i think i have to join those who say that it all depends on exactly what you mean by occult, but if it's an event that seems both impossible and unexplainable in conventional terms then i would offer madeline's disappearance from the mclintock hotel in vertigo as an example . . . . hitchcock's construction of the scene seems designed to make sure we - the audience - can find no way of explaining it
for whatever it's worth i see nothing at all occult about rebecca . . .everything in that film can be explained in the most naturalistic terms
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lawrence Howe
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 4:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Hitchcock and the occult
All interesting considerations, but there's the occult as a kind of supernatural mystery, and then there's the satanism of _Rosemary's Baby_. these seem to me to be of significantly different orders.
--LH
Larry Howe
Professor of English
Chair, Department of Literature and Languages
________________________________________
From: Film-Philosophy [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jared Ashburn [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 12:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Hitchcock and the occult
This is a great topic. If you accept Zizek's well-known attempt at answering the question of why the birds attack as a manifestation of the maternal superego ("outbursts of the maternal superego-raw incestuous energy") then this sounds like a situation where one is exercising their own will (regardless of whether they are aware of it or not) over nature or others which is close to the textbook definition of occult magick.
I am not sure if I accept this or not and am curious about what others think on this and whether this explanation does overlap with Crowley's ideas of occult magick.
From a review of "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema" by John Simmons in "Bright Lights Film Journal":
"®i¾ek goes on to address what he sees as the obvious question, which is "Why do the birds attack?" He argues that the birds are akin to a foreign dimension that intrudes on the reality of the film, literally tearing it apart. The attacking birds represent the explosive outburst of maternal superego trying to prevent a sexual relationship between Mitch and Melanie."
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Herbert Schwaab <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
It's an interesting question raised by Henry, and it seems that REBECCA with its gothic elements seems to be an evidence for traces of the occult in Hitchcock, but Rebecca is turned into a ghost, she is not literally a ghost, so there is nothing supernatural in it, neither in BIRDS, whose aggression were often explained (I think also by Daphne du Mauries) as being caused by rabies, or as symbolizing Great Britain's fear of the intrusion of rabies. So we may still keep wondering why Hitchcock never made a horror movie (but only in the case of a definition of the horror genre that necessarily involves the supernatural). The use of the occult as something that has to be revealed is possible, but I don't think it does refer to the more dominant meaning and use of the word. In this case there would be nothing occult in Hitchcock.
Herbert
--
To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
--
-- To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html -- Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ --
--
Dr. Herbert Schwaab
Institut für Information und Medien, Sprache und Kultur
Universität Regensburg
PT 3.0.55
Universitätsstraße 31
93053 Regensburg
(0941) 9433422
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--
To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
--
-- To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html -- Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ --
--
To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
--
--
To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
--
