Freudian Ideas in The Unknown

Reaction to Worland’s Take on The Unknown
    Worland had some unexpected insights about The Unknown, especially the references to Freud that he sees in the film. After watching the film and rereading Worland’s chapter five (“The Edges of Horror Film: The Unknown”) I agree with most of the claims he makes. Browning definitely knew a lot about psychology and wasn’t afraid to apply his knowledge to his work. One of the main things Worland talks about is Freud’s idea that mutilation of the upper body (such as pulling out teeth) can symbolize castration, which was the function of Alonzo’s “armless” body. Alonzo’s armlessness was what made him tame, neutral, and non-threatening--it essentially castrated him. This is especially true in the eyes of Nanon, who has a strange phobia of being held in a man’s arms. Worland argues that this is actually a euphemism of her disinclination towards intercourse, which would further the argument that Alonzo’s lack of arms symbolizes a lack of “manliness”. Alonzo’s attempt to rip off Malabar’s arms at the end of the film is almost ironic, because by this time, Nanon has gotten over her fear of arms; if Malabar had cut off his arms at the beginning of the film, one would think it would assist him in his pursuit of Nanon. In reality, Nanon’s shock and fear at Alonzo’s malicious final acts implies that she has learned to love Malabar’s arms, and maybe she would see Malabar as “un-manly” if he didn’t have his arms, which furthers the point that armlessness symbolizes castration here.
    Another thing I found interesting was Worland’s idea that Nanon’s phobia might stem from “incestuous abuse” by her father, which is a very psychological idea as well: the idea that we have strong fears of things that affected us as children. (If we can consider Nanon a child--or assume this abuse began when she was a child.) Alonzo’s eventual murder of Nanon’s father, Zanzi, could somewhat fall into the category of “killing the father to get to the mother,” only Alonzo is killing the father to get to the daughter; if Zanzi is sexually abusing Nanon, it’s almost like Alonzo is killing Zanzi to get to Zanzi’s “partner,” in a very weird, twisted way. This Freudian theory could be furthered by noting that Nanon is an almost motherly figure to Alonzo--even though he is old enough to be her father. She sees his disfigurement not as a curse, but as a blessing. It makes her more comfortable around him than she is around other men. This kind of reminds me of the movie Love and Other Disasters, which is about a girl who has a general distaste for men because she has been hurt in the past, so she only feels comfortable around gay men; they are not threatening to her because she’s not at risk for falling for them and getting her feelings hurt.
    This is kind of what Nanon is doing with Alonzo: his lack of arms makes him non-threatening, because there is no way he can hurt her. He cannot physically hurt her because he doesn’t have the means, nor can he emotionally hurt her because she doesn’t see him as a “true” man and could never fall in love with him. Nanon acts like a mother to Alonzo when she hugs him after he promises to take care of her and she kisses his cheeck; she is also excited to see him again after they’ve been apart while he’s had his operation. It’s kind of a stretch, I guess, but it could be a Freudian way of looking at Zanzi’s murder.
    One more Freudian thing that the film portrayed was the idea of The Uncanny, which I’ve heard explained as “making the familiar unfamiliar,” or being interested in something that also disgusts or disturbs you. I think the whole film kind of plays on the idea of the uncanny; its characters are all carnival workers. Carnivals are something that everyone is familiar with, but no one knows exactly what goes on behind the curtains. This film takes the ordinary concept of a carnival and turns it into something dark, sinister, and unfamiliar. The exciting end scene plays on that idea of “astonishment,” that Gunning talked about in his essay, but it also kind of repulses audiences. We want to see Malabar’s arms ripped off--it seems unfitting that the main character is also the most hated character--so we are almost rooting for Alonzo in that final scene, even though that is something that should repulse us at an audience. It’s like when you “can’t look away” from something that is horrifying. The character of Alonzo is uncanny in some way: he is disturbing to us in his murdering, but his intense “love” or obsession for Nanon almost makes him forgivable. There’s something about him that makes us uneasy, and it’s not his lack of arms.