Still from Hayao Mizayaki's The Boy and the Heron This mythblast is not exactly about Hayao Miyazaki’s The Boy and the Heron , but it is inspired by the “affects” of this recent film which won the best animated feature category at last year’s Golden Globe and Academy Awards. I suspect audiences are drawn to the film because it demonstrates with uncanny precision (and imprecision!) the encounter with the dream-world (aka: underworld, aka: unconscious) through the agency of the archetype of the trickster figure. On that note, now is a good time to recall Joseph Campbell’s apt correlation between dream and myth: “Dream is the personalized myth, myth the depersonalized dream” ( The Hero[n] with a Thousand Faces, 18). To better suit the following context, allow me to restate: Dream is the expression of the personal unconscious, while myth is the expression of the collective unconscious, within which the archetypes reside. The weirdness of the dream Surely there are other, rare films that are also (literally) dreamlike. But as for the rendering of the actual experience of encountering the unconscious via the dreaming state, The Boy and the Heron is, in my opinion, unsurpassed. There are only two things I feel I need to point out to support this claim. The first is the film’s accuracy in recreating that particular kind of imagistic and narrative weirdness that we encounter in dreams—and I emphasize “weirdness” because it is of a sort that is strangely familiar (perhaps having something to do with weird ’s etymological source: fate). The second criterion is the unmistakable duplicitousness of the story’s trickster, the heron, who guides the boy (and us) down a path that begins on ordinary-enough terms, but then transforms into something very different along the way. Furthermore, the transformation (of both environment and guide) proceeds by such negligible degrees that we suddenly find ourselves, late in the game, startled and bewildered, lost deep in unconscious terrain with no real idea of how we got there. This mini-awakening, this recognition that things have sneakily transmuted without our having noticed (or even questioned) until it is blatant, is common to dream-experience. And guess who’s responsible, so to speak, for shuttling us to and fro, in and out, of these different states of consciousness and perspective, these moments of seeing, moments of blindness, and so on and so forth? That’s right, as will soon be (partially) seen, the trickster. But for now, note that these mini-awakenings or glimpses into the unconscious indicate that, for a moment, an aspect of the unconscious has been made known to the conscious due to the light, so to speak, that we’ve thrown into it. And note also that this light can penetrate only so far before it is simply stopped, as if at gates specifically designed to preserve the mysteries of the unconscious from our making a mess of them—or, more likely, to preserve us from being annihilated by them. Either way, this dynamic highlights a central aspect of the archetype (indeed, of all archetypes)—namely, that just as the exception is always inherent in the archetype, likewise there is always that part of the archetype that eludes our knowing altogether. We could call this its depth. And this is kind of a good thing, because when we find ourselves at those gates, gazing into the awesome face of the unknown, we are in that moment subsumed by the beautiful condition of being lost, and hopefully, at a loss for words or thoughts or anything, really. For at last we are capable of pure exploration and discoveries. At last the soul finds itself in the room with its preferred kind of treasure: wonder, novelty, renewal and, of course, experience (which is the soul’s chief currency—both in value and in the flow or direction [cf. “current”] of its evolution). Get your snake oil here, but maybe don’t drink it I won’t address The Boy and the Heron ’s specifics because that would flatten the experience and waste time. So instead, in signature trickster fashion I’ll just say trust me. Check out the film. You might as well, the risk is small enough, even if I am lying about the whole thing. And so it is with the trickster, whose scale of severity ranges anywhere from Curly and Mo boinking each other in the eyes to Loki engineering the destruction of an entire pantheon along with its cosmos. Regardless of scale, the trickster jars the ego into a new perspective by subjecting it to frustration, embarrassment, terror, confusion, ruin and sundry other psychologically unpalatable flavors. But the trickster may also ease the ego into new terrain through all kinds of slippery maneuverisms and sleights-of-hand. Either way, new perspectives are rendered in which, for better or worse, we are suddenly not so central or significant as we had formerly presumed, and our power of influence is indeed meagre if not entirely absent. The trickster jars the ego into a new perspective by subjecting it to frustration, embarrassment, terror, confusion, ruin and sundry other psychologically unpalatable flavors. The superlative metaphor for this absence of influence is probably death, which we find in the myth of Hades and Persephone. Here, in one fell swoop, we (and “we” are the Persephone-figure in this myth) are simply taken without any say in the matter, without any means of escape or of fighting it off and that, as they say, is that. Well, the (probably) good news is that another job of the trickster (who, of course, is a moonlighter!) is to guide souls into (and sometimes out of) the underworld. In classical terms this auxiliary role [Gk. psychopomp ] is played by Hermes. Furthermore, he is the inciter of dreams through so-to-speak taps on the unwitting heads of all sleeping things with his dual-serpentine helix caduceus staff whose history traces even farther back beyond Greece into ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. And so, this deity, like Miyazaki’s heron, is both the personification of, and the host of, the psyche’s transport to and fro between worlds which are distinguished less by physical contents and more through psychic encounters as the perspectives we inhabit within whichever particular state of consciousness we literally find ourselves. This, I think, is the great value to all the trickster’s antics. It’s just that (as with all things) it comes at a price. Thanks for reading... MythBlast authored by: Craig Deininger  has been writing for the JCF Mythblast series since 2018. He has taught at Naropa University, Studio Film School in Los Angeles and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst where he earned an MFA in poetry. He also earned an MA and PhD in Mythology and Jungian Psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute in California. He has counterbalanced his studies with manual work in fields like big ag farming, landscaping, commercial fishing, trail-building, framing houses and so on. He is grateful to have somehow made it to later life after too many outdoor misadventures in backpacking, rock climbing, hiking and, especially, trying to get too close to wildlife that doesn’t want to be gotten-too-close-to. His poetry has appeared in several literary magazines including The Iowa Review, and his first book of poetry Leaves from the World Tree was co-authored with mythologist Dennis Patrick Slattery and published by Mandorla Books. This MythBlast was inspired by Creative Mythology and the archetype of The Trickster . Latest Podcast Enuma Okoro , is a Nigerian-American author, essayist, curator and lecturer. She is a weekend columnist for The Financial Times where she writes the column, “The Art of Life,” about art, culture and how we live. And is the curator of the 2024 group exhibition, “The Flesh of the Earth,” at Hauser & Wirth gallery in Chelsea, New York. Her broader research and writing interests reflect how the intersection of the arts and critical theory, philosophy and contemplative spirituality, and ecology and non-traditional knowledge systems can speak to the human condition and interrogate how we live with ourselves and others. Her fiction and poetry are published in anthologies, and her nonfiction essays and articles have been featured in The New York Times, The Financial Times, Aeon, Vogue, The Erotic Review, The Cut, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s Bazaar, NYU Washington Review, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and more. Her Substack, "A Little Heart to Heart" is a labyrinth towards interiority, exploring the fine line between the sacred and the ordinary in our daily lives. Find it at Enuma.substack.com and learn more about Enuma at www.enumaokoro.com . In this conversation, we explore Enuma’s journey, the ways myth, art, and storytelling shape us, and how we can use them as tools to reimagine both our personal and collective realities. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The dream is a private myth, and the myth is a public dream." -- Joseph Campbell Myth and Meaning , 18 Psyche & Symbol: The Origin of Elementary Ideas (see more videos) Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Psycho © Paramount Pictures 1960. All Rights Reserved. A chilling use of shadow in Le Manoir du Diable (1896) is often credited as the first instance of a vampire and horror film. Then shadows grew teeth, claws, and distorted reality in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and Nosferatu (1922). They returned as a revolution in Eisenstein’s intellectual montage in Battleship Potemkin (1925). All the while, Hitchcock lurked in the shadows, combining these film language techniques into a masterpiece of terror. He didn’t need fangs or an army, just a boy, a toilet, and a knife behind a curtain. What makes the shower scene so terrifying is that we don’t see anything in 52 anthological cuts and 78 camera setups, but during these 45 seconds, we feel and perceive everything. The terror in Psycho doesn’t come from what we see, but from how we see it: through keyholes and from behind curtains. In Psycho , the shadow isn’t just a cinematographic choice—it’s a confession. The true genius of the Oedipal buffet of Psycho lies in the mirror it holds up. We scream at our own shadows. Psycho forces us to look at the parts of ourselves we’d rather flush away. Carl Gustav Jung claims that everyone has a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the darker and denser it is. Master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock, an archetypal trickster, in 1960 delivered the buried Id from the basement of Freud’s unconsciousness. Not as a metaphor, but literal embodiment of the monster, suppressed, neglected, and hidden in forgotten parts of the psyche, to haunt cinema and mass media brought up generations. Psycho is not just a thriller noir; it is a cinematic trapdoor of the shadow archetype, summoned from Jungian theory and sprinkled with the anxiety of Freudian repression in the most unsettling taxidermy collection of an empty Victorian house, ruled by the dead body of the Mother. Shadow mother What makes Norman Bates, the cinema’s most well-mannered monster, truly terrifying isn't just the fact that he keeps his mother's corpse in the cellar. Still, even for Hitchcock, it’s very unsettling. Norman embodies something much deeper and darker—the double agent’s secret operations of his shadow, of which the ego is not aware. Jung’s shadow archetype represents the unacknowledged parts of the ego; the wild, dark urges we dare not name, that refuse to go away. They skulk about in our dreams, our projections, and in Norman’s case, in a wig and dress in the upstairs bedroom. Mother Bates, though dead, has never felt more alive. She’s the shadow incarnate: a grotesque fusion of Norman’s guilt, fear, desire, and trauma. He has not only repressed her but has also absorbed her by splitting his ego in half, giving her a voice and a knife. His denial of Mother’s death is both symbolic and clinical. He is not merely haunted; he is the haunting. Christopher Vogler, who adapted Campbell’s monomyth for modern narratives, notes that the shadow archetype is psychosis incarnate, and Jung might argue that Bates represents the shadow’s possession of the ego. [Editor’s note: JCF will host a webinar featuring Christopher Vogler on September 13. Click here for details]. To an ego identified with the superego and persona, the shadow reeks of decay and epitomizes evil. By opening to the experiences of the shadow, an individual becomes whole, but it's a pact with the devil. Because you never know what you might find in the basement. Norman Bates wasn’t born in a vacuum; he was stitched together from the deranged psyche of one of America’s most notorious murderers: Ed Gein. Hitchcock saw in him the raw materials for a new kind of cinematic killer, the one whose shadow projects onto his Anima. Norman, played with eerie charm by Anthony Perkins, lives in a dilapidated Gothic house, perched above its basement as a metaphor for psychological repression. His mother, dead and buried in theory, yet haunting every inch of his psyche, has become his alter ego. Not symbolically. Literally. She is a shadow anima, a persona he wears, a judge and executioner lurking behind the familiarity of everyday life. Toilet and abortive hero Freud’s concept of das Unheimlich is a German term for “the familiar made frightening.” Hitchcock’s genius makes the everyday known terrifying. Psycho features the first American film scene of a toilet flushing. Judged by rating committees at the time, this was scandalous. Toilets, like shadows, are repositories for the unwanted: body and moral filth. Marion Crane, the heroine killed halfway through the film, seeks to wash away her sin in the infamous shower scene. Instead, she is butchered. The knife is a phallic metaphor, slashing through the purification of sins. What is truly disturbing is the setting of the scene. Bathrooms are private, vulnerable spaces—we’re naked, unarmed, and rinsing ourselves clean. Hitchcock doesn’t just break that boundary, he stabs right through it. Fear isn’t just felt in the mind; it’s imprinted into the nervous system. That’s why we lock the bathroom door, sing in the shower, and keep our eyes focused on the curtain, decades later, even if we live alone. Referring to Campbell’s monomyth, Marion’s path begins with promise. She is the reluctant hero who steals money from her boss, crosses the threshold by fleeing Phoenix, and enters the road of trials via rainy highways and a creepy motel. Vogler would call this a narrative subversion. Marion’s hero’s journey is aborted, leaving Norman as the inheritor of the journey. Yet his path is an inverted monomyth: instead of integration, he descends into fragmentation. Shadows don’t stay quiet; they leak, lash out, and sometimes, put on a wig and stab people in the shower. Norman never confronts the shadow; he becomes it as his chakras are blocked. Shadows don’t stay quiet; they leak, lash out, and sometimes, put on a wig and stab people in the shower The root of all evil Eastern philosophy describes chakras as energy centers along the spine; each associated with psychological states and spiritual balance. The root chakra (Muladhara) governs grounding and connection to the maternal. Norman’s root chakra is in absolute disarray. He is untethered, both physically (living alone in a liminal space of his creation) and psychically (possessed by a maternal figure). His sacral chakra, linked to desire and sexuality, is similarly corrupted. His voyeurism indicates a twisted sexual development. Viewed through a Jungian lens, Norman Bates is a man who has refused to integrate his shadow, becoming its puppet. Freud would diagnose him with psychosis and multiple personality disorder, and a Hindu sage might suggest root chakra meditation. The brilliance of Psycho lies in the layers of story and a Hitchcockian myth it creates. Like Norman’s house, it is a structure of levels: conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. And somewhere, in the creaking attic or a damp basement, our own shadows wait patiently to be seen. Did Hitchcock take one archetype to create a modern collective unconsciousness, or did he simply illuminate the curtain of our own shadows? The next time you watch Psycho , don’t just scream at the shower scene. Ask yourself: what’s hiding in your cellar that makes you terrified of things behind a curtain? MythBlast authored by: Dr. Lejla Panjeta  is a Professor of Film Studies and Visual Communication. She was a professor and guest lecturer in many international and Bosnian universities. She also directed and produced in theatre, worked in film production, and authored documentary films. She curated university exhibitions and film projects. She won awards for her artistic and academic works. She is the author and editor of books on film studies, art, and communication. Her recent publication was the bilingual illustrated encyclopedic guide – Filmbook, made for everyone from 8 to 108 years old. Her research interests are in the fields of aesthetics, propaganda, communication, visual arts, cultural and film studies, and mythology. https://independent.academia.edu/LejlaPanjeta This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Shadow. Latest Podcast In this episode we are joined by Dr. Mark Epstein - psychiatrist, author, and pioneer in integrating Buddhist psychology with Western psychotherapy. With decades of experience, Mark has transformed how we understand the mind, self, and emotional healing. His books, including Thoughts Without a Thinker, Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart, Open to Desire, The Trauma of Everyday Life, and The Zen of Therapy offer a profound synthesis of Eastern spiritual insight and Western psychological depth. Influenced by teachers like Ram Dass, Jack Kornfield, and Joseph Goldstein, Mark shows us how, psychotherapy, mindfulness, and compassion can lead to deeper self-awareness. In our conversation, we dive into Mark’s journey, how both Buddhism and Western psychology can illuminate the stories we live by. We also discuss his connection to Joseph Campbell, and how myth can serve as a powerful vehicle for self-discovery and personal growth. For more information about Mark and his work visit http://markepsteinmd.com/ Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The demon that you can swallow gives you its power, and the greater life's pain, the greater life's reply." -- Joseph Campbell Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers , 202 Hell & Transcendence See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Sherlock (2014) BBC One Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective Sherlock Holmes is designated as the most portrayed human character by the Guinness Book of Records. Jeremy Brett, who warned that Sherlock Holmes can devour an actor’s soul and leave no room for the original landlord, said that it is the most difficult role to play, and named him—You Know Who. Are the eccentric, ingenious ideas and methods of this character indications of a sick or wise man? BBC’s modern adaptation of Sherlock  (2010–2017) is one of the most compelling and innovative interpretations within the digital socio-cultural framework of the 21st century.   Benedict Cumberbatch’s Holmes is not merely a master of deduction but embodies what Carl Gustav Jung defined as the Sage archetype–an incarnation of wisdom, knowledge, and insight. What makes this portrayal particularly fascinating is how the Sage is simultaneously embraced and subverted. While Holmes possesses an undeniably brilliant mind, he is also emotionally crippled and uninterested in the everyday functioning of social conventions that include human interaction.  Prisoner of intellect  Jung’s Sage archetype represents the thirst for reasoning, truth, and illuminating the unknown. For Sherlock human intuition is nothing less than pure mathematics and logic. He muses, “ Intuitions are not to be ignored … They represent the data too fast for the conscious mind to comprehend ”  (S4E1) Sherlock’s deductive prowess and encyclopedic knowledge make him a modern Wise One. But Jung also warned that the Sage, detached from humanity, could become a prisoner of his intellect. Cumberbatch’s Sherlock embodies exactly this paradox. He is a genius who can solve any puzzle, but human connection is a conundrum for him. He lacks phronesis, what Aristotle referred to as the practical wisdom that combined with theory makes the true philosopher-king. But, for what he lacks in human interactions, he compensates with his eidetic memory, pure use of intellect, obsessive detailing, witty sarcasm, as well as zero tolerance for any stupidity or mind-slowness and his egocentric behavior.  Joseph Campbell’s concept of monomythic narrative structures is evident in Sherlock . Campbell’s Wise Mentor figure traditionally aids the hero on their quest. This Wise One guides others, while he himself is the hero. He stands at the edge of Campbell’s return with the elixir stage in possessing great knowledge but reluctant to share it meaningfully. In that sense, Holmes is, according to Northrop Frye’s archetype narrative modes, an ironic Sage. Unlike our comprehension of the traditional Sage, as Santa Claus, Merlin, Dumbledore, Gandalf or Yoda, this wise man lives on our streets and breathes the same urban smells as we all do. While traditional sages often hold a spiritual or religious authority, their modern counterparts, such as Sherlock, may derive their authority from street-smart wittiness, arrogance, and problem-solving skills.  Holmes is like a yogi immersed in the yang energy of the mountain, isolated from the world and devoted to the mystical where good and evil do not exist. The social and ethical dualities of this principle do not exist in his “mind palace.” He is detached from his emotional apparatus. This Sage is the most unrealistic of all character types, because he possesses something extraordinary and dwells in the domain of the mystical, which is inaccessible to ordinary mortals. Sherlock’s brilliance is indisputable, but his inability to grasp basic human customs, spiced with the unsurpassed British black humor, turns the Wise archetype into a source of comedy. This Holmes is not serenely detached, but emotionally complex, with blunt displays of haughtiness, egotism, and antisocial behavior. Cumberbatch’s Holmes is both a genius and a fool–enlightened and gifted in some ways, utterly clueless in others, and struggling with emotional intelligence, yet despite his deductions having it.  While Holmes possesses an undeniably brilliant mind, he is also emotionally crippled and uninterested in the everyday functioning of social conventions that include human interaction.  Emotions buried by wisdom  His famous line “ Oh, do your research! I’m not a psychopath, I’m a high-functioning sociopath” (S3E3) points to his analytical introspections and has been the kickoff to many theories on his mental state. But his actions speak much more than words. “I don’t have friends,” he says to Dr. Watson. “I only have one!” The careful development of this character makes him take a journey from a machine-like cold sage to a normal human being (although he would never admit it.) To protect those he cares about, Sherlock sacrifices himself. He throws the American double agent who harassed Mrs. Hudson several times out of the window until he was on the verge of death, with the diagnosis he established before calling an ambulance. In the end, he saves the woman who beat him and with whom he fell in a complicated mental BDSM relationship. And to protect Mary, the woman loved by his only friend, Dr. Watson, Sherlock will blow the brains out of an unarmed Magnussen, in front of the British government, because his memory keeps the evidence against her.  By the time the others catch up that he cares, he has already saved the world from true psychopaths. The Wise One must reserve from emotional entanglements to perceive the truth. Sherlock Holmes, although an irritating know-it-all, is practically a superhero in the age of dark digital crime and primordial evil, which he tries to solve and, with his deduction and sometimes illegal methods, bring to light and justice. He simply has no time for feelings; his superpower lies on the other side of the spectrum. This emotional distance is what enables him to embody the Sage archetype, as true wisdom often demands an ability to remain above sentimentality.   The Sage in the modern world  The BBC’s Sherlock  offers a fresh, witty, and ironic take on the Wise archetype. By juxtaposing Sherlock's exceptional intellectual capabilities with his social awkwardness and moral ambiguities, the series offers a more complex and nuanced portrayal than traditional representations. Its success lies in its ability to engage audiences through a relatable, flawed, yet brilliant protagonist, enriching the understanding of the Sage archetype in modern popular culture. While Holmes fits Jung’s description of the Sage in pursuing truth with relentless dedication, his wisdom is incomplete. Aristotle would argue that true wisdom requires balance, something Sherlock lacks. Campbell might suggest that he is a mentor reluctant to take his own advice, while Frye’s irony highlights the comedic contradictions of a hyper-intelligent man who can solve crimes but has no interest in human relationships.  Sherlock forces us to reconsider what it truly means to be wise: is it knowing everything, or knowing how to be human? Ultimately, he redefines the Sage archetype by enriching contemporary views on wisdom and influencing how extraordinary characters are portrayed in media today. MythBlast authored by: Dr. Lejla Panjeta  is a Professor of Film Studies and Visual Communication. She was a professor and guest lecturer in many international and Bosnian universities. She also directed and produced in theatre, worked in film production, and authored documentary films. She curated university exhibitions and film projects. She won awards for her artistic and academic works. She is the author and editor of books on film studies, art, and communication. Her recent publication was the bilingual illustrated encyclopedic guide – Filmbook , made for everyone from 8 to 108 years old. Her research interests are in the fields of aesthetics, propaganda, communication, visual arts, cultural and film studies, and mythology. https://independent.academia.edu/LejlaPanjeta This MythBlast was inspired by Goddesses: Mysteries of the Feminine Divine and the archetype of The Wise One. Latest Podcast In this episode, we welcome Maria Souza - Comparative Mythologist, poet, educator, and host of the Women and Mythology podcast on the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s MythMaker Podcast Network. Maria’s work bridges myth, ecology, and the sacred. With advanced degrees in Comparative Mythology and Ecology & Spirituality—and years working in the Brazilian Amazon with Indigenous communities—she brings a unique and powerful perspective to the relevance of myth in our lives today. Her book Wild Daughters explores feminine initiation through myth and poetry, and her workshops and mentorships help women reclaim archetypal wisdom and sovereignty through mythic storytelling.In this rich conversation with JCF’s Joanna Gardner, Maria reflects on her journey, the deep initiatory stories of the feminine, and how myth can be a living, healing force for our time. Find our more about Maria at https://www.womenandmythology.com/ Listen Here This Week's Highlights "Nevertheless, the ultimate realization, which the sages have celebrated, is that the god worshiped as though without is in reality a reflex of the same mystery as oneself. As long as an illusion of ego remains, the commensurate illusion of a separate deity also will be there; and vice versa, as long as the idea of a separate deity is cherished, an illusion of ego, related to it in love, fear, worship, exile, or atonement, will also be there. " -- Joseph Campbell The Masks of God, Vol. II: Oriental Mythology , 14 The Goddess Embodied See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

The Godfather © Paramount Pictures 1972. All Rights Reserved. What better way to explore the power of the shadow—its consequences of inflation—than in The Godfather (1972), a film consistently ranked among the greatest ever made. Given its exalted place in the canon of cultural literacy, I would be surprised to learn of someone who hasn’t seen it, but, nevertheless there are, of course, spoilers in this essay if you haven’t. The Godfather doesn’t simply entertain—it mythologizes. It allows audiences, often unconsciously, to witness the movement of archetypal energies across the screen without fully realizing what they’re seeing: epic tragedy worthy of an ancient Athenian stage. From the very first scene of Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece, we’re confronted with a stark truth: the shadow is not something to be trifled with. It is not an archetype we can summon, impress into service, and dismiss at will. The shadow is not in our employ. The movie gives us a glimpse of light in the beginning, a Sicilian wedding under a bright summer sun—people dance, music fills the air, and the Corleone family gathers in its full glory. It’s a world awash in celebration, in wealth, in the illusion of harmony. But inside the house, the shadow is already at work. Don Vito holds court in his study, granting favors in a room made dark by blood-red mahogany walls, dim lights, and drawn blinds. “I believe in America,” the undertaker Bonasera tells Don Corleone. Once, perhaps, but its promise has betrayed him. Justice has failed, blind not to class or influence, but blind to the truth. But Bonasera comes to Don Corleone, not as a loyal subject, but as a man who wants to benefit from the function of the shadow without the cost of initiation into it. Bonasera is too calculating, too disingenuous, too much of a tourist in the Shadowlands to realize that he cannot cajole or entice the shadow into his service. Bonasera didn’t offer kinship, or reverence, or respect—only a transaction. Don Corleone, embodying the old-world ethos of honor and reciprocity, rebukes him: “You never wanted my friendship … and now you come to me and say, ‘Don Corleone, give me justice.’ But you don’t ask with respect.” Before Bonasera can receive the shadow’s gift, he must undergo ritual humiliation. He must plead for friendship, kiss the Don’s hand, bow to the archetype, and accept its cost. The shadow is not a service—it’s a structure, and the archetype must be respected. One cannot express it without consequence. Bonasera, unlike the baker Vito Nazarine, who, happy in his relationship to Don Corleone and honored to supply the elaborate wedding cake, could not integrate the shadow consciously in his life and therefore wound up in service to it. the shadow is not something to be trifled with. It is not an archetype we can summon, impress into service, and dismiss at will. The shadow is not in our employ. Outside, the guests keep dancing We in the audience, like the family at the wedding, are waiting in anticipation. We feel the tension, we have an intuition that someone important enough to change schedules, delay rituals, add members to the family as if by fiat, is approaching. The most important one; the semi-prodigal son has not yet arrived. When Michael Corleone finally appears, he’s in military uniform and posture, a breast full of gleaming medals and a hero’s aura. At his side is his alabaster, all-American girlfriend—a refugee from another cultural world. We sense he is somehow removed from the rituals of the family shadow and it feels, at least for the moment, like relief. Michael, apparently, is the one who escaped the gravity of the shadow, who resisted its seductions of power, of wealth, of an inflated ego, but lived near enough to tell us exactly how ruthless and monstrous it can be. He bears witness, for those of us still bathed in light, of how dark the shadow can be; like that servant of Job, he only escaped alone to tell us. But what may never be doubted is that the light will soon fade. Shadow possession: “I’m with you now” With The Godfather , Coppola (and the novel’s author, Mario Puzo) gives us a trilogy worthy of Aeschylus or Sophocles. All the materials of tragedy are present: cruelty, loss, suffering, yes, but also—and perhaps most importantly—a questioning spirit and the desire to rise above the crushing momentum of tragedy that courses inexorably on toward a violent eruption. Don Vito is at the height of his power and influence. Politicians, judges, Hollywood studio bosses, all are powerless against his bidding. He is, as Aeschylus described Agamemnon, teleios—fulfilled, arrived at perfection—but as is the way of tragedy, this also means that Vito Corleone, indeed, his entire family, is simultaneously ripe for sacrifice. In mythic terms, Don Vito’s failed assassination by an underworld rival is more than a play for power—it’s the eruption of mimetic desire, as René Girard might say, in which rivalries escalate and violence seeks to nullify any and all competition. But it is also a botched sacrificial rite, an incomplete slaying of the king. And in myth, a failed sacrifice fails to prevent tragedy—in fact, it compounds it. The archetypal order has been disrupted. The rite is incomplete, the subsequent cost in blood and treasure will be borne by each of the five families. “Evil is unspectacular and always human,” wrote W.H. Auden , and “No one is ever spared except in dreams.” Michael’s confounding, all-too-human dream of love, evoked by compassion for his incapacitated father, opens the door to a shadow inflation—a possession by the shadow, which occurs when he kisses his hand and whispers, “I’m with you now, pop. I’m with you now.” Trying to preserve the old world, the old fallen world, trying to set it aright, Michael loses his own soul and gives himself completely to the shadow. Not only to his personal shadow, but to the collective shadow that drives his family. His subsequent murder of Sollozzo and McCluskey, the men responsible for the failed attempts on his father’s life, are often viewed as Michael’s point of no return, but that moment already occurred in his father’s hospital room. Sollozzo and McCluskey’s murders are the consecration of the shadow, the apotheosis of Michael’s shadow possession, the moment when the shadow takes complete control, and his distorted face and weeping sinuses perfectly reflect his similarly deformed soul. He has not merely avenged his father; he assassinated what remained of his former self. Initiation into a new life At the film’s end, Coppola stages a ritual of extraordinary irony. In a suitably gothic cathedral, Michael participates in the Catholic rite of baptism as godfather to his sister Connie’s baby. The priest recites solemnly: “Do you renounce Satan?” Michael responds “I do.” What plays out isn’t a baptism—it’s a sacrament of Shadow. “Do you renounce his works?” “I do renounce them.” All the while, Michael’s enemies are executed one after another. The cross-cutting is deliberate, liturgical: sacred vows in one world, murder in another. This is not hypocrisy—it’s a Napoleonic installation. Michael is not pretending to be virtuous while secretly wielding violence, he is—like his infant nephew—tragically, irrevocably, being initiated into a new life. He is no longer acting out the shadow—he has become the shadow, anointed by the blood of rivals and sanctified by the ritual sacrament. The organ reaches a crescendo, the baby cries, the murders cease. And it’s as though Michael Corleone—the bright, shining hero—never existed. All that remains is the shadow-Don receiving the final kiss of ultimate power. Aristotle believed that tragedy, through its depiction of suffering and the ultimate downfall of a hero, allowed the audience to vicariously experience intense emotions like pity and fear. Because the tragedy is vicarious and not personal, one may experience a release, a cleansing, a sense of emotional resolution the Greeks called katharsis. Joseph Campbell wrote in The Inner Reaches of Outer Space that the term referred to “a spiritual transformation brought about by participation in a rite. The mind, ‘cleansed’ of attachment to merely secular aims, desires and fears, is released to a spiritual rapture” (103). I argue that a constituent of that rapture included the acknowledgement of, and compassion for, the sublimely tragic aspects of human existence. In the words of one of my late, beloved undergraduate literature professors, “From Homer we received the foundations of Western civilization; from Aeschylus we acquired a deeper humanity.” Thanks for reading. MythBlast authored by: Bradley Olson, PhD  is an author, speaker, and a psychotherapist. He serves as the Publications Director for the Joseph Campbell Foundation and the host of JCF's flagship podcast, Pathways With Joseph Campbell. Dr. Olson holds a Ph.D. in Mythological Studies from Pacifica Graduate Institute. Dr. OIson is also a depth psychologist in private practice in Flagstaff, Arizona, where he has lived since 1995. Dr. Olson has graduate degrees in psychology from the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Olson offers mythic life coaching at What's Mything in Your Life ( bradleyolsonphd.com ) This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Shadow. Latest Podcast This bonus episode, The Origins and Functions of Myths, was recorded in 1974, though the location is uncertain. In it, Joseph Campbell explores mythology and folklore in relation to the "emergence of humankind." He emphasizes the importance of addressing these topics in this context, noting that myth is coequal with humanity and emerged alongside the human species. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The word “catharsis” (Greek katharsis; from kathairein, “to cleanse”), which in Aristotle’s usage denotes the effect of tragedy as “effecting through pity and terror a katharsis of these emotions," was a term which referred in the Greek religious vocabulary to a spiritual transformation brought about by participation in a rite. The mind, “cleansed” of attachments to merely secular aims, desires, and fears, is released to spiritual rapture." -- Joseph Campbell The Inner Reaches of Outer Space , 103 The Mythic Symbology of Release See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Valentine’s Day This month being the calendar home for Valentine’s Day, the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s MythBlast series is looking at The Lover At The Movies. The origins of Valentine’s Day are a bit murky, but they seem to reach back into the early Roman celebrations of Romulus and Remus and the fertility festival of Lupercalia observed on the ides of February, the fifteenth of February. Lupercus was an ancient Roman god worshipped by shepherds as the promoter of fertility in sheep and the protector of their flocks. Lupercalia was itself a modification of another, even older (dating back to Etruscan or Sabine cultures) springtime cleansing ritual, Februa, which lent its name to the month of the year. As Christianity was emerging in the empire, several Christian martyrs named Valentine or Valentinus were created during the first few centuries of the early church, and we don’t exactly know which one the fourteenth day in February is named for. Regardless, the modus operandi of the early Christian Church was to co-opt venerable pagan celebrations, rename them, and redefine them in Christian terms in order to make the new celebration seem familiar to pagans and facilitate a broader acceptance of Christianity. I am particularly fond of one legend that describes an imprisoned, soon to be martyred, Valentine sending a greeting of love to a young woman whom he adored. He signed the missive, “From your Valentine.” Not only is this a bittersweet story explaining the origins of the phrase, but it also discloses the distressing aspects of love—I recall Joseph Campbell remarking in A Joseph Campbell Companion that romantic love is an ordeal—aspects one would rather overlook for the contemplation of more exhilarating, affirmative, blissful aspects of love. Loving another and communicating that love is often not easy, especially if the thrilling, enthralling, novelty of love has settled into a predictable familiarity—perhaps just such an examination that Valentine’s Day affords. The Philadelphia Story It is certainly the examination that the 1940 movie The Philadelphia Story affords. I think this movie sets the standard for all romantic comedies. Its wit, its pathos, its celebration of love and, to borrow a phrase from Campbell, following one’s bliss is, I think, unrivalled in the genre. In addition, one has the pleasure of watching the unparalleled appeal of legendary actors performing at the peak of their thespian powers. The imperious Katharine Hepburn (of her cheekbones, one Hollywood wag said they were the greatest calcium deposits since the White Cliffs of Dover) overcame her reputation as box office poison. Cary Grant was his irresistible, dapper self. Jimmy Stewart won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as writer/journalist McCauley Connor, and Ruth Hussey flawlessly delivered brilliant, sparking lines of dialogue that helped the movie win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. Released in 1940, the film has its baggage, of course, sprinkled with common early-mid twentieth century themes of male privilege, masculine philandering, implied domestic violence (which the movie attempts to atone for), and Uncle Willie’s creepy lecherousness. However, despite some of these limitations, we watch Katharine Hepburn in the role of the rich, entitled heiress, Tracy Lord, transcend gender role expectations and limitations of the time and assert her own independence in matters of the heart, spirit and mind. As the movie opens, we find Tracy Lord, a wealthy, arrogant socialite, preparing to remarry. Concurrently,her ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant)—who, it’s implied, had until very recently been in rehab in Argentina—smuggles two tabloid reporters into the old Main Line Lord family mansion. It’s a harebrained idea to obtain exclusive pictures and copy of the nuptials in return for Spy magazine’s publisher killing an unflattering story about her philandering father while saving Tracy from public humiliation. As the wedding weekend unfolds, Tracy grapples with her renewed affection for Dexter, who, in overcoming his demons, has become kinder, patient, and more accepting of human frailty. He’s finally become the man that she always hoped he could be. As the weekend unfolds, she discovers Connor also has his charms and realizes that class and privilege should not dictate who one loves. Tracy recognized her unattainable standards and perfectionism stood in the way of her own individuation—her in-her-selfness, and the discovery of lasting, imperfect, human, love. As a wedding gift, Dexter gives Tracy a model of the yacht The True Love, on which they spent their honeymoon—a beautiful, sleek sailboat that she called “yar.” A yar vessel is quick, agile, easy to steer or reef the sails. In the eastern United States where this film is set, a boat is considered yar when it is well-balanced on the helm, quick, and handy. Regarding the model of The True Love , Tracy says, “My, she was yar!” “She was yar, alright,” Dexter replies. “I wasn’t, was I?” “Not very.” Tracy's dawning awareness, the inception of self-objectivity, eventually replaces an egoic self-subjectivity that, until now, always scuttled love and relationship. Tracy’s moment of revelation occurs in the middle of a Dionysian revel, her pre-wedding party: “Oh, it’s just that a lot of things I always thought were terribly important, I find now are—and the other way around, and—oh, what the dickens.” She realizes that her conventional, striving, ambitious, vain fiancé is not the man she loves. She loves Dexter, the patient, kind, clever man, who, like Eros emerging from Chaos, becomes the driving force of creation; in this case, the creation of self-hood in tandem. The two have not become one, but rather each has become, as Nietzsche put it, who one is. It's a dynamic and ongoing creative act of becoming, of actively shaping oneself through self-overcoming and embracing the uniqueness of oneself and the other. Love as a people-growing machine Rainer Maria Rilke w rote to a young poet that Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate — ?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself, to become world, to become world for himself for another’s sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things. Only in this sense, as the task of working at themselves (“to hearken and to hammer day and night”), might young people use the love that is given them. Merging and surrendering and every kind of communion is not for them (who must save and gather for a long, long time still), is the ultimate, is perhaps that for which human lives as yet scarcely suffice. Love is the inducement to individuation, to becoming who one is, and while one is engaged in that process, one finds that love brings out both the best and the worst of oneself. “The whole catastrophe,” as Zorba said. Love is the inducement to individuation, to becoming who one is But love won’t make us beautiful, it won’t make us complete, it won’t make us content with our fate, at least not on its own. That’s where the ordeal comes in. It’s not a struggle with another to mold, shape, or bend them into the person we want them to be. Instead, it’s a struggle with oneself, dealing with the shadowy selves that emerge in sometimes surprising or novel ways. The lover can be the incitation to that inner-self work. The more of it we do, the better love is. In the words of McCauley Connor, “That’s the blank, unholy surprise of it!” Thanks for reading. MythBlast authored by: Bradley Olson, Ph.D.  is an author, speaker, and a psychotherapist. He serves as the Publications Director for the Joseph Campbell Foundation and the host of JCF's flagship podcast, Pathways With Joseph Campbell . Dr. Olson holds a Ph.D. in Mythological Studies from Pacifica Graduate Institute. Dr. OIson is also a depth psychologist in private practice in Flagstaff, Arizona, where he has lived since 1995. Dr. Olson has graduate degrees in psychology from the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Olson offers mythic life coaching at What's Mything in Your Life ( bradleyolsonphd.com ) This MythBlast was inspired by Creative Mythology and the archetype of The Lover . Latest Podcast This lecture, recorded at the Esalen Institute in 1981, features Joseph Campbell delving into Jung’s concepts of the Anima and Animus, the shadow in psychology, and the role of myth in helping us navigate unexpected life challenges. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "If you go into marriage with a program, you will find that it won’t work. Successful marriage is leading innovative lives together, being open, non-programmed. It’s a free fall: how you handle each new thing as it comes along. As a drop of oil on the sea, you must float, using intellect and compassion to ride the waves." -- Joseph Campbell A Joseph Campbell Companion , 47 Psyche & Symbol (see more videos) Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

"So none of us can fly? So what, do we all just punch and shoot? I can't think of a worse group of people trying to work together." The anti-heroes' journey Sitting in the theater for a superhero film doesn't usually come with an expectation of deep psychological reflection. The beats of the genre often follow Campbell's hero's journey, albeit often with just cursory attention to the underworld experience. Thunderbolts*  (2025) shoves the trends and tropes of the genre aside and dives headfirst into the darkness of the psyche’s underworld. ( Spoiler Warning: This essay contains major plot details from Thunderbolts*) The ragtag group of anti-heroes that form the Thunderbolts is the last team anyone would expect to save the world. If the Avengers were Nick Fury’s bold vision of assembling the best and brightest for an extraordinary mission, then the Thunderbolts are the ones who didn’t make the cut—the castoffs, the rejections. The Thunderbolts * collects characters from across the Marvel Universe, most of whom were simply ancillary to the larger story in which they first appeared.   Bob and the birth of the void Initially, the most unassuming of characters, Bob (Lewis Pullman), dressed in pale pajamas, soon consumes the whole of the story and quite literally consumes the very city. Bob is a superhero named the Sentry, possibly the most powerful of all humans in this fictional world. Bob admits that he wrestles with a darkness inside. He calls the aching darkness inside of himself "the Void”—a darkness fueled by childhood trauma. Ultimately, Bob’s Void manifests as an actual dark shadow monster—his greatest foe is the darkness within himself made real.   The attic of the mind: visualizing the psyche The film’s climax is a spectacular visual exploration of the unconscious psyche and the Shadow archetype that sits deep inside, violently resistant to being dethroned. As the Void emerges, Bob withdraws psychologically. He experiences a complete dissociative retreat into his internal landscape, visualized as a multi-storied building in New York. As the Void unleashes havoc upon the real city, Bob hides out in a corner of his mind, pictured as a comfortable childhood attic setting, hoping for the storm to blow past. Bob keeps repeating his mantra, "It will be over soon,” as the monster outside rages. The portrayal of the Void in Thunderbolts*  offers a powerful dramatization of the Jungian Shadow—those repressed, denied, and disowned parts of the psyche that operate with unnerving autonomy. As C. G. Jung writes , “Closer examination of the dark characteristics—that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow—reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality” (8). The Shadow is not simply something we carry—it can carry us. Alongside Bob, Yelena (Florence Pugh) reflects this truth poignantly. Her pain constantly simmers just beneath the surface, shaped by loss, betrayal, and a lifetime of survival. She confesses, “There’s something wrong with me. An emptiness. I thought it started when my sister died, but ... now it feels like something bigger. Just a void.” Yelena’s memories reveal a long pattern of suppressing emotion and compartmentalizing trauma. She can take down supervillains yet is frozen when addressing her internal tortures. Only by plunging into Bob's manifested darkness is she empowered enough to open the doors in her internal void. Moreover, confronting her darkness then lets her guide Bob through his confrontation. Jung declares, "Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people" ( Letters , Vol. 1 , 237). The Shadow is not simply something we carry—it can carry us.   The path of integration This is the real confrontation Thunderbolts*  offers—not with an external villain, but with the inner monster, the disavowed self. Until the film’s climax, both Bob and Yelena have avoided confronting the Shadow. Avoidance will fail—again and again and again. The psyche does not forget what we choose to ignore. As Jung articulates , “Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is ... But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected” (76). The longer we attempt to exile or exorcise our darkness, the more power it accumulates, festering in the unconscious until it bursts forth—often with destructive consequences. The Shadow will not be banished. It must be confronted, integrated, and ultimately embraced as part of the wholeness of the Self. Thunderbolts*  does not claim to be a psychological case study, nor should it. This is still a superhero film, shaped by genre conventions and cinematic spectacle. It does not diagnose or prescribe. Yet what it does remarkably well is give form and texture to the internal psychic landscape. It dramatizes the Shadow not as a single antagonist, but as an ensemble—each character a fragment of repressed guilt, shame, grief, or rage.   The superpower of love Monsters have usually been defeated with violence. But this monster is different. So, Yelena gathers the Thunderbolts to do something spectacularly rare in a superhero movie—embrace Bob and demonstrate love. The Void is ultimately defeated, but not by some cosmic superpowered combat, but by a group embrace. The Void is defeated by a hug. Psychologist James Hillman challenges  us: “[T]he cure of the shadow is a problem of love. How far can our love extend to the broken and ruined parts of ourselves, the disgusting and perverse?” (242). Are we brave enough to take that superpower of love that we so often extend to others and turn it around and apply it to the dark, fractured parts inside? How powerful is that love? This exploration is very personal, and I feel compelled to ask myself if I can love the unlovable parts of me that I’ve buried deep in my void. Even attempting to ponder that question—and wrestling to give an honest answer—begins the work of healing. I must see that dark, shattered part of me as worthy of love— my love. But this is not easy. These are the parts of myself I reject. I despise them. I’m often too aware of them, their horrible breathing and snarling in the back of my mind. These are the parts I am terrified others will discover about me. Hillman continues, “Loving oneself is no easy matter just because it means loving all of oneself, including the shadow where one is inferior and socially so unacceptable. The care one gives this humiliating part is also the cure” (242). The monster of the Shadow must be confronted, embraced, and hugged tightly. Am I courageous enough to fully love all of me—not just the parts I’m proud of—but the rejected, fractured, painful, and embarrassing shards of me?   Compassion for the shadow Thunderbolts*  doesn't offer us easy answers or quick fixes. Instead, it presents us with the most difficult challenge of all: the courage to turn toward our darkness with compassion rather than condemnation. In a world that encourages us to curate only our best selves, the film's greatest gift may be its reminder that true heroism begins not with flying or super strength, but with the willingness to embrace our broken humanity. The path forward isn't through denial or destruction of these dark aspects, but through the radical act of integration. We are all imperfect beings carrying our voids. But it's precisely in acknowledging this shared brokenness that we might find our way toward something approaching wholeness—not just for ourselves, but for the world we're trying to save. We do not emerge from the Underworld of our Shadow the same. Thunderbolts*  reminds us that redemption is not the denial of darkness, but the loving embrace of it. Campbell taught us that the hero's journey always requires a descent into darkness before the return with wisdom. Thunderbolts*  reminds us that this isn't just the stuff of myth and legend. It is the most essential work of being human. The treasure we bring back from our underworld is the capacity to love all of ourselves, shadows and light alike. In the underworld, in the Shadow, we discover the rest of us there, our whole self, wailing desperately to be loved. The Void is not just Bob’s. It’s ours. The hero’s journey, now more than ever, demands not capes or shields, but compassion. For ourselves. For our shadows. Ultimately, that may be the only superpower that truly matters. Important Reminder: If you are in darkness, you are not alone. If you or someone close to you is experiencing depression, emptiness, anxiety, or thoughts of self-harm, know that these feelings are real—and there is always a path to help. Reaching out is not a sign of weakness but an act of courage and strength. In the United States:  Call or text 988  — the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. This free, confidential service is available 24/7  for anyone in emotional distress or experiencing a mental health crisis. For more resources and live chat, visit 988lifeline.org . You are not alone. Help is always within reach. MythBlast authored by: Jason D. Batt, PhD ., is a technological philosopher, mythologist, futurist, artist, and writer specializing in mythologies of space exploration. He co-founded Deep Space Predictive Research Group, Project Lodestar, and the International Society of Mythology. He has authored three novels, edited four fiction anthologies, and his short fiction and scholarly work have appeared in numerous publications. Jason currently serves as Senior Editor for the forthcoming Journal of Mythological Studies, Co-Managing Editor of the Beyond Earth Institute Space Policy Review, and Associate Editor of the Journal of Space Philosophy This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Shadow. Latest Podcast In this episode we are joined by Dr. Mark Epstein - psychiatrist, author, and pioneer in integrating Buddhist psychology with Western psychotherapy. With decades of experience, Mark has transformed how we understand the mind, self, and emotional healing. His books, including Thoughts Without a Thinker, Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart, Open to Desire, The Trauma of Everyday Life, and The Zen of Therapy offer a profound synthesis of Eastern spiritual insight and Western psychological depth. Influenced by teachers like Ram Dass, Jack Kornfield, and Joseph Goldstein, Mark shows us how, psychotherapy, mindfulness, and compassion can lead to deeper self-awareness. In our conversation, we dive into Mark’s journey, how both Buddhism and Western psychology can illuminate the stories we live by. We also discuss his connection to Joseph Campbell, and how myth can serve as a powerful vehicle for self-discovery and personal growth. For more information about Mark and his work visit http://markepsteinmd.com/ Listen Here This Week's Highlights "In the myths, the shadow is represented as the monster that has to be overcome, the dragon. It is the dark thing that comes up from the abyss and confronts you the minute you begin moving down into the unconscious. It is the thing that scares you so you don't want to go down there." -- Joseph Campbell Pathways to Bliss , 73 The Adventure of Being Alive See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Dune (2021) Warner Brothers Pictures Voyaging into the unknown The human spirit has always been defined by a profound restlessness—an innate drive to venture beyond known horizons. In 1977, this impulse manifested when humanity launched the Voyager probes into the dark expanse of space. Today, those metal emissaries have traveled farther than any human creation—Voyager 1 races at over 38,026 mph, more than 15 billion miles from Earth, carrying our collective yearning into the cosmos. As journalist Sharon Begley reflected in the August 15, 1977, Newsweek article on astronomer Carl Sagan's vision: "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known" (“Seeking Other Worlds” 53). The nature of seeking begins with "What if?" What if there were something more? Within this question lies the sacred restlessness that has propelled human discovery since our earliest days. Messages from the deep This same sacred restlessness drives the hero of Frank Herbert's Dune . The planet Arrakis orbits the star Canopus, and upon its surface, Paul Atreides carries out his own Hero's Journey, seeking his future, purpose, and identity. Denis Villeneuve's film adaptation of Dune  sets Paul (Timothy Chalamet) on a journey deep into the desert to discover his place in this new world after his father's murder. Paul's journey mirrors the internal path that all seekers must undertake—moving from the known into the great unknown. Like the Voyager probes sent into cosmic darkness, Paul ventures into his own uncharted territory, driven by the same profound human impulse to discover what lies beyond. The film opens with a disturbing vocalization subtitled as "Dreams are messages from the deep," as if we were receiving transmissions from within. If cinema is collectively dreaming, Dune  provides a truly Jungian-laden dream to explore. The Seeker archetype The Seeker archetype emerges whenever we look towards the horizon. While C.G. Jung first coined the term "archetypes" in 1919, the "Seeker" archetype was explored through Joseph Campbell and Carol S. Pearson. Campbell's concept of "The Hero's Journey" places the Seeker as the quest-taker, demonstrated throughout world myth. Pearson defined it as the embodiment of humanity's quest for authenticity and self-discovery. The Seeker is characterized by searching, seeking their place in the world, their identity, a sense of belonging, or something wonderful elsewhere. The journey identifies the Seeker—both into the unknown and into themselves. The planet Dune symbolizes the complete self: ego above (visible and thin) and the unconscious below. When his father dies, Paul utters a harsh reality: "My road leads into the desert. I can see it." Sacred restlessness: the divine discomfort that drives us At the heart of the Seeker's journey lies what we might call a "sacred restlessness"—that divine discomfort that propels us beyond comfortable boundaries. This restlessness is not a flaw to be corrected but a sacred calling to be honored. The universe is speaking through us, compelling us toward growth and transformation. Paul Atreides embodies this sacred restlessness from the film's beginning. He cannot explain why he must go to Arrakis early, except that he's dreamed it. This inexplicable pull, this holy dissatisfaction with remaining in place, becomes the catalyst for his entire journey. Sacred restlessness manifests as that persistent feeling that there must be more—more to discover, more to become, more to understand. It is the uncomfortable blessing that prevents us from settling for less than our authentic selves. In Paul's case, his dreams of Arrakis and the Fremen woman haunt him with possibilities not yet realized, with a self not yet fully formed. The collective expression: the Hero's Journey Campbell's Hero's Journey centers on the Seeker archetype, as Phil Cousineau notes in his introduction to The Hero’s Journey: Joseph Campbell on His Life and Work : "The journey of the hero is about the courage to seek the depths; the image of creative rebirth; the eternal cycle of change within us; the uncanny discovery that the seeker is the mystery which the seeker seeks to know" (xxiv). The Seeker looks for that great discovery which seems remarkable and truly wonderful. Campbell notes: "There is what I would call the hero journey, the night sea journey, the hero quest, where the individual is going to bring forth in his life something that was never beheld before" (76). The journey promises something truly new. At the heart of the Seeker's journey lies what we might call a "sacred restlessness"—that divine discomfort that propels us beyond comfortable boundaries. Blending the voices The Seeker strives to integrate all experiences into a greater understanding, melding the voices of teachers, sages, and fools into a more diverse viewpoint than when they started. Paul learns he is half Atreides and half Harkonnen—the great evil that has set his tribulations in motion. This knowledge arrives as Paul travels into his inner self, encountering ancestral memories, coalescing opposing ancestors into a singular mind. Herbert's ancestral memory parallels Jung's collective unconscious. Reflection & lessons: the courage to face the deep Paul's struggle with his nature is viscerally felt in Chalamet's performance, showing both torture and transcendence. Paul seeks safety across the barren sands but ultimately seeks his own identity. He receives glimpses of his future, some causing fear, but his drive to discover his authentic selfhood requires embracing difficult truths. The Seeker sees obstacles as opportunities. Each barrier translates into motivation—if the journey is this difficult, the goal must be equally wonderful, as Cousineau reminds us that "the journey of the hero is about the courage to seek the depths" ( The Hero’s Journey  xxiv). Hope and ruthlessness: the Seeker's paradox The song " Seven " by Sleeping at Last captures the Seeker's yearning: "Let's climb this mountain before we cross that bridge! / 'Cause I'm restless / I'm restless / I'm restless / For whatever comes next." Hope flames brightly in the Seeker's heart. There must be an answer, something to be discovered. The Seeker remains eternally optimistic, seeing potential with each step. Yet the journey also requires ruthlessness: "Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife - chopping off what's incomplete and saying: 'Now, it's complete because it's ended here'" ( Dune  169) To continue journeying, the Seeker must brutally eliminate things which slow their travel, leaving behind elements of comfort. Sacred restlessness as evolutionary force This sacred restlessness serves as an evolutionary force within the human spirit. Just as physical evolution occurs through environmental pressure, spiritual and psychological evolution happens through this divine discontent that pushes us toward greater wholeness. In Paul's journey, his sacred restlessness transforms him from privileged heir to desert wanderer to potential messiah. Each step of this transformation is precipitated not by external comfort but by the inner pressure of his restless spirit seeking completion. His dreams and visions are manifestations of this restlessness—glimpses of what might be if he honors the call. Sacred restlessness refuses the easy path, often emerging as the voice that whispers "not this" when we attempt to settle for less than our authentic becoming. This impetus constitutes both blessing and burden—uncomfortable in its persistent nudging yet sacred in its connection to our deepest potential. Swimming in strange water: finding the self "Survival is the ability to swim in strange water," says Lady Jessica in Dune , speaking to the adaptability required of seekers (350). Those strange waters, those depths often manifest physically, as Paul travels underground into the Fremen Sietches. As Campbell says, "The very cave you are afraid to enter turns out to be the source of what you are looking for" ( A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on The Art of Living  24)    Mythologically, those depths are internal—the Seeker must go where others fear to tread. For Paul, that is into "a place where no Truthsayer can see ... He will look where we cannot—into both feminine and masculine pasts" ( Dune  12). The fearful depths are those of our own nature. The Seeker discovers purpose and identity through physical journey because it forces an internal one. The discovery is ignited by the external journey because its difficulties require a descent into the soul. What the Seeker seeks is ultimately discovered waiting in the depths of their own soul. As Jung notes : "Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes” (33). Discovering ourselves  In the end, the destination of the Seeker is themselves—we truly want to know  who we are, because, as Campbell understood, “The privilege of a lifetime is being  who you are” ( Art of Living  15; emphasis added). We want to discover ourselves and hope that through the journey, we will. This eternal truth of the Seeker's journey resonates across time and space, from ancient myths to modern tales like Dune . It whispers to us at life's crossroads, when we feel that familiar restlessness in our souls. That restlessness is not to be ignored—it is the voice of the Seeker within, calling us beyond comfortable horizons. When you feel that spark, that hunger for something more, recognize it as the archetypal flame that has guided humanity's greatest explorers. The journey may demand sacrifice, requiring the "attitude of the knife" to cut away comfortable illusions. It may lead through desert wastes and underground caverns where your deepest fears reside. But remember that the desert contains hidden waters of transformation. The cave that terrifies you most likely harbors the treasure you seek. Heed the call if you feel it stirring. Step into your own myth with the knowledge that countless Seekers have walked this path before you. The journey outward is always a journey inward. And when you return—changed, integrated, more fully yourself—you become a beacon for others standing at their own thresholds, wondering whether to take that first, crucial step into the unknown. The Seeker's journey is humanity's oldest story, and it waits, always, to become yours. MythBlast authored by: Jason D. Batt, Ph.D. , is a technological philosopher, mythologist, futurist, artist, and writer specializing in mythologies of space exploration. He co-founded Deep Space Predictive Research Group, Project Lodestar, and the International Society of Mythology. He has authored three novels, edited four fiction anthologies, and his short fiction and scholarly work have appeared in numerous publications. Jason currently serves as Senior Editor for the forthcoming Journal of Mythological Studies, Co-Managing Editor of the Beyond Earth Institute Space Policy Review, and Associate Editor of the Journal of Space Philosophy. This MythBlast was inspired by Goddesses: Mysteries of the Feminine Divine and the archetype of The Seeker. Latest Podcast Francis Weller has spent his life restoring the sacred work of grief and deepening our connection to the soul. A psychotherapist, writer, and soul activist, Francis weaves together psychology, mythology, alchemy, and indigenous wisdom to show us how grief is not just personal but profoundly communal. His bestselling book, The Wild Edge of Sorrow, has guided thousands in embracing loss as a path to renewal. Through his organization, WisdomBridge, and his work with the Commonweal Cancer Help Program, Francis helps others navigate sorrow with ritual, story, and deep remembrance. In this conversation, we explore how grief can serve as an initiation into a richer, more connected life—and why reclaiming lost rituals of mourning is essential to healing both ourselves and the world. For more information about Francis, visit: https://www.francisweller.net/ Listen Here This Week's Highlights "There's nothing you can do that is more important than being fulfilled. You become a sign, a signal, transparent to transcendence; in this way, you will find, live, and become a realization of your personal myth." -- Joseph Campbell Pathways to Bliss , 108 The Great Goddess See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

American Beauty , Copyright © 1999 by DreamWorks. All Rights Reserved. The shadow is one of the many archetypes that populate our psyches. According to Jungian psychology, the shadow is frequently associated with one’s personal unconscious: everyone has a shadow, but every shadow is different , depending on its contents: The shadow is, so to say, the blind spot in your nature. It’s that which you won’t look at about yourself ... It is made up of the desires and ideas within you that you are repressing—all of the introjected id. (Joseph Campbell, Pathways to Bliss , 73) Shadow is present when we refuse to face certain things about ourselves, such as a repetitive, self-destructive behavior. The more we struggle to maintain our denial, the more life conspires to muck up the works, leaving us at the mercy of events seemingly beyond our control. Unfortunately, I don’t know what my shadow contains, as it is unconscious to my waking ego. One can't see one’s own shadow full on. We have to catch it obliquely, often through the eyes of others (easier to see someone else’s shadow than my own). Another clue comes from paying attention to what disturbs us about others. When I react to individuals or situations with disproportionate anger, that emotion is fanned by shadow projections, allowing me to hate those parts of myself without actually owning them. A valuable tool to help recognize the ways shadow impacts those living unexamined lives comes to us courtesy of the silver screen. This week’s essay highlights one film that has enhanced my own understanding. (Spoilers Ahead) One can't see one’s own shadow full on. We have to catch it obliquely, often through the eyes of others  Shadow puppet American Beauty , which swept the Academy Awards the spring of 2000, focuses on forty-two-year-old Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey), his wife Carolyn (Annette Bening), and their teenage daughter, Jane (Thora Birch). The Burnhams appear to be a comfortable middle-class family living the American dream; all however, is not what it seems. Lester, a well-paid advertising executive in a soul-deflating job, doesn’t make waves in life. His wife and daughter consider him a loser, a perception Lester does not dispute, until he falls for Angela (Mena Suvari), his daughter’s best friend on the high school cheerleading squad—a siren call that triggers a full-blown midlife crisis. Surreptitiously eavesdropping on Angela as she tells Jane she’d consider sleeping with her dad “if he built up his arms and chest,” Lester quits his job, begins lifting weights in the garage, buys the muscle car he dreamed of as a teen, applies for a low paying, low stress job at a local fast food outlet, and starts smoking marijuana he gets from the boy next door. What deepens this beyond mere farce is the creepy infatuation with his daughter’s teenage schoolmate, and Lester’s announcement, shared in a voiceover at the beginning of the film, that he will be dead in exactly one year. Shadow of doubt Lester is far from the only character pushed around by their shadow; projection also plays a part in the relationship between Jane and Angela. Jane sees herself as plain and dreary, in contrast to bright and shiny Angela, who is constantly recounting her sexual escapades. As Jung observes: It is not uncommon that friendships are formed in which one partner is the shadow of the other. (C.G. Jung, Children’s Dreams: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1936 - 1940 , 129) We do glean a huge clue to Angela’s shadow when she tells Jane “there is nothing worse in life than being ordinary”—which is why Angela is shattered the final evening of Lester’s life, when Ricky Fitts (Jane’s boyfriend and her dad’s pot connection) tells her she is “boring, and you’re totally ordinary – and you know it.” Stung by this verbalization of what she fears most, Angela flees downstairs in tears, and right into Lester’s arms. As he lowers her to the sofa, Angela seeks reassurance, asking, “You don’t think I’m ordinary?” Shadow Boxing The shadow ... swallows those things that would be dangerous for you to express. ( Pathways to Bliss, 74) While there are similarities as well as differences in how shadow manifests in Angela’s and Lester’s lives, the tightly wound next door neighbor, Colonel Fitts (Ricky’s disciplinarian father), presents a far more jarring illustration of what can come from ignoring one’s shadow. Our first clue comes early, when Fitts fumes about a gay couple in the neighborhood. As the film progresses, he spies Lester signaling Ricky to “call me,” prompting Fitts to snoop in his son’s room. There he finds and plays a video trained on the garage windows next door, which Ricky had left running when he dashed over to deliver weed to Lester during a workout. Unfortunately, the camera view is partially obscured. The audience knows Ricky has knelt to roll a joint on the bench as Lester, clad just in gym shorts, takes a toke and leans back to enjoy the high; Fitts, however, sees his teenage son kneeling and leaning forward, head obscured, as their apparently naked, middle-aged neighbor smiles in ecstasy, and so connects the dots to draw a picture that reflects his own repressed shadow. The enraged father confronts Ricky and kicks him out of the house. Later that night, when Lester sees the colonel outside in the pouring rain looking dazed, he raises the garage door and compassionately wraps his neighbor in a towel. Asked where his wife is, Lester, who had earlier caught Carolyn in a tryst, replies, “Our marriage is just for show. A commercial for how normal we are, when we’re anything but”—which Fitts takes as confirmation of his worst suspicions. Expecting confrontation, the audience is surprised when the troubled man suddenly kisses Spacey’s character full on the lips! Lester gently tells his neighbor he has the wrong idea, and the distraught colonel wanders out into the night. That rejection drives him right back into denial, with ultimately tragic consequences for our protagonist. This episode is almost a textbook example of shadow projection in the extreme: Fitts projects the contents of his shadow, and the accompanying self-loathing, outward, onto an “Other”—in this instance, Lester. Harming that Other can serve as a substitute for destroying what one most fears in oneself. So, is there no escaping Shadow’s grip? Seeing through the dark Of course, what makes anything shadow is that it’s outside the light of conscious awareness. Once I see it, it's no longer shadow, and no longer has the power to direct my behavior. Lester Burnham spends most of the film channeling adolescent fantasies that he abandoned when life forced him to grow up, which have remained frozen in his personal unconscious ever since: driving a fast car, working an undemanding job, indulging in antiauthoritarian snark, getting stoned with the neighbor kid, and, yes, even bedding the cheerleader . . . almost. The moment of truth arrives after the encounter with Fitts. Lester enters the kitchen and hears the object of his lust crying in the living room. Angela explains that she and Jane had argued because Angela thinks he’s sexy. Hearing this, Lester makes his move. ( This is cringe-inducing , intentionally so. At the start of the film, Jane looks relatively innocent and naïve next to her glamorous, seductive friend. As Jane experiences her own sexual awakening, her character starts wearing more and more makeup, while Angela wears less and less, looking ever younger and more childlike.) As Lester unbuttons Angela’s blouse, she confesses this is her first time. He thinks she’s joking, but disbelief gives way to horror as projections pop (anima, as well as shadow, though that’s a whole other MythBlast), and he finally sees her not as an object, but a vulnerable teen about to be violated by her best friend’s dad. Face to face with his own shadow, the spell is broken; what follows is the first authentic, compassionate exchange either character has experienced all film. Awareness depotentiates shadow: You are to assimilate the shadow, embrace it. You don’t have to act on it, necessarily, but you must know it and accept it. ( Pathways to Bliss , 80) Of course, this is Hollywood, so it’s all epiphany, absent the discipline and hard work necessary for true shadow integration*; nevertheless, as the final moments of his life creep up and cut short his redemptive arc, we see Lester gazing with love and affection at a photograph of Jane, Carolyn, and himself in happier times. There is far more to American Beauty , a symphony of symbolism and cinematography that still speaks to me. Rave reviews have in recent years given way to more nuanced analysis; nevertheless, the film’s poetic exploration of variations on the Jungian shadow remain relevant today. *For more on integrating archetypal images, read “Cultivating Gratitude Through the Transcendent Function” , a MythBlast essay by Craig Deininger. MythBlast authored by: Stephen Gerringer has been a Working Associate at the Joseph Campbell Foundation (JCF) since 2004. His post-college career trajectory interrupted when a major health crisis prompted a deep inward turn, Stephen “dropped out” and spent most of the next decade on the road, thumbing his away across the country on his own hero quest. Stephen did eventually “drop back in,” accepting a position teaching English and Literature in junior high school. Stephen is the author of Myth and Modern Living: A Practical Campbell Compendium, as well as editor of Myth and Meaning: Conversations on Mythology and Life, a volume compiled from little-known print and audio interviews with Joseph Campbell. This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Shadow. Latest Podcast This lecture, "Mythology - The Path (Part 1)", was recorded in 1980 at Yellow Springs, Pennsylvania. In it, Joseph Campbell discusses archetypes that guide us toward deeper inward experiences. He explores the Sanskrit word for "path," Marga, using it as a mythic metaphor for life. Drawing on Jungian psychology, Campbell expands on this theme to offer deeper insights into mythology. Host Bradley Olson introduces the lecture and provides commentary at its conclusion. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The shadow . . . swallows those things that would be dangerous for you to express." -- Joseph Campbell Pathways to Bliss , 74 Kundalini Yoga: Enlightment and Dharma See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) Orion Pictures Tricksters in myth and folktale have long charmed us with their creativity, spontaneity, and intimacy with the dynamics of chance. And yet, in tale after tale, we encounter the most  unsavory aspects of this character. Driven by appetite, tricksters lie, thieve, and act rude, crude, lewd, and completely self-centered. Not known for either empathy or self-reflection, the Trickster never seems to learn from consequences, ever blundering from one scrape to the next. Still , despite Trickster’s flawed character, we remain entranced.  One reason might be that we see a bit of the trickster in ourselves – but also, as Joseph Campbell tells Bill Moyers, because “the imagery of mythology is rendered with humor” ( The Power of Myth , 276). Trickster makes us laugh. A trickster myth The !Kung  people in the Kalahari tell a tale about Jackal out hunting one day, when he comes across Lion’s house. Jackal asks Lion’s wife where her husband is. She haughtily replies that her husband, a great leader, would have nothing to do with the likes of him. Jackal shrugs off the insult and informs Lady Lion, “Your husband is my servant.” When Lion arrives home, he gets an earful; he promises his wife he’ll teach Jackal to respect his betters and goes hunting for the rogue. Eventually, Lion finds him napping under a bush, shakes him awake, and orders the rapscallion to follow him home — but Jackal feigns blindness, telling Lion he had earlier only accidentally stumbled across his house. Impatient, Lion growls, “Well, then I’ll carry you,” and helps Jackal climb onto his back. But Jackal has hidden away hornets and bees that he releases as they near Lion’s house, which then attack his regal mount. Lion’s wife hears a ruckus, rushes outside, and sees her husband racing past, with Jackal, astride his back, lashing him with a whip and shouting, “Faster, you knave, faster!” Spying Lion’s wife, Jackal calls out, “Your husband would have nothing to do with me? And yet, you see, he is my servant!”  In indigenous cultures, the Trickster is often depicted in animal form. But it’s not unusual to find these same images surfacing in popular media today. Trickster times two The Jackal, as an icon for the Trickster, plays a central role in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels , a lighthearted 1988 comedy directed by Frank Oz. (WARNING: Here be spoilers!) Lawrence Jamieson (Michael Caine) is a suave, sophisticated Englishman living on an elegant estate in the charming French Riviera town of Beaumont-sur-Mer. With the help of the corrupt Inspector Andre, he poses as an exiled royal to swindle rich, decadent, unsophisticated tourists out of significant sums under the guise of supporting the liberation of his homeland. After a visit to his Swiss bank account, an amused Jamieson observes Freddy Benson (Steve Martin), a loud, vulgar American, scamming an attractive young woman out of a free meal. Benson later mistakes Michael Caine’s character for a dull, domesticated husband, and boasts to the older man about how he cons women out of relatively small amounts of money.  Enter the jackal The following morning, Inspector Andre informs Jamieson that an unknown American con artist, nicknamed “the Jackal,” has been fleecing tourists on the Riviera. Worried “a poacher who shoots at rabbits may scare big game away,” Jamieson arranges a phony arrest; as the only person in town whom Freddy knows, Jamieson “persuades” Inspector Andre to release him, and puts Freddy on a plane back to the U.S. Things take a turn during the flight when another passenger lets slip that she, too, knows “the prince.” Realizing he has been outwitted, the brash young American shows up at Jamieson’s estate begging to be tutored. There follows a series of playful, amusing vignettes. Freddy, however, chafing under Jamieson’s discipline, eventually decides to strike out on his own. As there’s not enough room for both to work Beaumont-sur-Mer, they strike a wager: the first to extract $50,000 from an agreed-upon dupe wins, with the loser leaving town. Their target? The just arrived U.S. soap queen, Janet Colgate (Glenne Headley), a young, well-dressed, doe-eyed heiress from the Midwest. Freddy poses as a disabled Naval officer; he confides to Janet that he can only be cured by Dr. Emil Schaffhausen, who charges $50,000. Jamieson then convinces Janet, who is developing feelings for Freddy, that he  is the renowned psychiatrist and agrees to take the case – on the condition she pay the fee directly to him. So begins a delicate dance. As neither can expose his rival without dropping his own mask, each takes turns turning the tables on the other; this results in much frustration for the protagonists, and much merriment for the filmgoer – until Jamieson learns the innocent and naïve Janet is no heiress, but rather the winner of a soap company contest. He tries to call off the bet, but Freddy insists they instead make Janet the prize: if Freddy can seduce her, he wins. Hilarious hijinks ensue. Jamieson eventually learns a “cured” Freddy has spent the night with Janet. Prepared to accept his loss to the Jackal, he is surprised when Janet appears in tears; after a night of passion, Freddy has disappeared, along with her jewelry, the cash prize, and more. No spoilers as to how the situation is resolved: suffice to say there remain laughs and a reveal or two to come. Trickster motifs in play  The debt the film owes to Trickster symbolism is clear, reflected in one of Inspector Andre’s observations: “Perhaps the Jackal realizes he is no match for the Lion.” The mythic Trickster is associated with gambling, so it’s no surprise the major cons in this film all begin at the roulette table, or that the ultimate outcome rides on a wager. Double the tricksters allows for a wider range of trickster traits. While Lawrence Jamieson embodies the charm and noble carriage associated with trickster figures in the myths of later cultures, Freddy Benson channels many of the baser qualities exhibited by tricksters in pre-literate traditions: greed, an obsession with sex, and, when posing as Ruprecht (the younger brother of Jamieson’s prince), the crude, scatological humor common to Coyote and others. Much like the traditional figures of Raven and Coyote in Native American myths, Freddy gives no thought to the consequences of his misbehavior, which explains much of his success. Compassion, after all, is the Trickster’s kryptonite: once Jamieson sees Janet not as an “Other” (one of a series of silly, superficial, interchangeable, and undeservedly wealthy women), but a “Thou” (an individual and authentic human being), he loses his edge. The trickster within In his essay, “On the Psychology of the Trickster Figure,” in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious , Carl Jung declares, “All mythical figures correspond to inner psychic experiences and originally sprang from them” (256). The Trickster mirrors shadow qualities; Jung, nevertheless, stresses this figure is by no means the face of evil.  Meeting the Trickster, whether in myths or at the movies, reveals something about ourselves. We laugh at the characters in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels  because those same tendencies, however exaggerated, resonate with our own experience. We can see the consequences of such behavior on the screen, even if we haven’t always been cognizant of these energies as they play out in our own lives. The greater that awareness, the less power we cede these otherwise unconscious aspects of the psyche.  The Trickster mirrors shadow qualities; Jung, nevertheless, stresses this figure is by no means the face of evil.  But these figures also mirror positive shadow traits. Like their mythical counterparts, Lawrence Jamieson and Freddy Benson are inventive, playful, persistent, optimistic, and resilient in the face of the unexpected. As my colleague, Joanna Gardner , points out, these same qualities are essential to the creative process: Trickster can return to us our inner flame, the sparks that sometimes sputter out along the way, the embers of personal creativity and world-making. (Joanna Gardner, Ph.D., “In the Company of Coyote,” The Practice of Enchantment ) Of course, the primary objective of this film is to entertain and make us laugh. I doubt viewers experience any life-changing illumination as the credits roll . . . apart from the insight that one should never, ever, underestimate the Jackal. MythBlast authored by: Stephen Gerringer has been a Working Associate at the Joseph Campbell Foundation (JCF) since 2004. His post-college career trajectory interrupted when a major health crisis prompted a deep inward turn, Stephen “dropped out” and spent most of the next decade on the road, thumbing his away across the country on his own hero quest. Stephen did eventually “drop back in,” accepting a position teaching English and Literature in junior high school. Stephen is the author of Myth and Modern Living: A Practical Campbell Compendium , as well as editor of Myth and Meaning: Conversations on Mythology and Life , a volume compiled from little-known print and audio interviews with Joseph Campbell. This MythBlast was inspired by Creative Mythology and the archetype of The Trickster . Latest Podcast Enuma Okoro , is a Nigerian-American author, essayist, curator and lecturer. She is a weekend columnist for The Financial Times where she writes the column, “The Art of Life,” about art, culture and how we live. And is the curator of the 2024 group exhibition, “The Flesh of the Earth,” at Hauser & Wirth gallery in Chelsea, New York. Her broader research and writing interests reflect how the intersection of the arts and critical theory, philosophy and contemplative spirituality, and ecology and non-traditional knowledge systems can speak to the human condition and interrogate how we live with ourselves and others. Her fiction and poetry are published in anthologies, and her nonfiction essays and articles have been featured in The New York Times, The Financial Times, Aeon, Vogue, The Erotic Review, The Cut, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s Bazaar, NYU Washington Review, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and more. Her Substack, "A Little Heart to Heart" is a labyrinth towards interiority, exploring the fine line between the sacred and the ordinary in our daily lives. Find it at Enuma.substack.com and learn more about Enuma at www.enumaokoro.com . In this conversation, we explore Enuma’s journey, the ways myth, art, and storytelling shape us, and how we can use them as tools to reimagine both our personal and collective realities. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The trickster hero represents all these possibilities of life that your mind hasn’t decided it wants to deal with. The mind structures a lifestyle, and the fool or trickster represents another whole range of possibilities." -- Joseph Campbell An Open Life: Joseph Campbell in Conversation with Michael Toms , 39 The Mythic Symbology of Release Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Collateral (2004) Dreamworks Pictures and Paramount Pictures By shadow I mean the “negative” side of the personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide, together with the insufficiently developed functions and the contents of the personal unconscious  Carl Jung, Footnote #5, Two Essays on Analytic Psychology Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow Knows. Radio serial, 1931 Is it just me, or does any movie set in Los Angeles at dusk necessarily trigger profound mythological associations? We are in fertile and vibrant transpersonal psychic territory from the first FADE IN of Michael Mann’s Collateral  with actors Jamie Foxx, Tom Cruise, and Jada Pinkett Smith as Cab driver Max, his homicidal hit man passenger, Vincent, and a high-end public defender, Annie Farrell. Full disclosure. This is not a movie review. I don’t care if you liked it or if you hated it. Our task this month is to identify the presence of an archetype, The Shadow, as it manifests in cinema. I’ve chosen this 2004 crime drama in which a cab driver and a hit man are brought together for one night in which five homicides will take place on the mean streets of the city of angels. Five murders break down into five acts, a strange format but very Shakespearean, if you think about it. Why do you think they call it “noir,” anyway? Max is a modern Osiris, a dead man in his barque, the corpse forever in motion in the streets of Los Angeles, his dead dreams of a limousine service briefly fanned into flames by the attractive district attorney in his back seat, her Isis to his Osiris. People are always leaving little bits and pieces of their fractured lives in his hack for hire. Some passengers talk, whining about those fatal lapses from which they have never recovered, that stock deal gone south, that mistress who decided to spill the beans, thus destroying a whole family. Others weep. Max hears it all as he conveys his lost souls from places they shouldn’t have been to places they don’t need to be. And then there’s Annie. Max can read her like a book. Gotta be a lawyer by the looks of the suit and the briefcase. She likes Max but has more important things to do than explore human relationships. Her job is simply to take the worst of society and remove them from civic life, to throw them into that vast network of hidden humanity, our prison system, where the shadow of our culture sleeps in the cages required to restrain them. Tonight, Max will encounter his own shadow, menacing and confident in a relationship of parts to the whole which Campbell describes in Pathways to Bliss : The shadow is, so to say, the blind spot in your nature. It’s that which you won’t look at about yourself. This is the counterpart exactly of the Freudian unconscious, the repressed recollections as well as the repressed potentialities in you … It is made up of the desires and ideas within you that you are repressing—all of the introjected id … In the myths, the shadow is represented as the monster that has to be overcome, the dragon. It is the dark thing that comes up from the abyss and confronts you the minute you begin moving down into the unconscious. It is the thing that scares you so that you don’t want to go down there. It knocks from below. (73) The ultimate back seat driver Tom Cruise as Vincent is the only character in the picture to be denied a last name. He is a hollowed-out man, man minus morals, light on his toes because he carries no ethical qualms like the rest of us. And he is everything that his driver, Max, must become if he is ever to move his dream of a company called “Island Limos” to more than a little photo of a tropical paradise behind his cab’s sun visor. The relationship between driver and passenger is always transactional. Charon accepted a single obol back in the archaic era, though by Aristophanes’ time it had risen to two obols due to Athenian wartime inflation.   Knowledge, too, is exchanged, as many of us have experienced from life in the ride-share era where we are tempted to divulge everything to some dude we will never see again, precisely because we will never see him again. Since I tend to be older than most of my Uber drivers, I am often asked my opinion on a variety of subjects about which I know nothing but try my best. It was, after all, knowledge of the universe that Arjuna’s charioteer imparted to his mortal employer. The driver, of course, turned out to be one of the chief deities of the cosmos, Krishna. Vincent, like Krishna, accepts the inevitability of violence and mocks his driver for his refusal to engage the world at the level of warfare. He asks Max how long he has been planning to launch his own company. Max says, “Twelve years.” Vincent scoffs. He lectures the driver on the need to be reactive and proactive in life: “Adapt. Darwin. I Ching.”  Of course, the Shadow is a know-it-all. “The ego is being reminded that it knows nothing about the psyche in its totality. The part cannot express the whole” ( Ego and Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function of the Psyche , Edinger, 90). The Shadow always has knowledge superior to the ego. This is beautifully evoked by the dialogue between driver and his fare conducted through the narrow aspect ratio of the rear-view mirror. It is literally a moment of reflection for the driver, a driver ironically stalled in his life’s pursuits. And the man in the back seat, in terms both pitiless and practical, lays out Max’s alternate future, consistent with Campbell’s assessment that the “shadow is you as you might have been; it is that aspect of you which might have been if you had allowed yourself to fulfill your unacceptable potential” ( Pathways , 73).  The Shadow always has knowledge superior to the ego. The bewildering interplay between good and evil Max’s descent into the Los Angeles’ cartel-influenced underworld precipitates the disintegration of his persona as he merges with the Shadow. At the point of a gun, Max is told that he must literally assume the role of “Vincent” serving as a decoy for the actual assassin. It is a stunning character reversal, the humble cabbie telling hardened killers to back off before they get hurt. You can tell Max has waited a lifetime to say that.  The sequence recalls what Jung called “the bewildering interplay of good and evil” (from “The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairy Tales,” The Essential Jung , 127). [Faust] awakened in me the problem of opposites, of good and evil, of mind and matter, of light and darkness. Faust, the inept, purblind philosopher, encounters the dark side of his being, his sinister shadow, Mephistopheles, who in spite of his negating disposition represents the true spirit of life as against the arid scholar who hovers on the brink of suicide. ( Memories, Dreams, Reflections , 235) Ultimately, the Shadow must emerge. Despite our tendency to deflect its influence and to project its face onto others, to dodge the worst of its behavioral excesses, to match the expectations of society, to keep one’s head down, the Shadow will find us, will erupt when we think it is under our control, will get in the back seat of our car and tell us there’s a turn up ahead.  MythBlast authored by: John Bonaduce, PhD , a seasoned writer for Norman Lear and for most of the major Hollywood studios (Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros, et al.) developed a profound interest in story structure beyond the commercial objectives of the industry. His exploration led him to conclude that much of what we call myth derives from a biological origin. This insight inspired his pursuit of deeper relationships between biology and narrative through his theory of Mythobiogenesis, which he explored in his dissertation at Pacifica Graduate Institute and was recognized as a “discovery” in the field of prenatal psychology by Dr. Thomas Verny. John was recently appointed to the editorial board of the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (JOPPPAH) where he advocates for an unrecognized level of human consciousness which exists at the border of biology and mythology. As a featured writer for the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s MythBlast, he passionately showcases Joseph Campbell’s enduring relevance to a modern audience. This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Shadow. Latest Podcast In this episode of The Podcast With a Thousand Faces, we’re joined by Maureen Murdock - author, psychotherapist, educator, and a groundbreaking voice in the world of myth and memoir. Maureen is best known for her influential book The Heroine’s Journey: Woman’s Quest for Wholeness, written in response to Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Maureen had a personal and professional relationship with Campbell and it was through their dialogue that her vision of the feminine mythic path began to take shape. Her newest work, Mythmaking: Self-Discovery and the Timeless Art of Memoir, invites us to explore how our personal stories echo ancient archetypes and how writing can become a transformative act of reclaiming the self. In this conversation with host John Bucher, we explore the evolution of the heroine’s journey, Maureen’s reflections on Campbell’s legacy, and how myth and memoir together can help us find meaning in the chaos of change. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "The shadow . . . is that aspect of yourself that your ego doesn't know about, which you bury because it doesn't fit how you perceive yourself to be." -- Joseph Campbell Pathways to Bliss , 74 Slaying The Dragon See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Ex Machina  (2015) A24, Universal Pictures I have seldom met a mythologist who didn’t have a well-rehearsed elevator pitch on the nature of Jungian archetypes. Here’s mine. It’s like a box of chocolates, See’s in particular. Once the classic Milk Butterchews, Salted Caramel, and California Brittle are gone, what’s left? Just a little sheet of molded plastic with indentations for each famous treat, tiny coffers of sweet possibility. These represent for me the Platonic ideals, Bastian’s elementary ideas, and Jung’s archetypes. Sure, you can fiddle with the recipe, vary the sugar content, add more or less sprinkles on top, perhaps tweak the cinnamon or hold up on the corn syrup, but the perduring forms remain unvaried for all eternity. To review, the nature of the archetypes is like a box of chocolates. And the flavor of the month is the Seeker. As a writer, I have learned to love the Seeker as a driver of story. Want a writing tip for free? I got this from my father, also a writer. He said, though in different terminology, make the Seeker your star, and watch who else shows up. That’s the secret to this archetype. Gods and archetypes, as James Hillman loved to point out, never show up alone but in groups and, when the occasion arises, assemble the pantheon from which they rule the universe. The seeker is an unconscious curator of other archetypes. Usually uninteresting in themselves (with exceptions), Seekers are natural born pilgrims lapping the miles, often heedless of where the road is taking them. There is often an emptiness in Seekers, and so they look for fulfilment and identity in others. Thus, Parsifal finds his roundtable, Dorothy her three-man posse of misfits, Ishmael his doomed crewmates, and Luke Skywalker his phalanx of sages and warriors some of whom are character archetypes without benefit of being human (R2-D2 comes to mind). The Seeker is the writer’s friend and leads us to the whole box of chocolates. Silicon Valhalla The protagonist of Alex Garland’s film Ex Machina is a “hero” in the literary tradition of Melville’s Ishmael—he is our eyes and ears to a world from which we would be otherwise excluded. His function in life—and in literature—is to be a tabula rasa, an analytic blank to be filled in with all sorts of impressions from much more fascinating, complicated, intimidating characters, all of them with a legit claim to archetype status (which, in Moby Dick , include Ishmael as The Seeker, Ahab, as both Seeker and Leader, Queequeg the Wise Man, the Pequod itself as Death, and Moby—the Destroyer). Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson), the Ishmael of Ex Machina , is on a professional journey. He has made the same vocational choice as many young people these days, to go to Silicon Valley where he will eventually be recognized as a talented software developer in his own right. It would appear at the outset of the picture that his efforts have paid off. He has won an in-house contest entitling him to a fabulous week at the private home of the company founder, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), who is seldom seen beyond the remote mountain retreat where his ethically questionable experiments in human consciousness take place. As Caleb looks out from his helicopter window to the endless acres of snow-flocked conifers below, he asks how long it will take to get to Nathan Bateman’s estate. “We’ve been flying over his estate for the last two hours,” grins the pilot. We are in the abode of the gods. Men seeking archetypes Recall, in my take on the Seeker, he or she is a node of generativity more than a person. Bland in his own right, Caleb Smith conjures about him a polymorphic display of personality types, each driving the story by virtue of a unique subplot. The Threshold Guardian is the helicopter pilot, easily recognizable as a contemporary iteration of big-shouldered Charon. The implacable oarsman ferrying souls to the underworld never appeared more benign. Caleb treads dangerous ground in approaching the Creator, his employer Nathan, because like all relationships of unequal power, it is a dangerous liaison. I recognize the outline of a Zeus/Semele dynamic, which must end badly. Recall, Semele was burnt to a cinder because her mortal eyes were overwhelmed by proximity to unfiltered divinity. Nathan may see himself as God, but he is really a sort of Ahab for the ones-and-zeros crowd, perhaps not unlike a lot of us who occasionally see ourselves as masters of the universe. And then there is Ava. I must assume it’s a nickname, short for Avatar (which in Sanskrit means “descent,” as in the descent of a deity incarnated among mortals), identifying her as that most exalted of archetypes, the Goddess. Ava is graceful, inquisitive, physically powerful and beautiful. She is also a machine, the eponymous machina of the film’s title, designed by Nathan to embody all that a man might perceive as “feminine.” What unites the trio of archetypes–Seeker, Creator, Goddess–is in itself a quest, the Anima Quest, perhaps the most famous motivational force undergirding the spiritus mundi . The seeker is an unconscious curator of other archetypes.  Designing women The first woman ever designed by men was Eve; known for having sold us out as a species, she was, like Ava in Garland’s cult masterpiece, supposed to be an ideal companion. Though it did not work out well—for anybody—men have been designing women ever since: Daedalus, the sculptor of Pygmalion, or his 20th-century iteration, Professor Henry Higgins in George Bernard Shaw’s 1910 theatrical hit, Pygmalion , reprised decades later as My Fair Lady ; Dr. Niander Wallace, the sociopath CEO of Wallace Industries in Blade Runner , whose female automata has learned a new trick—it can sexually reproduce; Victor Frankenstein, whose female monster never really made it out of Beta. Anyway, the result of these experiments is usually disappointing, because the one ingredient the designers hold back is the one women seem to want the most. Autonomy. And then there’s Homer. I’ll start this singing with That grand goddess, Bright-eyes, So shrewd, Her heart inexorable, As virgin, redoubtable, Protectress of cities, Powerful, Tritogene, Whom shrewd Zeus himself Produced out of his sacred head… The Homeric Hymns trans. Boer 137-38 The “Birth of Athena” is an obstetrical nightmare. Is it really about a female archetype? Put another way, has Athena ever really been an adequate symbol of female actualization? She certainly meets Campbell’s criteria for the Goddess in that she is transformative of the male. Boy to Man, Man to Warrior, Warrior to Hero. Ava transforms Caleb into the Lover and the Big Boss; Nathan, into a corpse. But isn’t the whole yarn really about the guy with the splitting headache, the guy trying to even imagine how a fully actualized female human psyche might appear? Recall, Zeus turned Athena’s mother (Metis) into a fly, swallowed her whole so that she could not bear the male child destined to overthrow him. Guess what? The fly is pregnant. And therefore, in a sense, so is Zeus. My own read on the “birth of Athena” from her father’s head has always been that it is a composite image meant to register the fragility of the male psyche in its contemplation of woman as equal. How relevant. Is not the fragility of the male psyche on full display in our national failure (twice) to elect a woman president? For some men, even to imagine a woman of equal or greater influence is painful, sort of like having your skull split open by an axe. Ava is Nathan’s baby, born from the womb of his mind. She may or may not be a fully conscious entity capable of self-awareness. She is, shall we say, unburdened by notions of binary reality, the kind that draws distinctions between self-defense and, well, murder. But, not counting her homicidal tendencies, she is certainly attractive. After all, as Jane Harrison points out, "All men, in virtue of their humanity, are image-makers, but in some the image is clear and vivid, in others dull, lifeless, wavering. The Greeks were the supreme ikonists, the greatest image-makers the world has ever seen, and, therefore, their mythology lives on to-day” ( Myths of Greece and Rome 11). Thanks to our wide-eyed Seeker, we have realized there is a new shape in the chocolate box. A new female archetype yearns to be born and threatens to be a transitional stage between human and machine. Her attributes shall be many, but surely among them is the ability to decapitate a Trojan with one hand while making decorative orange slices with the other. MythBlast authored by: John Bonaduce, PhD , a seasoned writer for Norman Lear and for most of the major Hollywood studios (Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros, et al.) developed a profound interest in story structure beyond the commercial objectives of the industry. His exploration led him to conclude that much of what we call myth derives from a biological origin. This insight inspired his pursuit of deeper relationships between biology and narrative through his theory of Mythobiogenesis, which he explored in his dissertation at Pacifica Graduate Institute and was recognized as a “discovery” in the field of prenatal psychology by Dr. Thomas Verny. John was recently appointed to the editorial board of the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (JOPPPAH) where he advocates for an unrecognized level of human consciousness which exists at the border of biology and mythology. As a featured writer for the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s MythBlast, he passionately showcases Joseph Campbell’s enduring relevance to a modern audience. This MythBlast was inspired by Goddesses: Mysteries of the Feminine Divine and the archetype of The Seeker. Latest Podcast Francis Weller has spent his life restoring the sacred work of grief and deepening our connection to the soul. A psychotherapist, writer, and soul activist, Francis weaves together psychology, mythology, alchemy, and indigenous wisdom to show us how grief is not just personal but profoundly communal. His bestselling book, The Wild Edge of Sorrow, has guided thousands in embracing loss as a path to renewal. Through his organization, WisdomBridge, and his work with the Commonweal Cancer Help Program, Francis helps others navigate sorrow with ritual, story, and deep remembrance. In this conversation, we explore how grief can serve as an initiation into a richer, more connected life—and why reclaiming lost rituals of mourning is essential to healing both ourselves and the world. For more information about Francis, visit: https://www.francisweller.net/ Listen Here This Week's Highlights "As I see it, the quest of Odysseus is to return home, decently, to Penelope, his wife—not to a blonde, not to someone who is the victim and the booty of war, but to his wife. A wife is someone with whom one is in counterplay as the other side of the mystery of the androgyne, and so Odysseus has to be debriefed from his warrior attitude, where there is no idea of dialogue between the male and female powers." -- Joseph Campbell Goddesses , 160 The Ego and the Tao See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter

Elizabeth (1998) Gramercy Pictures There are films that depict history, and there are films that distill it into myth. Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth  (1998) is one such mythic work, not because it meticulously tracks the political maneuvers of the Tudor court, but because it translates the life of Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) into a sacred rite of passage. The film therefore moves beyond biography and becomes the chronicle of a soul initiation.   At the story’s center is Cate Blanchett’s luminous embodiment of a woman who ceases to be mortal and evolves into something else entirely: a vessel, a vision, an archetype, a mythic sovereign. Here Elizabeth is not merely a political figure–her psyche undergoes a profound metamorphosis and her body is the alchemical crucible. In the film we observe her no longer belonging to herself during her reign, but belonging to history, and to the symbolism of iconography. Elizabeth develops into a representative interface between the divine feminine and the temporal world, the spirit and the sovereign state. And in Blanchett’s hands, we experience the queen as no mere ruler. Instead she transforms into a living mythos. There is something so otherworldly about Blanchett’s performance. Director Kapur remembers , “The moment I saw her, I knew I had found my perfect Elizabeth.” Her performance exists in a liminal space outside of time because she doesn’t simply act as Elizabeth; she becomes a conduit for her spiritual majesty to be felt. Then, now, and for the future.  The maiden and the threshold  In the film’s opening sequences, Elizabeth Tudor is not yet the triumphant Virgin Queen that we recognize from the iconic Armada portrait commemorating the English victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588. However, we do get to view her as a vivacious, instinctual, tender, young woman of the court. She is the archetypal maiden: free-spirited, intuitive and impulsive, but until now, unformed as a sovereign being. She dances barefoot in the garden, kisses her lover in secret, and challenges her advisors with youthful defiance.  The film makes no attempt to rush Elizabeth’s coronation because political authority alone fails to define her form of queenship to the throne. Instead what unfolds is the slow shedding of the personal self through many years of hardships and challenges. These start with Elizabeth being only two years and eight months old when her mother, Anne Boleyn, is beheaded, and continue with her being announced illegitimate by her father, King Henry VIII. She is then held under house arrest, and further obstacles include: being imprisoned in the Tower of London, reconciling her gender and the jurisdiction of her rule, getting constantly attacked by religious factions, being excommunicated by Pope Pius V, constantly undermined and betrayed by courtly rivals, and manipulated and deceived by the man she loves.  The alchemy of the self Blanchett’s Elizabeth is far more than a character growing in confidence; she is an expanding presence who is being forged in the fire of the tempestuous politics and courtly dramas of her time. She is the maiden crossing into her queenhood, Psyche navigating betrayal, Inanna descending into the underworld, and Artemis (equated with the Roman goddess Diana) severing ties to love in service of a greater destiny.  The betrayal by Lord Robert Dudley–the man she trusted, desired, and nearly married–is not just a personal heartbreak; it is the figurative death of any possibility for a private life. When she discovers his marriage, her maidenhood fractures, and in the ruins of that fracture, the latent, archetypal queen awakens. Elizabeth isolates herself in her chambers with her ladies-in-waiting to craft her now immortalized image: the public persona of a chaste, unmarried, divinely appointed, Protestant monarch. Her declaration of the words “I have become a virgin” mark this climactic transfiguration not by chastity, but by consecration. This virginity is not of the body; it is of the soul, and of the spirit. While she is untouched by men, she is now untouchable by earthly life too. She has channeled the personal to be in service of the mythic. Blanchett moves differently in these final scenes. As the Virgin Queen she no longer walks; she glides. Her voice lowers and drops into stillness. Her gaze steadies and no more flickers with doubt. Her body becomes a monument and a defiant emblem of sacrifice and virtue. She is not playing the queen. She is  the queen, who now also looks like the Virgin Mary–an enlightened being–firm in her righteous place of purity and absolute power. This holy pattern descends, penetrates and inhabits her, and she crosses the threshold from flesh to symbol. The sacred marriage When Elizabeth emerges reborn as an icon of divinity, her stark face is covered in deadly makeup: Venetian ceruse (also known as ‘spirits of Saturn’)–a poisonous, white, lead-based makeup to present a mask of youth and to hide the scarring from smallpox–pupils dilated with belladonna eye drops to appear more attractive, and on her lips cinnabar-based vermilion–a toxic mineral containing mercury–believed to ward off evil spirits. Her jewel-encrusted, flame-red wig crowns her head like a halo. “Observe, Lord Burghley, I am married ... to England,” she proclaims. She has chosen the transcendent over the mortal, for the queen is not merely Elizabeth; she is now England itself. This was a brilliant political maneuver, but more than that, it was a sacrosanct vow. By renouncing personal marriage, she wed herself to her country and the symbolic role of the Queen of Heaven, who is full of grace and the mother of her people. And by appropriating Marian imagery and attributes in her portraits (iconoclasm forbade sacred images), Elizabeth superseded the Virgin Mary’s image with her own. She has chosen the transcendent over the mortal, for the queen is not merely Elizabeth; she is now England itself. The mythic sovereign “I have rid England of her enemies,” Elizabeth whispers with quiet desolation. “What do I do now? Am I to be made of stone? Must I be touched by nothing?” This is the sacrifice of wearing the Crown, because the monarch does not merely rule, she must also contain–contain the tension of the many opposites within the collective psyche and all the associated chaos and turmoil–without herself ever coming undone. Hers is no longer a life lived for self-expression, but for the stewardship of both celestial and material realms.  Elizabeth becomes, quite literally, the body politic. Her body is not hers because it is the insignia of an incarnate ideal. In the ancient world, a sovereign ruler was not considered a mere administrator, but rather, the axis mundi: the living center of the state’s health, vitality, and divine favor. So Queen Elizabeth I is not simply a woman in power and a great patron of the arts (William Shakespeare’s most productive period coincided with the Elizabethan era); she is simultaneously an eternal representation of the sacred as England’s Grail-bearer, priestess and protector.  Beyond the mask Joseph Campbell wrote that “to become – in Jung’s terms – individuated, to live as a released individual, one has to know how and when to put on and to put off the masks of one’s various life roles” ( Myths to Live By , 67). As an ordinary woman, Elizabeth’s private emotions were suppressed. Her love, renounced. As monarch, her will sanctified. Yet as the carefully curated image in portraits, the cult of Gloriana– an immortal goddess sworn to protect a nation –she was exalted to a mythical status and the symbol of England’s cultural renaissance and Golden Age.  Elizabeth’s story, as rendered by Blanchett and Kapur, is not merely the depiction of a solitary, female ruler in a patriarchal world. It is a tale of the highest form of sovereignty: the long road from self-doubt to sacred stewardship to become a vessel for something larger than her everyday self. In this day and age where power is so often confused with domination and leadership styles with tragic, thespian performances, Elizabeth’s marriage to more elevated ideals calls us back to our souls. She is the fortitude after betrayal, the calm at the center of all that is temporal, and with a gaze that sees through the personality into its divine purpose. The life and reign of Queen Elizabeth I serves to remind us that the truest form of power is not in ruling others, but in securing authority over ourselves.  MythBlast authored by: Kristina Dryža  is an ex-futurist, author, TEDx speaker, archetypal consultant, one of the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s Editorial Advisory Group, and a steward for The Fifth Direction. Based between Australia and Lithuania, her work focuses less on the future and more on the unknown. Presence. Not prediction. What’s sacred? Not only what’s next. Kristina is passionate about helping people to perceive mythically and sense archetypally to better understand our shared humanity, yet honor the diverse ways we all live and make meaning. To learn more about Kristina, you can view her TEDx talk: Archetypes and Mythology. Why They Matter Even More So Today  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o4PYNroZBY&t=525s This MythBlast was inspired by The Hero With a Thousand Faces and the archetype of The Sovereign. Latest Podcast In this episode of The Podcast With a Thousand Faces, we’re joined by Maureen Murdock - author, psychotherapist, educator, and a groundbreaking voice in the world of myth and memoir. Maureen is best known for her influential book The Heroine’s Journey: Woman’s Quest for Wholeness, written in response to Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Maureen had a personal and professional relationship with Campbell and it was through their dialogue that her vision of the feminine mythic path began to take shape. Her newest work, Mythmaking: Self-Discovery and the Timeless Art of Memoir, invites us to explore how our personal stories echo ancient archetypes and how writing can become a transformative act of reclaiming the self. In this conversation with host John Bucher, we explore the evolution of the heroine’s journey, Maureen’s reflections on Campbell’s legacy, and how myth and memoir together can help us find meaning in the chaos of change. Listen Here This Week's Highlights "To become – in Jung’s terms – individuated, to live as a released individual, one has to know how and when to put on and to put off the masks of one’s various life roles." -- Joseph Campbell Myths to Live By, 67 On Consciousness See More Videos Subscribe to the MythBlast Newsletter