In the Woman in Green, the movie opens with a scene found in the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men. Holmes is a private investigator, the leading man, the star of the show, the one who never fails. Early in the film Holmes assists Scotland Yard in an investigation. Holmes and the Scotland yard detective go to a night club for drinks. There they encounter Sir George and Lydia, who works for Professor Moriarty. They are having drinks and Sir George is lighting her cigarette. Here is a romantic scene where cigarette smoking and using alcohol are also romanticized. Holmes comments Lydia is quite handsome, she and Sir George an admirable couple most anyone would like to emulate. Days after seeing this film, a male viewer might have had these thoughts about some new female encounter and might have projected these toward her. This could have resulted in conflicts within the community, intrapersonal, or even restricted to interpersonal conflict, conflict within the self, until he was awakened from the hypnotic suggestion, if that happened at all. I argue the correctness of the use of the words intra- and inter- as defined by many psychology books since I was taught inter- referred to things within and intra-refers to things outside of or surrounding a person or organization, etc. If one is made to doubt one’s most basic education, then one is in doubt and in conflict most of the time.
In the case of Lydia, some males might be inclined to stay clear of all blonds until they become conscious of how the film has affected them. If the viewer had forgotten that he saw the film he might have taken his interest in the girl further, he may have accused her of being a seductress when he knew nothing about her. He may even have raped, assaulted or killed her if he feels strongly enough about what he was being programmed with from this film and what she had done to Holmes or the others as he has introjected Holmes and Moriarty into his personality. Introjected here seems to mean the viewer’s brain and mind has been programmed with the behaviors and nuances of the character Holmes, and really all of the characters. This is not introjection as it is referred to by scientists. Introjection is more like what Tony Robbins describes in his book Unlimited Power, or what many people would do upon seeing Sir George and Lydia in the elegant restaurant, dressed in their elegant attire, I called it emulating. There is more to being like those people that emulating fails to provide. Introjection here is more like being programmed with nuances of behavior such as one hears in the voice or sees the characters acting out such as playing a violin, smoking a pipe, the mumbling Watson does or even the wrinkling of one’s nose. If the viewer attempts to thwart these nuances programmed into the brain, by projecting them onto another, he is still programmed with them, especially if they are not acted upon by those onto whom they are projected. The male viewer may be plagued with them, at least until they are diminished from his memory or acted out and the real Holmes may be nothing like the character dramatized on the television.
Upon leaving the night club Lydia invites Sir George to her flat for a night cap and then hypnotizes him. Lydia is now unlikable. It is clear Lydia is up to no good and so any identification with her by the female viewing audience starts to wane and any attractions to her by the male viewing audience are also diminishing. The female viewer may disown these aspects of her own self for fear of some legal trouble. This means many women might have refrained from using any kind of gentle relaxing tone of voice or relaxing conversation with their children, husband or boyfriends for fear of hypnotizing them or hurting them in some way. It is quite possible some women might take interest in luring a man to her apartment with these same kinds of activities. Was the woman influenced by the dialogue or did she act of her own free will. According to most scientists it is unlikely she was able to act of her own free will, unless that dialogue was stripped from her mind and memory.
Moving on, another Finger Murder has been committed. The novel and films Fingersmith by Sarah Waters, follow this part of the story. This could possibly have resulted in the loss of fingers in some manner by an immature viewer or one who disdains its associations. I have had visions of some young person sticking their hand into a blender. Whether they lost their fingers or hand I cannot say, but one gets the idea. The growing science of robotics comes to mind as the motivation for some of this kind of activity and was dramatized in the film Artificial Intelligence. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Since novels, films, history and simply the nature of our own brain function, it is clear these existed before the science of robotics. Revenge tactics were possibly woven into this film and then would have been programmed into the minds of viewers who might have hurt themselves or others. Even Queen Elizabeth II was attacked by some unknown male. Certainly one can review our history to see the motivation for this kind of intricate thinking. Germany was destroyed during WWII and before that WWI. Sir George awakens in a strange hotel and fears there is something wrong with him as he can no longer remember where he had been after leaving Lydia, (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde film) because he was hypnotized. Here is an allusion to Sir George being a Jekyll and Hyde kind of character, in hopes of saving those who viewed those films from a similar demise as Sir George. In the mean time, in the film, Dr. Moriarty pays Lydia a visit and attempts to bribe Sir George by making him believe he committed the Finger Murder, showing Sir George his cigarette case Moriarty took from him before depositing him in the hotel. Clearly Moriarty and Lydia are up to no good by now and the viewer shifts his identifications away from these two people. I have often been plagued with this kind of paranoia I attribute to television viewing and possibly this film simply because of the manner in which the dialogue is written. I once thought a television commentator was talking to me and I had responded to everything she was saying by writing notes on pieces of paper and holding the up in front of the television. I was sent to see Dr. Heyder in Powell’s Point, NC for an evaluation shortly thereafter. It was six years after my first incarceration in prison. Pending transport to prison one of the prisoners told me she was accused of being an accessory to child abuse and molestation. She told me she believed the television was talking to her during the times she was viewing it. Six years later I act this out or re-enact what she was doing, of which one I cannot be certain. I later, when I regained control of my mind, she was mixed up with the prison execution team.
Moriarty tells Sir George, “it fell out of your pocket”, when referring to his cigarette case. The viewer might receive this as a personal threat to his or her integrity, an insinuation the viewer was guilty of the finger murder, however allusive these thoughts might be as the viewer would first receive the insinuation as being directed to him or her then they would direct it back onto the character Sir George but Sir George doesn’t receive this redirected content, it is directed locally or within one’s own family. A conflict between two partners might ensue and all sorts of denial would go on possibly even while the viewer is watching the film but may be totally unaware of this. It might then cause the viewer to dissociate this part of himself in order to keep his ego intact, until the end of the film and he is able to reconnect with those parts of himself or he simply continues to dissociate that and maybe other parts of himself until the content is removed by acting out in which some innocent person could easily fall prey to the content and find himself in jail for assaulting someone who accuses him of stealing. Another might even resort to stealing a cigarette case believing it is their own. Reacting in this way is a part of the less mature mind in that they are unaware of the potential problems with novel reading, television viewing and of the cultural symbolism that could have an effect on the unconscious mind. Jung mentions this kind of activity which he termed possession, in his book Man and His Symbols, pg. 192. The one possessed is rendered unconscious by the dissociation or projection. In the case of a projection, one may then find one’s self identifying with the projection, feeling he or she is the one having the thoughts and feelings. Legally, one might consider this an imprisonment or enslavement if one is more mature and recognizes what is going on and by that I mean the intentions to string the viewers along for future episodes or some future novel.
Sir George’s daughter shows up at Holmes’ flat and invites him to her home to talk with her father. When they arrive they find Sir George dead. Suicide was thought to be the cause of death but Holmes quickly deduces it was murder. Now Sir George is eliminated from the identification game. This undermines a viewer’s potential for seeking a more elite kind of life. After returning to their flat, Watson is tricked by a phone call from Moriarty which Holmes suspects but says nothing to Watson. Dr. Moriarty then pays Holmes a visit. He threatens to do away with Watson. The viewer then likely shifts his attention from Watson to Holmes again or maybe even Moriarty by now. While Watson isn’t the star of the show he is a dear and loyal friend to Holmes having risked his life for him many times. Following Moriarty’s visit, Williams, another of Moriarty’s victims, in a hypnotic state attempts to shoot Holmes who’s keen deductive reasoning foils the plan. Holmes is still the hero and one to identify with but, during this process the viewer might briefly shift his focus to Dr. Watson or Scotland Yard who takes Williams, the hypnotized sniper, off to jail. One might also shift identification from Holmes because Moriarty wants to get rid of him. Sympathy towards Williams is likely to be found with the female viewers, especially those who have received little affection or care from parents, who then might have succumb to the hypnotic suggestion presented later in the film. This could also create stress and paranoia in the identifying viewer’s mind. There are many Williamses in my hometown, one who was the butcher for the Red and White Supermarket in Engelhard where my parents lived and my mother still lives. I went to school with a Williams and lived with one in 1973 and again in 1976 while in college.
All seems well again with the viewer until Holmes and Watson visit the Mesmer Club. They observe a man being hypnotized followed by other stage antics. Any normal sane person would then think hypnosis fallible and a hoax from what they viewed. Then Watson, a very logical man being a Doctor, is invited to participate in an experiment, as a subject to the hypnotist. This could clearly have been intended to also lead the viewer into participating in some future experiment, likely with the CIA and the effects of the television itself. This of course would be to investigate the truth of Freud’s inferences that man is innately evil. Watson agrees and in minutes he is hypnotized and seems to perform acts suggested by the hypnotist. The viewer then shifts his identifications away from Watson because he has contradicted himself, has fallen prey to the suggestion and appears to be the old fool Holmes calls him frequently in these films. Unless the viewer takes exception to the comments he too would have succumb to the inferences. Watson is then told to wake up, only to find he was hypnotized and feels like a fool, how Holmes frequently refers to Dr. Watson and in the film as old fellow. Was Watson programmed by Holmes’ comments, to behave like a fool? The viewer possibly having been caused to feel like a fool, he may have acted as a fool in numerous ways after having seen the film or again he or she might have projected this onto another who acts the part in some way. Since the focus is returned to Holmes we are left dangling as to whether Watson’s actions were deliberate or due to the hypnotic suggestion. The viewer thinking back on the previous subject on stage, might have considered the whole matter a hoax and might have shifted his focus back to Holmes or even onto the hypnotist because one’s curiosity would have been aroused by what the hypnotist was doing. Before leaving, Holmes runs into Lydia again, a chance meeting arranged by Moriarty and agrees to accompany her to her place.
One can now easily deduce what kinds of problems might result from this part of the film. Some man may have attempted to drug a woman and rape her or tried to seduce her with mind controlling conversation to get her into bed. He might have even considered there were women out there who were already hypnotized if he was aware of the potential of the part of the film in which Watson was hypnotized. This might have even been the motivating force for taking a nice young woman to the theater to see this film. This dialogue clearly enters the viewer’s mind. How one perceives Dr. Watson after that would determine whether the viewer identified with the suggestion and became hypnotized or whether the viewer would avert the suggestion and possibly repress this content and dissociate it from the self, at which time another could become possessed by it and act it out. My behavior from 1991 until 1999 clearly indicated to me this was the case with some of the people I have been entangled with or with my own mother. I have been unable to determine if these suggestions were already in her mind because of her entanglements or from her having actually viewed the film.
They arrive, have tea and then he agrees to let her hypnotize him also. Lydia talks in a calm relaxing voice, like most parents would to their children. Holmes is loud and quick speaking, Moriarty’s voice is a bit lower and raspier while Watson’s is even lower and mumbles frequently. Lydia give Holmes a sherry and offers him a drug before the hypnosis as she claims he is a difficult subject. He refuses at first but then agrees to take the pill. She then proceeds with the hypnotic induction. By this time the viewer doesn’t know who to stick with. Lydia is clearly a femme fatale and is associated with Lydia in Alfred Hitchcock’s, The Birds as Brenner’s mother, but Melanie gets the brunt of the angry feelings especially when they are trapped in the restaurant by the birds attacking and one patron calls her evil. Lydia in The Woman in Green might have been considered evil. Moriarty then arrives at Lydia’s and soon is directing Holmes to pen a suicide letter. He then directs Holmes to go out onto the balcony where he intends to end Holmes’ life. This is indicative of mind control. In the mean time, Watson rounds up Scotland Yard and arrives just in time to keep Holmes from stepping off the balcony almost falling to his death himself. Holmes quickly rescues Watson but then they turn to discover Moriarty jumping onto the ledge of the next building, tearing the drain off and falling out of sight. Lydia is taken into custody. Now that all is solved the viewer has only the two central men onto whom they can identify, Watson a retired Doctor and Holmes a private investigator.
During the course of the shifting of these identifications, dialogue contaminates the viewers brain and mind. It now requires the assistance of an expert writer or psychoanalyst to extract the contaminated parts and clean them and this process gives them insight into the thinking of the viewer. This of course takes time and energy and may disrupt one’s sleep. Children of those who have viewed this film might resist taking needed medications from the mother despite Holmes’ claims he took something to counter the effects. I am certain there were advertisements to counter this potential as I have been an avid user of various kinds of medications, what one might call the subject of an experiment. This might also lead some viewers to look for antidotes to sedating drugs and in our country cocaine seems to have been a major choice, likely amongst those who were infected with the ideas in this film. Others may have been subjected to the use of heroin or other sedating drugs and in my case may have attempted suicide by overdosing or trying to jump from some height in a building, parking deck or even cliff. I am a witness to this effect on behavior. A young blond Desert Storm Veteran who I shared a room with for a few days at the Durham, VA, was speedballing cocaine and heroin in the bathroom. Speedballing refers to shooting cocaine into the vein of one arm and heroin into the other. This is likely due to the guilt perceived by blonds who viewed or participated in the making of the film. I myself used cannabis (marijuana) and barbiturates, then consumed large amounts of caffeine in the form of Dexedrine, and black beauties. I also used and was addicted to alcohol. I have been addicted to sedatives for many years, feeling as if I wanted to go into a never ending blissful sleep. This emulates the undefeatable Holmes who took something to counter Lydia’s sedating drugs and alludes that Holmes likely lifted her and Moriarty, why Moriarty was the one to fall from the ledge rather than Holmes.
I am still recollecting and discovering the numerous things which are related to this film such as my Aunt’s favorite punch, lime sherbet and ginger ale.
In summary, there are many variables, as many as there are people with varied thoughts on the same subject at the beginning of this article. I am clear that most of us do identify with the numerous characters we see on television or deal with in our daily lives. This has a powerful affect on our own personal character, thinking and ways of being.
