What do you think?
Rate this book
Cinematic Projections: The Analytical Psychology Of C.G. Jung And Film Theory
An introduction to the world of postJungian film studies, this book redresses the dominance of Freudian theories of cinema and guides individuals through the intricacies of Jungian thought. In so doing, it provides the basis on which to construct a contemporary theory of cinema. Drawing on research into detective films and the myths of detection, Hockley weaves together psychological analysis with textual interpretation. The resulting hypothesis suggests that watching films is an intensely personal experience in which viewers, according to individual needs and desires, project and identify with films and their characters.
216 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
1 person is currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 8, 2019
Hockley is one of the theorists who really brought Jungian psychology up to date with film theory in the twenty-first century. For the academic book I'm writing right now, this book was essential reading. It really is quite a fun read and offers a lot to those who might be curious about analytical psychology but don't know where to wade in (the field is so robust with publication that it can be daunting to newcomers. I know, having been one in the past!). A lot of this book is a primer on Jung and James Hillman -- they are relied upon the most -- and their ideas about the psyche are applied to detective films.
Tightrope, Blade Runner, and Trancers are the movies that receive the most attention here. Part of the fun is watching the films and then reading Hockley's interpretations. I was dyed in the wool of electric sheep, so Blade Runner was not new to me -- but I'd never watched Tightrope or Trancers. Was great racking up another Eastwood film (Tightrope is meeeeeeeeessed up!) and Trancers is just sheer silly B-movie joy (Helen Hunt, in an early role, really lifts it up -- and hey, it's a Christmas movie, too!). In this book Hockley draws up various models of archetypal dynamics, which kinda lost me a bit with the diagrams, and focuses a lot on individuation as the psychological imperative at work. Some of the analysis is predictable -- but he really shines when he points out the little details in the films that speak to psychological processes. (For instance, he points out in Trancers how when Jack Deth's consciousness is sent down the line into his ancestor's body, his ancestor is about to shave, has shaving cream all over his face -- Jack wipes the shaving cream off, preferring his own stubble. Hockley uses this as an example of how stubbornly Jack holds on to his idea of himself. Great observation!)
Terence Dawson has urged that those of us doing Jungian literary criticism need to avoid predictability at all costs. Some of this book is predictable in its analysis -- but the moments where it surprises, which are peppered throughout, are valuable for anyone wading into these waters.
Tightrope, Blade Runner, and Trancers are the movies that receive the most attention here. Part of the fun is watching the films and then reading Hockley's interpretations. I was dyed in the wool of electric sheep, so Blade Runner was not new to me -- but I'd never watched Tightrope or Trancers. Was great racking up another Eastwood film (Tightrope is meeeeeeeeessed up!) and Trancers is just sheer silly B-movie joy (Helen Hunt, in an early role, really lifts it up -- and hey, it's a Christmas movie, too!). In this book Hockley draws up various models of archetypal dynamics, which kinda lost me a bit with the diagrams, and focuses a lot on individuation as the psychological imperative at work. Some of the analysis is predictable -- but he really shines when he points out the little details in the films that speak to psychological processes. (For instance, he points out in Trancers how when Jack Deth's consciousness is sent down the line into his ancestor's body, his ancestor is about to shave, has shaving cream all over his face -- Jack wipes the shaving cream off, preferring his own stubble. Hockley uses this as an example of how stubbornly Jack holds on to his idea of himself. Great observation!)
Terence Dawson has urged that those of us doing Jungian literary criticism need to avoid predictability at all costs. Some of this book is predictable in its analysis -- but the moments where it surprises, which are peppered throughout, are valuable for anyone wading into these waters.
Displaying 1 of 1 review