Clitemnestra

 Prefácio

Notamos na mitologia antiga que uma esposa, quando alienada da condição de uma própria filha comete homicídio doloso contra o marido. Agamemnon, rei de Micenas, tinha ambição de tomar o império do rei Príamo, do outro lado do Mar Egeu.

Agamemnon consultou o oráculo que lhe informou a respeito da guerra e do sacrifico de sua filha Ifigênia para obter o resultado esperado. Ao retornar de Ilíon, Agamemnon é assassinado por sua esposa. Em legítima defesa.

Porque se o marido conseguiu ser frio o suficiente para sacrificar a própria filha em favor de uma atitude egoística de tomada de território, sem o consentimento da mãe, Clitemnestra jamais poderia se sentir segura ao lado de Agamemnon, sabendo que nesta relação o marido conjura mais poderes e influências do que a esposa e poderia usar contra ela. Apesar de Agamemnon ter atacado Clitemnestra indiretamente (assassinou a própria filha em um ritual macabro para o deus da Guerra), o rei de Micenas atacou o coração materno na parte onde mais poderia doer retirando Ifigênia do seio da mãe e deixando a mãe às migalhas emocionais ao ter que sobreviver.

A questão sobre o valor da vida humana é inquestionável. E a pergunta que o direito sempre deve refletir sobre é se Elize Matsunaga cometeu um crime, e não se ela é culpada ou inocente. Culpados todos nós somos, e isso não presume responsabilidade criminal.

Não há dúvidas que o homicídio é um crime hediondo. Entretanto, quais as circuntâncias que levaram a este homicídio é o que deve ser caracterizado como forma processual.

A substância do processo criminal deve conter a verdade histórica e humana inseridas de modo que possamos qualificar Elize Matsunaga dentro do código penal e estipular uma sentença adequada ao caso e que não privasse a mãe do contato com a filha.

E devemos refletir sobre a alteridade, sobre a vida do outro. Em outras circunstâncias o júri teria agido da mesma forma? Se Marcos Kitano Matsunaga assassinasse Elize Matsunaga dentro de sua residência, ele teria pego uma pena tão grande?

Marcos Kitano Matsunaga é um homem rico, privilegiado em contrapartida em uma relação onde sua esposa não usufrui do mesmo poder financeiro e privilégios do marido. A senhora Matsunaga sofreu ameaça de internação em clínica para tratamento psiquiátrico, e conseqüente alienação da própria filha.

Se você fosse uma mãe, como você reagiria no lugar da senhora Matsunaga? Sabendo que o marido pode matá-la, ou aliená-la da sociedade a qualquer instante pelo pressuposto do privilégio social do homem rico em detrimento do homem pobre?

Sabemos que no Brasil existe uma constituição para a elite e outra constituição para as classes menos favorecidas socialmente. E é isto que vamos analisar.

Introdução

Sim, uma minissérie bem popular na Netflix (Once upon a crime, 2021 https://www.netflix.com/title/81043160). A história da mulher que assassina o marido. Não obstante, esta é uma história real. Vamos observar os fatos com um pouco de senso crítico e descobrir ipso facto se a nossa personagem, a senhora Elize Matsunaga é uma heroína ou uma vilã.

O objetivo é tratar desta personagem histórica do cotidiano brasileiro que representa muitas mulheres em condição de opressão familiar e que não podem reagir porque o marido usufrui de poderes no limite do Estado de Exceção. Elize Matsunaga era casada e em situação de desvantagem sócio-econômica frente a seu marido Marcos Kitano Matsunaga.

Mésalliance

A Senhora Elize Matsunaga e o Senhor Marcos Matsunaga se conheceram no ano de 2004, por meio de um site de relacionamentos. A vida do casal era harmoniosa até meados do ano de 2010, quando Elize desconfiou que estivesse sendo traída — porém, a gravidez dela, no mesmo ano, fez com que a desconfiança fosse momentaneamente deixada de lado.

Com o passar do tempo, o casal começa a brigar frequentemente, conforme as suspeitas de Elize aumentam. Preocupada em estar sendo traída, a senhora Matsunaga viaja para o Paraná e contrata um detetive particular para espionar o marido. Rapidamente, ela descobre que Marcos jantou com uma amante em um restaurante luxuoso em São Paulo e passou a noite com ela no hotel Mercure, na Vila Olímpia. (https://www.google.com/travel/hotels/s/mEKcZ) Ao descobrir sobre o encontro, ela volta para casa em 19 de maio de 2012, no dia em que ela cometeria o crime em legitima defesa.

A senhora Matsunaga tinha toda evidência material necessária para incriminar o marido, fotos e vídeos oriundos do detetive particular contratado por ela.

De volta a São Paulo, Elize, a filha do casal — que tinha um ano na época — e a babá da criança foram buscadas no aeroporto. Ao chegar a casa, a profissional foi dispensada e o casal iniciou uma briga quando Elize questionou Marcos sobre a traição, afirmando que não aceitaria esse tipo de comportamento.

Esse erro tático prova que a senhora Matsunaga não premeditou o crime. Se a intenção dela fosse a de extorquir o marido, ela poderia ter tentado isso de diversas outras formas. Lembrando que não é só isso, a senhora Matsunaga é formada em Enfermagem e em Direito.

O que aconteceu durante essa discussão do casal poderia mudar completamente a decisão do júri. E da população brasileira. Elize Matsunaga acreditou ter alguma vantagem por possuir evidência material contra o marido.

Contudo, o senhor Marcos Kitano Matsunaga era uma pessoa provida de poderes divinos no âmbito financeiro. Quando a esposa o ameaçou com as evidências contra ele, de que não haveria mais como ele esconder a infidelidade conjugal, Marcos Kitano Matsunaga apelou para seus poderes olímpicos.

Com a abordagem da esposa, o empresário se enfureceu, a insultou e lhe deu um tapa no rosto (Foto 4/38 Laudo do Instituto de Criminalística http://glo.bo/PD8LuS). Além das repetidas injúrias verbais e físicas, ele ironiza o passado da senhora Matsunaga. Marcos Matsunaga ameaça tirar a guarda da filha e desaparecer com a criança. Além disso, Marcos Matsunaga estava planejando, juntamente com o padre que realizara o casamento, a internação compulsória da senhora Matsunaga em uma instituição de apoio psicossocial privada.  Enquanto o homem proferia tais palavras, ela notou que ele estava perto de uma arma de fogo — já que ambos tinham posse liberada — e, temendo que Marcos a usasse, ela pegou outra e apontou para ele. Segundo o seu depoimento à polícia, a intenção inicial dela era apenas intimidar o marido.

 Apesar de Elize estar armada, Marcos não se conteve e continuou com as ofensas. A mulher, então, fez um disparo que atingiu a cabeça do marido, que morreu na mesma hora (Foto 13/38 Laudo do Instituto de Criminalística http://glo.bo/PD8LuS).

"Judicium"

Processo: C.569/12 - 5ª Vara do Júri da Capital

[(...) nesta cidade (São Paulo) e comarca, teria, com ânimo homicida, matado o seu marido MARCOS KITANO MATSUNAGA, fazendo-o por motivo torpe, mediante recurso que impossibilitou a defesa do ofendido e com meio cruel, bem como teria, também, destruído e ocultado o respectivo cadáver.

Quanto ao crime doloso contra a vida.

Em que pese o comportamento da vítima (envolvendo traição conjugal) e os autos darem conta de que Elize é boa mãe, sendo também polida no trato com as pessoas em geral, a acusada veio a trocar o cano da pistola com a qual atirara em Marcos, bem como a livrar-se do computador com o qual, passando-se falsamente pelo ofendido, enviou mensagens a outrem, informando que ele estava bem (portanto vivo), assim posando de esposa abandonada pelo marido que teria deixado o lar conjugal, tendo - ainda - se desvencilhado do instrumento com o qual esquartejou o corpo da vítima, também espalhando suas partes em local distante do lugar do cometimento ilícito, cuja prática culminou por confessar (apresentando, no entanto, a sua versão defensiva) tão só dias depois do episódio criminoso, quando as investigações já convergiam contra ela, cuja dinâmica, na esteira do "veredictum" do Conselho de Sentença, aponta cuidar-se de prática revestida de cuidadosa premeditação, reveladora de uma personalidade fria e manipuladora e, portanto, extremamente perigosa.

COMENTÁRIO: (Elize Matsunaga deveria ser orientada apenas por oficiais femininas. Deveria ser uma delegada, especializada em assuntos da mulher que estaria à frente das investigações. Deveria ser uma juíza. E o Estado deveria apresentar uma promotora na frente da acusação.

A senhora Matsunaga nunca foi uma pessoa fria e manipuladora e o crime que ela cometeu não tem qualquer indício de premeditação. Ela sabia que se matasse o esposo estaria em condição muito ruim perante à sociedade.

As atitudes tomadas pela senhora Matsunaga são indício de desespero, uma pessoa que não sabe o que fazer, porque não premeditou o assassinato, resolve simplesmente se livrar da evidência, porque nesta hora Elize Matsunaga estava dominada por adrenalina e medo correndo dentro de suas veias, e foi o medo quem tomou a decisão de ocultar o cadáver.)

 

Aliás, também é dos autos que Elize não é pessoa de parcos recursos intelectuais. Contrariamente, apesar da origem humilde, além de ter frequentado curso de enfermagem (completando-o), formou-se em curso superior em Ciências Jurídicas e Sociais (Direito), vivendo, ainda, nababescamente depois de casada justamente com o ofendido, já que, no dizer dos autos, então, tratada "como uma Princesa".

COMENTÁRIO: (Quer dizer, que por ser uma moça formada ela jamais poderia ter matado o esposo. Que o fato dela possuir dupla graduação intensifica, aos olhos da sociedade, a frieza dessa mãe desesperada que infelizmente não teve a frieza necessária para tentar convencer o marido a não interná-la e não deixá-la longe da criança.

Apesar de origem “humilde” ela passou a viver “nababescamente” depois de casada, como uma Princesa. Esse tipo de comentário serve apenas para representar o ódio do júri e do próprio Juiz que teoricamente escreveu este texto.

Ou seja, Elize Matsunaga era uma mulher pobre que passou a ter uma vida de princesa, com muita opulência. Contudo, a senhora Matsunaga nunca teve uma situação de isonomia com o marido, e vivia sob constantes ameaças contra a dignidade, contra o corpo, contra a vida.

Portanto, aos olhos da sociedade, a senhora Matsunaga é uma ingrata, por ser pobre e depois ter tanto luxo e matar a pessoa que lhe deu tudo isso. 

Devemos sempre refletir e nos perguntar: o que teria acontecido na recíproca? E se Marcos Kitano Matsunaga tivesse assassinado a esposa dentro de casa? Qual seria a longitude de sua pena?)

Efetivamente, muito embora tenha sido casada com pessoa financeiramente abastada, o foi em regime parcial de bens, encontrando-se em ininterrupta prisão desde junho de 2012, ou seja, há mais de 4 (quatro) anos. (sem direito a habeas corpus).

Mas não é só.

Não se trata de situação onde, logo após a prática homicida, a acusada prontamente se apresentou à polícia para noticiar o ocorrido, esclarecer as suas circunstâncias e declinar onde se encontrava o corpo da vítima, assim efetivamente colaborando com a Justiça.

Contrariamente, é dos autos que a acusada forjou a verdade sobre o acontecido, alegando um desaparecimento do ofendido que sabia inexistente, vindo a confessar a autoria delitiva tão só posteriormente às investigações policiais levadas a efeito.

Bem a propósito, também é dos autos que a ré com veículo tentou distanciar-se desta capital (onde residia) levando consigo as malas contendo o corpo do marido já esquartejado, mas também com documento do carro vencido, acabou desistindo de ir para outro Estado (Paraná).

Nesse conjunto, nem mesmo a primariedade, bons antecedentes, residência fixa e ocupação lícita podem na espécie amparar qualquer outra medida cautelar que não o encarceramento.

Sentença publicada no Plenário 10 do Complexo Judiciário Ministro Mário Guimarães, às 2h8min do dia 5 de dezembro de 2016.

 

ADILSON PAUKOSKI SIMONI

-Juiz Presidente- ]

 

Fotos do laudo do instituto de criminalística na ordem em que constam no documento:

http://glo.bo/PD8LuS

Foto 4/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize retruca posição de Marcos e acaba sendo agredida fisicamente, levando um tapa em sua face", conforme descrição do laudo

Foto 8/38 Laudo da reconstituição: Elize "vai até uma cômoda após o balcão, onde era guardada uma pistola. Elize disse que era de hábito haver armas guardadas pelo interior do imóvel por medo de assaltos"; conforme laudo da reconstituição.

Foto 9/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize pega a arma no interior da gaveta e retorna com a arma em punho", conforme laudo da reconstituição.

Foto 11/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize se vira e vê Marcos vindo da sala de jantar; Marcos vem da sala e vê Elize parada na porta da copa com a arma na mão;", conforme texto do laudo.(foto do corredor, ressaltar pequena distância entre Elize e Marcos)

Foto 13/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Marcos se desloca em direção a Elize, esbravejando e dizendo que ela não teria coragem de disparar. Elize realiza um disparo de arma de fogo contra Marcos, sem fazer visada", conforme relato no laudo. (Marcos chega muito próximo a ela)

Foto 14/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Marcos tomba em decúbito dorsal em meio ao corredor, de fronte a porta de entrada; Elize sai da copa, passa pela cozinha e se desloca em direção a sala de jantar", conforme o laudo.

Carlos Henrique Barbosa: Legítima Defesa

 

 

 

Shutter Island (English Version)

 Shutter Island

Or the reinvention of fascism

 

Preface

We will deal here with the feature film Shutter Island, 139 minutes, 2010, Paramount Pictures. We will deal with the incorporation of memories, fabricated memories, we will discuss the Process and Kafka's Metamorphosis to illustrate what seems obvious. But it is not.

Introduction

It is curious to observe how modern society continues to deny the origins of fascism. Edward Daniels' story and his interpretations follow a strand that analyzes the character's dreams through formal representations of water, fire and ice.

To prove at the end of the story that the main character is a patient suffering from severe psychotic disorders, and that his memories are therefore not valid. Even the memories that the character remembers about Mahler and Nazism come to be considered as part of this schizophrenia that the potential character would represent.

Teddy Daniels' recurring memories of ice would be his memories as a combatant in World War II. The memories with the water would be the traumas of the federal agent and the reason for his blockage. The images with fire would be a combination of a conscious state with a semi-conscious state of the character's mind and body.

This state that varies between being awake and sleeping and is represented by images with fire and some with ash, are effects caused by the widespread use of psycho pharmaceuticals against the will of the character Edward Daniels. Let's remember that he woke up in the middle of a ferry going to Shutter Island.

We know that Edward Daniels was drugged, sedated, but we don't know how long he was exposed to medication, imagery exposure, and brainwashing.

Most interpretations are along the lines of casting Teddy Daniels as a dangerous psychotic with a past trauma that caused a haunting wound/trauma, from which he was not able to live, to the point of elaborating a fantasy that he was a federal agent investigating the crime of disappearance of a patient/prisoner from the island of Ashecliffe, so as to hide the past wound/trauma.

And the most curious and impressive thing is the memory of fascism. The memory of fascism is present at all times, and this eludes the majority of the audience that intends to make schematic and repetitive Freudian analyses. And in this the repression is latent. The danger of too schematic and quick interpretations is that they hide the nature of the scientific and forensic search for truth.

The truth is not found right at the table, inside the cell phone chip or computer processor. We seek the truth in difficult places, we have to face monsters of the most varied types and in this battle we know from the beginning that we will lose. Eventually we will be able to find, after much sacrifice, the cave, from where we ourselves came out to actually see this one for real.

Plato’s Cave and the search for truth

Plato's cave myth and the passage in which Edward Daniels, first descends one cliff and then over another, represents the search for truth, and the difficulties and horrors that Oedipus had to face in order to solve the miasma that terrified Thebes. Can the search for truth, the search for justice, the search for what is good lead one to madness?

The spectator is led to believe in the fantasy that a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane, in its fullness, would stage a play, an articulate farce, using all the institution's employees and patients with the humanitarian end of exposing the possible patient Teddy Daniels to his own fantasy/trauma and thereby cause him a catharsis so that he would purge this miasma from his mind and he could be a normal patient/prisoner.

Not only that: if Edward Daniels is indeed a dangerous prisoner/patient, for being violent, for having murdered his wife, for having witnessed Nazism, this type of prisoner/patient should never be released in the company of other patients and staff, for jeopardizing the functioning of the entire psychiatric institution.

What fascism wants to hide, and public repression helps a lot with this, is that the social institution does not work for the citizen, but to produce profit. The objective is to enrich the manufacturer of psychotropic drugs, sell drugs and test these drugs on those that society considers to be invalid. And that and other fascist horrors still happen today. The interpretations continue to be imaginary, surrealist, trying to deny the existence of fascism within democratic systems.

The purpose of the market is profit and it doesn't matter if you are a renowned diplomat or a scientist, from a family like the real Rachel Solando. The renowned diplomat is the character present in “The Constant Gardener”. Don't we see a case where to sell a certain type of medication a company may not have any ethical purposes?

The fascist representation is so absurd that the viewer is led to believe that for a humanitarian reason, a psychiatric institution isolated from any social context, would use a ferry to take the patient out of the hospital and bring him back, this time as a federal agent. And why does Edward Daniels never come to his senses and recognize that his partner is actually a doctor, that Doctor Cawley is another one, that Bridget Kearns is a prisoner just like him?

What is evident

 

1) Had Teddy Daniels really been Ashecliffe's patient, he would have been drugged against his will, and placed in the middle of the sea on a raft. This does not exclude fascism, but it is overwhelming proof of the existence of this institution.

 

2) Had Teddy Daniels really been Ashecliffe's patient and had the fantasy of being a federal agent, that fantasy would have been reinforced through brainwashing, torture, and widespread use of psychopharmacological substances.

People will see fascism pass under their noses and won't believe it exists. When Teddy Daniels wakes up inside the ferry, he realizes he's out of cigarettes. The character expected a federal partner to come from Portland, but instead, it was someone from Seattle.

When Teddy Daniels enters the gates of Ashecliffe and is ushered in by the institution's wardens, he recognizes that he has seen such a situation before.

The average viewer, who doesn't want to see fascism, will interpret this as further proof that Teddy Daniels is a patient/prisoner at the Psychiatric Hospital for the Criminally Insane, because he recognizes that institution.

However, the institution that Teddy Daniels recognizes is not the Hospital, but the institution of fascism. Teddy Daniels had already witnessed the horrors practiced by fascism in Germany during World War II.

What Teddy Daniels observes is the repetition of fascism passing before the cynical eyes of the community.

For Teddy Daniels, an institution of social control isolated from a geographical and geopolitical context, inside an island, with many heavily armed guards, with prisoners chained and surrounded by walls, barbed wire, electric fences and where absolutely, the act of experimenting with the human body and perverting its nature, through transorbital lobotomy, is another fascist institution:

Italian psychiatrist Amarro Fiamberti developed a procedure that involved accessing the frontal lobe through the eye sockets, but in 1945, the transorbital lobotomy emerged, a method in which the doctor inserted the tool into the patient's orbit with the aid of a hammer.

Doctor Cawley says he is against transorbital lobotomy, which he intends to treat patients with psychopharmacological, psychotropic drugs such as Chlorpromazine:

Chlorpromazine (CPZ), marketed under the brands Thorazine and Largactil, among others, is an antipsychotic drug. It is primarily used to treat psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Other uses include treating bipolar disorder, severe behavioral problems in children including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, nausea and vomiting, anxiety before surgery, and hiccups that do not improve after other measures. It can be given orally, by injection into a muscle, or into a vein.

Chlorpromazine is in the typical antipsychotic class, and chemically it is one of the phenothiazines. Their mechanism of action is not entirely clear, but it is believed to be related to their ability as a dopamine antagonist (they block Dopamine receptors in the brain). It also has anti-serotonergic and antihistaminergic properties.

Common side effects include movement problems, drowsiness, dry mouth, low blood pressure when standing, and weight gain. Serious side effects can include potentially permanent movement disorder, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, severe lowering of the seizure threshold, and low leukocyte levels. In older people with psychosis as a result of dementia, it may increase the risk of death. It is unclear whether it is safe for use in pregnancy.

Psychiatrist Cawley makes it clear that he is against transorbital lobotomy, but all other psychiatrists at the institution are in favor of using this method, including the director of the institution, the German physician Dr. Naehring.

The common citizen has a repression in relation to fascism and that is what the film tries to show. It's not Teddy Daniels who has a repression against fascism, because the federal agent has already experienced this type of situation and can recognize the same institution being practiced on American soil.

Teddy Daniels is in fact a federal agent, who was bothering a part of the fascist system and for that reason was used as a rat by the institution's psychiatrists.

Fabricating Medea’s memories

As soon as Teddy Daniels is received by Doctor Cawley he is introduced to a series of images of torture and pain, which were methods historically practiced by social institutions responsible for the less favorable or the unwanted "mentally ill".

Doctor Cawley wants to make it very clear that the institution has evolved and abandoned these methods of corporal punishment, brainwashing, torture, scientific experiments with the body, and the contradiction of this argument comes soon after when the doctor recognizes that the institution's psychiatrists still practice transorbital lobotomy.

Doctor Cawley also offers an "Aspirin" to Teddy Daniels, when in fact the drug the character ingests is Thorazine (Chlorpromazine). It is observed that Cawley does not open a bookcase or a cupboard to look for Aspirin: he already has a pill in his hand ready to serve with the glass.

The Ashecliffe institution's brainwashing methods are unethical, and no one sees them. Most Ashecliffe patients/prisoners repeat the same version of a story as if it were not a natural memory but an implanted, fabricated memory.

The employees, for not having power within the institution, and for fearing to suffer the same tortures that they see the institution practice, are conniving and “intelligent”, because they want to survive within the fascist system. Society is alienated from Ashecliffe because it is an island. What good Samaritan would take a ferry to visit a psychiatric hospital from the mainland to the island? And with what kind of permission can a citizen enter the administrative part of a public institution?

What is the probability or possibility of two people, within the same institution, pronouncing the same sentence that is constituted by the same memory? When could two people have an identical memory and describe it using the same words, in the same order, as if the words had been dictated? In a context of exploitation of one man's mind by another man.

It is a resource widely used by fascism, the principle of Goebbels, that if we repeat a lie several times, that lie becomes the truth. This is brainwashing: information is repeated so many times that it becomes a memory and is assimilated in its entirety by the person who repeats it, not just the syntactic content, but the constructed emotions that that sentence emanates.

We see Nurse Marino repeat a phrase identical to a phrase Doctor Cawley said to Teddy Daniels. We see prisoner Bridget Kearns, from the scene where the glass of water disappears, speaking matter-of-factly that she had murdered her husband, said something about the hydrogen bomb that was repeated identically by the bald prisoner, fugitive from Ward C, who got into a fight with Teddy Daniels.

Andrew Laeddis' memories are constructed through the memories of a possible runaway patient named Rachel Solando. Rachel Solando was actually a single doctor, from a respected family, who began to investigate illegal situations within the public institution to report it as a crime, and for that, she was hospitalized as one of Ashecliffe's patients and they tried to manufacture the memory that she had committed triple infanticide by drowning three children. Edward Daniels and Rachel Solando were exposed to the same fabricated memory, Medea's fantasy.

It's quite plausible to assume that Teddy Daniels was never Andrew Laeddis, as in Fight Club (1999), where we're pretty sure Tyler Durden doesn't represent two people, but a divided person.

Therefore, we assume that Teddy Daniels was never married, never had children, because these memories were implanted through brainwashing and extensive use of the antipsychotic Thorazine (Chlorpromazine).

Medea's memory began to be implanted when Doctor Cawley informed Teddy Daniels that the runaway patient had committed triple infanticide by drowning her three children in water.

Teddy Daniels was exposed to this fabricated memory again, when he interrogated the possible patient Rachel Solando, who in fact, within the myth that fascism never exists, or may not exist today, is a nurse at the institution, who at the moment practiced an action drama, which coincidentally happened to have to do with Teddy Daniels' fabricated memory.

There are no coincidences with fascism. It only repeats itself as a farce, and it is precisely a farce that wants to convince us of the non-existence of fascism in modern public institutions. Institutions of social control such as public schools, public hospitals, irregular psychiatric clinics, shelters for homeless people, federal and state prisons, and even some universities.

Kafka's theory that once a citizen is branded as "crazy" by society, nothing he does will be useful to him, and on the contrary, the more he speaks and tries to expose the truth, the more that citizen will be put as a mad one.

First the institution will disregard everything he says. Then it will start administering medication. Ultimately, the citizen will be arrested, either as in Metamorphosis or in Kafka's Process.

The Anagram does not prove anything, because who created these names was the institution itself. Dolores Chanal can exist only within the constructive myth of fascism itself. Within the myth manufactured in the mind of the character Edward Daniels, who in his objective of seeking justice against fascism, became the object of the same monster he was trying to destroy.

Fascism is not something visible, easily interpreted and accepted by society. This repression, this desire to never see the evil acts practiced by social institutions, this alienation is what guarantees that the fascist institution is still present in many democratic countries.

Who isn't afraid of the police? Who is not afraid of the Judge? Who isn't afraid to challenge the system and lose everything? Like Jesus Christ, who defied the system and lost his own life. Why run the risk of losing everything, including life, when it's much easier to join the existing bundle!

Edward Daniels is traumatized by fascism. Fascism is a practice that will inevitably produce more fascism. Edward Daniels felt bad about not murdering his wife Medea/Dolores Chanal after she drowned three children in the lake. Even because that never happened, they are manufactured memories.

A tragedy, a father who finds his three children murdered by his wife sees no alternative but to murder his own wife, guilty of this heinous crime. One madness produces a greater one, and so on. And we are facing another Orestes, another Achilles, another Oedipus, but the context and the perspective are what really change the play.

The madness of fascism perpetuates and further produces fascism. And the only problem is that neither you, nor your neighbor and nobody wants to see it, because that is a public repression, a taboo, a subject that is not talked about so we don't have any responsibility for it.

It is much more convenient to believe in the fantasy that Teddy Daniels is really a violent patient and that there is nothing to do with him other than removing part of his brain via the eye. This fantasy elaborated and constituted with images of fire and water, images created by the institution itself.

Teddy Daniels' guilt memory is the memory where the American army had captured several Nazi SS prisoners, and when one of them runs, and some American soldier shoots, the situation spirals out of control and Teddy Daniels shoots one of the Nazi soldiers, which causes the extermination of this soldier and dozens of other prisoners who are summarily executed.

We saw very well in Inglourious Basterds that only in a fantasy can we fight fascism using fascism itself. Inglourious Basterds is a fairy tale where American fascism defeats German fascism. And now the winner of this clash can practice any kind of fascism.

Yes, Inglourious Basterds is a fantasy about fascism because it starts with "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France...", and a few more occasional questions like Cinderella's lost shoe, Bridget von Hammersmark.

Doctor Rachel Solando has never had children and has never been married. She was a respected doctor within the institution when she began to question the reason for so many shipments of sodium drugs and surgical procedures.

What the institution did with the doctor Rachel Solando was to admit her as a patient inside Ashecliffe and try to implant in her the memories that she was married, that she had three children and that she had drowned them. The same memory they tried to implant inside Edward Daniels' mind.

Teddy Daniels does not recognize, at any point in the film, any staff or patients of the institution. There is no moment of recognition, essential in determining whether Edward Daniels exists or is the dark ego, Andrew Laeddis.

Ultimately, all of Edward Daniels' memories can be fabricated. As he has become a mad patient, anything he says will only further confirm his madness, even his real memories of WWII.

Rachel Solando's dialogue with Edward Daniels inside the cave

Rachel Solando: Who are you?

Edward Daniels:I am Teddy Daniels. I'm a cop.

Rachel Solando: You're a Marshal.

Edward Daniels: That's right. Would you mind, mind...take your hands from behind your back?

Rachel Solando: Why? Why?

Edward Daniels: To make sure what you have hold there does not hurt me

Rachel Solando I'm gonna keep this...If you do not mind… fine with me.

Edward Daniels:You're Rachel Solando. The real one. Did you kill your children?

Rachel Solando: I never had children. I was never married. Before I be a patient in Ashecliff, I worked here.

Edward Daniels: You were a nurse?

Rachel Solando: I was a doctor, Marshall. You think I'm crazy?

Edward Daniels: - No, I...

Rachel Solando:- And if I say I'm not crazy... well that hardly helps, does it? That's the Kafkaesque genius of it. People always tell you you're crazy and protested, on the contrary, confirm what they say.

Edward Daniels: I do not following you. I'm sorry.

Rachel Solando: Once you are declared insane, then anything you do is called as a part of insanity. Your reasonable protests are denial, valid fears, paranoia. survival Instincts as defense mechanisms. You're smarter than you look Marshall. That's probably not a good thing

Edward Daniels: Tell me something ...

Rachel Solando: Yes ...

Edward Daniels: What happened to you?

Rachel Solando: I started asking about shipping this this large amount of sodium .

Edward Daniels: - And the sodium-based hallucinogens.

Rachel Solando:- Psychotropic drugs. And I began to ask about the surgeries, too. Ever heard of transorbital lobotomy? They cap the patient with electroshocks, then go through the eye with an ice pick and pull out some nerve fibers. Makes the patient more obedient. Tractable. It's barbaric. Unconscionable. Do you know how pain enters the body marshal? Do you?

Edward Daniels: Depends on where you hurt.

Rachel Solando: No, it has nothing to the flesh. The brain controls pain. The brain controls fear, empathy, sleep, anger, hunger ... everything. what If you could control it?

Edward Daniels: The brain?

Rachel Solando: To re-create a man, so he doesn't feel pain. Or love. Or sympathy. A man who can't be interrogated because he has no memories to confess. And you know the North Koreans use american POWs during brainwashin experiments they turns soldiers into traitors. That's what they are doing here. Creates ghosts and give way in the world. And do things sane man never do. That kind of ability, that kind of knowledge it would take years. Years of research, experiments on hundreds of patients. For 50 years now, people will look back and they say ... this place is where it all began. The Nazis used the Jews. The Soviets used prisoners in their own gulags and we...We tested patients on Shutter Island.

Edward Daniels: No, they won't...no

Rachel Solando: you do understand that they can't let you leave?

Edward Daniels: I'm a federal Marshall... They can't stop me.

Rachel Solando: I was a esteemed psychiatrist, from a respected family. It did not matter. Let me ask you... any past trauma in your life?

Edward Daniels: yes, why... why that matter?

Rachel Solando: If a particular event is past the reason you lost your sanity…  so when they commit you in here, your friends, colleagues will say... “he has cracked”. And who would do it, after what happened. That could be said of anyone

Edward Daniels: - anyone at all.

Rachel Solando: - The point is they're going to say it about you. How's your head?

Edward Daniels: - My head?

Rachel Solando: - You had funny dreams? Trouble Sleeping, headaches ...

Edward Daniels: I'm prone to migraine

Rachel Solando: you haven't taken any pills, no? Not even aspire?

Edward Daniels: - I get a aspirin.

Rachel Solando: Jesus! And you ate in the canteen and of drinking coffee that gave it. Tell me that even smoking Cigars of you.

Edward Daniels: Not ... no. I haven't.

Rachel Solando: It takes between 36 and 48 hours for neuroleptics narcotics to reach sufficient blood that you-and take effect. Pulse will become first, fingers first and then shall include all labor. Seen any waking nightmares lately, Marshall?

Edward Daniels: Tell me what's going on in that lighthouse? Tell me.

Rachel Solando: Brain surgery. Like, "to open the skull to see “what if we pull on this kind. "That's not different with Nazi's kind and then they created the ghosts.

Edward Daniels: Who knows about this? On the island I mean. Who?

Rachel Solando: Everyone.

Edward Daniels: Come on, the nurses, the orderlies? It's not possible ...

Rachel Solando: - Everybody. You can't stay here.

They think I'm dead, that I drowned. If they come looking for you, they migh find me. I'm sorry, but you have to go.

Edward Daniels: I'm gonna come back for you.

Rachel Solando: I will not be here. I move during the day. New places every night.

Edward Daniels: But I could come get you take you out of the island.

Rachel Solando: Haven't you heard a word I've said? The only way off the island is ferry and they control it. You'll never leave here.

Edward Daniels: I had a friend. He was with me yesterday, but we got separated. Have you seen him?

Rachel Solando: Marshall... You have no friends.

 

Carlos H. Barbosa: Shutter Island

Women, the most beautiful women selection

     

Scarlet Johansson

Rachel Weisz

Nicola Peltz

Natalie Portman

Moran Atias

Moran Atias

Mila Kunis

Lauren Bacall

Hedy Lamarr

Gal Gadot

Eva Green

Eva Green

Eva Green

Emanuelle Chriqui

Marie Samuels (English Version)

 Preface

The objective is to reflect on the concept of Doppelgänger in Freud and its consequent reactions of strangeness with the self. At the same time, we will lead the character Marion Crane and her double-self (Doppelgänger) Marie Samuels to the recognition, at the end of the dinner with Norman Bates, that a hasty attitude can be a "madness", that we can all go "crazy" sometimes, or psychotics.

The purpose of this work is purely educational and academic. It is a dry film reading accompanied by some images from the 1960 film Psycho, directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

The copyright owner of the film is Paramanout Pictures. From 1960 to 2017 the copyright belonged to the studio. As we are in 2022, the film becomes public domain in the United States of America. That's why the explanatory note about copyright, because in Brazil we are not sure about the copyright of the film.

This present essay is in memoriam of Alfred Hitchcock and all those friends who are no longer present.

Summary and Psycho-Analysis

In a hotel room in Phoenix on a Friday afternoon, December 11, at 2h43m PM, Marion Crane and her out-of-town boyfriend Sam Loomis appear to have ended a carnal relationship, she lying on the bed in her bra and he standing next to her shirtless asks ironically if she hasn't had lunch. Marion wants to marry Sam, but her father's inherited debts and his own child support payments with alimony don't leave him enough money to support Crane as she would like.

Marion Crane meets Sam Loomis during her lunch break at work, and doesn't have much time to discuss this seemingly wrong relationship between them.

She wants to marry him and end this relationship of occasional meetings, while being well regarded by society. When Sam Loomis makes fun of Marion Crane she gets out of bed and goes to button her shirt in front of the mirror. The first notion of Doppelgänger appears here.

Doppelgänger

We see the first notion of the double-self in this basic scene, where she talks to her boyfriend while seeing her other self inside the looking glass. The Doppelgänger is present in many moments during the narrative, and at this moment in particular because the dressing glass is facing away from the spectator and facing the character during the performance of the act.

Marion Crane wishes to marry Sam Loomis, however, in spite of working for ten years as a secretary, she still hasn't managed to earn enough savings. Loomis in turn inherited his father's debts and has to pay alimony to his ex-wife. The couple of characters execute the discussion of this financial problem in front of the looking glass, where we can have the double (double-self, doppelgänger) of Crane and Loomis at the same time.

Modern society divides subjects within themselves. The subject begins to confuse himself with the object. The strangeness with the environment and with life becomes unbearable. How two decent people have worked and struggled for so long and they don't have enough money to complete their love?

Finally, Crane realizes that she is late for work and here we find the basis for our argument about Doppelgänger present in this character:

Miss Crane, our heroine, returns to the real estate office where she works as a secretary, arriving before her boss, Mr. George Lowery and her client Mr. Tom Cassidy, who buys a Lowery house with $40,000 in cash. Lowery, her boss, tells Marion to put the money in the bank vault by Monday. Claiming a headache, Marion asks to take the rest of the day off after her trip to the bank.

This headache is the first hint of the double in Marion Crane. The viewer knows she doesn't have a headache. Suddenly, that whole situation at the real estate office changed.

Because a factual event that occurred with some frequency, the secret meetings with her boyfriend during lunch break, did not end with a happy ending. Sam Loomis lives far away from her and none of them are in a position to legally fulfill this love. So that they can be honored and accepted before society by the sacred institution of marriage. Note that Miss Crane isn't wearing any rings on her fingers.

Another factor that accelerates the Doppelgänger effect in our heroine is the character of oil leaseholder Cassidy, who buys a house on Harris Street for his daughter's wedding with $40,000 in cash and undeclared to the IRS.

As we will see below, Marion Crane's character arc is simple, she is an honest, punctual, self-confident and trustworthy secretary and has worked for ten years in Mr. Lowery's real estate office.

Oil leaseholder Mr. Cassidy is a man with plenty of power, money and full of words. Mr. Cassidy says my sweet little girl, so that he would make the secretaries there think he was referring to them. A manipulative strategy to get attention.

Mr. Cassidy thinks he is powerful, and continues the speech of how he loves his daughter who will marry and leave him, sits at Miss Crane's table, and takes a picture of his daughter to show our heroine.

It is evident that Mr. George Lowery has some profit on this deed, and some illegal profit as he is embarrassed when Mr. Tom Cassidy says that from now on he has money to install an air conditioner in the two ladies' offices.

Cassidy says his daughter is 18 years old and his daughter has never had a single day of unhappiness in her entire life. Which draws our heroine's attention to Mr. Cassidy's gaze.

The boss of the ladies is dismayed by such evasion of the client, Tom Cassidy, and calls him to go talk alone, inside the office that has air conditioning. However, the client thinks he is always right, and because he is rich he believes he can harass the secretary without any harm to himself. Thus, Tom Cassidy is the first psychotic persona introduced into the narrative. Because he is rich, he is powerful and inside his head he can do anything, because money buys everything. 

So Tom Cassidy tries to harass Marion Crane on the grounds that he can bribe unhappiness. That is, Cassidy realized that Miss Crane was upset for personal reasons, and went to harass her, to tempt her with his wealth, like a demon using snake's shoes. 

Another way of saying the same thing is “If Miss Crane is sad I can bribe her sadness! I can provide you with money and end your unhappiness!” But at what cost does this money arrive? At the cost of her dignity.

Mr. Cassidy insists on the harassment and asks Marion Crane, with the utmost bluntness, if she is unhappy. She lowers her gaze thoughtfully, not knowing what or how to respond to such an abusive person at a situation like this.

In the end the fellow secretary, Caroline, said that Mr. Cassidy was flirting with Marion Crane because he must have seen the wedding ring on Caroline's finger and not on Miss Crane's fingers. Does the fact that Marion Crane is single guarantee that any man can harass her? What we see is not a flirt, but an emotional invasion. Caused by a psychotic persona. 

When asking Crane if she is unhappy, Mr. Cassidy suggests that she should prostitute herself to him to end the unhappiness she is feeling.

We see that within the character arc, the Doppelgänger does not appear “out of nowhere”. It is caused for Mr. Cassidy attitutes, words and acts. 

Marion Crane didn't freak out overnight, her character arc is built scene by scene. We see the social elements that contributed to Miss Crane's sudden uprising. At first, she invented the headache so she could take the afternoon off, and since she's an exemplary employee, she would definitely be able to.

However, Mr. Tom Cassidy changed the situation completely and from here we are sure that the double-self, the other, the Doppelgänger or any other denomination arises.

Bringing together the factors that gave rise to the character Marie Samuels, from Los Angeles, California:

a) Unhappy and unstable relationship with her boyfriend. Both are not financially able to get married and Marion Crane is unhappy with her current situation.

b) Mr. Tom Cassidy harasses her inside the office during working hours. Mr. Tom Cassidy is old enough to father Marion Crane. Mr. Cassidy insinuates that Marion Crane must prostitute herself to him to end the unhappiness of his life.

c) Tom Cassidy shows up with USD 40,000, undeclared, irregular money that he hides from the IRS.

We know of the shift to estrangement when Marion Crane warns her boss, Mr. Lowery, that after passing the bank he will go home to rest due to a massive headache.

Caroline, his married secretary colleague, offers her an Aspirin. Marion Crane looks down on Aspirins and then says that you can't bribe your unhappiness with pills. (doppelgänger effect of Mr Cassidy over the general character of Miss Crane).

It follows that one can bribe unhappiness with money, as Mr. Cassidy had just said.

Our heroine begins to show signs of a change of character. She knows she doesn't have a headache. She knows she's lying to her boss, that she's not going to sleep at home but packing her things to go to California, where Samuel Loomis, the love of her bosom, lives.

Mr. Cassidy's illicit attitudes decisively influenced our character's duplicity. If an oil leaseholder can embezzle $40,000 from the IRS, why can't an employee steal from another thief?

We deal with this problem of criminal continuity, or that one wrong attitude leads to another, and so on. As Miss Crane gets ready to travel, not sleep as her double-self had said, we see the transformation.

That confident and self-assured girl starts to shudder when she looks at that 40 thousand dollars on the bed. By observing that without any kind of planning, she is filling her suitcase with clothes to go on a trip to California. 

She is moving from being Marion Crane of Phoenix to gradually becoming Marie Samuels of Los Angeles.

Marie Samuels is the inverted reflector of everything Marion Crane once was. Honest, trustworthy, respected... Marie Samuels is a passionate, impulsive, lying and ultimately psychotic thief.

In this scene of the room where Marie Samuels is getting ready to travel, we observe how her breath is panting, how her gaze tries to understand who this new person is who occupies the position of Marion Crane.

We see several Doppelgängers in this scene, as Marie Samuels gets dressed, we see a picture of herself as a child behind her, we see a picture of a man and a woman side by side, who are her parents and finally she goes to the dressing glass , and can't face this new character in the mirror, prefers to turn his back to the glass (Doppelgänger) and look at the lump of money inside a white envelope on the bed.

We can observe, for sure, by the time Marie Samuels starts driving, that there is someone else inside her head talking to her. The Doppelgänger reflecting on herself, now Marie Samuels begins to take charge of the character and use metathinking to infer what other people will think about this theft and how Marie Samuels should react to run away and dodge these problems.

Inside Marie Samuels' head is Sam Loomis, asking her what she's doing in California, why is she so weird? As Marie Samuels dreams of her beloved Loomis, the traffic light closes and Marion Crane's boss Mr. George Lowery crosses the street and notices her.

Here the fear of the character is very clear. He smiles at her, but at the same time remembers that she had lied to him, saying that she was going home to rest due to a headache. Her fear increases even more, as Mr. Lowery recognizes her but looks at her strangely, as if she is no longer that girl who works for ten years at the office but a legitimate stranger. Bernard Hermann's soundtrack makes even more thrilling and visible the tension caused by this fear of the other who is actually herself.

Marie Samuels is insecure, fearful, the other side, the weird side of Marion Crane. She supports her head with her hand, she bites her own finger, and is startled by a shock to have her lie exposed in the crosswalk. The head of real estate, Mr. Lowery noticed her and could see the change in character by her face and by the unconcealed lie of Marie Samuels.

Marie Samuels describes the feeling of unease when we experience something familiar suddenly turning strange.

We define the Doppelgänger as someone or something that is baffling like the self and yet completely separate from it. Marie Samuels is full of fears and paranoia while Marion Crane is sure of herself and doesn't need to lie/run/hide to live.

We notice that the Doppelgänger takes the form of mirrors and shadows in the way the main character is filmed. How she was dressed in white until the criminal act of robbing her own boss and how she dressed in a darker color when she assumed the strange identity of Marie Samuels.

Marie Samuels bites her lip, looks back suspiciously as if the boss with some magical power might follow her, or has already noticed her bad intentions.

The Doppelgänger is frightening because it is like the self and yet threateningly another self

We went from a girl dressed in weak colors to a girl dressed in strong colors. We go from a scene where she is driving during the day and we arrive at a scene where she is driving at night.

From Phoenix to California, it takes approximately 9 hours by car, on a 590 miles journey. Marie Samuels left in the afternoon and got dark on the way.

She decides to stop the car on the side of the road and get some sleep, as she hasn't found any hotels nearby. A police car stops behind our heroine's car and goes to the window of the car and wakes up Marie Samuels.

She wakes up startled and stares panicked at the police officer and tries to start the car to get out.

From here, all the insecurity and uncertainty of the character are assumed. She makes it very clear to the police officer that she is hiding something, that she is suspicious, that something is out of the ordinary.

The same attitude she takes when she decides to change her car. The salesperson, California Charlie is amazed at her haste, is amazed when he asks for USD 700 for the car exchange and she accepts without question, the salesperson is speechless when she makes the cash payment and  run out of the car store, leaving the policeman, California Charlie and the astonished car shop mechanic.

In the scene where Marie Samuels counts the 700 dollars in the bathroom, we have another dark scene, with the Doppelgänger, the looking glass facing her in the suspenseful moment in which she separates the bills to pay the salesman for the car swap.

The Doppelgänger intensifies as she drives towards Sam Loomis. Now she starts talking to herself what the policeman would have asked California Charlie. Meanwhile she bites her lip, looks at the bag on the passenger seat with the stolen money, looks at the camera, the viewer.

We know how fear leads to paranoia. And how paranoia leads to psychosis. And how a psychosis produces an even greater psychosis. Marie Samuels imagines her fellow secretary, Caroline, talking to her boss, Mr. Lowery. Her paranoia tries to configure each and every possible way out of this problem. Running away, hiding seems like a good choice.

During this meta-thought of Marie Samuels we noticed that when she imagines Tom Cassidy's reaction to the theft of his money, and that he can't do anything nice like call the police because the money wasn't declared.

Marie Samuels imagines Tom Cassidy being very angry about the theft and wanting to punish her for it. At that moment, Marie Samuels sketches a smile on her face that confirms the impulsive attitude that caused the Doppelgänger, and is also a reflection of another Doppegänger that will only happen at the end of the end with the other one: If Marie Samuels is the double-self of Marion Crane , Norman Bates is the double of Marie Samuels. When the mother's Doppelgänger smiles at the end of the film, we have the same jocular, ironic expression as the other-self.

Let's not forget that Marie Samuels left California Charlie's car shop during the day and again she finds herself lost in her meta-thoughts, of the "whats" that the other characters would be thinking of her, as she delves into the new self, Marie Samuels smiles and enters the rainy night road.

During this storm of water it was very difficult to drive. So she ends up finding the Bates Hotel, with the announcement that there are vacancies available.

Norman Bates, the double of the double (The Doppelgänger of the Doppelgänger)

We will not discuss in depth the issue of the double in the character Norman Bates and his double-self, his Mother. Our intention is to study the behavior of our heroine, Marie Samuels, during her journey of discovering the truth, which ends up happening with recognition.

Marie Samuels realizes that she is a strange person when she meets Norman Bates, because he is also strange, he is also dominated by a stronger personality: his mother.

Marion Crane is dominated by Marie Samuels, and just the recognition of an oppressive situation could make the initial self wake up to reality and let go of fantasy.

She waits for the hotel bellhop to help her with an umbrella and carry her luggage, but no one shows up. Marie Samuels decides to get out of the car and look at a mausoleum, an old and decaying house and in the upper window of the mansion passes a character that looks like a woman walking from left to right, she seems to have squinted wird eyes at Marie Samuels from up.

Marie Samuels gets back in her car, and honks a few times to see if the woman who was walking upstairs could come down and help her get into the room.

It turns out that whoever leaves the old mansion is a young man who apologizes for not having noticed her arrival because of the heavy rain. When both enter the hotel's office, the notion of the double-double becomes very clear.

At one point the images of Marie Samuels and Norman Bates are together inside the looking glass, which is near the office counter.

During the scene where Marie Samuels asks if there are vacancies, the glass is always present, always reaffirming the character's double nature.

Norman Bates explains that he has twelve cabins and twelve spaces available. There is no one staying at the hotel because the public administration has changed the route of the highway, so few customers pass through there.

Norman Bates also explains that his hotel guests only end up there because they get lost and leave the main road.

Bates offers the notebook for her to put the name and street name where she lives along with the name of the city. But she hesitated when writing the address, and Norman Bates told her that just the name of the city would suffice. Marie Samuels looks at the newspaper inside her bag and decides to write that she is from Los Angeles. Before, she enunciates aloud, while Norman Bates chooses the key to cabin 1, the cabin closest to the hotel's office.

When Norman Bates opens the cabin, or Room 1 for Marie Samuels and says it's stuffy inside, there's repeatedly the Reflector Doppelgänger, which reproduces and unfolds from one scene to the next.

There's also Norman Bates' shadow Doppelgänger, as he walks to open the window in Room 1, his shadow grows, distorts, changes shape and is clearly visible on a black and white film.

Norman Bates describes the room options and shows that he has some repression with bathrooms, as he cannot pronounce the word, only “over there”.

Who pronunciates thw word bathroom is Marie Samuels who finishes the sentence.

Norman Bates then invites Marie Samuels to have dinner with him. Bates claims that he himself was about to have dinner. Note that during this scene Marie Samuels is standing next to the looking glass. And Norman Bates in front of her with his dark shadow projected across her back.

We also observe a childish attitude in the eating behavior of Norman Bates, who politely wants to say that he doesn't have anything special for dinner, like pasta, soup, what he has to offer is just a sandwich and milk.

As Marie Samuels devises a way to hide the money inside her hotel room, wrapping the money in the newspaper she had bought at California Charlie's Car Store, she hears an older woman's voice yelling "No! I said no. !”.

The woman in this case is Norman Bates' mother. Ms. Bates says she will not allow her son to bring girls to dinner with him. That she is jealous and possessive. She won't allow cheap, vulgar romances and candlelight dinners. That young men like Miss Samuels and her son are depraved.

Bates begs his mother to stop. But Ms. Bates insists and asks what more depraved could happen after dinner. Music? Whispers? The son explains to his mother that she is just a stranger, a hotel guest, and that she is hungry and doesn't have a diner or restaurant nearby.

The mother, always denying all her son's attitudes, declares that men don't care if a woman is known or unknown to have desires for her. The mother refuses to talk about this disgusting, disgusting thing that is sex.

We have observed that Ms. Bates has a tremendous amount of an irreversible sexual block against carnal relationships and, in addition, is jealous, possessive, controlling of all her child's relationships and thoughts.

The mother makes it very clear that Marie Samuels is not going to satisfy her hunger by eating her son. Ms. Bates' threat is very real.

As Marie Samuels tries to be polite by telling Norman Bates that she got him into trouble, we notice the Doppelgänger in Bates' reflection in the wall glass next to the character.

Norman Bates explains that his mother is no longer herself these days. Marie Samuels remains polite and says he shouldn't have bothered making a sandwich and bringing her milk for dinner. She wasn't even that hungry.

Norman Bates apologizes and says he wishes he could apologize to other people, just in case, to apologize for the scandal his mother made exposing both her son and the hotel guest.

Marie Samuels then decides to consider Bates' work and decides to have dinner with him. She makes a body gesture that means an invitation for Bates to dine with her inside Cabin 1.

Another famous movie Doppelgänger occurs in this scene where Bates steps forward to enter the hotel and have dinner with Samuels, and yet takes a step back. This scene is interpreted as the nature of hir duplicity. The son wants to go in and have dinner with the interesting lady, but the mother who controls him doesn't want that. The son takes a step forward. The mother takes a step back.

Of course, at that time he was scared to death because he had invited her to eat inside the house. But since his mother is no longer herself (strange), he takes a step back, becomes crestfallen, brooding, and finally claims they'd better eat in the office. An excuse not to expose the poor lady to Ms. Bates' psychosis.

And Marie Samuels hinted, with her body movement, that it would be comfortable for her if they ate inside her room. So the step back is very meaningful because they couldn't have dinner inside Ms. Bates' house, nor inside Samuels' room, otherwise Ms. Bates would imagine disgusting things and we don't know what her weirdness can result in terms of emotional actions.

Bates claims it's not convenient to eat at the office (that the office is too officious) and invites her to eat at the reception.

Here we have a shower of Doppelgänger when turning on the light we see some stuffed birds and Marie Samuels notices the gigantic stuffed owl on the wall with its wings spread. And then a crow and its shadow.

They are small signs, small symbols of death that begin to awaken the sense of recognition in our heroine.

The reception is filled with stuffed birds. Marie Samuels with her impeccable upbringing says that Bates is very kind. He in turn says he's not hungry.

Then she picks up a piece of bread with her fork, and Bates, sitting on the opposite side of the reception room, smiles and comments that she eats like a bird.

It's a pretty remarkable comment in a room full of stuffed birds and birds. Again Bates chokes on a word, this time the word "falsehood." He tries to explain that the saying that eats like a bird is false, because birds eat a lot, or at a very high frequency.

Norman Bates says he doesn't know anything about birds, just how to stuff them. His hobby is taxidermy, the ancient Egyptian science of embalming, mummifying a dead organism.

Bates hates seeing stuffed animal faces, like foxes and chimpanzees for example. Some people even stuffed dogs and cats, but Bates doesn't appreciate that. Bates explains that birds are well stuffed because they are passive.

First he associates Marie Samuels' eating with the habits of a bird. Now he says that birds are passive, submissive to death. Therefore Marie Samuels is also passive.

Further on, Norman Bates says that stuffing birds is not a hobby. That a hobby is something that people do to pass the time, and what he does is dedicate himself fully to stuffing birds.

Marie Samuels asks if his time is so empty. Bates, leaning back in his chair, with his shadow behind him, says he runs the office, takes care of the rooms, the floors, and does errands for his mother. Here he looks away from the interlocutor and looks at the upper right corner.

Marie Samuels questions if he goes out with friends. Bates claims that a boy's best friend can only be his own mother. Bates retaliates and says that Marie Samuels must never have had a moment of emptiness in her life. With a bit of aggression in speech.

When Bates asks what she's running from, paranoia takes over. She asks why he asks this kind of thing. Bates deflects and says people never run away from anything.

Then Samuels and Bates strike up a conversation about traps. Samuels says that sometimes we fall into our own traps. Bates confesses that he was born into his trap. And that he doesn't care about it anymore. He doesn't care about his mother/trap anymore.

Bates clarifies that the source of his problems is his mother. Bates says he no longer cares about being born into a trap. Bates says he wishes he could challenge his mother, but he can't because she is sick.

Bates says she had to raise him alone after his father died. He was only five years old and imagine how difficult it must have been for Ms Bates. She didn't have to work because Mr. Bates left some money for her to raise the child, some kind of alimony or insurance.

Bates explains that a few years ago his mother met another man. This man convinced Mrs Bates to build the Bates Hotel. And that he could have convinced his mother to do anything. And when that second husband passed away, it was doubly shocking for his mother to deal with it again.

The second husband must have died in a horrible way. It was a great loss and his mother no longer had anything or anyone but her own son, replies Marie Samuels.

Bates says that a son is a poor substitute for a lover. Marie Samuels asks why he doesn't leave. And he says he needs to take care of his mother. He doesn't hate his mother. He hates what she's become over the years. He hates his mother's mental illness.

Marie Samuels suggests having his mother committed while Bates is highly offended. Bates cannot imagine his mother being committed to an institution like a clinic or asylum. Now both the words and the look and body position of Bates, leaning towards Miss Samuels, denote a high degree of aggression.

Otherwise the Doppelgänger manifests itself, this time in comparing its mother to the stuffed birds. Bates claims his mother is as harmless as one of these stuffed birds. It is inferred that if the mother is as harmless as a dead body, we can take a step forward and say that her mother is so harmless that she is dead. The same way before as Samuels eats like a bird and birds are passive. 

The mother needs to be with the child. It's not like she's a maniac or a freak. She just gets a little crazy sometimes. We all get a little crazy sometimes don't we? Bates smiles and looks at Marie Samuels.

At this moment we are sure of recognition. Bates had just been furious with Marie Samuels for suggesting that her mother be hospitalized. So he recognizes that the mother has moments of lucidity, that she only goes crazy sometimes. And that we all go crazy sometimes.

Marie Samuels meets Marion Crane at this time. Marie Samuels is discovered and purged, like a decoy, because she's gone a little crazy, but she's not that person, she's not like that, she's never been like that. In the end, Marion Crane doesn't want to be committed to an institution, or to be held against her will. Recognition of her double-self made her wake up to the risk this theft could pose to her life.

Bates asks if she's ever been crazy at times and Marie Samuels says so. That just once is more than necessary.

Carlos Henrique Barbosa - Doppelgänger