The Uncanny and the Monstrous Feminine
This post will concern the film The Babadook, Barbara Creed's Horror and the Monstrous Feminine, and Sigmund Freud's The Uncanny. It was interesting to consider the horror film itself and Creed's analysis of horror's relation to the monstrous feminine alongside Freud's psychological analysis of the "uncanny".
One aspect I found particularly interesting was the difference in what is considered uncanny in reality, versus what is considered uncanny in fiction. Almost all popular "fairy tales" contain elements that would likely be considered very uncanny were they to occur in real life. According to Freud, this can be explained by our inherent beliefs when observing a fictional world. When we read such a story, we have an understanding that all manner of fantastical creatures and magical powers may exist within this world. For this reason, "Wish-fulfillments, secret powers, omnipotence of thoughts, animation of lifeless objects, all the elements so common in fairy-stories, can exert no uncanny influence here...". This is because the uncanny requires a "conflict of judgement as to whether things have been 'surmounted'...". In this instance, "surmounted" refers to the beliefs which we as individuals or cultures have (though we once believed them in the past) denounced as false. But, when a situation arises that calls these new beliefs into question, it is then that an uncanny feeling arises from our uncertainty. Only one who has "...completely and finally dispelled animistic beliefs in himself..." will be immune to this sort of the uncanny.
When we consider this text in relation to The Babadook, we can see the uncanny in action through fiction. Unlike fairy stories, the film is ostensibly set in a world not unlike our own; in fact, one practically indistinguishable from our own. In this world, our underlying disbelief of magical, animistic entities carry over to this fictional universe. Were this universe established as a fantasy realm where magic and adventure abound, we may not be left with such a disconcerting feeling when Amelia answers the door after three knocks to see not a soul in sight, and the horrific book placed back at her doorstep. This occurrence awakens the repressed, "surmounted" beliefs we thought we did away with; namely the belief of supernatural entities or "monsters".
I found Freud's definition of the uncanny to be thought-provoking, and ultimately useful. Before I read the Freud piece, I would have been inclined to ascribe the uncanny to something much simpler. Colloquially, perhaps I would have defined it as something "familiar, but 'off' somehow", "creepy". Now I realize these definitions don't begin to scratch the surface of the uncanny, and its deeply rooted psychological origins.
One aspect I found particularly interesting was the difference in what is considered uncanny in reality, versus what is considered uncanny in fiction. Almost all popular "fairy tales" contain elements that would likely be considered very uncanny were they to occur in real life. According to Freud, this can be explained by our inherent beliefs when observing a fictional world. When we read such a story, we have an understanding that all manner of fantastical creatures and magical powers may exist within this world. For this reason, "Wish-fulfillments, secret powers, omnipotence of thoughts, animation of lifeless objects, all the elements so common in fairy-stories, can exert no uncanny influence here...". This is because the uncanny requires a "conflict of judgement as to whether things have been 'surmounted'...". In this instance, "surmounted" refers to the beliefs which we as individuals or cultures have (though we once believed them in the past) denounced as false. But, when a situation arises that calls these new beliefs into question, it is then that an uncanny feeling arises from our uncertainty. Only one who has "...completely and finally dispelled animistic beliefs in himself..." will be immune to this sort of the uncanny.
When we consider this text in relation to The Babadook, we can see the uncanny in action through fiction. Unlike fairy stories, the film is ostensibly set in a world not unlike our own; in fact, one practically indistinguishable from our own. In this world, our underlying disbelief of magical, animistic entities carry over to this fictional universe. Were this universe established as a fantasy realm where magic and adventure abound, we may not be left with such a disconcerting feeling when Amelia answers the door after three knocks to see not a soul in sight, and the horrific book placed back at her doorstep. This occurrence awakens the repressed, "surmounted" beliefs we thought we did away with; namely the belief of supernatural entities or "monsters".
I found Freud's definition of the uncanny to be thought-provoking, and ultimately useful. Before I read the Freud piece, I would have been inclined to ascribe the uncanny to something much simpler. Colloquially, perhaps I would have defined it as something "familiar, but 'off' somehow", "creepy". Now I realize these definitions don't begin to scratch the surface of the uncanny, and its deeply rooted psychological origins.
I think what is interesting about Freud is that he actually addresses the sensation that something is "creepy" or "familiar but off somehow" feeling that is familiar to us all is rooted in really deep psychological structures. I agree that the connection to fairy tales is really provocative and goes far to unpack the situation of the uncanny and how this sensation is used to provoke terror in the horror genre. I think this film is particularly clever in that it takes such everyday experiences such as grief and motherhood and makes them terrifying through the use of the uncanny.
ReplyDelete