Nominate the Best Freudian Interpretations of a Scene or Movie...And, What the Heck, How About the Wildest, Most Hilarious Interpretations You've Ever Heard
…because Hitchcock was a pop Freudian.
—PolarisDiB
Yup.
Jazz, Okay here it goes…
Three reasons:
1) The scene with Donnie and the bat. The soldier that is beaten defends his men. Granted he’s a Nazi, but I for one gained no enjoyment watching a man who was willing to die for what he believed in (as atrocious as it was) get beaten to death, while a man who is immediately willing to put his men’s lives at risk is allowed to live.
That one is the least convincing… stay with me…
2) One character in the whole film is bothered by violence. Frederick Zoller. Yes, he’s an arrogant asshole, and yes, he killed a lot of people in battle. But during the screening of his movie he says he has to step out because he doesn’t like watching the violence. This is contrast to the patriotic Basterds who compare watching a man get beaten to death to going to the movies.
Still not convinced? Well…
3) The scene where Nation’s Pride is playing. All of the Nazis are cracking up at the violence on the screen. They are applauding and cheering and sincerely seem to be enjoying it. Despicable? Sure. But then just moments later when the Basterds start shooting up the theatre we in the audience do the exact same thing. Hell, we’ve been doing the same thing throughout the whole movie. We’ve cheered on violence in a movie theatre, just like the Nazis do.
I’m honestly not sure if any of this was intentional on Tarantino’s part. Being such a violence-junkie part of me feels like it wasn’t. However when I watch the movie it screams out at me and it is this morality, along with deep investment in characters, and the normal Tarantino entertainment value that make Inglourious Basterds my favorite of his movies.
That scene with Eli Roth with the bat is one of the most disturbing experiences I’ve ever had watching a film. Never before did it seem so clear to me that everyone involved in that scene felt that was a giant wet dream for them. I can just see Tarantino and Roth hundred behind Sally in the edit bay giggling as they watch this scene over and over. I can usually take violence in film and most QT violence is pretty cartoonish. But this scene was completely juvenile and reminded me of fourteen year old boys mutilating a stray dog for their own pleasure.
But that was just my interpretation.
OR you were supposed to feel sickened. :)
Well, I usually do feel sickened when Eli Roth is on screen.
(which made Piranha 3D such a cathartic experience)
Hahahaha I tend to feel more sickened when he’s behind the camera.
Yeah, that too. lol
I tend to think that most of those heavily psychoanalyzed interpretations of films are just the mind seizing on the ideas it’s primed itself to recognize and disregarding contrary or information.
One might say, a Freudian interpretation of a film is a phallus, and the screen is a fallopian tube.
Yeah, maybe Jirin, but that’s not untrue of the non-pop variety of Freudianism too. It was never a matter of hard science.
If you dismiss Psychoanalysis because it does not rely exclusively on quantifiable, empirical data then you may as well toss out psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, much of modern physics…
Thus the delineated ‘hard sciences’ versus ‘soft sciences’, wherein the term ‘science’ describes a form of inductive reasoning based off of observation that hard sciences can state in numbers but soft sciences must interpret into language.
—PolarisDiB
What would Freud think of his science being soft?? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
It would make him hard, of course.
—PolarisDiB
Soft science is not a deliniation, it is a pejorative term.
Science is inductive/deductive reasoning based off of observation only when the field in question places a premium on empiricism. Formal sciences are entirely unconcerned with observation. Something similar could be said for the more humanistic schools of psychology.
“Formal sciences are entirely unconcerned with observation.”
—DiB
Do you know the definition of Formal Science?
“The formal sciences are the branches of knowledge that are concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, theoretical computer science, information theory, Game theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, and some aspects of linguistics.”
“Unlike other sciences, the formal sciences are not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the real world, but instead with the properties of formal systems based on definitions and rules. Methods of the formal sciences are, however, applied in constructing and testing scientific models dealing with observable reality.”
“As opposed to empirical sciences (natural, social), the formal sciences do not involve empirical procedures. They also do not presuppose knowledge of contingent fact, or describe the real world. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.”
- Wikipedia.com
“Soft science is not a deliniation, it is a pejorative term.”
Relax, “soft science” is just a colloquialism.
“you may as well toss out psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, much of modern physics…”
Well, no, not all social sciences and other speculative science is the same. University psychological departments, by the way, have largely “tossed out” Freudianism. According to a recent study by the American Psychoanalytic Assocation, of the 1,175 college courses at US universities that referenced psychoanalysis, more than 86 percent were offered outside psychology departments. My point to Jirin was simply that there was never any rigorously empirically validated version of Freudian psychoanalysis to deviate from. This is why the concepts of transference and countertransference become important in psychotherapy.
. . . oh, and just to be clear I’m not dismissing Freudianism at all, it was my reading of a film, after all, that got all this started, an while I presented it with a due sense of wackiness, I really think that’s a big part of what the film is doing. Whether it’s an intentional meaning or a symptomatic meaning I’ll leave up to everyone else.Relax, “soft science” is just a colloquialism.
It’s a pejorative colloquialism, not unlike Low Art vs High Art.
Well, no, not all social sciences and other speculative science is the same. University psychological departments, by the way, have largely “tossed out” Freudianism. According to a recent study by the American Psychoanalytic Assocation, of the 1,175 college courses at US universities that referenced psychoanalysis, more than 86 percent were offered outside psychology departments.
Keep in mind that you are speaking about US Universities and Psychoanalysis was never particularly popular over there . In Argentina though, for example, it is as strong as it ever has been and it is not unique as a country in this regard. That statistic also seems to speak more about how integrated the idea of Psychoanalysis has become in pop culture that it would be referenced in such disparate fields/classes/departments.
My point to Jirin was simply that there was never any rigorously empirically validated version of Freudian psychoanalysis to deviate from.
And it is a valid point, but when you said that you felt “the mind seizing on the ideas it’s primed itself to recognize and disregarding contrary or information” was true of Psychoanlysis itself it felt dismissive which is why I said what I said. It wasn’t meant to be snarky (reading back now it must have come across as if I was annoyed which I wasn’t) just as a reminder that empirical research is merely one of many equally valid methods that lead to the construction of knowledge.
Freud was a genius because he invented a new approach to studying psychology.
But everything he determined using that approach has been disproven by future psychologists using the same approach.
The only distinction for me between ‘hard sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ is the distribution. A psychologist finds a .3 correlation and he celebrates. A physicist finds a .99 correlation and he is disappointed. Hard sciences determine things exactly. Soft sciences determine averages and tendencies, but if you’re using the scientific method, that doesn’t make them less valid.
That does not mean that the film critic wrapping anything long and cylindrical into a dick analogy should be taken seriously.
“But everything he determined using that approach has been disproven by future psychologists using the same approach.”
C’mon now, even a cursory look at Wikipedia would show that not to be true. Many of Freud’s work specific conclusions are disputed (and, in fact, always was), but by its very nature, much of his work never lent itself to empirical proofs. But does anybody doubt that there is an unconscious any more? Or that, psychologically, sexuality begins before puberty? Or repression? Or the libido? Overdetermination? . . .
Okay, formal science versus ‘natural philosophy’ and the scientific method. I’m getting you there, Hellshocked.
I also agree that soft science was a term designed as a pejorative but that it’s not necessarily insignificant to create such genrefications. It helps people understand things like ‘authority’ and ‘certainty’ more if they know the difference between “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction = YAY SCIENCE!” and “In groups have a tendency to collect around common enemies = YAY SCIENCE” which are both valid (and observable! :) ) but one of which is quantifiable and the other of which isn’t. I would think it’s a rather useful term in the same way the term ‘formal science’ is meant to isolate pure maths science from quantifiable observable sciences.
And one thing about psychoanalysis is that it in some sense could be considered a scientific application of philosophy/critical analysis or a philosophical/critical analysis application of science, which is why people tend to discredit it as a ‘science’. Freud’s writing is more literary theory than clinical experimentation and literary theory is more philosophy than science by any definition of the term we’re bouncing off each other. In the US… well, in much of the West, psychoanalysis is trending down in psychology departments because psychology itself is more interested and concerned with mental health than epistemological constructions. Thus, psychoanalysis is more alive and well in literary theory and philosophy departments where it is, ironically, not given enough attention to its clinical scrutiny side that sometimes it devolves into the cigar is a penis every time readings.
My theory on why it’s trending down in literary theory and philosophy is because information theory is the new idea dancing between science and philosophy that our mind is crafted around because of the Internet. Psychoanalysis and cinema being constructed around the same time and codified later, they have a much stronger relationship to each other than the Internet does to psychoanalysis. Thus psychoanalysis is trending down and basically being replaced by, making this up here, infoanalysis or something.
To me psychoanalysis is of historical and philosophical interest and should especially be read if you’re into literary or media theory but as a ‘psychology’ is ‘softer’ than cognitive, behavioral, and even social psychologies, e.g. It just doesn’t check out in clinical trial.
—PolarisDiB
I also agree that soft science was a term designed as a pejorative but that it’s not necessarily insignificant to create such genrefications.
Oh don’t get me wrong. There are obviously different types of sciences which (by necessity or philosophy) use divergent methods to acquire knowledge. If only for the sake of discourse we should be able to refer to each as what they are. My problem is with the term itself. Hard implies solid footing. Soft implies less than. Unlike the n-word I’ve yet to meet a psychologist/social scientist who is anxious to make it " ours".
Freud’s writing is more literary theory than clinical experimentation and literary theory is more philosophy than science by any definition of the term we’re bouncing off each other.
Yes and no. Clinical study, at least its traditional definition (isolating variables, experimenting, concluding, etc) is impossible in Psychoanalysis for both ethical and systemic reasons. Freud’s writings came about as a result of lengthy case studies, however. Much of what he wrote was informed speculation but the bulk of it was the direct result of years spent interacting with patients.
My theory on why it’s trending down in literary theory and philosophy is because information theory is the new idea dancing between science and philosophy that our mind is crafted around because of the Internet. Psychoanalysis and cinema being constructed around the same time and codified later, they have a much stronger relationship to each other than the Internet does to psychoanalysis.
I’m not sure it’s trending down. It always seemed more popular than it was. The number of trained Psychoanalysts has always been much lower than people assumed. I do agree it has a natural relationship with literature/cinema/art because of its emphasis on symbols, imagery and Freud’s penchant for mining Greek literature when he codified the terminology.
Most people are not looking to analyze the root of their problems but to treat the effects. Cognitive-behaviorism, with its “No more fear of flying in 8 sessions or your money back” approach is, understandably, far more popular.
but as a ‘psychology’ is ‘softer’ than cognitive, behavioral, and even social psychologies, e.g. It just doesn’t check out in clinical trial.
Softer, yes, because unlike behaviorism (which was Skinner’s attempt to make psychology viagra-hard), social psychology (which focuses only on those variables which can be “measured”) and modern cognitive psychology (which is heavily influenced by neuroscience), Psychoanalysis was never interested in empiricism. I would say not that it doesn’t but that it can’t be checked out in a clinical trial. I can assure you from personal experience, for what it’s worth, that transference, catharsis, fixations et all are very much real.
“But everything he determined using that approach has been disproven by future psychologists using the same approach.”
Uh…no? Quite a few of his followers expanded on his ideas and some rejected portions of his theory in order to form their own but Psychoanalysis today is very similar to Psychoanalysis 80 years ago. Beyond that, it is impossible to " disprove" Psychoanalysis for the very same reason that it is impossible to “prove” it.
That does not mean that the film critic wrapping anything long and cylindrical into a dick analogy should be taken seriously.
Hey if someone takes their neighbor’s unsolicited medical diagnosis of myeloma as gospel simply because they watch “House” every week then they deserve the aggravation.
(edited to fix spacing)
The BFI monograph book on Citizen Kane had a Freudian interpretation on it I believe which was about Kane’s relationship with his mother. I have thought that Knife in the Water can be interpreted from a Freudian perspective. The knife being a symbol for the penis. The ship that the three are in could be interpreted for the vagina and the reeds or whatever the plants growing on the side of the lake when they pull the boat in during the storm as pubic hair. I don’t know if I’m reading too much into it, but it just seems that way. The woman in the film is being fought for the attention of the husband and the hitch hiker which could be like the father and son’s rivalry for the attention of the mother.
What an interesting thread, and look at what it has evolved into! Kudos, Jazz.
Hard vs. soft is already something that is cracking me up.
We cannot escape the sexual drive! Rock on, Freud.
That’s the thing about Freud though. You’re right that basic ideas about the unconscious mind are the basis for modern psychoanalysis, but his specific conclusions have been disreputed. In other words, the less specific Freud was, the more right he was.
Psychology is at its best when it applies the techniques of modern science: You form a hypothesis, then you run an empirical study where you control every variable except for one, and test if that variable makes a statistical difference. Freud didn’t do that, and he’s currently far more popular in art theory courses than among actual psychologists.
Psychology is at its best when it applies the techniques of modern science: You form a hypothesis, then you run an empirical study where you control every variable except for one, and test if that variable makes a statistical difference. Freud didn’t do that, and he’s currently far more popular in art theory courses than among actual psychologists.
It is impossible to quantify the human mind. Hell, empiricism in any field is only possible by drastically narrowing your scope. The mind is, by definition, abstract so it is impossible to study it in any other way. You either meet it on its own terms or you do not meet it at all. Some branches of psychology have sidestepped the issue by claiming as their object of study not the human mind but human behavior (behaviorists), mental processes (cognitivists) or “measurable” variables (social psychologists). They make absolutely no attempt to go beyond that. Psychoanalysts and analytical psychologists are (with few exceptions) the only schools that have studied the mind itself as opposed to its most visible consequences.
If you want to use the scientific method for psychological research in order to determine causality you will never get past biology.
You’re right that basic ideas about the unconscious mind are the basis for modern psychoanalysis, but his specific conclusions have been disreputed.
Which conclusions, and by who? Only psychoanalysts and analytical psychologists study the mind itself. Pretty much all other fields of psychology considered Freud’s findings irrelevant, at best, or pseudoscience at worst from the second he published them through today (though they had no problem occasionally adopting some of his findings when it suited them without providing due credit). Psychoanalysis today is, while not necessarily as orthodox, essentially Freud’s work expanded.
Some films just go ahead and handle all that “interpretation” hassle by offering a visual presentation of the undeniable facts.
Sometimes a saxaphone is NOT just a saxaphone…blech
Matt Parks
“There are a lot of wacky Freudian interpretations of Hitchcock”
. . . partly because there’s a lot of wacky Freudianism in Hitchcock—most explicitly in Spellbound, but also in Psycho, Vertigo, Marnie, and others.