I'll it say upfront, this film didn't really agree with me. There are some true stories made into films which might inspire one to look further into an event, do a little reading or investigation on one's own afterwards - A Dangerous Method isn't that sort of movie.
Its primary problem is a lack of tension, between anyone; although Mrs Grumpy thought Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) had tension by the bucketloads. The tagline from the poster goes something like, "based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them." My immediate reaction to that statement is … meh (sigh); so clearly this film was going to be a struggle for me from the start. [why did you go? - it was a freebie from a competition].
None of the performances are bad per se and it's all very pretty to look at as one might expect of early 20th century Vienna. In fact the three leads are all perfectly functional in their roles: Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, Fassbender as Jung and Keira Knightley as 'the patient,' Sabina Spielrein. Which means I have to pin my lack of interest in this film on the script and direction, sorry David Cronenberg.
I find it interesting that taking sexual partners outside of marriage in our society is generally frowned upon – except when someone is referred to as a "mistress," then it seems everything is ok and somehow acceptable. I suspect a key difference is men of lower socio-economic standing have 'affairs' but the rich or well to-do in society 'take mistresses.' It still happens and one doesn't have to go too through the tabloid press to find another torrid example. I wonder what the minimal financial cut-off is to take a mistress? And yet in the film Jung wasn't financially supporting Sabina. Honestly, I digress.
Thus, back to the lack of tension. So spoiler alert which was apparent from practically the opening frame, Carl and Sabina get it on. And not obviously because of their smouldering sexual onscreen chemistry but rather a palpable lack of interest in the film if it didn't happen. This despite the fact he is married and his wife manages to bear children throughout the film. We're dealing with unbalanced minds here so their (primarily her) exploration of S&M behaviour is the device (pun intended) used here. While I buy it from Sabina I was never really convinced by Jung.
The most interesting character is Otto Gross (Vincent Cassell, the director in Black Swan). At least he was honest in his pursuit of sexual gratification. It's a small role but one there to act as the forbidden voice on Jung's shoulder. If only he listened to him sooner and more readily.
Furthermore, there is a well documented professional rift between Jung and Freud even I was aware of prior to seeing the film. Again, my reaction to this is all a bit of a yawn. There never seemed to be anything at risk which caused a lack of caring on my part.
The deeper the film goes into the development of psychology, there is a scene or two where various theses are discussed. I found myself harking back to a Sociology class of more than 20 years ago as no detailed exposition was given for talk of the "ego, sex and destruction of the individual and how it relates to death and renewed life." I'm paraphrasing here but not too far off. See this link for some background info on the id, ego and superego, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Ego, it might help, or might not.
Its primary problem is a lack of tension, between anyone; although Mrs Grumpy thought Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) had tension by the bucketloads. The tagline from the poster goes something like, "based on the true story of Jung, Freud and the patient who came between them." My immediate reaction to that statement is … meh (sigh); so clearly this film was going to be a struggle for me from the start. [why did you go? - it was a freebie from a competition].
None of the performances are bad per se and it's all very pretty to look at as one might expect of early 20th century Vienna. In fact the three leads are all perfectly functional in their roles: Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, Fassbender as Jung and Keira Knightley as 'the patient,' Sabina Spielrein. Which means I have to pin my lack of interest in this film on the script and direction, sorry David Cronenberg.
I find it interesting that taking sexual partners outside of marriage in our society is generally frowned upon – except when someone is referred to as a "mistress," then it seems everything is ok and somehow acceptable. I suspect a key difference is men of lower socio-economic standing have 'affairs' but the rich or well to-do in society 'take mistresses.' It still happens and one doesn't have to go too through the tabloid press to find another torrid example. I wonder what the minimal financial cut-off is to take a mistress? And yet in the film Jung wasn't financially supporting Sabina. Honestly, I digress.
Thus, back to the lack of tension. So spoiler alert which was apparent from practically the opening frame, Carl and Sabina get it on. And not obviously because of their smouldering sexual onscreen chemistry but rather a palpable lack of interest in the film if it didn't happen. This despite the fact he is married and his wife manages to bear children throughout the film. We're dealing with unbalanced minds here so their (primarily her) exploration of S&M behaviour is the device (pun intended) used here. While I buy it from Sabina I was never really convinced by Jung.
The most interesting character is Otto Gross (Vincent Cassell, the director in Black Swan). At least he was honest in his pursuit of sexual gratification. It's a small role but one there to act as the forbidden voice on Jung's shoulder. If only he listened to him sooner and more readily.
Furthermore, there is a well documented professional rift between Jung and Freud even I was aware of prior to seeing the film. Again, my reaction to this is all a bit of a yawn. There never seemed to be anything at risk which caused a lack of caring on my part.
The deeper the film goes into the development of psychology, there is a scene or two where various theses are discussed. I found myself harking back to a Sociology class of more than 20 years ago as no detailed exposition was given for talk of the "ego, sex and destruction of the individual and how it relates to death and renewed life." I'm paraphrasing here but not too far off. See this link for some background info on the id, ego and superego, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Ego, it might help, or might not.
============
Director: David Cronenberg
IMDb Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/
Running Time: 99 minutes
