Shock Treatment: A Freudian Film Against Freud

The 1981 film Shock Treatment, written by Richard O’Brien and Jim Sharman, screams psychoanalysis, with every inch of the film sharing a reference to the inner workings of the brain. But despite all of the hints and easter eggs in this movie, there is one psychoanalytic voice that stands out among the crowd, and that voice is Sigmund Freud. This film touches on many of his theories, like the Three-part Model and The Stages of Infantile Sexuality. However, this film takes a unique approach when lacing Freud’s theories throughout the plot. O’Brien and Sharman use Freudian theories and references in a paradoxical way that challenges the heteronormative nature of those exact theories.

When looking for hints of Freudian theories in this film, the eye may gravitate towards the copious amounts of phallic symbolism within the confines of the plot. All of the characters who interact

with this type of symbolism are blinded or ignorant in some way, shape, or form. First, the movie depicts Janet’s father, Harry Weiss interacting with the golf club in the kitchen (the club sitting right below the crotch). This character is one example of O’Brien and Sharman using Freudian theories to address the flaws they possess. The suppression of consciousness that is attached to the phallic stage of infantile sexuality is shown through the hypermasculinity and ignorance that Harry Weiss exhibits. Following the golf club used in the kitchen, he sings the song entitled “Thank God, I’m a Man.” The hypermasculine song highlights the ridiculousness of many Freudian gender norms. Freud recognized a dominance in men (with many of his theories surrounding the male genitalia), so having characters sing lines such as, “men should be the misters and the masters of their sisters” uses a satirical approach in critiquing Freud’s theories. There is also a reference to phallic imagery in Bert Schnick’s use of his cane. By using a faux blind character to represent the phallic stage, it symbolically repeats the idea that this stage in development is often repressed. The act of being blind while holding a phallic object displays this concept in a brilliantly comedic way. Farley Flavors, the money man of the movie, is arguably the most shielded and ignorant of all of the characters in the film. He too shares experiences with the audience through phallic imagery. During Janet’s song “Me, Me, Me”, Farley is shown experiencing great pleasure from her song, and when her number finishes, the pillars on the stage fall to the ground symbolizing Farley’s masturbatory completion. All of the references to the phallic stage of infantile sexuality development are heightened in a comedic way, purely to critique Freud’s theories.

The phallic symbolism is not where the Freudian references stop in this film. The presence of fetish throughout the plot directly relates to his psychoanalytical theories. Sharman and O’Brien use essentially the entirety of the film to address the United States’ attachment to consumerism and materialism. By addressing both fetish and consumerism, it makes it important to look at commodity fetishism in this film through a Freudian lens. If you want to look at the consumerist events as something that is “routine and socially shared” (315 Billig) it is important to evaluate the setting of the film. The locals of Denton spend their own time being fed advertisements by the Farley company. The desire to be a part of such intense consumerism is linked to the connection between the obsession with material goods and the hypersexuality of America. To understand this concept on a deeper level it is pertinent to “explain commodity fetishism in Freudian terms” (314 Billig) In one of the earlier songs of the film, Brad and Janet are being tested on their emotionality by picture association and all of the pictures are appliances. Singing “Bitchin in the Kitchen” shows how consumer-driven the world is, even down to the domestic troubles that the couple is facing. Additionally, the framework for the entire film is built on one big ad.

The setting is a TV studio that broadcasts, Dentonvale, the local TV station. In this specific film, Dentonvale and Farley are using a technique to “package and sell mental health to the nation”. There is an element of manipulation of the mental state through capitalist techniques. They use Janet and her influence as the new it girl, to show what this new psychological treatment can do. At the end of the

movie she is even branded as “Miss Mental Health”. In this extreme case of commodity fetishism, it is easy to recognize the satirical ways Sharman and O’Brien address both the hyperconsumerism in the

United States while still addressing Freud’s theories. The movie did not just highlight commodity fetishism, but it also plays into the more classic definition of Freud’s fetish. A prime example of hyper-fixating on an object to create a fetish in this movie is Janet's “Little Black Dress”. After Farley witnesses this new black dress he forms an attachment to Janet that is later explained because Janet “represents everything he was denied,” this perhaps being a reference to being orphaned at a young age and lacking a maternal figure. Fetishism in this film, much like the phallic imagery, is elevated for comedic effect. Both Sharman and O’Brien used these methods to address the ridiculousness of Freud’s

theories.

Arguably the most iconic of Freud’s theories is his three-part model, which discusses the id, the ego, and the superego. Shock Treatment (1981)doesn’t shy away from referencing these concepts, in fact, this is one of Freud’s theories that are directly referenced in the film. One of the songs towards the end of the film repeats the phrase “Look what I did to my Id” multiple times. At this point in the film, Janet falls victim to desire and loses all reason, hence the reference to the Id. She has lost touch with humanity and has given up logic and lets her desires and her repressed hopes take over. After witnessing the prevalence of intense domestication of women, it makes sense that Janet would want to achieve more. This may be a direct relation to Janet being one of the only characters who have a deeper sense of ego maturity and those “who are more ego developed are more likely to admit to thinking about their lost possible selves” (King and Raspin 623). The film also uses the devil and angel symbol to work directly with the internal fighting between the superego and the id. First, this can be recognized in the lyrics from the song, “Look What I Did to my Id” when they sing, “When Heavens in the music Hell is in control! The angel’s got the voices, but the Devil’s got the Rock n’ Roll.” Another example of the devil and angel symbolism is in the switch of Janet’s dress color. When Janet is in the deepest depth of her desires, her dress is black to represent her letting her id take control, but towards the end of the film when her superego regains control her dress is white. It is through the use of this Freudian theory that the rise and fall of characters into madness is

recognizable.

This movie is filled with Freudian references including but not limited to the ones referenced above, however, there is something important to note when looking at the way Shock Treatment (1981) engages with psychoanalysis, specifically when it comes to Freud. Both Sharman and O’Brien use and reference these theories in a paradoxical way that satirizes their message. One of the biggest arguments with Freud’s theories is that they are extremely misogynistic and heteronormative, and Sharman and O’Brien do not shy away from addressing these concerns in their film. They have heavily pushed the ridiculous concept

of gender roles in this movie by using Janet’s father to symbolize toxic masculinity. His military-style march entitled “Thank God I’m a Man” does an excellent job of showing how Freud’s theories have flaws. Additionally, one of the biggest things they challenged Freud in, in this film is the blatant homophobia that is a part of many of Freud’s theories. Once again using satirical comedy to address these concerns they use lines like “Faggots are maggots”, “Hock another Jocks tools” and “That’s a long time in the closet...but I’m breaking out”. These references to the LGBTQ+ community are prevalent in many of Sharman and O’Brien’s films, but the references in this film correlate more to the use of Freud’s theories and how they are heteronormative. Although all of these ideas contribute to the disagreement with Freud, there is one scene that truly points out the flaws in Freud’s theories, especially in regards to conformity. At the end of the film, all of the live studio audience at the Dentonvale studios have made themselves subject to emotional and psychological manipulation. This is with the exception of the band who sang about being in “the closet”, the two characters who were fired, and Brad and Janet. These characters were the only characters who did not fall victim to their desires and their id in the end. Because these characters had to digest and deal with their emotional hardships instead of suppressing those ideas, they escaped from this emotional manipulation. It is in these ideas and examples that Sharman and O’Brien’s paradoxical approach to Freud’s theories makes the most sense.

Freud’s theories on psychoanalysis have been used in media and writing for as long as they have

existed in the world, however, it is hard to find a film that uses his own theories in a paradoxical way that

refutes them, but this is precisely what Jim Sharman and Richard O’Brien do in the film Shock Treatment (1981). This movie musical has the perfect mixture of satirical comedy, imagery, and Freudian undertones, and because of this balance, the film does an outstanding job of discussing the heteronormative and

misogynistic tendencies that lie within Freud’s theories.

Works Cited

Billig, Michael. “Commodity Fetishism and Repression.” Theory & Psychology, vol. 9, no. 3,

1999, pp. 313–329., https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354399093003.

King, Laura A., and Courtney Raspin. “Lost and Found Possible Selves, Subjective Well-Being,

and Ego Development in Divorced Women.” Journal of Personality, vol. 72, no. 3, 2004,

pp. 603–632., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00274.x.

O'Brien, Richard. Shock Treatment. 20th Century Fox, 1981