MAPACA

Mid-Atlantic Popular &
American Culture Association

The Case of Anna O. has been closely observed by psychoanalytical critics since its publication in 1893. Critics such as Gilhooley, Borch-Jacobson, Ellenberger and Hirschmuller claim that Breuer and Freud falsely established that Anna O. had been cured by the end of her treatment. Essentially, it becomes clearer that both Breuer and Freud both dramatized and misrepresented the case of Anna O. to convey to their audience that Anna was cured through innovative, cathartic, yet strategic processes of hypnosis and the “talking cure,” which is known as a series of conversations leading to the extraction of a repressed memory ultimately leading to the release and disappearance of each symptom of hysteria. I argue that the case of Anna O., specifically this moment during the case when the psychoanalyst hypnotizes and then verbally drives the truth out of his patient has been translated into a specific dramatic narrative form which needs to be recognized within films, literature and other mediums in popular culture. Through an analysis of the “psychoanalytic method” Breuer employed to work with Anna O, we can define a narrative form that has, subsequence to the work of Freud, become popular in film. Specifically, I explore then the construction of this form within two primary films, Freud: The Secret Passion (1962) and K-Pax (2001). Iain Softley’s K-Pax explores hypnosis, the talking cure, and the application of these methods on a patient suffering from severe trauma that develops into symptoms of Dissociative Identity Disorder. By comparing and contrasting these two films, the cinematic art form an offers an evolving perception on the methods of psychoanalysis and on how to cure patients suffering from these mental illnesses.