Interviewee Name (File Name)

By Nicole Foster,2014-08-11 11:32
13 views 0
Interviewee Name (File Name) ...

Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    February 29, 2008

    7:00 PM

    The Philoctetes Center

Levy: Francis Levy

    Nersessian: Edward Nersessian

    Greenberg: Harvey Roy Greenberg

    Makari: George Makari

    Merkin: Daphne Merkin

    Peucker: Brigitte Peucker

    Polan: Dana Polan

    A: Speaker from audience

    Levy: I‟m Francis Levy again, and before we start the roundtable I just wanted to say that the art you see on the walls is from an exhibit that just went up today called Self-Reflection: The True

    Mirror, and it‟s curated by Hallie Cohen, who is our exhibition space curator and a member of the Philoctetes directorate, and also head of the Art Department at Marymount Manhattan College.

    I‟d now like to introduce Brigitte Peucker. Brigitte is the Elias Leavenworth Professor of

    Germanic Languages and Literatures and Professor of Film Studies at Yale University. Her books include Lyric Descent in the German Romantic Tradition, Incorporating Images: Film

    and The Rival Arts and The Material Image: Art and the Real in Film. She is currently working

    on a book on Fassbinder, and she moderated a wonderful panel on In the Year of the 13 Moons,

    and we did it exactly the same way, where we showed the film, and that was an amazing panel. Anyway, Dr. Peucker will moderate this evening‟s panel. I think we‟re going to just have

    everybody introduce themselves, is that right?

    Peucker: Right. That would be great.

    Levy: Okay. Take it away.

    Peucker: Could we perhaps start with Daphne Merkin? Would you mind just saying a few words about the kind of work that you‟re doing?

    Merkin: I‟m a writer and a general cultural critic. I did review films for The New Yorker for two

    years, and I‟ve done a film column for a now—it‟s not moribund, it‟s dead—magazine called

    The New Leader, as well as for Partisan Review, and I remain very interested in film. I actually

    reviewed the book that took this title by Eli Zaretsky. I wrote a rather mixed review, to the horror of his many defenders. I‟m trying to think if there‟s anything else to say. I‟ve written a novel and

    a collection of essays called Dreaming of Hitler, and recently wrote a piece for The Timesa

    short piece—on the TV show “In Treatment,” and whether it would convince those who are

    suspicious or skeptical about therapy, much less analysis, whether it would persuade them to its uses.

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 2

    Greenberg: I‟m Harvey Greenberg. I‟m a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. I teach Medical Humanities and Adolescent Psychiatry when you can get me to do that sort of thing. My second career is as a journalist, and I‟ve written down through the years on media, film, and popular

    culture. I have several books written for kids about psychotherapy and several books written about movies. My most recent publicationsI have an upcoming chapter on compulsive

    gambling in a psychiatric textbook, and I‟ve just had the third of three articles published in a poker magazine, I‟m proud to say. Generally speaking, I work mostly with mainstream Hollywood film, although I can do the occasional art film. And I‟ve been interested, I guess

    since 1970, in the articulation between psychoanalysis and cinema, the use of what the early Freudians called „Applied Analysis,‟ and all the interesting things and the dangers and pitfalls of that sort of stuff. So that‟s me. I have the somewhat dubious merit of having been published both

    in Movieline, before it became totally tits and ass, and in Camera Obscura, which remains

    Camera Obscura. High and low.

    Peucker: Great.

    Makari: I‟m George Makari, and I run The Institute for the History of Psychiatry at Cornell. I‟m

    a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst and a historian, and I‟ve written mostly about the history of psychoanalysis. I just published an intellectual history of the emergence of psychoanalysis in western and central Europe called Revolution in Mind.

    Polan: My name is Dana Polan. I‟m a Professor of Cinema Studies at NYU, although recently I‟ve been moving more into television studies, and that might be something we can get back to and maybe talk about “In Treatment.” I‟ve just today in fact, I‟m proud to say, finished a book

    on The Sopranosfinished at 5:30 and jumped onto the subway to come herea television

    show which obviously has it‟s psychoanalytic dimensions. The next book I‟m writing I don‟t think will be psychoanalyticalthough when you say something‟s not psychoanalytic it

    obviously is. I‟m writing a book about Julia Childs, the French chef. And I‟m very excited by that.

    Peucker: Great. Well, we haven‟t had much of a chance to talk about how we might organize this, so I think I‟m just going to plunge in with a remark that comes to me when I overheard

    somebody talking and saying, “Gee, the actor who plays the analyst is really interesting. Who is he, and why did they choose him?” His name is—as you no doubt noticedPavel Pavlov, a

    Russian actor. When Marc Sorkin, who was the assistant director for this film, cast him, he

    Marc Sorkin—had been made by, I guess Hanns Sachs and Karl Abraham, to study Freud‟s writings for two or three months so he could adequately direct Pavel Pavlov. That‟s one story

    about him. But then the other one, which may be apocryphal, I really can‟t say, is that after the film was released in the US, groups of, I believe, American analysts, thinking that Pavel Pavlov was actually an analystmaybe thinking about the behavioristinvited Pavel Pavlov to come

    over and speak to their groups. So those two anecdotes by way of opening up the discussion. Greenberg: Well there‟s a parallel story. On several occasions Leonard Nimoy has addressed people who are training to go into space, atomic physicists, quantum theory people, and they always ask him questions about quantum foam and boolean algebra, and he says, “I‟m just an actor.” And they don‟t believe him.

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 3

Polan: One thing that‟s interesting about the anecdotes is, I mean if you look at the actor, until

    he‟s identified as a psychoanalyst he could have any number of professions. In particular I think the way he comes up to him in the night and says, “Here‟s your key,” he could be a policeman. He actually looks a little bit to me like the investigator in Fritz Lang‟s M.

    Makari: That‟s true.

    Polan: At a number of points in this film there‟s a kind of association of psychoanalysis to other arts of investigation, in particular, the police procedural. I think just as a policeman is about looking for clues, coming up with a narrative, solving the case, and therefore gaining a kind of heroism for doing so, this film associates psychoanalysis with a kind of heroic solving of the crime, a bringing to justice of evil and rooting out criminality wherever it lies. It‟s not accidental

    that there is a murder plot going on at the same time and we hear that the murderer‟s been arrested in Munich. Part of the way this film is bolstering an image of psychoanalysis is to make it heroic, just as law enforcement is heroic—and that‟s something I think you see also, for

    example, in a number of the very psychoanalytic films you get in the United States after the second World War, the psychoanalytically-inflected film noirs where there‟s often the

    psychoanalyst as miracle-bringer, the figure who brings a cure. It‟s not accidental that the same figures who work in crime drama work off in the psychoanalytic dramas.

    Peucker: Right. Well, what you were saying about policing, Dr. Orth, which means, of course, regularizingthink orthodontics or something of that sort—that‟s what he‟s doing. His goal is to

    regularize and to socialize. It‟s portrayed as a very humane thing to do. But I think that when one looks at this film, which was made in 1926, and hence was an example of what was called “the

    new objectivity,” what it has a lot to do with is bringing to light, literally enlightening the themes

    of expressionist cinema that came before about the various obsessions and phobias that were never called thatbut, you know, the insane criminals that populate German expressionist cinema, which goes up to about 1924. You can see it in the style of the film, too. It‟s all bright light, and not the chiaroscuro of those films. This film is about enlightenment and regularizing and socializing and normalizing the impulses that you see given sort of criminal and insane forms in the earlier cinema.

    Greenberg: Well if you look at the movie behind the moviepeople have said about Woody

    Allen you don‟t generally see poor people and very few people of color in his films. This is

    really a bourgeois society despite the somewhat radical film techniques, but the society is essentially a society with maids and with not quite Wiener Werkstatte furniture, but almost there. The idea of the disruption of the bourgeois status quo I think is very much what we‟re looking at. Also, if you think about it, Freud‟s patients mostly came from the bourgeoisie. Occasionally there was a prince, you know, that floated in and out.

    Makari: Can I beg to differ? In Berlin in the mid ‟20s psychoanalysis was very much associated

    with the avant-garde, and they had a very active polyclinic that was treating lots of folks who were artisans and plumbers and tradesmen. It was not associated with normalizing as much as academic psychiatry was, for sure. So one of the great debates that emerged between Vienna and Berlin, of course, was whether they would do this film. Part of the Berliners‟ association to the avant-garde made them more attracted than Freud was, for instance.

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 4

    I‟m interested in your comments, because one of the most trying moments in terms of the narrative, for me at least, is you find a patient by hanging out until closing time at a bar and you follow them home. This is a way to pull Amy Winehouse into treatment, but very few other people do this.

    Nersessian: It‟s not a bad technique.

    Makari: It‟s a rare technique, let‟s put it that way. It seems to be a stretch. All, it seemed to me, to set up that wonderful line where the analyst says, “Is there a reason why you hesitate to enter

    your home?” But there is something about Berlin and psychoanalysis being in the cafés, in the bars, in that world, very much not yet in the university and in academia and in the orthodox bourgeois society. I think there‟s certainly a tension, because of course the household he comes

    from reeks of all those trappings.

    Greenberg: In that regard, I didn‟t mean the clinics that were going on, and the Wilhelm Reichs and the radicalization and the indemnification of the avant-garde. I‟m talking about a film that

    was made, as I recall, to try and present psychoanalysis. I think it even came with a booklet that was given out at the time.

    Peucker: Yes, right.

    Greenberg: It was an attempt to show ordinary people that the demons were not entirely out of the bottle. That sure, psychoanalysis was always on the cutting edge, for a lot of different reasons. A lot of the practitioners, as we know, were Jewish, and that already had a certain negative cache for a lot of people. But my point here would be that you have a film—granted, it‟s expressionist

    technique, but still you‟re trying to present it to an ordinary public walking through the door, not the artists who were being treated at the clinic. Freud spawned several revolutions in linguistics, in politics. He would‟ve, I think, denied some of them. But in terms of this film, as I recall, it was meant to enlighten people, literally enlighten the average guy on the street that this wasn‟t a terrible thing, and that psychiatric illness was treatable, and this method could be used with ordinary people.

    Merkin: Glen Gabbard, who wrote a very good book on cinema and a good book on The

    Sopranos, which I assume you know about, referred to films from the ‟30s as being involved with “cathartic cures.” I don‟t know what kind of audience this movie drew in at its own time,

    but it‟s a lot about symptom relief in the end. I mean, along the way there are a lot of terms thrown in. One way it struck me as mimicking psychoanalysis today, with the exception of Freud, is its linearity and its sort of humorlessness, while Freud certainly had a very good sense of humor. But everything is presented in this sort of magical way that continues years later, like in Vertigo, when the psychoanalyst says, “You suffer from—.” I forgot what he tells James Stewart

    exactly, something that releases James Stewart for the rest of his life from the vertigo. This movie also suggests that if you have one or several insights into—it‟s a little about the „aha!‟

    insight mode of therapy, which never worked for me, but maybe it does work.

    And I did have a passing thought. One of the more praised aspects of this movie are the dream sequences and the double exposures, and I was thinking of a writer, a critic, a very good critic I took a writing class with years ago named Anatole Broyard, and one of the things he said was Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 5

    never to write about dreams, that they‟re inherently boring. I was thinking watching this movie that a little of his dream, for me, went a long way, that it kind of stretched out in a way. And I still thought he seemed like a hysteric at the end of the movie the way he ran down the hill like he was going to a baptism. But those were some thoughts I had.

    Levy: Dreams of the bell tower

    Makari: The bell tower, yeah.

    Greenberg: Dreams have always presented a great problem for filmmakers. A long time ago I read an essay about Psycho and it said that filmmakers are often at their worst in portraying dreams when they try to do it. The dreams in Spellbound are famously hideous. But if you look

    at a shot in Hitchcock‟s Psycho when Vera Miles is approaching the house, where we know that

    Mrs. Bates, or her mummy, is living it‟s very, very eerie. Instead of her going to the house, the house appears in a canted way to come to her. And that is damned eerie, and there are a lot of

    examples where cinema is extraordinarily dreamlike but not when it‟s trying to be, and I think that‟s sort of intriguing.

    Polan: I‟d like to go back to two points, or pick up two points that you mentioned. This sort of also builds on the filmability of dreams and things like that. One was this idea of the punctuality, or what you called the „aha!‟ moment, and I think part of this is why I‟m actually interested as much in how television is dealing with psychoanalysis as film is. I think one limitation of film obviously is the format of the feature film: an hour and a half, or in this case about seventy minutes, two hours. There‟s only so much of the ongoing interminable process of psychoanalysis that can be represented, and I think you‟re impelled towards that kind of narrative of closure when you have a two-hour, beginning, middle and end structure. There‟s so many films you can cite. Is it Spellbound where there‟s the cure as they‟re skiing down the ski slope?

    Polan: Yeah. You know Fritz Lang‟s Secret Beyond the Door, well he says

    Greenberg: Well, there are very few movies that present therapy as it is because therapy is inherently boring.

    Polan: But also, I think, the duration of film is of a different duration than the psychoanalytic process.

    Nersessian: Somewhat.

    Greenberg: To be sure. Unless you‟re watching Andy Warhol look at the Empire State Building.

    Merkin: Can I interrupt and say I know it‟s said that therapy is inherently boring, but I don‟t think it‟s quite accurate, certainly not to me. It‟s more that therapy is quiescent. It doesn‟t have much active life. Many things are boring and repetitive and perseverating, and they‟re portrayed withI mean, love affairs are boring. They can only go a certain kind of way.

    Levy: Which way?

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 6

    Merkin: I meant one of two ways: fail or succeed. But we‟re talking about interiority, which is a problem that novels have addressed, like in stream of consciousness. Simply to call it boring is cute, but doesn‟t address the larger issue of how do you represent an essentially interior process.

    Greenberg: I meant boring from the outside in the sense that we sit for three quarters of an hour, fifty minutes to an hour, time after time. A lot is going on, but those „aha!‟ moments are relatively rare. The inner process is what‟s important. But I don‟t think it‟s easy for a film to capturesince films are inherently dramaticthat kind of day after day suchness

    Merkin: I just said that.

    Greenberg: and why should it?

    Polan: Yeah, and then going back to Brigitte‟s point about bringing to light, I think one of the interesting things about this film then is it has a certain confidence in the science of psychoanalysis as bringing to light, rendering clear and somehow starting to put to rest psychical processes, yet the very moment of light at the end of the film begs for psychoanalytic interpretation. Everything is so bright, everything is so perfect. It‟s clear that that last sequence is a kind of wish fulfillment, is a projection. It‟s phallic, with the baby held up against the

    mountains. I mean, you know

    Peucker: It‟s definitely meant ironically. It‟s too idyllic. You have urban people suddenly transformed into peasants. It‟s not just a summer house or a weekend place. The whole business of the fishit is another

    Greenberg: But it‟s also Freud in Switzerland during August.

    Peucker: Oh, maybe so. That‟s very ironic.

    Merkin: It‟s interesting to me that they chose to use the man as the holder of all the—probably

    because I‟m thinking of a new book that‟s coming out called Mad, Bad or Sad, which is the

    treatment of women as mental, as calling them mental patients, even if they simply haveyou

    know, aren‟t mental patients in that sense. So I thought in that way there was a little bit of gendernot inversion, but it interested me that he had what I would think of as, in the hysteric quality of everything. I mean, of the knife obsessionto me it seemed more like classically

    female symptoms.

    I also thought one thing that was interesting in the movie was the whole treatment of the marriage and the treatment of paranoia. I kept thinking of—I think it‟s wrongly attributed to

    Delmore Schwartz—“even paranoids have enemies.” Like the setup of the cousin who‟s always lurking about suggestively, and then you‟re supposed to attribute it all to the man‟s hyperactive, hypertrophic imagination was interestingly done, as well as the marriage. And I was wondering, in the scene when he was having the nightmare and clearly screaming, why the wife didn‟t come out of the room sooner. It took like a breakdown for her to emerge. So I was thinking of the view of marriage that the movie conveys.

    Greenberg: Well I think what the movie cannot—if you think that it can‟t say certain things. This

    man is impotent. I think it‟s implied in the film, but you didn‟t talk about that kind of stuff Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 7

    openly in cinema. Today we‟re drowning in it. There is a great deal, in order to make the film acceptable to an ordinary audience, that can‟t be shown. We know in passing that they have separate rooms.

    If you want to give it another construction, in terms of what you‟re saying about paranoia and Freud‟s classic paper on paranoia and homosexuality, Martha Wolfenstein famously said, “When a film is trying to reassure you about what hasn‟t happened or what isn‟t happening, it has

    happened.” One other way of looking at it—I‟m just playing around with it here—is that this is a

    man in some kind of homosexual conflict about his cousin, that that‟s really the lover, and it‟s the wife that‟s getting in the way. If you turn the whole thing upside down. I‟m not saying that that‟s entirely viable, but—

    Peucker: Well, it is interesting. You were talking earlier about detection being another analog for, let‟s say, the analytic process. It‟s also interesting that the spectator of the film has a great deal

    more work to do than the analyst. All the interesting images—and in a way you‟re suggesting

    that all the interesting images are the ones you can‟t talk about, which sort of surprises me because I think you could talk about itbut, anyway, those are left there for the spectator to

    interpret and read.

    Makari: Yeah, I saw the film for the first time earlier today, and I thought of it as a success. I had read all of the arguments between Freud and the Berliners about this thing and knew all about that, but I had never seen the film. That‟s the way I came to it, and the question that I was asking was, was Freud right? His basic concern was the abstractions of psychoanalysis couldn‟t be represented in plastic form. So given the parametersand the parameters were also a silent

    film—how successful was this film going to be, or how much of a disaster? We‟ve all seen lots of disasters, right? I have to say I thought it was relatively successful, and in part because of that: what it did with artistry and implication. A lot is implied. There‟s not one sexual interpretation that the analyst makes. The whole case is filled with sexual symbolism. It‟s a case that cries out for a heavy-handed sexual

    Greenberg: Yeah, true.

    Peucker: Right.

    Makari: It‟s never made.

    Merkin: What about a light-handed?

    Makari: Even a light-handed one. In fact the analyst would have no doubt, especially in Berlin, where they were pretty heavy-handed about their interpretations, and would have been making a lot of heavy-handed sexual interpretations. So it‟s interesting that it doesn‟t happen in the film. Maybe the artistry of the director is such that he knew that implication would be more powerful in getting one internal state to imagine another.

    Greenberg: Professor, could you say more? I never quite understood the remark that Freud was supposed to have made to Abraham about plasticity, that we cannot represent

    Peucker: Abstract

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 8

Greenberg: You used the term

    Makari: Abstraction, yeah.

    Greenberg: What would that be? What was he actually referring to?

    Makari: In terms of the plastic arts it was a question that had great resonance because it also meant how empirically validatable was your stuff if you couldn‟t pick it up or represent it in sensory ways. So the abstractions of psychoanalysishow much could it be represented in a

    form that could be easily observed with sensory perception? Tough question.

    Polan: When you were talking about those things that escape the therapist in the film but that we interpret, it occurs to me that a corollary of what you were saying before about the difficulty of finding adequate representation of dreams in psychoanalytic films is an inadequacy of finding an equivalent for the therapeutic process.

    Greenberg: Yes.

    Polan: What we get is very literal therapeutic activity, someone hearing and interpreting, someone saying you said that. Here‟s the symbolic interpretation. I think you see the same thing at times in The Sopranos. I think you see it in In Treatment. The most interesting moments of

    therapy are not what‟s represented as going on between the therapist and the patient. It‟s elsewhere in the show. It‟s elsewhere in the fabric of the work. In the same way, I think, there‟s something very literal about the psychoanalyst in this film.

    Greenberg: In the nature of the constraints and the trajectory of narratives it has to be that „aha‟ moment, and it often has a crude and rather simplistic quality. There‟s an old bad joke. The guy comes to the analyst and he says, “I have a nameless fear,” and the analyst says, “Well, please don‟t worry about that because we have a name for everything.” The sequence that mocks that is the end of Psycho, when Simon Oakland gets up and gives this explanation, and this all makes sense, and then the last thing you‟re left with is this strange, eerie, crazy moment where Anthony Perkins saysand you see the skull—“I wouldn‟t hurt a fly.” That says more than that analyst is

    ever going to say about the inner nature of that weirdness.

    Polan: The equivalent in this film is that you have an interesting plasticity in the images that then gets traded for the verbal, literally titles, that explain what interpretation the psychoanalyst is coming up with. So you move from one form, silent cinema, to a verbal art.

    Merkin: But I‟m not sure I agree with George that the artistry is all in what isn‟t being said. Essentially what the analyst says to him is you‟re afraid of knives because you‟re afraid of knives. There‟s a slight zen, essentially. First of all, this was pre the Hays Code. They could have

    put in—I don‟t know, would it have hurt the film to have attempted some translation into sexual terms or sexual fears without coming out in a major. In some ways it becomes laughable to me:

    the dissonance between what the analyst actually says and, if you want to use the term, the plastic part of the film. You see so much drenched sexualized imagery, and then they‟re busy talking about, well, you wanted to kill your wife, with no further attenuation of those feelings. Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 9

    Makari: Well, no, I think I might agree with you. I didn‟t mean it specifically just about that interpretation. I meant about the mode of filmmaking in general, that so much is left to implication.

    Merkin: Right.

    Makari: But yes, I think it‟s fascinating that there was no sexual interpretation as a punch line. It

    seemed kind of incongruous. Now it should be said that this film initially was plannedat least

    the analysts thought it was plannedto have two parts. The first part was going to be totally

    didactic. It was going to be a lecture about psychoanalysis. It was either never made or the director said, “Yeah, we‟ll do that.” Any good director would have left that on the cutting room in the first three seconds. So they left it all that we‟re going to tell a patient‟s story and try to get

    it all in there. That could have been a disaster. It could have been much, much worse. I have to say, I was pretty impressed. But no, I take your point. I think it‟s a good point.

    Peucker: Certainly nothing is ever mentioned about the relationship to the mother, either, although that‟s central. Actually there‟s another scene in this film that was cut for this DVD. I‟ve never seen it myself, but I‟ve read about it, and that is between the scene in which he almost feels very tempted to kill his wife and the moment when he appears in his mother‟s apartment. He actually goes back to his lab, prepares to drink poison, writes a few lines of goodbye letter to his wife. Then his eyes rest on the photograph of his mother that is sitting next to the photograph of his wife. He picks up that photograph, apparently kisses it, and as he‟s picking it up, or putting it back down, he knocks over the poison, and doesn‟t commit suicide. So there‟s a lot of that going on there too. What I find so peculiar is that if this is a film made as an educational film for people who don‟t know much—anything at all, let‟s say—about Freud‟s writings, then why is all the fun of it for an audience that does know something? Was it actually made for the analysts themselves in some sense?

    Makari: I think it was also actually just made for a good story.

    Peucker: Yeah.

    Makari: Because it‟s actually very strategically placed. He‟s regressing in analysis; he goes back to his mother.

    Peucker: Right.

    Makari: But unless you know about—that would completely go by the boards. There‟s no way

    you would make that connection. It was totally symbolic.

    Peucker: Right.

    Makari: So as an educational tool it‟s rather weak.

    Merkin: Does anyone know if it had a popular appeal?

    Makari: Apparently, it got good reviews.

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

    Secrets of a Soul: A History of Psychoanalysis and Cinema

    Page 10

Greenberg: It got good reviews.

    Merkin: Whatever that means.

    Makari: Yes, whatever that means.

    Greenberg: But the actual B.O., the box office take, and how many bags of popcorn they sold, I don‟t think we know very much about that.

    Can you tell us more about this whole battle between Freud and Abraham and Sachs about the way the film was made and why Freud didn‟t want it made? There‟s a lot of different history about that, and I‟ve heard some of it, but I wonder how much of what I know is apocryphal.

    Makari: The bigger picture is that between ‟24 and ‟25 there was a lot of fighting between Berlin and Vienna, and a lot of this was expurgated from the first Abraham-Freud, so we had to wait for the complete Abraham-Freud that came out in 2002, or if you went to the archives you could find it in the secret committee meeting. Bitter, bitter vitriol between the two camps. This was just one other fight; they had been fighting about a bunch of stuff. One of the fights was how independent was the Berlin group going to be? They didn‟t accept death drive. There‟s no death drive. This is a movie about sexual frustration leading to aggression and rage, and this is Abraham‟s model of the drives that‟s making this guy sick.

    So you know, there‟s different positions, and there‟s just plain old power struggle for who‟s going to control the movement, because Berlin‟s got the most powerful institute, and Vienna‟s got Freud and Rank and the Verlag, and they‟re fighting a lot. This becomes one of the fights.

    There‟s this whole thing where—I don‟t know that much about it—Bernfeld and Stouffer

    apparently—. As Freud was saying, he didn‟t want to deal with the filmmakers who had come over. One of the American Hollywood guys had come over and offered Freud $100,000. Greenberg: Samuel Goldwyn.

    Makari: To narrate or something the great love stories

    Greenberg: I‟ve heard several different versions of it, and I went into the archives, because Hollywood doesn‟t want to talk about this. My son is a screenwriter, so we got a hold of some

    stuff. Goldwyn came to Freud and this is a time when Freud had zip money——and he wired

    him and offered him 100,000 smackers if he would collaborate, consult on a series of films about great love affairs of history. The first was supposed to be Antony and Cleopatra. Makari: Right.

    Greenberg: Freud sent him back a resounding, “Nein,” which is one of the few times anybody ever said no to Samuel Goldwyn, leading Goldwyn several years later to say anybody who sees a psychiatrist should have their head examined. But Goldwyn was furious. And then there was the whole question of Freud‟s relationship to America. He wasn‟t too wild about us a good deal of the time.

    Transcript prepared by RA Fisher Ink, LLC +1 718-797-0939 / 800-842-0692

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email