Chaosophy - autonomous learning

expressive means. In this regard, everyone knows how the work of
film is prolonged, sometimes directly, in that of the dream (I have
shown that this interaction was all the stronger the weaker the film
seemed to be).
Commercial cinema is undeniably familialist, Oedipian, and
reactionary. But it is not intrinsically so, the way psychoanalysis is. It
is so "on top of everything else." Its "mission" is not to adapt people
to outdated and archaic elitist Freudian models, but to those implied
by mass production. Even, it should be stressed, when they reconstitute
archetypes of the traditional family. While its "analytic" means
are richer, Inore dangerous, because more fascinating than those of
psychoanalysis, they are, in fact, more precarious and more full of
promise. And if one can imagine another film praxis being constituted
in the future, a cinema of combat attacking dominant values
in the present state of things, one can hardly see how a revolutionary
psychoanalysis could possibly emerge.
In fact, the psychoanalytic unconscious (or the literary unconscious,
since they derive one from the other) is always a secondhand
unconscious. The discourse of analysis is shaped by analytical myths:
individual myths themselves have to adapt to the framework of these
reference-myths. Cinematic myths do not have at their disposal such
a metamythic system, and the gamut of semiological means they do
mobilize directly connects with the spectator's processes of semiotization.
In a word, the language of cinema and audio-visual media is
alive, while that of psychoanalysis has, for a long time now, spoken
a dead language. One can expect the best or the worst from cinema.
From psychoanalysis, nothing but a soothing yet hopeless purring.
In the worst commercial circumstances, good films can still be
produced, films that modify the arrangements of desire, that
"change life," while, for quite some time now, there have been no
worthwhile psychoanalytic sessions, discoveries, books.
! 267