A Dangerous Method

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.

What was the source of conflict which caused a gulf to form between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung? When we examine their personal and professional lives, what turning points shaped their theories? What were the storms which blew through the lives of Jung and Sabina Spielrein? These are some of the questions this film attempts to highlight, and in fact begins to touch upon.

Some of the most scintillating moments of "A Dangerous Method" are sexually bracing. But the audience is left feeling a bit orphaned. Do these carnal scenes truly address the significant thematic questions?

Here's my main beef with this film: I wanted to see more time spent on the rigorous conflict between Freud and Jung. I have a sincere interest in the life of Carl Jung, but in the end, I was not sufficiently satisfied. Having said that, the production design, scenery, and costuming were absolutely wonderful.

The somber, instinctual undercurrents of "A Dangerous Method" can be a bit hypnotic. But because the script suffers, I cannot fully come under its spell. As the rolling credits came up, I personally felt a bit deflated, as if a sweet was torn from my curious grasp. Although I think most films would do well with a tighter edit, this movie could have used an additional 30 minutes of character and plot development.

I appreciated the qualities which Fassbender brought to Carl Jung. Vincent Cassel was right on the mark as the impulsive Otto Gross. Jung's insecure wife Emma was tenderly portrayed by Sarah Gadon.

Although Keira Knightley tried her best to portray Sabina Spielrein, there were certain scenes where her delivery seemed pushed. I have long respected Viggo Mortensen, but I was not fully convinced by his affected portrayal of Freud.

So, who would I cast as Sabina? Emily Mortimer, Helena Bonham Carter, or Rachel Weisz come to mind. And how about the part of Freud? Ben Kingsley, Dustin Hoffman, or Geoffrey Rush could have added a riveting twist to this role.

Is there a doctor in the house? I will leave that for you to decide.

A Dangerous Method marks the third film that director David Cronenberg had collaborated with actor Viggo Mortensen, casting him as the famed Sigmund Freud in a tale that examines the relationship between three prominent scientists in the early days of psycho-analysis, with the other two being Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), set in the early 1900s, adapting from the play The Talking Cure by Christopher Hampton, which in turn was based on the non fiction book A Most Dangerous Method by John Kerr.

While one of Cronenberg's most accessible films as are his other Mortensen starrers in recent years, the story based on real people provides that compelling watch as it takes the viewer on a relatively scientific journey full of hypotheses and theories on psychosis, psychiatry and sexuality even, listening keenly on heavy discussions that even the layman can pick up, and stay engaged that I won't deny may be attributed to the charismatic cast who play their real life counterparts with aplomb. Events that unfold and with scenes set in are based on real incidents, so that provides a bit of historical accuracy, albeit there's always that dramatic license adopted to tell a tale especially involving more private moments amongst the characters.

Michael Fassbender, Hollywood's recent It guy, sets the stage as Carl Jung, who in his active practice in a Swiss hospital sees him introduced to Sabina the patient, brought in from Russia and having treatment by Jung using Freud's methods. A correspondence with Freud results in the two spending time with each other exchanging ideas and concepts, forming a professional friendship although Jung admits to Sabina that he's a little bit wary and apprehensive. Who wouldn't be, when one takes another's theory and sees the results obtained when utilized.

It's a tale about professional rivalry, and how sometimes one's perception of friendship becomes totally jaded when feelings aren't really reciprocated in expected terms, such as when Jung shares his most intimate dreams with Freud for interpretation and analysis, much to his slight disgust for Freud's penchant for dissecting and co-relating everything in fairly sexual terms, but for the reverse to never happen because of the big fear that in doing so renders one vulnerable to the other. And this professional relationship turned rivalry under the most natural and expected terms, with Mortenssen and Fassbender disappearing into their roles thanks to heavy makeup, is what makes this somewhat like a mirror to our own personal life when we reflect upon our own friendships kept.

But with Keira Knightley's Sabina Spielrein in the picture, it provided an additional complexity between the two men, especially when Jung breaks the doctor-patient relationship and enters into a more intimate, sexual one with Sabina, in a certain way also goaded and encouraged by Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel in a minor role), to whom some proponents of free love will credit him for that concept. This adulterous relationship behind the back of Jung's wife Emma (Sarah Gadon) adds a tinge of danger and destruction to the professional life of Jung as it threatens to boil over, with Sabina's emotional instability, and threats of blackmail, especially when rumours and anonymous letters start to fly, points to a difficult resolution in having to confess one's deeds to a mentor or peer. It's not an easy thing to do, and instead of physical violence as seen in the other recent Cronenberg films in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, this one sees more of a psychological tussle and one-upmanship between the three historical characters involved.

Lush in production values to bring back the early 20th century with sets, costumes, and even an ocean liner thrown in for good measure, what will result in A Dangerous Method will be that spark of interest to read up more about the true life characters involved in this story, to dig a little bit deeper into the theories they created and the ideas they each support and differ from one another. Knightley, without a signature look to hide behind, is memorable as Sabina in the introduction, fighting against her inner demons, and then growing into a confident professional complete with Russian accented English to boot.

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/

It's always difficult to review a movie based on psychology because sometimes what's difficult to understand is too easily categorized as illogical or bad execution.I heard so much criticism towards the last movie by Cronenberg.I completely disagree with those bad reactions."A dangerous method"is a brilliant ,absorbing and thought provoking movie that boasts excellent performances by the three leading actors.The direction is great and Cronenberg once again shows his uncommon ability to tell a story in a very original way although the dialogs are sometimes hard to follow,probably due to its subject.But there are really breathtaking moments such as the scenes of the Spielrein therapy.This leads me to Knightley performance.It was a brave,shocking and terrific performance that it was criticized without a reason.I didn't catch all that hatred.She has always been so good("Pride e prejudice","Atonement" and "Never let me go")but here she left her comfort zone to bare herself and gives one of the most exiting performances of the year.Oscar worthy material.Fassbender was equally great in the role of Jung and it's a pleasure to watch this splendid rising A-list actor.Mortensen was good but I fear not as good as Fassbender and Knightley.Cassell is always Cassell.He's a good actor but he plays always the role of the daring man.I think that "A dangerous method" is one of the best movies of the year.It succeeds to transcend from his particular story to focus on the hidden instincts associated with the human nature.My vote is 8/10.