You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
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