A Dangerous Method (2011)

I can't remember the last time when I have been so much in disagreement with the general critical response for a movie… Everywhere I look I seem to hear and read high praises for Cronenberg's latest work, and yet I am willing to bet that few of those who claimed to like it so much would be ready to watch it again. As far as I am concerned I am struggling to find something positive to say (well, yes, nice costumes…) and the only reason why my vote isn't any lower is because I am willing to admit that I might have not been in the right mood for it. Even in his most flawed films, Cronenberg has always been an interesting director, or at least able to create not only an almost palpable atmosphere, but also a particularly defined style and vision which set him apart from the usual Hollywood crowd. And yet this one seems a film with no direction whatsoever. Not only each sequence felt random and inconsequential as if not necessarily edited in the right order, without any real feeling of natural progression from the previous one into the next, but also it was all so static and lifeless that sometimes I even wondered whether anyone was actually directing at all. At no point I felt any sympathy for any of the character: in fact, not only I did not like any of them, but I didn't even hate them either. I just didn't care. And this is is a rather strange thing to say, because on paper, a film about the relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud (and consequently the birth of psychoanalysis) sounded to me very intriguing indeed. Sadly, pretty earlier on into "A dangerous Method" I realised that this wasn't really the type of film I was hoping to see. I found myself uneasy right from the word "go", that is from the moment I saw Keira Knightley overacting like never before and stretching her chin to new unbelievable levels, as if screaming to the audience "I want that Oscar!!". Well, darling, not this time. Then, after the early screams, it all calmed down a bit and the dialogue started… and that's when it got worse! For a film which should rely on words more than action itself (especially given the static nature of it all), I found the script absolutely puerile. It all felt like it was written by a high school kid, who's just heard a few things about Freud and wants to impress his friend with his newly acquired knowledge. I mean, there are actually lines like "You Freud, have always sex in your mind. Why does everything always has to do with sex?"! Really? Mr Hampton, who are you writing this script for? Surely your target audience doesn't need things spell out so boldly and blatantly. It was like reading a checklist of all the possible clichés one could think about psychoanalysis (and Freud in particular). Who is this film for anyway? At times it felt like it was so ridiculously basic, as if it was written for people who have never even heard of Freud and Jung. Other times it was all so riddled with heavy handed quotes and so "up its own self" that it felt like watching some boring lecture given by an even more bored teacher, sitting on your old desk back in school. From such a renowned scriptwriter (he wrote Dangerous Liaisons and Atonement among the other things) I was expecting a lot more: maybe Mr Hampton should watch a few episodes of HBO's classy "In Treatment" to learn a thing of two about the subtlety of bringing psychoanalysis to the screen. As far as the two leading male actors (Fassbender and Mortensen, who by the way was so goo

Fmovies: 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

Have you ever witness a hysterical person having a crisis? I haven't, probably neither have you. Could that be the reason why to some reviewers (including myself) the histrionics of Keira Knightley as a hysterical patient were embarrassing to watch on the screen? I don' know. Probably real hysteria looks like that but in daily life a witness won't feel what a film viewer feels when being forced to watch incessantly all those facial and body contortions on close ups.

After those first over-sized and over-dramatic scenes, the film takes a very natural tempo either on camera work or in tone down dialogs, serene outdoor and indoor scenes, making a very well mannered, ultra civilized and fascinating film indeed.

The professionalism of everyone involved in it is impeccable and the script sound as it could be for a one and a half hour film explaining to a general public something as complicated as psychoanalysis involving two of the most important personalities of the last century responsible to have revolutionized and changed the course of history in that field for ever after.

Some reviewers criticized this movie as elemental, as too basic while I think it wasn't meant for a professional audience of top psychologists, but merely a very good piece of entertainment for the masses and at the same time with modest doses of knowledge about a theme that in general is unknown to the great majority and vastly complicated.

Same goes for the criticism of some reviewers about the sex life of these people when it came to show them in bed doing their own Kamasutra. How far did they expected the sex scenes to go? to the point of impregnation of the female and posterior birth as its consequence?

I don't know, I think that that was beside the point in this very serious movie and moreover, that kind of titillation should be look for on a different kind of movie. To me this was an excellent movie very fulfilling from all points of view.

A Dangerous Method fmovies. Freud is misread by Jung from the start as fatherly, as Freud brings the photo to his heart, revealing some kind of narcissitic homoeroticism was at play--if not in the literal sense then in the sense of the master v the protege. Look how it shows Freud's family once and never again. Mostly it shows him in his den making faces wishing someone would strike him dead. The play brings this as David v Goliath with his authority being chipped away. Jung as the candidate must debase and humiliate himself to explore Freud's sexual freedom and it scars him for life. The abyss stares back. (There is also an absurdest black comedy component where all this is just to get their rocks off.) What's resonant is the trap of being in the narcissist's grasp. Deliciously, the villain's plot is cerebral: a certain idea in despair. It is why Jung escalates in those mic dropping letter exchanges. The film presents Freud's rule as this foregone treatise of humanity's lowness, because it mirrors Cronenberg's own atheistic world view of the misanthrope, allowing this frame of mocking Jung's naivety and admiring Freud, a perfect heroes journey--Freud is the Cronenberg stand-in after all--then if I'm overstating him as malicious, there he functions here, at least he's weary, daring to be proven wrong, skeptical... he has human history on his side after all. Then with perspective here he embodies a voice of the historic Jewish trauma. Enter the woman bridging and dividing them, of course in noir she would drive them mad with jealousy, and with Freud having no interest in women, she must do so via intellectual cuckoldry: taking Freud's patients, confessing it's his ideas she prefers. "We're both Jews, never forget that." The other key is the film also insists history in the post-script, that all this religious idealism was regressive in the 20th century nuclear age, vs Jung's Plato's forms, instigates Jung's Eyes Wide Shut trip through hell. Problem is it revels in it a bit much, Cronenberg seems too certain in the Freudian as Jung does seem to find actualization in the carnal to conclude with, dirty love haunts him. In this way it reveals the 20th century not Freud v Jung. Because did the film even watch itself? Look how it functions the way any comic book operates: the battle and co-dependence of good v evil. Then through is its very structure of a storytelling order that would please us, dueling scientists, femme fatals, monsters, heroes journey, labyrinthic villainry, reflects Jungian forms of storytelling no matter how much he loved spanking the girl. Cronenberg unlike Spielrein had no interest in bridging them.

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.

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.