La experiencia analítica desde el punto de vista del analizando. Profilaxis. Etica y psicoanálisis. Psicología y poder. Terapias adictivas. La sociedad psicologizada. Mala praxis. Una denuncia
anaclisis [anaclisis] f. (Fisiol. hum.) Decúbito, especialmente el supino. (Estar acostado hacia arriba.) aná ἀνά (gr. ‘hacia arriba’, ‘por completo’, ‘de nuevo’, ‘por partes’) + klī‑ κλῑ‑ (gr. ‘inclinarse, tumbarse’; κρεβάτι, κλίνη ‘lecho’) + ‑sis (gr.) [Leng. base: gr. Antiguo.
En gr. anáklisis ἀνάκλισις con el mismo significado desde Hipócrates, s. V a.C., reintroducido] // En psiquiatría, dependencia emocional, inclinación hacia el ser de quien se depende o que domina, en particular la primera relación objetal que establece el niño, caracterizada por la completa dependencia de éste respecto de su madre.
“–Si yo lo inquieto tanto mejor. Desde el punto de vista del público, lo que yo considero como más deseable, es lanzar un grito de alarma y que tenga, en el terreno científico, una significación muy precisa: que sea un llamado, una exigencia primera concerniente a la formación del analista.” J. Lacan

miércoles, 15 de octubre de 2008

Anything else, Woody Allen (I)

Anything Else
Woody Allen
Dreamworks Pictures

With the exception of Bergman-inspired chamber dramas and Fellini-inspired magical realism, Woody Allen's films are usually viewed as comedies. Yet in spite of Marx Brothers slapstick, intellectual wit and Catskills rimshots, the comedy in a Woody Allen film often plays second fiddle to Allen himself. That is, the never-ending neuroses, adultery, Dostoevsky references and suspiciously clean New York City streets are as Woody as any pratfall or tart one-liner. As a result, the man has transcended comedy to become his own genre, and what's surprising about Anything Else is how it wreaks havoc with that genre's most precious icon: Woody himself.

Like its distant cousin Deconstructing Harry, Anything Else is best understood by the unpopular stance of admitting a distinction between Woody Allen the man and Woody Allen the character. Harry deconstructs the man, begging forgiveness for any links between his art and the tabloids. Seemingly in response, Anything Else deconstructs the character, giving us a grim view of who he might become.

The Woody character is staple in Allen's films, and has been portrayed by a number of people besides Allen, running from hilarious and original (John Cusack in Bullets Over Broadway and Sean Penn in Sweet and Lowdown) to vulgar mimickry (Kenneth Branagh in Celebrity). In Anything Else, the Woody character is Jerry Falk, a 21-year-old comedy writer. Naturally, he is bookish and forever in therapy, loving women more as a concept of beauty than as people, and struggling with how the intricacies of commitment impinge on an already fragile identity.

Jerry could be Annie Hall's Alvy Singer 20 years younger, just more into commitment and bad at quitting on anyone, be it his pathetic agent (Danny DeVito), his noncommunicative shrink or any girl. As the film opens, we learn that Jerry has fostered a relationship with an aspiring comedy writer, David Dobel (Allen himself), a miserable public school teacher 40 years Jerry's senior. The relationship does not play to mentor-student expectations, however; David is the antithesis of the Woody character. Yes, he is a well-read genius who uses such words as hebetudinous and is paranoid about anti-Semitism. But he is also vehemently anti-psychoanalysis and anti-intellectual, given to using firearms and of the belief that Los Angeles is actually a good place for writers. For David, life is not summed up by quoting Freud or Kant but by quoting a cab driver: "You know, it's like anything else."

The rest of the story involves Jerry's dying relationships: with his agent, his shrink and primarily his flighty live-in girlfriend Amanda (Christina Ricci). Amanda, like Jerry, has an older counterpart in her mother Paula (Stockard Channing), who could be the nightclub singer she wants to be if only she'd grow up and leave her daughter's nest. What follows in the relationship between Amanda and Jerry is one of the "I love her but she's crazy but I love her but this relationship is a dead shark" stories that comprise so much of the Woody Allen genre.

And just as you get comfortable, the film subverts that same genre. If Jerry is a younger, idealistic Alvy Singer, then David is an aged, disillusioned Alvy, dumped by Annie and on a maddening downward spiral. David could be the bleakest character Allen has played, even more so than the pill-popping, whoring Harry. He is the worst side of the Woody character, stripped of most humor, genuinely antisocial and resistant to help from doctors or a friend like Jerry. He comes off as having all the answers to life, but it's a life that exists in his own paranoid mind.

So the Jerry and David conversations become warning sessions, not just between a ranting coot and an upstart kid but also between different generations of the same Woody. David in his 60s is telling Jerry in his 20s to avoid all the mistakes Alvy made at 40 — after all, look where it got him. Thus therapy is bad. Thus Los Angeles is salvation. Thus Jerry should drop the girl and move on. Or else. David and Jerry seem to be Woody the man's chance to clean up some of Woody the character's psychological baggage.

Similarly, though to a much lesser extent, Channing's Paula could be a burnt-out Annie Hall, back in New York after failing in LA and hanging on to some false ideal of youth. This makes her the grown-up mirror of Amanda, or Woody's archetypal foil, the Kamikaze Woman. It's an interesting parallel that doesn't play out much more than in jokes on mother-daughter role reversal, the idea being that Amanda is warning Paula as David is warning Jerry. Ricci's spot-on Woody Allen timing (while waltzing around in her underwear, no less) is impressive, but her character, while certainly one of the more entertaining, flails toward the end — unfortunately, women are rarely the actual fabric of the Woody Allen genre. They tend to be embroidery.

As David, Allen deserves more props than he will ever get. Not just funny, but truly complex, it's more of a performance stretch than when he whisper-sang in Everyone Says I Love You. Plus, he finally gets to demonstrate what child psychologists call "acting out." Allen, two meatheads and a crowbar — it's sweet revenge 60-some years in the making.

Ever the European art film geek, Allen sums up the story's point of view in a line of dialogue that obliquely references Luis Buñuel's Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. It occurs, appropriately enough, outside a movie theater, but in a very Woody turn it is an arbitrary extra who gets the line. In alluding to Buñuel's existential view of social mores — that we ludicrously stick to them against better judgment — Allen makes a very David-esque comment about Jerry's lack of action in life. It's a highfalutin' riff designed to be missed by many, but it helps deflate the biggest myths about Woody Allen the character: that Woody Allen the man likes him, much less is him.

"But is it funny?" someone wants to know.

For a Woody Allen movie, you know, it's like anything else.

— Tony Nigro (tony@superheronamedtony.com)

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario en la entrada

Marcel Proust

... Entre los intervalos de los instrumentos musicales, cuando la mar estaba muy llena, se oía, continuo y ligado, el resbalar del agua de una ola que envolvía los trazos del violín en sus volutas de cristal y parecía lanzar su espuma por encima de los ecos intermitentes de una música submarina. Yo me impacientaba porque no me habían traído aun las cosas para empezar a vestirme. Daban las doce, y Francisca aparecía. Y durante varios meses seguidos, en ese Balbec que tanto codicié, porque me lo imaginaba batido por las tempestades y perdido entre brumas, hizo un tiempo tan seguro y tan brillante que cuando venía a descorrer las cortinas nunca me vi defraudado en mi esperanza de encontrar ese mismo lienzo de sol pegado al rincón de la pared de afuera y de un inmutable color, que impresionaba, más aun que por ser signo del estío, por su colorido melancólico, cual el de un esmalte inerte y ficticio. Y mientras que Francisca iba quitando los alfileres de las impostas, arrancaba telas y descorría cortinas, el día de verano que descubría ella parecía tan muerto, tan inmemorial como una momia suntuosa y milenaria que nuestra vieja criada despojaba cuidadosamente de toda su lencería antes de mostrarla embalsamada en su túnica de oro. ... Marcel Proust


R.D. Laing

--- Knots (Nudos) R.D. Laing (extracto) People can act very strange. At least ... I think they act very strange. And maybe other people think that I am the one who’s acting very strange. Do you know the feeling? Effective comunication is difficult to construct. There are some many knots in human understanding ... Can you unite these ones? There must be something the matter with him because he would not be acting as he does unless there was therefore he is acting as he is because there is something the matter with him. He does not think there is anything the matter with him because one of the things that is the matter with him is that he does not think that there is anything the matter with him therefore we have to help him to realize that the fact that he does not think that there is anythingthe matter with him is one of the things that is the matter with him. There is something I don’t know that I am suposed to know. I don’t know what it is I don’t know,and yet I am suposed to know,and I feel I look stupidif I seem both not to know it and not to know what it is I don´t know. Therefore I pretend I know it. This is nerve-ranking since I don’t know what I must pretend to know. Therefore I pretend to know everything. I feel you know what I am supposed to know. But you can’t tell me what it is. Because you don’t know that I don’t know what it is. You may know what I don’t know, but not that I don’t know it, and I can’t tell you. So you will have to tell me everything. Absurd, isn’t it? But very real as well. I’m sure you have had similar experiences. What can we do to better our communications? How can we avoid to feel bad? How can we avoid that other persons feel bad? if ( "true" == "false" )... R D Laing

Ronald Laing, the radical psychiatrist, psychoanalyst and psychotherapist who profoundly altered our understanding of mental illness, was the founder of just one organisation - the Philadelphia Association.

Born in Glasgow in 1927 R D Laing studied medicine at the University of Glasgow and went on to become a psychiatrist. His first experiment in changing the way people designated the mentally ill took place at Glasgow’s Gartnavel Hospital where he and colleagues radically altered the treatment regime in a long-term women's ward.

Laing moved to London to work at the Tavistock Clinic and trained as a psychoanalyst at the Institute of Psychoanalysis. Laing had for many years been engaged with continental philosophy and in a series of books published in the course of the 1960s he sought to develop what he called ‘an existential-phenomenological foundation for a science of persons’ and sought to set out a description of the experience of those labelled schizophrenic. Such people, Laing argued, suffered from ontological insecurity, a lack of faith in their own and others' reality which led them to create false self systems to fend off psychological and emotional catastrophe. Laing wanted to make madness and the process of going mad comprehensible, and to a great many people, including many of those afflicted, he did so convincingly. The discourse of the 'mad', he showed, if listened to in the right spirit could make a sense of its own. This was to be the line of thought that Laing would pursue for many years in The Divided Self (1960), Self and Others (1961), Sanity, Madness and the Family (1964) and The Politics of Experience (1967). (After this his writings became more diffuse, sometimes arguably self indulgent, but still capable of great insight). (Leer+)


Explicando a Laing

... Como libro pionero en su consideración de la esquizofrenia, y también por su carácter revolucionario y sus afirmaciones heterodoxas (pese a basarse completamente en análisis clínicos y emplear Esterson y Laing un lenguaje cuidadosamente clínico y objetivo, una tendencia no siempre presente en otros libros de Laing, como The Politics of Experience, de 1967 o Knots, de 1970). Sanity, Madness and the Family fue un libro polémico que recibió numerosas críticas. La primera y más obvia - y algo de lo que Esterson y Laing eran conscientes tras su publicación - es que, como apuntamos previamente, no se publicaron los datos del grupo de control formado por familias no esquizofrenogénicas, donde las interacciones y comunicación no estuvieran basadas enel uso de dobles vínculos y comunicaciones de doble sentido. Pese a que un grupo de control es absolutamente imprescindible para un estudio científico serio, el tiempo ha jugado a favor de las afirmaciones de Laing y Esterson en su obra, puesto que en investigaciones empíricas recientes sobre la influencia del factor familiar en la esquizofrenia, como las de Nevid, Rathus y Greene, se ha demostrado el papel fundamental de la familia en el desarrollo de una personalidad independiente.Objetividad y estilo que se repetirían en el estudio sobre comunicación y patología conjunto con Phillipson y Lee en 1966, Interpersonal Perception, un análisis de los modos de comunicación en parejas.(ontológicamente segura, diría Laing) o el recurso, por presión familiar, a defensas esquizofrenogénicas.La publicación de este libro tuvo, sin embargo, consecuencias más a largo plazo, y no sólo dentro del contexto médico, para la carrera y reputación de Laing. Algunas críticas no bien documentadas llegaron a afirmar que Laing se oponía al concepto mismo de familia, y que lo consideraba una célula de organización social enferma que aliena y destruye al individuo. A esta percepción errónea de las afirmaciones de Laing no ayudó, precisamente, su estrecha relación con David Cooper, pensador radical en lo tocante a la familia (suyos son libros con títulos tan reveladores como The Death of the Family (1971) o The Language of Madness (1978) , en los que la familia se compara a una granja donde los adolescentes son cebados como cochinillos para luego ser“sacrificados” al dios de la cruel y homogeneizadora sociedad). Así, a raíz de la publicación casi simultánea de estas obras de Cooper (que Laing consideraba radicales ya en ese momento), se identificó a Laing con las ideas extremadamente violentas y revolucionarias de su colega. La misión que Cooper se impuso en sus publicaciones eraincitar a la revolución y a la destrucción de la organización social tradicional, cargando las tintas en la familia, como origen de los males sociales, incluso en individuos aparentemente sanos y adaptados. En la obra conjunta de Laing y Cooper, Reason and Violence (1964), las partes escritas por Laing nunca son tan radicales en sus planteamientos como las de su colega, que se aproxima en ocasiones al marxismo puromás que a la práctica psiquiátrica. Así, se ha criticado a Laing por culpar a los padres de los pacientes esquizofrénicos de la aparición de síntomas en sus hijos, sin embargo, su intención en este libro con Esterson, y en otras obras posteriores, no era rechazar y demonizar la familia en sí, sino mostrar cómo la locura no es algo que surjaespontáneamente del paciente mismo, sino, más bien, como el resultado de un mecanismo de presión social. Las familias de este estudio son familias disfuncionales (lo que no significa que todas lo sean), que producen en el individuo que es tratado por locura una serie de condiciones patológicas (llamados síntomas esquizofrénicos), queno son sino una expresión patológica de la disfunción de toda la familia. Tampoco negó Laing que los esquizofrénicos tuvieran problemas para operar en su vida diaria; Laing reconoce la dura y traumática experiencia de la locura, si bien disiente en la interpretación más “clásica” de los orígenes de ésta, y prefiere buscarlos en el ámbito de la interexperiencia, es decir, en el campo de los intercambios sociales. La locura tienesu origen no en trastornos dentro de uno mismo, sino que surge de la relación entre personas (véanse Laing y Esterson 1964; y Laing, H. Phillipson y A.R. Lee 1966). ... Méndez García, Carmen (2004)



Temas

Lo más importante de este blog son tu experiencia, tus comentarios Your feedback






Form View Counter
ecoestadistica.com