The First Reference to Jung

 

Carl Jung (1875-1961)

Readers of this blog will know that there are various references to the work and thought of Carl Jung in it. I am an admirer of his, but a critical one. The above photo shows the famous Swiss psychiatrist late in life, and I think it is a good one because a lot of photos of the elder Jung are rather staged, depicting him as either sage or genial old buffer. Here you see his geniality and his intelligence, but also the dominating quality that he had.

I always thought that the first reference to Jung I ever came across was in a book that belonged to my Mum. It was a Penguin book called 'The Tarot: The Origins, Meaning and Uses of the Cards' by Alfred Douglas, first published in that edition in 1973, originally published in 1972. My Mum was not interested in the Tarot, except in a glancing way if even that. I however was and am very interested in the Tarot, I read the book with avidity and I remember distinctly encountering the name of C. G. Jung in it, and noting it mentally for further investigation. How old I was when the happened I don't know. My guess is about 9, but that is a guess.

Given this firmly lodged origin myth of my acquaintance with Jung, imagine my surprise therefore when I sat down to watch 'The Eagle Has Landed' not so long ago and encountered the following scene, which leapt out at me:

That film came out in 1976, so I would have seen it possibly in 1977, when I was 7. As to whether this has priority as my first encounter with the name Jung, I simply do not know. 

But the exact sequence of discovery does not matter. The point is, your source doesn't have to be single or esoteric, ideas and influences come at you from all directions, whether from popular culture or the most recondite reading.

Christmas Special: A TV Listing For 'Doctor Zhivago'

 

The BBC showed Doctor Zhivago this afternoon. The plot summary for it made me laugh out loud. It was the following, nothing more:

A doctor (Omar Sharif) falls in love with the mistress of a political opportunist.

It's not wrong: it is an accurate summary of the plot as far as it goes; but the bald, blunt reductiveness is absurd compared to the famous epic drama it is describing. It's like calling St. Peter's Basilica "a church in Rome" or Shakespeare "a well-known writer from the Midlands."

It got me thinking about doing the same - absurd summaries - to other classics. Here are some I thought of:

Anna Karenina

A married Russian noblewoman embarks on an affair with an army officer.

------------------------------------------------------------0---------------------------------------------------------------

Factors Which Influence One's Response to a Film Seen at the Cinema

Errol Flynn as Robin Hood in The Adventures of Robin Hood

"Norman Bishop* (angrily): I advise you to curb that wagging tongue of yours !

Robin (cheerfully): It's a habit I've never formed, Your Grace."


- from The Adventures of Robin Hood , ch.5 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029843/



I have been to the cinema a few times recently, & also in a cluster at the end of last year, & each time leaving I have thought not only "What do I think about that ?" but also "Why do I think what I think about that ?" This thought is reinforced when I can see a discrepancy between what I thought of a given film & what my friends & contacts thought of it. These reflections have led me to attempt to specify the factors that influence one's reaction to a film seen at the cinema. I say one's  not my  because I propose these aren't simply mine. Also, at the cinema because it is different seeing a film there from seeing it on dvd. Firstly, the picture is much, much larger. Second, one is seeing it with an audience of strangers. Thirdly, one has far less choice over when to see it. It's as if one was only allowed to read the book one is reading during specified appointment times at the local library, & the book is always in extremely large print.



Factors Which Influence One's Response to a Film Seen at the Cinema


1. How good the film is.


2. One's mood on that day.

It is certainly possible that the best film in the world will pass one by if one is the wrong way out that day.


3. One's underlying mood during that period of one's life

that period of one's life  being precisely that period which is demarcated by the duration of that underlying mood.


4. The state of development of one's taste

how experienced a film-goer one is, the level of sophistication of one's culture generally - which will affect how highly you rate what you have seen.

For instance when I saw a re-run of Pierrot le fou (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0059592/  ) at the cinema in or about 2001 it blew my mind so comprehensively that I came out thinking - in so far as I was capable of thinking at that moment - "Why do they bother making films after that ?!!? especially thrillers ?" The point being that unknowingly I had gone in having the perfect amount & kind of cinema experience to respond absolutely to that film at that time.


5. One's private/internal preoccupations

Whether something in the film chimes with these.

Still from 'Pierrot le Fou'

*this character is in fact called The Bishop of the Black Canons

Luchino Visconti, 1972

The following is a transcription of a section of interview from a television film, shown in 1972, that Bailey made about Visconti, while the latter was filming Ludwig. Visconti was himself homosexual, which I think is what Bailey circling around here. Visconti's replies here strike me as extraordinarily sane, hence worth transcribing. [Note: When Visconti says Caesar, he does not say it See-za like we do, but Chay-sa, with the stress on the 1st syllable: think of how Italians pronounce the name Cesare]

Luchino Visconti

Bailey: The other thing is lots of your characters are homosexual, like .... Visconti: [assenting] Um. Bailey: .... Death in Venice, & Ludwig is doubtful .... Visconti: Yes, yes, a little bit Damned too [The Damned, Visconti's film of 1969]. Bailey: Why is that ? Do you think homosexuality has anything [inaudible] ? Visconti: I think it's a human condition, homosexuality, like others, like heterosexual & other things. Why we have to, to .... how you say ? .... to don't talk about something. Everything is in life is important, everything is interesting, everything is - you know - If you say that I make the story, well not the story but the biography of Ludwig of Bavaria who had something of homosexual inside, alright, but I can also make the story of Julius Caesar, also Julius Caesar was homosexual, you know ? Is not so important, but if there is I don't think you must .... tacere .... you understand ? ..... No ? Bailey: No. Visconti: Tacere means not talk about. You must talk about. If there is, we must talk about.

Dirk Bogarde & Visconti on the set of Death in Venice, 1971