Moderato Cantabile, P. 3

The following passages I chose come from chapters 6,7, and 8.

“Really, I know very little about it. But I think that he couldn’t make up his mind, couldn’t decide whether he wanted her alive or dead. He must have decided very late in the game that he preferred her dead”(102). Anne and Chauvin are speaking of the ill-fated couple again. But as they do this, we see how they are also discussing their own situation indirectly. It seems as if, like this couple did, Anne and Chauvin are heading toward that point in which he will kill her. They have been meeting regularly, but in that time, they haven’t yet figured out why the woman would want the man to kill her, nor why he would want to do it. This bit represents how Anne and Chauvin begin to understand this. Soon after this, the nature of their interaction changes. Chauvin no longer wants Anne to speak, and even acts cold toward her. It appears that he is trying to drive her away so they don’t end up like the other couple. 

“Tonight one of them does not share the others’ appetite. She comes from the other end of town, from beyond the limits imposed upon her ten years before, where a man had offered her more wine than she could handle”(108). In this part about the dinner party, Duras goes to great lengths to describe the ritual in consuming food at this type of event. During any normal party, Anne, like the other women, would be eating the food offered her. However, Anne refuses to eat, and draws negative attention from the guests in the process. It seems consuming food takes on the symbolic meaning of taking in values of society, which are served to you in a sense. Accepting these values, like eating, represents a sort of fulfillment. So basically, Anne is finally refusing to take on these values, and refusing to do so in front of others. Until this point, she had tried to fit expectations that determined how she should behave and what she should want out of life. But now, she is trying to resist. The only thing she has consumed, the wine, is too much for her. This wine can also be thought of as the values Chauvin represents, that her poured for her to drink. It is the idea of freedom, and she is left literally, and figuratively, drunk from it. 

“She arrived only slightly later than usual. As soon as Chauvin saw her… he went back into the café to wait for her. The child was not with her”(113). This is the first time that Anne has not had her son with her at the café. It seemed that before her son represented her own desire to be free of her society, and to rebel against it. So, by showing up at the café without him, it is as if Anne doesn’t need him to be that part of her anymore. Because of what she did at the dinner party a few nights before, she might have finally freed herself from the social conventions that had so long repressed her. Anne has changed. However, being alone feels pretty unnatural to her, as the dialogue following this quote reveals. But just because she is alone and has denied the expectations that society has imposed on her doesn’t mean that knows how to fulfill her desire with Chauvin. At this point, Duras makes desire seem confusing.  

Moderato Cantabile, P. 2

The following passages I chose come from chapters 3, 4, and 5. 

“It’s difficult for a woman to find an excuse to go into a café, but I told myself that I could surely think of something, like wanting a glass of wine, being thirsty…” (79). I thought this line was significant because it demonstrates Anne’s self-consciousness. In other words, she is very aware of the behavior that society deems appropriate for women, and especially women of her status. She knows that it is improper for her to go into this café and drink wine, especially since she gets looks of disapproval there. What she says here is also important because it is the second time she goes to the café. She goes to the café under the pretext of learning more about the mysterious murder. However, the reason she starts frequenting this place really seems to be that she is trying to recover a part of herself that she is not allowed to express in her society. The fact that she is making excuses to go to the café like being thirsty or wanting to find out about a murder shows how insecure she is with confronting her own feelings. These feelings are obviously powerful because they frighten her to such an extent that she trembles. And drinking wine is what helps her get into touch with her own emotions. This line also shows how Anne is worried about keeping up a certain appearance for society to see. She has to concoct some reasonable purpose for her being in that café, or it is otherwise unacceptable that she goes there. She cares about what other people think, and unlike her son, does not challenge the societal values that are imposed on her.  

“You go to the railings, then you go away and walk around the house, then you come back again to the railings. The child is sleeping upstairs. You have never screamed. Never” (90). From the previous chapter, we learned that Chauvin knows where Anne lives, and has been observing her from afar. It seems that by saying what he says (above), he understands Anne’s repressed condition in her marriage and in her society. She is incomplete, and this is emphasized in this quote by the fact that she never screams. As we discussed in class, screaming is vital to expressing anguish or frustration. Anne is likely frustrated by her condition. She seems to live a mundane life deprived of profound meaning. She repeats the same actions daily and without passion. It seems like Chauvin is more aware of Anne’s problems than she is. And by saying this, he is trying to lead her to speak more about herself and understand her own discontentment. It almost seems that in their time together, he is Anne's therapist. He often urges her to speak whatever is on her mind (even when she doesn't know what to say) so he can help her uncover and recognize her issues. 

“They don’t ask to come into this world… and then we force them to take piano lessons. What can you expect?” (94). With this bit, we return to the familiar scene of the piano lesson. Only this lesson is different than the previous one. In this one, instead of just calling the boy stubborn, the teacher and Anne try to explain why he is. I think that is what makes this quote important to think about. Anne is justifying her son’s rebellion because she identifies with what it is like to be stuck in a predefined role in society. After we are born, it seems like parents (and others) have mapped out our lives for us to some extent. We don't ask to be born into these roles, so why should we abide by them? Anne is emphasizing the lack of freedom that we have, and pointing out it is natural for us to want to challenge stifling authority and expectations. So here, she is explaining to the teacher that her son acts this way in an attempt to regain a sense of control over his own life. Of course, this links to how Anne yearns for freedom. In chapter one, we sense how Anne admires her son for rebelling against his teacher. This is because he did something that she never dares do herself; that is, cast off societal expectations. Anne is aware that she leads a repressed life and she wants to change that. Therefore, she experiences a lot of emotional conflict, and constantly tries to ignore her true desires. It seems like her son represents the person she wants to be. 

Moderato Cantabile, P. 1

The piano lesson is a frequent routine that Anne, her son, and the instructor go through. However, it’s not a very enjoyable one because it is forced. The boy clearly isn’t interested in playing piano because he says so and doesn’t pay attention to his teacher, but instead stares out of the window at boats passing by. His teacher gets angry because he never remembers what “moderato cantabile” means, even though it is simple, and she has told him before. The teacher is very angry that the boy doesn’t care at all about the lessons, and she mentions to Anne repeatedly how he isn’t well behaved. Even after he actually plays the sonatina, he doesn’t do so for long. In this forced situation, each person fits a sort of predefined role. The boy acts like the spoiled son of wealthy parents. He does what he wants when he wants. He also acts like the stereotypical little boy that is easily distracted and even a little rebellious. The teacher fits the role of the strict woman that believes children must be absolutely obedient. She seems temperamental, and harsh toward the boy, especially since the text hints that she had to restrain herself from slapping him. Anne is the doting and concerned mother whose life revolves around her child. Her days are probably structured and boring, she makes her son learn piano because it’s what all wealthy parents have their children do. I thought that overall, Duras’ style of writing reflected the forced nature of this piano lesson. This is because the scene is not narrated in a straightforward way; in fact, it seems distracted with plenty of digressions. The chapter alternates between small bits of dialogue and descriptions of scenery, so the focus never really remains on the lesson or what the teacher is saying. One example of this is on page 64 when the teacher asks the boy what “moderato cantabile” means for the final time, and then Duras describes the motorboat going by. Right after that, Duras writes in another thing the teacher says, and then describes the teacher’s thoughts. As a reader, I felt distracted and couldn’t focus on the piano lesson either.  

I think that one of the important functions of the scream is to jar Anne and her son out of their usual routine. They live in a world that is sheltered and is out of touch with, or desensitized to reality and profound human emotions. This might be because their daily lives are more concerned with being proper and structured, not allowing for powerful emotions. Music can be an expression of emotion, and so can a scream. So, in that way, the two are linked. Only the emotion of the scream is much more powerful and raw than the emotion of the music the boy plays. A scream can represent deep emotions like fear and suffering, and Duras describes this scream as piercing, intrusive, and frightening. They are all alarmed by the scream, but Anne and her son are more disturbed by it. This is apparent in the text when after the teacher notes that Anne and her son are nervous, she “look[s] at both of them with a disapproving air” (65). The teacher is hardened to emotions in general. She does acknowledge the scream, but is still willing to ignore it to continue the lesson. Anne tries very hard to ignore and deny it, while the child keeps drawing attention to it by asking about it. 

Under the Sand

Marie is very traumatized when Jean disappears very unexpectedly at the beach. I think it’s so traumatic because she can’t mourn over a body that can’t be found. In other words, she has no closure and can therefore still entertain the idea that he might actually be alive. In my English class, we’ve discussed how traumatic events are represented. Many believe that when a traumatic event occurs, the person or people who witness it are so shocked by it that they can’t actually understand it or take it in when it happens. Eventually, they might grow to remember or understand what happened better, but what does come back is fragmented. I think that Ozon is working with the same idea in this movie. Marie doesn’t understand what happened, so her experience is mirrored for us.

Marie denies that her husband disappeared and represses memories connected to his disappearance. She speaks of him as if he was still around and imagines him actually appearing and speaking to her. I don’t think she knows how to cope because she hasn’t seen a dead body, and can still cling to the most infinitesimal chance that he is alive. She probably feels that she should delay mourning until she knows exactly what happened to him. So to try to get past the trauma of the situation she tries to pretend that nothing happened at all. She tries to push away threatening memories. One example of this is when she tries to move away from this traumatic memory by moving to a different apartment. She ends up not being able to move there though because something in the view reminds her of Jean. I think it is finally after she receives a call from the morgue that she tries hardest to face that her husband died. Suddenly she changes her tactic of dealing with this situation from ignoring it to exposing herself to it completely. Marie visits her mother-in-law so she can tell her that a body that might be Jean’s was found. She also faces the possibility that it might have been suicide when she tells her mother-in-law that Jean was taking medication. When in the morgue, she demands that she see the recovered body so that she can finally be certain of Jean’s death and hopefully begin the process of mourning.

I don’t think Marie wants to believe that Jean is dead for a few reasons. One is that he was such an important and constant part of her life. She said at one point that her relationship with Jean had always been her priority. I think that she uses the fact that nobody is sure of what happened to him as an excuse to hold onto the smallest hope that he’ll return alive and well. Another reason she might not want to face his death is that if he died, she has to wonder why: was it an accident or did he actually commit suicide? If he did commit suicide, why did he? It seems that she is afraid to answer such questions because then she would feel responsible in some way for what happened. It’s possible that she feels guilty in some ways because he asked her if she wanted to swim with him before he disappeared. Or she might feel like she was not a good wife, and could have contributed to his depression, as her mother-in-law suggested. But if she continues to think that he didn’t die, then she doesn’t have to implicate herself.

Marie went down to the beach to mourn because it was the last place she saw Jean. So it seemed like the movie was going to end with her finally confronting everything she ran away from. She was digging her hand into the sand as if she was unburying all that she buried from her consciousness (under the sand, like the title). However, when she gets up and runs toward an illusion (of her husband), it is clear that she is not committed to facing reality and trying to move on. She still can’t accept the truth, so she runs away from it toward an image. Since she is so broken by her husband’s death, she might have decided to drown herself in the same place that he drowned. She seems not to have much of any hope, so death is the only way to make everything right. 

Dora, P. 2

Freud often mixes fact and fiction together. However, it stood out to me when Freud was interpreting Dora’s thoughts, and writes how she could express her desires. One example of this is when Freud states, “The resolution might have been consciously expressed in some such words as these: “I must fly from this house, for I see that my virginity is threatened here; I shall go away with my father…”” (77). He writes in Dora’s voice, which is like fact, but since she didn’t actually say those words, they are fictional. Since psychoanalysis interprets each thing a patient says (or clue), then connects it to larger themes, Freud has to jump between the facts of what he is told to the fiction of what he believes it means. After he does that, he can show how all the clues come together to form an entire picture of the patient’s problem. This shows how much guesswork psychoanalysis takes. It is mainly conjecture, and can’t really be proven.

 Dora’s father put her in psychotherapy so that a therapist (Freud) can convince her that he and Frau K weren’t having an affair. As Freud interprets what Dora says, her dreams, she is annoyed by him telling her that she doesn’t really know what she is thinking about, and that he does. In a sense, Dora feels that Freud is treating her like her father would, so she transfers her feelings about her father onto Freud. That is why she quits therapy only after a few months to “take revenge” on Freud, much like she did to her father by leaving him letter and leaving the house. This action also shows that Dora might also transfer her feelings about Herr K. onto Freud because he is another middle-aged man that she wanted to defy. Freud also shows transference of his feelings onto Dora. I think that he often thinks about colleagues and others who criticize his theory of psychoanalysis, and feels the need to defend his ideas. It seems like he uses Dora and her case to prove psychoanalysis is legitimate. As we mentioned in class, “dora” means gift in Greek, and Freud considered Dora’s case as a gift to him to refute what his critics say. The way he interacts with Dora also indicates that he is “speaking” to his critics. He listens to what she says, and then corrects her or tells her she doesn’t know what she is talking about. Freud believes Dora is wrong about her own thoughts just as his critics are wrong about psychoanalysis and dream interpretation when they discredit them. He also claims several times that this case that he only “failed” because he didn’t have enough time with the patient, and not because his methods were inadequate. 

I think he is right about how dreams include specific real scenes and imagined ones; they are a combination of our waking reality and representations of our wishes. We don’t really understand or remember our dreams, so it seems that they do come from an unconscious, or source we are unaware of. Dreams are also a “safe zone” for people to express their deepest thoughts or wishes because nobody else can see what they are dreaming, and therefore can’t criticize them. However, his associations with words and symbols seem outlandish at points. He clings to certain ideas obsessively like the jewel case and bedwetting. In the postscript, he defends his methods of dream interpretation. He states that he wrote less about technique because if he hadn’t, “The result would have been almost unreadable” (103). He also claims that his theory isn’t just psychological, without mention of organic basis. Freud mentions that sexual function relates to organic cause, and as we know, he speaks a lot about that. 

Dora, P. 1

Literature is difficult to define because it encompasses so many genres, from poetry to nonfiction. I feel that there aren’t many texts that can’t qualify as literature. But it seems that since literature relates to scholarship, it would take an expert or someone who has authority on some subject to write it. This would make the case study literature because Freud was trained as a professional psychologist. Literature can be considered as writing that reflects a certain period, culture, or school of thought. In this case, Freud’s case study also qualifies as literature. Hysteria was more common during Freud’s time and was not completely understood. Dora is literature that shows Freud’s attempt to explain this condition, as well as some of the sexist assumptions of his time and culture made about women (since they more often had hysteria than men). Sometimes people think of literature as artistic expression or a creative outlet for authors. For that reason, some read literature for entertainment. While Freud has some creative explanations in this case study, I would not say he intended it for an audience that would read it for fun. However, people often read literature to learn or inform themselves on particular subjects. For example, in school, we’ve all read different types of literature to become more aware of different theories, events that occurred, and more. Psychoanalysis is a concept we can learn more about by reading what Freud wrote. Many times, literature can be a study of the human condition or behavior and attempts to provide insight into those things. In this way, literature is highly interpretive. Psychoanalysis is certainly interpretive. In fact, it is the therapist’s (Freud in this case) duty to interpret everything a patient says and lead him or her to figure out what hidden desires are lurking around in his or her unconscious.

I think there are several instances in which Freud doesn’t see what’s really going on with Dora. It seems that Dora might actually be disgusted by Herr K.’s advances, and instead of being secretly in love with him, she’s actually uncomfortable around him. However, in Freud’s mind, everything can be pushed into the unconscious and patients are always hiding something from themselves. He tends to take everything Dora says and turns it around on her. Whatever Dora says only reinforces Freud’s conclusion that she is in love with somebody: Herr K., her father, or Frau K. He never takes things as they are, but always applies a strange logic to what Dora says, and strings together coincidences in order to support his psychosexual ideas. Coming into this case, Freud already had ideas of what caused hysteria, which he alludes to with, “hysterical disorders are to be found in the intimacies of the patients’ psycho-sexual life… hysterical symptoms are the expression of their most secret and repressed wishes…” (2). Because of this, Freud was so convinced of his own theories that he couldn’t actually judge Dora’s symptoms objectively. Plus, as Freud mentions, his treatment with Dora lasted only three months, which probably wasn’t enough time to understand her or her issues.