Movies and the Mind

by William Indick

  Equus

  When we commit an immoral act, the guilt is multiplied by the existence of witnesses, whose eyes testify to the depravity of our sins. Shame exists in the eyes of others. But when an act is so depraved that we can never forgive ourselves, then even our own eyes can look inwardly to see the corruption of our souls. After Oedipus discovered that he had married and copulated with his own mother, he gouged his eyes out in the quintessential act of shame. This psychological connection between the eyes and shame is evident in the old English saying: “Damn your eyes!” In the English film Equus (1977), Alan Strang (Peter Firth) cannot make love with his girlfriend (Jenny Agutter) in the hayloft of a stable, due to an obsessive horse fetish. In an extreme reaction to the shame of impotence, the disturbed teen gouges the eyes out of all the horses in the stable. For Alan, the disgrace of both his physical inadequacy and his moral iniquity exists in the eyes of the horses. His demented solution, born from the passion of that moment, was to gouge out the horses eyes, thereby removing his guilt and shame.

  The Drusilla Complex

  There have been multiple accounts from the correspondence of various reliable sources that Sigmund Freud was in love with his wife’s sister, and that the two carried on a secret affair. Perhaps this highly personal issue in Freud’s life led to a reluctance to write explicitly about another type of incest, which is also found repeatedly in myth and literature. Freud’s possible writer’s block on the subject of sister incest may have been due to a conscious or unconscious inhibition towards revealing his deepest secret to the eyes of his readers. The sexual obsession with the sister figure is as taboo a subject as the traditional Oedipal theme. In most depictions, the realization of this desire leads to either crippling guilt or extreme violence.

  The Roman Emperor whose boundless lust and decadence were immortalized in Bob Guccione’s pornographic epic, Caligula (1979) is the only character ever depicted on film that engaged in repeated sexual relations with his sister, while never experiencing an iota of guilt. Caligula’s (Malcolm McDowell) shameless indulgence in forbidden sex with his sister Drusilla (Teresa Ann Savoy) is portrayed as the apex of sexual abandon. His depravity was born out of a combination of absolute power and complete indifference to morals or cultural taboos. In the end, Caligula’s indulgences prove to be self-destructive, when his enemies use his infamous licentiousness against him in their efforts to dethrone him.

  In The Sweet Smell of Success (1957), J. J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster) is an emperor of the entertainment industry. As a syndicated gossip columnist based on the infamous Walter Winchell, Hunsecker made or broke people’s careers with the stroke of a pen. Hunsecker uses all of his power to stop a marriage between his sister, Susan (Susan Harrison), and her fiancé (Martin Milner). Hunsecker’s incestuous desire for complete possession of his sister is disguised behind a façade of fatherly care and concern for her welfare. But when he discovers Susan alone in her room with a man (Tony Curtis), Hunsecker’s lust explodes in an eruption of violence, exposing his concealed desire to the light of day.

  In Scarface (1983), Tony (Al Pacino) is the emperor of a drug syndicate. His obsessive protectiveness of his sister, Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), is so passionate that it clearly indicates some deep psychosexual desire for the sole possession of Gina’s love. When Tony discovers his best friend and sister together, he kills his friend—leading to a mental meltdown for both Tony and Gina. In a haze of grief, drugs and psychological confusion, brother and sister face each other for the last time. Gina, dressed in a revealing negligee, tells Tony that she knows why he won’t allow her to be with anyone else—because he wants her all for himself. Gina’s seduction creates a moment of incredible sexual tension, which can only be resolved in a bloodbath of extreme violence.

  In Angels and Insects (1995), Edgar Alabaster (Douglas Henshall) is an English aristocrat who suffers from the same type of despotic arrogance and moral deficiency as Caligula. He forces his sister Eugenia (Patsy Kensit) to engage in incestuous sex, though it is a bit unclear whether Eugenia is truly being coerced or whether she passively allows Edgar to have sex with her. In any case, the revelation of this incestuous affair is far too much for her prudish husband (Mark Rylance), a drab entomologist who eventually learns that behind the lacy facade of the social elite, there are primal drives that show little more cultivation than the insects that he studies under his microscope.

  In John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), we see through the eyes of six-year-old Michael Myers as he enters his sister’s room after she had sex with her boyfriend. He approaches her naked body and slashes her to death. We don’t know why Michael kills his teenage sister. All we see of her is a beautiful naked body. Carpenter doesn’t explain this sexually charged scene of extreme violence, he merely depicts it in a chilling, surreal sequence that recalls the hazy atmosphere of an early childhood memory. The implication for the viewer is that Michael was in love with his sister, and that witnessing her having sex with another boy drove him into a psychotic rage from which he never returned.

  In The Royal Tennenbaums (2001), Richie (Luke Wilson) is plagued by guilt over his infatuation with his adopted sister, Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow). When he discovers that his best friend (Owen Wilson) is secretly having an affair with Margot, Richie’s jealous rage is directed inwardly. In a fit of anger, despair and guilt, he slashes his wrists. Though he survives his suicide attempt, Richie is still conflicted over his desire for Margot. His conflict is especially puzzling because he’s not even sure if it is morally wrong for he and his sister to be romantically linked, since they are not biologically related. Nevertheless, his mental anguish is somewhat abated when Margot tells him that she cares for him as well, though they have to remain “secretly in love.” While they never actually have sex, Richie and Margot’s plot line resolves with them smoking cigarettes together on the roof of the Tennenbaum house, as if their love had actually been physically consummated.

  And finally, in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Elliot (Michael Caine) is married to Hannah (Mia Farrow), but he is in love with his wife’s sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). Elliot and Lee have an affair, but they are both racked by guilt, which eventually overpowers the pleasure of their company and ends the affair. The relationship between Elliot and Lee is a very realistic depiction of an incestuous relationship, and it probably resembles the beginning and ending of Freud’s own (alleged) incestuous affair with his sister-in-law. In short, the sexual attraction between the two would-be lovers is blocked by a moral inhibition. Ideally, the guilt experienced at the mere thought of having an affair would obstruct any romantic development. But sometimes this preemptive guilt is not strong enough, especially when sexual attraction is amplified by the excitement of the fact that the other person is forbidden. Temptation (like the snake in the Garden of Eden) is strongest when the prohibited object is perceived as being taboo. Once the forbidden fruit is tasted, guilt (like the wrath of God) returns with a vengeance. The psychological punishment inflicted by the conscience of the superego is so severe that it overpowers the libido impulses that brought the two together in the first place. Though libido brought Elliot and Lee together, guilt tore them apart.

  4

  The Myth of the Birth of the Hero

  Otto Rank was born in 1884 in Vienna. Rank came from a poor family and was essentially self educated. He studied Freud’s theories on his own while working as a locksmith, and at the age of twenty-one wrote an article entitled “The Artist,” one of the earliest psychoanalytic studies of art and creativity. The article came to Freud’s attention. He was impressed with the young scholar and took him under his wing. Under Freud’s mentorship and tutelage, Rank entered the University of Vienna. Upon Freud’s advice, he did not study medicine in order to become a psychiatrist, but continued his studies in the arts and humanities. Rank’s scholarly study of world mythology and his firsthand knowledge of Freudian theory inspired his short but incredibly influential work, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero (1912), whi
ch became a classic monograph in the growing field of psychoanalysis. The increasing respect and reputation that Rank was developing among the close circle of Viennese psychoanalysts ingratiated the young student to “the Master,” and Rank became one of Freud’s closest disciples and collaborators.

  After receiving his Ph.D. at the age of twenty-eight, Rank was appointed by Freud as secretary to the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society and editor of its journal The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. However, as was typical of Freud’s relationships with his most brilliant disciples and colleagues, tension arose when Rank began expressing original ideas that diverged from Freud’s orthodox analytic perspective. The final break came in 1924 when Rank wrote The Trauma of Birth, an analytic study in which Rank proposed the “birth trauma” rather than the Oedipal complex as the primary root of neurotic conflict. Freud condemned the work and Rank was expelled from the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. Shortly afterwards, Rank left Vienna and eventually resettled in Paris in 1926 with his wife and daughter. Though based in Paris, Rank taught and practiced often in the United States. He moved to New York City permanently in 1936, where he died three years later. Rank’s theories have been extremely influential in the fields of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, as well as in the fields of mythology, philosophy and all of the subfields in psychology. He is an especially revered figure among analysts and practitioners in the existential and humanistic branches of psychoanalysis.

  The Hero Saga

  In The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, Rank draws out a basic pattern of psychological themes that is easily discernible in the legends of hundreds of mythological heroes. Jesus, Moses, Gilgamesh, Cyrus, Perseus, Hercules, Telephus, Oedipus, Romulus, Paris, Siegfried, Lohengrin, Tristan, Sargon and Karna are just a few of the legendary heroes whose stories follow the Myth of the Birth of the Hero saga with extremely little variation. In Rank’s (1914) own words, (edited by this author), the saga is summarized as follows:

  The hero is the child of most distinguished parents, usually the son of a king…. During or before the pregnancy, there is a prophecy in the form of a dream or oracle, cautioning against his birth, and usually threatening danger to the father … he is surrendered to the water…. He is then saved by animals, or by lowly people…. After he has grown up, he finds his distinguished parents, in a highly versatile fashion. He takes his revenge on his father, on the one hand, and is acknowledged, on the other. Finally he achieves rank and honors.

  By expanding slightly upon the basic themes set forth by Rank, the myth of the birth of the hero can be delineated according to the following stages:

  1. Prophecy of the birth of the hero.

  2. The birth of the hero to divine, noble or royal parentage.

  3. The infant hero is attacked or abandoned either by the father himself or by a dark, evil father figure.

  4. The infant hero is rescued by or given to surrogate parental figures.

  5. The hero eventually returns to the land of his father in order to avenge the wrong inflicted upon him at the time of his birth.

  6. The hero-son claims his royal birthright.

  The Wish-Fulfilling Fantasy

  The first significant aspect of the hero myth is that the people who raise the child are not his real parents; rather, they are surrogate parents. Rank believed that this aspect of the myth is a universal daydream among children, a form of wish fulfillment in which the child fantasizes that his own rather ordinary or mundane parents are not really his own mother and father; but rather, that he is the child of divine or royal lineage. Within this fantasy, the child can imagine that he is far better and superior than his natural parents, and that he is therefore destined for greater things. The fantasy allows the child to distance himself from any negative qualities that he perceives within his parental figures, identifying himself instead with fantasy-based parents who are divine, noble, aristocratic or otherwise ideal.

  The Fantasy of the Divine Father

  The boy-hero has an essentially hostile relationship with his father. In reference to the childhood fantasy element of the myth, the boy negates the existence of his real father in favor of identifying with a fantasy father figure of his own imaginative creation. In Rank’s (1914) words:

  The entire endeavor to replace the real father by a more distinguished one is merely the expression of the child’s longing for the vanished happy time, when his father still appeared to be the strongest and greatest man, and the mother seemed the dearest and most beautiful woman.

  In infancy and early childhood, the real parental figures are ideal, noble and divine in the baby’s innocent and youthful eyes. But as the child grows, the idealized image of mother and father becomes tarnished by grim reality, and the child sees the parents for whom they really are—ordinary people with real weaknesses and flaws. The childhood fantasy of divine ancestry is therefore the child’s attempt to return to an earlier state of bliss, in which the parental figures were all-powerful, beautiful, beneficent and divine. Since the boy-hero’s primary identification figure is the father, the fantasy of divine ancestry is typically related directly or solely at the father, while the mother may remain an extant or at least a benign figure in the boy-hero’s myth. The widespread myth of the virgin birth, for example, is a complete “repudiation of the father” by the boy-hero. Not only is the real father negated as the biological father, but the entire existence of a biological father is denied, leaving only the possibility of divine heritage.

  Revolt Against the Father

  For the boy-hero, hostility and negation is directed primarily at the father. According to the myth, it is the father who feels threatened by the birth of his son, and it the father who fears and resents his son’s existence. It is the father who exposes the boy to death by abandoning him in the wild, and it is against the father that the hero will eventually claim his revenge. Within the fantasy of open revolt against the father, the boy establishes his own ego as the hero of his own life story. In Rank’s (1914) words:

  The true hero of the romance is, therefore, the ego, which finds itself in the hero, by reverting to the time when the ego was itself a hero, through its first heroic act, i.e. the revolt against the father.

  The boy identifies himself with the hero identity by identifying his father as the villain, and then revolting against and defeating the father-villain figure. The fantasy of the revolt against the father resolves the childhood fantasy of idealized parental figures by eliminating the idealized parent and replacing him with a fantasy of the idealized self—i.e., the self as hero.

  The Fantasy of the Usurping Son

  In the final stage of the myth, the son avenges himself against the father. He is acknowledged as the divine or royal heir, and he usurps his father’s kingdom and throne. The fantasy of the usurping son is a ubiquitous archetypal theme because it is essentially true to life. In classic Oedipal fashion, the infant child will rival and compete with the father for the love and affection of the mother. The son will grow up to challenge the father’s authority and defy his will. The son will eventually live to succeed the father in the arena of life. And in the end, the son will bury the father and he will inherit everything that the father once possessed.

  The Myth of the Birth of Harry Potter

  In recent history, there has been no greater sensation in the world of children’s literature and film than the Harry Potter phenomenon. It is no coincidence that the Harry Potter myth, as depicted in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001), is a close reenactment of the Myth of the Birth of the Hero saga. Like all other myths that have the capacity to communicate on a deep psychological level to wide audiences, Harry Potter’s story touches upon primary unconscious issues that relate to our earliest childhood fantasies. Harry’s journey from the mundane world of harsh reality (the “Muggle” world) to an enchanted fantasyland of magic and wonderment expresses a universal childhood escape fantasy. Harry Potter’s journey is a journey of the mythical child-hero that all children an
d adults can relate to.

  Harry’s story begins with the boy-hero living with his surrogate parental figures (his aunt and uncle) in suburban England. He lives in a world of abuse, neglect, emotional isolation and desperate loneliness. Like most young children, he often feels that nobody understands him, and that his parental figures are often cruel, tyrannical, unfair and intolerant. At this initial stage of the story, Harry is a common boy that every child can relate to. By relating to Harry as the ordinary boy, the audience identifies with him and projects their own childhood fantasies onto his story, vicariously journeying into the world of wonder that Harry is about to enter.

  Deconstructing Harry

  Harry’s story follows each step of Rank’s pattern:

  Stage One: Before Harry’s birth, there is a prophecy that a child will be born who will defeat the evil Voldemort, the dark sorcerer of the wizard world.

  Stage Two: Harry is born to great parents—powerful wizards who are highly respected in the wizard world.

  Stage Three: Shortly after his birth, Voldemort—the dark father—kills Harry’s real parents and attempts to kill Harry, but Harry miraculously survives.

  Stage Four: Harry is rescued and left in the care of his aunt and uncle, surrogate parents in the Muggle world, with whom Harry will be anonymous and safe.