Psychoanalysis: Maybe a knife is just a knife?

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

So what are your thoughts on psychoanalysis?

Is it the absolute best way to look at horror films ever? Or does it just place too many presumptions on the way in which audiences watch films?

I personally think psychoanalysis is somewhat overused and a lot of scholars seem to think it is the only way to look at horror cinema. To some extent it's even become a bit of a joke, with some films actively drawing attention to phallic symbolism and so on (Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon springs to mind).

That said, I do think that, in some cases, it's a very good way of analysing films... But I don't agree with the way in which it suggests that audiences have no choice in how they read a particular film.

So what does everyone else think?

[Jonny]

I left school at 16 with a single O level in English and went straight into working for my Dad in the retail food industry. So I didn't take education any further than I really had to. Now I'm not thick but I honestly don't have a clue about psychoanalysis and so have always watched films with a 'knife is just a knife' point of view.

Having read a few books as I got older and knowing a little bit about how the Italian film industry worked in the 1970s I'm inclined to to think that anyone who seriously thinks the likes of Umberto Lenzi or Sergio Martino deliberately injected subconscious messages into their work is having a laugh.

I can't say for sure about some of the more high profile directors who might have spent a bit more time creating their movies but I certainly believe that most films produced on a low budget with short shooting schedules were just thinking 'a knife is just a knife', apart from in URSULA'S SISTER where the killer uses a huge wooden dildo...

[Demoncrat]

any interpretation of horror cinema is usually flawed, either by the writers "high falutin'" ideas (usually freudian in form) or by obssessionaly clutching to one aspect of this broad church...having said that i did enjoy The Pervert's Guide To Cinema by that ex priest chappy...

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER










plus after Sprski any analysis is void IMO, containing as it did the ultimate willie-as-weapon "metaphor" ever.

[BAH-Marc]

I feel that in most cases a knife is just a knife. Horror isn't known for heavily layered sub-text. Yes, there are more serious pieces where the sub-text is prevalent and there is a good deal of artistry at play. That said there exists a strong "blue collared" aesthetic to most horror that doesn't beat around the bush. Rather, the filmmaker just comes right out and punishes the audiences with their bluntness. If they want to use a knife as a penis, well - they do just that.

That said - there are certainly those filmmakers who do take it to a more artistic level. The Italians come to mind. I would have a hard time believing that Fulci didn't play that card from time to time.

I think ultimately you have to look at the filmmaker. Is the director the kind of guy or gal to play with metaphors? Or are they more of the type to just toss on a bunch of in-your-face gore with no apologies?

[Daemonia]

I'm pretty much of the opinion that a 'knife is just a knife'. It's a cheap and accessible prop, which is why it's used so often, I guess. However, I think Dario Argento mentioned that a knife kill in one of his films was meant to be like 'f*cking'.

It's a tricky area, you can either take these films at face value or read something deeper. And sometimes, I think, academics read into these films things that simply aren't there.

Let me give an example - we could take a film like Lenzi's Nightmare City, which is pure exploitation filmed quick to make some money, and read things into it that are ludicrous. For instance, I could appear all academic for a moment and say that it's actually a film about the fear of flying. When Stiglitz arrives at the airport, the plane lands and undead creatures pile out of it, this represents his fear of air travel. But at the culmination of the movie, after living out his fears and dealing with them, he is able to jump onto a ladder hanging from an airborne helicopter. This signifies that he has overcome his fear of flying.

Sounds ridiculous when put like that, doesn't it? I'm not disputing that some films have sub-texts and subliminal ideas and I'm not pouring scorn on the academic establishment either. But not all of these films have hidden meanings. At some point, with some films, you just have to concede that it is what it is and nothing more.

[iluvdvds@Cult Labs]

Ah its all subjective.

There's more to it then just questioning whether the knife is a knife or an impaling penis. It doesn't just depend on whether the director intended for it to be metaphorical (a flawed arguement in itself as the director is not the only person responsible for making a film - the screenwriter being just as important for instance), but it also depends on an individual viewers reading of the film. Everyone will gain a unique meaning from the same image.

For me, it's a fascinating idea - just like most in-depth film analysis - regardless if it was intended or not.

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by iluvdvds@Cult Labs

Ah its all subjective.

There's more to it then just questioning whether the knife is a knife or an impaling penis. It doesn't just depend on whether the director intended for it to be metaphorical (a flawed arguement in itself as the director is not the only person responsible for making a film - the screenwriter being just as important for instance), but it also depends on an individual viewers reading of the film. Everyone will gain a unique meaning from the same image.

For me, it's a fascinating idea - just like most in-depth film analysis - regardless if it was intended or not.

I was just about to come on here and write exactly the same thing!

It always surprises me how many people firmly believe that the director puts meaning in at one end and the audience unpacks that meaning at the other. As you say, the director isn't the only person who is responsible for making a film so that's a flawed argument in itself. And every single member of the audience will have a slightly different reading of the film depending on their life experience, education, familiarity with other films, mood etc. And that meaning might be completely different to the one the filmmakers (and I include in this directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, producers) "intended."

That's the great thing about an arts subject like film studies, I guess. The people who make the film can say it's about one thing, I can say it's about another, someone else can say it's about something else, and all of us can be right as long as there's enough justification in the film itself.

Of course, that makes marking essays a real bitch...

[iluvdvds@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

I was just about to come on here and write exactly the same thing!

It always surprises me how many people firmly believe that the director puts meaning in at one end and the audience unpacks that meaning at the other. As you say, the director isn't the only person who is responsible for making a film so that's a flawed argument in itself. And every single member of the audience will have a slightly different reading of the film depending on their life experience, education, familiarity with other films, mood etc. And that meaning might be completely different to the one the filmmakers (and I include in this directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, producers) "intended."

That's the great thing about an arts subject like film studies, I guess. The people who make the film can say it's about one thing, I can say it's about another, someone else can say it's about something else, and all of us can be right as long as there's enough justification in the film itself.

Of course, that makes marking essays a real bitch...

Great mind, Sarah, great minds...

It's all in the eyes of the beholder (the audience) depending on an individual's habitus. Death of the author, etc blah blah blah.

As you say, in film studies you can basically make any point as long as you can validate it. In my last essay of uni I argued that bigfoot was an allegory for homosexuality and the disco scene of the seventies. Most likely total drivel but I had 'evidence'

[Make Them Die Slowly]

I tend to read films through my own theory of Cockology which is based on involuntary movements in my nether regions to whatever happens to be on the screen at any given moment. This is more than a theory and approaches the realms of science as I also measure the "angle of dangle" and the "thrust of lust" (remember to warm your protractor to body temp if you wish to try this, as a cold protractor can effect the results). I then multiple the combined results of these measurements by how many naked ladies Demdike has posted on the "Film Stills" thread in a given hour. I then take this number, look up a word that has the corresponding numerical value in Hebrew and base any feeling and thoughts on the film around this word.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

I tend to read films through my own theory of Cockology which is based on involuntary movements in my nether regions to whatever happens to be on the screen at any given moment. This is more than a theory and approaches the realms of science as I also measure the "angle of dangle" and the "thrust of lust" (remember to warm your protractor to body temp if you wish to try this, as a cold protractor can effect the results). I then multiple the combined results of these measurements by how many naked ladies Demdike has posted on the "Film Stills" thread in a given hour. I then take this number, look up a word that has the corresponding numerical value in Hebrew and base any feeling and thoughts on the film around this word.