 |
 |
The recent Hitchcock/Freud discussion raises a number of points. One that springs to mind is why Film Studies still pays reverence to Freudian theories and structures when they have been so long nuanced, if not challenged or even discredited, within Psychology itself. It is an example of a wider problem that many film academics are somehow caught in a time-slip when using inter-disciplinary approaches. In the mid 1950s clinical psychologists began to develop cognitive approaches to understanding how the brain worked. This followed a number of clinical research results that contradicted Freudian theory and a growing feeling that Freud's approach to emotions - that they were somehow an aberration resulting from cogintive imbalance - was simplistic. Development of Freudian psychological theory, by Lacan and Klein amongst others, had led to psychological theory that was almost impenetrable with its abstruse philosophical concepts. With the advances in neuro-psychology and brain mapping generally, we have moved on a great deal in our understanding of how the brain processes information. Freudian structures are good fun and, like any structure, they can be forced to fit any situation.However, Freud is seen by most psychologists as a quaint but respected founder of their science. To quote him would be similar to film writers quoting Melies. Andrew Browne * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **