When the movie first started I was simply very let down. First of all, this girl walks out to the highway where she immediately gets attacked by a guy in what appears to be a Ronald Reagan mask and she almost gets away but, very conveniently, there is a random chute right there under the grass that he pushes her into which leads to his underground bunker... where he bricks her up to die? Who would take the time to create an entire underground bunker in order to get away with murder just to brick someone up behind a way so they can slowly starve to death? It honestly just seems like they wanted SO badly to shove Poe references into the movie that they were willing to do anything.
Them comes the psychoanalysis and my opinion improves. It reminds me of the reason I got into psychoanalysis in the first place, because of how dated it sounds, specifically to the era of 40s and 50s film noir dime store psychology. It is so fun and campy. I'm more into it now so I can see the obvious ways they misuse analytic concepts but it is still highly enjoyable for me because they make it so much more FUN. But I digress, because the usage here is actually not far off. The idea of the internalized other, the superego, is what underlies this film in part, and it is most certainly an interesting concept. By the way, what exactly is "viewing the world as a warped projection of your own superego" as one psychiatrist, played by Donald Pleasance (his acting is amazing in this movie btw- as always) says about a particularly troubled girl? Do we not all do this? The superego, or Lacanian Imaginary in another sense perhaps, is a filter, a mediator through which we all view the world in part. Isn't it impossible to see the world for what it really is? Only someone completely lacking a conscience could possibly see the world without this filter and their own ego is so large that it completely warps their understanding of society and the world. There is no objective view of the world, we are all born already into a social context and personal context that completely colors our perception of society, of reality, and of our own selves. Perhaps this is one of their playful jokes using analytic terminology.
This is not a great movie but it really does try with the noir references, for instance the scene at the beginning where our main character falls asleep on the side of the road in her car and is awoken by a police officer (I absolutely adore the car she's driving by the way, it is incredibly late 80s-early 90s). I like how they chose to make him knock on the other side of the door, however. It's also worthy of note that the idea of the superego is something that references Marion Crane in Psycho and her decision to go back and return the money she stole- but also, more obliquely but more importantly- Norman's motivation for killing. After his mother's death, his internalized voice of her's, his superego, became so much stronger that it took on the form of a new personality, punishing him, and other people, for the desires he held; something we all do in much smaller ways in our own daily lives. But I'll save the Psycho analysis for a viewing of that film.
This movie really is interesting because it seems like the writer wanted to make a piece of art, the director didn't care, the studio couldn't really get that much money and forced in rewrites and new scenes, and the actors are just bad at their job. There's a much better movie hidden in here somewhere. It's also bizarre that I decided to go in depth on a random cheap movie but give two sentence reviews for movies I like much more. That's just how I am I guess.
Them comes the psychoanalysis and my opinion improves. It reminds me of the reason I got into psychoanalysis in the first place, because of how dated it sounds, specifically to the era of 40s and 50s film noir dime store psychology. It is so fun and campy. I'm more into it now so I can see the obvious ways they misuse analytic concepts but it is still highly enjoyable for me because they make it so much more FUN. But I digress, because the usage here is actually not far off. The idea of the internalized other, the superego, is what underlies this film in part, and it is most certainly an interesting concept. By the way, what exactly is "viewing the world as a warped projection of your own superego" as one psychiatrist, played by Donald Pleasance (his acting is amazing in this movie btw- as always) says about a particularly troubled girl? Do we not all do this? The superego, or Lacanian Imaginary in another sense perhaps, is a filter, a mediator through which we all view the world in part. Isn't it impossible to see the world for what it really is? Only someone completely lacking a conscience could possibly see the world without this filter and their own ego is so large that it completely warps their understanding of society and the world. There is no objective view of the world, we are all born already into a social context and personal context that completely colors our perception of society, of reality, and of our own selves. Perhaps this is one of their playful jokes using analytic terminology.
This is not a great movie but it really does try with the noir references, for instance the scene at the beginning where our main character falls asleep on the side of the road in her car and is awoken by a police officer (I absolutely adore the car she's driving by the way, it is incredibly late 80s-early 90s). I like how they chose to make him knock on the other side of the door, however. It's also worthy of note that the idea of the superego is something that references Marion Crane in Psycho and her decision to go back and return the money she stole- but also, more obliquely but more importantly- Norman's motivation for killing. After his mother's death, his internalized voice of her's, his superego, became so much stronger that it took on the form of a new personality, punishing him, and other people, for the desires he held; something we all do in much smaller ways in our own daily lives. But I'll save the Psycho analysis for a viewing of that film.
This movie really is interesting because it seems like the writer wanted to make a piece of art, the director didn't care, the studio couldn't really get that much money and forced in rewrites and new scenes, and the actors are just bad at their job. There's a much better movie hidden in here somewhere. It's also bizarre that I decided to go in depth on a random cheap movie but give two sentence reviews for movies I like much more. That's just how I am I guess.