Inanimate Objects and the Uncanny

One of the things I found most interesting about Freud’s discussion of the uncanny is the idea of “heimliche” and “unheimliche,” or familiar and unfamiliar. I believe this provides an explanation—somewhat—of our reactions to the inanimate objects we deem creepy, especially in the context of what we’ve read and watched this semester. Freud explains that “this uncanny is in reality nothing new or foreign, but something familiar and old” (13). Understanding that the uncanny can present itself in something “familiar and old” allows us to understand why specific objects or things are scary. If we are familiar with the objects and then see them in a different context, one associated with horror or suspense, we may find them uncanny simply because they are taken out of the usual context. For example, in The Innocents, normal things such as lawn ornaments, fountains, and jewelry boxes were overwhelmingly creepy. However, this was due in part to the environment and nature of the film. We knew the house was “haunted” or inhabited by Jessel and Quint. Placing such the objects we are familiar with in this context attaches an uncanny nature to them by virtue of being in an odd, scary environment—one that we are not used to, and one that we associate certain feelings with. Similarly, we could apply this same logic to crucifixes in Dracula. We see crucifixes regularly as religious totems, and aren’t necessarily bothered by them in daily interactions. But when they are being used in tandem with vampires they take on a new meaning. Since the new meaning is different than the usual context, and is placed in the realm of monstrosity and the supernatural, we begin to find the crucifixes eerie or uncanny.