Scholarlink

<p>This article explores the evolving cinematic legacy of Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893), focusing on how his image has been interpreted across a range of films. The study examines portrayals ofCharcot in Freud: The Secret Passion (1962, directed by John Huston), Der junge Freud (1976, Axel Corti), Augustine (2003, Jean-Claude Monod and Jean-Christophe Valtat), Augustine (2012, Alice Winocour), and Le Bal des folles (2021, Méélanie Laurent). These films reflect shifting historical and aesthetic concerns, with each director offering a distinct interpretation shaped by their narrative priorities. Much like he once shaped the clinical understanding of hysteria and other neurological disorders, filmmakers have reshaped Charcot himself, transforming him into a sphinx-like figure: enigmatic, mutable, and interpretively rich. Rather than simply depicting Charcot, cinema often adopts his mode of seeing, using it as a lens to explore broader questions of perception, interpretation, and meaning—particularly as they pertain to illness, psychological distress, and the lived experience of human suffering. In this way, Charcot’s legacy continues to resonate not only within medical history but also in visual culture.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Charcot on screen: portrayals and preconceptions of a medical icon

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月17日

查看全文
  • Francesco Brigo

摘要

This article explores the evolving cinematic legacy of Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893), focusing on how his image has been interpreted across a range of films. The study examines portrayals ofCharcot in Freud: The Secret Passion (1962, directed by John Huston), Der junge Freud (1976, Axel Corti), Augustine (2003, Jean-Claude Monod and Jean-Christophe Valtat), Augustine (2012, Alice Winocour), and Le Bal des folles (2021, Méélanie Laurent). These films reflect shifting historical and aesthetic concerns, with each director offering a distinct interpretation shaped by their narrative priorities. Much like he once shaped the clinical understanding of hysteria and other neurological disorders, filmmakers have reshaped Charcot himself, transforming him into a sphinx-like figure: enigmatic, mutable, and interpretively rich. Rather than simply depicting Charcot, cinema often adopts his mode of seeing, using it as a lens to explore broader questions of perception, interpretation, and meaning—particularly as they pertain to illness, psychological distress, and the lived experience of human suffering. In this way, Charcot’s legacy continues to resonate not only within medical history but also in visual culture.