Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Tax the Rich
Movie Monday - A Dangerous Method
In its genre, A Dangerous Mind is a good film with great elements, and within it there is an excellent film trying to get out. It strives to tell the disparate tales of Carl Jung's (acolyte and then rival of the great Sigmund Freud) relationship with Freud and Jung's relationship with his first patient where he used the analytical listening method invented by Freud. That's a lot for director, David Cronenburg, to attempt and given his penchant for rather short films (99 minutes), it doesn't work.
Before I throw more disapprobation on ADM, let me say that I really liked this movie. It made me think by helping me to coalesce my reaction to Jung and Freud and even had me switching my alliance with these two greats. It's also a beautiful visual movie which, in a Cronenburg (and perhaps Mortensen) way, tells a lot by saying little.
I think it's important to have this paragraph of praise early because I don't want people dismissing this movie for its flaws and walk away, thinking: OK, I'll skip this one. A one word answer to that: Don't.
We're first thrown into the plight of Sabina Spielrein, a wealthy, 19-year-old, whose persistent beatings by her father from an early age become the trigger for sexual pleasure. At 19, she is a raving hysteric and hospitalized under Jung's care. His treatment of her leads to Jung's first contact with Freud, whose new and controversial method (a dangerous method) Jung will use for the first time with Spielrein. We don't leave Spielrein as a raving lunatic since she goes on to become Jung's first mistress (once only guessed at, but recently uncovered letters confirm this) and a renown child psychiatrist.
The above summary shows a big problem with A Dangerous Method for Jung and Spielrein's relationship is a movie of its own. However, Cronenburg tries to balance this with Jung's relationship with Freud. He almost pulls this off because Viggo Mortensen gives a stellar performance as that cigar-chomping giant, but let me tell you why he doesn't.
First, Keira Knightley as Spielrein, has trouble portraying this complex character; perhaps no actress can. Her initial, over-the-top hysterics (and yes, unfortunately Knightley's jutting chin, as one commenter observed, can be very annoying) quickly morphs into a sort of very mild Tourette-like neurotic quirks. As played, I don't see anything of the "gem above all" quality Jung says she possesses. Add to this, the lack of any chemistry between Michael Fassbender as Jung and Knightley as Spielrein has the viewer watching their intimate foreplay scenes with giggles. OK, watching Fassbinder beat Knightley into ecstasy with a whip may be a difficult empathy stretch for any actor but the "going-through-the-motions" quality between these two belie any grand passion that the letters of Spielrein express.
Perhaps, it's just the fact that both actors need better foils to play against because Fassbinder fares much better in his scenes with Mortensen and his few scenes with Vincent Cassel (great cameo performance) as Knightley does in the scene where Mortensen quietly warns her "We're Jews, my dear
Miss Spielrein. And Jews we will always be.". (Mortensen perfectly portrays Freud's understanding of the Jew's place in the Aryan world at that time.)
So we have a "flat" but very crucial relationship between Fassbinder and Knightley as one peg of this movie and then a quietly dynamic relationship between Fassbender and Mortensen (Jung and Freud) as its second peg.
It is this second peg which makes the movie such worthwhile viewing. Mortensen is an actor who plays his cards close to the chest and bringing this quality to his portrayal of Freud. you don't see the actor, you see Freud.
In the scenes between Jung and Freud, for the first time, I got a clear understanding of the Freud vs. Jung controversy. I'm not going to go into here but to say that I, as a college student, always favored Jung's loosening of Freud's dogmatic view that everything goes back to sex. After ADM, I understand that the validity is with Freud on so many levels; I was wrong. (Freud: The world is as it
is. Understanding and accepting that is the way to psychic health. What
good can we do if our aim is simply to replace one delusion with
another?) http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/
It's these scenes which show you that perhaps by "picking a smaller apple", Cronenberg could have created a masterpiece in this genre. Mortensen and also Cassel give tour-de-force performances. That's the movie I wanted to see. (To be fair, A Dangerous Method is adapted from the play by Christopher Hampton, The Talking Cure, so Cronenburg didn't have much wiggle room.)
Watch A Dangerous Mind and see if you agree: Jung and Freud work; Jung and Spielrein don't.
And for more on Freud, go to Freud and Vienna by Lillian Furst:
It's short but very worthwhile.
A final note of trivia: Box Office Mojo has this movie grossing $27+M with 80% of this coming from foreign sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment