Never before has a filmmaker depicted the Oedipus complex in such a captivating and thought-provoking manner as in Karan Johar’s SOTY.The moment comes in the introduction of the leads in the film who are believed to be the epitome of its sexual demographic.They are simply in awe of it.This moment (video 1) in itself is a strong reference to Sigmund Freud’s “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality” .The scene denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a person’s homosexual attraction and desire to sexually possess them.
In yet another moment (video 2) Johar makes Carl Gustav Jung proud.The moment where he reinforces Carl’s Electra Complex proposition through the libidinal shift of the girl’s colleagues towards the guy.In classical, Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the earlier identification with the same-sex person is the successful resolution of the Oedipus complex and of the Electra complex; and the key psychological experience to developing a mature role and identity which interestingly is the climax of the film.The clash between the two males in the film is the most blatant instance of symbolic castration anxiety. Johar captures that irrational fear of being degraded where the person will go to extreme lengths to save their pride and perceive trivial things as being degrading making their anxiety restrictive and sometimes damaging.
Video 1
Video 2:
Tags: Alia Bhatt Karan Johar Sidharth Malhotra Slavoj Zizek Student Of The Year Varun Dhawan
This is hilarious. You have mocked Satyam like hell!
Hahaha…. Awesome One Baba!
😀 thanks I want to know if anyone actually took it for a zizek piece even if for a second. it was a sarcastic post
Who is Zizek?
he is considered to be a modern day contemporary intellectual. he is philosopher as well as movie critic.But he overreads films. read his review on avatar/titanic. and he is in a way responsible for creating these pseudo intellectual disciples who are wannabe zizek 😀
This was good Baba.
But then I cant differentiate between Zizek or Milind or Satyam. Utkal atleast is not so cryptic (although biased – he uses simple english).
I am rating it 3/5. Hope you will be happy with the rating.
thanks ritz . 😀
My pleasure 😛
The problem with over reading. What The Author Meant Vs What Your English Teacher Thinks The Author Meant
LOL! superb 😀
the difference between stupid, fanatic, pseudo intellectual and intellectual comment:
stupid : “4 because he is so relax”
fanatic : ” Of all, JCVD is way cooler doin’ the kicking form without even looking @ the target ”
pseudo intellectual :” #1 stil the best…its not about how high u can kick, its about how u kick your target”
intellectual : “Scott and Dolph are doing Yeop chagi, but Gary and Jean Claude are doing Baldeung dolloy chagi. So hard to compare then..”
Baba,
although I agree with what you said, but it is not that generic to be applied that broadly , especially to cinema. I agree about the fanatic and to a bit about the pseudo intellectual part but not about the stupid and intellectual part. Why ? because its cinema and its not precursory that one should be well aware of every little nuance before commenting on it. A stupid at parkour may actually be an intellectual at cooking and an intellectual on martial arts may be as dumb at acting as they come. Point being: one doesn’t need to be a -Mr Know it all- to pass their opinion on a particular aspect of the movie they are watching. as an audience of cinema they have an equal and equally significant say in whatever they percieve out of it. Having said that, if one starts to go in minutaes of the topic of discussion and still argues, then they are on their own: In such a scenario, their lack of knowledge can make them a stupid and the posession of knwledge can make them an intellectual.
agreed with all you have said and especially with your last line.
I know this cannot be generic hence i gave an example. those comments are of real life fb users.you can check the fb link.
Strictly based on this example : the first one is stupid because he has no perception or education or what he is talking.a kick doesnt become good bcos someone looks relaxed. A 45 year old uncle embarsingly moving his pelvic girlde may seem more relaxed than a young guy doing windmill, that doest mean the uncle danced better
second is a fanatic bcos he thinks JCVD is better just bcos he is jcvd. most of the chuck norris fans belong to this category.
third one wants to show off making a philosophical comment to hide his lack of knowledge and digresses the debate in an irrelevant direction.
fourth one has the right knowledge and makes an educated comment.most importantly, his comment cant be denied, its a fact.true, everyone cant have such minute knowledge in every domain but then thats what intellectalism is about.
as you said the guy who is stupid in parkour can be an intellectual in cooking. surely all his comments on cooking will be well educated but that doesnt change the fact that he is stupid on parkour