Cinema and Psychoanalysis: Across the Dispositifs

In the field of film studies, there are two complex areas for potential research that exist side by side within the equivocal and rather unsuitable syntagm, 'cinema and psychoanalysis'—psychoanalytic film theory and the psychoanalytic interpretation of films. Though distinct, these areas are inextricably linked, presenting us with a vast and articulated panorama of theoretical positions and possibilities for interpretative development. Cinema and Psychoanalysis. Neither the Italian language nor English—the term cinepsychoanalysis is certainly not up to the task—offer a satisfactory alternative with which to succinctly define this field of research, at once theoretical, methodological and hermeneutic. What makes the phrase so unsuitable? When asked by someone outside the field what it is I do, I cannot respond "cinema and psychoanalysis," as the majority would understand this to mean that I study films dealing with psychoanalytical or psychiatric subjects, clinical cases, symptoms, traumas, pathologies and so on, such as Suddenly, Last Summer. They would assume I dealt solely with a certain genre of film and would miss that which is significant about and peculiar to this particular branch of studies.

It all began in France in the mid-1940s, with the emergence of Filmologie—the structured interdisciplinary study of cinema first advanced by sociologist Gilbert Cohen-Séat—which allowed for greater specialization and more careful attention to be paid to the problems inherent in film research. Cohen-Séat took full advantage of support from noteworthy collaborators, who included the young Edgar Morin and Roland Barthes and those with backgrounds in psychology and psychoanalysis, such as psychiatrist and child psychologist Henri Wallon, experimental psychologist Albert Michotte van den Berck, and psychoanalysts Didier Anzieu and Serge Lebovici. There was also Cesare Musatti, a charismatic figure in Italian psychoanalysis, curator of the translations of the works of Sigmund Freud for the publisher house Boringhieri and President for many years of the Italian psychoanalytic society, Società Psicoanalitica Italiana, who was also a cinéphile and avid theater-goer. His Scritti sul cinema have recently been collected and some published for the first time in the journal, Revue Internationale de Filmologie.¹

From the 1970s onwards, the contributions and reflections found in Revue would become central to formalizing an authentic psychoanalytic theory of cinema, with in particular the essays by Jean-Louis Baudry. It is here that certain key concepts with their roots in filmology—such as cinematic situation (a precursor to the concept of a cinematic dispositif), segregation of spaces and impression of reality, the analogy between cinema and dreams, and so forth—would be reconsidered within a psychoanalytic framework by the French scholars who provided the basis for the areas of research discussed here. These are, namely, Baudry, Christian Metz, and Raymond Bellour; in his recent book, Le Corps du cinéma (2009), Bellour defines the product of this time as a "French psychoanalytic film theory."² This theory investigated the metapsychological effects of the relationship between the screen and the spectator with reference to theories and concepts brought to light by psychoanalysis, allowing cinema to understand itself and the conditions of its own existence. It also imposed a Freudian-Lacanian line, on whose models classical film theory is substantially (I would say, exclusively) based—a move followed in Italy and later in Anglo-American reviews, such as the journal Screen, and in feminist film theory.

The first point needing specification is: Which spectator and which screen are being referred to? The answer will clarify the structure of the cinematic dispositif, which we can define as the organic matter linking the dark room, the projector, the film, the screen and the spectator, within which the spectators are captured and by which they are transformed and 'imprisoned,' like the prisoners in Plato's cave—the mythical precursor to the darkened theater. The very nature of darkness, passivity and immobility, and the strength of the moving images passing before their eyes, connected by a fictional plot that is fundamental to the processes of identification and projection, cause the spectators to be pushed unconsciously toward an earlier stage in their development; towards a kind of primary narcissism...