Comments on: OEDIPUS SCHMOEDIPUS AND VERY FUCKING ZEN http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/ Thoughts on screenwriting and creativity from a UK based writer, trainer, and script editor Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:06:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Ladyloki http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-99 Ladyloki Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:41:30 +0000 http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-99 Mythical? How very astute. There are times when the process of dismantling the engine and cleaning up the bits that work, while replacing the bits that don't seems a Herculean task. However, I found a bit more inspiration in the more domestic traditions than in some hairy beggar in a loincloth. Personally, I am just bloody pleased it appears to have worked. Mythical? How very astute. There are times when the process of dismantling the engine and cleaning up the bits that work, while replacing the bits that don’t seems a Herculean task. However, I found a bit more inspiration in the more domestic traditions than in some hairy beggar in a loincloth. Personally, I am just bloody pleased it appears to have worked.

]]> By: Adrian Reynolds http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-97 Adrian Reynolds Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:03:53 +0000 http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-97 Are you connected enough to get me a review copy? ;-) Sure sounds interesting. Are you connected enough to get me a review copy? ;-) Sure sounds interesting.

]]> By: Paul Watson http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-96 Paul Watson Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:57:37 +0000 http://www.youdothatvoodoo.com/2008/02/25/oedipus-schmoedipus-and-very-fucking-zen/#comment-96 Mythic undercurrents are very much the realm of Jungian analysis, so if that's your area of interest then I'd suggest looking at the small but growing area of Jungian Film Analysis (which is bravely battling the Freudian monopoly). "Mis/Takes" by Terrie Waddell (published by Routledge) is one leading book in this area: <blockquote>"Mis/takes" departs from the bulk of screen discourse by applying Jungian and post-Jungian ideas on unconscious processes to popular film and television. This perspective offers a rich insight into the intertextual fusing and reworking of myth in contemporary screen texts. By examining the function of archetypal motifs in cinema and television, Terrie Waddell opens up another way of thinking about how identity can be constructed and disrupted. The following films and programs under analysis have been selected for their relevance to analytical psychology: "Mulholland Drive", "Memento", "The Others", "The X-Files", "Twin Peaks", "The Sopranos", "Spider", "Intimacy" and "Absolutely Fabulous. Each of the book's four sections explore the impact of a number of core psychological patterns and symbols: Jung, Trickster and the Screen; Mistaken Identities, Self-Deception and the Undead; Redeemers, Bad Dads and Matricide; and Excesses of the Sad and the Sassy. "Mis/takes" offers a valuable insight into how experiences of the popular can be intensified by giving readers the chance to engage with screen material in an original and subversive way. This study will be of great interest to Jungian analysts and students of film, cultural studies, media, gender studies and analytical psychology. </blockquote> Hope that's helpful (and not too blatant a plug for a book I have a connection with), Adrian! Cheers Paul Mythic undercurrents are very much the realm of Jungian analysis, so if that’s your area of interest then I’d suggest looking at the small but growing area of Jungian Film Analysis (which is bravely battling the Freudian monopoly).

“Mis/Takes” by Terrie Waddell (published by Routledge) is one leading book in this area:

“Mis/takes” departs from the bulk of screen discourse by applying Jungian and post-Jungian ideas on unconscious processes to popular film and television. This perspective offers a rich insight into the intertextual fusing and reworking of myth in contemporary screen texts. By examining the function of archetypal motifs in cinema and television, Terrie Waddell opens up another way of thinking about how identity can be constructed and disrupted. The following films and programs under analysis have been selected for their relevance to analytical psychology: “Mulholland Drive”, “Memento”, “The Others”, “The X-Files”, “Twin Peaks”, “The Sopranos”, “Spider”, “Intimacy” and “Absolutely Fabulous. Each of the book’s four sections explore the impact of a number of core psychological patterns and symbols: Jung, Trickster and the Screen; Mistaken Identities, Self-Deception and the Undead; Redeemers, Bad Dads and Matricide; and Excesses of the Sad and the Sassy. “Mis/takes” offers a valuable insight into how experiences of the popular can be intensified by giving readers the chance to engage with screen material in an original and subversive way.

This study will be of great interest to Jungian analysts and students of film, cultural studies, media, gender studies and analytical psychology.

Hope that’s helpful (and not too blatant a plug for a book I have a connection with), Adrian!

Cheers

Paul

]]>