A Dangerous Method Movie Blurb by Shale January 27, 2012 Our local critic Rene Rodriguez with The Miami Herald kinda trashed this movie giving it one star out of four. Turns out he was the exception of the aggregate critics 76% of whom liked it as opposed to only 58% of audiences. I can understand all of that reaction - having endured this very slow talk-talk-talk movie myself today. But, I'm into period pieces and this one is fairly accurately based on historical fact recently discovered in letters of the ppl who were involved. As Rodriguez wrote; "This may all be of great interest to Psych 101 students and professional shrinks ..." Well, I'm neither of those, but I have worked in psych facilities and have experienced a few crazy ppl in my time and really got into this first exploration of how to deal with them. The movie opens on a 'hysterical' out of control Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley)being physically carried, kicking and screaming into Vienna's Burgholzli Hospital in 1904. Hysterical Sabina She is being treated by Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) with a radical new Talking Cure in the untested development days of psychoanalysis. Within a year Sabina has got a grip on herself and is pursuing her own education to become a psychiatrist. In fact she and Jung hit it off so well they become lovers. (Oh, Spoilers if you don't know the history that is played out here) Who's Analyzing Whom? Jung eventually contacts Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) who as you may know thru name recognition was the preeminent psychiatrist of the day, sort of a daddy figure to Jung. (They didn't imply any of this latent homo stuff in the movie, but knowing it you could feel it in those scenes of Jung's admiration & recoil) Jung & Freud (With a ...uh... Cigar in his mouth) So for an hour and a half you watch history come to life as Jung struggles with morality issues such as being married and having an affair with a patient, whom he mentors. Jung and Freud go separate ways over the years in their approach to psychoanalysis. Freud is intractably fixed on sex and Jung wants to study more esoteric phenomena. For a brief scene or two another 'psychiatrist,' Otto Gross (Vincent Cassell) comes in for treatment by Jung. He is an unapologetic hedonist, doing Coke and any woman who'll let him. I guess the draw is seeing these basically unstable ppl who founded psychoanalysis, helping each other in perverse ways get a grip on their own mental aberrations. OK, I don't recommend this movie to just anyone. You have to be a little weird to enjoy it. I enjoyed it.
just finished watching it. it was pretty good. although i'm familiar with some of their work, i had no idea of the background (for example, i had always assumed that jung and freud were of roughly the same age) michael fassbender is fast becoming one of my favourite actors on the scene, especially after his incredible performance in shame and the fact that he actually made me enjoy an x-men film. my only major gripe was that i felt the film didn't do enough to contextualise the work of freud, in that, although it was hinted at, the controversy and uproar against his work, (not to mention the rampant anti-semitism that coloured it) and the atmosphere of volatility that surrounded his ideas was never palpable on screen. i had expected more of it given the title. i realise that this was intended to be a personal story rather than a biopic, but i do feel that capturing the atmosphere of the period would have been a good catalyst for drama. i never really felt the "danger" of the method, when everyone was taking leisurely strolls through gardens and relaxing on sailing boats. i also felt that, given the significance of emotional transference to the plot, i felt that this could perhaps have been, if not explained, then at least emphasised, in order to make it abundantly clear that jung is being unfaithful not only to his wife, but also to one of the most important principles of his profession. i actually think that the homoerotic subtext of the relationship between freud and jung was fairly exliplicit and, coupled with a sense of inter-generational tension, was the most interesting aspect of the film. my favourite scenes are the ones in which micheal fassbender is forced to turn his psychoanalysis onto himself by freud, particularly the scene in which he describes one of his dreams fairly early on. although he tries to appear objective and clinical, his reluctance to analyse his own thoughts is clear on his face, this, really, is central to the film, the paradox between objective, scientific authority and the realisation that all humans are inherently irrational, with all thoughts and actions tempered by the subconscious. t'was alright, and the performances were all good but not nearly dangerous enough, in my opinion, to justify the title. if you wanna see micheal fassbender in a film about Freud and jung's idea of the destruction or construction of ego as linked intrinsically to sexuality, go see shame, it'll blow you away.
Thanx for the input. I too thot the title was kinda misleading, unless the reference was to his 'treating' his patient in his bedroom. (Which BTW is a valid course of treatment for some maladies requiring a sexual surrogate) I did see it and enjoyed it as well: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=441364&f=287
I really had great expectations, but they were destroyed once the credits appeared in front of my eyes. Maybe it is too... light.
its an adaptation of the play "the talking cure", apparently, a much more accurate title for the film IMO
