A Dangerous Method

Given his entire filmography is concerned with themes linked to man's identity and the complexities of human sexuality, David Cronenberg is, on paper at least, the ideal director for A Dangerous Method, a movie dealing with the birth of psychoanalysis. Then again, the film is also a bit of an odd fit for him, since the script by Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liaisons) doesn't really lend itself to the outbursts of graphic violence that permeate the Canadian auteur's body of work. The result, first witnessed at the Venice Film Festival (after the film had allegedly been rejected by Cronenberg's fest of choice, Cannes), is an interesting but somewhat hollow entry in the director's admirable career.

Ostensibly about the professional relationship between Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), A Dangerous Method is in reality more concerned with the bond between Jung and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), a young woman sent to his clinic in Zurich since her mental condition is an ideal subject for his research. Sabina, it turns out, is incredibly well-read, and soon progresses from patient to assistant, much to the amusement of Freud, who corresponds regularly with Jung about their mutual scientific interests and also meets the young woman on a few occasions. The relationship between the three evolves in even stranger ways as time passes, with Sabina taking an unexpected place in Jung's heart...

With its combination of psychoanalysis and sex, the story - perhaps familiar to European film buffs thanks to Roberto Faenza's Italian-language take on the same subject - has all the right characteristics to be vintage Cronenberg (hints of which are offered in the opening and closing credits via Howard Shore's music). And yet there's something missing: whereas the reconstruction of Vienna in the early 20th century is impeccable, the director appears to be less interested in the actual development of story and character, with a rather detached approach that suggests he's almost working on autopilot. That having said, part of the blame can be laid on Hampton, whose screenplay only glosses over key details of the story, leaving us with a quite simplified, "safe" version of events (the sex is unusually tame and unchallenging for a Cronenberg film).

The performances are a mixed bag as well: Knightley, stuck with the showy role, is unbearably OTT in the first 30 minutes, shouting and shaking endlessly before she eventually tones down the mania and focuses on finding the character, complete with a solid Russian accent. At the other end of the spectrum is Mortensen, pitch-perfect from the start but criminally underused, especially considering his past associations with Cronenberg. And then there's Fassbender, quietly intense and generally up to the task, were it not for his decision to speak RP English when he and Mortensen, who adopts a German accent, are supposed to be from the same country (this is even more perplexing if one thinks of Fassbender's flawless mastery of German).

A Dangerous Method is thus a textbook case of a film that, while not disappointing in the strict sense of the word, comes off as a minor effort in a generally spotless filmography. But even on an off-day, Cronenberg deserves to be seen at least once. Just don't expect another History of Violence...

6,5/10

This started very well, great cast, landscapes, scenography, characters etc. I loved the idea of to greatest psychology minds working together on improving therapy methods and changing the approach to curing people of their traumas and problems. Where i find the movie failed a bit is the story where the connections in the scenes are bit off. I got the feeling that it was jumping trough periods without any connection which i could put together. It seemed like there were years in gaps between couple of scenes where there wasn't any. Even if this followed only true life events of Jung and Freud it still leaves us with wanting more then just few dialogs and scratch on the surface of psychology treatments. Kinsey (2004) is a movie which is a good parallel example how a movie about similar subject can be and can be done brilliantly. Maybe movies about lives of both Jung and Freud are in order. So, all in all, i enjoyed watching it, everyone did a great job and gives you a good feeling after, it has minor gaps in the story which doesn't make you stick to the chair but definitely recommend it to everyone.

I am a Cronenberg fan. I think a History of Violence is one of the greatest films ever made! I also think Eastern Promises showed what happens when a great Director pairs with an awesome muse. I anticipated this film eagerly but after watching it I was left with mixed feelings. Perhaps this is because the script was not as tight as that of the first two films I mentioned. It was never going to be easy capturing something as abstract as psychoanalysis on film, yet I can say that this film does ramble on at times and it is slow. A History of Violence was slow but the pay off was fantastic. Here there was no pay off. We were shown the lives of three great, complicated minds and that was it. After reading about the lives of the three central characters I can safely say that perhaps this was not the film Cronenberg should have made about Freud. He opted respectfully for the less dramatic and more factual and I think this sacrifice could have hurt what could have been another Cronenberg/Mortensen smash-hit. That said, I also think Keira Knightley was a mis-cast and Mortensen and Fassbender were as perfect as ever. Looking forward to the next Cronenberg flick. This wasn't awful but I expected more.

A movie about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud directed by David Cronenberg? That sounds surprising and interesting, to say the very least but the movie as it turned out, was far from anything interesting to watch.

There are really multiple causes. The first and foremost problem is obviously with its story. And not just only the story in itself but also the things its emphasizes and puts its focus on. It makes some bad choices with this, which makes this movie feel like a very dry and distant one.

The movie is mostly focusing on the 'romance' between Jung and his mental patient, played greatly by Keira Knightley. Nothing wrong with that, if only the romance was anything really romantic or something to feel involved with. It instead just feels wrong and dirty and besides isn't made all that believable. Why, out of all of his patients and opportunities he must have had in his life, does Carl Jung suddenly decide to have an affair with this particular woman? What was so different or intriguing about her? This movie really doesn't give you the answers to any of this.

And if you think that this movie is being one that is sort of showing the rivalry between Freud and Jung and their opposing psychology methods, you are completely wrong. There is never any interesting dynamic between the two of them, which is granted also due to the fact that Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, is hardly in the movie at all.

And don't know what their methods were and why there are still being used in today's psychoanalysis and why the both of them are being regarded as the two founding fathers of psychoanalysis? Don't expect this movie to show or tell you anything! It really remains on the surface all, as if it was afraid for its own subject and that it might loose some of its viewers with it.

In other words, the movie really isn't telling you anything interesting and it's mostly being an unusual romantic movie, you'll get very little out off.

All a same really, since the movie itself remains well made and acted out. It's a pretty good looking movie, with all of its historical sets and costumes and the actor's play their roles convincingly. It at least still makes the movie watchable but it's barely enough to keep you interested in it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I've only read very few of Jung's and Freud's abstracts of work but i've always been interested in knowing a bit more. A Dangerous Method cleared some of my questions and was pleasant for me to watch and learn a thing or two about their contributions and contradictions in psycho-analysis.

What is emphasized in this film is their well known "disagreement" on sexual activity (libido) and apparently religion. Something that's been brought here by a female patient of Jung, Sabina Spielrein -played by Keira Knightley, who's been diagnosed with hysteria and was admitted to Burghölzli Clinic in Zürich in 1906. Michael Fassbender (Jung) and Viggo Mortensen (Freud) both performed seriously and insightful and Knightley captured pretty well the behavior of a hysteric person and then, her transition through therapy.

The German locations where the filming took place were picturesque and the atmosphere was warm, theatrical, peaceful enough but rather slow at some points. The intense relationship between the Austrian neurologist and the Swiss psychiatrist was very interesting to watch nevertheless.

The reason i enjoyed this film is simple: It was exactly what i was expecting it to be. Educational. And the fact that a talented cast did their best to bring out on the screen such facts, has left me a satisfied watcher full of interest and food for thoughts.