He refers to this as the ‘third image’ – not the image on the screen, nor the image that arises from the work of interpretative activity, but a third image that exists in the space between viewer and screen – analogous to the intersubjective space between client and therapist.

Vogler’s book, The Writer’s Journey: Mythic

change. It is important not to oversimplify Jung’s ideas, and not to use them as tools for the reductive analysis of film texts which could otherwise be amplified – i.e. examined in a ‘respectful’ manner taking into consideration the complexity and independence of unconscious processes behind both filmmaking and film viewing.

the screen also represents the absence of all barriers between fantasy and reality as it ‘becomes’ the site of projection; it ‘comes to life’, so to say.

– it is polysemic in orientation and regards

Put simply, the meaning of an image is not fixed.

Cinematic and television narratives are only useful when they are treated as guides, not as complete substitutes for the actual individuation process.

For instance, ‘dying-and-rising god’ is an archetype, but Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus are archetypal images.

In this sense, the cinema is one way that contemporary society keeps the symbolic life and mythological world alive.