I am looking forward to our seminar and discussion tomorrow night. The blog has served, for the last several weeks, as an extraordinary guide through this amazing story of Carl Jung, Sabina Spielrein and Sigmund Freud which the film depicts. I will be pulling from the blog ideas, insights, approaches and hopefully some of the passion that lies therein. If you have contributed to the blog and are particpating in the seminar you will have an opportunity to delve deeper into the material through discussion. Your ideas are likely to be reflected throughout the seminar as I believe the blog represents some very honest and knowledgeable points of view. Whether you are scholar or an avid fan of Jung and his story, you are likely to connect with the material and your unique point of view is welcome.
Whether you liked the film or not, there is a rich history behind the story with many archetypal themes. As Lance Owens reminds us, this story, these relationships between Jung and Freud and Spielrein during the period of 1904-1910 were crucial for Jung’s transformative experiences reflected in the Red Book. And it was Sabina who “…helped him find his soul” (Owens). Brian Skea who is also well versed in this history has published on the subject of Sabina and her role in the history. There has been clarification on the historical inaccuracies of the film by David Thompson and others as well as the inroduction of new material such as the film , “The Soul Keeper” that I had not heard about until it was introduced by Thompson. An exploration of the feminine represented in the film was amplified by Len Cruz as well as other contributors to the blog such as Nina Patterson, Gail Gray and Cliff Bostock who all provide a unique perspective from his or her own clinical background.
The archetypal themes amplified by such myths as Persephone/Kore/Hades as well as Chiron and Aesclepius, the wounded healers, as well Siegfried and the heroic stance will be discussed. We will explore the origins, from this primal story, of some of Jung’s concepts of the nature of the psyche and the role of the collective unconscious including anima/animus and shadow. Cronenberg’s stance toward Freud and Jung, as reflected in our blog, paints a picture of Freud being more based in the body and instinct and Jung moving toward the spiritual. From Cronenberg’s other films we learn that he is interested in what lies instinctually in our nature (The Fly, History of Violence) so it makes sense he would be more interested in Freud. From a clinical standpoint what is the perception of the public toward this film and what does this film mean for our clinical work, if anything? Does this enlighten the public or mislead them? We welcome you to the blog and to our seminar tomorrow. We look forward to the discussion.
