Best believe I was at the first show for David Cronenberg's new film, A Dangerous Method, this afternoon as its theatrical run in the DC area kicks off today. Cronenberg, my favorite director, has been MIA for the past four years since Eastern Promises and returned with what some are calling a departure, a period piece about the relationship between revolutionary psychologists Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung and the birth of psychoanalysis. Departure or not, A Dangerous Method does not disappoint.

The film follows a slightly complex plot. Given the subject matter, I think it's quite accessible but I think explaining all the ins and outs would be overkill. So I'll condense it best I can. The film begins at a hospital in Zurich, Switzerland where Jung (Michael Fassbender) is currently treating patients. His most recent patient is Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly), a Russian woman suffering from hysteria. Jung is assigned to treat her and takes it upon himself to test out Freud's (Viggo Mortensen) "talking cure" (aka psychoanalysis) on her. His treatment of her leads him to meet Freud for the first time. Thus kicks off an intense father/son-esque relationship between the two, as well as Jung's illicit affair with Sabina, who continues to prove a key factor in the two doctors' relationship.

This is probably the first big "performance" film I've seen this year. Everyone in it is just on fire. I suppose in traditional narrative terms, Fassbender is the closest thing to a lead. He's quite excellent and provides solid grounding with perhaps the most subtle performance out of all the main roles. Not a surprise. If you haven't noticed, the guy's blowing up quick and this performance will only serve to boost his well deserved, blossoming career.

At this point, Viggo Mortensen and Cronenberg are a match made in cinema heaven... but I still couldn't have anticipated his performance as the legendary Sigmund Freud. Total transformation. It's hard to imagine an Aragorn or Eastern Promises' Nikolai, the man who dispatched murderous, knife-wielding Chechens all whilst in the nude, as a crotchety middle-aged Freud but given a few minutes of screen time, you just totally forget the actor behind the character. Truly brilliant.

Now, for the dark horse, Keira Knightly...

I said goddamn, goddamn!

Over the past few year or so, my views on acting, especially Hollywood acting, have been changing and Knightly's performance here has only exacerbated my current sentiments. That is, you can take a great, young actor and toss him/her into a couple of franchises and get adequacy. Throw them in with some legendary directors who've been at the game for decades and rest assured, they'll shine.

This is precisely the situation with Keira Knightly in A Dangerous Method. Within the first twenty minutes, she's already matched Natalie Portman in Black Swan. I mean her physicality during her hysterical outbreaks is just so intense, especially her facial movements. She does this thing with her jaw that'll totally make you forget she's not exactly hard on the eyes. You could stick her in any exorcist movie, easy.

However...

It's not all Kabuki we're talking here. While Knightly does have her bombastic moments early on, she balances out further into the film. Jung cures her early on in the story. After that, she goes on to study psychology and eventually become a psychologist herself. This transformation entails a considerably more subtle and restrained performance. And you know what? Knightly pulls that off as well. Essentially, her character is an incredibly bright, determined woman who is constantly at odds with a disease and Knightly is able to portray that character's true self and afflicted self as one, emphasizing one over the other when the situation calls for it. It's an incredibly complex role and Keira owns it.

After this, I've full confidence that Cronenberg has been able to bring out the actor in Twilight's Robert Pattinson for his next flick, Cosmopolis... let's hope, anyway.

Moving along...

The unsung hero of the film is Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross, a brilliant psychologist who's success is at odds with a resolutely anarchistic personality and distain for any form of monogamy or sexual repression. A seductive, fascinating character who isn't around long but makes a very significant impact on the story and Vincent Cassel knows how to manage just the right amounts of "pimp" and "prestige" for the role.

Wow! I've written a lot on the acting. Okay. I'll try to move along and wrap this up.

I've seen Cronenberg's entire filmography minus one (Shivers) and have to say A Dangerous Method feels quite at home amongst his other films. It is a drama comprised of 95% dialogue with almost no violence/gore but the themes are pure Cronenberg. They pertain to his post-Fly work more than they do films like Videodrome or Scanners, I suppose, but if you know Cronenberg's work, you'll see what carries over. I'd say Dead Ringers and Crash are the films that A Dangerous Method overlaps the most thematically.

Nevertheless, the amount of talk in the film doesn't detract from the viewing experience. The dialogue can be a little complex at times but the characters are constantly talking about sex so it's always interesting. The pacing is never slow. Cronenberg keeps his scenes concise and to the point and the plot moves along with a surprising fluidity. And let's face it. It's not all psychobabble. The plot can get pretty racy at times, even when everyone's just talking. And when everyone's not just talking, there's lovemaking, S&M, virginity taking and a dash of drug use to be found in it. The Victorian setting only serves to heighten the feeling of taboo and intrigue; in a modern context, the story might not be quite as intense.

Not to mention this is a full blown period piece and Cronenberg very much exploits that visually. If a scene involves talking heads, damned if they aren't talking someplace really pretty. I thought it was awesome to see a Cronenberg film chock full of wide shots of lavish, Titanic-esque steamboats and the kind of horse-drawn carriage romps that mostly pop up in Hollywood "Hammer-horror" revamps.

So yeah. Cronenberg is back! And indeed, I'll recommend anyone check this one out. Think of this as The King's Speech, except with dirty talk, spanking and Keira Knightly's boobs. Yup, yup, yup.

A Dangerous Method currently ranks at my #3 film of 2011 after Drive and The Skin I Live In, respectively.

I'm looking forward to seeing this.
Even mediocre Cronenberg is better than most of the stuff out there.

Mortensen got a Golden Globe nod, seems a shoe in for an Oscar nom.

I'm equally excited about his next project, "Cosmopolis".
A dystopian tale that takes place entirely in a limousine.
Mr. Twilight himself, Robert Pattinson, taking the lead role honors.

Then Cronenberg's kid, Brandon, has got an indie project off the ground too.
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/27471

E.D.

Really excited about this too, will hold out on reading your review, James, until I get a chance to see it.

Quoted Text This is precisely the situation with Keira Knightly in A Dangerous Method. Within the first twenty minutes, she's already matched Natalie Portman in Black Swan. I mean her physicality during her hysterical outbreaks is just so intense, especially her facial movements. She does this thing with her jaw that'll totally make you forget she's not exactly hard on the eyes. You could stick her in any exorcist movie, easy.

Keira has always struck me as a little underrated. I thought she was outstanding (if not near it) in Never Let Me Go. The Duchess and Atonement,

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley Keira has always struck me as a little underrated. I thought she was outstanding (if not near it) in Never Let Me Go. The Duchess and Atonement,

I don't think you're alone in those sentiments. My problem with Keira Knightly is that between this film and The Pirates of the Caribbean, she's never appeared in anything I'd be interested in seeing. Up until now, I've been oblivious to the fact that she had any acting talent at all.

David Cronenberg's period piece about Jung and Freud is the kind of thing that can make one proud to be Canadian.  We don't produce many wide-release films that are interesting so it's nice to see one that's not only out, but also good.

The film is not, as many seem to have expected, "about" Freud or Jung, but rather about some of the ideas which they explored.  The biographical elements are minimized (although some or most of the details may well be true) as the film focuses on the married-with-children Jung's burgeoning sexual and romantic interest in one of his ex-patients and the moral conflict created between his...well, you know, his id and his ego.

The film is extremely quiet, the sort of quiet in which many might say nothing in particular happens.  Although the opening sequences of the film do connect somewhat viscerally, the latter two thirds of the film were, for me, essentially devoid of emotional engagement.  I don't believe that this was unintentional; the film is one of ideas rather than of, as it were, plot for plot's sake, and so the perhaps Kubrickian dryness seems entirely appropriate.  This will be the factor upon which I suspect most peoples' enjoyment will hinge; there are very few concessions made to the viewer whom is not willing to engage themselves with the ideas, in the sense that there is very little to take from the film if one sits back and expects to be spun a tale.  

Fassbender has so far proven himself always dependable and it's no different here.  Knightley, in my opinion, was excellent, although there was some disagreement among the people I saw the film with as to whether or not her accent was terrible.  I noted afterwards that the trailer had been cut so as to not inform the audience that she has an accent in the film; perhaps this is a sign that the accent is bad.  All I can say is that it didn't bother me.  Mortensen is the one slightly weak spot; although his performance is, of course, technically proficient, it seemed to me that he lacked the sheer gruff fatherly presence that the film repeatedly assures us that he has.

There's not too much to say about the rest.  It's a period piece and it looks very nice; Cronenberg's visuals are, as usual, dependable, and the precise blocking and framing of scenes gives a classic film feel to the dialogue sequences.  One pleasant surprise was that while the film was dry, it was also quiet light and humourous in its own quiet way.  There was fairly consistent laughter from the audience throughout the screening, especially during Vincent Cassel's appearance.

Although there were, I'm sad to say, no bulging stomachs or mutant typewriters, this film also manages the peculiar task of fitting entirely appropriately into Cronenberg's auteur canon merely through ideas and dialogue.

A recommend from me, on a night when you're not feeling like something popcorny.

Not quite sure where I stand on this one.

I will, however, have to strongly disagree abot any Kubrick parallel. Even at his most emotionally disengaged, Kubrick would serve up splendour in visuals and sound while taking us somewhere we'd never been before. I don't think this film managed to do that at all and is undeserving of such an accolade. That said, some of the locations were insipred.

I agree that there's not an attempt to try and engage the viewer on an emotional level, but rather in an intellectual way. My problem with the film is that the lack of coherence or focus in the narrative left me wonderinge exactly what intellectual ideas we're supposed to contemplate.

The biggest problem, for me, was the heavy focus on Fass and Knight's sexual relationship. Yes, we're talking Freud and the obvious hypocrisy with Jung's dalliances; however, the film only really started scoring points on the inner turmoil when Cassel showed up. A lot of what went before failed to engender any significant interest for me in that sexual conflict. That's a lot of wasted film.

This film was at its strongest when it did touch on the tensions between Freud and Jung. Had the focus been more on the different paths these guys felt compelled to take their study, we'd have something a little more weighty.

In terms of the heavy dialogue, that's not a problem. It was essentially a play. So what. Theatre still has the same need to engage and challenge the viewer. ADM was only partially successful with this. The main issues appear to rest with the script. Not enough margarine for the whole slice of toast, so let's just go with one good half slice, rather than a cardboard like full slice.

They muddied and never fully gave the deserved attention to the religion aspect. It felt like a tick box approach, as did the final mention of the onset of World War 1.

Reading back, it sounds like I didn't like this. It's not that, it's just I feel frustrated with the script and the focus. With such an interesting and important subject matter, it felt like a case of squandering precious material.

I enjoyed the individual performances better than the sexual interplay.
Viggo and Fassbender are a real treat to watch on screen together.
Their exchanges kept me riveted at almost every turn.
And why Kiera Knightly didn't get an Oscar nod is beyond me.
She's the engine that drives the personal plots that unfold.
And she's up to the task, a mass conflict of intellect and forbidden desire.

Cronenberg gets more exciting with his choices.
And man, is this film gorgeous. The locations are eye catching without being garish.
If you told me 30 years ago that the Scanners guy would direct this, I'd laugh.

However, I do feel the personal relationships stunted the third act.
I felt left of out Fassbender's motivations at times.
The only points where the film stops to explain character motivations. Meh.

I'm very much looking forward to his next film with Mr. Twilight, called "Cosmopolis".

E.D.

Hey Andrew,

To clarify, any suggestion of a parallel to Kubrick was meant to start and end on the idea of dryness or emotional disengagement.  I certainly don't think Cronenberg has achieved (or attempted) anything close to Kubrick with the film otherwise.

Whatch'all think about the Knightley accent?  

Hey Chris,

Ahh, I get you and that's cool.

I found Keira to not be at her best in this film. The one thing I found incredibly difficult to take serious was her weird gurning thing during the first interview with Jung. What on earth was that all about. Yes, love, you can jut your jaw out at an unfathomable angle, but how is this conveying your repressed enjoyment of being spanked? How is that communicating your anguish? It felt more like an initial exercise at RADA to weed out the rubbish.

She's usually able to being incredibly sexy in the most disarming and subtle manner, but I didn't find that here. To me, that quality is probably what got her the role, but she exuded nothing of it in ADM. Part of that is surely attributable to the accent that seemed to thrust her into uncomfortable territory. She should've thrived in this role but didn't.

Unless I have a latent, unknown penchant for dismissive women, it's difficult to reconcile why I found Jung's wife to carry all the sexual zest that was surely supposed to be emitted by Keira. To be fair, though, I'm not sure Keira had a lot to work with. The characterisation was timid at best.

I saw this one tonight. I'm not the best at film reviews but I have to say this one left me disappointed.

Acting - yeah, great and I would echo James comments

Settings, cinematography - yeah, again fine, although I sensed a limited budget (gone on the actors) which for this topic I can also understand.

Story - well this is what got to me. I am interested in Jung's work and have read a few of his books. I have a particular interest, as an amateur, in his concept of the shadow aspect. As it happens, one of the books by my bed is a selection of papers given at a conference dealing with the "shadow" and how it perceived by different strains of Jungian theory, as well as other psycotheraphy disciplines. Gosh I'm fun to have around!!

This limited knowledge holds me back with this film.

When we consider a script, what has been a pleasant surprise - yet a challenge - with writing scripts is the freedom allowed. We can choose to start a script when and where we wish and likewise finish it. On reflecting the period and subject matter I felt that they missed the chance to play out this drama in a more, dare I say it, conventional story format, with a protag going through a more traditional story struggle and character arc, compared to the limited horizon of this film.

For example, all the great work that came in his later years, after the debates, the fights,  the struggles are blissfully ignored and put up as a title card at the end. So, if we ask ourselves what did our protag want, what struggles did he go through and how did he outcome them to achieve this, the answer in this film is limited, if not unanswered. However, bearing in mind the freedom they had, I could see a story told at the end of Jung's career, told largely in flashback, where we see the fruits of his years of debate, torture of the mind etc, appied to a patient as a final payoff, and acknowledgement of his standing. An uplifting finsih to an uplifting person, even if complicated.

In this way we would have the protag battling with a current patient,  the object of his success, and the struggles he over came, went through, to acquire the knowledge required to treat them. Not sure i have explained that well, but in essence a more conventional story still set around the same topic. As it happens, at the end of the film, we leave the  protag, our hero in this film, sitting on a wicker chair, staring out  at a lake like one of his patients, as the conclusion. It simply looks like he failed, except of course the title card then tells us he didn't!!

I haven't read the book, but at a guess, I would say that would read well, but IMO didn't fully translate to the screen, for me. But then again one of my favourite films is Star Wars, so what do I know.

Cheers

Interesting post there, Reef.

I see there are two threads for this film. Would be cool if someone married the two up.

[bert's edit:  done, thanks for the catch]