Freud, Baudry, and Hidden

Understanding cinema pushes one to think beyond the social – beyond the structural interactions and the politics of its production and reception. Indeed, cinema inevitably penetrates the individual. This, I surmise, is the one of the strengths of applying psychoanalytic theories in film studies. I must admit, Freud’s theory juxtaposed with Metz’s is not one of the easiest undertakings for this course, so far. On the one hand, Freud’s theory is necessarily entrenched in psychological and medical research – not inherently in film theory. On the other hand, Freud is rarely read by contemporary psychologists on account of the shortcomings and excesses of his presumptions. Recognizing these difficulties, I nevertheless am engrossed with its application to understating why people attend films and how we, as spectators, understand films.

I have read Freud’s commentary on civilizations and the dissatisfaction of the Pleasure Principle. Freud believed that human beings have inner desires and wants all embedded in our id, but the superego – the values, norms, and rules of the society – prevents the fulfillment of the id, the Pleasure Principle, hence human beings are left discontented. Then I wonder do films, in relation to this supposition, act in two ways? First, cinema is probably a manifestation of the id, to generate a truncated release of pleasure, and second, it is a re-affirmation of the superego, and therefore a cultural institution in itself. We discussed cinema as a cultural institution in class and we linked it to the perpetuation of capitalist ideology. This, I believe, is linked to Adorno, Marcuse, and Horkheimer – the Frankfurt School – who also viewed the cinema as a tool that serves to further the roots and impact of mechanical production and capitalist ideals in a modern society. For Freud, however, the final objection for him was the reconfigure the society to permit man’s total pursuit of pleasure. As such, cinema ceases to be a superego but only a remnant of id.

But for Baudry, cinema is an apparatus that directs the reproduction of the real – destroying the division between the body and the perceived, between the physical world and the cinematic world, where the shadows are perceived as the “real-things.”More importantly, regression and perhaps even repression influence spectatorship. Interestingly, the film, Haneke’s Hidden, captures the essence of the issue at hand – the questioning of the psychoanalytical dynamics of guilt, trauma, and fear placed side by side with political and social issues in the history of France. The film was spectacular in varying levels: in terms of the narrative which until the end remained somehow unresolved, the technique employed to differentiate the various gazes was intelligently executed – some even incorporating the audience to take part in the gaze, and the emotions and performances of Georges and Anne were particularly engaging. The film exudes a psychoanalytical exploration of human emotions in memory and relationship, playing with the notion that technology can be manipulated to convey threat, fear, and voyeurism. The shocking suicide of Majid, in my opinion, pushes the reconciliation of guilt and trauma off the edge – aggravating, not resolving the problem, and hence, in the process, drawing the audience even closer to the seemingly destructive course of the film. I offer not an expert opinion, but from my viewpoint, Haneke was successful in tapping into the individual psyche of his spectators – urging them to question guilt, explore their own participation in the film, re-examine history, and to confront their own trauma in this modern and technological age.