Tag Archives: fobia

Adam and Eve Raised Cain

We all know how hard it is for talent to emerge in the art field. That is why from time to time, in my own small way, I have tried  to give voice to young promising artists; some of them went on with their careers with excellent results, as did Fulvio Risuleo whose work I wrote about and who then won the first prize of the “Semaine de la Critique” at Cannes Film Festival.
I say this not to brag about my farsightedness, but in the secret hope that Bizzarro Bazar might turn out to be bringing good luck also in the future: today I would like to present you with a curious Italian stop-motion short film which in my view is a true little gem.

Entitled Adam and Eve Raised Cain, it was written, directed, animated and edited by Francesco Erba, born in 1986, from Bergamo.
Before discussing the short with his author, I advise you to take some 20 minutes off and let yourself drift into the fark, disturbing atmosphere of this little film.

The short film starts off with a declaration of love to Sci-Fi B-movies from the Fifties (Jack Arnold, Roger Corman, Bert I. Gordon  and their giant radioactive monsters), and goes on to pay homage even to the father of fantasy in motion pictures, Georges Méliès.
But the true references here are to horror and science fiction film directors from the Eighties, Carpenter, Hooper or Cronenberg. These nods are perfectly inserted in their context (an all too rare occurrence these days): the main character’s passion for monster movies, for instance, becomes a pivotal dramatic element in a scene where the child’s toys are sold, a psychologically scarring moment for little Albert.
Any citationism, even when done with a purpose, entails the risk of breaking the spectator’s identification, projecting the public “outside” of the film, and lessening its emotional impact. It could be because of the visceral and painful nature of the themes addressed in this short, but Francesco Erba succeeds in the task of creating an even stronger connection with his character: it’s as if, when observed through the filter of the American movies the 80’s generation grew up with, Albert’s trauma became more recognizable, more humane – despite his rough stop-motion puppet appearance.

Since he was a child, Francesco has been living and breathing cinema. How could he tell a tale of fear and love, if not by going back to those films which frightened him or made him fall in love?
This, in my opinion, is the admirable subtlety of Adam and Eve Raised Cain, a sensitivity which many narratives of nostalgia lack.
Behind the animated film facade, behind the entertainment, Erba is depicting a world of solitude and mental cages. And whenever he relies on some vintage stylistic elements, he’s not throwing them to his audience like peanuts just to stimulate some cinephile pavlovian response: he is using them because, to him, they still represent the best (maybe the only) way to really tell us about the wounds and anguish tormenting his character, both a victim and a perpetrator.

I asked Francesco Erba a few questions about his work.

How was this project born, and how did you manage to make it happen?

The concept for Adam and Eve was one of many sitting in my “Ideas” folder, on my laptop. After spending much time working with and for others, I decided it was time to shoot something new for myself. Sifting through the folder (and discarding all million-budget ideas!), the one that was left was a live-action version of Adam and Eve.
I started working on it, inserting new elements and focusing on the structure until I realized what I was really trying to tell: my film was about imprisonment, in all its possible meanings.

Once the script was completed, it started to dawn on me that this film could – should – be realized in stop motion: enclosing some puppets in a 1.5x1m box would cartainly take this idea of “imprisonment” to the extreme.

I knew all too well that to shoot this film in stop motion, as I had it layed out and with the resources at hand, it would take at least 2 years of work. I had to prepare a complete storyboard, character studies and preliminary drawings, set and prop construction, sculpting and mold making, motion tests, all leading up to several weeks of shooting in a dark room. And then the digital effects, and compositing the live actors’ eyes on the latex puppets, a process that had to be done frame by frame…

I mustered up all my masochism, started filming, and in the end I discovered I was even too optimistic. It took nearly three and a half years to complete the short movie!

Was the choice of stop motion limiting or did it give you more freedom? Which challenges were the most tough in producing the film?

Stop motion, which I do not consider just an animation technique, but THE animation technique, has an unquestionable charm which transcends time and technological innovations. But it can also be a real bitch!
If on one hand it allows full artistic freedom even on a tight budget, on the other it is certainly demanding in shooting time, shooting process, scenic design (sometimes down to miniaturization). Every aspect needs to be considered in advance, carefully calculated and measured, and you very often have to use your ingenuity to bypass problems: if I cannot move my camera, then I need to build a slider rig, and so on.

All these limitations, I think, really disappear when looking at the final result, at what you can create with this incredible technique. Take for example the movies produced by Laika today: they teach us that stop motion, although very old and almost the same age of cinema itself, has no limits other than those dictated by budget or creativity.

Adam and Eve seems to tap into the current vein of nostalgia for the 80’s (Super 8, Stranger Things, the San Junipero episode from Black Mirror, etc.). Did any film in particular inspire you? Is there some director’s work you had in mind while writing the script?

The short was filmed back in 2011, before this new wave of nostalgia for the cinema of the 80’s and 90’s (at least I chose to put it online at the right time!). Inevitably, it ended up containing many elements from the films I grew up with, which are now part of my DNA; these are references I cannot leave out of consideration.

Actually when you think about it, even those cinematic references coming from my imprinting are enclosed, like the rest of the story, in a chinese box system. Besides the cinema from the 80’s and 90’s, I chose to include some references to the films those very directors took inspiration from and sometimes plagiarised, namely monster movies from the 50’s. Taking it to the extreme, as I did with every aspect of the short, I went even further, paying homage to Méliès himself.

Sometimes directors get asked to summarize in few words the style they’re aiming for. My answer, right from the start, was: “think Rob Zombie doing stop-motion animation”. A coarse, wicked, sharp and sometimes repulsive style, which had to be recognizable in each aspect of the film.
But ofcourse I’m semplifying. If I think back to all the directors who inspired me, it might look like a meaningless list, and yet in Adam and Eve‘s world of opposites and extremes they make perfect sense to me: Carpenter, Cronenberg, Jackson, Spielberg, Selick, Park Chan-wook, Harryhausen, Quay, Svankmajer, Peter Lord and Aardman, Laika… they all influenced in a creative way the approach I chose for this short film, and its genesis.

The film shows extremely adult themes: phobia, alienation, family violence, unwanted pregnancy, despair. Yet all this is filtered through obvious irony: the handcrafted animation and the homages to the imaginary of American cinema make the film a “second level” experience. I personally find this ambiguity to be one of the strenghts of the project. But in your intent, should Adam and Eve be seen as pure entertainment, or taken more seriously?

This is one aspect of the “research” which I very humbly try to carry on with my work. One of he constants that can be found in everything I’ve done until now, from short films to music videos, from a pilot for a children TV show to the feature film I’m working on, is a search for the limit and the balance between two opposite extremes.

Using stop motion (which is often regarded as a technique for “children movies”) to tell an adult story, making an adult film about imprisonment, alienation and phobias with latex puppets, this is already a strong combination. To “cage” a real actor’s eyes inside the puppet, thus closing him within these narrow limits, to me is a further exaggeration of this concept. If you then imagine myself, the animator, stuck in strange positions and “prisoner” of a small dark room, the narrative gets really dizzying!

And what about the entertainment? Well, I’m not one of those who think cinema has the power to save the world, but it certainly makes it a little better. To me, films should not try to give answers, just to ask questions and create emotions.  It you’re looking for important answers, you’d better get a ticket for the museum, rather than for the movie theatre.
According to this philosphy, Adam and Eve is of course to be taken as a visual experience and not just as an artistic research: I think the scenes in which I “physically” enter the main character’s brain to show his past. make it clear that it’s also meant to be a product of pure entertainment.

This short film must have been quite a training ground. Will you continue with animation? What are your future projects? 

I am finishing my first live action feature film: here my personal research has evolved even further, as my movie is narratively and stylistically composed of an investigative report, a mockumentary and a more “traditional” film.
In the last few months I have been working on a TV animated puppet series for 5/6-years-old children, a project I very much believe in, and which gave me the opportunity to experiment with a different kind of animation.

As for stop motion, its “call” is very strong, despite the huge sacrifices that Adam and Eve demanded. One day I would love to be able to film my peculiar horror version of Peter Pan, or another small short film on Tesla and Edison.
A director’s work is often based on human interaction and mediation… I confess I sometimes miss being alone in my little dark room, moving my puppet’s head frame after frame!

Here is Adam and Eve Raised Cain Facebook page.

Caitlin Doughty and the Good Death

We shouldn’t fear autopsies.
I’m not using this term in its strict legal/medical meaning (even though I always advise anybody to go and see a real autopsy), but rather in its etymological sense: the act of “seeing with one’s own eyes” is the basis for all knowledge, and represents the first step in defeating our fears. By staring directly at what scares us, by studying it and domesticating it, we sometimes discover that our worries were unfounded in the first place.
This is why, on these webpages, I have often openly explored death and all of its complex cultural aspects; because the autoptic act is always fruitful and necessary, even more so if we are addressing the major “collective repressed” in our society.

Bringing forward these very ideas, here is someone who has given rise to a real activist movement advocating a healthier approach to death and dying: Caitlin Doughty.

caitlin_doughty_by_mara_zehler

Caitlin, born in 1984, decided to pursue a career as a mortician to overcome her own fear of death; even as a novice, picking up corpses from homes in a van, preparing them, and facing the peculiar challenges of the crematorium, this brilliant girl had a plan – she intended to change the American funeral industry from the inside. Modern death phobia, which Caitlin directly experienced, has reached paradoxical levels, making the grief elaboration process almost impossible. This irrational anxiety towards dead bodies is the reason we delegate professionals to completely remove the corpse’s “scandalous” presence from our familiar environment, thus depriving relatives of the necessary time to understand their loss. Take the extreme example of online cremation services, through which a parent, for instance, can ship out his own child’s dead body and receive the ashes a few days later: no ritual, no contact, no last image, no memory of this essential moment of transition. How can you come to terms with grief, if you even avoid watching?

From these premises, her somewhat “subversive” project was born: to bring death into people’s homes, to give families the opportunity of taking back their loved ones’ remains, and to turn the undertaking profession into a support service, not preventing relatives from preparing the body themselves, but rather assisting them in a non-invasive way. Spending some time in contact with a dead body does not usually pose any sanitary problem, and could be useful in order to concretely process the loss. To be able to carry out private rituals, to wash and dress the body, to talk to our loved ones one last time, and eventually to have more disposal options: such a positive approach is only possible if we learn to talk openly about death.

Caitlin therefore decided to act on several fronts.
On one hand, she founded The Order of the Good Death, an association of funeral professionals, artists, writers and academics sharing the will to change the Western attitude towards death, funerals, and grief. The Order promotes seminaries, workshops, lectures and organizes the annual Death Salon, a public gathering in which historians, intellectuals, artists, musicians and researchers discuss the various cultural aspects of death.
On the other hand, Caitlin created a successful YouTube channel with the purpose of answering user submitted questions about what goes on behind the scenes of the funeral industry. Her Ask A Mortician webseries doesn’t draw back from any horrific detail (she talks about the thorny problem of post-mortem poo, about the alleged presence of necrophiliacs in the industry, etc.), but her humorous and exuberant approach softens the darker tones and succeeds in passing the underlying message: we shouldn’t be afraid of talking about death.

smoke-gets-in-your-e69F1BA

Finally, to reach an even wider and heterogeneous audience, Caitlin published the thought-provoking Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, an autobiographical account of her time as a funeral home apprentice: with her trademark humor, and to the reader’s secret delight, Caitlin dispenses several macabre anecdotes detailing her misadventures (yes, some chapters ought to be read on an empty stomach), yet she does not hesitate to recount the most tragic and touching moments she experienced on the job. But the book’s main interest really lies in following her ruminations about death and the way her own feelings evolved – eventually leading her to actively try and change the general public attitude towards dying. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes immediately became a best-seller, as a further proof of the fact that people actually want to know more about what is socially kept out of sight.

As an introduction to her work for the Italian readership, I asked Caitlin a few questions.

Has working as a mortician affected the way you look at death?

It has made me more comfortable being around dead bodies. More than that, it has made me appreciate the dead body, and realize how strange it is that we try our best as an industry to hide it.  We would be a happier, healthier culture in the West if we didn’t try to cover up mortality.

Did you have to put up some sort of psychological defense mechanism in order to deal with dead bodies on a daily basis?

No, I don’t think so. It’s not the dead bodies that are the issue psychogically. It is far more difficult on the emotions working with the living, taking on their grief, their stories, their pain.  You have to strike a balance between being open to the families, but not bringing everything home with you.

“He looks like he’s sleeping” must be the best compliment for a mortician. You basically substitute the corpse with a symbol, a symulacrum. Our society decided long ago that death must be a Big Sleep: in ancient Greece, Tanathos (Death) and Hypnos (Sleep) were brothers, and with Christianity this analogy solidified for good – see f.i. the word “cemetery”, which literally means “sleeping, resting place”. This idea of death being akin to sleep is clearly comforting, but it’s just a story we keep telling ourselves. Do you feel the need for new narratives regarding death?

“He looks like he’s sleeping” wouldn’t necessarily be a compliment to me. I would love for someone to say “he looks dead, but he looks beautiful. I feel like seeing him like this is helping me accept he’s gone”. It’s harder to accept the loss when we insist that someone is perpetually sleeping. They’re not. They’re dead. That’s devastating, but part of the acceptance process.

In your book, you extensively talk about medicalization and removal of death from our societies, a subject which has been much discussed in the past. You made a step further though, becoming an activist for a new, healthier way to approach death and dying – trying to lift the taboo regarding these topics. But, within every culture, taboos play an important role: do you feel that a more relaxed relationship with death could spoil the experience of the sacred, and devoid it of its mystery?

Death will always be mysterious and sacred. But the actual dying process and the dead body, when made mysterious and kept behind the scenes, are made scary. So often someone will say to me, “I thought my father was going to be cremated in a big pile with other people, thank you for telling me exactly how the process works”. People are so terrified of what they don’t know. I can’t help people with spiritual life after death, I can only help with the worldly realities of the corpse. And I know education makes people less afraid. Death is not taboo in many cultures, and there are many scholars who think it’s not a natural or ingrained taboo at all, only when we make it one.

Has the internet changed the way we experience death? Are we really on the verge of a revolution?

The internet has changed death, but that’s not really something we can judge. Everyone got so angry at the teenagers taking selfies at funerals, but that’s just an expression of the new digital landscape. People in the United States in the 1960s thought that cremation was pagan devil sinful stuff, and now almost 50% of Americans choose it. Each generation takes things a step in a new direction, death evolves.

By promoting death at home and families taking care of their own dead, you are somehow rebelling against a multi-million funeral industry. Have you had any kind of negative feedback or angry reactions?

There are all kinds of funeral directors that don’t like me or what I’m saying. I understand why, I’m questioning their relevancy and inability to adapt. I’d hate me too. They find it very difficult to confront me directly, though. They also find it difficult to have open, respectful dialogues. I think it’s just too close to their hearts.

Several pages in your book are devoted to debunking one of the most recent but well-established myths regarding death: the idea that embalming is absolutely necessary. Modern embalming, an all-American practice, began spreading during Civil War, in order to preserve the bodies until they were carried back home from the front. As this procedure does not exist in Italy, we Italians are obviously unaware of its implications: why do you feel this is such an important issue?

First of all, embalming is not a grand important historical American tradition. It’s only a little more than a hundred years old, so it’s silly to pretend like it’s the fabric of our death culture. Embalming is a highly invasive process that ends with filling the bodies with dangerous chemicals. I’m not against someone choosing to have it done, but most families are told it’s necessary by law or to make the body safe to be around, both of which are completely untrue.

The Order of the Good Death is rapidly growing in popularity, featuring a calendar of death-positive events, lectures, workshops and of course the Death Salon. Most of the organizers and members in the Order are female: why do you think women are at the front line in the death awareness movement?

This is the great mystery. Perhaps it has to do with women’s historical connection to death, and the desire to reclaim it. Perhaps it is a feminist act, refusing to let men have control of our bodies in reproduction, healthcare, or death. There are no solid answers, but I’d love someone to do a Phd on this!

Reference sites:
The Order of the Good Death
Death Salon
Caitlin Doughty’s Youtube channel and her book: Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: And Other Lessons from the Crematorium.

I fratelli Collyer

Langley Collyer

Figli di un ginecologo di prestigio e di una cantante d’opera, i fratelli Collyer, Homer e Langley, sono divenuti nel tempo figure iconiche di New York a causa della loro vita eccentrica e della loro tragica fine: purtroppo la sindrome a cui hanno involontariamente dato il nome non è affatto rara, e pare anzi sia in lenta ma costante crescita soprattutto nelle grandi città.

Nati alla fine dell’ ‘800, fin da ragazzi i due fratelli dimostrano spiccate doti che lasciano prospettare una vita di successo: dall’intelligenza acuta e vispa, si iscrivono entrambi alla Columbia University e guadagnano il diploma – Langley in ingegneria e Homer in diritto nautico. Homer è anche un eccellente pianista e si esibisce al Carnegie Hall, ma abbandona la carriera di musicista abbastanza presto, in seguito alle prime critiche negative. Langley sfrutta le sue conoscenze ingegneristiche per brevettare alcuni marchingegni che però non hanno successo.


Fin dal 1909 i Collyer vivono con i genitori ad Harlem: all’epoca si trattava di un quartiere “in“, a prevalenza bianca, in cui risiedevano molti professionisti altolocati e grossi nomi della finanza e dello spettacolo. Ma nel 1919 il padre Herman abbandona la famiglia e si trasferisce in un’altra casa: morirà quattro anni più tardi. La madre dei due fratelli muore invece nel 1929.

Harlem in quel periodo sta cambiando volto, da zona residenziale sta divenendo un quartiere decisamente malfamato. I fratelli Collyer, rimasti orfani, reagiscono a questo cambiamento facendosi sempre più reclusi, e più eccentrici. Cominciano a collezionare oggetti trovati in giro per le strade, e non gettano più l’immondizia. La loro casa al 2078 della Quinta Avenue si riempie a poco a poco degli utensili più disparati che i Collyer accatastano ovunque: giocattoli, carrozzine deformate, pezzi di violini, corde e cavi elettrici attorcigliati a pile di giornali vecchi di anni, cataste di scatoloni pieni di bicchieri rotti, cassepanche ricolme di lenzuola di ogni genere, fasci di decine di ombrelli, candelabri, pezzi di manichini, 14 pianoforti, un’intera automobile disassemblata e un’infinità di altre cianfrusaglie senza alcun valore.


Come il poeta greco dell’antichità di cui porta il nome, negli anni ’30 Homer diventa cieco. Langley, allora, decide di prendersi cura del fratello, e la vita dei due si fa ancora più misteriosa e appartata. I ragazzini tirano i sassi alle loro finestre, li chiamano “i fratelli fantasma”. Homer resta sempre sepolto in casa, all’interno della fitta rete di cunicoli praticati all’interno della spazzatura che ormai riempie la casa fino al soffitto; Langley esce di rado, per procurarsi le cento arance alla settimana che dà da mangiare al fratello nell’assurda convinzione che serviranno a ridargli la vista. Diviene sempre più ossessionato dall’idea che qualche intruso possa fare irruzione nel loro distorto, sovraffollato universo per distruggere l’intimità che si sono ritagliati: così, da buon ingegnere, costruisce tutta una serie di trappole, più o meno mortali, che dissemina e nasconde nella confusione di oggetti stipati in ogni stanza. Chiunque abbia l’ardire di entrare nel loro mondo la pagherà cara.


Eppure è proprio una di queste trappole, forse troppo bene mimetizzata, che condannerà i due fratelli Collyer. Nel Marzo del 1947, mentre sta portando la cena a Homer, strisciando attraverso un tunnel scavato nella parete di pacchi di giornale, Langley attiva per errore uno dei suoi micidiali trabocchetti: la parete di valigie e vecchie riviste gli crolla addosso, uccidendolo sul colpo. Qualche metro più in là sta seduto Homer, cieco e ormai paralizzato, impotente nell’aiutare il fratello. Morirà di fame e di arresto cardiaco qualche giorno più tardi.


La polizia, allertata da un vicino, fa irruzione nell’appartamento il 21 marzo, 10 ore dopo la morte di Homer. Ma il corpo di Langley, sepolto sotto uno strato di immondizia, non viene trovato subito e gli investigatori attribuiscono l’insopportabile odore all’immensa quantità di immondizia. Viene scatenata una caccia all’uomo nel tentativo di localizzare il fratello mancante, mentre le forze dell’ordine procedono, con estrema cautela per evitare le trappole, a svuotare a poco a poco l’appartamento.

Gli agenti, dopo quasi due settimane di ricerche fra le ben 180 tonnellate di rifiuti accumulati dai Collyer negli anni, trovano Langley l’8 aprile, mentre il cadavere è già preda dei topi.

I fratelli Collyer sono divenuti famosi perché incarnano una realtà tipicamente newyorkese: gli appartamenti sono spesso talmente piccoli, e la gente sedentaria, che il problema dei cosiddetti hoarders, cioè i collezionisti compulsivi di spazzatura, finisce spesso fuori controllo. Ma il fenomeno è tutt’altro che circoscritto alla sola Grande Mela.

Gli hoarders purtroppo esistono ovunque, anche in Italia, come vi racconterà qualsiasi vigile del fuoco. Normalmente si tratta di individui, con un’alta percentuale di anziani, costretti a una vita estremamente solitaria; la sindrome comincia con la difficoltà di liberarsi di ricordi e oggetti cari, ed è spesso acutizzata da timori di tipo finanziario. L’abitudine di “non buttar via nulla” diventa presto, per questi individui, una vera e propria fobia di essere separati dalle loro cose, anche le più inutili. Chi è affetto da questa mania spesso riempie le stanze fino ad impedire le normali funzioni per cui erano originariamente progettate: non si può più cucinare in cucina, dormire in camera da letto, e così via. L’accumulo incontrollato di cianfrusaglie rappresenta ovviamente un pericolo per sé e per gli altri, e rende difficoltose le operazioni di soccorso in caso di incendio o di altro infortunio.

La disposofobia è nota anche come sindrome di Collyer, in ricordo dei due eccentrici fratelli. Sempre in memoria di questa triste e strana storia, nel luogo dove sorgeva la loro casa c’è ora un minuscolo “pocket park”, chiamato Collyer Park.


Ecco la pagina di Wikipedia sulla disposofobia. E in questa pagina trovate una serie di fotografie di appartamenti di persone disposofobiche.

Little Albert

Abbiamo già parlato di quanto la medicina di inizio ‘900 andasse poco per il sottile quando si trattava di fare esperimenti su animali o sugli uomini stessi. Basta consultare, per una breve storia degli esperimenti umani, questa pagina (in inglese) che riporta le date essenziali della ricerca medico-scientifica condotta in maniera poco etica. Il sito ricorda che, dall’inoculazione di varie piaghe o malattie infettive (senza il consenso del paziente) fino agli esperimenti biochimici di massa, i ricercatori hanno spesso dimenticato il precetto di Ippocrate Primum non nocere.

Ma anche la psicologia, in quegli anni, non scherzava. Uno degli esperimenti più celebri, e divenuto presto un classico della psicologia, fu quello portato avanti da John B. Watson assieme alla sua collega Rosalie Rayner, e conosciuto con il nome Little Albert.

John Watson è il padre del comportamentismo, cioè quella branca della psicologia che nasceva dallo studio dell’etologia animale per applicarla all’uomo, nella convinzione che il comportamento fosse l’unico dato verificabile scientificamente. Ricordate il celebre cane di Pavlov, che sbavava non appena sentiva una campanella? Watson era convinto che il sistema di ricompensa e punizione fosse presente anche nell’uomo, o almeno nel bambino. Si spinse addirittura oltre, pensando di poter “programmare” la personalità di un individuo agendo attivamente sul suo sviluppo infantile. I suoi studi cercavano di comprendere come l’essere umano si sensibilizzasse a certi avvenimenti o a certe cose durante la precoce fase dei primi mesi di età. E siccome, a sentire lui, i suoi risultati gli davano ragione, arrivò ad affermare: “Datemi una dozzina di bambini sani e farò di ognuno uno specialista a piacere, un avvocato, un medico, ecc. a prescindere dal suo talento, dalle sue inclinazioni, tendenze, capacità, vocazioni e razza”. Negli anni ’20 pensare di poter programmare il futuro del proprio bambino sembrava un’utopia. Dopo il nazismo, l’opinione comune avrebbe cambiato rotta, e visto in simili idee di controllo un’offesa alla libertà individuale. Ma i campi di Buchenwald erano ancora distanti.

L’esperimento che rese celebre Watson fu compiuto durante i mesi a cavallo tra il 1919 e il 1920. Little Albert era un bambino sano di poco più di nove mesi di età. Nella prima fase dell’esperimento (i primi due mesi), Watson e Rayner misero in contatto il bambino con, nell’ordine: una cavia bianca, un coniglio, un cane, una scimmia, maschere con e senza barba, batuffoli di cotone, giornali in fiamme, ecc. Il piccolino non mostrava paura nei confronti di alcuno di questi oggetti. Ma Watson era intenzionato a cambiare le cose: nel giro di poche settimane, avrebbe forgiato per il piccolo Albert una bella fobia tutta nuova.

Quando l’esperimento vero e proprio iniziò c’erano alcune sorprese pronte per Albert, che aveva allora 11 mesi e 10 giorni. I ricercatori gli riproposero il contatto ravvicinato con uno degli stessi simpatici animaletti con cui aveva imparato a giocare: la cavia da laboratorio. Ma ora, ogni volta che tendeva una mano per accarezzare il topolino, i ricercatori battevano con un martello una barra d’acciaio posta dietro il bambino, provocando un forte e spaventoso rumore – BANG! Toccava con l’indice il topolino – BANG! Cercava di raggiungere il topolino – BANG! Ci riprovava – BANG!

Il piccolo Albert cominciò a piangere, a cercare di scappare, ad allontanare con i piedi l’animale non appena lo vedeva. Era stato efficacemente programmato per temere i topi. I ricercatori volevano però capire se si fosse instaurato un transfert che provocava l’avversione verso oggetti con qualità similari. Ed era successo proprio questo. Dopo 17 giorni la sua fobia si estese al cotone, alle coperte, alle pelliccie. Infine, anche la sola vista di una maschera da Babbo Natale con la barba lo faceva piangere a dirotto. L’insegnamento era stato recepito: le cose con il pelo sono spaventose e spiacevoli perché fanno BANG.

Dopo un mese di esperimenti, proprio quando il professor Watson voleva cominciare le sue prove di de-programmazione, riportando il bambino a una risposta normale, la madre lo portò via e più nulla si seppe di lui. Già, la madre. Il mistero intorno a chi fosse realmente Little Albert e che razza di vita abbia avuto dopo questo esperimento, e se la madre fosse consenziente, è rimasto oscuro per anni. Le leggende si sprecavano. Finalmente, dopo un’accurata ricerca, sembra che la verità sia venuta a galla. Little Albert era figlio di una balia che allattava e curava i bambini invalidi alla Phipps Clinic presso la Johns Hopkins University di Baltimora dove Watson e Rayner conducevano l’esperimento. Era a conoscenza di cosa stavano facendo al suo bambino, e probabilmente lo portò via con sé quando vide l’effetto che la ricerca aveva prodotto sul suo neonato.

L’esperimento, è doveroso segnalarlo, divenne davvero un classico e aprì la strada per nuove ricerche (con il senno di poi, meno irresponsabili) che continuano tutt’oggi. In quegli anni nessuno sembrò preoccuparsi più di tanto di Albert, ma piuttosto degli incredibili e fino ad allora inediti risultati della ricerca. Non possiamo però sapere se la vita più “normale” che lo attendeva avrebbe potuto sanare le ferite aperte dall’esperimento nel piccolo Albert, se con il tempo sarebbe forse guarito, perché nel 1925 il bambino morì di idrocefalia, sviluppatasi tre anni prima.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hBfnXACsOI]

L’articolo originale di Watson & Rayner è consultabile qui. E qui trovate la pagina di Wikipedia sull’esperimento.