This isn’t only an issue of narrative expectation; that events will end happily, that the baddie will be vanquished, the couple brought together.
As Rob White proposes in The Cinema Book, commenting on the psychoanalytic dimension to semiotician Christian Metz’s work: “As the spectator settles into immobility…the spectator, ignoring the actual situation of film going (being part of a group in an auditorium) as well as the artificiality of cinema’s narrative techniques (camera movement, editing, lighting, mise en-scene etc.) succumbs to a lascivious, covetous, furtive belief.” This is the belief “in his or her principal role in observing, and by extension in controlling or directing the narrative progression of the film.”
Psychoanalytical film theory is an approach that focuses on unmasking the ways in which the phenomenon of cinema in general, and the elements of specific films in particular, are both shaped by the unconscious. Whose unconscious? This is where things get a little tricky. The unconscious studied by psychoanalytic film theory has been attributed to four different agencies: the filmmaker, the characters of a film, the film's audience, and the discourse of a given film.
1. The Filmmaker's Unconscious. In its earliest stages, psychoanalytic film theory compared films to dreams, slips of the tongue, and neurotic symptoms as films were considered to be manifestations of a filmmaker's unconscious. This kind of psychoanalytic film theory is somewhat out of fashion today.
2. The Character's Unconscious. Another application of psychoanalysis to cinema studies focuses on the characters of a given film and analyses their behaviour and dialogue in an attempt to interpret traces of their unconscious. This approach, when it first appeared, was immediately attacked by skeptical film critics who pointed out that fictional characters, insofar as they are not real people, have neither a conscious nor an unconscious mind to speak of. However, the psychoanalysis of film characters quickly found new credibility with the next stage in the development of psychoanalytic film theory--the analysis of the audience's unconscious as it is prompted and shaped during a film viewing.
3. The Audience's Unconscious. The audience-focused approach will often focus on the way in which the behavior and dialogue of certain characters can be interpreted as manifestations of our unconscious, insofar as we come to identify ourselves with them when we visit the cinema. Thus, as we sit quietly in the dark and forge our psychic bonds with this or that character, we unconsciously project our own fantasies, phobias, and fixations onto these alter-egos. Whenever they inevitably say or do something that even tangentially touches upon one of these fantasies, phobias, or fixations, we derive unconscious satisfaction or dissatisfaction accordingly.
4. The Unconscious of Cinematic Discourse. This is the most recent version of psychoanalytic film theory more or less abandons the character-centered approach altogether, focusing instead on how the form of films replicates or mimics the formal model of the conscious/unconscious mind posited by psychoanalysis. Thus, for example, the psychoanalytic film theorist might focus on the way in which the formal procedure of editing will sometimes function similarly to the mechanism of repression by cutting out a crucial, emotionally charged moment which, though unseen, will continue to resonate throughout the film. Here the unconscious that is unveiled belongs neither to the filmmaker, nor to a character, nor to an audience of viewers, but rather to the film's own discourse. The unconscious is thus conceived as an organisation of hints and traces of meaning residing within the audio-visual language of the cinema.
My film on the other hand can be read in terms of symbolism and psychoanalytical film theory as although it states that the character conscious state of mind is not so in fashion and used as much to this day, I still, feel as though in terms of personal identity, my target audience may concentrate more on their "alter egos" and how they somewhat create their own fantasy, phobia or fixation from the realism and inevitability of my plot. As instead of satisfying the audience, my film ends on a new equilibrium leaving the audience on a cliff hanger where they almost end it themselves in their own imagination of what the would want to happen or what they think should happen, as as a part of the cinematic discourse unconscious, by cutting a crucial and emotional element within my film I believe that we (audience or filmmaker) have mor a unconscious or unconscious state of mind.