t a i l s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t h g g i n a l e p o i n t o f v i e w and s t a t u s as e n u n c i a t o r . This a l s o encompasses i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h th e a c t o r as actor (cultural h e r o ) a p a r t from th e role s/he plays (see L e b o v i c i , p. 5 4 , f o r e x a m p l e ) .

201

in t o /7

Narrative to

cannot

identification,

the

even

mechanism— th e

identification

is

be d i s c u s s e d if

point

that of

primarily

portance

of H e a t h ' s

fore , is

that

"series

reference view

said of

without

some r e f e r e n c e

is

s h o t — by

to

restricted which

come a b o u t .

looks"

(p.

to

such

The i m­

40 s u p r a ) ,

there­

it

p ro v id e s the framework in t u r n for a p a t ­ t e r n of m u l t i p l y r e l a y i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . . The s h i f t between the f i r s t and second looks sets up the spectator's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e c a m e r a . . . . The look at the fil m is an involvement in i d e n t i f y i n g r e l a t i o n s of the s p e c t a t o r to t h e p h o t o g r a p h i c i mage . . ., to the human f i g u r e p r e s e n t e d i n i ma g e . . . , t o the n a r r a t i v e which giv es the s e n s e of the flow of p h otographic images. . . . Finally, the looks of the c h a r a c t e r s a l ­ l ow for the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the v a r i o u s 'p o in t of view' identifications ( Ques­ t i o n s , pp. 1 1 9 - 2 0 ) . The d e t e r m i n i n g

principle

frequently

located

sychology'

of

contributes

the to

in

such

behind shots'

characters" the

Heath's relation

(Browne,

spectator's

third

p.

27);

"to

look

is

the

' p-

in

turn

this

identification

with

_ _

"A l ' i n s t a n c e v o y a n t a (invisible)" (p. 119). Ro s e n asks "what k i n d o f s e c o n d a r y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s s p e c i f i c to cinema and thus can be called 'primary cinematic identification'. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h a c t o r s or c h a r a c t e r s does o c c u r , b e l i e v e s Metz, but only in representational narrative films, so such identifications cannot be legitimately g e n e r a l i z e d as c o n s t i t u t i n g primary c i n e m a t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " (pp. 419-20). Cf . Mary ^nn Doane, " Mi s ­ recognition and I d e n t i t y , " C i n e - T r a c t s 3 , Mo. 3 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p. 27 .

202

characters.

48

Daniel which

the

of-view

S allitt,

use

we a r e

character point

a character

sequence

character's tle

of

bothered

of

“c o n s i s t s

scenes

shots

tion" for

It

during

the

the

aware

48

itself."

of

the

of

continues shot,

for

eyes,

character's

to

point

49

argues

although . . .

a

no

thoughts,"

of

nor

ma k e s

.

a

character's previous

"our

eyes .

one

during

obtained

"our force

how l i t ­

from

a question

that

view of

that

knowledge

to

a pointof

of

of

information be

of

He n o t e s

point

knowledge

than

extent

adoption

from t h e

stored

"the

focal

an

instead

our

rather

character's the

and

shot

psychology

shot

as

perspective."

by s h i f t s

another, view

questions

necessitates

psychological

to

or

however,

from t h e percep­

substitute

. makers] us

share

us

them

" T h e c l a s s i c r e a l i s t t e x t may be i d e n t i f i e d by t h e ma n ­ ner in which i t ' i n s c r i b e s ' s u b j e c t s w ith in i t — th e s e sub­ j e c t s being a u th o r, c h a r a c t e r , and reader. Th e classic realist te x t depends upon i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between imputed r e a d e r and character. The mome nt of id e o lo g ic a l re c o g n i­ tion— that t h i s is indeed the way t h i n g s a r e — o n l y o c c u r s wh e n t h e reader accepts the p o s itio n o f f e r e d by t h e t e x t . In so d o i n g t h e r e a d e r i s c o n s t i t u t e d a s a s u b j e c c and t h e work of ideological production is complete" (Lovell, Pictures, p. 8 5 ) . The p o i n t of Browne's a r t i c l e , though, is that s i t u a t i o n s o c c u r in cinema whe r e s h o t s w hi c h seem to correspond to the third look actually originate e l s e w h e r e , so t h a t t h e y " a r e n o t j u s t i f i e d a s t h e d e p i c t i o n of p e r s o n a l psychology considered as c h a n g e s of f e e l i n g " (p. 31; e m p h a s i s m i n e ) . I n s t e a d , s u c h s h o t s may r e l a t e t o the p s y cholo gy of the s i t u a t i o n as a w hole. Th u s t h e ” e mp a t h e t i c r e s p o n s e " of the spectator with an individual c h a r a c t e r may be a t o d d s " w i t h the un d erly in g premises of t h g g m e c h a n i s m of t h e n a r r a t i v e " ( p . 3 2 ) . Daniel S a l l i t t , "Point of Vi e w a nd ' I n t r a r e a l i s m ' in H i t c h c o c k , " Wi de A n g l e 4 , No. 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 3 9 .

203

(pp.

39 a n d

litt,

like

but

on e

41;

cf.

Browne's

Eberwein,

whose

starts

freedom i s

point-of-view

shot

"seems

to

psychological

psychological

state

shot

sense

of

naturally suddenly

Browne's.

in

film

ology

on t h e

if

of

not

vision

on t h e

and

of view.

is

a kind

of

basis .

the

spectator

becomes

one

of

dependence pears

shifts

or

spectator's film.

places,"

him t h e

within

the

( Que s t i o n s ,

p.

the

film

to

VJ i l l e me n

subject different

discounts

of

The

of

look,

that

in­

view

as

it

ap­

with

a

given

of view itself

looks such

the

look

the

possibility

is

of

as

within

against

characters

of

"revealed

question

association

interaction

is

ide­

44).

argument

own p o i n t

sense

system,"

in

viewing

" ma k e

in

perspective

film

"the

different

founding

figure

from p o i n t

his/her

"the

stands

independence

the

us

organization

analysis

a given

point-of-

a new,

its

a

that

gives

how we c a n

character,

One

the

analysis

a narrative

. The

to

of

whe n

which

access

agent,

evocation

that

film with

spectator's

having

Since

complex

of

experience.

within

character

the

one

asks

vision,

perspective

guiding

filmviewing

hand,

free

Sal­

For him t h e

only

S a llitt's

t r u t h ? ” For

spectacle point

other

through as

state

visual

Thus

as

an a c c u r a t e

on u s , "

agreement

Heath,

be

inflicts

41).

72 s u p r a ) .

restricted.

the

having

p.

a spectator

resembles

u n i v e r s e ” (p. with

with

quickly

character's

view

"fading,"

within caught

from a

of

the the in

a

different possibility

204

( " V o y e u r i s m , " p. 4 2 ) . of

In e f f e c t ,

he d e n i e s

the p o s s i b i l i t y

" i n t e r m i t t e n t ” s u b j e c t i v i t y p r o p o s e d by S i l v e r m a n ( p . 45

s u p r a ). For HacCabe i t look

is

important

and p o i n t of v i e w ,

i.e.,

to

distinguish

b e t we e n

b e t we e n t h e s y mb o l i c and t h e

imaginary. The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n t h e s y m b o l i c and the i maginary ca n be understood in c i n e m a t i c t e r ms by c o n t r a s t i n g the look and t h e p o i n t o f v i e w . The p o i n t of vi ew i s a l wa y s r e l a t e d t o an o b j e c t . . . . But i n s o f a r as the o b j e c t is a given u n i t y t h e r e i s a l wa y s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s e e i n g it t o g e t h e r with a l l the p o s s i b l e p o i n t s of v i e w— t h e r e i s a l wa y s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of . a p o i n t o f o v e r - v i e w . . . . Where t h e p o i n t of vi e w i s r e l a t e d to an o b j e c t , the look i s r e l a t e d to o t h e r l o o k s . The look's field is . . . defined . . . by the f a c t t h a t the o b j e c t we a r e l o o k i n g a t o f f e r s a p o s i t i o n f r om wh i c h we can be l o o k e d a t ( " T h e o r y , " p. 1 5 ) . MacCabe t h u s p l a c e s s y m b o l i c and wh i c h woul d a wa r e of view

have

how t h e

together.

with the

points

look

a

relatively

spe ctator gets Clearly

the

structures

point

of v i e w ,

with s u b j e c t - o b j e c t

Wi l l e me n

of

of

spectator p o i n t s of

in c o n t r a s t , relations,

c a u g h t up

in that st r u c t u r i n g

thisla tte r

s p e c t a t o r cannot

and

He a t h

the

a situation

self-conscious

i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e p o s i t i o n a l l o t t e d

structuring.

realm

relations,

a ppa rat us puts He a s s o c i a t e s

o f v i e w.

within

subject-subject

i m a g i n a r y and

wh i c h t h e

be

of

the

in of then

t o h i m / h e r by s uc h

also

point

to

the

205

spectator's paratus, partial

lack

of independence w ithin

while S a l l i t t , and

dependence

temporary is

less

Münsterberg

on t h e b a s i s

of

identifications,

than

the the

cinematic

ap­

possibility

argues

that

of

this

total.

distinguishes

two

types

of

spectator

r e s pons e : On t h e o ne s i d e we h a v e t h o s e e m o t i o n s i n which the f e e l i n g s of the pe rson s in the p l a y a r e t r a n s m i t t e d t o o u r own s o u l . On the other side, we f i n d those fe elings w i t h which we r e s p o n d to the scenes in the p l a y , f e e l i n g s w h i c h may be e n t i r e l y different, perhaps ex ac tly the opposite to th o se which t he figures in the play express (p. 53). The

first

responds

type

to

of r e s p o n se ,

identification,

" by

far

the

larger

while

the

second

one,"

cor­

corresponds

to

project ion.

i.e.

Projection Although

linked

paranoia,

projection

attitude

to

associates

the

to

the

also

external

projection

pathological

has

"a r e g u l a r

w o r l d . ” ^° in

normal

c o n d i t i o n known a s share

. . .

in our

I n T o t e m a n d Ta bu F r e u d life

with

ambivalent

feelings : The

tendency

to

project

^ " P s y c h o - a n a l y t i c Notes on a n o f a C a s e o f P a r a n o i a ” ( 1 9 1 1 ) , SE,

mental

processes

Autobiographical 1 2 , p. 6 6 .

Account

206

i n t o the outside . . . will be in­ tensified when projection promises to b r i n g with i t the advantage of mental relief. Such an a d v a n t a g e may be ex­ p e ct e d with c e r t a i n t y whe r e a conflict has a r i s e n between d i f f e r e n t impulses a l l of wh i c h are striving towards omnipotence— for they c l e a r l y cannot a l l become o m n i p o t e n t ( p . 9 2 ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s having fact,

processes

other

of

to

associates

involved life.'

two of

projection"

usage of the

generate the

( E s p r i t , p.

"at

approaches

of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

enough

identification"

heart

senses

confusion surrounds

deliberately

ses

Freud's

two d i s t i n c t

and t h e each

in

the h e a r t

52 T h i s

of

( LP,

this

354).

compl exe

the

that

In , ^ 1

resemble

confusion.

adding

to

i n our

term ' p r o j e c t i o n '

c i n e ma a r e

contributes

p.

and p r o j e c t i o n

two as " l e 1072),

"result

Mo r i n

projectionthe

evidently reality

proces­ at

effect

the of

^*It may r e f e r t o t h e " o b j e c t i v a t i o n of s e n s o r y i m p r e s ­ sions; h a l l u c i n a t i o n ; t h e i n f l u e n c e of p e r s o n a l t e n d e n c i e s on t h e s e n s o r i a l s t r u c t u r e o f p e r c e p t i o n , o r on t h e me a n i n g a t t a c h e d t o i t , o r y e t on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s e r i e s o f images. In p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , i t i s a q u e s t i o n r a t h e r of the s u b j e c t ' s d e f e n s i v e m e c h a n i s m, etc. It is therefore a g e n e r i c term b a d l y enough d e f i n e d , l i k e e mp a t h y m o r e o v e r , although the sense of this last term seems mor e restricted"; " o b j e c t i v a t i o n des impressions se n so rie lle s ; hallucination; i n f l u e n c e des t e n d a n c e s p e r s o n n e l l e s s u r l a structure sensorielle de la perception, ou sur la signification q u i s ' y a t t a c h e , ou e n c o r e s u r l'interpréta­ tion d'une série d'images. En p s y c h a n a l y s e , il s'agit p l u t ô t d ' u n mé c a n i s me de d é f e n s e du s u j e t , e t c . C ' e s t donc un t e r me g é n é r i q u e a s s e z mal d é f i n i , comme c e l u i d ' e m p a t h i e du r e s te , bien que l e s e n s de ce d e r n i e r p a r a is s e plus r e s t r e i n t ” ( A l b e r t M i c h o t t e , "La p a r t i c i p a t i o n é m o t i o n e l l e du , - g p e c t a t e u r , " RI F 4 , No. 13 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , p. 7 6 ) . "Au c o e u r du c i n é ma s o n t é v i d e mme n t au coeur de la vie." Including transference, Mo r i n says this c o mp l e x "controls a l l p s y c h i c a l phe nome na called subjective, that

207

the

cinematic

between hand,

projection

Mo r i n s e e s

and

"projection,

spectator's

"Through hero

53

of

identifies

mimétisme,

catharsis,

reaction

projection

o ne

the

film,

the

h e r o of

a

dialectic

identification

"identification,

other, The

image.

exonération"

while the

to

in

the

identify

through film

on

exemplarité,"

does d i f f e r tends

with,

operating

with

the

one

a n d on t h e

(pp.

1073-74).

t wo p r o c e s s e s :

oneself

with

identification oneself.'

54

the one

As Mo r i n

continues,

is to s a y , which b e t r a y or deform t h e o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y of things, or which deliberately situate themselves outside that reality (moods, reveries)"; " commande tous les phénomènes psychiques dit subjectifs, c'est-à-dire qui t r a h i s s e n t ou d é f o r m e n t l a r é a l i t é o b j e c t i v e d e s c h o s e s , ou bien qui se s itu e n t délibéremment h o r s de cette réalité ( é t a t s d'âme, r ê v e r i e s ) ” (p. 93). He h a s a l r e a d y s a i d t h a t "the mor e p o w e r f u l t h e s u b j e c t i v e n e e d , t h e mor e t h e i mage to which t h a t need a t t a c h e s i t s e l f t e n d s t o be p r o j e c t e d , alienated, objectivized, hallucinated fetichized ( s o many words ma r k e d o u t by t h e p r o c e s s ) , t h e mor e t h a t i m a g e , a l ­ though a p p a r e n t l y o b j e c t i v e and because i t is apparently o b j e c t i v e , has t h a t n e e d , up to the p o in t of a c q u i r i n g a s u r r e a l c h a r a c t e r " ; "plus le besoin s u b j e c t i f est p u i s s a n t , plus l'image à laquelle il se f i x e tend à se p r o j e t e r , s'aliéner, s 'objectiver, s ' ha1 lu e in e r, se fétichiser (autant de v e r b e s que j a l o n n e n t le processus), plus c e tte image, qu o i q u e apparemment o b j e c t i v e et parce qu'apparem­ me n t o b j e c t i v e e s t r i c h e de ce b e s o i n j u s q u ' à a c q u é r i r un caractère surréel" ( M o r i n , pp. 32-33). See Tudor: "The basic p sy ch o lo g ical machinery through which mos t people relate t o f i l m i n v o l v e s some c o m b i n a t i o n o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n ^ p r o j e c t i o n ” ( I m a g e , p. 7 6 ) . L ' homme i m a g i n a i r e , p p. 97-98; see Mitry, for whom projection i s a s o r t o f v o l u n t a r y c o n d i t i o n e d r e f l e x wh i c h does not p r e c l u d e our r e t a i n i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e d i s ­ tinction b e t w e e n o u r own ego and t h e ' o t h e r ' in volv ed in ouç^p r o j e c t i o n (pp. 186-87). "Par la p r o j e c t i o n on t e n d à s ' i d e n t i f i e r au h é r o s du f i l m , t a n d i s que p a r l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on i d e n t i f i e l e h é r o s du f i l m à s o i ” ( p . 1 0 7 2 ) .

208

one ca n c h i n k c h a c che film's effeccs, ChaC Che p r o f o u n d role of Che cinema, will be decermined by Che avacars r e s u l c i n g f r om c he p r o c e s s of p r o j e c c i o n idencificacion. T h o s e w i l l c e r c a i n l y noc be Che f i l m ' s only e f f e c c s ; i n any c a s e ic ca n h a v e an e d u c a c i o j i | l e f f e c c o r one of e l e m e n c a r y c o g n i c i o n . Projeccion, perhaps

in fa ce,

b e c a u s e mosc

aspeccs of

film,

is

rarely

Cheories

while

P r o j e c c i o n does

of

a collecCive

been neglecCed

by f i l m

p h e n ome no n h a s

received

ii.

focus

on

Che

a p p e a r , chough,

pleasurable againsc

in d i s c u s s i o n s

daydream. T r a n s f e r e n c e

cheory,

alchough hyp nosis,

criCical

dis­

also

has

a relaced

accencion.

H y p n o s i s and S u g g e s c i o n As i c s

name i m p l i e s ,

hypnosis

creaces

scace,"

i n which " h a l l u c i n a c o r y

memor y,

and a wi d e r a n g e o f b e h a v i o r a l

duced

in film cheory,

p r o j e c c i o n defends

pleasure. film as

invoked

chrough

physiological Ci Cude c h a n g e ,

suggescion," alceracions,

experiences,

Cime d i s c o r c i o n ,

sleeplike

discorcions

responses

including

and age r e g r e s s i o n .

"a

in

may be i n ­

"muscular delusions,

Researchers

and ac-

on h y p -

” 0n peuC p e n s e r que l e s e f f e c s du f i l m , que le rôle p r o f o n d du c i n é ma seronc décerminés par l e s avacars con­ sécutifs au p r o c e s s u s de p r o j e c c i o n - i d e n c i f i c a c i o n . Ce ne seronc c e r t e s pas les seuls effecs; il peuC y a v o i r de c o u c e s f a ç o n s des effeCs informacifs ou cognicifs élé­ m e n t a i r e s " (p. 1072). "H y p n o s is ,” in The New Encyclopaedla Brlcannica ( M i c r o p a e d i a ) , 15c h é d . , Vol. 5 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i e a n n i c a , 1 9 7 4 ) , p. 2 5 6 .

209

nosis the

have d i s t i n g u i s h e d

hypnotic

the

"the

hypnotic

process

and

state.

Parallels and

between

can

be d r a w n

circumstances

of

between

the

hypnotic

process

filmviewing.

During t h e i n d u c t i o n p r o c e s s , a s t a t e of m a x i ma l attention to one group of s t i m u l i , c o m b i n e d w i t h an o b l i t e r a t i o n of all others, . . . r e s u l t s in a l o s s of Ego b o u n d a r i e s and an incorporation of the h y p n o tis t in the s u b j e c t . L a t e r , in t h e f u l l y d e v e l o p e d s t a g e , a d i f f u s i o n of sensori-motor relations occurs with a r e t e n t i o n of a dominant but repressed link to the h y p n o t i s t by t h e i n c o r p o r a ­ t i o n o f a f r a g m e n t a r y i ma g e o f hi m i n t h e re-expanded borders of the Ego (ib id . , pp. 6 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Although o c c u r r i n g less

dramatic

"in a

form,"

less

exaggerated

similar

"in

the

again

the

psychophysiologlcal

tention." sharply

Th e d i f f e r e n c e intensified

is

K u b i e and

Sydney M a r g o l i n

they

on t h e

give

conditions" process

other,

by

adding

should

be

procedures,

without

experience

for

that

"in

t a k e on

" s u c h an

agency

by of

be

up,

and

of n or mal

at­

hypnosis

t h e one

they d i l u t e

can

growing

conditions."

attainable the

of

p h e n o me n o n

that

by s p e c i a l

therefore

characteristics

uncovered in

everyday

and

is

What L a w r e n c e hand,

hypnosis'

extension simple

this

of

though, "special a normal

physiological

suggestion,

or

even of

L a w r e n c e K u b i e and S y d n e y Margolin, "The Process of Hypnotism and t h e N a t u r e o f t h e H y p n o t i c S t a t e , " Amer 1 c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y 1 0 0 , No. 5 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , p. 6 1 1 .

210

any

human c o n t a c t s "

suggestion,"

should

The a r g u m e n t state duce

is

for

hypnotic

"relative

of

l ow i n t e n s i t y ,

613-14),

all

state

the

of

for hypnosis.

f i l m and

the hypnotic

factors

help

in­

creation

of

areas

'inh ib ition'";

a n d 3)

of

a focus

"a mo n o t o n o u s

continuous

or

of

stimulus

rhythmicil"

filmviewing

(and d r e a m s ),

parent.

of

experience

(p.

614),

"total

world";

absence

on t h e o t h e r an

absence

flatters

because, of

according itself

independent wishes" thought" he mar ks

the

(p. (p. an

of

as the

its

(pp. c a n be

object

like

ego,

that

on

world

273)

through

289).

Wh i l e

to

p.

primary

drop

the

back and

outside

allows

it

256).

the

Freud compares

Hyp­

ego

to g r a t i f y

magical

in­

narcissism,

a nd s e l f - a c t i n g

and a b l e

distinction:

an i n f a n t i l e -

narcissism,

hypnosis

"the

sub­

between c h i l d

(LP,

encouraging

outer

in­

t h e one hand b e c a u s e

primary

self-sufficing

important

to

relations

relations

Jones,

all

The h y p n o t i z e d

of any r e l a t i o n s h i p

of o b j e c t

"a

narcissism

sleep,

hypnosis

hand,

to

in

particularly

Sleep resembles

its

as

while

pattern,

and

regression.

physically,

an e a r l i e r

think

which

sleep

like

nosis

“the

an " a ge nc y

a locus

Three

surrounding

a common e l e m e n t

volves

)

as

provide.

regresses

of

with

1

either

of

ject

to

as

between

immobilization";

Hypnosis, volve

state:

excitation

to

be c o n s i d e r e d

sim ilarities

2)

said

The c i n e m a ,

e v e n mor e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .

the

central

( i b i d . ).

to

agent, all

its

omnipotence

of

hypnosis

"Changes

to

occur

sleep in

it

211

a nd m e n t a l sent

in

initial since are

functions

normal

sleep"

hypnotic

in both

are

may a l s o

be c o m p a r e d

sened

opportunity

rent

s e n s a t i o n s “ (Kubie,

of

reality

periences demands process the

the

as

sened

(such

dream

are as

(Kubie,

that

spectator

in

of

at

the

intensity

613). the

all

that

521).

these

distinction

dreams, the

past

because

of

the

les­

with

which

actual

the

with

those

hypnotic

self

seen

in

condensa­

ways,

subject

ex­

hypnotist

the

regressive

between

sense

subject

hypnosis,

the

concur­

"the

"in

In v a r y i n g

factors,

The

of

displacement,

of

ab­

295).

with

hypnotized

resembles sorts

p.

are

out

identical

transference, p.

which

For L a g a c h e

a nd

work

different of

images

F u 8r t h e r m o r e ,

filmviewing

a result sense

p.

asserts." 5

etc.)"

As

a

mechanisms

extent

the

in

sensory

ma ke c o m p a r i s o n s

subjugated,

a nd

dream

tion,

is

a nd

undiluted to

it

Treatment,"

state

with

during

("Psychical

"emotional

revivified

retained

it

then,

involves

behavior. has a nd

to

59

a les­ outside

58 " Le s e n s de la r é a l i t é est subjugué, et 1 ' h y p n o tisé éprouve comme d a n s un r ê v e t o u t c e que l ' h y p n o t i s e u r e x i g e e t j ^ f f i r m e " ( L£ p s y c h a n a l y s e , p. 1 0 4 ) . "The f r a me of film ic hypnosis is essentially regres­ sive. Nocturnal, m aternal world, where the a t t e n t i o n to the r e a l is relaxed: atmosphere analogous to t h a t of t h e mystery c u lts ; everything there creates a climate which everyone w i l l d e a l w i t h , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s v a l u e s y s t e m , as being marvelous or infantile"; "le cadre de l'hypnose filmique est essentiellem ent régressif. Monde nocturne, m a t e r n e l , où l ' a t t e n t i o n au r é e l se relâche: atmosphère analogue â celle des c u l t e s à my s t è r e s ; t o u t y c r é e un climat que c h a c u n t r a i t e r a , s e l o n s o n s y s t è m e de v a l e u r s , de m e r v e i l l e u x ou d'infantile" (Deprun, " Le cinéma et l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " p. 3 8 ) .

212

world/ the

As a " b r i d g e t o t h e o u t e r w o r l d "

0

hypnotist

through

. the

of

superego,"

(ibid. ) ;

an e x t e r n a l

through

the

"the

the

factor

case

exerting

actions

of

non e

p.

"is

subject

incorporates

remains put

the h y p n o t i s t

control

by

297).

( i b i d . ).

the

f r om " h i s 6 2

surrender

and c r e d u l i t y

the hypnotized

611),

over

.

un­

in place functions

the s u b j e c t

suggestion.

all

of e f f o r t "

the

of whi ch t h e s u b j e c t

In e i t h e r

Treatment,"

obedience in

61

consciousness

feeling

The s u b j e c t

f o r Lagache t he h y p n o t i s t

f r om s u g g e s t i o n ,

sychical

over

p.

which " t e m p o r a r i l y d i s p o s s e s s e s

a fact

power of

Fo r F r e u d , result

degree of c o n t r o l

the h y p n o t i s t

t h e ego i d e a l . "

as

a

t h e power of s u g g e s t i o n .

an i mage of

a wa r e

gains

(Kubie,

body i s e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y

the

suggestion

of the

"The

subject

own i n i t i a t i v e "

Suc h

are c a r r ie d

subject

hypnotized

sense

ma n ne r out

influence

increased"

involves

of w i l l

in

wh i c h

reveals of

( “ P-

.

.

and this

. that

t h e mi nd o v e r

("Psychical Treat-

^ ° " T h e i n c o mi n g s t i m u l i become i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r om t h e s e l f , s e e m i n g l y a s e n d o g e n o u s a s t h e s u b j e c t ' s own t h o u g h t s a n d ^ f e e l i n g s ” ( Ku b i e , p. 6 1 2 ) . "Est mi s à la place de l'Idéal du moi " (La p s y c h a n a l y s e , p. 1 0 4 ) . De p r u n c i t e s Freud i n su pp or t of t hj L| p o s i t i o n ( " L e c i n é ma e t l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " p . 3 7 ) . Jones describes suggestion in terms of "a hyperc a t h e x i s of one t r a i n o f t h o u g h t w i t h h y p o - c a t h e x i s of mos t others. The s t a t e o f r e l a x a t i o n , o r . . . of p h y s i c a l i n ­ hibition, i s d o u b t l e s s t h e r e a s o n why t h e j u d g e m e n t of e x ­ t e r n a l r e a l i t y c a n be so p r o f o u n d l y a f f e c t e d , and w i t h t h i s is also lost the c r i t i c i s m of e n d o p s y c h i c ideation, in­ cluding repression. . . . T h e s e two l a t t e r fu n c tio n s are two o u t of t h e s i x w h i c h F r e u d c r e d i t s t h a t p a r t o f t h e ego whi ch he t e r ms the ego-ideal" ( “ The Ma t u r e of Au t o S u g g e s t i o n , " i n P a p e r s on P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s , p. 2 8 5 ) .

21 3

ment,”

p. 2 9 5 ) .

physically

When t h e h y p n o t i s t d i r e c t s

perceive various

suggestions,

t he s u b j e c t to

Fr eud

says,

t he

s u b j e c t p e r c e i v e s as " i n d r e a ms — he has been h a l l u c i n a t i n g " ( p.

296).

In o t h e r wor ds ,

t he me n t a l s u g g e s t i o n pr ovokes

the

a ppr opr iat e physical response (in c o n t ra st

to what t he

J a mes - Lange t h e o r y a r g u e s ) . Suggestion

f ol l ows

t he

r e s u l t i n g from s u g g e s t i o n l o g i c a l go a l ( b e l i e f s ,

pleasure

"may

either

develop

their

t h e i r s e n s o r i a l e l e me n t s ( h a l l u c i n a t o r y g r a t i f i c a t i o n ) "

(p.

ego

to s u g g e s t i o n has a weakened

( however t e m p o r a r i l y ) and a

sion to

narcissism,

i s s u e of w i l l

both

or

to

to

The s u b j e c t s u s c e p t i b l e

etc.)

ideas

regress

283).

j u d g e me n t s ,

principle;

g r e a t e r d e g r e e of r e g r e s ­

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s whi ch

r a i s e t he

( p. 2 8 9 ) .

The h y p n o t i z e d s u b j e c t and t he f i l m v i e w e r would t h e r e ­ fore

seem co s h a r e v a r i o u s

t he s u b j e c t

physically

scious w ill, illusions

ci nemat i c spective,

u nd e r go e s

and e x p e r i e n c e s s u b j e c t i v e

and

phantasy,

D e s c r i p t i o n s of

phasize physical stimuli;

relaxes,

and h a l l u c i n a t i o n s .

lucinations, wi t h i t .

characteristics.

Hypn o s i s ,

i mmo b i l i t y ;

t he

and

t he

narrative

l i k e dr ea ms ,

i mages p a s s i n g a c r o s s t he s c r e e n .

situation of

em­

external

a t t e n t i o n t hr ou gh

i n c o r p o r a t i o n of and

hal­

i n r e a l i t y al ong

reduction

techniques;

of co n­

phenomena a k i n to

spectator's

t he f o c u s i n g of t h e s p e c t a t o r ' s technique,

a loss

brings b el i e f the

In each ca s e

monoc ul ar p e r ­ t he

To a d e g r e e ,

r hyt hm

of

i n o r d e r to

214

understand external factors

the n a r r a t i v e , discourse

indicate

cinematic

While

the

hypnotized Mitry

the

for

the

locates

but

in a

to

consciousness

this

process (p.

the

ego

et

ideal."

object 6

once

for

serves

the

film

l'id en tificatio n ," ego i d e a l

not

of

which

with

“i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is

through self

Mitry

p.

in "the

equates of

the

" a d o u b l e who t a k e s

3

filmviewing

a nd

Because

spectator

the

the

trigger

an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

this

the

of

e x p l a i n what

renunciation

In the

the

ego i d e a l

transference

183).

of h i s / h e r

as

not

substitute

of

object,"

of the

experiences.

("Le cinéma

which p e r m i t s

with his

However,

he d o e s

control

an

These

with hypnosis

the

screen

subject's

through

catharsis

place

filmgoer,

him/her

identification

being

contributes

internalize

in hypnosis.

kinship

the

has

with

its

Deprun l o c a t e s

a substitute

other"

through

mu s t

as

sources.

as

hypnosis,

that

own,

ego by e x t e r n a l

hypnotizing

38).

spectator

as h i s / h e r

apparatus

spectator's

the

self

hypnosis does

are not

not

identical

entirely

lose

or body,

filmic h y p n o s i s — o r such s o - c a l l e d hyp­ nosis—is nothing o th er than a voluntary joining in, albeit unconsciously. The 'coadaptation', the 'affective and sensorial f i x a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t on t h e object of h i s c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' , i s n e i t h e r imitation, nor modification but — — —

— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I n t h i s " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n de j e c t i s "un double qui prend (p. 184).

l ' ê t r e à son o b j e t , " l a p l a c e de l'id éal

th e ob­ du mo i "

215

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of ' l i b e r a t e d ' by t h e In

addition,

the

state

modality"

irregularity tract

the d i f f i c u l t i e s

hypnoidal

"sensory

and

a prior w ill suddenly contemplated actio n .

of

include does

not

cinema's

At o n e

point

the

fact

suffice

visual

m a i n t a i n an a l e r t

w h i c h may c o n t r i b u t e

of achieving that

rhythms,

to a n o n-hypnoid al that

that

in

the degree

"the

true

sugges t l o n s tion

makes

notic

its

therapeutic

made d u r i n g it

state,

argued,

then

concern,

as

films

of

easier at

it

the

suggests

To the

111). that

leads

to

argue

the and

kinship

possibility

of

whether

He

factor

state

also

may

c o mme nt s

lies

The f i r s t

If

this

b e c o me s a of

wh a t

this

is

in the

observa­

creates

b e t we e n ci nema cinematic

to a t ­

one

hypnotic

extent.

question

The

e

cinema

second o b s e r v a t i o n

612).

only

of h y p n o s i s

to a c e r t a i n

may be s u g g e s t i n g

situation.

(p.

to argue

least

the

it"

o f one

state.

intensity. value

p.

designed

is

fi

vary

control

(Kubie,

attention,

Freud n o t e s

and m a i n t a i n i n g

an h y p ­ c a n be

matter

of

individual a

healthy

and h y p n o s i s

manipulations

having

_ _

L ' h y p n o s e f i l m i q u e — ou prétendue te lle —n'est autre qu'une adhési on c o n s e n t i e , le f û t - e l l e inconsciemment. La ' c a p t a t i o n du m o i ' , l a ' f i x a t i o n s e n s o r i e l l e , a f f e c t i v e , du sujet s u r l ' o b j e t de s a c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' n ' e s t n i i m i t a t i o n , ni altération, mais le fait d'un vouloir antérieur soudainement ’ l i b é r é ’ par l'acte contemplé" (Mitry, pp. 190-91; w r i t t e n in d i r e c t r e f u t a t i o n of Cohen-Séat). The "captation du moi” r e f e r s to a mutual evolutionary p r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the meshing of behaviors, as in a ma ti ng or dominance r i t u a l among fish, birds, or animals generally . " H y p n o s i s " ( 1 8 9 3 ) , SE, 1 , p. 1 1 0 .

215

a

healthy

through

influence

the

potential

tions.

To a c c e p t

positive

value

and

their

of

Accepting

duringfilm research" ma k e s

a call

6 8

for

).

value

and t h e

may s t i l l that

never She

their

that

large

sugges­ of

the

suggestions

neutral. be e n o u g h .

"heightened

been s u b j e c t e d

which has

at

acceptance

idea

not

pinpoints

research

of

an

ideologically

this

has

and s o c i e t y

view i m p l i e s

observed

s h ows (p.

this

may be

all

Keir

therapeutic

suggestion,

sources

Gertrude

on i n d i v i d u a l s

related yet

I n 1949

suggestibility to

scientific

problems

and

t o be a n s w e r e d .

In p a r t i c u l a r i t s e e ms e s s e n t i a l t o h a v e accurate i n f o r m a t i o n on some o f t h e f o l ­ lowing p o i n t s : 1 . The a mo u n t o f s u g g e s t i b i l i t y i n d u c e d by the s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s -of t h e c i n e m a h o u s e and t h e s p e c i a l medi um o f t h e f i l m , as o p p o s e d to o t h e r media o f ma s s com­ munication. 2. The e x t e n t to which opinions, a t ­ titudes and sentiments of the film audience undergo change as a r e s u l t of seeing films. 3. The d e g r e e t o which s u b s e q u e n t b e ­ haviour is a l t e r e d as a r e s u l t of th e s e changed attitudes, sentiments and op i n i o n s . 4 . The d i f f e r e n c e i n a l l t h e s e r e s p e c t s between a u d i e n c e s of v a r i o u s a g e - g r o u p s , different s e x and v a r y i n g s o c i o - e c o n o m i c backgrounds (p. 72). Although their Until

such

results

'effects

r ema in open

empirical

fashion,

studies'

research

we r e m a i n u n a b l e

have

to d e b a te c a n be to

(see

been pp.

completed

carried

out,

117-18 s u p r a ). in a convincing

speak c o n c l u s i v e l y

of

hypnosis

217

a nd left

its

effects

with

the

dependent specific

on t h e c i n e m a t i c

possibility

upon film,

individual

filmviewing

D i s c u s s i o n of process, transfer ory. the

face

screen

of

of

a yo u n g

of

to

very lik e

The

of

the

key p o i n t s

ideal,

and

it,

into

dependence

of

presupposition viewing, tenable,

which

of

this

to

si mpl y

film t h e ­

need onl y

that

film

hypnosis,

Unlike

part

study

or

the

through

lack

o f p e r c e p t i o n which

of

enlighten

interaction

own.

of

hypnosis

as

form o r

sim ilarities

Transference:

with

that,

active

to w ha te ve r

between

under­

the

cinema. the

ego

an

in­

even should

process extent,

filmviawing

Ci ne ma a s Sympt om

dis­

our

t r a n s f e r e n c e — have

T h i s me a n s

or

ques­

its

discussion— identification,

processes their

may

bear c o n s id e ra tio n .

iii.

a simple

one c a n n o t

one

problems

the

o f h a l l u c i n a t i o n — c a n be c o n f i d e n t l y

in whatever the

to

i s not

play.

hypnosis— in

spectator's

the

possibility

a television

oneself

as a p o s s i b i l i t y

standing

it

of hypnosis

watching

the

a

a nd s p e c t a t o r .

show t h a t

say t h a t

come s

A g a i n we a r e

inherent

that

convince

connection with

hamper d i s c u s s i o n cussed

to

child

hallucination,

direct

s hows

concepts

tempting

in order

something tion

is

effect,

circumstances,

criticisms

psychoanalytic it

an

variables

hypnosis

a nd K e i r ' s

Yet

of

spectator.

in

the

film-

be c ome u n ­

and h y p n o s i s

218

I n che a n a l y t i c the a n a l y s t

situation

the

patient

frequently

takes

for

the reincarnation of some important figure o u t o f h i s c h i l d h o o d o r p a s t , and c o n s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f e r s on t o hi m f e e l i n g s and r e a c t i o n s wh i c h undoubtedly applied to t h i s p r o t o t y p e . . . . This trans­ ference is ambivalent ; it comprises positive ( a f f e c t i o n a t e ) as we l l as n e g a ­ tive (hostile) attitudes towards the a n a l y s t , who as a r u l e i s put in the p la ce of one o r o t h e r of the p a t i e n t ' s parents ( “O u t l i n e of Psycho-Analysis," p p . 17 4 - 7 5 ) . Freud s t r e s s e s ference,

identifying

ference with occur

t he s i m i l a r i t y bet ween the

"universal

hypnosis

p h e no me no n" of

the s u g g e s t i b i l i t y n e c e s s a r y

("Autobiographical

" e m o t i o n a l bond" t o t h e

Study," hypnotist

sexual

in nature

and due

to the

fantile

attachment

to a p a r e n t . " ^

and t r a n s ­

p. is

42.)

trans­

for hypnosis The

to

subject's

considered

r e - a n i m a t i o n of

"to

be

an i n ­

Duri ng the p r oce ss of indu cin g h y p n o s i s , a constellation of conscious and unconscious a t t i t u d e s a r i s e s bet ween the hypnotist and the subject, in wh i c h m a n i f o l d l i b i d i n a l d i s p l a c e m e n t s and s u b ­ stituted object relationships (i.e. , t r a n s f e r e n c e p he n o me n a ) a r e a c t i v e . When the h y p n o t i c s t a t e i s f u l l y a c h i e v e d , an extensive carry-over occurs f r om this pre-hypnotic relationship into the con­ t e n t of t h e hypnotic state, comparable p r e c i s e l y to the c a r r y - o v e r i n t o the con^ J o n e s , "The N a t u r e o f Auto-Suggestion," p. 277 ; see F r e u d , " P s y c h i c a l T r e a t m e n t , " p. 2 9 5 . De pr un f u l l y a c c e p t s this p o s i t i o n ; s e e "Le c i n é ma e t l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " p. 3 7 .

21 9

t e n t of any d ream of t h e r e s i d u e s from t h e e m o t i o n a l l y i n c o m p l e t e e x p e r i e n c e s of t h e p r e c e d i n g day (Kubie, p. 618; see Lagache, p s y c h a n a l y s e , p. 1 0 4 ) . Transference number

of ways,

reincarnates superego the

the

parents,

authority

for

the

it

what

sort

they

are power

'bad'

can of

can c o r r e c t in

to

cause

or

'bad';

structure

mistakes him"

then, the

of

the

analyst

analyst the

takes

which h i s

thus

cinema

The

on

and,

ultim ately,

parents issue

of

down

to

We m u s t

ask

boils

puts

itself

a

" T h e new s u p e r ­

175).

the

is

in

because

an a f t e r - e d u c a t i o n .

involved

cure

af t e r - e d u c a t ion of

for

(p.

transference such

the If

patient.

a sort

educating

suggestions

'good'

parents,

for

of

some n o t .

with

relation it

progress

positive,

patient's

responsible

whether

the

an o p p o r t u n i t y

neurotic;

cinema's

of

the

superego's

were

some

originates

e g o now h a s the

affects

forward; whether

inherently

whether the

sort

'good'

or

, 67

Deprun sim ilar

to

and L e b o v i c i the

transference

analyst/analysand identification

speak of

as

relation. possessing

a cinematic which

Citing "two

transference

occurs

Freud, values:

in

Deprun sp e a k s regressive

the of and

^ F e m i n i s t s c o mmo n l y raise this last q u e s t i o n about the analyst/analysand r e l a t i o n , s i n c e most a n a l y s a n d s tend to be women w h i l e the a n a l y s t s tend to be me n. Lacan a ls o concerned himself with the q u e stio n of power s t r u c t u r e s . His discomfort with the concept of a 'm aster/pupil' framework e v e n t u a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d to the d i s s o l u t i o n of h i s school during the '7 0 s.

220

unhealthy and

whe n i t

progressive

Deprun

later

these

t wo

fore

is

asks

fluence

of

related

situated

power

to of

at

the

being

rises

forms

order

analysand's

it

a third

whether

in

analyst's

whe n

adds

identification, posedly

concerns

to

sort,

of

the

the level

filmic

the

cinema

hypnosis halfway can,

render

identification

the

however,

with

the

point.

"like

the

action."

This

and

influence

influence,

of

fecund

identification,

identification. to

object;

Deprun analyst,

im possible.

analyst

to

"film ic

dream,

derives

68

sup­ there­

use

in­

" 70

The

from

the

during

the

68" "Deux v a l e u r s : r é g r e s s i v e et morbide quand e l l e c o n ­ cerne 1 ' être de l ' o b j e t ; f é c o n d e e t p r o g r e s s i v e q u a n d e l l e s ' é l è v e a u p l a n du f a i r e " ( " L e c i n é m a e t l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " p. 3 8 ) . " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h r o u g h a c t i o n i s t h u s b o r n from a renunciation o f i m m e d i a t e p l e a s u r e , a nd f r o m a n a c c e p t a n c e of t h e v i t a l t a s k ; i t t r i g g e r s an e n s e m b l e of p o s i t i v e a c t s and o r i e n t s itself toward the outside. Identification through being is essentially regressive. Born o f an u n ­ healthy attachment to an immediate pleasure, it resu scitates archaic mechanisms of the o r a l l i b i d o where one i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e loved one. It is a narcissistic retreat into oneself, a return to i n f a n t i l e e r o t i c forms. I t w i l l not g e n e ra te behavior, but will express itself m agically through d r e a ms and symptoms"; " l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sur l e mode du f a i r e n a î t d o n c d ' u n r e n o n c e m e n t a u p l a i s i r immédiat, d'une a c c e p ta tio n de l a tache v i t a l e ; e l l e déc l a n c h e [ s i c ] un e n s e m b l e d'actes positifs et s'oriente v ers le d e h o r s . L ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u r l e mode d e l ' ê t r e e s t essentiellem ent régressive. Née d ' u n a t t a c h e m e n t m o r b i d e à la j o u i s s a n c e immédiate, elle ressuscite les mécanismes a r c h a ï q u e s de l a libido orale où l ' o n s'incorpore l 'ê t r e aimé. C ' e s t un r e p l i n arcissiq u e sur soi, un r e t o u r a u x f o r m e s i n f a n t i l e s de l ' é r o s . E l l e n ' e n g e n d r e r a p a s de c o n ­ d u i t e , mais s ' e x p r i m e r a magiquement dans le rêve e t dans le sygjjtôme" ( i b i d . ) "L 'identification f i l m i q u e , p a r e n t e d e l ' h y p n o s e e t du r ê v e , se s i t u e r a i t à m i - c h e m i n " ( " C i n é m a e t T r a n s f e r t , " pp. *ô?7 ) "Comme l ' a n a l y s t e , l'in f lu e n c e impossible" 2 0

user de (p. 207).

l'in flu en ce

pour

rendre

221

process

of

transference:

analyst

acted

gendered.

" 71

then,

the

achieved in

through

the

terms

of

In

rigor at

maintains

of

the

a cinematic

of

from t h e

film

imposes

cinematic

through

situation its

because

transference

liberation

the

than

his

which h i s

the

presence

en­

too

mu c h .

(eventually

analyst)

possible

not

component,

identification

differs

i mage

the

transference

independence

the

image,

identificatory

a psychoanalytic

cinema

a sort

which

" Mo r e

from o u t s i d e

be

involved

The p a t i e n t leading

in the

cannot

face

to

a

of

the

patient.

In

transference

ldent1 f icat ion, . . . fo rb id s the screen from effecting that lib eration. When i t is hypnotic, it will impose on me a lasting fascination which will survive the film a nd l e a d a silent life within me. When authentic a nd enriching, it w i l l c o r r e c t t h e g e n e r a l s c h e m e o f my a c ­ tions. . . . In order for the filmic image t o g e n e r a t e o n l y a t r a n s f e r e n c e , i t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y f o r i t t o t a k e w ^ h o u t g i v i n g , l e a v i n g no t r a c e w i t h i n me. On provide

the a

other

form of

psychoanalytic

hand,

the

projection

transference.

cinematic

resembling Having

situation that

found

recognized

the

does in

the

rela-

" " P l u s que par son image, l'an aly ste agissait par la s i t u a t i o n q u ' e n g e n d r a i t sa p r é s e n c e " ( i b i d . ). " L* i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . . . interdit à l'écran d'opérer cette libération. H y p n o t i q u e , e l l e m ' i m p o s e r a une f a s c i n a ­ tion d u r a b l e q u i s u r v i v r a a u f i l m e t m è n e r a en moi u ne v i e sourde. Authentique et e n ric h is s a n te , e l l e r e c t i f i e r a le s c h e m e g é n é r a l d e mes gestes. . . . Pour que l'image filmique n'engendrât qu'un t r a n s f e r t , il faudrait qu'elle prît s a n s d o n n e r , ne l a i s s â t e n moi a u c u n e t r a c e " ( l b i d . ) .

222

cion

b e Cwe e n

presents the

itself

cinema

isolates

projeccion in

clearer

guarantee

the

t wo c o n d i t i o n s

firmative

and

cransference,

terms:

In

projection

its

of

w h i c h would

"che

current

state 7 3

complexes?'

be n e c e s s a r y

problem

for

can

Deprun an a f ­

answer:

t h a t the complexes be represented, ex­ pelled from t h e i r d a r k d e p t h s , p r e s e n t e d from without like manageable objects; th at, projected o u t s i d e me , s e t up i n a s o r t of o p e r a t i n g room, they are^diss o l v e d and a r e l o s t t h e r e f o r e v e r . " Basically, these

he

says,

"l'attitu d e

filmique"

does

satisfy

requirements. Despite everything the filmic image r e m a i n s o u t s i d e me; i t g i v e s a n o b j e c t i v e body t o my d r e a m s . . . . In o r d e r to e x ­ orcize them I w i l l o n l y h a v e t o s h u t my eyes. Present formerly within ip|, the s c r e e n now r e p r e s e n t s t h e m t o me.

In

other

73

words,

the

nebulous

anxiety

of

the

subject

finds

a

Le p r o b l è m e se pose en t e r m e s plus n e ts : l e cinéma p e u t - i l dans son état présent, assurer la p r o j e c t i o n des c o t p j j l e x e s ?" "Que l e s c o m p l e x e s s o i e n t figurés, expulsés de leur tréfond obscur, présentés du d e h o r s a i n s i que des o b j e t s m aniables ; que, p r o j e t é s h o r s de moi, i n s t a l l é s d a n s une sorte d'espace o p é ra to ire , ils s'y d isso lv e n t, s'y perdent s a ^ | re to u r" (p. 207). "L'Image film ique r e s t e malgré to u t h o r s de m o i ; e l l e d o n n e un c o r p s objectif à mes r ê v e s . . . . Je puis les d é t a c h e r de moi , l e s t r a i t e r en o b j e t s m a n i a b l e s . Pour les exorciser je n ' a u r a i q u 'à f e rm e r le s yeux. Présents jadis e n m o i , l ' é c r a n m a i n t e n a n t me l e s r e p r é s e n t e " ( l b i d . ) .

223

mo r e

specific

nosis"

of

target,

cinema

Lebovici sim ilarly

takes

also

and

in

this

way t h e

on a p o s i t i v e

discusses

on p r o j e c t i o n .

"partial

hyp­

force.

a cinematic

transference

based

Therefore

one w i l l be able to speak . . . of a state of t r a n s f e r e n c e between the f i l m i c s p e c t a c l e and the spectator, certainly facilitated by t h e s t a t e o f e m p a t h y t h a t we have so u g h t to d e f in e . This t r a n s ­ ference is essentially individual, because the film is not a collective spectacle, b u t i s a d d r e s s e d i t s ^ f t o an i n d i v id u a l i s o l a t e d in the dark.

Still,

t wo d i s t i n c t i o n s

ference

and

noted.

A degree

analytic that

supposed of

attempts

Mor e

to

avoid

plays

an

transference

tempers

the

the

any s u c h

the

important

role

for

the

must

to want

be the

leave

situation a nd d e s i r e .

therapeutic the

of

to

cinematic

in

trans­

pleasure

displeasure

within

t o be a p r e r e q u i s i t e

the

subject

contrast,

importantly,

transference taken

causing In

the p s y c h o a n a ly tic

cinematic

displeasure

situation,

situation.

usually

is

a

between

cure

patient's

context since

it

successful

7^"The s c r e e n g i v e s them f or m, s i t u a t e s them i n a w o r l d which, a lth o u g h mine, remains the world. The y e s c a p e ae a nd I e s c a p e t h e m " ; " l ' é c r a n l e u r d o n n e un c o r p s , l e s s i t u e dans un mo n d e , qui pour ê t r e mi e n r e s t e l_e mo n d e . Ils m ' ^ h a p p e n t et je le u r échappe" ( i b i d . ) . "On p o u r r a p a r l e r . . . d ' u n é t a t de t r a n s f e r t e n t r e l e spectacle f i lm iq u e et le s p e c t a t e u r , c e r t a i n e m e n t f a c i l i t é p a r l ' é t a t d ' e m p a t h i e que n o u s a v o n s c h e r c h é à d é f i n i r . Ce t r a n s f e r t e s t e s s e n t i e l l e m e n t i n d i v i d u e l , car le film n ' e s t p a s un s p e c t a c l e c o l l e c t i f , mais s'adresse à un i n d i v i d u i s o l é dans l ' o b s c u r i t é " (p. 55).

2 24

re-working

of

past,

relations.

That

conscious.

Ye t

problematic

reworking in

processed— but

never

scious

is

insight

terrors

and

while

would h a v e

while

because

order.

s/he

manifested

manifestation cinema,

has

intention.

are

mi me d,

cracks

definition

not

junctures

of

of in

the

there the

8 6

).

79

o r on t h e

The s y mp t o m,

conflicts

enters

a parallel the

Instead,

a

is

the

the

transference

level. analytic

situa­

mental

patient

and

the

dis­

"Since of

film

ideology

or c o n s c i o u s l y ,

as

t h e human s u b j e c t "

are

by

the d i s -

repressions

an e x p r e s s i o n ,

the

in dominant

r e g a r d e d as a n a l o g o u s

of

however,

expressed

c a n be d r a w n b e t w e e n

of unconscious

bodies

con­

self-consciously

s y mp t o ms o f

smooth o p e r a t i o n

be

for

words,

cinematic

into

are

our deepest

other

in s o c i e t y :

may

material

sense,

an u n c o n s c i o u s

intentionally

text

"past

at of

manifested

symptomatic m a n i f e s t a t i o n discourses

at

s y mp t o ms

such

simultaneously

occurs

current

making

In

any s o r t

by

affecting

psychoanalytic

the

presumably

To some e x t e n t ,

s y mp t o ms

the

t o be o p e r a t i n g

The s u b j e c t tion

cinema

transference

level,

at

d enied." 78

are

psychoanalytic conscious

not

longings

they

a i ms

the in

material

to

the

in

the

(Kuhn,

p.

a discharge,

_ _ _ _

Harvey G r e e n b e r g , Du^on,

1 975 ) ,

p.

The

M o v i e s on

Your Mi nd

(New Y o r k :

3.

If t h e cinema " wa s an object dedicated to c o n v e y i n g ideology, it wa s , o f all cultural objects, also t h e one which, in b e s t emphasizing the symptomatic s i d e , was t h e one mo s t c o m p r o m i s e d by t h a t which i d e o l o g y f u n c t i o n e d to conceal” ; "un o b j e c t voué à v é h i c u l a r l ' i d é o l o g i e , il fut aussi, de t o u s l e s o b j e t s de c u l t u r e , c e l u i q u i en accusa

225

of

misplaced

energy.

representational cess,

to

the

of

take

cinematic

and

apparatuses

common t o

both.

psychic

apparatus

unconscious. Too g r e a t psychic

sychological relative life

as

force

based

and

whole.

on the

creates of

is the

a nd

these

respect

of

the

representation

only

the part

between

e c onomi c model

appear

of our

sim ilarities

in

unbalanced

p o in t reminds

of

as

schema the us

of

the the

existence. between

apparatus

the

energy flow

scenarios

filmviewing within

Kuntzel's

of

representation"

comparison

cinematic an

all

ex­

80

phantasy,

phantasy

energy,

v alu e— with

on c o n t r o l and

in

importance a

48).

narrative-

of

that

a p p a r a t u s e s : The

emphasis

apparatus

narration

further

Narrative

Ye t

an

a

is

discharge

m e a n i n g — and

2 , ” p.

psychic

be m i s t a k e n :

on c o n d i t i o n

of

suggests

not

allows

on

e c o n o my

"Film-Work,

This

only

confusion,

code

global

(Kuntzel,

both

film

disorder,

ruptures

"Let's

the

a metapof

the

spectator's that

the

aussi l e m i e u x l e v e r s a n t s y m p t o m a t i q u e , e t f u t de ce f a i t le p l u s c o m p r o m i s a v e c c e que l ' i d é o l o g i e a v a i t p o u r f o n c t i g g de c o u v r i r " ( O u d a r t , i n D a n e y / O u d a r t , p. 4 4 ) . "Ne p a s s : y t r o m p e r : l e f i l m n a r r a t i f - r e p r é s e n t a t i f ne peut admettre de décharge d'énergie, de dépense, de désordre, de t r o u b l e , q u e si t o u t e s ces r u p t u r e s du c o d e p r e n n e n t un s e n s , v a l e n t p a r r a p p o r t à u n e é c o n o m i e g l o b a l e de la n a r r a t i o n et de l a r e p r é s e n t a t i o n " (p. 176). "The elementary n arrativ e t h u s i n c l u d e s t wo types of ep iso d es: t h o s e which describe a state of equilibrium or dise­ q u i l i b r i u m , and th ose which d e s c r ib e the t r a n s i t i o n from one to t h e o t h e r " ; "le récit élémentaire comporte deux types d 'é p i s o d e s : ceux qui d é c r i v e n t un é t a t d ' é q u i l i b r e ou de d é sé q u ilib re , et ceux qu i d é c r iv e n t le p a s s a g e de l'un à l ’a u tre " (Tzvetan Todorov, The Fantastic, op. 1 6 3 - 6 4 ; q u o t e d i n K u n t z e l , p . 5 0 ; p. 1 7 ? ) .

226

spectator

does

This life

of

cases only

raises

think to

cusses

the

role of

the

see

that

ritual,

to

Except

permitting

the

dividuals.

Such

psychoanalytic individual

we n e e d

works

as

psychoanalysis by

mor e

to our

relation

to

understanding film

pleasure,

limited

primarily

case

of

as a whole Turner's personal a

centers and

the

t h e ego

spectator's the

analysis and

ideal

of

relations

allows

to

the

experience cinema's

of

the

of

ego as

ritual For

a structure among

understanding

collective

on

indirectly

insertion

film while

of

mo v i n g

individual.

activity,

framework

contributions

m u s t be

social

renegotiation a

to

topic.

visual

the

dis­

obsessive

i n Gr o u p P s y c h o l o g y , an a n a l y s i s

of

acknowledging

"cult

as Bridge

to s o c i e t y

discussions

daily

ritualistic;

practiced

contribution

the

it

is

the

I n many

Whi l e

as

In c o n t r a s t ,

ritual

as

in

framework.

certain

so.

particular

in

individual

extrapolated.

to

is

fantasy/phantasy,

from

ously

social

spectator's

describes

Turner

a

Borderline

Freud

avoids

within

role

d isc ip lin e — anthropology--has

Psychoanalysis'

ideal.

cinema's

this

this

Liminality:

desire,

of

particularly

contribute

individual

issue

reference

another

the

by c i n e m a a l o n e .

has been d e s c r i b e d

neurotics,

C.

live

individuals

this

films"

not

in­ of

of the

simultane­

aspect.

227

Ritual throughout has

has this

changed

respect. tions acts

as

role,

dividuals received

the

but

to

possibility practice.

for

view

of Turner

changing

both

Turner's earlier

w o r k on

research

on r i t e s

of

for

a stabilizing

safely

enables

translation

in­

of

the

experience,

with

the

accepted

view

and pat­

w h i c h c o me s

to

the

while

forms

derives

fore

opposing

structures

in T u r n e r 's

ritual

Dayan,

behavioral

ritual

it

most

of

o f c o mmu n a l

lim inality

argued

level

transition,

words,

it

the

a basic

of

play

society's

practical

period

or

that

func­

participants

influenced

indeed

reason

ritual

transition,

has

ma y

their

later

it

Consequently,

view,

structures

In o th e r

ritual

A

social

change.

view.

of

particular

that

parts.

into

model

o ne

its

and

anthropologists'

in

maintains

world

concept

placing

the

posits

anthropologists

force,

ritual

question

world

years

(whose work

that

by

theoretical

position

their

by T u r n e r

suggests

terns

over

stabilizing in

studied

their

confirm a received

rigidly

social

the

century;

radically

a

notably one),

widely

The e a r l i e r

to

fairly

been

part

of

the

during earlier

which never a period

of

terms. from

Van

passage.

Van Gennep . . . s e e ms t o h a v e i n t e n d e d t h a t h i s t e r m ' r i t e o f p a s s a g e ' s h o u l d be us ed b o t h f o r r i t u a l s a c c o m pa n yi ng an i n ­ d i v i d u a l ' s or a cohort of individuals’ change in s o c i a l s t a t u s , and for those a s s o c i a t e d with se aso n a l changes f o r an entire s o c i e t y . . . . The t e r m h a s come to be u s e d a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y i n c o n n e c -

Gennep's

228

t i o n wich . . . ' l i f e - c r i s i s ' r i t u a l s . I have t r i e d to revert to van Gennep's e a r l i e r usage in regarding almost all types of r i t e s as^^having the p r o c e s s u a l form of ' p a s s a g e ' .

Turner

identifies

three

characteristic

limen,

in

signifying 82

tion."

such

his

Th e

title

concept

transition,

of T u r n e r 's ritual.

the

boundaries

overlapping

tinguishing each

living, between

o 1

defines

fixed

and to

different

”

those

a watershed, and

after

society

relatively

need

chaos haps

opposition

a before

in

of

margin

Latin),

article

and

a tripartite

of

the

shift

process time,

of it

from tim e b u t w i t h

rite

a relative

the

through

abstracted

(or

aggrega-

emphasizes

a passage

isolates

de p a s s a g e — t h e

point

significantly

in

time

dis­

different

from

other. Turner

the

"separation,

Fr om

duration

a stable

marking

" t r a n s i t i o n ” and

moments:

becomes

passage

with

'threshold'

of

with

rites

a nd

both for

for

to

"a

process

well-bonded

.

.

.

fixed

them,

hu ma n

'flo atin g boundaries

opportunities

return

as

to

break

perhaps

to

in

group

w orlds'." as

a

these

8

3

which

alternates He s t r e s s e s

defense

against

boundaries,

generate

any

new,

per­

slightly

boundaries.

Fr om Ri t u a l to Theatre (New York: Performing Arts J o g j n a l P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 2 4 . " L i m i n a l i t y and Communitas," in Th e Ri t u a l Process ( I g l j a c a , N. Y . : C o r n e l l ' J n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 6 9 ) , p . 9 4 . " F o r e w o r d , " i n Th e R i t u a l Process, p. vi i ; emphasis mine.

229

These l i m i n a l a r e a s of t i m e and s p a c e — rituals, c a r n i v a l s , d r a m a s , and l a t t e r l y film s— are open to t h e play of t h o u g h t , feeling, and w i l l ; i n t he m a r e g e n e r a t e d new m o d e l s , often fantastic, some of which may h a v e sufficient po we r and p l a u s i b i l i t y to replace eventually the force-backed p o l i t i c a l and j u r a l models that c o n t r o l the c e n t e r s of a s o c i e t y ' s ongoing l i f e ( i b i d . ). Th u s

the

havior at

film

unacceptable

least

to

vicariously.

perience, where

spectator

a period

of

psychoanalytic

enters

a liminal

world

in which be ­

the outside

w o r l d may be i n d u l g e d ,

Filmviewing

b e c o me s

exploring

role

wo r k on t h e

ego

a

models, ideal

liminal i.e.,

ex­

an a r e a

h a s much t o c o n ­

tribute. It

is

ultimately the

(spectator),

ritual;

night

substitutes, who

the

latest

movie,

showings

stance,

a

anything This

days,

example

certainly o f The

definitely

exceptional evoked

b e c o me s

commercial

midnight

accepted

from r e l i g i o u s

priest

earliest

generally

perhaps

to

or

acts,

a passive

the

derives

or r i t u a l s ,

in which

for

the

worshipper From i t s

t he cinema

h a s been compared

of

film

the

cult

supports

extent

response"

this

a

the

p h e n o me n o n ,

comparison.

Picture

that

Show,

ritualistic this

from t h e

in audience

use of

following

theater

participant.

Roc ky H o r r o r

before

secularized

group e x p e r i e n c e

ceremonies,

t o o k on a p e c u l i a r l y

"dialectical witnessed

that

the Mi d ­

for

in­

aspect,

particular audience

to

film

unlike

behavior.

term r i t u a l

prescribed

refers

pattern

of

to a be-

2 30

havior. direct

For

Mitry,

connections

F o r hi m a r t , particular between

terms

of

with

origins

in

sorts

r o l e — to

mediate

between

real the

the

and

ideal

spectator's

tion

real

the

the

distinction

status

observes

experience

certain

spectator's in

its

the

i.e.,

the

emphasizes

though,

between

qua s p e c t a t o r

world

and

for

ritual.

spectacle, us

a nd

18).

of argues

a state

has

the

and

this

spectacle

participation; against of

a

world,

In e f f e c t ,

real

degree

h a s mor e

religious

of

(p.

of a rt

in the

participa­

passivity.

Met z

t h a t where the dreamer does not know that he is dreaming, the film s p e c ta to r knows t h a t he i s at the cinema. . . . We s o m e t i m e s speak of the i l l u s i o n of r e a l i t y in . . . [dream or f i l m ] , but . . . i t is b e t t e r to l i m i t o n e s e l f to remarking the ex­ istence of a c e r t a i n i m p r e s s i o n o f r e a l ­ i t y (I_S, p. 1 0 1 ) .

F o r Me t z is

it

inversely

or,

lusion

that

"the degree

proportional

we may s a y ,

how t h e

34

follows

that

of

of r e a l i t y ,

is but

duped

into

how t h e

of

wakefulness"

c o n s c i o u s n e s s . 3 5 The q u e s t i o n

spectator

:Le r ê:v e u r

to

of i l l u s i o n

fully

(p.

106),

b e c o me s

accepting

spectator's

reality

pleasure

not

the

il­

in

the

ne s a i t pas q u ' i l rêve, le s p e c t a t e u r du f i l m s a i t q u ' i l e s t au c i n é m a . . . . On p a r l e p a r f o i s d ' i l ­ lusion de r é a l i t é . . . [ i n d r e a m or f i l m ] , mais . . . il v a u t mieux s ' e n tenir à noter l'e x iste n c e d'une c e r ta in e l m g g e s s i o n de r é a l i t é ” ( L S I , p . 1 2 3 ) . " Le d e g r é d e l'illusion de réalité est inversement p r o p o r t i o n n e l à c e l u i de l a v i g i l a n c e " ( p . 1 3 0 ) . F o r Me t z , the s p e c t a t o r i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a wa k e a nd y e t n o t e n t i r e l y so, a c o n d i t i o n resem b lin g th e hypnoid s t a t e .

231

illusion

depends

on

(Rosen,

pp.

409-10).

In

the

essay,

Octave

Mannoni

the

"Je

speaks

sais of

the

participant

the

spectator

at

have

a need

believe

to

in

knowledge

bien,

the

it

mais

q u a n d même

importance

initiation the

that

rites,

theater.

and

is

of

.

.,"

credulity

for

relates

Some a d u l t s ,

( C l e f s , p.

an i l l u s i o n "

.

this

to

he c o n c l u d e s ,

18).

Without a doubt, a l l things considered, b e l i e f c a n be e x p l a i n e d t h r o u g h d e s i r e . . . . Freud's discovery is that desire acts f r o m a d i s t a n c e on c o n s c i o u s m a t e r i a l a n d makes t h e l a w s of the primary process manifest there: Verleugnung [disavowal] (through which belief continues after r e p u d i a t i o n ) c a n be e x p l a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e p e r s i s t e n c e o f d g g i r e and t h e l a w s o f t h e primary process.'

In e f f e c t , case

with

rituals. .

.

.

.

this

.

.

.

.

ma k e s

a function

8

7

.

.

An .

.

.

the

film

sim ilar

important

to

into that

distinction

a fetish, of

the

between

but

in t h i s

fetish

in

these

t wo

.

“Sans d o u t e , en f i n de compte, la c ro y a n c e s ' e x p l i q u e par le d é s i r . . . . L a d é c o u v e r t e de F r e u d , c ' e s t que l e désir a g it à d istan ce sur le m atérial conscient et y f a i t se manifester les lois du processus primaire: la Verleugnung [disavowal] (par la q u e lle la c r o y a n c e se co n ­ tinue après r é p u d i a t i o n ) s ’ e x p l i q u e par l a p e r s i s t a n c e du d é g ^ r e t l e s l o i s du p r o c e s s u s p r i m a i r e ” ( p . 2 2 ) . Many c o n t e m p o r a r y a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , frustrated by the v a g u e n e s s w h i c h h a s come to characterize such terms as f e t i s h , totemism, shamanism, e t c . , have argued th a t they s h o u l d be a v o i d e d a s u s e l e s s o r w o r s e . Howsoever f e t i s h i s d e f i n e d w i t h i n a n t h r o p o l o g y , t h o u g h , i t s e e ms i m p o s s i b l e t o argue t h a t th e cinema or g i v e n f i l m f u n c t i o n s e x a c t l y l i k e a f e t i s h , i . e . , an object believed to be e n d o we d with religious powers. This remains t r u e d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f c i n e m a , p a r t i c u l a r l y c e r t a i n s t a r s , s e em to h a v e t a k e n on a r e l i g i o u s s t a t u s . (Consider the t r e a t -

232

usages the

must

fetish

social

be b o r n e is

role

a private,

for

According the

the

by

the

media

in

wedding

agrees.

it"

of

He t o o

plane,

screen. phenomena

before

television

p.

to

it

10).

Prince

Charles

and

leads

of

the

the as

real

explains ritual.

After to

in

emotional

because

a sense,

a

major or

Diana,

passes

88

which

studying

least

a

spectacle

arises

of being at

plays

rituals.

Jerusalem

Lady

whatever

the

9

and,

feeling

spectator,

8

it

reality"

unreal

screen

trip

that

psychoanalysis

group

of

the

Sadat's

to a c c e p t

terms

"feeling

"a w i t n e s s

argues

for

matter while

as

He t h e r e f o r e in

the

(Lotman,

such

a participant

tional

or

becomes

phenomena

royal

Lotman,

film

that

community d u r i n g

experiences

spectator

participant

and

to

v iz .,

individual

an e n t i r e

spectator

presented

in mind,

the

Dayan

a witness on a n e mo ­ across

impact

of

the such

90

ment a c c o r d e d t h e t o mb s o f Rudolph V a l e n t i n o , James Dean, Elvis Presley, etc., and the anniversaries of their degghs.) Se e Jean po u illo n , "Fétiches sans fétichism e,” in Fétiches sans fé tic h is m e ( P a r i s : F ran ço is Maspero, 1975), P•g^ ^ * And as Metz o b s e r v e s , t h i s " f e e l i n g of r e a l i t y " o c c u r s w i t h a l l f i l m s , w h e t h e r we c o n s i d e r f a n t a s y f i l m s l i k e S t a r Wa r s o r t h e u l t r a - r e a l i s m o f B i c y c l e Th1e f . S e e "A p r o p o s de l ' i m p r e s s i o n de r é a l i t é au c i n é m a , " in E s s a is s u r la s i g n i f i c a t i o n au ci né ma (Paris: Klincksieck, 1978), pp. 1 3 - 2 4 , e s p e c i a l l y p. 15. Lotman emphasizes th a t " I t was not s o mu c h a m a t t e r o f t h e unconditionally re liab le re­ p r o d u c t i o n o f a n o b j e c t , a s i t was t h e e m o t i o n a l c o n f i d e n c e of^ghe audience" (p. 1 2 ). Daniel Dayan, "Toward a Theory of Me d i a Events," D i v i s i o n on F i l m , MLA C o n v e n t i o n , New Y o r k , 28 D e c . 1 9 3 3 . This reference to Dayan's work oversim plifies what is a c tu a lly a very s tim u la tin g approach.

2 33

Wi ch r e g a r d speccacle

and

co

television,

riCual

nighcly

news.

The

provides

a cypical

is

mos c

following

chis

comparison

frequendy randomly

be Cwe e n

direcced

selecCed

ac

Che

quocacion

example:

Anocher feaCure of Che d e c a d e n c use of n e ws is ics increasing riCualizacion. The i n f o r m a c i o n becomes subservienc co Che form i n which i c i s d e l i v e r e d . News i s b r o a d c a s c e v e r y e v e n i n g w h e c h e r o r noc chere is v ic a l informaCion co be con­ veyed. . . . As i n any r i C u a l , che form persisCs e v p when a meaningful concent is missing.

If

Che n e ws h a s

grown c l o s e r (Wicness hoses Che

b e c o me

and

Che now

Co k i b i c z baccle

increasingly

closer

co

ricualized,

speccacle

comm on c e n d e n c y wich

for

each o c h e r .)

Lo c ma n s e e s

between

dominaCed

by Che

non-real

elemencs.

happened

in

case

celevision

che

effaced

of ics

local

che a r c i s c i c

and

elemencs

abilicy

of

news

Co

also

and

is

poinc

realiscic, seems

In e f f e c c ,

presenC

program

vancage

Che m e d i a

ne ws

has

encercainmenc.

Fr om c h i s

aeschecic

deliberacely

informacive

and

ic

co be

whaC h a s

ChaC

ic

a "degré

has zéro

de l ' é c r i C u r e . "

D.

Summar y For

9Ï in

psychoanalysis

che

processes

Ca ke n a s

S t a n l e y Milgram, C o n f e s s i o n s o f a News Che New Yo r k T i m e s , 7 Aug. 1 9 7 7 , I V , 3 7 .

inCer^edi-

AddicC,

quoced

2 34

aries

for

the

ternal

world

tion,

a nd

include above

processes

then

identification.

in

the world,

from t h e

extent

to

dependent

status

b e c o me s

abstract

mo d e l o f

the

so.

audience

gestion,

should

hypnosis,

of

the

audience

as

susceptibility

and

group

the

perception

presentation

cinema b r i n g s This

the

alone?

loses

group If

so,

his/her

in­

factor

on g r o u p s

that

as it

mor e

in our

does

are

apt

Still,

the

cinema

escape

to

to

sug­

t o mo r e a r c h a i c

tenuous

status that

be a s

of

such

short-lived

may d e s c r i b e d

from r e a l i t y

thereby

not

f o r a a group

indicates

effects

that

but

susceptible

The

however,

suggests

a group

regression

relations.

to a n o t h e r ) ,

an

particularly

variable

considered

a general

intense

these

satisfying

as

( f r o m one an e v e r y d a y

spectator.

Through the

its

a short,

wo r k

extent

group,

itself.

form o f r e a l i t y in

and

projec­

spectator.

be c o n s i d e r e d

subject-object

providing

need

may be To t h e

forms

the

composite

ex­

b o t h as

within

taken

spectator

another

film theory Freud's

necessarily

as

yet

subject

individual

individual

which t he

film audience

the

the

the

study

and a s a p a r t i c i p a n t

the

the

To

the

Does

to

introjectlon,

of

differently

For

and r e s p o n s e

consideration

member o f a g r o u p .

behave

perception

incorporation,

all,

implies

individual as

subject's

chapter

of

about has

(it

has

phantasies regressive

suggested

even

been ar g u e d) (it

will

behavior mor e

be in

a nd

through

argued) the

the

spectator.

fundamental

types

of

235

regression of

on t h e

regression

tion

which,

formation, ated

its

brings

enabled

yet

in

temporary

the

to

the

premised

to

the

to

its

imaginary; the

world

take

a

in

among

elements,

other

own b o d y p.

the

desire

state, a nd

cinema

one

the

128 s u p r a ) .

ex­ This

entraps

the

an o c c a s i o n a l ,

may b e ,

from t h e

social

role of

imaginary

of

interac­

personality

up

however h e a l t h y

a way

sort

mobilization

(see

that

this

beyond u n d i f f e r e n t i ­

one's

defined" saying

to

subject's

an u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

on a d e v e l o p m e n t

symbolic,

the

and

because

subject-object

progress

between

well

regression

of

hypnosis,

return

not

of

through

a n o t h e r wa y o f

spectator

to

relations

separation is

spectator,

stage

him/her

resemblance

world

the

o n mo d e s

cinema,

the

of

an e a r l y

a (partial)

terior

is

at

The

"in which

is

touches

subject-object

society. and

part

mental

health

imaginary

into

relations

a n d huma n i n -

hypnosis

distinguished

terac tion. Like

the

bipartite

by K u b i e

and M a r g o l i n ,

itially

brings

the

external

eventually the of

desire

individual sion. ly

world

the

external

about

sanctioned.

the

an e x t r e m e which

returns

sublimation would

above

effect,

filmviewing degree

at

experience regression

diminishes,

the

end o f

partially

why t h e it

of

unchanged.

willingly

work e x p l a i n s In

of

gradually

relatively

spectator

Turner's

then,

spectator

world,

a nd

process

explains

cinema a

from until

film

to

The d i s c u s s i o n

undergo

becomes

the

in­

why t h e

such

regres­

c a n be

social­

safety

valve,

236

basically slight, If

confirming

gradual the

spectator, where

the

to

chapter

the

level

the

cinema

can

in

is

both

status that

to

only

spectator's

resistances next

shifts

cinema this

the

status

have happen

with

phantasy

of n a r r a t i v e

can r e a c h

the

at

yet

allowing

for

quo.

such

conscious

such m a n i p u l a t i v e

deals

q uo

an

an

impact

unconscious

the

level,

against

and

change a r e weakened.

The

in

and o f

spectator's

defenses

on

order

to

show t h a t

expressive unconscious.

at

mechanisms

Chapter F i l m and A.

Di e T r a u a a r b e i t As

tion

to

graphically,

in der Traumfabrik

at

least

jshantasy

unconscious, scious

while fa n ta s y

(although

this

and

largely

difference,

as

in cin em atic

or

are

to

with

sets

refers

and p u t

Metz.

products

into

of of

practice). apart

the

the con­

distinction

other

rela­

Lexico­

products

to

resembling

this

such

has no t Phantasy

f r om t h i s

the n o v e l i s t i c

the

n u mb e r o f u n c o n s c i o u s

apparent

called

form uses

of

a

to p h a nt a sy

a narrative

structure

in c e r t a i n

ways.

or n a r r a t i v e

degree

of

phantasies.

with phantasy presuppose

scenarios

some

the

references

interacting

dealing

in

unconscious

are

of phantasy as

theorists

with

When

theoretical

characters

have appeared

itself

scenarios

and

concept

of

presents

screenplays.

critical

practice,

as

cinema

strategy,

The u s u a l

to

resemble each

well

to

a direct

scenarios.

Narrative scenarios,

according

lexicographical

standardized

fantasy

the cinema has

refers

been r i g i d l y

similar

Phantasy

imaginary s i g n i f i e r , phantasy,

Six

patterns

frequency,

In

a set which

uniformity,

and u n i v e r s a l i t y . Fantasy meaning

is

emotionally

also

involves

narrative

known o r k n o w a b l e . important,

insofar

In as

structures,

contrast, it

plays

that an

b u t whos e which i s essential

238

role of

for

personalicy formation,

phancasy.

unconscious, ruption.

Phancasy,

However,

this

that

attempts

so

between

f a n t a s y and

conscious

or

For critical first

this

to

case

ocher

produces

of

che

conscious

characteristic to

maintain

on ly as is

generally

the

products

of

an i r ­

distinction some p e r s o n ' s

b e c o me p o i n t l e s s .

reason,

approaches

the

the

p h a n t a s y as

unconscious

unkno wn i n

like

b e c o me s known t o

ignored,

remains

when

MacCabe

identifies

phantasy/fantasy,

he

three

rejects

the

t wo a s u n t e n a b l e . The t r a d i t i o n a l Freudian approach . . . i s to l o c a t e the fantasy firmly in the author and i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l e x i s t e n c e . . . which leads to the ridiculous procedure of t r y i n g to ex p l a i n t e x t s i n terms of supposed events within the author's life. The second p o s s i b i l i t y , which e x i s t s as a theoretical possibil­ ity, if n o t an a ctu a lity , is to l o c a t e the f a n t a s y in the r e a d e r .

Ma c Ca be d e r i v e s lemen case

(the "the

support

latter's

positions

trend.

^ C o l i n Ma c Ca b e , ( 1 9 7 5 ) , p. 131.

approach

"Notes"

as a s t r u c t u r e

of p r o d u c tio n .

oretical

third

f a n t a s y would

j e c t — which site

the

" 1

from

in Tourneur,

exist

"Wal s h an

18).

positions

independently

Problems e x i s t

For e x a mp l e,

p.

independently

with c e r t a i n exist

wo r k by P a u l W i l ­

with

Willemen

Author?,"

of

this

of

material

for

the

the

this

defines

Screen

In

sub­

fantasy's

recent

the­

"the

es-

16 ,

No.

1

239

sential

structure

looking

at

two” (p. to

the

and

24).

too

reductive.

of

latent

analysis

determining such At

the

the

manifest

level

into

relation

the

hopelessly

not

of

not

a

subject

separates/ unites leaves

or,

itself

the open

alternatively,

these

film

criticism s

and

least

focuses

films.

of

In

by a g i v e n

a basis

may b e the

such a s e p a r a t i o n 2

of

for

manifest enlightening

given

may be a n o t h e r ' s

determination,

or

tradition

provides

of

general

results,

confronted

a discussion

scene,

to

hold

p h a n t a s y have o f which

is

the

in melodrama.

critical

analyst/analysand

too

comparisons

content

"a

definition

Whether

interest

An o l d e r

entire

2

as

p a ssa g e which

s ome u n e x p e c t e d

renascence

and

the

of being

contemporary

yielded

phantasy”

Such a b r o a d

criticism

being true,

it,

of

film, latent.

3

of m anifest

the

the

of

in which

the

the

give

to

latent

for

manifest

situation

dream,

though,

whole d i s c u s s i o n

individual

on

and

the one

take

content, analysand.

spectator's

W i t h no b a c k g r o u n d can e a s i l y

interpretation. from l a t e n t

of

for

degenerate

Furthermore,

content

serves

no

Nichols warns that "constant vigilance must be maintained a g a i n s t the kind of r e d u c t i o n i s m t h a t d e s c r i b e s v i r t u a l l y a l l s o c i a l phenomena i n t e r m s o f t h e r e - e n a c t m e n t o f ^ a c h i l d h o o d s c e n a r i o " ( I & I , p. 16 8) . Just as " t h e whole q u e s t i o n o f the sy m b o li c i n t e r p r e t a ­ tion of film s i s fr a u g h t with d i f f i c u l t i e s , since o b je c ts w i l l d i f f e r in t h e i r symbolic meaning according to the sch o o l of a n a l y s i s to whi ch you adhere. . . . One c a n n o t therefore really a n a l y s e a f i l m , one can o n ly a n a l y s e the person producing the f ilm , o r, of c o u rse , the person seeing and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e f i l m " ( K e i r , p p . 7 0 - 7 1 ) ; s e e L e b o v i c i , p . 50.

240

purpose, other.

since

As B a r t h e s

manifest tional

datum

attributes. resembles

its

decreases

the

wa y f o r

to

the

not

once

we e n t e r clear

the

4

exist

relation

Freud,

is

be

said

share and

of

concomitantly.

spectator's

in the

the

clear

well

as

reality,

desire

between

a film

of

and

the

fiction

the

the

external

As

the

testing

indirect

distinction

a nd

world

other

novelistic

increases,

ego

abil­

opening address

w h i c h we c o n ­ between

its

u n c o n s c io u s ” ; ^ in

diegetic

distinction

as

from

reality

suggestibility

between

func-

Psychologically,

defenses

fiction

the

seeing

his/her

"The

its

to

status

experience

direct

no m o r e is

withdraw

cinema's

the

4

dreaming.

the

to

it

dreamer,

action,

does

can

the

its

the

make b e t w e e n and

to

ontological

and h i s / h e r

the

in

content:

term s.”

and

unconscious.

sciously

to

besides

defenses,

ity

thought

t wo

phantasy

like

lowering

relaxes

latent

Physically,

can,

be s e e n

"a dream,

its

sleeping

spectator world,

says,

these

and

characteristics

one must

than

union of

Cinema

our

the

pure

realization,

sim ilar

fashion

narrative,

we l o s e

and

reality,

if

not

s a me e x t e n t .

M y t h o l o g i e s , p. 114; "le rêve, pour F r e u d , n 'e st past p l u s son d o n n e m a n i f e s t e que s o n c o n t e n u l a t e n t : il est la liaison fonctionnelle des deux termes" (p. 220). Se e "Hysterical P h a n t a s i e s and T h e i r R e la tio n to B i s e x u a lity " ( 1 108 ) , SE, 9 , p . 1 6 3 , f n . 1. " La d i s t i n c t i o n n e t t e que n ous f a i s o n s c o n s c i e m m e n t e n ­ t r e l a f i c t i o n e t la r é a l i t é , e n t r e l a pensée pure et l ' a c ­ tion, entre l e d é s i r e t sa r é a l i s a t i o n , n ' e x i s t e pas d a ns l ' i n c o n s c i e n t " (M u s a tti, p. 188).

241

i.

Films

as

Dreams/Dreams

Dreams m a n i f e s t ject the

is

of

sciousness. the

images

troubling threat. have

nature As a n

links

dream

but

secondary

as

of

appear

images

to

as

visual

sub­

subject's

no

primary

the

relaxes,

and

con­

do n o t

plays

. 7

the

of h i s / h e r

In

these

role

dreams

between the

the the

(Lebovici,

between

film

and

connecting as

our

primary

and

dreaming

sub­

and

subject’s dreamer

the

Although

logic

protagonist,

of

own d r e a m

s a me

scenarios

of

In a s e n s e ,

parallel

the

difference

fulfillm ent

spectator

follow

a

(Freud's

of n e g a t i o n / the

the

pose

process, images

are

from

longer

scenario,

a nd

however,

themselves

the

thoughts

(the

wishes.

strict

the

distanced

form a p l a u s i b l e

pressed)

A

function

consciousness,

wishes

abstract

processes)

the

far

when

r e p r e s e n t a b i l i t y " ) , which e l i m i n a t e s

thought

usually

represents

the

to

of

i mages

between

conscious

ject

of

so

sleep,

into

into

expression

no c h o i c e

expression

pass

passes

of

during

censorship

can

which have

"considerations

the

the

dreams What

Films

themselves

unconscious,

content

in

the

(often

dream re­

may be c a l l e d

p.

a

52).

dream

runs

into

Soae th e o ris ts maintain that film technique p a r a lle ls d r e a m w o r k s i n c e b o t h e m p l o y a s e l f - c e n s o r i n g m e c h a n i s m and create "concrete representations of an abstract idea" ( P ^ att , p . 186). For s i l e n t cin em a, Senja min Fondane n o t e s t h a t the l a c k o f s o u n d me a n s f o r e g o i n g t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e w h i c h a c c o m ­ p a n i e s l a n g u a g e ("From S i l e n t to T a l k i n g P i c t u r e s : Grandeur and Decadence of the Cinema” ( 1 9 2 9 ) , r e f e r r e d t o i n Ham­ mo n d , p . 1 3 ) . G o u d a l a nd A r t a u d , a c c o r d i n g t o L i n d a W i l l i ­ ams, a l s o a s s o c i a t e d l a n g u a g e w i t h r a t i o n a l i t y .

2 42

trouble

immediately.

does

(usually)

of

not

relaxation

of

produce

does

dreamer.

fantasies pted

by t h e

shifts

his/her

appear

in

character),

to

pare

for

it

thus

the

but

dream,

irrational,

.

.

.

.

with

.

.

.

the

.

.

p.

unconscious,

as

least

main

do p r e s e n t

phantasies

from

Since

ma y

part its

the

be mo r e

prom­ of

the

ability

spectator

character

spectator's

that

of

the

basis

than

may n o t one main

relation

dreamer.

the

commonl y on t h e For

example,

surrealist

a

of

film,

cinema's

basis

Gerald

of

Mast,

says

that

"despite

Chien

series

of

daring

and

between

them.'

visuâl

paste

Andalou

representation,

of

material

referring

Un

no r a t i o n a l

com­

"means

the

meaning,

is

to the

pure

imaginative 9

and

With

the

logical

.

" E s t u n moye n d ' e x p r e s s i o n très o n i r i q u e " ( p . 50 ) . A Short H i s t o r y of th e Movies 1971),

the

very

meaning, .

(the

does

films

arises

desires.

there

at

nor

”is a means o f expression g thought." Film t h e o r i s t s do i n d e e d

consistent

on .

or

from

expresses.

vignettes

cinema

a degree

the

mo r e

of

.

the

if

Lebovici,

whiffs

.

from

that

that

dreamer,

to

quintessential

stress

unconscious

a n d d r e a m on t h e

expression,"

his/her

to

scene,

oneiric

film

involved),

akin

and

the

(even

argued

identification

differs

Film,

film

be

however,

protagonist

is

unlike

can

unconscious

every

the

from

instincts,

we d e r i v e our

through

film

It

sexual

satisfy

close

the

remarkably

pleasure to

sleep

spectator,

consciousness

spectator the

The

241.

proche

de

la

(Indianapolis:

pensée Pegasus,

2 43

coherence, in

favor

tional

Ma s t of

neglects

their

literary

effects,

and

diegetic

fantasies)

dreams

of

of

may be

up

set

Wi n d o w,

following

mechanisms

of

cinema

the

model

of

tradi­

them

from

world,

differentiate

dreams

may a p p e a r

as

(as

fantasies

Shock C o r r i d o r , as dreams

Keaton's

b e t w e e n d r e a m and

or

for

spectacle

and

in

in

a film

9_ £ £ 5_, o r

( Th e Woman

The W i z a r d

(the

the

e x a m p l e ) . 1^* E n t i r e

or

the

as h a l l u c i n a t i o n s

inserts

fantasies

Sherlock J r . reality,

well

limited

Dr. C a l i g a r i ' s C ab in et,

example).

between

which

S p e llb o u n d , the

lucinations

specific

criticism .

Through m a rk in g s film 's

the

hal­ films

in

the

of 0 2 , f o r

plays

on

the

confusion

compounded

by

the

confusion

illusion.

It is s t r u c t u r e d as a r e a l l i f e comedy, in which the adolescent hero ignominiously suffers, followed by a w i s h - f u l f i l l m e n t d r e a m , i n w h i c h he s t a r s in a dream movie, followed by his awakening i n t o r e a l l i f e and a l s o i n t o a happy e n d i n g . . . . The t wo w o r l d s , r e a l and d r e a m , a r e . . . so intentionally mixed up w i t h e a c h o t h e r , t h a t t h e y c a n -

I n " The N a r r a t i v e T e x t o f S h o c k C o r r i d o r , " H a n e t s p e a k s of the h a l l u c i n a t i o n s in Shock C o r r i d o r as being "o v e r­ determined" through t h e i r appearance in color midst an otherwise b l a c k and w h i t e f i l m , and t h r o u g h t h e i r d i s j u n c ­ t i v e p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n to the n a r r a t i v e ( p . 2 2 ) . See L. W i l l i a m s , F i g u r e s , p . 50, w h e r e s he m e n t i o n s t h e d o u b l e e x ­ posures in The L a s t L a u g h a n d S h e r l o c k J r . as w e l l as t he change to c o l o r in The W i z a r d of 0 z as "ex a mp le s of the prevalent p r a c t i c e o f e m p l o y i n g p h o t o g r a p h i c d i f f e r e n c e to cue a u d i e n c e s to a conscious awareness of a d r e a m l i k e r e ­ presentation. "

244

not Th e

cinema's

ity

is

ii.

separated

ability

generally

psychic mental

be

reality

evitably

to

has

associate

Through camera

mimic

su ch dream

with pp.

time,

3

and

languages, and

8

),

content. both space.

the

as

world

and

to

represent mirror

the

and

and d r ea m Lebovici

ignore

the

means

real­

cinema

can

condensation,

opposites"

im agistic

this

the

causality,"

characterize the

seem i n ­

psychical

"displacement,

which of

of

which

editing,

co-existent

Because

For

capacity

to

real­

processes.

syntax

[and] of

ability

characteristics

with

space,

film 12

its

placement

all

its

of m a te r ia l

Films

processes

"symbolisation,

manifest

time

for

it

an e i d o l o n

primary

inherent

ity.

disregard

in

. 11

given;

upons

the

Processes

The c i n e m a

as

depends of

a ll

create

taken

functioning

Oneiric

to

at

the bases

along

( Ha mmond , dream's of

their

boundaries that,

like

of the

11D a n i e l Mo e ws , " S h e r l o c k J u n i o r , " in Keaton (B e rkeley: Un^* C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , f 9 77 ) , p . 7 6 . Mast d e s c r i b e s t h e New A m e r i c a n f i l m in terms of "the quick c u ttin g , the fla s h e s both f o r w a r d and backward in time (sometimes confusingly interwoven) [which] totally d e s t r o y t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f t i m e a n d s p a c e , o f now a n d t h e n , o f r e a l i t y and fantasy, purposely emphasizing emotional continuity a t the expense of lin e a r c o n tin u ity " (p. 416). Mo e ws , h o w e v e r , s a y s t h a t film and dream resemble each o t h e r in t h a t they are both media of the present tense: " Wh a t we s e e a t a n y g i v e n mome nt i s w h a t t o t a l l y o c c u p i e s us and alone e x ists" (pp. 94-95). Se e L e b o v i c i , p . 5 1; Ke i r , p . 6 8 .

245

dream,

Che

cinema

employs

and

overdecerminacion

"des

rapporcs Linda

Co i m i c a c e

of

one of

level

of

onco

insignificanc

The

one

really

iCs

and

specific image, wa y

inducemenC

of

belief

Ch o u g h i c

were a r e a l

which

creaCe

recC;

in

in

is

Even

single

chis

nacural

example

of

of

32).

che

che

signifier, ( ibid . ,

unaware

of

in

experienced p.

50).

a

as

As we

che m e c h a n i s m s

Williams

only

when we do s e n s e

such

Imaginary— ics

che

is

very

phocographic

signifier

of

creaCes

cheir

we do n o C i c e

arise

or

cinemaCic

In c o n c r a s c ,

occasions

Che

(p.

Che d r e a m . film.

"Che

image

from i c s

because

experience

we a r e

as

Che s u p e r i m p o s i C i o n a nd

percepcion''

argues,

wanced

(i.e.,

becween

percepcion

Che

underscood

elemencs)"

Co Che c i n e m a c i c che

chrough

Surrealiscs

macerial

"Such e f f e c c s , our

cogecher

on e

comparison

accencion

Williams

inco

specific

ChaC Che y b e c r a y

mechanisms

macerial

indifferenc

of

condensacion

by a n o c h e r

or

alceracion

dream,

Che

discourse

Co c o n d e n s a c i o n .

chough:

call

chac

dream mechanisms

resemblance

problems,

of

of

51).

Che p s y c h i c

place

Cechnique

(p.

images

and d i s p l a c e m e n c

psychic

displacemenc

brings

mainCains

condensacion

condensacion

ic

de c o n c i g u i c é "

Williams

disrupcion

Che

as

Che m e c h a n i s m s

similar

parcially

condensacion

or

cordis-

_ _

Fr om h e r f e m i n i s e perspecCive Johnscon would stress displacemenc over condensacion and overdecerminacion b e c a u s e woman i s " d i s p l a c e d by ma n ; C h e r e a r e c l o s e c o n n e c Cions b e Cwe e n Che p h e n o m e n o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s p l a c e m e n c a n d how men u s e women on Che s c r e e n ” ( Ka y a n d P e a r y , p. 401 ) .

246

placement ly

in

trained

action and

as

alert

we d r e a m spectator

just

as

even

may m i s s

the

most

high­

a superimposition

on o c c a s i o n . Jacques a

dream i s

happens

Brunius

says

impossible

involuntarily.

the

"faithful

voluntarily, Contributing

but

representation" that

factors

it

of

frequently

include

dark­

ness ,

t h e crowd that surrounds and isolates you, the d e l i c i o u s l y s t u p i d m u s ic , [and] the s t i f f n e s s of the neck n e c e s s a ry for the o r i e n t a t i o n o f o n e ' s g a z e . . . . The ima g es f a d e i n and f a d e o u t , d i s s o l v e i n ­ to each o th e r . . . . The d i s p o s i t i o n o f screen images i_n time is absolutely analogous with the arrangem ent thought or the dream can devise. Neither chronological orde r nor r e la tiv e values of duration are real. Contrary to the th eatre, film, like thought, like the dream, chooses s ome g e s t u r e s , d e f e r s or e n l a r g e s them, e l i m i n a t e s o t h e r s , t r a v e l s ma ny h o u r s , c e n t u r i e s , kilometres in a few seconds, speeds up, slows down, s t o p s , goes backwards. It is impossible to imaging a t r u e r m irr o r of mental p e r­ formance .

In Hammond, p . 6 1 ; " l a f o u l e qui vous e n t o u r e e t vous isole, l a m u s i q u e d é l i c i e u s e m e n t i d i o t e , l a r a i d e u r du cou nécessaire à l ' o r i e n t a t i o n du r e g a r d . . . . Les i ma ge s a p ­ paraissent et d isparaissent en fondu noir, s ' enchaînent l'u n e sur l ' a u t r e . . . . L a disposition des images de l'écran d a n s l e temps e s t a b s o l u m e n t a n a l o g u e au r a n g e m e n t que peut opeTer la pensée ou le rêve. Ni l'ordre chonologique [ s ic ] ni le s v a l e u r s r e l a t i v e s d e s d u r é e s ne sont r é e l s . C o n t r a i t e m e n t [ s i c ] a u t h é â t r e , l e f i l m , comme la pensée, comme l e r ê v e , c h o i s i t des g e s t e s , l e s élo ig n e ou les grossit, en élimine d'autres, passe plusieurs h e u r e s , p l u s i e u r s s i è c l e s , p l u s i e u r s k i l o m è t r e s en q u e l q u e s secondes, accélère, r a l e n t i t , s'arrête, retourne en ar­ rière. I l e s t i m p o s s i b l e d ' i m a g i n e r p l u s f i d è l e m i r o i r de la re p ré s e n ta tio n mentale" (Brunius, En marge du c i néma

247

Brunius'

"mirror

noted,

draws

that

Freud.

of The

which

create

or

art

mo r e

idea

blems,

involves

is

Artaud dream. ’’ t h e

ity,

which in

the

also

disagreed

for

technical

que,

the

purest

of

first

place.

with

reasons.

surrealist

français

it

to

(n.p.:

its

concept the

to

comparison

into

or

1954),

pp.

the

Antonin film

a nd

its

of

the

has

it

surrealists

its

Re n é C l a i r ,

technique,

but

own t e c h n i ­

translate

will

110-11).

qual­

and d r e a m ,

.T o

it

resulting

disturbing

film

.

technique

whatever as

surrealist,

images,

unlike

of

then

and

.

the

Williams,

16).

content

surrealism

own a l s o .

than

on w h a t we may c a l l

loses

cinematographic

Arcanes,

to

dream,

a dream

Artaud

to

any pr ofound

equation

part

Another

"If

attempt

or any o t h e r

may be d i s m i s s e d

what

the

film

the

a film 's or

Any

According

the

in

thereby

part

cinema has

submit

If

nature

It

pro­

meaning” (p.

with

to madness

a dream poses

invalidates

that

of

rested

syndrome":

madness. is

aware

be than

a me d i u m o t h e r

alone

production

of a shocking

that

sought

"well

antagonism

of

should

Münsterberg

through

and d r e a m .

disagreed

be a t t r i b u t e d

from

use

this

film

were

a private

Caligari

presents

to

conscious

it

considered.

a dream e i t h e r

between

His

psychology of

surrealists

For many,

violently

performance,"

"v o l u n t a r i l y " copying

the

Surrealists

film,

mental on t h e

recreate

comparison

can

of the

unconscious.

the

of

the

be n e c e s s a r y which r i s k s

248

causing of

ics

Chis

psychic

a u t o m a t i s a 1 Co l o s e

a large

pare

p u r i t y . " 1^

Th e of

’ pure

surrealisCs

unconscious

secondary

ChoughC

elaboraCion"

and

Holland

film

and

len

compares

façade"

"never

also

"che

.

ChaC Che

. always

( Ha mmo n d ,

scress

liceracure

created

.

disputed

chae

p.

Che

involved 12).

a degree

Perkins,

fancasies

have been organiz ed film

cranscripcion

Che

specCator

by s e c o n d a r y

revision.

and

Zazzo,

expressed

reworked.

sees"

Co t h e

of

in

Wo l "dream

Sometimes t h i s ' f a ç a d e ' i s so worked ov e r . . . t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to see beyond it, or r a t h e r to see anything in i t ex­ cept the c h a r a c t e r s , the dialogue, the plot, and so o n . Bu t i n o t h e r c a s e s , by a process of comparison with o th e r f i l m s , it is possible to decipher, not a c o h e ren t message or world-view, but a structure underlies the film and shapes i t . Willemen order a ll

. 17

for For

argues the

for

the

spectator

Peter

Baxter,

necessity to

be

of

able

secondary

secondary to

read

elaboration

revision the

film

ties

the

in at in-

"Si le s u r r é a l i s m e a sa t e c h n i q u e p ro p re , le cinéma a l a s i e n n e a u s s i . . . . Pour t r a d u i r e en i m a g e s l a p l u s p u r e conception surréaliste, il faudra la soumettre à la technique c i n é m a t o g r a p h i q u e , ce q u i r i s q u e de f a i r e p e r d r e à cet 'automatisme psychique p u r ' un e g r a n d e p a r t de sa p u r e t é " (René C l a i r , "Cinémaet s u r r é a l i s m e , " Cahiers du m o | g , O ct. 1925, p. 10 7 ). S i g n s and Meaning in t h e C1 nema ( B l o o m i n g t o n : I n d i a n a U n | ^ . P r e s s , 1 972 ) , pT Ï T 7 . "If t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f p h a n t a s y and t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e subject are merely 'presented', the reader will not r e c o g n i s e them as s u c h i n t h e film , because his a t t e n t i o n is not s p e c i f i c a l l y focussed on t h e n e e d to d e c i p h e r the

249

dividual

co Che

secondary of

revision

a society

tionships thus

social

forging

within

1

dividual."

In

dream have a

response

to

or

produccive

itself with

but

the for

s ome s o r t o f

over

accivicy

the

art

social in-

and

the

art

this

s ome e x t e n t

this

occurs in both

censorship,

It

each

wor k o f

to

rela­

nature."

in

work o f

In a d d i t i o n , working

and

which

the

cexc,

conscious

maintained

both

over,

individual

formulating

a nd

words,

process.

revision

che

struggle

erected

other

of

an

and b e t w e e n

"the

be en worked

conscious

secondary

8

world,

itself

is

"in

an a s p e c c

its

ma k e s m a n i f e s t

superstructure

is

is

since,

whether

cases

in

p s y c h i c a l or

so c le t a l . Still, film

and

no m a t t e r

useful

phantasy/fantasy,

equated.

"If

se

into

literary

the

promise

pect

how

it

of

pleasure

is

motor

the

t wo

inhibition

comparison

cannot that

be

the

that

lures

us

between

completely

licenses

f a n t a s i e s , ” Nor ma n H o l l a n d

gratification in

the

our

w rites, "it

into

it."

lap­ is

We e x ­

form of

l i t e r a t u r e as transform ation. In e f f e c t , the literary work dreams a dream for us. I t embodies and e v o k e s i n us a central fantasy; then it manages and controls that f a n t a s y by d e v i c e s t h a t , were t h e y in a m i n d , we w o u l d ca ll defenses, but, b e i n g o n a p a g e , we c a l l ' f o r m ' . And t h e having of the fantasy and feeling it managed g i v e us p l e a s u r e . . . . Even i f

ph^gtasy t e x t " (T o u rn e u r, pp. 25-26). Peter B a x t e r , "On t h e Na k e d Thighs Wi d e A n g l e 2 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p . 2 1 .

of

Miss

Dietrich,"

250

che w o r k m a k e s us f e e l pain or g u i l e or a n x i e t y , we e x p e c t it to manage those f e e l i n g s so as to transform them into satisfying experiences (Holland, pp. 74-75; see P e rk in s , p. 140; Zazzo, p. 160) .

B.

Phantasy In

the

Interpretation

long,

involved

board

fell

on h i s

neck and

blow.

Freud

considers

this

elaborate place of

dream must

during

the

board

sequent whether

dream which

the with

short

is

(p.

refers

Maury had his the

waking

several between

of

cervical 495).

time

and must between

to

a

time

a

response

"that

vertebrae Freud

times the

up i n

possibility

been composed

period

Maury's

awakening" it

have

Freud

to

the

whole

have

taken

the and

wonders,

so

improbable t h a t M a u ry 's dream r e p r e s e n t s a phantasy which had been stored up ready-made i n h i s me mo r y f o r ma ny y e a r s and w h i c h was a r o u s e d - - o r I w o u l d r a t h e r say ' a l l u d e d t o ' - - a t t h e mo me nt a t w h i c h he b e c a m e a w a r e of the stimulus which woke hi m? If this were so, we should have e s c a p e d the whole d i f f i c u l t y of un­ derstanding how s u c h a long s t o r y with all i t s d e t a i l s c o u l d ha ve b ee n composed in the e x tre m e ly short period of time which was a t t h e d r e a m e r ' s d i s p o s a l — f o r the s t o r y would have been composed a l ­ ready. . . . Nor is i t necessary that this long-prepared phantasy s h o u ld have been gone t h r o u g h d u r i n g s l e e p ; i t would have b e e n s u f f i c i e n t f o r i t t o be m e r e l y t o u c h e d on ( p p . 4 9 5 - 9 6 ) .

contact his

con­

though,

251

Freud c oncludes a

ready-made

of

"chac

phancasy

the m a t e r i a l

Maury's

of

instead

stimulus,

scenarios,

tap

unconscious.

This

might

of c e r t a i n

patterns,

or g e n r e s ,

of phantasy

across

gender,

linguistic,

universal

presence

all

cases,

three

of

along

fantasies.

Two m a j o r

the

both of which classic

19

mo s t

out

Just

as

film

spectator spectator's

film

genres,

are

said

for

the

for

several

be

shared

to

boundaries.

has been

with

regular

The

disputed

in

c a n be

and common e x a m p l e s o f

day-dreams

subdivisions

and of

a nd

the

understood only

concept

of

the

other

the

theorized

f a m i l y romance

Freudian

the the

a nd c u l t u r a l

of p h a n t a s y have been

Freud:

in

o ne e x p l a n a t i o n

such p a t t e r n s

the

phantasy,

of

19

495).

of

however.

Dr e a ms p r o v i d e

forms

together

even complete

in

provide

popularity

(p.

images,

images

perennial

Co make u s e

t h r o u g h c o n t a c t w i t h an

a r e s p o n s i v e chord

similar

glad

p uCCi ng o n e

was e v o k e d

so c i n e m a t i c

can evoke

they

of

the d r e a m - t h o u g h t s "

dream s c e n a r i o

external

when

Che d r e a m - w o r k i s

conscious

contents

under

the

primal in

of th e s e influence

phantasies,

relation

Oedipus complex,

to

the

a nd i t s

E l s e w h e r e Freud compares dream a nd daydream on the basis of t h i s p o in t. "In the e r e c t i o n of a dream-fa?ade use i s not i n f r e q u e n t l y made of w ish fu l p h a n t a s i e s which are present in the dream-thoughtsin a pre-constructed form, and a r e o f t h e s ame c h a r a c t e r as t he a p p r o p r i a t e l y named ' d a y - d r e a m s ' f a m i l i a r t o us in waking life. The wishful phantasies revealed by a n a l y s i s in night-dreams often tu rn out to be r e p e t i t i o n s o r modified v e r s i o n s of s c e n e s f r o m i n f a n c y " ( " On D r e a ms " ( 1 9 0 1 ) , ^E_, 5, p . 667 ) .

252

inherent

i.

phallocentrism.

The F a m i l y Romance The

tions the

f a m i l y romance p h a n t a s y

in

the

growing

subject's child

unquestioning critical this

relations

breaks

with

admiration

awareness

of

centers

their

with h i s / h e r

parental

for

around m o d i f i c a ­

its

flaws

parents.

authority

parents

its

cedes

and w e a k n e s s e s .

As

early to

a

Seen in

light the whole e f f o r t [ o f t h e f a m i l y romance] at replacing the real father by a s u p e r i o r o ne i s o n l y an e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s longing fo r the happy, vanis hed d a y s when h i s f a t h e r s e e me d t o hi m t h e n o b l e s t and strongest o f men and his mother^Q t h e d e a r e s t and loveliest of wo me n . Like

explore

the the

Oedipus

such

c a rry over

form

the

wish

fulfillm ent.

"erotic usually In

basis

and

.

20

for

.

Freud,

childhood

as a

behind

W r i t e r s a nd

the

.

adult

which,

like

"experience

of

according

to

life;

t h e y can

dreams,

such p h a n t a s i e s .

provide are

. t h o u g h an e r o t i c

latter

too"

Day-Dreaming"

" F a m i l y R o ma n c e s "

the

for

aims o f

. ambitious

Like

f a m i l y romances

phantasies,

pattern

day-dreams The

concealed

"Creative

a whole,

q uestion of o r i g i n s .

satisfaction," Freud,

complex as

(1909),

( i b i d . , o.

Freud

S E , 9,

says

pp.

both aim i s 238 ) .

much t h e

240-41.

253

s a me

thing

of

motivating and

phantasy

phantasy

"vary

circumstances

phantasy. ambitious

..21

in

of

adding

according

to

the

He a s s o c i a t e s

phantasies

general,

with

person

erotic me n ,

that

the who

but

adds

sex, is

phantasies that

the

wishes

character

having

with the

the

women a nd t wo i n t e r -

t wine . When t h e plied

to

the

concept cinema,

one

associates

the

newer

plex

as

lows

one

the plays

t wo

which

particularly

on

family

trends

its

of

may b e

connection

force.

in

romance

romance w it h

literary

sees myths

the

family

a structuring

a pre-existing

Rank,

of

The

it

an

to

be a p ­

isolated.

The o l d e r

the

of myths;

with

former

model,

c o me s

origin the

Oedipus

com­

application

fol­

established

explanation

by of

Otto myths,

heroes.

We f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n a n a l o g i z i n g t h e ego of the c h i l d w ith the hero of the myth, . keeping in mi n d that the my t h t h r o u g h o u t r e v e a l s an e n d e a v o r to g e t r i d of the p a r e n t s , andt h a t t h e s a me wish arises in the p h a n ta s ie s of the in­ d i v i d u a l c h i l d a t the time whe n it is trying to establish its personal in­ dependence. The e g o o f t h e c h i l d b e h a v e s in t h i s re s p e c t l i k e the hero of the m y t h , [ who] . . . s h o u l d a l w a y s b e i n t e r ­ preted merely as a c o l l e c t i v e ego, w ^ c h is equipped with a l l the e x c e l l e n c e s .

21

l5h

(1908 ),

SE^, 9 ,

o.

146;

see

"Hysterical

Phantasies,"

p.

O t t o R a n k , Th e Myt h o f t h e B i r t h o f t h e H e r o (New Y o r k : Jo u rn a l of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1914), p. 6 8 . Freud sp eaks of t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between ego and h e r o i n " C r e a t i v e W r i t e r s , " pp. 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 .

254

This

applies

society,

and

individual In family the

both to

film

stars,

as

the

characters

within

the

later

romance

generate

This

in

per

parents. of

and

now1 ,

the

they

23

(as

of

contemporary

diegetic

It

need

is

also

images

the

family

the

structure

falls

less

family

in

mo me nt

the

of

desire,

not

scene."

.

always

one

the

secur­ a

'here

portrait .

of

from

or

fam-

a displaced

24

provide

individual

is

.

23

desire,

for

mystic

of

tensions

for

for

desire

dissociable scene

the

desire

word,

the

terms

with

though,

"The

on

scenarios).

connection

defining is

of

romance

unsatisfiable

recognition

also

on

identity:

story,

family

control

mo r e

for

image o r

the

emphasis

constituent

child's

fixed

sublimated Such

as

and

an e s t a b l i s h e d

ily-romance:

the

stresses

identity-im posing

or

se

the

turn

specifically

trend,

complex

which

ity

heroes

films.

Oedipus

the

to

security

desire.

for

For

society example,

insofar Baxter

S e e Ma r c V e r n e t , "The Filmic T ransaction," in Velvet Light T r a p 20 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t r a n s . D a v i d R o d o w i c k , p . 9 , f ñ ”! 11 : "There i s no q u e s t i o n [ i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e s s a y ] o f r e f e r ­ ring to the n o tio n of i n c e s t , o r o f O e d i p a l r e l a t i o n s , as 'objects' in the f i l m . R a t h e r , t h e y a r e u n d e r s t o o d to i n ­ f orm t he s t r u c t u r e of the t e x t th r o u g h a homologous r e l a ­ tion"; " i l ne s ' a g i t pas p o u r mo i de f a i r e référence à l'in ceste e t à l ' O e d i p e en t a n t q u ' ' o b j e t s ' , mais à l e u r forme homologue informant le récit" ("La transaction f i l m i q u e , " i n L£ c i n é m a am éricain, ed . Ra ymond Bellour ( P ^ j r i s : F l a m m a r i o n , 1 9 8 0 ) , V o l . 2, p . 1 3 7 ) . G e o f f r e y Hartman, " P s y c h o a n a l y s i s : The F re n c h Connec­ t i o n , " in L i t e r a t u r e and P s y c h o a n a l y s i s , eds. Edith Kurz­ weil a n d W i l l i a m P h i l l i p s (New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v . P r e s s , 1983), p. 354).

255

identifies

the

'Marlene

Dietrich

image'

as

p a r t of the d i s c o u r s e in which the f a m ily unconsciously re c e iv e s the knowledge of the social relatio n s that it is in s tru ­ mental in p r o v id in g . The i m a g e s e r v e s t o m a i n t a i n the i n d i v i d u a l in a s t a t e of a t ­ traction t o a p a s t w h i c h he c a n o n l y r e ­ press. Such an image p l a c e s l i m i t s on desire which cannot be detected, so desire becomes t he e x p r e s s i o n in t h e i n ­ dividual of the social order ("Miss D i e t r i c h , " p. 2 0 ) .

Nevertheless, might

way

the

Wollen

have d i s r u p t i v e

"concerns the

as

the in

other

nature

which hand,

ie

to

analysis"

("Counter

Family

the

Aries,

are

presented

way

thinks

be

answered

Une

is

- ,

société

which to

8 8

and

son

scenarios

and on are

scientific

Structure

authors

as

on s o c i a l posit

relation

the

"terms"

to a nd

"organizes them."

rapport

hand,

text/film ,

to

Narrative

its

it

he n o t e s ,

one

the

phantasy

).

such

represent

pense

in

and

theorists

by s t u d y i n g

on t h e

beliefs

Hayden White

society

problem,"

fantasy

and

how " a

of

s u p r a ),

which

work

of

function

p.

Oedipus,

s ome

2 5 ..

and

Cinema,"

forces,

whose

in

the

with

" Th e

fantasies,

historical

own h i s t o r y "

162-63

the

ideologies

Following Philippe

of

Romance,

(pp.

potential.

they

related

i.a.

argued

25

an In

Foucault,

structures

that

the

past

history"

question

"elements imaginary this

à l'h isto ire

as

of

may its

space

view,

d'un

passé"

256

after a displacem ent, Hollywood's n a r r a ­ tive o f h i s t o r y i s o n l y made p o s s i b l e by a f a m i l i a l i s a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s among characters; on t h e b a s i s o f w h i c h an e n ­ t i r e o d e i p a l c o n s t e l l a t i o n can s p r e a d ou t througjj, its complementary accomplish­ ments • The

family

blatantly others

structure manifest;

portrayed

matter

what

may b e .

27

Defined

4),

are

narrative

his

former

a comparison with overt

largely

by K a p l a n a s

relations p.

the

a

relations

need

the

from t h i s

”a genre

focus

of

melodramas al m o st

reconstruetion/reestablishment

the of

Oedipus

the

be a nd com­

characters of

interest

approach.

in which the

ideological inevitably of

not

students,

The c o n t e m p o r a r y r e s u r g e n c e

i n melodrama r e s u l t s

( FN,

3ellour,

often extrapolate

p l e x no

its

within

f a m i l y a nd

representation"

conclude with

family

relations

the ac-

through t h e " t e r m e s ” a nd " é l é m e n t s de s a p r o p r e h i s t o i r e " with w h i c h i t " o r g a n i s e un e s p a c e i m a g i n a i r e c h a r g é de l e s r e p r é s e n t e r . " Thus P h i l i p p e V e n a u l t a r g u e s t h a t " t h r o u g h o u t the f i r s t p a r t of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y the ro m a n ti c n a r ­ r a t i v e s ( h i s t o r i c a l and l i t e r a r y ) are the echo" of the "mutations psychologiques” a f t e r the events of the French Revolution; "les ré c its romantiques ( h i s t o r i q u e s et l i t ­ téraires) se s o n t f a i t l ’ é c h o t o u t a u l o n g de l a p r e m i è r e p a r t i e du XIXe siècle" ("Filmer le r o ma n familial de l ' h i s t o i r e , " i n L«î c i n é m a a m é r i c a i n , V o l . 2, p . 2 1 2 ) . "Au t e r m e d ’ un d é p l a c e m e n t , le r é c i t h o l l y w o o d i e n de l'H istoire . . . n ' e s t rendu p o s s i b l e que p a r une f a m i l i a l i s a t i o n des r a p p o r t s e n t r e l e s p e r s o n n a g e s ; à p a r t i r d ' o ù p eu t se déployer, à tr a v e r s ses a c c o m p li s s e m e n ts complé­ m e n t a i r e s , t o u t e une c o n s t e l l a t i o n o e d i p i e n n e " ( V e n a u l t , p . 2 1 ^ . Se e Bellour's "Le b l o c a g e s y m b o l i q u e " or Rodowick's " M a d n e s s , ” p p . 4 0 - 4 5 , e s p e c i a l l y p . 4 2 : " Th e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the oedipal scenario enabled the d o m e s t i c melodrama to e s t a b l i s h a c o n c r e t e form of n a r r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . "

257

cording

to

the

melodrama

unfolds,

patriarchal cohere

of

character's

threaten

sexuality, melodrama,

Rodowick

development

a

one

it.

where

model.

As

is

seethes

equated

with

the the

difficulties

"usually it

28

d i f f i c u l t i e s with

Those

which

identifies

of n a r r a t i v e

such a s t r u c t u r e

rigid

within

patriarchal the

law and

individual

popular

Freudianism"and rather

melodrama,

in

often

in

the

repressed

"the

by

self-conscious

Rodowick s a y s ,

the

is

conflict

Hollywood "the

"its

oedipal

characterized

for

the

melodramas,

restlessness

incorporating organizing

trend

Hollywood

involving

characters."

this

in

problem

a historical

structure

always

"solves"

flict

patriarchal

29

David

with

model

around

background truth .

traditional

between

of d e s i r e melodrama

discourse

p a t t e r n s of terms."

of

con­

Hollywood

by

1 ) t h e r e f u s a l t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e e c o n o my of the s o c i a l f o r m a t io n in a n y t h i n g but fam ilial, p e r s o n a l , and s e x u a l t e r m s ; 2 ) the d e f i n i t i o n of c o n f l i c t as a s t r u g g le with patriarchal authority; 3) the tendency to describe in psychological terms the difficulty of identifying oneself in the s o c i a l network founded in patriarchal authority.

" Wo me n ' s f i l m s " and t h e melodrama o f t e n c o in c id e , in l a r g e p a r t b e c a u s e women are virtually always presented within a family context ( i n c o n t r a s t to me n) ( s e e S y l v i a H a r v e y , " W o m a n ' s P l a c e : The A b s e n t F a m i l y i n F i l m N o i r , " i n I N j 9 P- 2 3 ) . R o b e r t B u r g o y n e , " N a r r a t i v e a nd S e x u a l E x c e s s , " O c t o b e r 21, p . 55.

258

Rodowick t h e r e f o r e

argues

that

the

incorporation

of

a self-conscious oedipal structure e s t a b l i s h e d a p red eterm in ed symbolic path in which the r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n f l i c t wa s measured against a successful identification with a u t h o r i t y . In t h i s scenario, patriarchal authority could automatically represent itself in the network of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s as a selfproducing and t h u s , n a h i s t o r i c a l c a t e g o r y ( " M a d n e s s , " p. 4 2 ) . 0 H o l l y w o o d may h a v e complex

as

self-consciously

a narrative

w h a t he n e g l e c t s

is

psychoanalysis

may

(conscious wood

that

logic," form that

it

of n a r r a t i v e " the

simply

the

Oedipus

Ro d o w i c k s u g g e s t s , cultural made

framework

but

acceptance

it

part

of

of the

w i t h i n which H o l l y ­

have worked.

implicated because

as

general

and u n c o n s c i o u s )

screenwriters

is

the

have

He a t h woul d a r g u e "film

pattern,

adopted

that

not

dominantly has been (p.

psychoanalytic

just in a

melodrama constraining

"developed

34). concept

and

One c o u l d of

the

but

all

oedipal

exploited

as a

reasonably argue

Oedipus

c o m p l e x owes

For Elsaesser, melodrama records the protagonist's multiple d e f e a t s in the f a c e of s o c i e t y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n to m ain tain the status quo, including the Oedipal s t r u c t u r e . The p r o t a g o n i s t f a i l s to "s hape the events and i n f l u e n c e the emotional environment, l e t alo ne change the s t i f l i n g social m ilieu” ("Tales," p. 9 ) . In ' 3 0 s H o l l y w o o d , when the social problem film developed as a genre, it c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y found t he cause and solution to in­ d i v i d u a l problems within society itself. After the war, though, such f i l m s s howe d c a u s e s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e individual rather than society (Peter Ro f f ma n and Jim Purdy, The H o l l y w o o d S o c i a l P r o b l e m F i l m ( B l o o m i n g t o n : I n ­ d i a n a Univ. P r e s s , 1981).

259

a s much t o

its

and B e l l o u r through

literary

the

Oedipus

complex.

32

that

31

classic

in

Bellour's

reverse.

Still,

as exa mpl e s

For

Bellour,

the

degree

paradigms"

While a p p r e c i a t i n g critical

the charg e of being

reductive."

the

films

surprising

mo s t

psychoanalysis.

open to

is

"the

drew f i n d s

as

have bo th a n a l y z e d

American cinema enacts

mo d e l

his

Heath

of working in

to

fact,

which i t

of

Freudian

skill,

D u d l e y An­

project

"self-fulfilling"

leaves and

itself

"patently

Bellour

provides no me a n s to distinguish the v a lu e of H i t c h c o c k ' s v e r s i o n over a g a i n s t Hamlet or P a r s i f a l o r a ny of the c o u n t ­ less other narratives that bear this fantasy. Not o n l y are the differences amongst artworks thereby flattened, all versions are e x p l i c i t l y grouped under a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l d r a ma (the true psychic complex) which B e ll o u r e v i d e n t l y b e l i e v e s motivates all its avatars (Andr ew, o. 141 ) . Feminists position

of

have

the

Modleski , f o r

also

Oedipus

example,

responded

negatively

complex o n t o a l l modifies

to

narratives.

Barthes'

the

i m­

Tania

association

of

31 For e xa mp le , Heath s ay s of To u c h of Evil that "the b e g in n in g of the f i l m , ag a in q u i t e l i t e r a l l y , i s t hus the murder o f t h e f a t h e r , h i s a n n i h i l a t i o n " ( " F i l m and S y s t e m" ( P ^ t 2 ) , o. 9 2 ) . Janet Bergstrom, " A l t e r n a t i o n , Segmentation, Hypnosis: I n t e r v i e w w i t h Raymond Bellour," in Ca me r a Obscura 3- 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p . 93; Raymond B e l l o u r , "Le b l o c a g e s y m b o l i q u e , " i n L ' a n a l y s e du f i l m ( P a r i s : A l b a t r o s , 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 1 3 1 - 2 4 6 ; s e e Modleski, " ' N e v e r t o be T h i r t y - S i x Y e a r s O l d ' : R e b e c c a as F e m a l e O e d i p a l D r a m a , " Wi de A n g l e 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 36-38.

2 60

narrative crisis. drama" Oedipal sity

and O e d i p u s

33

tively tive

He r own a n a l y s i s

s hows b o t h

that

structure

and

alter

complex

the

some that

the

like

Mildred

context films

of

the

and

the

sexual

i n d e p e n d e n c e o f w o me n . '

Cook a r g u e s

that

Modleski, " 'N e v e r '," C h a p t e r T h r e e , " The

35

in

the

generally.

its

Se e a l s o Uncanny:

patriarchy. in

the

these

economic

an

the

disinte­

current

poses

films

"in

Bachofen's the

ac­

nega­

economy,"

increased

Pierce

for

Set

population,

preceded

Mildred p. 3 4 . F e ma l e

lies

structure

Citing

the

may o f n e c e s -

Oedipal

the

of

One r e a s o n

a post-war

a nd

an a n c i e n t m a t r i a r c h y w h i c h

archy,

and

family unit

reading

34

Oedipal

use

of

masculine

of

"female

support

film noir to

male O e d i p a l

the

structure

its

gration

of

the

to

transition

show " a n i m p a i r e d

vary

analysis.

Oedipal

a threat Pierce

Rebecca as

films

i m p a c t on women t h r o u g h Cook s e e s

of

mean " t h e

a feminist

Barthesian

undermining

to

and

premise patri­ intense

h e r L o v i n g , p . 33 Gothic Novels for

Woi j gn. "

Lucy F i s c h e r also argues a g a i n s t the t r a d i t i o n a l ap­ plication o f t h e O e d i p u s c o m p l e x e q u a l l y t o men a nd women. C i t i n g Na n c y C h o d o r o w ' s a r g u m e n t for "the importance of positive m a te r n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of a young g i r l ' s d e v e l o p m e n t , " F i s c h e r s e e s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a p ­ proach as the r e s u l t of male f e a r s of such s t r o n g bonding among f e m a l e s ( " T w o - F a c e d Women: The ' D o u b l e ' i n Women' s Me l o d r a m a o f t h e 1 9 4 0 s , " Ci n e ma J o u r n a l 2 3 , No. 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 36-37). On f e m a l e b o n d i n g a s a d i s r u p t i v e f o r c e w h i c h narrative c i n e m a s e e k s t o c o n t a i n , s e e a l s o E. Ann K a p l a n , Wo^gn a n d F i l m (New Y o r k : M e t h u e n , 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 5 7. Co o k , £N, p. 69. Modleski proposes the label "gaslight" f o r a g e n r e of f i l m s which she o p p o se s to f i l m s nolrs. These f i l m s " r e f l e c t wome n' s fears about losing t h e i r u n p r e c e d e n t e d f r e e d o m s a nd b e i n g f o r c e d b a c k i n t o t h e home s a f t e r the men r e t u r n e d from f i g h t i n g " ( L o v i n g , p. 2 1 ).

261

threat

to

the

tensively" however,

Oedipal

on

the

argues

threaten

the

male

fantasy,

as

elsewhere

is

while

is

most

Oedipal

noirs

art"

like

the

structure

"draws

ex-

Janey

Place,

Mildred

Pierce

"film

because

noir

is

"woman h e r e

a as

37

sexuality.

that

it 36

fundamentally

our

by h e r

suggests

the

of

because

mythology.

fi1ms

patriarchy,

defined

Burgoyne dermining

matriarchal that

may

structure

possibility through

exists

point

of

for

un­

view.

I f s o c i e t y ' s c o h e r e n c e i s synonymous w i t h its patriarchal stru ctu re, that is, if it coheres a r ou n d a male p o i n t o f view (and i t s Oedipal structure ensures that it does), th en s u r e l y a p o i n t of view which opposes this male identity renders s o c i e t y i l l e g i b l e ( " N a r r a t i v e , " p. 5 3 ) .

Just

as

c o me s the

surely, t o mi n d

issue

changes recent

in

of

the

alternative

is

a female

such

a point

both

film

theory

point of

point of

view

a nd

of view which

view, that

production

and the have

it

is

most

first around

radical

centered

in

years.

Does,

in

fact,

a female

point

of view p r o v i d e

us w i t h

Chodorow c i t e s r e s e a r c h by J e a n n e L a m p l - d e G r o o t on a "'negative oedipus complex' in girls, in which they cathected t h e i r m o t h e r s a n d saw t h e i r f a t h e r s as r i v a l s . " This r e s e a r c h led Freud to a g ree " t h a t the p r e o e d i p a l phase wa s c e n t r a l in feminine development, that daughters, just as sons, begin l i f e a tta c h e d e x c lu s iv e ly to t h e i r mothers" ( The R e p r o d u c t i o n of M o th e rin g (B erkeley: Univ. of C alif o i ^ i l P r e s s , T 5 T 8 ) , p i 95 ) . Janey P la c e, "Women i n F i l m N o i r , " i n FN^, p . 35; s e e S i m o n e de B e a u v o i r , The S e c o n d S e x , t r a n s . and e d . H. M. P a r s h l e y (New Y o r k : V i n t a g e , 1974 ) , e s p e c i a l l y pp. xvi 1i xxi .

262

female

fantasies?

filmmaker fantasy i mage

Nelly

Kaplan

in creating of a strong

with

reality

women

in

argued

over

Ida Lupino, sees

of

and L i n a

by

in

and e v e n s u r p a s s e s

quisite

sexual

degradations

the

both

Freud's

child

greater

the

emphasis

its

on t h e

(Gledhill,

"Recent

analysis

of

Fassbinder's

typifies

this

child —“

Feminists

relations

father

coincident

In

the

seeking

the to

of

"the

to

and

mo r e e x -

romance

follows

symbolic with p.

of

a

of

speaks

Lacan's

real

father”

Surgoyne's

Thirteen "follows

fantasies its

about

patriarchal

483).

film

define

in her

fantasies

trend

play of

clas­

39

family

Year

F o r hi m t h e

of a ' f a o i l y - r o m a n c e ' , in

"as

have

Modleski

in d e v is in g

the

pos-

though,

instance,

herself. of

their

who l u x u r i a t e s

him

Developments,"

tendency.

constructs

help give

by D o r o t h y A r z n e r ,

For

mor e c o n t e m p o r a r y

l a w and n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

tern

for

description

exploring

parents,

could

Swe pt Away a s a r e p e t i t i o n

abuse

the

correspond

filmmaker,

t h e woman

of

not

widening

films

Wertmuller.

French

Although

s c re e n might

lover's

of

women.

it

the

importance

fantasies.

taken

f a n t a s y about

While

"the

female

female

stance

Do v e ,

society,

every

produces

W ertmuller's porno

images

confidence

Not

the

Linda

emphasizes

woman on t h e

a nd

..3 8

automatically

new

to

patriarchal

strength

sibilities."

sic

According

Moons

the

pat­

which the

relation

—— j ^ L i n d a Do v e , " L o n d o n L e t t e r , " J_C 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 976 ) , p . 5 9 . Modleski, " W e r t m u l l e r ' s Women, " JC 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p .

to

1.

263

paternity"

(p.

explicit him,

in

his

presents

figure,

Primal

the

desire

watching

a nd

react

the

of

primal

and

identifies

with

plains

success

of

the

like

'fans'

t o be

servers"

the

is

like

(p.

the

e v e n mo r e

P a s t , which,

"involving

for

an a u t h o r i t y parent,

etc."

around

images

in

primal

as

Pratt

a dd

primal

For

stars:

star,

40

between

the

of

scene

hi m t h i s "The

"the

The

to

on child

this

may

the

a sense observer

partially

instinctual

observed

the

exclusion,

exhibitionistlc: the

primal as

violence

feelings would

the

general

of

attention.

with

o f movie

the

scene— defined

act

most

"in

and

intercourse

an

observed."

a movie

scenarios

castration,

scene

since

Scene)

form

the

the

violence.

identification,

the

tendency

forbidden

Primal

sexual

interpreted

part — receives

curiosity,

the

often

these,

father's to

for

existence, Of

of

parents,"

of

scene,"

( Th e

phantasies

itself.

phantasy

Ou t

the

28).

intra-uterine

scene

of

"Oedipal

Phantasies

Primal of

W i l l e m e n makes

discussion

a murder,

( Tourneur , p.

ii.

56).

ex­

claim

t h e y would of

all

ob­

186).

_ _

F r e u d , “ A Case of Paranoia Running Counter to the Psycho-Analytic Theory of the D isease" ( 1 9 1 5 ) , S E , 14, p . 2 6 9 ; " F r o m t h e H i s t o r y o f an I n f a n t i l e N e u r o s i s " TWo l f Man) ( 1 ^ 8 ) , SE, 1 7 , p p . 5 9 - 6 0 a n d 9 7 . The p i v o t a l concept und erly in g Mulvey's o r i g i n a l essay is a b i n a r y o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p l e a s u r e o f l o o k i n g and the p le a s u re of being looked a t . A c c o r d i n g t o Mu l v e y t h e

264

Detective repetition

of

m e a n i n g a nd

to

game o f

the

the

of

need

for

the

controls

detective the

scene

To some e x t e n t generally.

can

this

thus

of be

of

the

42

an

as

its

in

the

plots

and

explained

in

The c h i l d

of

fiction,

understands,

adult

to g rasp

evokes,

recurrence

the d e t e c t i v e

s/he

it

repetitiveness.

observes,

as

an a t t e m p t

emotions

fiction such

analyzed

in

frequent

in d e te c tiv e the

been

scene

the

The

p h a n t a s y becomes

time

has

primal

master

fo rt/ da.

characters terms

fiction

and

but

this

eventually

observes. argument

extends

to n a r r a t i v e

mor e

I n S/ Z B a r t h e s

designate[s] as h e r m e n e u t i c code . . . a l l t h e u n i t s wh o s e function it is to a r t i c u l a t e in various ways a question, its r e s p o n s e , and t h e v a r i e t y of chance e v e n t s which can either formulate the question or d e l a y i t s answer; or even, constitutg.an enigma and lead to its solution. If

all

narratives

curiosity

about

to

some

extent

the mystery behind

satisfy the

primal

the

childhood

scene,

it

can

p le a su re of being looked at d e r i v e s from a r e p r e s s e d u r g e for e x h ib itio n ism , followed by a " p r o je c tio n of the r e ­ pressed d e s i r e on t o t h e p e r f o r m e r " ( " V i s u a l P l e a s u r e , " p. 9 ) 42

Geraldine Pederson-Krag, "Detective Stories and the Primal Scene," in Psychoanalytic Quarterly 18 , No. 2 ( 1 | 4 9 ) , pp. 207-14. Roland B a r t h e s , S/ Z , t r a n s . R i c h a r d M i l l e r (New Y o r k : Hill a nd Wang, 1974 ) , p. 17; "l'inventaire du code herméneutique c o n s i s t e r a à d i s t i n g u e r l e s d i f f é r e n t s termes ( f o r m e l s ) , au g r é d e s q u e l s une é n i g m e se c e n t r e , se p o s e , se f o r m u l e , p u i s se retarde et enfin se dévoile" ( S/ Z ( P a r i s : S e u i l , 1970), p. 26) .

265

be

argued

that

cinema i s

factorily

recreating

a

space,

closed

presence, cinema

a nd

scene"

primal

scene

extrapolated. Rear

the

ultimate p.

the

family

has

been

and

romance,

s p y i n g " as

(p.

46).

stresses

the

violence

which

in

the

scene,

violently

murders

might

add

yet

police The

that

( La w o f

Law)

the

must

Considering primal the

scene

to

narrative

as

portant embedded Martha

the

Walsh’ s the

elements in

to

a

the

a whole. be]

of For

seen

and

and

of

the

that

Society,

analysis

or

applies

function

and

"the

i m­

nodal

so

far

points

44 chains."

different go

the

scenes

allows as

the

simply,

Willemen

this

the

Burr)

order.

hi m

andN a t h a n L e i t e s

with

reinstate

individual

of

Hitchcock,

amok,

both

to

out

scene

( Ra y mo n d

run

the

loosely

primal

Lacanian

has

of

watching,

associates

A

Pursued ,

complexnetw or k

Wolfenstein

child

Law o f

rescue

terms

singles

of

added

father

i.e.,

in

. . .

husband/father

analysis

[to

images

have

the

Father,

c ome

the

spectacle,

example,

wife/mother.

where

the

spectator's

analogical

example

might

that

occupancy of

the

analysis

for

an

fantasies

primal

satis­

of the s p e c t a c l e ,

strictly

"explicit

He

of

414).

both

its

of

unauthorized

Nor ma n H o l l a n d ,

Wi ndow, w i t h

peeping,

ignorance

covertness

(Rosen,

As w i t h

experience: "In i t s

its

the

resembles

primal

the

in

in

p a r tic u la r ly capable

as

to

dis-

_ _

Paul

Willemen,

" Th e

Fugitive

Subject,"

in W a l s h , p.

77.

266

tinguish

national

treatment

of the

characteristics primal

scene

in

on

the

basis

of

the

films.

In t he archetypal situ a tio n of lo o k in g , that of the c h i l d who i n v e s t i g a t e s the a c t i v i t i e s of the p a r e n t s , the onlooker discovers that something happens from w h i c h he i s excluded and of which he feels envious. American film f a n t a s i e s playing on this t h e me transform the original s i t u a t i o n i n o r d e r to deny envy or d is a p p o in tm e n t. . . . French film s r e evoke the d | g a p p o i n t m e n t o f the c h il d h o o d experience. These

sources

representations, scene,

suggest

through

and o v e r a g a i n

to

its

secret,

did

it,

uncover "they

surance scene

their

ultim ately reassure

cinema over

that

the

is

a nd

we o n l y

scene

in

of

violence.

terms

idea

resemblance spectator,

in order

n ecessary because

as an a c t

primal

the

general

watched

47

of violence,

the

the

with 46

child

though,

this

primal to

the

mystery,

the

perceives

the

cinematic

who g o e s

(ib id .).

child If

to

to observe

t o come a wa y

the

that

feeling

Such r e a s ­ the

primal

views is

the

a rais-

45 Martha W o l f e n s t e i n and N a t h a n L e i t e s , M o v i e s ( G l e n c o e , I l £ g : The F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 5 0 ) , p . 2 4 5 . Se e F e n i c h e l , "On A c t i n g , " p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 . W o l f e n s t e i n and Leites suggest that the presence o f an elderly (usually male) o b s e r v e r o f a young c o u p l e r e v e r s e s t h e p r i m a l s c e n e s i t u a t i o n , a n d t h a t when t h e yo u n g c o u p l e a r e v i r t u o u s t h e y represent a s o rt of denial fantasy in which the p a r e n ts were a c t u a l l y doi ng n o t h i n g of a disturbing nature (p.

25Zh

That the r o l e of the p u b lic p e r f o r m e r t e n d s t o merge with t h a t of the performer of crimes confirms that the arc h e ty p a l performance . . . i s u n d e r s t o o d as a crime of v i o l e n c e " ( W o l f e n s t e i n and L e i t e s , p . 2 7 3 ) .

267

perception

w h i c h must

F o r wome n ,

according

presented

by

the

view c o i t u s strong;

as

this

those the

48

Th u s

The

comfortable

than

In

w ill

they

the are

the is

Gothic

the

the

for

woman m u s t films

the

in

concurs

with

power

reassure.

to the

to

particularly

interpretation, erotic

re­

tendency

romance

be c o r r e c t e d

with

to m a t u r i t y . position

maturity,

Waldnan's

Wa l d ma n

cinema has

Bonaparte,

attain

mistake too,

path

threatening

misperception.

perceptions,

Leites:

to

to Diane

on t h e

psychoanalytical

and

order

spectators,

film."

a

work o f Ma ri e

in

according

film

to

brutal

again,

correct least,

as

be c o r r e c t e d

the

at

"if

we ,

violent, course

Wolfenstein She

sim plistic

is

of a nd

less

concept

of

reassurance . This

reassurance

spectator's to

the

primal

anxious scene.

adulthood, to

reacting

all,

iii.

over

and

to

mome nt

of

The c i n e m a

having

be a n x i o u s

derives film

then

having

effect

by a d e g r e e

childhood

persuaded

about; over

the

in

of

when s / h e

brings

him/her solved

from

the that

the

regression

observed

spectator there

the

the

back

to

was n o t h i n g

m y s t e r y once

and

for

again.

Voyeur ism In o b s e r v i n g

the

supposed v io le n c e

of

theprimal

" ' A t L a s t I Can T e l l I t t o S o m e o n e ! ' : F e m i n i n e Vi e w a nd S u b j e c t i v i t y in the Gothic Roma n c e F i l m 1 9 4 0 s , " C i n e ma J o u r n a l 2 3 , No. 2(1 983 ) , p . 33.

P o i n t of of the

2 68

scene,

the

may b e

excusable

is

limited

child

to

b e c o me s for

the

a de f a c t o

the

child,

child,

the

b e c o me s

especially

adult

the

s a me p o s i t i o n

the

c o n j u n c t i o n o f s e x and v i o l e n c e

association

with

"Metaphoric

license,"

terms

'voyeurism'

like

clinical

Judith

i n wa ys

In f a c t ,

that

we t e n d

take

situation. but

even

in

o ne

for

less

a

taking

explicitly

up

voyeur/

0

behavior.

"allows

continues, feature

of

us than

to

use

their

"voyeurism the

cinema

" ^ 1

only

course,

any harm

criminal

she

granted.

director

R e a r Wi n d o w , o f a film

in or

f a r mo r e g e n e r a l

institutionalized

Hitchcock is

since

this

voyeurism's

Mayne n o t e s ,

b e c o me so

it

While

emphasizes

and

has

to

placed

49

t h e mo r e r e p r e h e n s i b l e

illness

im plications."

voyeur.

is

too

aware

the

classic

to

do

with

of

this

example, voyeurism

49

A f i l m i c example a p p e a r s i n Blonde V e n u s , a c c o r d i n g to K aplan's a n a ly s is of th is film . ''"the c h i l d 1 s u n n a t u r a l i n ­ volvement in h is parents' sexuality may a l s o r e f l e c t an unconscious exposure of the in n e r workings of the n u c le a r family. There is f i r s t the exposing o f t h e F r e u d i a n f a mi l y - r o m a n c e s y n d r o m e , i n w h i c h t h e c h i l d ( h e r e a i d e d by h i s p a re n ts ) e x a l t s the parents to noble lineage; he thus remakes the fa m ily into a fairy-tale beauty belied by actual experience. But s e c o n d , the i n e v i t a b l y incestuous workings of the n u c l e a r family are revealed in the p o s i ­ tioning of the c h i l d as voyeur in the r e t e l l i n g of the parents' f i r s t m e e t i n g as l o v e r s and o f t h e i r i n t e r c o u r s e t h a t r e s u l t e d in the c h i l d " ( Women a nd F i l m , p . 5 6 ) . Because "v oy eur s wa tc hp e o p l e n o t f i l m s , ” Heath finds i t m is t a k e n to c a l l the s p e c t a t o r " v o y e u r i s t i c ” ( Q u e s t i o n s , P - 5} 8 9 ) .

One c o n t r i b u t i n g fa c to r here is "cinema's lingering f a s c i n a t i o n wi th thes p h e r e s of p r i v a t e and public l i f e , mediated through the voyeuristic space proper to the c i n e m a " ( " T h e Woman a t t h e K e y h o l e , " New Ge r ma n C r i t i q u e 2 3 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 3 2 - 3 4 ) .

269

like

Marnie

we c a n

see

his

awareness

at

work.

Once we h a v e s e e n t h a t M a r n i e i s w a i t i n g and l i s t e n i n g , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g more f o r us t o l o o k at. Instead we do what she does. We w a i t . We l i s t e n . . . . In making t h e s p e c t a t o r an a c c o m p l i c e , and not merely a witness, Hitchcock r e c o g n i z e s and e x p l o i t s t h e m o r a l a m b i g u ­ ity of the spectator's position as P e e p i n g Tom ( P e r k i n s , p . 1 4 2 ) .

If

H itchcock's

spectatorial us,

even

Kaplan

while refers

that

Kaplan,

to

can

late

t wo

our

be d o n e

social

wrongs

he

a Lola

express

about

us may

the

for

our

yet

reassure

as

voyeurs.

"political

voyeur,"

position

as

films,

films

punish

directors

Fassbinder

his

these

the

other

acknowledging

in

nothing

presents,

therefore

voyeurism,

specifically For

films

and

Veronica Voss.

Fassbinder's political

identifies,

feeling

situation

etc.;

he

we c a n o n ­

ly watch. It is unfortunately only too clearly a p o s i t i o n th a t a ppeals to the m id d le - c la s s American a u d i e n c e s who l i n e up for his films, since, while i t forces us to s e e what i s w r o n g , we c a n leave the th e a t e r a s s u r e d t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o be d o n e , t h a t change is i m p o s s i b l e .

As a f o r m

E. Policy

of

pleasure,

voyeurism

Ann K a p l a n , " F a s s b i n d e r a s 1 4 , No. 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 6 2 .

contributes

Political

Voyeur,"

to

the

Social

270

cinem a's

success.

permit[s]

us

to

53

maintain

belief

against

in

a resemblance

8

it

).

54

This

finds

degrees,

as

questions . our

most

projected 53

that

"the

a

filmic

to

"the aspect

component

the

cinema's

of

structure in

turn

the

ability

secret

phantasies,

them o n t o

s ome a c t o r

to

Vernet

fetishism"

contributes

entered,

to

the

to

sees (p. the

varying

satisfy

after

film ."^

.

pleasure,"

"effectively proxy,

.

Berthélemy

spectato r's

by in

of

.

comforting

Although

"always

into

and

reality,"

pleasure.

voyeurism

one

transaction

pleasureable

contradiction

voyeuristic

Amengual

.

the

fetishistic

spectator's

he

Because

The

.

having problem

"Voyeuristic p l e a s u r e i t s e l f c a n n o t be e l i m i n a t e d f r o m the c in em a," J o h n s to n a r g u e s ; " i n d e e d , i t is v i t a l fo r the cinem a's survival and its development as a political w e ^ g o n " ( EFF , p . 5 0 ) . " La t r a n s a c t i o n filmique est une t r a n s a c t i o n de ty pe fétichique q u i p e r m e t de m a i n t e n i r , c o n t r e l e s d é m e n t i s de l a r é a l i t é , une c r o y a n c e a g r é a b l e e t c o n f o r t a n t e " ( p . 1 4 1 ) . V e r n e t i d e n t i f i e s “ t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m " o f f i l m n o i r as being w h e t h e r " t o commit o r n o t t o commit i n c e s t . . . . It is i m p o r t a n t t h a t a t l e a s t f o r a m o m e n t , t h i s q u e s t i o n was possible before becoming i m p o s s i b l e , and t h a t even though it wa s f o r b i d d e n o n o n e l e v e l , i t was r e a l i s e d on a n o t h e r . The f i l m n o i r thus accom plishes what Freud r e c o g n i z e d as the prim ary f u n c tio n of the art work: to overturn and reinforce defensive stru ctu res a t one and t h e s a me t i m e " ( ib id .); " c o m m e t t r e e t ne p a s c o m m e t t r e l ' i n c e s t e , t e l e s t l e p r o p o s du f i l m n o i r . L ' i m p o r t a n t e s t q u ' i l a i t é t é à un mo me n t p o s s i b l e a v a n t d e devenir impossible, mais aussi q u 'il se r é a l i s e à un niveau quand, à un autre niveau, tombe l ' i n t e r d i t . Le f i l m n o i r a c c o m p l i t a i n s i c e t t e f o n c ­ tion que F r e u d r e c o n n a i s s a i t à l ' o e u v r e d ' a r t : contourner e t g j r e n f o r c e r e n même t e m p s l e s d é f e n s e s " ( i b l d ♦ ) . B a r t h é l é m y A m e n g u a l , " Le cinéma d'anim ation," Etudes c i n é m a t o g r a p h i q u e s 4 0 - 42 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 210; " s a t i s f a i r e e f f e c ­ tivement . . . nos phantasmes les plus secrets, par procuration, après les avoir p ro je té s sur quelque acteu r dans le film . . . T e lle démarche s'assum e à p l e i n dans le voyeurisme, et on a pu m o n t r e r . . . q u e c e l u i - c i e n t r a i t

271

Amengual

identifies

is

desires,

obsessions

onto

different

film

from

that

that

"if

it,

we p r o j e c t

we w i l l

our

fantasies,

be w a t c h i n g

which u n f o l d s

on

the

a totally screen

for

others . "^

C.

Daydreams Morin

refers

propriately

to

film

describes

the

as

"un

rêve

daydream.

conscient," As E r n e s t

which ap­

Jones

notes,

Freud

l i k e n e d [myths] to ' s e c u l a r d r e a m s ' , i . e . daydreams t h a t occupy th e i m a g i n a t i o n of peoples over generations. The s a me mechanisms a s t h o s e he h a d e l u c i d a t e d i n i n d i v i d u a l dream 1 i f e - - c o n d e n s a t i o n , d i s ­ placement, symbolism a nd so on--are operative also in t h e s e se c u la r dreams, so t h a t one has technical methods at one's disposal for ascertain!^ their o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g , now d i s g u i s e d . As

part

war

effort,

and

Siegfried

flections

of

of

their

scholars

contribution like

Kracauer Ge r ma n

Gregory

analyzed

society.

In

to

the

Bateson,

U.S.

government

Erik

Ge r ma n p r o p a g a n d a later

Erikson, as

re­

w o r k by K r a c a u e r

a nd

toujours, à p r o p o r t i o n v a r i a b l e , parmi l e s c o m p o s a n t e s du p l | ^ s i r de s p e c t a t e u r . " "Si nous y p r o j e t o n s nos f a n t a i s i e s , nos d é s i r s , nos obsessions, c 'e s t à un t o u t autre f ila que c e l u i q u i se d é r o u l e p o u r l e s a u t r e s , s u r l ' é c r a n , que nous p o u r r o n s a s ­ s i s t e r " (p. 2 1 1 ). Th e L i f e a n d Wor k o f S i g m u n d F r e u d , V o l . 3 (New Y o r k : Ba sic Books, 1957 ) , p. 320; 'The Theme of the Three C a s k e t s " ( 1 9 1 3 ) , SE, 12, p . 2 9 2 ; F r e u d , " C r e a t i v e W r i t e r s , " p. 152.

272

by M a r g a r e t thesis

Mead's

students,

was d e v e l o p e d

that

Wolfenstein

this

reflection

collective

daydreams of a n a t i o n ' s

onto

screen

the

powe r .

a nd

in

and

Leites,

results

people working

effect

reinforcing

the

from t he their

their

way own

58

These

daydreams

are in p a rt the sources, in part the pro d u c ts of i ts popular myths, s t o r i e s , p l a y s a nd f i l m s . Whe r e t h e s e p r o d u c t i o n s gain the s y m p a th e tic response o f a wide audience, it is likely that their producers have tapped within themselves the r e s e r v o i r o f common d a y - d r e a m s . The corresponding day-dreams, imperfectly formed and o n l y p a r t i a l l y c o n s c i o u s , a r e evoked in the audience a nd given mor e definite shape ( W o l f e n s t e i n and L e i t e s , p. 13). Hortense

Powdermaker

daydreams" rather

of being

than

ideas

or

She

provided

productive, riched

59

whether

Hollywood's

"manufactured

culled

unconscious." fantasies"

accuses

from wonders

some

impoverished"

on ma s s p s y c h o l o g y ,

audience (p. Keir

the

sort

whether

by H o l l y w o o d the

on

13). says

assembly of

the

"are is

"collective line

collective "ready-made

productive

or

non­

psychologically

en­

Referring

to

Freud's

that

A c o n t e m p o r a r y e x a m p l e o f t h i s a p p r o a c h a p p e a r s i n Jump Cut's review of Jaws. I t s " e n o r m o u s p o p u l a r i t y me a n s J a ws i s a n e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e s o c i e t y ' s c o n s c i o u s n e s s , a nd s h o u l d be a p p r o a c h e d c r i t i c a l l y i n terms of that consciousness r a t h e r tha n as the private vision of a director" ( Dan Rui>j»y, " The J a ws i n t h e M i r r o r , " J_C 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p . 2 0 ) . H o l l y w o o d (New Y o r k : L i t t l e , Br o wn , 1 9 5 0 ) , p . 12 .

273

for him t h e r e l a t i o n between f i l m s and audiences i s , then, twofold--films re­ f l e c t the c o lle c tiv e unconscious and i n turn reinforce it, and from this unconscious follows d e cisiv e actio n . 3y analysing the l a t e n t c o n t e n t (as opposed to the m a n ife st c o n t e n t ) of f i l m s , one can g a in knowledge of the instinctive f o r c e s w h i c h moul d n a t i o n s and d r i v e them to subsequent a c t i o n (p. 69).

For

good

or

bad,

phantasies general

infiltrate

proposition,

positive

or

D.

with

posited

confused

with

620).

Should

reality

principle

activate psychical material

its

degree

the

reality

/

the

subject

does

life.

to

assorted, of

seem

to

a on

equally

sticky,

is­

representation.

reality"

of

Consciousness

w h i c h was

"not

(Interpretation,

these

mechanisms.

cinema as position

reality"

intervene,

this

our

Relaxation

confuse

cinematic

Accepting

w h i c h we s e e

determines

a "psychical

should

reinforcement,

politics

and

defensive

reality

and

m aterial

the

or daily

force

Phantasies

Freud be

the

censorship,

associated

Ersatz

our

negative

pornography, sues

reflection

t wo r e a l i t i e s ,

causing

the

Occasionally,

carry

mo r e

ego

to p. the to

though,

weight

than

0

As M e t z n o t e s ,

the

cinematic

spectator

c o me s

to

the

"With t h i s t u r n i n g a wa y f r o m reality , reality testing is got r id of, the (unrepressed, completely conscious) wishful phantasies are able to press forward into the system, and t h e y a r e t h e r e r e g a r d e d as a better reality" (Freud, " M e t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l S u p p l e m e n t , " p. 2 3 3 ) .

274

cinema ble

as an a l r e a d y

of r e a l i t y

does

confuse

considered less

testing the

this

psychic

reality.

reality

is

Film

people

part

lulling the

the

others for

go t o

cinema

o f what about

the

authors

privacy,

music,

relaxation

and

towards

insofar

so

forth,

as

reality,

it

causes

opening

escape

a

the

possibilities

f o r working pleasure

of

from

purposes,

from t h e i r

leisure-tim e environment

our

withdrawal

spectator

reasons.

physical

c omme nt on t h e

the

the

cinematic

we c a l l physical

a n e go c a p a ­

The s u r r e a l i s t s

greater

the

various

the

contributes

Nu me r o u s ness,

For

the

who do u s u a l l y d e r i v e

and e v e r y t h i n g filmviewing

of r e a l i t y .

t h e y saw as

dangerous,

forms

to a degree,

approach to e x te rn a l

up t o wh a t

those

Still,

1

t wo s o r t s

subject

even

/

su b je c t with

confusion b e n e ficia l

rigidified

Few

constituted

soft

work.

activities,

of commercial relaxation.

chairs,

from s o c i a l

as a l l

a nd

the

dark­

contact,

contributing

the

towards

of c o n s c i o u s n e s s .

The cinematic spectator finds himself placed in a very particular situation, halfway between consciouness and u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s ; t h e f i l m p u t s hi m i n t o a s o r t o f waking h a l l u c i n a t i o n , b o r n o f t he very c o n d itio n s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n : dark­ n e s s , beam of l i g h t , musical accompani­ ment. In a d d itio n , the jerky character of the p r o j e c t i o n adds to i t s o t h e r hyp­ nagogic powers. Corollary: Much mor e e a s i l y than ordinary language, f i l m can

al

^ M e t i , ^S_, p p . R e l a t i o n s , " p.

46-48; 239.

L S I , pp.

66-69;

see L o v e ll,

"Soci­

275

permit

This

escape

what

the

means. to

6

3

find

itself

into

labeling In the

this

to

another of

repudiate

reality,

film

other

as

world

satisfaction

62

a "psychical

an of

logic.

escapist

psychical

of d e s ir e s

and

reality,"

is

entertainment

reality,

unfulfilled

we h o p e wishes

"Le s p e c t a t e u r d e cinéma se trouve placé dans une situation très p a r t i c u l i è r e , à mi-chemin de l a c o n s c i e n c e et de l ' i n c o n s c i e n c e ; le film l ' i n s t a l l e dans une s o r t e d ' h a l l u c i n a t i o n é v e i l l é e , née des conditions même de la représentation: obscurité, faisceau lumineux, musique d'accompagnement. De p l u s , le caractère saccadé de la projection ajoute à ses autres pouvoirs hypnagogiques. Corollaire: beaucoup plus facilement qu e le langage courant, l e f i l m p e u t s e p e r m e t t r e de r é p u d i e r l a l o g i q u e " ( V i r r a a u x , Les s u r r é a l i s t e s , p . 24; " Wha t . . . is the psychic s t a t e of the cinema-goer? . . . S i t t i n g at ease in darkness before a brilliantly illuminated screen, with a m i n i m a l e x p e n d i t u r e o f e n e r g y , he i s t h e o m n i p o t e n t w i t n e s s of a d r a m a b o u n d i n no c o n t i n u i t i e s o f t i m e and s p a c e b u t t h o s e o f t h o u g h t s and w i s h e s . The w i t h d r a w a l o f h i s i n t e r ­ est from the outer world--excepting only from the restricted v i s u a l and t h e a u d i t o r y f i e l d s - - i s accompanied by a d i m i n u t i o n in h i s f a c u l t y of r e a l i t y t e s t i n g for the events d e p i c t e d and by an a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e i r p s y c h i c t e m ­ po. Without drawing too e x a c t a comparison, it may be s a fe ly said th a t t h i s s t a t e of ego c l o s e l y c o r r e s p o n d s to t h a t o f t h e d r e a m e r , o r a t a n y r a t e s h o ws a s t r o n g t e n d e n c y towards i t , " ( P r a t t , p. 186). Se e a l s o L. W i l l i a m s , p . 15; L e b o v i c i , p . 53 ; and Keir, p. 6 8 . Keir s t r e s s e s the combination of physical immobility with eye mo v e me n t f o g ^ s e d on an e x t e r n a l , m o v i n g o b j e c t . Rubey f i n d s t h a t " e s c a p i s t " is a "misleading" term. Films " e s c a p e from n o t h i n g but the a t t e m p t to c r e a t e new ways of seein g (or r a t h e r , the attempt t o a r t i c u l a t e new ways o f s e e i n g a l r e a d y s h a r e d by a small group w ithin the society). T h e y c e r t a i n l y do n o t e s c a p e f r o m r e a l i t y : they present r e a l i t y as a m a j o r i t y of p e o p l e in the s o c i e t y see it." Fr om t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , " J a w s i s n o t e s c a p i s m ; i t i s a s k illf u lly crafted a r t i c u l a t i o n of the c o n c e r n s and f e a r s o f o u r s o c i e t y i n i m a g e s i d e a l l y s u i t e d t o t h e m a nd i n p a r t derived f r o m t h e m , o r g a n i z e d i n t e r m s o f t h e wa y s i n w h i c h we s e e r e a l i t y and u n d e r s t a n d o u r own e x p e r i e n c e " ( p p . 2 0 and 2 3 ) .

276

that

has

term, us tion

been d en ied

in

we s e e k c o m p e n s a t i o n

by o u r of

conscious

the

conscious

fantasy

relaxation and

during

for

the

the in

Using

lim itations

response

relaxation

have

in

the

m ajority

of

and

larger

portion

of

tion

became

widely study

for

world.

physical

television

statistical

real

to

Freud's

imposed

their

on

percep­

world.

life

the

the

processes

external

D r e a ms

film

us

the

their

masses,

past

people. greater

64

sleep

provided With

the

Henri

b y IDHEC w h i c h c o n c l u d e s

advent

psychic Agel that

and

to

of a

relaxa-

quotes the

a

psychic

accessibility

a ne w f o r m o f

available.

of

a

cinema

has a w a k e n e d t h e n e e d f o r d r e a m s and a d ­ venture in the bosom of the masses c r u s h e d by a miserable material fate, deprived almost t o t a l l y of all cultural elements, of a s p i r i t u a l l i f e , of judg­ ment. This simultaneously is its magnificent mission and its crushing responsibility . . . but in place of being a m e d i t a t i o n and a s t i m u l a t i o n , i t r a p i d l y became a g e n u i n e d r u g . ^ 4 See Hugo M a u e r h o f e r , " P s y c h o l o g y of Film E x p e r i e n c e , " t r a n s . V. H. A d a ms , Penguin Film Review 8 (1949), pp. 107-09; he therefore speaks of the cinema's "psygjiotherapeutical fu n c tio n .” ” A é v e i l l é l e b e s o i n du r ê v e e t de l ' a v e n t u r e au s e i n d'une m u l t i t u d e é c r a s é e p a r un sort m atériel misérable et privée presque totalem ent de t o u t é l é m e n t de c u l t u r e , de v i e s p i r i t u e l l e , de j u g e m e n t . C ' e s t l à , t o u t à l a f o i s , sa magnifique mission et son é c r a s a n t e responsabilité . . . mais au l i e u d ' ê t r e pour e l l e [ l a f o u l e ] une m é d i t a t i o n e t un stim ulant, il est devenu rapidement une véritable d r o g u e ” ( H e n r i A g e l , Le c i n é m a ( n . p . : C a s t e r m a n , 1 9 5 4 ) , p p . 9-10; f r o m B u l l e t i n de 1 ' I DHEC, No. 5 ) . Maurice Cranston also c a lls the cinema a drug because film s "cut off that clear a w a r e n e s s o f t h e s e l f and n o t - s e l f w h i c h i s t h e mark o f waking l i f e " ("The Pre-Fabricated Daydream," Penguin

277

An e a r l y tertainment substitute the

wa ve o f

found

fault

would

as

lost

masses

danger

of

as

being

the

only

a n d mo r e a n d m o r e

cinema

unrem ittingly

The

The

for

fantasy that in

fantasies

for

fear

such

provides/

7

sameness, creative

quick

Mor e

the

of

the

danger

of

unsatisfied

the

that

faced

the

us

of

was

"exercise

runs

leaves need

did

spectator

The h e a l t h y

en­

it

a stupefying

outlet

have.

by a p r o c e s s

by

new ma s s

because

unnatural,

product/^

replaced

by

this

precisely

i.e.,

a zombie.

represented

replaced

ourselves,

their

they might

becoming

imagination"

be

against

it

personalized

individuality

abilities

with

"manufactured,"

individual's

the

criticism

fix

with which

positively,

Film Review 9 (1949), pp. 2 7 - 2 8 ) . Münsterberg concludes his a n a l y s i s w i t h a f o c u s on c i n e m a as an a e s t h e t i c f o r c e which has as i t s " m i s s i o n " t h e c u l t i v a t i o n o f an a e s t h e t i c a p g g e c i a t i o n i n t h e s p e c t a t o r whom i t r e a c h e s . I l y a E h r e n b u r g ' s Di e Traumfabrlk: Chronik des Films ( B e r l i n : M a l i k , 1931) p r o v i d e s a M a r x i s t s a t i r i c a l c r i t i q u e of H o l l y w o o d ' s image as a dream f a c t o r y . The P a y n e Fund studies o f t h e ' 3 0 s f o c u s e d on c i n e m a ’ s n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on juvenile viewers. I n H e r b e r t B l u m e r a n d P h i l i p M. H a u s e r ' s M o v i e s , D e l i n q u e n c y , a n d C r i m e (New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1 9 3 3 ) , fo r example, the concern is that cinema contributes to crime. " T h a t m o t i o n p i c t u r e s may i n c i t e d a y d r e a m i n g b u i l t up a r o u n d i m a g e s o f crime is clearly evidenced by our study" (p. 59). However, th e authors continue with the following admission: " I f the p l a y i n g out of r ô l e s in o n e 's i m a g i n a t i o n be t h o u g h t of as not only expressing certain i m p u l s e s and d e s i r e s , b u t a l s o o f o r g a n i z i n g them a n d , p e r ­ haps of s t i m u l a t i n g them, i t woul d seem reasonable that c r i m i n a l p h a n t a s i e s s h o u l d d i s p o s e one t o c r i m e . This does not me a n t h a t i t c a u s e s o n e t o c o m m i t c r i m e . The p r e s e n c e of the daydreaming of criminal rôles i n many p e o p l e who n e v e r e n g a g e i n c r i m e woul d i m m e d i a t e l y f a l s i f y s u c h an a s seg^ion" (p. 62). D i s c u s s i n g the use of fairy tales in the c i n e m a and other ma s s m e d i a , J a c k Z i p e s n o t e s t h e wa y i n w h i c h f a i r y t a l e s c a n be u s e d " t o s e l l t h e A m e r i c a n d r e a m o f a f r e e a nd

278

Wolfenstein

and L e i t e s

suggest

that

movies meet, w is e ly or unwisely, man's need f o r e s c a p e from h i s a n x i e t i e s ; t h e y help assuage his loneliness, they give him v i c a r i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s b e y o n d h i s own activities; they portray solutions to problems; they provide models f o r human relationships, a s e t . of values a n d new fo lk heroes (p. 15).

At with

this

the

place,

m aterial

the

phantasy family

point

and

of

straightforward more

century ois

Freud

the and

a nd

into

basic from

in

here

of

scene,

models, social

as

cultural

pervasive

In

has

been

Freudian of by

apply

perhaps

change

fam iliarity

in with

of

complex,

relatively models

a

are

nineteenth

white

applicability they

first

descriptions Oedipus

The

may

the

the

product

That

cinema

s o me p r o b l e m s

chapter.

c o n te x t dominated

question.

lack of the

the

note

Freudian

etc.,

universal

narrative

to

this

unquestioning.

Their

traditional

both

presented

primal

Viennese

males.

important

such c o n s t r u c t s

than

autom atically to

is

presentation

romance,

nothing

it

bourge­

thus so

frequently

result the his

comes

We s t

from since

theories,

democratic so ciety . Hypnotic in form and content, they carry us o f f t o a n e v e r - n e v e r l a n d by m e a n s o f r e m a r k a b l e and dazzling technical t r i c k s , making us f o r g e t t h a t we have o u [ r ] own u n f u l f i l l e d d r e a m s w h i c h a r e mo r e i m p o r t a n t to p r o j e c t a nd f u l f i l l t h a n t h o s e t h a t t h e f i l m i m p o s e s on our i m a g i n a t i o n " ("The I n s t r u m e n t a 1 i z a t i o n of F a n t a s y , " in The Myt hs of I n f o r m a t i o n , e d . K a t h l e e n Woodwa r d ( M a d i s o n , W i g g . : Co d a P r e s s , 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 1 0 3 ) . See a l s o p. 175, wher e t h e a u t h o r s s p e a k o f t h e f a n t a s y of f i l m as a s a f e o u t l e t f o r v i o l e n t i m p u l s e s .

279

theories

which have

often

been

used

to

justify

that

lack

of

change. The

call

for

recently

from

feminist

ping

spectator

the

imaginary is

to

on

playing. sion

in

the

c i n e m a and W riters,"

the

145).

ways

in which

the

initial

play

as

cinema

level

of

environment

resembles

that

specific

spectator of

lost

material

dreams

spectator just

as

-unless

the

reality,

cannot

that ego, and

'wake'

responsible the

cinema

with

cinema

an

or

the

the

defends

the

cinematic and

phantasies

seem

to

create

accurate

the

in­ or a

perception

loss

of

On t h e

other

hand,

from

confusing

film,

especial

beyond

perceiving

as

the

suggests

daydreaming,

exists

as

of

("Creative

regression

itself

no r e a s o n

child's

a regres­

phantasy

in

the

Freud,

the

pleasure

unconscious

and

the

for

Insofar

would

individual has

of

such

implies.

from

For

equivalence

to

sleep

consciouness

which

through

with

to

cinema. of

the

to

regression

s o muc h o f

involved

resemble

the

reality,

responsibility subject,

films

fantasies,

film

regression of

conscious

sources

furthers

signifier"

as

of

of e n tra p ­

of

part.

speak not

Comparing

the

degree

substitute

cinema as

it

come m o s t

For a c c e s s

a certain

ad u lt's

"imaginary

sofar

imaginary.

probably

of

cinema has

who a c c u s e

spectator's the

childhood p.

Hollywood

though,

becomes

case

the

the

He w o u l d

in

theorists,

in

occur,

entailed

phantasizing

change

to as

individual

think

the

the

dream,

film

began-

characteristics

which

before

from

that

the

the

280

weaken dream

good

Che e g o d e f e n c e s lacks

(see

Chapcer

or

and

noc, Co

would

argue

Che

speccacor's

has

a

harmful

enables which

che cinema

be

ouC o f

form of

such

S c i l l , ic

beneficial

aspeccs

provides.

argue

would

argue

chac

and

plicidy

accepC

ción

is

Then

Dreams,

on

ics

showing Che

us

back

us

chac of

Che q u e s c i o n or

provide

Che

run

is

a

for

Che

from

illusion

cwo is

chreac

che

pare

of

be

a

noc

which

involves

so

Firsc, greac

co s o c i e c y

in

periodic

immoral i c y . us

Co

anxious

Che

need. some who

sore

momenc co

such

of of

fear

manipulaced

wheCher

che

Those

wich a

C h e r e wa s n o c h i n g being

as

Che s p e c c a c o r .

provides

our

in

realicy

reasons.

no

co

involved

regression

inCo

becomes

im-

by Che

manipula­

bad.

sore

unhealchy

bad

escape

implied

h a l l u c i n a C i o n s , and

all

inherencly

from r e s p o n s i b i l i c y , and

cinema

good

che

phancasies/fancasies

che

inherenc

idea

or

very

for

seems

an e s c a p e

faccion" long

poses

are

regression

escape

relaxacion

che

inherencly

of

of

ic

of

Chis

relaxaeion

by C a k i n g

childhood

cinema.

This

behavior

would

chac

phancasies/ fancasi e s ,

Chese

of

conCrol,

people

reassurance

of

IC i s

also

good

Che d e g r e e

relaxacion

is

is

effecc.

abnormal

Second,

ic

consumption

Che d e g r e e

i n ways

provide

prefabricaced

chac

healchy degree

because

films

wheCher

consume

speccacor

Two).

Che p h a n c a s i e s

s o me

Co

che

Wh e C h e r

specCaCor

a

in

for

of

Che

"experience

saCisfacCion, a variecy

of

of

one

sacischac

reasons.

in

Such

281

satisfaction represents verts

cannot

satisfy

a regression

the

and

individual

a

mass.

It

allows

inculcate

their

peculiar

are

consciousness, puts

into

be,

of

of

the

however,

that

expressive the

fantasy just

cinema

the

system,"

external, of

the

woul d

real

because the

non-

defenceless of

the

relaxation

of

postures

it

defensive

technological,

seem to

us be

not

and

and to

the

aspects,

it

also

to 6

a 9

sp ectator's

by b a l a n c i n g

the

may

"As

oriented

an

towards

possible, Nor

is

film

participates

relations,

cinematic

and

alone.

feared."

they appear

Terry Lovell, "Sociology 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 15.

is and

social the

phantasy/fantasy stand

cinema

system;

that

e v e n wh e n

to

world;

"desired

symbol

which r e t u r n s

the

ponent

No.

the

does

can o n l y be u n d e r s t o o d

9

about

relation

cinema

6

bring

con­

an i n s i d i o u s

the

receptive

and

relation

symbol

world

economic,

moral

ego,

cinema's

an e x p r e s s i v e

least,

to

into

It

It

play.

Whatever

itself;

ideology

particularly

ability

stupefied,

of

"them"

who

growth.

part

mindless

needs.

of

into

drugged,

masses,

non-psychical

a cessation

creative, to

real,

the

very

apparatus.

The

relation

the

its

at

in

to

various

com­

contradictory.

Cinema,"

Screen

12,

Chapter

Seven

The Ci ne ma I d e a l / T h e

The p r e c e d i n g representation, nature

chapters

the

cinematic

of p e rc e p tio n ,

techniques

as

forces

subject's

interaction

which the

spectator

to

the

film.

One a r g u e s achieve

that

have

Ideal

focused

with

as a l r e a d y

dominant

structure,

cinema,

of

elements

a hegemony by c o n t r o l l i n g

communication presentations

within of

theory argues,

its

will

obligingly

follow

the

world

well

any

By

as

subject in

that brings

Chapter

given

the various

society

channels

presenting

i n an a c c e p t a b l e

dominant

force.

spectator-

presented

community.

an i d e a l

this

through

a

problematic

on t h e as

of

culture

of

and c i n e m a t i c

constructed

ideology

politics

the

from w i t h o u t

the

The c o n c e p t

on t h e

apparatus,

narrative acting

Ci ne ma

need

of re­

fashion,

not

Other

elements

of

the models of

behavior

appearing

i mpose

society will in

the

media. A

psychoanalytic

provides

one e x p l a n a t i o n

filmviewing net

experience

o f d e ma n d s

tail

a regression

processes calls

involving

the

and t h e

concept

of

o f how engages

this the

various

away f r o m wh a t reality

symbolic.

The

the

spectator-subject

process

works.

spectator

stim uli,

principle mo v e me n t

i n a complex

mo s t

Freud c a l l s a nd is

The

o f which en­ the

from

secondary what

Lacan

towards

the

283

unconscious

a nd

the

e m p h a s i s on

the

visual,

of

images which

thinking, leaves

all

the

tion,

evoke

his/her

The to

given

models.

it

place

with

the

such

force

the

ble,

the

crucial

that

every aspect of feminist

issues

It

This

to su gges­

identifications,

which

the

s p e c t a t o r by

the

dominant

i d e o l o g y by

ego

ideal. provides

the

the all

with

reinforce

of

in­

pleasure

the

that

spectator

right

itself the

has film

to

theory

which have

changes a

role

of

as an a d a p ­

ideology,

to

film

in

and h a s

and w h i l e incompati­

studies

film

rethinking

produced

right

spectator's

may f u n c t i o n

of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s

led

is

the

the

narra­

w i t h hi m o r h e r .

dominant

radical

to

all

into

cinema c o n f i r m s is

functions

traditional

spectator

the

already

By s a t i s f y i n g

and Ma r x i s m may b e f u n d a m e n t a l l y

to v a r i o u s

ways.

process

spectator.

cinema t e m p o r a r i l y

cinema

subject

introduction

contributed

the

In s u t u r i n g

compliant

psychoanalysis

the

modifications

While p s y c h o a n a l y s i s tive

on a f l o w

primary

e f f e c t on

serve

cinema r e a s s u r e s

to b e l i e v e

of

susceptible

Through r e - p r e s e n t a t i o n s

transcendental desire

thus

spectator's

the world.

scenarios,

in

form o f

lasting

In e f f e c t ,

drives,

spectator.

the

apparatus'

e go i d e a l .

that

of the

stinctual

tives

a

cinematic

nature

particularly

c i n e m a may

seeing

the

regression

through

turn achieve

modifying

in

this

spectator

The

on n a r r a t i v e

resembles

primarily

may i n

imaginary.

brought

of to

the b e g i n n i n g s

has

theory

in

virtually the

fore

o f a new

284

cinematic

technique

which

cinematic

apparatus

and

feminist

i s s u e s do n o t

fundamental c r i t i q u e The

Because

as

thought

is

leading,

its

of the

thought

aspects seem

the

The e x c i t e m e n t

to r e s o l v e

these

casionally alternative

it

it

the cinematic

for

while

is

apparatus

difficult,

an a n a l y s i s

Some studies

remain

in the

further,

to change designed

the

control

order

manipulate

to

starting the

point

is

lingness

of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,

by t h e d o m i n a n t the

suture

for

co c o n c r o l

t o be m a n i p u l a t e d .

system of the

the­

to change

explain

studies

a belief

i n the

i d e o l o g y o f t h e media in

spectator.

the d e s i r e

system's a b i l i t y

oc­

itself.

f r om t h e p o l i t i c s

hegemonic

pro­

attempts

The u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h i s v e r s i o n o f s p e c t a t o r derive

of the

exists:

through

strategies

mis­

to mobil iz e b i t s

lies

analyses designed

of

psychoanalytic

others

field

a

as w e l l .

v e r s i o n of s p e c t a t o r

either

through a l t e r n a t i v e

but

structure

temptation

of the

problems,

the These

fad,

film studies

thought

appropriate,

blematic.

or

to

present

the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c

enticingly

ory,

che

structure,

Ye t

alter

film theory.

sometimes s i m p l y i r r e l e v a n t

apparatus. of

to

La c a n

such a c o h e r e n t

passing

pre-existing

a nd p i e c e s o f p s y c h o a n a l y t i c cinematic

a

transfer

and

radically

on t h e s p e c t a t o r .

inherent

Freud

and

hold

represent

problems

psychoanalytic

wou l d

Implicit

change,

and i n t h e

in

a change both in spectator's

Although such a n a l y s e s how t h e

this

cinematic

wil­

as the

apparatus

285

can

unconsciously

well

that,

spectator

is

made

would

Freudian

in

we s u c c e e d

unhappiness."

The

by t h e Doe s

do i t

impact

on s o c i e t y

individual,

separated did

a nd

not

from a

extend

too,

provided

at

least

by

cinema's that

wh o s e

can

but

for

play

by t h e

a

won i f

into

common

an a d a p t i v e its

producer. of

by t h e

state

cinematic

the

rules,

hegemony.

double

of

society

manipulation to

its

the

power

power? If

Such

of d i s ­

apparatus,

something

operate

impact

necessarily

What ,

interests?

only

social

beyond

the

as

the

point to

as

the

him/herself.

power?

in

misery

utile the

the

" mu c h i s

functions

and

suggest

patient

that

hysterical

models in

That

1

statement

they

manipulation,

the

decide

affecting that

adapt

may s t i l l

created

should

the

to

of

spectator

alter

such

conscious

be

one

of

consumer

understanding

action to

the

would

the

is

famous

its

spectator,

defenceless.

cinema,

ma de

accepting

avowal,

s ome

The

apparatus

a spectator

other

less

transforming

for

spectator

cinematic

done

2

dulce

easily

be

Freud's

in

the

conscious

psychoanalysis

evident

force,

manipulate

can

through

If

individual,

c a n be

be d o n e ,

who

Cinema’ s id e o l o g i c a l

on t h e

context.

indeed,

require

its

impact

on

individual

cannot

be

the then

cinema's it

would

effect pose

no

^Such a n a l y s e s t h u s b r i n g an in herent j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the te a c h in g of f i l m t h e o r y , in order to create a larger body o f s p e c t a t o r s awa re of t he o p e r a t i o n s of t he c i n e m a t i c apparatus. C i t e d i n J o n e s , S i g mu n d F r e u d , V o l . 1, p . 2 4 4 .

286

problems social have

for

society

behavior been

social

created

behavior

effectiveness cannot

of

film

a whole.

a variety as

and

as

always

given

in

as

propaganda

be

with

a Nation, reflecting even

causal

agent.

change, fem inists

if

the The

e.g., of

at

to

cinema

If upon for

3

the

the

face

s o ma n y o f effacement

educating

the

which value, itself the of

cinematic its

naive

of

rescue

it

of

a

Birth

excluded

the as

a

may a l s o

readings

accepted social

by

unprochanges

contributed.

apparatus'

mechanisms, viewer

e.g.,

3

its

though

a film

reflecting

may h a v e

and

effect

time,

originally

again

even

be e n t i r e l y

for

4

w h i c h go b e y o n d

reception

were

development;

ideological of

alter

industries

affected;

changes

necessity

Wh o l e

be d e n i e d

passage

ideological

films

been

Th e

cannot

however,

Hollywood's

cannot

the

does,

ways.

have

social

cinema

the

blem atically which

of

pinpointed/

may s h i f t

cinema

of

a result fashion

It

to

then

effects the

depend

necessity

recognize

those

S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , C h a r l e s E c k e r t , " T h e C a r o l e L o mb a r d i n M a c y ' s Window," Q u a r t e r l y Review of F i l m S t u d i e s 3 , No. 1 (1 2 7 8 ), pp. 1 - 2 1 . See, f o r example, th e numerous s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s un­ d e r t a k e n i n t h e 1930s w i t h support from the Payne Fund which f o c u s e d on how c i n e m a affects children; or Robert G u s t a f s o n , " Th e P o we r o f t h e S c r e e n : The I n f l u e n c e o f E d i t h Head's F i l m D e s i g n s on t h e R eta il Fashion Market," Velvet L i g h t T r a p 19 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 8 - 1 5 . Ralph B a k s h i 's Wizards, for example, has a villainous wizard r e d i s c o v e r Nazi p r o p a g a n d a which he u s e s t o m o d i f y p e o p le ’ s behavior for his own evil purposes. Ye t Leni R i e f e n s t h a l ' s Triumph of th e W i l l e p i t o m i z e s d e b a t e s over a film 's status a nd effectiveness as propaganda and/or a esth etic production.

287

mechanisms

would

However,

it

cannot

does

construct

not

positions

the

ma ny

social

ways.

It

peculiarly While

of

the

cinema

and

share

cinema

and

made v u l n e r a b l e

of

viewing

subject

which a f f e c t

the

exceptional

television

in

this

wa ys

society.

the

cinema

but it

subject

other or

rather

is in

one o f similar

w h i c h make

society

social

level

to

experience

the replace

those

the

is

provided

it

in

self,

of

the

the

presence

socially

sanc­

They p r o v i d e so

that is

on t h e

some c a s e s social

subject

the

they

few p e ­

film

oc­

at

both

left

open

screen.

attempts,

(or

of

Very

spectator

cinema

l a r g e — which with

Each

regression,

models

i d e a l s — of

at

equated,

can esc a p e

experiences/ of

words,

those

countries

group

the

be

characteristics.

sorts

to

not,

cannot

television.

as

various

individual

deliberately

and

as

In

various

or

for

reinforce)

enough t h a t

spectator.

in de veloped

casions

In

as

a democratic

powerful.

frequently

or

often

spectator

however,

tioned,

the

within

stressed

subject

is,

living either

be

activities

nevertheless ople

seem o b v i o u s

7

whether merely

to

interaction, brings

industry

to or

the of

^ P o r n o g r a p h y may b e mo r e exclusively a lone male ex­ perience, w h i l e i n s ome c o u n t r i e s s o c i e t y may f r o w n u p o n a woman's e n t e r i n g a cinema a lo n e (see Gertrude K o c h , "Why Women Go to the Movies," JC_ 27 (1 982 ) , p o . 5 1 - 5 3 ; "Warum Frauen i n s MSnnerkino g e h e n , " in Fr a u e n i n d er K u n s t , e d s . Gislind N a b a k o w s k i , H e l k e S a n d e r , and P e t e r G o r s e n ( F r a n k ­ f u r t a . M . : Suhrkamp, 1 980), pp. 1 5 - 2 9 ) . Various f ilm s , such as T ruffaut's Fahrenheit 4 51 or He l ma S a n d e r s - B r a h m s ' Die l e t z t e n Tage von G o m o r r h a , h a v e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y t o u c h e d on t h i s i s s u e .

238

the

individual

fem inists like

filmmaker.

like

Michael

Michelle Snow

manifest

rather

them,

ideal

an

ferent It

is

Citron,

have

than

it

would

is

largely

historical so

century

narrative,

novels

both

b e e n ma ny r o a d s for

example,

scientific

It

exclusive

than

rather the

ble.

This

not

never

change

After he

ideas

at

wards

off

cited

in

mo r e any

dif­

from

melodrama.

to

becoming

has

nineteenth

cinema's

closer

its

continue

it

origins

have

To a

There

history;

aform of

theater,

been

twentieth

in

art

or

become

an

large

extent,

determined

by i t s

to

seem i n e s c a p a ­ films

can

about

the

apparatus

which

they

in­

audience

for

never

change.

function it

mainly

make

modifying)

see

For

who

possibility

we ma y i n d e e d

itself.

those

the

on t h e

technique

that

whe n T u r n e r

least

the

the

which

all,

includes

(or

the

in

activity.

argue

anything

that

efface

staged

than

history

attributes,

nor

and

like

mass

technological

herit,

film

ma ny t h i n g s ,

stayed

could,

to

to

Godard,

filmmakers

happenstance that

taken

rather

cinema's

is

make

fundamentally

have

entertainment.

though,

not

tinkering

Jean-Luc

n o w.

cinema d e r i v e s

could,

it

like

experimental

to

be

century

have

or

tried

allowing

cinema

from what

Directors

of as

serious

speaks of

existing art a

or

of

will

liminal

questioning models. of

at

Freud this

experiences, a nd

rejecting

To a p p l y

phantasy

therapeutic

illness.

n u mb e r o f ways

films

to

the

experience can of

juncture,

Freud's cinema, which

course but

be

I will

2 89

close

with

one

of

Lacan's

Ich werden.

The p l e a s u r e

unconscious,

cannot

sake

of

both

the

be made

whether

during

the

cinema

as

well

Thus, as

the

individual

should

after.

of

be d e n i e d ,

pleasure

ately

favorite

while

the

be r a t h e r

unpleasant

an e n t i t y

for

society

nor and

approve.

it

be.

as

as

muc h

of

ideal

of

film

notion

a nd

For

though,

power the

conscious

society,

a prescriptive

concepts,

es_ w a r , s o i l

both

should

experience

potential

to

cinena,

conscious

immediate

lines:

the this

possible, or of

i mmedi­ an i d e a l

a cinema i d e a l spectator

would

may be

B ibiiography A b b r e v i a t i o n s used i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : CduC C a h i e r s du c i n é m a . EFF Hardy, Phil, Claire J o h n s t o n , and Paul Willemen, e d s . , P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s / C i n e ma/ A v a n t - G a r d e . Ed i n b u r g h ' 7 6 M a g a z i n e 1. FN K a p l a n , E. An n, e d . Women i n F i l m N o i r . GP Freud, Sigmund. Gr o u p P s y c h o l o g y a n d t h e A n a l y s 1 s of the Ego. I &I Nichols, B ill. I d e o l o g y a nd t h e I m a g e . IS Met z, C h r i s t i a n . The I m a g i n a r y S i g n i f i e r . ISEM Lacan, Ja c q u e s. ]Le s é m i n a i r e . I_. Le s écrits t e c h n i q u e s de F r e u d . JC Jump C u t ♦ LP L a p l a n c h e , J . , and J . - B . P o n t a l i s . The L a n g u a g e o f Psycho-Analysis. LSI Metz, C h r i s t i a n . Le s i g n i f i a n t i m a g i n a i r e . RI F Re v u e i n t e r n a t i o n a l -? ¿e f l l m o l o g l e . SE The S ta n d a r d E d i t i o n of the Complete P s y c h o l o g i c a l Wo r ks o f S i g mund F r e u d . Ed . J a m e s S t r a c h e y . Abraham, K a r l . Selected Papers of K a r l Douglas Bryan and Alix Strachey. P r e s s , 1948.

Abraham. Trans. London: Hogarth

A d l a m, D i a n a , et a l. "Psychoanalysis, Ideology, and t h e Human Subject." Ideology a nd C o n s c i o u s n e s s I (1977), pp. 5-56. Agel,

Henri.

Le c i n é m a .

6

th e d .

A lth u s s e r , Louis. “Idéologie et d 'état." In P o s i t i o n s . P a r i s : pp. 67-125.

N.p.:

Casterman,

1954.

appareils idéologiques E d i t i o n s S o c i a l e s , 1976 ,

“ Ma r x i s m and Humanism.“ In For Mar x. T r a n s . Ben Brewster. New Y o r k : P a n t h e o n B o o k s , 1 $ 6 9 , p p . 2 1 9 - 4 6 . "Marxi sme e t F r a n ç o i s Maspero, Amengual, B a r t h é l é m y . privilégiée du cinématographiques

humanisme." In Pour 1965, pp. 2 2 5 - 4 9 .

Marx.

Paris:

"Le c i n é m a d'anim ation, expression surréalisme â l'écran." Etudes 40-42 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , pp. 20 9- 4 5.

291

Andrew, D u d l e y . Univ. P re s s,

Concepts 1984.

In Film

Artaud, Antonin. " S o rc e lle rie et com plètes. Paris: Gallimard,

Oxford:

cinema." Vol. I l l , 1961, pp. 7 9-82 .

Augst, Bertrand. " Th e A p p a r a t u s : Obscura 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 97-101. Aumont, J a c q u e s , a n d J . L. P a r i s : A l b a t r o s , 1980.

Theory.

Oeuvres

An I n t r o d u c t i o n . "

Leutrat,

eds.

Théorie

Oxford

Ca me r a

du f i l m .

Bacon,F r a n c i s . Novum 0 r g a n u m . Part I. In The E n g l i s h Philosophers from Bacon t o M i l l . E d . Ed w i n A. B u r t t . New Y o r k : M o d e r n L i b r a r y , 1 9 3 9 , p p . 2 4 - 1 2 3 . Bailblé, Claude. " Pr og ra mmi ng t h e Look: Teaching Film Technique." Screen ( 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 99-1 31 . B arthes, Roland. S e u i l , 1972.

Le

Le p l a i s i r

degré

zéro

du t e x t e .

--------- . Mythologies. a n d Wa n g , 1 9 7 2 . --------- .

S[ Z .

Trans. Richard

Paris:

Seuil,

1957.

Trans.

Annette

Lavers.

Seuil, Richard

Paris:

S e u i l , 1973.

Text. 1975.

Paris:

S/Z. Trans. Wang , 197 4 .

l'écritu re.

Paris:

The P l e a s u r e o f t h e New Y o r k : H i l l a n d Wa n g, Mythologies.

de

A NewA p p r o a c h to Education 32-33

New

M iller.

York:

Hill

1970 .

M iller.

New Y o r k :

Hill

and

" W r i t i n g Degree Z e r o . " In W r i t i n g D e g r e e Z e r o and Elements of Sem iology. T r a n s . A n n e t t e L a v e r s and C o l i n Smith. B o st o n : Be acon, 1967, pp. 1-88. Baudry, Je a n - L o u is . "The A p p a r a t u s . " T r a n s . B e r t r a n d Au g s t and J e a n An dr ews. Camera O b s c u r a 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 1 0 4 - 2 6 . L 'effet

cinéma.

Paris:

Albatros,

1978.

" I d e o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus." T r a n s . Alan W i l l i a m s . F i l m Q u a r t e r l y 28, No. 2 ( 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 ) , p p . 3 9 - 4 7 .

292

Baxter, Peter. "On Wi de A n g l e 2 , No.

t h e Na k e d 2 (1978),

Thighs of pp. 18-25.

B azin, André. "The O n t o l o g y of V o l . I , What i s C i n e m a . Ed. B e r k e le y : Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a "Théâtre et cinéma," (1 9 5 1 ), pp. 232-53. B e l l o u r , Raymond. 1979.

L'analyse

--------- . "Hitchcock, The (1 9 77), pp. 66-92.

Part

du

Benveniste, V o l . 2.

2.

Esprit

film.

Enunciator."

Problèmes de G a l l i m a r d , 197T.

19,

No.

Paris:

Camera

séquence."

Le c i n é m a a m é r i c a i n : A n a l y s e F la m m a rio n , 1$80. Emile. Paris:

D ietrich."

the Photographic Image." and trans. Hugh Gray. P r e s s , 1967, op. 9 -1 6 .

" Les O iseaux: analyse d'une c i n é m a 216 ( 196$ ) , p p . 2 4 - 3 9 . --------- , e d . Paris:

Miss

de

Albatros,

Obscura

2

Cahiers

du

film s.

llngui stique

180-81

2 vols.

générale.

Bergstrom, Ja n e t. "Alternation, Segmentation, Hypnosis: I n t e r v i e w w i t h Ra ymond Bellour." Camera Obscura 3-4 (1 9 79), pp. 71-103. --------- . " F . W. Murnau: Convention and Innovation." The S e m i o t i c s o f C i n e ma I I , A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e S e m i o t i c s S o c i e t y of America, Bloom ington, Ind. 13 O c t . 1 9 8 4 . Bersani, Leo. A F u t u r e f o r As t y a n a x : C h a r a c t e r in L i t e r a t u r e . B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1976. B l u m e r , H e r b e r t , and Philip M. q u e n c y , and C r i m e . New Y o r k : Bovenschen, Silvia. "Is T r a n s . Beth W eckm uller. p p . 111-37. Branigan, Edward. Point-of-View Shot." 54-64.

Stephen

Heath,

and

Hauser. Movies, M a c m i l l a n , 1933.

Delin­

There a Feminine Aesthetic?" New G e r ma n C r i t i q u e 10 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,

Screen

"Formal P e r m u t a t i o n s of 16, No. 3 (1975),

Brewster, Ben. " S t r u c t u r a l i s m in 1 2 , No. 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 4 9 - 5 8 . --------- ,

and D e s i r e

Colin

Film

MacCabe.

Criticism ." "Comment."

the pp.

Screen Screen

293

16,

No.

2 (1975),

pp.

83-90.

Browne, Nick. " Th e S p e c t a t o r - i n - t h e - T e x t : The R h e t o r i c o f Stagecoach." F i l m Q u a r t e r l y 2 9 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 26-38. Brunius, J a c q u e s B. A r c a n e s , 1954.

Eii m a r g e

du c i n é m a

f r a n ç a i s . N.p.:

Buscombe, Edward, C h r i s t o p h e r G l e d h i l l , Alan Lovell, Christopher Williams. "Statement: Psychoanalysis F i l m . " S c r e e n 1 6 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 1 1 9 - 3 0 . Burgoyne, Robert. 21 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p .

"Narrative 51-61.

and

Sexual

C a r r o l l , J o h n M. Toward a S t r u c t u r a l The H a g u e : M o u t o n , T9ÏÏ0. Carroll, Noël."Address (1982), pp. 89-163.

to

the

Excess."

Psychology

Heathen."

and a nd

October

of Cinema.

October

23

Caughie, John, ed. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan Paul in a s s o c i a t i o n with th e B r i t i s h Film I n s t i t u t e , 1981. Chodorow, Nancy. Th e Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and t h e S o c i o l o g y of G e n d e r . Berkeley: Un iv . o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1978. Cohen-Séat, Gilbert. Essai sur les principes d'une philosophie du c i n é m a : I . Introduc tion g é n é r a l e : No­ tions fondamentales et vocabulaire de film ologie. P a r i s : P r e s s e s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1946. --------- . Problèmes du c i n é m a e t de 1 ' i n f o r m a t i o n v i s u e l l e . P a r i s : P r e s s e s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1961. Comolli, Jean-Louis. " T echn iq ue e t i d é o l o g i e : Caméra, p e r ­ sp ectiv e, profondeur de c h a m p . " C a h i e r s du c i n é m a 229 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 4 -2 1 . Coward, R o s a l i n d . "On t h e U n i v e r s a l i t y o f t h e O e d i p u s Com­ p l e x : D e b a t e s on S e x u a l D i v i s i o n s i n P s y c h o a n a l y s i s a nd Anthropology." Critique of Anthropology 4, No. 15 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 5-28. --------- , and J o h n E l l i s . L a n g u a g e and M a t e r i a l i s m : ments in Semiology and the Theory of the L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e and K e g a n P a u l , 1 9 7 7 .

Develop­ Subject.

294

Cowie, E l i z a b e t h . S c r e e n 1 6, No.

"Feminist Film Criticism: 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 134-39.

Cranston, Maurice. " Th e P r e - F a b r i c a t e d F i l m Review 9 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , pp. 2 6 - 31 . Daney, S e r g e and Je an-P ierre Oudart. j o u i s s a n c e . " C a h i e r s du c i n é m a 222

A

Reply."

Daydream."

Penguin

"Travail, (1 9 7 0 ) , pp.

lecture, 39-50.

Dayan, D a n i e l . " To wa r d a T h e o r y o f Me d i a E v e n t s . " D i v i s i o n on F i l m , MLA C o n v e n t i o n , New Y o r k . 28 D e c . 1 9 8 3 . De

L au retis, Teresa. Alice Doesn ' t : F e m i n i s m , S e m i o t i c s , Cinema. B l o o m i n g t o n : I n d i a n a U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 Ô4 .

-------- , and Stephen Heath, eds. London: M a c m i l l a n , 1980. Deprun, J e a n . "Le c i n é m a e t t e r n a t i o n a l e de f l l m o l o g i e

The

Cinematic A p p aratu s.

l ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " Re v u e i n ­ 1, No. 1 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , p p ” Î 6 - 3 8 .

" C i n é ma et transfert." Re v u e internationale f l l m o l o g i e 1, No. 2 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 0 7 ^ Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix P a r i s : E d i t i o n s de m i n u i t , D o a n e , Ma r y Ann. T r a c t s 3, No.

de

Guattari. L'antl-O edlpe. 1 9 7 2 , p p . 6 0 - 6 6 and 2 1 7 - 2 7 .

"Misrecognition and 3 (1 980), pp. 25-32.

Identity."

Ciné-

Dove, L i n d a . " L o n d o n L e t t e r : F e m i n i s t a nd L e f t I n d e p e n d e n t Fil mmaki ng i n E n g l a n d . " J ump Cu t 10-11 (1976), pp. 59-60. Eberwein, Robert. " S p e c t a t o r - V i e w e r . " Wi de A n g l e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 4-9. Ehrenburg, Berlin:

Ilya. Di e Traumfabrik: M a l i k - V e r l a g , 1931.

Chronik

Eisenstein, Sergei. "Word a nd I m a g e . " T r a n s , a nd e d . J a y L e y d a . New Y o r k : 3-68.

2,

des

No.

2

Films.

I n The F i l m S e n s e . H a r v e s t , 1975, op.

Ellis, John. " I d e o l o g y and S u b j e c t i v i t y . " Wo r k i n g P a p e r s i n C u l t u r a l S t u d i e s 9 (1976 ) , pp. 2 0 5 -1 9. Elsaesser, on t h e Fenichel,

T h o ma s . “ T a l e s o f Sound and F u r y : O b s e r v a t i o n s F a m i l y M e l o d r a m a . " Monogr a m 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , p p . 2 - 1 5 . Otto.

The C o l l e c t e d

Papers

of

Otto

Fenichel:

295

First S eries.

New York: N o r t o n ,

1953.

"On A c t i n g . " P s y c h o a n a l y t i c ( 1 9 4 6 ) , pp. 144- 60.

Quarterly

15,

No.

2

F i s c h e r , Lucy. "Two-Faced Women: The ' D o u b l e ' i n Women's Melodrama of t he 1940s." Cinema J o u r n a l 23, No. 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 24 - 43. Freud, Sigmund. 20, p p . 7 - 74 .

"An

A u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l Study"

(1925),

SE,

"A Case of P a r a n o i a Running Co unt er to t h e P sychoAnalytic Theory o f the D i s e a s e " ( 1 9 1 5 ) , SiE, 14, pp. 2 6 3- 72 . "Beyond t he P l e a s u r e P r i n c i p l e " 7 - 64 .

( 1 9 2 0 ) , SE_, 18, pp.

" C r e a t i v e W r i t e r s and Day-Dreaming" ( 1 9 0 8 ) , SE_, 9, pp. 143- 53. -------- ."The Dynamics 9 9- 10 8. -------- .

of T ransference"

“The Ego and t h e Id" ( 1 9 2 3 ) ,

(1912),

S£, 19, pp.

"Extracts from t h e F l i e s s P a r a n o i a " ( 1 8 9 5 ) , S_E, 1, pp. 206- 12. ------ - .

SE_,

Papers:

12, pp.

12-66. Draft

H.

"F a m i l y Romances" ( 1909 ) , SE_, 9, pp. 237-41 . "F etishism"

(1 927 ) ,

SE_, 23, pp. 152- 57.

" F i v e L e c t u r e s on P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s " p p . 8-5 5.

( 1 9 0 9 ) , £E_, 11,

" F o r m u l a t i o n s on t h e Two P r i n c i p l e s of Mental Func­ t i o n i n g " ( 1 9 1 1 ) , S£, 12, pp. 2 1 8- 26 . "From the H i s t o r y of an I n f a n t i l e N e u r o s i s " Man) ( 1 9 1 8 ) , SE_, 17, pp. 1- 122 . -------- . Group P s y c h o l o g y and t he ( 1 921 ) S E . T ^ - p p . 6 7 - T3 X " Hyp nos i s" ( 1893 ) ,

Analysis

of

(Wolf

the

Ego.

S_E, 1, pp. 105- 14.

"Hysterical Phantasies and T h e i r B ise x u a lity " (1908), 9, pp. 159- 66.

Relation

to

296

pp .

"Instincts 117-40.

and T h e i r V i c i s s i t u d e s "

The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

(1915),

SE_, 14,

of D r e a m s . ( 1 9 0 0 ) ¿15, 4 - 5 .

J o k e s and T h e i r R e l a t i o n

to the U nconscious.

(1905)

§1 * 8 * -.

"The L i b i d o T h e o r y "

(1922),

S£,

18, p p .

"A M e t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l S u p p l e m e n t Dreams" ( 1 9 1 7 ) , SjE, 14, p p . 2 1 9 - 3 5 . New I n t r o d u c t o r y Lectures ( 1 9 3 8 ) SE, 22, p p . 5 - 1 8 2 . "On Dreams" ( 1 9 0 1 ) , •-. pp.

SiE, 5,

"On N a r c i s s i s m : An 73-102.

(Or M e n t a l )

T he or y of

Psycho-Analysis.

pp. 633 -8 6.

Introduction"

"Project for a S c ie n tif ic pp. 295-397.

-------- . " P s y c h i c a l pp. 283-302.

to the

on

■-. “ An O u t l i n e o f P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s " 144-207. 1,

255-59.

(1914),

( 1 9 4 0 ) , £E,

Psychology"

Treatment"

SE, 14, 23,

pp .

(1895),

SE,

(1905),

SJi,

7,

" P s y c h o - A n a l y t i c N o t e s on an A u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l Ac­ c o u n t o f a Case of P a r a n o i a " ( 1 9 1 1 ) , SE_, 12, pp. 9 - 8 8 . The P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y of E v e r y d a y L i f e . ( 1 9 0 1 ) -------- . pp. 7, -------- .

"Repression"

(1915),

"The Theme o f 291-301.

141-58.

th e Three C a s k e t s "

(1913),

T h r e e E s s a y s on t h e T h e o r y of S e x u a l i t y pp. 130-243. Totem and Tabu ( 1 9 1 3 ) , ¿E_, 13, p p . "The U n c o n s c i o u s "

(1915),

F r i t h , Simon. P o l i t i c s of R o c k ' N' Ro1 1 . G allop,

SE_, 14, p p .

Jane.

SJi,

SjE, 6.

SjS, 12,

(1 905 ) ,

SE ,

1-161.

14, p p .

1 6 6- 2 0 8 .

Sound E f f e c t s : Y o u t h , New York: P a n t h e o n , 1 §81. The

D aughter' s

Le

S e d u c t i o n :Femi ni sm and

297

mi:----

Psychoanalysis.

Ithaca,

N.Y.:

Cornell

Univ.

Gemelli, Agostino. " Le f i l m p r o c é d é d ' a n a l y s e R e v u e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de f i l m o l o g l e 2 , No. 135-38.

6

projective.” (1 9 4 8 ) , pp.

Glass, Dee D e e , L a u r a M u l v e y , G r i s e l d a P o l l o c k , Williamson. "Feminist Film Practice and F o r m a t i o n s of P l e a s u r e 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 156-70. G ledhill, Christine. "Recent Developments Criticism ." Q u a r t e r l y Review of Fi lm (1978), pp. 457-93. Go o d ma n , Free 4.

and J u d i t h Pleasure."

i n F e m i n i s t Film S t u d i e s 3, No. 4

Ellen. " P e r s u a s i v e P o r n O r d i n a n c e Woul d S t r a n g l e Speech." Indiana Daily Student, 17 J a n . 1 9 8 4 , p .

Greenberg, Harvey. Du t t o n , 197 5 .

The

Movies

Hammond, Paul, ed. The S h a d o w W r i t i n g s on C i n e m a . London: 19 78 . Hanet, K a ri. S c r e e n 15, Hardy,

Press,

Phil,

on

Raoul

Walsh.

New Y o r k :

and I t s Shadow: British Film

"The Narrative Text No. 4 ( 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 5 ) , p p . ed.

Your M i n d .

of Shock 18-28.

Edinburgh

Surrealist Institute, C o r r i d o r ."

Film

Festival,

1974 .

--------- , C l a i r e J o h n s t o n , and Paul Willemen, A n a l y s i s / Cinema/ A v a n t- G a r d e . Ed i n b u r g h E d in b u r g h Film F e s t i v a l , 1976. Heath, Stephen. 51-112.

No. pp.

"Difference."

Screen

" F i l m a nd S y s t e m : Ter ms 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 8-77 ( P a r t 91-113 ( P a r t I I ) .

of 1)

19,

'7

No.

eds. Psycho6 Magazine 1. 3 (1978),

Analysis." S c r e e n 16, a nd 1 6 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,

--------- . "Identification." Colloquium on Semiotics C i n e m a , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Summer I n s t i t u t e f o r S e m i o t i c S tru c tu ra l Studies, Toronto. 22 J u n e 1 9 8 4 .

No. --------- .

"Introduction: 1-2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , p p .

Ouestions 9-12.

The N o u v e a u Roman :

A

of

Study

pp.

Emphasis." in

the

of a nd

Screen

14,

Practice

of

298

W riting.

Philadelphia:

Questions

T e mp l e U n i v .

of C i n e ma .

London:

Press,

1972.

Macmillan,

1981.

Hebdige, Dick. S u b c u l t u r e : The M e a n i n g o f S t y l e . Me t h u e n , 1979. --------- , a n d Geoff Hurd. E d u c a t i o n 28 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,

"Reading pp. 68-78.

a nd

London:

Realism."

Screen

Hedges, I n e z . " For m and M e a n i n g i n the French Film, I I I : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " French Revi ew 56, No. 2 (19 82 ), pp. 207-17. H o l l a n d , Norman N. The D y n a m i c s o f L i t e r a r y York: Oxford Univ. P r e s s , 1968.

Response.

Hume, D a v i d . A T r e a t i s e o f Human N a t u r e . B i g g e . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n -] l i i l .

Ed.

J.

Re v u e Interna­ pp. 109-10.

D. "Espoirs d'une science nouvelle." t i o n a l e de f i l m o l o g i e 1, No. 2 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ,

L.

A.

New

Selby-

J a k o b s o n , Roman. S h i f t e r s , V e r b a l C a t e g o r i e s , and t h e Ru s ­ sian Verb. Russian Language Project. Cambridge, M a s s .: Harvard U n i v ., Dept. of Slavic Languages and L i t e r a t u r e s , 1957. Monograph. James, William. The P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y . M a s s . : Harvard Univ. P r e s s , i W l .

Cambridge,

Johnson, C ath erine. "The I m a g i n a r y and The B i t t e r T e a r s o f P e t r a von K a n t . " Wi de A n g l e 3, No. 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , ppT 2 0 - 2 T T Johnston, C laire, ed . The Work o f D o r o t h y A r z n e r . B r i t i s h Film I n s t i t u t e , n . d . --------- , and Paul Willemen, eds. b u rgh Film F e s t i v a l , 1975.

Jacques

London:

Tourneur.

Edin­

Jones, Ernest. The L i f e a n d Work of SI g mu n d vols. New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 5 3 - 1 9 5 7 .

Freud.

--------- • Papers on T i n d a l l and Cox,

Bailliere,

Psycho-Analysis. 1950.

London:

3

Kaplan, E. Ann. " A s p e c t s of B r i t i s h F e m i n i s t Film Theory: A C r i t i c a l E v a lu a tio n of Texts by C l a i r e J o h n s t o n and Pam C o o k . " Jump Cu t 1 2 - 1 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 5 2 - 5 5 . -----.

"Fassbinder

as

Political

Voyeur:

'Lola'

and

299

'Veronica 60-62.

V o ss'.” Social

-----. Women a n d F i l m : B o t h York: Me thuen, 1983.

Policy

14,

Sides

of

K a p l a n , E. An n , e d . Women i n Film I n s t i t u t e , 1980. Kay,

No.

the

Film N o i r .

Ka r yn , and G e r a l d P e a r y , e d s . C r itic a l Anthology. New Y o r k :

Keir, Gertrude. " P s y c h o l o g y and R e v i e w 9 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , p p . 6 7 —7 2 .

1 (1983),

pp.

Camera.

New

London:

Women a n d t h e D u t t o n , 1977 . the

Film."

British

Cinema: A

Penguin Film

Klein, Melanie. "On I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ” I n New D i r e c t i o n s i n P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s : Th e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f I n f a n t C o n f l i c t i n t h e P a t t e r n of A d u lt Behavior. Eds. Melanie Klein, Paula H e i m a n n , a n d R. E. M o n e y - K y r l e . New Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1957, pp. 309-45 . Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hi t i e r : A Psychological H i s t o r y of the Ge r ma n F i l m . Princeton, N . J . : P r i n c e t o n Un iv . P r e s s , 1947. Kristeva, Julia. "E llip se sur s p é c u l a i r e . " Communications

la 23

frayeur et ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp.

la seduction 73-78.

" Th e S y s t e m a n d t h e S p e a k i n g S u b j e c t . " I n The T e l l Tale S ig n . E d . Th o ma s A. S e b e o k . L is s e , Neth. : Peter de R i d d e r , 1975, p p. 4 7 - 5 5 . K u b i e , L a w r e n c e , and Sydney M a r g o l i n . " Th e P r o c e s s o f Hy p­ notism and t h e N a t u r e o f t h e H y p n o t i c S t a t e . " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y 1 0 0 , No. 5 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , p p . 6 1 1 - 2 2 . Kuhn, A n n e t t e . Women1 s Pictures : Feminism L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a nd K e g a n P a u l , 1 9 8 2 .

and

Cinema.

K u h n , T homa s S. The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s . 2d ed . C h i c a g o : U n i v . o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 19 7 0 . Kuntzel, Thierry. Camera O b s c u r a

pp. £a

" Th e F i l m - W o r k , 2 . " 5 (1980), pp. 6-69.

"Le t r a v a i l 136-8 9 .

du f i l m

2."

"Savoir, pouvoir, voir: 7-8 (1974), pp. 85-97.

Trans.

Nancy H u s t o n .

Co mmu n i o a t i o n s

Allégorie

d'une

23

(1 9 7 5 ) ,

caverne."

300

K u r z w e i l , E d i t h , and W i l l i a m P h i l l i p s , e d s . L i t e r a t u r e and P s y c h o a n a l y s i s « New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 8 3 . Lacan,

Jacques.

Ecrits.

Le s é m i n a i r e . I_. P a r i s : Se u i l , 197 5 .

Paris:

Seuil,

Les

écrits

1966. techniques

de F r e u d .

Le s é m i n a i r e . XI. Les quatre concepts m e n t a u x de l a p s y c h a n a l y s e . P a r i s : S e u i l , 197 3. Lagache, Daniel. universitaires

La psychanalyse. de F r a n c e , 1969.

" La p s y c h a n a l y s e e t n a l i t é . " La p s y c h a n a l y s e

la 6

structure (1958), pp.

Paris:

Presses

de la 5-54.

person­

L a p l a n c h e , J . , and J . - B . P o n t a l i s . The L a n g u a g e Analysis . Trans. Donald Ni e h o i s o n - S m i t h . N o r t o n , 1973. V o c a b u l a i r e de la psychanalyse. u n i v e r s i t a i r e s d e F r a n c e , 1 $ 6 7. Lebovici, Serge. "Psychanalyse t i o n a l e de f l l m o l o g i e 2 , No.

fonda­

of PsychoNew Y o r k :

Paris:

Presses

e t c i n é m a . " Revue i n t e r n a ­ 5 (1 9 4 8 ), pp. 49-55.

Locke, John. An E s s a y C o n c e r n i n g Human U n d e r s t a n d i n g . New Yor k: D u t t o n , 1961. Lotman, J u r i j . E s t h é t i q u e e t s é m i o t l q u e du c i n é m a . Trans. Sabine B r e u i l l a r d . P a r i s : E d i t i o n s s o c i a l e s , 1977. --------- . Semiotics of Cinema. Trans. M i c h i g a n S l a v i c C o n t r i b u t i o n s , No. 5. o f M i c h i g a n , 1976.

Ma r k E. Suino. Ann A r b o r : U n i v .

Lovell, Terry. P i c t u r e s of Reality : A esthetics, P o litics and P l e a s u r e . L o n d o n : B r i t i s h F i l m I n s t i t u t e , 1 $80 .' "The Social R e la tio n s of C u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i o n : Ab­ sent Centre of a New D i s c o u r s e . " I n Si mon Clark, et al., One-Dimensional Marxism : Althusser and the P o l i t i c s of Culture. London: A l l i s o n & Busby, 1980, pp. 232-56. "Sociology and (1 9 7 1 ), pp. 15-26.

the

Cinema."

Screen

12,

MacCabe, Colin. "Realism and t h e Cinema: N o t e s B r e c h t i a n t h e s e s . " S c r e e n 1 5 , No. 2 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , p p .

No.

1

on some 7-27.

301

a nd Film: S c r e e n 1 7 , No.

"Theory

Pleasure." --------- . "Walsh 128-34.

an A u t h o r ? "

Mannoni , O c t a v e . Paris: Seuil, Mast, G erald. anapolis:

Clefs 1969.

pour

Principles of Realism 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 7-27. Screen

16,

No.

1 ' imaginaire

A Short History P e g a s u s , 1971.

of

1

(1975),

ou 1 ' a u t r e

the

a nd

Movies.

pp.

scène. Indi­

Mauerhofer, Hu g o . "P sychology of Film E x p e r i e n c e ." Trans. V. H. Ad a ms . P e n g u i n F i l m R e v i e w 8 ( 1 9 4 9 ) , p p . 1 0 3 - 0 9 . Mayne, Judith. " F a s s b i n d e r a n d S p e c t a t o r s h i p . “ New Ge r ma n C r i t i q u e 12 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 6 1 - 7 4 . " The Feminist 27-43.

Woman at the Keyhole: Wo me n ' s C i n e ma C r i t i c i s m . " New G e r m a n C r i t i q u e 23 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,

Mellencamp, Patricia. "Buttercup No. 3 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 1 - 2 . Metz, C h r i s t i a n . vols. Paris:

Popcorn."

Ciné-Tracts

E ssa is sur la s i g n i f i c a t i o n K lin c k s ie c k , 1968-1972.

The I m a g i n a r y Signifier: Ci n e m a . T r a n s . Ben B r e w s t e r , ana U n i v . P r e s s , 1982. Le s i g n i f i a n t i m a g i n a i r e : P a r i s : 1 0 / 1 8 , " 1977 .

au c i n é m a .

a nd pp.

3,

2

Psychoanalysis and the et a l . Bloomington: I n d i ­ Psychanalyse

et

cinéma.

M i c h o t t e van den S e r c k , A l b e r t . " La p a r t i c i p a t i o n é m o t i o n ­ nelle du s p e c t a t e u r à l ' a c t i o n r e p r é s e n t é e à l ' é c r a n . ” Revue i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de f l l m o l o g i e 4 , No. 13 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , p p . 87-96. M iller, the No.

Jacques-Alain. "Suture (Elements of S ig n if ie r ) ." Trans. Ja c q u e lin e Rose. 4 ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 24-34.

t h e L og ic of S c r e e n 18 ,

Milner, Marion. " Th e Role o f I l l u s i o n in Sy mb o l F o r m a ­ t i o n . " In New D i r e c t i o n s in Psycho-Analysis. Eds. Melanie K lein, P a u la Heimann, a nd R. E. M o n e y - K y r l e . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1 9 5 7 , p p . 8 2 - 1 0 8 . M itchell, Juliet. Psychoanalysis and Feminism: Freud, R e i c h , L a i n g , a n d Women . New Y o r k : V i n t a g e , T574 .

3 02

Mitry, Jean. E s t h é t i q u e e t p s y c h o l o g i e du c i n é m a . I. structures. P a r i s : E d i t i o n s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s , 1963. Modleski, Tania. Loving F a n t a s i e s f o r Women. " 'Never to Female Oedipal 34-41.

Le s

With A V e n g e a n c e : M a s s - P r o d u c e d H a md e n , C o n n . : A r c h o n , 1 9 8 2 .

Be T h i r t y - S i x Years D r a m a . ” Wi d e A n g l e 5 , -------------- —

--------- • " W e r t m u l l e r ' s Women: D e s t i n y . ” J ump C u t 1 0 - 1 1

Swept (1976),

Old': R e b e c c a as No. 1 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p .

Away by p p . 1 and

the 1é .

Mo e ws , D a n i e l . ” S h e r l o c k J r . : The F a n t a s i z i n g o f I n K e a t o n : The S i l e n t Features Close Up. U niv . of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1977, pp. 7 5-99.

Unusual

R eality.” Berkeley:

M o n t a n i , A n g e l o a nd G i u l i o P i e t r a n e r a . “F irs t C ontribution to t h e P s y c h o - A n a l y s i s and A e s t h e t i c s of M o t i o n - P i c t u r e . ” P s y c h o a n a l y t i c R e v i e w 33 ( 1 9 4 6 ) , p p . 1 7 7 - 9 6 . Moreck, C u r t . 1927 .

Sittengeschichte

Morin, Edgar. L£ d ' anthropologie minui t , 1956. ---------. " Le 1069-79. --------- .

Les

rôle stars.

des K i n o s .

Dresden:

Aretz,

cinéma ou 1 ' homme imaginaire : Essai sociologique. Paris: Editions de du

cinéma."

Paris:

Seuil,

Esprit

285

(1960),

op.

1957 .

Muller, J o h n , and W i l l i a m R i c h a r d s o n . A Reader' s Guide to E crits. New U n i v e r s i t i e s P r e s s , 1982.

Lacan and L an gu a ge : York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Mulvey, Laura. "On Duel in the Sun: Afterthoughts on ’Visual Pleasure a n d —N a r r a t i v e Cinema'." Framework 15-17 (1981), pp. 12-15.

No .

“ V i s u a l P l e a s u r e and 3 (1975), pp. 6-18.

Narrative

Cinema."

Münsterberg, Hugo. The F i l m : A P s y c h o l o g i c a l r p t . New Y o r k : D o v e r , T57cf. M usatti, C e s a r e L. " Le c i n é m a et la i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de filmologie 2, 185-94.

Screen

16,

St udy ■ 1916;

p s y c h a n a l y s e . ” Revue No. 6 (1948), pp.

303

Nash, Mark. (1976),

" Va mp y r a n d pp. 29-67.

the

Fantastic."

Screen

17,

No.

3

Nichols, Bill. I d e o l o g y and t h e Image : S o c i a l R e p r e s e n t a ­ t i o n i n t h e Cinema and O t h e r M e d i a . Bloomington: I n d i ­ ana Univ. P r e s s , 1981. --------- . of

M o v i e s a n d M e t h o d s : An A n t h o l o g y . C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1976.

Oudart, J e a n -P ie rre . Hanet. S c r e e n 18, pp.

"L'effet 19-2 6 .

de

Berkeley:

"Cinema and Suture." No. 4 ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 8 ) , p p .

réel."

Cahiers

Trans. 35-47.

du c i n é m a

"Notes pour un e théorie de C a h i e r s du c i n é ma 229 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 230 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 4 3 - 4 5 ( P a r t 2 ) .

Univ.

228

Kari

(1971),

la représentation." 4 3 - 4 5 ( P a r t 1 ) , and

-----. "La s u t u r e . " C a h i e r s du cinéma 211 3 6 - 3 9 ( P a r t 1 ) , a n d 212 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , p p . 5 0 - 5 5

(1969), (Part 2).

Pederson-Krag, Geraldine. "Detective Stories Primal Scene." P s y c h o a n a l y t i c Q u a r t e r l y 18, p r i l 1949), pp. 207-14.

op.

a nd the No. 2 ( A-

Perkins, Victor. Film as F i l m : Understanding Movies . Ha r mon d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n -] 1972 .

and J u d g i n g

Poisson, mois

Cahiers

Jacques. "Cinéma 16-17 ( 1 92 5 ), pp.

et psychanalyse." 175-76.

du

Porot, Antoine. M a n u e l a l p h a b é t i q u e de p s y c h i a t r i e c l i n i ­ que e t t h é r a p e u t i q u e . P a r i s : P r e s s e s u n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1969. Powdermaker, Hortense. Y o r k: L i t t l e , Brown,

H o l l y w o o d : Th e Dr e a m F a c t o r y . 1950.

New

P r a t t , John. " N o t e s on C o m m e r c i a l Mo v i e T e c h n i q u e . " I n t e r ­ national Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34, parts 3-4 ( 1 9 4 3 ) , pp. 185-88. Rank, Otto. Th e My t h of the Birth of the Hero: A P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M y t h o l o g y . N e r v o u s a nd M e n t a l D i s e a s e Monogr aph S e r i e s , No. 18. Trans. F. Robbins and S mi t h E l y J e l l i f f e . New Y o r k : The J o u r n a l o f N e r v o u s and M e n t a l D i s e a s e Pub. Co . , 1914. Rodowick,

David.

"Madness,

Authority,

and

Ideology

in

the

304

D o m e s t i c Melodrama o f (1 9 82), pp. 40-45.

the

1950's."

Velvet

Light

Trap

19

Roffman, P e t e r , and J i m P u r d y . The H o l l y w o o d S o c i a l P r o ­ blem F i l m . B lo o m in g to n : I n d i a n a Un iv . Press'] 1981. Rohdie, pp.

Sam, 4-5.

et

a l.

"Editorial."

Screen

12,

No .

1 (1971),

Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of P r i n c e t o n , N . J . : P r i n c e t o n Univ. P r e s s , 1979. Rose, Ja c q u e lin e . " P a r a n o i a and t h e 1 7 , No. 4 ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 8 5 - 1 0 4 .

Film

Nature.

System."

Screen

Rosen, P h i l i p . The C o n c e p t of Ideology and C o n t e m p o r a r y Film C r i t i c i s m : A Study of the P o s i t i o n of the J o u r n a l S c r e e n i n t h e C o n t e x t of t h e M a r x i s tT h e o r e t i c a l Tradi­ tion. Diss. Univ. of Iowa, 1978. Rosenbaum, J o n a t h a n , New Y o r k : H a r p e r

and a nd

J. Row,

Rubey, Dan. "The J aws (1 9 76), pp. 20-23.

in

Safouan, Moustafa. "Is T r a n s . Ben B r e w s t e r .

the m/f

Hoberman. 1983.

the

Midnight

M irror."

Silverman, Kaja. Th e S u b j e c t f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1 $ 8 3.

of

In Etudes sur du s u j e t . Paris:

Sem iotics.

Supervielle, Jules. U n titled response C a h i e r s du mo i s ( 1 9 2 5 ) , p p . 1 8 3 - 4 . ed.

10-11

Vi e w and ' I n tra re a l ism' No. 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 3 8 - 4 3 .

" S u b j e c t i v i t y and F i g u r a t i o n . " Colloquium, Toronto. 22 J u n e 1 9 8 4 .

Souriau, Etienne, m a r i o n , 1953.

Cut

Oedipus C o mp l e x Universal?" 5-6 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 8 3 -9 0 .

"L'Oedipe est-il universel?" 1 'Oedipe: i n t r o d u c t i o n à une t h é o r i e S e u i l , 1974, pp. 115 -2 5. S a l l i t t , Daniel. "Point of H i t c h c o c k . " Wi d e A n g l e 4 ,

J u mp

Movies.

L 'univers

New Y o r k :

Semiotics

to

of

in Ox­

C i n e ma

a questionnaire.

fllm ique.

Paris:

Flam­

Taylor, J e n n y , and Dave L a i n g . " D i s c o - P l e a s u r e - D i s c o u r se : On ' R o c k and S e x u a l i t y ' . " S c r e e n E d u c a t i o n 31 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 43-48.

305

Tudor, Andrew. I mage and Influence : Studies S o c i o l o g y of F i l m . London: George Allen and 19 74 . --------- . " The Many M y t h o l o g i e s (1972), pp. 27-35. Turkle, Sherry. Revolution.

of

Psychoanalytic New Y o r k : B a s i c

Realism."

Screen

Process.

13,

Politics: F r e u d 1s Books, 1978.

T u r n e r , V i c t o r . Fr om Ri t u a l t o Theatre. New f o r m i n g A r t s J o u r n a l P u b l i c a t i o n s , T$ 8 2 . --------- . The Ritual P r e s s , 1969.

in the Unwi n,

Ithaca,

N.Y.:

Vernet, Marc. " Th e F i l m i c T r a n s a c t i o n : F i l m N o i r s . " T r a n s . David R od ow ic k. 20 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 2 - 9 .

1

French

York:

Cornell

On t h e Velvet

No.

Per­

Univ.

Openings of Light Trap,

V i r m a u x , A l a i n . "Une p r o m e s s e ma l tenue: Le f i l m réaliste (1924-1932)." Etudes cinématographiques (1965), pp. 103-33.

sur­ 38-39

--------- , and O d e t t e Virmaux, e d s . c inéma. P a r i s : S e g h e r s , 1976.

et

Les

surréalistes

le

Wal dman, D i a n e . “ ' A t L a s t I Can Tell It to Someone!': Feminine P o i n t o f Vi e w a nd S u b j e c t i v i t y in the Gothic Ro ma n c e Film of the 1 9 4 0 s . " C i n e ma J o u r n a l 2 3 , No. 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 29-40. Wallon, Henri. ternationale 97-110.

"L 'acte p e rc e p tif et de f ilmologie 4,

l e c i n é m a . " Revue i n ­ No. 13 (1 953 ) , pp.

---------. "De q u e l q u e s problèmes psycho-physiologiques que pose le c i n é m a . " Revue i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de f i l m o l o g i e 1 (1947), pp. 15-18. Wees, William. J o u r n a 1 21,

R e v i e w o f The C i n e m a t i c No. 2 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 5 0 - 5 4 .

Apparatus.

Ci n e ma

Welsch, J a n i c e . "Bree Speaks: The V o i c e - O v e r i n Kl u t e . " MMLA C o n v e n t i o n , 3 1 o o m i n g t o n , I n d . 3 No v . 1 9 8 4 . Wilden, Anthony. The L a n g u a g e of Md. : J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v . P r e s s , Willemen, Paul. "Voyeurism, The Af t e r i m a g e 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 4 1 - 5 0 .

the Self. 1968. Look

and

Baltimore, Dwoskin."

306

Williams, Christopher, ed. Realism and the Reader. London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan Paul t i o n w i t h th e B r i t i s h Film I n s t i t u t e , 1980. W illiams, Linda. of S u r r e a l i s t 1981.

F i g u r e s of D e s i r e : A Th eory and A n a l y s i s Film. Urbana: Univ. of I l l i n o i s P ress,

W olfenstein, Martha, and Nathan Leites. Psychological Study. Glencoe, 1 1 1 . : The 1950. Wollen, Peter. Strategies .

diana

Cinema : A in a s s o c i a ­

Readings and W r i t i n g s : London: V e r s o , 1982.

S i g n s and Meaning i n U n i v . P r e s s " 1 $/ 2.

the

Cinema.

Movies : A Free P re ss,

Semiotic

Counter-

Bloomington:

In­

Zazzo, B i a n k a and René. " Une expérience sur la compré­ h e n s i o n du f i l m . " R e v u e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e de f l l m o l o g i e 2, No . 6 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , p p . 1 5 9 - / 0 . Zipes, Jack. "The I n s tr u m e n ta lis a tio n of Fantasy: Fairy T a l e s a n d t h e Mass M e d i a . ” I n T h e M y t h s o f I n f o r m a t i o n : T e c h n o l o g y and P o s t i n d u s t r i a l Culture. Ed. Kathleen Woodwar d. Madison, Wise.: Co d a Press, 1980, pp. 89-110.