Print

Print


>
>
>Call for Papers: Hitchcock and Psychoanalysis: Bellour, Zizek and Beyond
>NEMLA, March 6-9, 2003 (Boston, USA)
>
>If one considers the deep structural analyses of Raymond Bellour
>(Analyse du Film,
>1979), or the systematic insights of Slavoj Zizek (i.e., Looking Awry, 1992,
>Everything you wanted to ask Hitchcock but were afraid to ask Lacan, [1988]
>1992), one thing is evidentóthat is, the exhaustive explicatory power of
>psychoanalysis seems to reinforce the mastery Hitchcock ascribed to himself as
>Modernist auteur. There seems to be, for example, little more to say
>beyond the
>shibboleth that the maternal superego is the hermeneutic key to
>understanding the
>directorís detailed segmentation of Psycho. Psychoanalysisóa so-called
>hermeneutics of suspicionófunctions, in other words,
>all-too-unsuspiciously when it
>comes to Hitch. Although D.A. Millerís classic analysisó"Anal Rope" (1990)ó
>openly challenged heteronormative readings of the Bellour-Zizek type, it is
>possible that the "deep," systematic or Modernist styles of reading
>pursued by these
>psycho-analysts prevents a more open-ended engagement with Freudian discourse.
>The panel seeks to address the question of whether a more fragmentary or
>post-Modern style of reading Hitchcock is required if analysis is to
>go beyond the
>Oedipal scenario that continues to govern psychoanalytic readings of the
>Hitchcockian text (Cf. Robin Woodís symptomatic resistance to post-Modernism
>[i.e., David Lynch] in Hitchcockís Films Revisited, 1989). The aim
>is to address
>the complex historico-theoretical relation between psychoanalysis
>and Hitchcock in
>the 20th century: to deepen our understanding of the films, the man
>and the canon.
>
>--Please send proposals or completed papers by September 15th 2001 to:
>
>Joshua David Gonsalves, Ph.D.
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>Email submissions are preferred. Please include proposal/paper in the body of
>the message, as well in attachment-form. Thanks.
>
>j-
>
>
>
>