Written by Wendy Faunce<\/p>\n
Almost 100 years ago, Freud analyzed the qualities of things considered uncanny. He referred to the uncanny in his study of the subject as the \u201cUnheimlich,\u201d saying, \u201c\u2018Unheimlich\u2019 is the name for everything that ought to have remained\u2026 hidden and secret and has become visible\u201d (Freud 934). He later refers to the \u201cUnheimlich\u201d as closely associated with \u201cghostly.\u201d Along with childlike tendencies and doubled reflections, he describes repetition as an essential quality. Often a part of childlike behavior and neurotic tendency, to repeat results in a \u201crepetition-compulsion\u201d is, \u201cperceived as uncanny\u201d (Freud 943).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Alice Rayner\u2019s book Ghosts: Death\u2019s Double and the Phenomena of Theatre<\/em> focuses specifically on ghostly and uncanny aspects of the stage. Rayner states, \u201cThe double\u2026 is not a reflection or imitation of an original but an appearance of a dynamic contradiction or opposition that cannot come to rest in either what is visible or what is invisible\u201d (Rayner xii). Both stage and film actors utilize repetition in their ability to repeat the script. However, a film actor on screen appears to replicate the exact performance down to the smallest details. This use of the medium allows the film actors\u2019 performances to be uncanny in ways that a stage actor\u2019s cannot.<\/p>\n This applies to the actors and the medium in which their performances are conveyed. Ghostliness is a feature of the endless repeatability of a filmed performance. On film, performances are not altered or made human and familiar in any way. For example someone watching Lawrence Olivier\u2019s portrayal of Hamlet<\/em> now will see the same frames that audiences saw when the film was released in 1948. Film is uncannier and more ghostly than theatre also because the actors on the screen are, quite literally, ghostly reflections of flesh and bone. As opposed to stage actors, actors on a computer, television, or movie screen are not real people, but images of people who have since died, aged, or changed in some way.<\/p>\n Hamlet dies night after night on a stage, but the actor\u2019s portrayal of Hamlet\u2019s death varies from show to show. A slight cough may cause him to alter his lines or his performance may be reliant on another actor\u2019s. Noticing these subtle differences, the audience is forced to view the actor as an actor, as opposed to the inhuman character come to life. On film, however, Hamlet repeats his death in the exact same fashion again and again with no variation. The medium enables Kenneth Branagh, David Tennant, and Lawrence Olivier to repeat Hamlet\u2019s final words–\u201cOn Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;\/ So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,\/ Which have solicited.\/ The rest is silence. \u201d–in the same manner and likeness, no matter the time, place, or situation in which their performance is watched.<\/p>\n Film\u2019s repetition is both ghostly. According to Freud, \u201c[T]he \u2018uncanny\u2019 is that class of the terrifying which leads back to something long known to us, once very familiar\u201d (Freud 930). With the aid of repetition, these filmed performances become familiar to the point where audiences can even mimic the actors\u2019 speech and actions. However, he also states, \u201cwhat is \u2018uncanny\u2019 is frightening precisely because it is not<\/em> known and familiar.\u201d The more often these performances are repeated, the more emphasized these uncanny qualities become to their audiences. Performances captured on film are uncanny in the sense that they are both familiar and unfamiliar.<\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n Freud, Sigmund. \u201cThe \u2018Uncanny.\u201d The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism<\/em>. Ed. Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie A.; Johnson, Barbara E.; McGowan, John; Williams, Jeffery J. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2001. 929-952. Print.<\/p>\n Rayner, Alice. Ghosts: Death\u2019s Double and Phenomena of Theatre<\/em>. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006. Print.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Written by Wendy Faunce Almost 100 years ago, Freud analyzed the qualities of things considered uncanny. He referred to the uncanny in his study of the subject as the \u201cUnheimlich,\u201d saying, \u201c\u2018Unheimlich\u2019 is the name for everything that ought to have remained\u2026 hidden and secret and has become visible\u201d (Freud 934). He later refers to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[50,7,17,23,9,18],"class_list":["post-319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-alice-rayner","tag-bsudlr","tag-freud","tag-ghostly-film-and-television","tag-ghosts","tag-hamlet"],"yoast_head":"\n