ISBN 0-88048-826-3
Perplexed by the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ ? Not sure what it means to dream of Michael Caine ? Disturbed by the Oedipal content of Casablanca ? Then this is the book for you. The brothers Gabbard, academics in psychoanalysis and media studies, respectively, provide an account of two interactions between psychiatry and the cinema : first, how psychiatrists are portrayed in American films; second, how psychoanalytic ideas may inform an interpretation of key films by certain directors. Their book is evenly divided between a data-led account of all American films since 1904 depicting psychiatrists and a more relaxed exposition of psychodynamic themes emerging in the films of Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Ridley Scott, Robert Altman and others (some of them European, but their films were made in America).
It must be stated that ‘psychiatry’ here translates as psychotherapy, for as the authors demonstrate conclusively, Hollywood has no concept of biological psychiatry. In over 450 films containing screen psychiatrists, the vast majority have depicted analysts, or some version of the ‘talking cure’. In most cases, very little work is done, but the therapist is on hand to provide what is usually a stereotypical plot device : the ficelle, when a therapeutic session fades into a patient monologue serving to update the audience. Occasionally, cathartic cures arise, but they seldom cohere. Biological interventions emerge as punishments, most notably in the form of electroconvulsive therapy or lobotomy.
Psychiatrists have received little sympathy from film makers, their only respite coming in a Golden Era, which the authors place between 1957 and 1963. Prior to that the psychiatrist was usually a European with an exotic air and a vaguely deranged persona; after that she became the functionary of the oppressive state, doing terrible things to non-conformists.
Female psychiatrists have had a particularly bad time of it; rarely do they see the end of the film without falling in love with their patients, ignoring the countertransference and being saved by ‘the right man’ - who is often psychotic. The contrast with reality is obvious : when studies have examined psychotherapeutic misdemeanours, it is the males who are more likely to err. The Gabbards argue that Hollywood cannot accept the strong female figure, particularly if she is ‘healing’ a man; the audience's presumed anxiety is only assuaged if the woman is shown to be vulnerable and ultimately saved by reciprocal male intervention.
The more interpretative chapters may provoke disagreement, but are intellectually stimulating accounts of the medium, infused with the vocabularies of psychoanalysis and semiotics. Sigmund Freud and Melanie Klein receive more attention than does Jacques Lacan (whose relevance to Hitchcock is elegantly explored elsewhere, by Slavoj Zizec (Reference Zizec1991). For trainees in psychiatry who enjoy the cinema, this is an enjoyable and informative text, discussing complex ideas in ways that can be understood by reference to the films. The more adventurous academic programmes may wish to debate whether Melanie Klein's theories assist in an understanding of the horror and science fiction genres; and whether Humphrey Bogart resolved an Oedipal dilemma in Casablanca, when he gave up Ingrid Bergman. So, here's looking at you, Id.
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.