Film work hard - play hard, psychoanalytically seen

seen 2014

It is a documentary with their atrocities during the test (assessment) of high-caliber applicants conceivable vividly, just documentary, depicting the modern working world. The director must congratulate you, that she had the brilliant idea and has followed with great perseverance to understand resistors to bring the company to allow these shots right at the source. Hard work and hard play thus allowed to certify the director necessarily, and completely free of the modern world hard work so they too can not be. To describe something, you have to dive into it with passion.

The director made it clear you do have remote located to charge the film with their own views or even outrage, but they have just want to film, without getting too many thoughts. Send us your pictures world is not to say worrying. Not that the director might not have to worry, but this is not their primary task. The idea had come only afterwards. What is meant is probably that the viewer should himself take a picture.
This, to make a film, without getting your big idea may be, or not, not only as a psychoanalyst I must say that there can be no unintentional films and also does not need to give up is to say that more and unconscious motives, even at , vigorously play the selection of the photographic material and in the whole conception, or rather, the real motivation to make a film, give, and that it is only accessible to give the viewer a certain free space it may fill itself.

This has met the director with flying colors, and this is his audience very happy and grateful a lot of real film culture and respect for the viewers, and for that we can. Respect for the viewer and respect for the directors are, as always, mutually conditioned, and open or secret motivations do not detract from the.

The documentary task can easily be tempted to poster-but even this risk has probably seen the director and mastered the whole. So it can be clearly seen in the facial expressions of the cruel auditors that they inwardly feel human and to distance itself visible from the prescribed test procedure with their Quälcharakter and its also the intimate life intruding questions. Enter the stricken examinee to understand that they do not mean it so hard, but that they must do this. Also on the faces of the specimens it smelled, you can feel the inner anger at the unreasonable demands of the company's management, which has concocted the testing scheme, and not only obedience and adaptation, - these are however also not asked, so no special achievement be may be resistant.

Resistiveness the specimens is even a plus, and it gnaws at the transparency of internal processes. But the viewer has the freedom to imagine, to how he was here too. Undoubtedly, the audience feels uneasy with fear and no less disgusted. In many of the comforting thought may arise, it itself is spared from such a thing, and by the way the specimens themselves are to blame, because those who have welcomed them, to apply for such a highly paid top positions? Maybe they were even there not, but your wife, your girlfriend? In the film wants to give any information. This could be but also movies. This would add a new dimension to the documentary.

The content is about relentless predictability of the people to total predictability to secure predictions. The auditors themselves are under pressure. It is also known in the company, that the test results little about the actual success of the chosen statements for the company, all the hard choices has even brought only harm to the company, but the auditors have to justify to the top and to provide extensive documentation, which proves that they have met the requirements of the company during the test.

But the human side of the specimens is sometimes indicated, so that a woman who checked was thus tormented, a cross-walking on the most unpleasant, chicken-like laughter forced developed (but may not be authentic, is likely to be a slightly antifeminist trick the director, with whom they very elegant and incidentally probably its ambitious fellow women and the helplessness of their opposition pokes) who asks the patience of the tester to the test, forcing to surprise, and if you can see them sitting behind in the yard of the company , probably the result of waiting, and in the usual way to contact the outside world (to their relatives?). They elude the addition to which they might in any case have no influence, and return to their normal human relationships. One can also say, they can be deter by anything, they hold on to them, and the acid test was an episode. Not so easy because it - you can not break anything.

What could not show the director, of course, the inner workings of the finer specimens. Stresses such as the be filmed well shown here, but where they lead and whether they ever lead to something, can not and will not easily show a movie. Each load leads to a reaction of the land affected, but to what? In particular, lead automatically loads not to diseases, not even necessarily to internal conflicts, - this is too often forgotten.

Only sociologists can be satisfied or very satisfied, the loop is here but demonstrated that the modern working world, as already Mitscherlichs alleged or tatsächliche- inhospitality of our cities, to pull the neck of the people, dramatic and an accusing tone, with the audience easily can resonate / needs.

But this is only half the battle, because of the inner workings of the interest remains weak or absent. A loop, a meanness, a desolation, - so what? Many find that you can breathe even really in the inhospitality of Frankfurt, if you had previously stopped in Regensburg (personal communication by Günther Ammann, ehem. Director of the MMK Frankfurt until 2001, approximately 2003).
And people friendly, so warm atmosphere in Kohlenpott, this previously inhospitable scenario is proverbial. Especially the barren perhaps brings people together best, because they are not distracted by host Royal from each other and together seek solace. The insecurity that you feel in a glass and concrete city, is more likely to gain the security elsewhere and in a different way. How are the people together in the wilderness and in rural small, intact places?
The millions of Landflüchtern were wrong. You have read previously Mitscherlich and a sociologist, before and afterwards, have to ask afterwards mainly so that they can remember. Now they have irreverently simply voted with their feet and do not want that change partout.

All this is not to blame the director. Because films hold per se surface phenomena for psychological depth they are not responsible if they can pretend this suggestive or viewers to internally has space in favorable cases. Here may be the interpreters whether psychoanalytically trained, semi-formed or not formed, let off steam.

From defensive unconscious desires, including aggressive, fear, guilt and shame they have apparently never heard or they have forgotten what they had learned even if they had ever learned. You want to be rather empathy athletes empathy artists. Before anything has a contemporary psychoanalysts, but not only he, as scared as before persevering, handicraft employment with the internal conflict, and especially the so-called. 'Defenders. How then can one expect from the movie better? A film with a facial expression yes. A film about inner conflicts? No. Sham profundity? Yes.

A savvy filmmaker (meant as a Function) touched this little. He is likely to be rather puzzled about the many clever comments on his screen work, which is always an illusion, because it shows almost only the manifest page.
Therefore, films and psychoanalysis have to say so little, although now analytical Filmbesprechungen have come into vogue. Hopefully not just because psychoanalysts like everywhere want to tell, that is, the self hidden eggs want to find in the fictional patients film. A rogue who thinks that they are dissatisfied with their work and went in flight, in the subterfuge - by fake expert knowledge on a foreign territory. Indeed, psychoanalysis and art are not green, all diligently print and spoken defiance.

Directors are realistic herein as a psychoanalyst with their romantic longing for leaving the treatment room and dipping into the wide air theater world. Directors do not even try to fertilize the psychoanalysis. It does them understandably only good if you can make willing psychoanalyst attention, and they can also do not mind to appear at psychoanalytic meetings in persona.

I want to bring in a new film idea here: to supplement documentary by presenting internal processes in victims and perpetrators. Only then would it a viable statement about both. This is admittedly difficult, but not impossible. But perhaps deadly boring. Because films live from image sequences and are no classes, leave the Teach others who are responsible and the better the. A new genre? Even with such a new aura had the film still bad cards. Because can enlighten you better by reading than by watching movies, and psychoanalysis to learn better through their own treatment of patients than by films. So let it be movies movies.

But this is difficult for many. It would be ridiculous if you would film, regarded as its own art form, as a world apart, a world stage, possibly as a light show theater, right? Who laughs with?

Dr. Manfred krill, neurology and psychiatry, psychoanalysis.