ABSTRACT
The chapter is concerned mainly with an introduction to the various Jungian and post-Jungian terms and definitions that are used later on in the following chapters. It explains and contextualises the screen studies approach to psychology and outlines the major concepts (archetype, symbols, signs, complexes, etc.) that the book uses and assumes that the reader is not already familiar with Jungian and post-Jungian methodologies and terms.
The chapter begins with a broad outline of psychological approaches to film, with the cognitive and psychoanalytical approaches discussed, contextualised and analysed in relation to analytical psychological approaches. It then goes into more detail of the Jungian/post-Jungian approach to film and screen studies, with regard to initially symbols and signs. By highlighting and differentiating from the psychoanalytical approach to signs, semiotics and symbols, this section justifies why the analytical psychological approach was chosen, and with what results. The section also balances the chosen approach with caveats about the dangers of codifying Jungian symbols, similarly to Freudian approaches, and why a flexible approach is better and allows for ambiguity and the embrace of contradictions that can be found throughout cultural texts.
The chapter then turns to the concept of one of the most famous, and consequently misunderstood of Jungian terms: the Archetype. It traces the development of this term, and outlines a number of definitions of it before advancing a definition of it for the purposes of the chapter and the book. This section also focuses on the definition of the Father Archetype and goes into some detail as to how this can be interpreted and defined. It reminds the reader that the Paternal does not always have to be male, rather the masculine energy this Archetype embodies, can be carried by others. The ability of the archetype to contain binary opposites is also explored with discussions of the other famous Jungian concepts: the Animus and the Anima. The section discusses how many post-Jungians, including the author, hold that the psyche can hold both of these contrasexual archetypes and that the animus informs the makeup of the Father archetype within the psyche.
Following on from this discussion of the Father Archetype is the term ‘father hunger’. This relatively recent term has its origins traced back and defined for contemporary discussions and discourses, and its relevance analysed and critiqued for the purposes of the book. This parental need is located as being one of the symptoms of modern psychic malaise, especially with men, and is a key term with the main arguments of the book. Various examples are touched upon prior to deeper discussions within later chapters. The Child Archetype is also defined, analysed, and contextualised for the book, and its features and power as a catalysing force for the Father discussed. This then leads onto a brief discussion of the Shadow Archetype, which is one of Jung’s better known terms, and connects it with the Father in modern America in terms of its place within the individual psyche and the wider cultural psyche. Examples of this include Daniel Plainview from There Will Be Blood and Pulp Fiction.
The chapter then turns to definitions and explorations of the post-Jungian terms cultural complex and cultural unconscious. These are discussed and critiqued with reference to using them later and shows how important they are in terms of contextualising the American father and his place within the cultural complex that is also known as the American Dream. This is also defined and explored in post-Jungian terms as a contradictory cultural construct that celebrates and inspires the father, but simultaneously denigrates and frustrates him too. The film The Pursuit of Happyness is used as an example of this contradiction and also demonstrates how societal barriers and economic inequalities are either ignored or dismissed as not important to the fulfilment of the American Dream. Lastly, the chapter is summarised, and the reader introduced to the first in-depth textual discussion of films discussing the Father.
