The Cultural Psychology of Motion Pictures: Dreams that Money Can Buy



Cinema is a form of communication and equally important, it is a major type of entertainment. There are serious movies, edifying movies, and movies that promote ideologies and beliefs. It is the collective capacity to deliver entertainment that makes movies so influential. How these processes operate is another theme of the book as well as an examination of cinematic techniques that make palpable the “illusions” of reality that filmmakers create. This chapter also explores Hugo Munsterberg’s analysis of how film infiltrates, and in some sense embodies, our individual and collective dreams, and Manvell’s theories on the visual language of film.


Outer World Emotion Picture Movie Theater Horror Film Social Dream 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergman, I. (1960). The magic lantern. London: Hammandsworth.Google Scholar
  3. Boring, E. (1916). Capacity to report upon moving pictures as conditioned by sex and age. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 6(6), 820–834.Google Scholar
  4. Bower, B. (1987). Reel psychiatry. Science news, Sept 19.Google Scholar
  5. Bruno, G. (2009). Film, aesthetics, science: Hugo Münsterberg’s laboratory of moving images. (p. 36). Grey room. Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. (2003). Dario Argento’s phenomenon (1958) a psychoanalytic perspective on the ‘horror film’ genre and adolescent development. In D. Birksted-Breen (Ed.), The couch and the silver screen (p. 130). East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Eberwein, R. T. (1984). Film and the dream screen: A sleep and a forgetting. (p. 42). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenstein, S. M. (1943). The film sense. (p. 37). London: Faber. (Trans. J. Leyda).Google Scholar
  9. Elizabeth, C. (2003). The cinematic dream-work of Ingmar Bergman’s wild strawberries 1957. In D. Birksted-Breen (Ed.), The couch and the silver screen, (p. 182). East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Kittleson, M. (1998) Soul of a popular culture: Looking at contemporary heroes, myths, and monsters. (p. 169). Chicago: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kracauer, S. (1947). From Caligari to Hitler: A psychological history of the German film. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Manvell, R. (1955). The film and the public. (p. 23). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  13. Munsterberg, M. (1922). Hugo Munsterberger: His life and his work by his daughter. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Munsterberg, H. (1909). Psychotherapy. (p. 125). London: Matfeld, Yard & Co.Google Scholar
  15. Munsterberg, H. (1916). The photoplay: A psychological study. (p. 21). New York, London: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Richter, H. (1965). Hans Richter. Neuchatel: Editions du Griffon.Google Scholar
  17. Rieber, R. (1997). Manufacturing social distress: Psychopathy in everyday life (p. 110–111). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sklar, R. (1994). Movie-made America: A cultural history of american movies. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  19. Talbot, M. (2009). Nightmare Scenario. The New Yorker, 16(2009), 48–49.Google Scholar
  20. von Hofscker, M. (1998). Richter’s films and the role of the radical artist, 1927–1941. In S. C. Foster (Ed.), Hans Richter/activism, modernism and the avant-garde. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Brooklyn CollegeBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations