REVIEW: A DANGEROUS METHOD

Since I saw the trailer a couple of months ago I haven't doubted for a second that I'll enjoy the heckfire out of this film and hot damn it was sweet to read this review.

Freud smokes a cigar in every scene he's in. HAR!

Love this movie.

Did Viggo get his balls out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

So was the “Klaus Kinksi” bit a Freudian slip, Josh?

 

You betcha. Good ol' typos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Did Viggo get his balls out?

We'll have to wait for the director's cut.

Cronenberg, Mortensen and Fassbender. I think it may be scientifically impossible for me to be interested in a movie more than this.

Reviews, however good Joshua, are completely secondary to me where this is concerned.

I understand perfectly.

Just wanted to say excellent review. I doubt I'll be seeing this in the theater, but I'll definitely be renting or borrowing it. Keep up the great writing; despite the directing and acting pedigree, I found the trailer only mildly successful in generating a desire to see it. Your review sealed it for me.

Is the film much more of a character study for Jung, or does it touch upon his psychological theories?

The film very much uses his theories as a vehicle for doing a revealing character study. So both!

Just saw this tonight and liked it a lot. Reminds me of TRUE GRIT in a way, i.e. it can be a real pleasure watching a typically idiosyncratic auteur apply his years of experience and mastery of the form to something fairly straightforward and accessible (in this case, the most straightforward and accessible thing he's ever done, I'd say). And it's still distinctly Cronenbergian.

Good review, Joshua. I totally agree with most of your points, especially re: Mortensen.

I'm still trying to ponder the whole "psychic" bit you mentioned.  I really hope I get a chance to see this in theaters.

I didn't find the psychic angle to be that cut and dry, or revelatory in the final scene. Everything presented could just as easily be coincidence and/or the product of a very observant, intelligent mind (in a non-supernatural sense). It's certainly an interesting wrinkle created by Cronenberg and the screenwriter though.

The first scene with the psychic angle is definitely presented as coincidental and I think kinda meant to make Jung look nutty; Freud's reaction to him certainly matched my own while watching the film. The ending though I felt was weighted with strange implication and meant to send you out of the theater with a big WTF to discuss with your friends.

But yeah, I didn't mean to imply it ends like an X-MEN movie or anything.

Unrelated -- I was at a bday party last night, and when this movie randomly came up I was very excited to see how thoroughly this movie was already on everyone's radar. I hope it does well. More Cronenberg/Viggo! The DeNiro/Scorsese of our times.

So I went and watched this yesterday (as if not watching it was ever an option) and I found it completely fascinating. So here's what I thought:

I loved Cronenberg's direction. I had forgotten that this was based on a play but it wasn't more than ten minutes in that the movie itself reminded me of it. Not in a negative way, mind you. I love how committed Cronenberg was to the script and his actors. Someone else may have given in to the temptation to include some establishing wide shots or some miscellaneous world building. Not him. Just razor sharp focus on Fassbender/Mortenssen/Knightley throughout. And this may take more re-watching on DVD but there is something Cronenberg did with the way he set up his dialog scenes that I can't exactly pin down. I'll have to get back to this sometime because it's really bugging me.

The script was excellent. If there was another hour of just Freud and Jung banter I'd be overjoyed.

The acting was uniformly great. Knightley at first rubbed me the wrong way. But then I started feeling that this was intentional. It's not that I didn't like her because she was acting badly. I think her performance was exactly calculated to induce discomfort to the audience in the way being around actual disturbed people does. It got a bit showy but a little reinforcement was necessary to get that feeling through. Cassell would have knocked his role out of the park with both hands behind his back and a ball-gag in his mouth. As for the main duo, I hope they keep making movies together with Cronenberg forever. I adored them both. In the ocean liner scenes you could see just bellow the surface how Jung enjoyed rubbing his higher status in Freud's face. And in the next scene how Freud's refusal to talk about his dream was his way of cutting Jung off. I loved every second of their conversations whether in the same room or through correspondence.

An absolutely superb film on every level.  A must see if you love cinema.

Joshua, I must differ with you on two important points.  First of all, there is nothing wrong with Knightley's performance.  Whether you realize it or not, the facial/body contortions are exactly what those suffering through hysteria endured.  Cronenberg and Knightley studied early 20th century film footage of hysteria patients.  She is quite carefully replicating reality.  It's amazing work from a real pro.

Secondly, this film is brimming with Cronenbergian aspects.  If you think what makes a film Cronenbergian is stomach vaginas or goopy gun hands, then you haven't been paying attention to what's going on under the surface.  Cronenberg regularly explores the themes of metamorphosis, confused loyalties, infection (either by disease or by ideology), fanatical medical practice, and so many other elements found in A Dangerous Method.  Despite being based on historical fact and a stage play, it's a Cronenberg film from balls to bones.

Yeah, I'm baffled by the reaction to Knightley's performance as well.  Some recent "worst of" lists for 2011 have even made a point of including her based on a simplistic reading of her mannerisms in the film.  Along with the charge that the film does not seem to bear the marks of its director -- a surface-level accusation at best -- it's the one criticism I can't get behind at all.

I would note that I put this flick as #4 on my Best Films of 2011.

That is all.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/11/uncovering-the-hysterical-accuracy-in-a-dangerous-method/

Knightley's performance isn't infallible. I didn't believe her in the beginning like I did later in the film; I felt like I was watching an actor trying to replicate a crazy person. Telling me that Cronenberg felt it perfectly matched footage that they watched of actual patients doesn't mean anything. In BLOOD DIAMOND, Leo may have been accurately replicating a South African accent that he studied and worked on with a voice coach, but it still sounded like an American trying to do a South African accent to me.

Anyway, this is an unnecessary argument, given that we both love the film.

No! Fight! Fight! Fight!

This may be a case of people thinking, rightly or wrongly, that Knightley is being "blamed" for the performance when clearly she gave exactly the performance Cronenberg directed her to give.

I think the final scene doesn't quite imply that Jung is psychic, and it would be a disservice to the film to assume that it takes that stance about him -- especially since Cronenberg has said pretty firmly in interviews that he strictly views Jung as a kind of religious leader rather than a figure of influence to rival Freud's in the sphere of psychology -- but it is true that in real life, Jung pretty much thought he was psychic (well, more accurately, he thought everyone had the capacity to be psychic).

His autobiography is full of interesting stories about precognition, telepathy, poltergeist activity, etc. -- none of which end up being overly convincing, of course, since there's always the nagging suspicion that he might be a little crazy (read some of the spiritual sermonizing he did while undergoing his "confrontation with the unconscious"/mental breakdown and he basically comes off as a wannabe Jesus). But it's all quite fascinating to read about someone who, at his core, is basically a logical and humanistic person honestly trying to figure out why these odd things occur and how science should begin to approach them, regardless of how New Age-y his beliefs seem today.

But part of what sucks about watching this movie as someone who's read a fair bit of Jung and some Freud is that there's a lot of great stuff, little instances of conflict between them and individual incidents in their lives, that gets left out or only glancingly addressed, mostly in favor of what is, at times, a mishandled and unconvincing romance. An example would be one occasion in Jung's life when he correctly guessed a man's entire life story when prodded at a dinner party (and afterwards was entirely horrified at his ability to do so). I was sure that was the "psychic" part Josh was talking about in his review and then was a little disappointed when the incident never appeared in the film. It's not a fair criticism, since it's really just an issue with expectations -- and besides, we get plenty of other good stuff, like the cracking cabinet (which actually happened too!) -- and it's plenty fun enough to see two great actors sparring as two of the most interesting intellectuals in history.

I guess the point of this long-winded post is basically to urge any Chewer who found the film interesting to pick up and read some of Freud and Jung's actual writings. They're immensely more rewarding than the movie ends up being, no matter how great it is to see the theories and lives of these people enacted in the context of a film. Also, on a side note, I thought Knightley was fantastic. Her "crazy acting" made me feel genuinely distressed and uncomfortable, which is better than I can say for almost any other "crazy person" performance I've seen.

What I found interesting is that while the subject is largely their research into the sex drive, and how much that plays a part in what makes us tick, Cronenberg seems to reference it often in obvious, almost joking visual symbolism.  For example, as mentioned above, Freud is never sans cigar.  Or the moment where Jung basically says there has to be more to people than that, and Sabina says "Well in my case he would be correct", and then Jung replies that can't be the only engine that drives us, and we cut to a loooong ship traveling past the camera in such a way that the suggestion is very deliberate.  So Cronenberg is having a bit of fun, but is he saying Freud is right?  At first glance one might think so.  But what Cronenberg seems most interested in are the social controls that make people act the way they do.  Whether it's the Jew-Gentile divide, or the way that money plays a part in the friction between Freud and Jung, or how Freud uses his reputation and seniority as a way of maintaining his superiority, or that the fear of losing his wealth and status pretty much instantly dries up Jung's passion for Sabina, and turns him cold.

I guess what I was expecting to come from all this, especially with Sabina's insight of the connection between the sex and death, the destruction of the ego, etc... is that Cronenberg would be exploring the birth of sexual fetishism, which seems a very Cronenbergy subject.  How the collision of these opposing things (i.e. the primacy of the sex drive, but also the social need for repression) logically gives rise to a new thing, which is both natural and artificial; an act that has for its participants a talismanic, mystical quality to it.  But I don't think the movie really did that.  It ends with the line "Sometimes you have to do something unforgivable to go on living." Which I suppose could sort of be a nod to the idea I am talking about.  But maybe it means something else entirely.