Interesting Videos of Jungian Psychology in Berserk

[Rorschach]

The Jungian Psychology of Berserk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W42eBZJO7GU
Jung and Berserk - Guts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_S7hHeku4g
Jung and Berserk - Griffith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czPMbEkgaQ

Found these three videos analyzing Berserk through Jungian psychology. The audio quality is a bit weak, but the content is interesting.
I would highly recommend watching all three videos, since I found the first one a bit incomplete by itself.

 

[Victor]

It seems like something with more substance to it at first glance (at least compared to the numerous gormless Berserk videos you'll find on YouTube), but it becomes clear as you're watching, the guy analyzing it is no expert either, quite the contrary. While his summary of the story is kind of shallow, I can understand it in terms of keeping the video more compact, but he made certain statements such as "Griffith sacrificed Guts and his comrades to become a God" which are just false. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, a basic definition of the God Hand would be a collective of spiritual beings in possession of great evil power carrying out the will of God. The closest thing to God in the Berserk world is probably the Idea of Evil which I didn't even know was considered canon up until recently. I think that goes to show that calling Griffith a God is as huge of an error as it gets. (To his benefit, I will assume he could have done so for brevity purposes so he wouldn't have to explain all these concepts to viewers, but that's a sloppy way of doing an analysis, in my opinion, and still incorrect)

Another point he makes is about Guts strangling Casca during their intimate moment "because the first real touch of a woman shatters his persona of a self reliant and strong warrior". I think this is an obvious misinterpretation of that scene and makes it sound like the reason Guts reacted the way he did had to do with his pride or manliness rather than his traumatic experiences and vulnerability. While it's true to some extent that Guts had built a wall around himself and didn't reveal his weaknesses to anyone, until he bonded with Casca, the shattering of that wall is not what caused the reaction, the reasons why he had built that wall in the first place are, and the shattering comes as a result.

The final inacurate point he makes in this video is about Farnese's behaviour in episode 125, when she becomes possessed and acts on impulse. He attempts to associate that with Neurosis, which even though is similar, it's not exactly what happened to her during those moments. (Once again, in his favour, I will assume he perceived the possession as a trigger for a neurotic experience, but in that case he should have mentioned it instead of making it look like Farnese acted that way on her own, with no outside intervention)

I'm not sure if I'm interested in watching the other two videos at this point. Let me know if I'm being too critical of this, or if I got something wrong myself.

 

[Crimson Blade]

Thanks for sharing these! I love videos like this.

I'm not sure if I'm interested in watching the other two videos at this point. Let me know if I'm being too critical of this, or if I got something wrong myself.

Honestly, it doesn't (nor shouldn't, I believe) matter if something isn't 100% accurate; in my life, I've found you can still absorb useful information from people even if they are mistaken about other things they mention, to form a truly grounded and well-rounded opinion on the subject at hand.

I've watched tons of analysis videos on Berserk, not because I expected them to be 100% accurate, but because Berserk is something I love and I want to not only learn as much as I can from many sources, but because I want to hear how others interpret it too.
Nor would I watch a video about solely "Jungian Psychology" from a video mostly about Berserk either. Understanding the uploader's correlation and how they see the series is far more interesting than actual Berserk or Jungian facts, if that makes sense.


I've not 100% agreed with any of them (as it's not my own unique opinion), but I've gained something of value from each. Berserk is art, and like any other kind of art, it's open to interpretation and I don't feel forcibly correcting others or telling them how they should see it really adds anything to the community.

 

[Rorschach]

I'm not sure if I'm interested in watching the other two videos at this point. Let me know if I'm being too critical of this, or if I got something wrong myself.

I agree that some of the terminology used in the video does not confine within the definitions we use when talking about Berserk. I can try to address the 3 issues you addresses as I understand, can truly speak for the author of the video.

I believe that the word "God" is used with a different meaning than what we would use it in the context of Berserk. I agree that Griffith is not a God, but he is a godlike being beyond human reach and reason. I believe that this is what he mean when referring to Griffith as a "God." That he is not a human, but some transcendental being capable of godlike deeds such as manipulating causality, which is one of the core concepts in the Berserk world.

As for Guts' "persona of a self reliant and strong warrior," he goes into more detail in the second video about this. What he meant by this was that after his childhood trauma of being raped and of being betrayed by Gambino and then accidentally killing him, made Guts create such a persona that drove him to the person he was before this point in the story. But by getting intimate with Casca this persona was shattered and he was brought back to his trauma which led to his outburst.
As a side thought, few years ago someone posted on Berserk's subreddit a post regarding this scene. The author was a person who had similar experience as Guts, i.e. he was molested as a child. He claimed that this scene is so realistic that Miura himself must have suffered this trauma. Now, I don't necessarily think that is the case, but I found it fascinating that Miura was able to portray such an intimate event so accurately.

As for your last point, Farnese was possessed by a specter which was why she acted this way. I agree that the author of the video was not complete in his analysis of these scenes, but I don't think that his analysis is incorrect. Remember when Guts was possessed by a specter while with Casca, we became immediately violent. Being possessed isn't the same as being controlled by the specter, but instead getting your hidden weaknesses and darkness exposed and manifested. In Guts' case it's his violence and thirst for revenge against Griffith and all those associated with him. In Farnese's case it is her faith, which as Guts described was hollow, and fear of the world, that she battles by creating a persona of a strong and just commander and believer.

I would recommend watching the other 2 videos, since I thought they look at Berserk from an interesting perspective. Though, I should add, they are not perfect either in their analysis of Guts' and Griffith's characters.

As for my explanations, I know they are not perfect, I would say far from it, but I always enjoy thinking about Berserk from different perspectives.

 

[Walter]

I saw the video a few months ago, but I don't personally value this kind of faux-psychology being thrust upon Berserk. It's really just not my thing... Archetypes are fundamentally boring to me, and these videos usually seem more concerned with reinforcing the general components of Jung's system of archetypes in modern works than actually extracting meaningful information from Berserk.

I've not 100% agreed with any of them (as it's not my own unique opinion), but I've gained something of value from each. Berserk is art, and like any other kind of art, it's open to interpretation and I don't feel forcibly correcting others or telling them how they should see it really adds anything to the community.

Well, you should know that we do care about accuracy here, and we will call out bullshit when see it. The reason is simple: Ignoring mistakes and inaccuracies leads to more misled people. I speak from a position of authority on that, having seen exactly that happen over the ~20 years this forum has been around. So if you're cool with people speaking authoritatively about things they aren't authoritative on, that's cool, but please don't try equating a groundless take with a well-reasoned take because of "artistic interpretation."

 

[Victor]

Honestly, it doesn't (nor shouldn't, I believe) matter if something isn't 100% accurate; in my life, I've found you can still absorb useful information from people even if they are mistaken about other things they mention, to form a truly grounded and well-rounded opinion on the subject at hand.

I've not 100% agreed with any of them (as it's not my own unique opinion), but I've gained something of value from each. Berserk is art, and like any other kind of art, it's open to interpretation and I don't feel forcibly correcting others or telling them how they should see it really adds anything to the community.

I believe an analysis, especially one of this sort, should strive to be as accurate as possible. In order to bring forth a qualitative opinion I think it's important to be well informed on the topic, even if that happens to be art. I wouldn't have any problems with his interpretations and perspectives if he had preserved the integrity of the material. My main criticism of his analysis was the fact that he ommited a lot of details that matter in the context. I'm not sure if he just breezed through the manga and overlooked these things or he intentionally ommited them in order to enforce his interpretations and make his correlations to Jung seem more relevant, but I don't see much value that can be gained from this kind of approach to things either way.

I understand our standards are different. I admit that I'm often a bit too critical, despite my efforts to remain objective overall, but I still stand by what I said above.

I believe that the word "God" is used with a different meaning than what we would use it in the context of Berserk. I agree that Griffith is not a God, but he is a godlike being beyond human reach and reason. I believe that this is what he mean when referring to Griffith as a "God." That he is not a human, but some transcendental being capable of godlike deeds ...

Had he used a term like transcendental being or even "godlike" being, it would've given his point more veracity, at least in my eyes. (It's paying attention to nuances like this that makes the difference between a good and mediocre job, I believe). People unfamiliar with Berserk would've got the general notion while also staying true to the source. Why not do it if you can. One reason I can think of is that he himself doesn't understand the difference, which would be the worst case scenario considering he decided to psychoanalyze it for the public, or he just chose loose terminology in his attempt to make the video shorter. Whichever it is, I don't think he expressed himself properly.

... I don't think that his analysis is incorrect.

The only thing I consider to be incorrect from what he said is the Griffith becoming a God segment, the rest are just varying inaccuracies.

Remember when Guts was possessed by a specter while with Casca, we became immediately violent. Being possessed isn't the same as being controlled by the specter, but instead getting your hidden weaknesses and darkness exposed and manifested.

That is true, however that's not what he said. He said that Farnese was lead in a state of Neurosis (which is a mental disorder) by the things she had seen. That is a different thing from being possessed and induced into a similar state of mind. It's not the most inexcusable omission, but again, it reflects the amount of effort than went into this.

As for my explanations, I know they are not perfect, I would say far from it, but I always enjoy thinking about Berserk from different perspectives.

You are able to justify and interpret all of the things he said in a more accurate way because you're a fan of Berserk and understand it. How he expressed them in the video however is not at all obvious to someone unfamiliar with the story, and taken literally they come off as inacurate and misleading.

So if you're cool with people speaking authoritatively about things they aren't authoritative on, that's cool, but please don't try equating a groundless take with a well-reasoned take because of "artistic interpretation."

Highly agree.