Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To keep track of most popular articles…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can always keep track of the Most Popular Journal Articles on PEP Web by checking the PEP tab found on the homepage.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Connolly, A.M. (2011). Singh, Greg. Film after Jung: Post-Jungian Approaches to Film Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Pp. xi & 218. Pbk. £17.99.. J. Anal. Psychol., 56(1):140-142.

(2011). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 56(1):140-142

Singh, Greg. Film after Jung: Post-Jungian Approaches to Film Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Pp. xi & 218. Pbk. £17.99.

Review by:
Angela M. Connolly

Film after Jung represents an interesting and thought-provoking attempt to ‘take Jungian film theorizing to a brand new level’ to quote Christopher Hauke in his foreword to the book by Greg Singh, senior lecturer in Media Studies at Buckinghamshire New University.

Whilst both film theory and analytical psychology are critically concerned with images and whilst both can make important contributions to each other's fields, nevertheless as Singh writes, ‘the languages spoken by film studies and analytical psychology are very different, and at times contradictory’ (p. 23) and it is exactly this need to overcome this difficulty that Singh is attempting to address.

The book has essentially three rather different aims: firstly, to provide a critical historiography of film theory through the use of Jungian and post-Jungian theoretical concepts in an attempt to locate post-Jungian approaches within the context of the theoretical traditions of the discipline of film studies and to provide a critique of the place of Jungian film studies within this history; secondly, to apply certain key Jungian concepts such as the image, contrasexuality and synchronicity to film theory; and thirdly, to discuss ‘particularly pressing themes in the history of theorizing about film which are of most relevance to Jungian scholars and practitioners’ (p. 5).

If film studies can be loosely categorized in terms of their dominant perspective—historical, theoretical and critical—Jungian film studies have often tended to confound these levels and to concentrate only on the critical approach because of its affinity with analysis; in this sense, Singh addresses an important imbalance in this field.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.