Zeul M
Psyche (Stuttg). 1994 Nov;48(11):975-1003.
In contrast to the customary practice of classifying everything that proceeds on theoretical lines vaguely connected with psychoanalysis as representing a contribution to "psychoanalytic film theory", the author reserves this term exclusively for work proceeding from Freud's version of psychoanalysis and done by actual psychoanalysts. Zeul traces the history of psychoanalytic film theory from its beginnings to the present, and shows that the majority of authors addressing the subject of psychoanalysis and cinema interpret films largely in terms of their content or "storyline", drawing upon categories of wish-fulfilment and narcissism to do so. In contrast to this, the author insists that the symbolic richness of a film can only be truly appreciated if its formal and aesthetic structure is taken seriously and the moving images are acknowledged as functioning in their own right. This contrast between content-oriented and formal film interpretation is to some extent reminiscent of the so-called "realism debate" in the thirties and forties, its protagonists being Georg Lukács and Bertolt Brecht.
与惯常做法不同，惯常做法是将所有在理论层面与精神分析有模糊联系的内容都归类为对“精神分析电影理论”的贡献，而作者将这个术语专门保留给源自弗洛伊德版本的精神分析且由实际的精神分析师所做的工作。策尔追溯了精神分析电影理论从起源到当下的历史，并表明大多数探讨精神分析与电影主题的作者在很大程度上是根据电影的内容或“故事情节”来解读电影的，为此借鉴了愿望满足和自恋等范畴。与此相反，作者坚持认为，只有认真对待电影的形式和美学结构，并承认动态影像本身具有功能，才能真正欣赏到电影的象征丰富性。这种以内容为导向和以形式为导向的电影解读之间的对比在某种程度上让人想起三四十年代所谓的“现实主义辩论”，其主角是格奥尔格·卢卡奇和贝托尔特·布莱希特。
