web
counter
 

A Dangerous Method Review: Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (18)



A-Dangerous-Method-5.jpg

David Cronenberg made his reputation as a purveyor of the macabre and grotesque. He lifts the mundane rocks of every day life to expose the slimy horrors wriggling just beneath. He’s got an almost slavish devotion to meaty, sweaty, sloppy sexuality. So there’s a certain aura of expectation around his latest project, A Dangerous Method, where Cronenberg examines an incident that intersected the lives of Drs. Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. This was the birth of the psychoanalysis movement, where psychologists were duking it out over methodology, and even the slightest provocation could destroy their reputations and undo all their work. A Dangerous Method does a damn fine job at the onset, once you lift the Jung/Freud carapace, what’s left beneath could conceivably be the plot of an episode of “Gossip Girl.” That’s not to say that Cronenberg’s film is terrible; it’s just that I expected something more original or creative. And even with terrific acting — for the most part — and just a nice soupcon of historical factoids, the film’s storyline follows the same basic infidelity/jealous frippery you’d find on a soap opera.

A frothing madwoman is brought writhing and twitching by carriage to Dr. Carl Jung’s (Michael Fassbender) institute for observation. Jung decides to use this young woman, a Russian student named Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), as a guinea pig in his trial run implementation of “The Talking Method” — which would eventually enable thousands of lazy screenwriters to show someone lying on a couch expositioning their problems to someone wearing glasses. Like with most sciences, the method was developed by an older scientist, Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), and Jung was attempting to generate his own research towards his own theories on Freud’s concept. Jung’s wealthy young wife Emma (Sarah Gadon) suggests that Jung contact Freud to open a dialogue. This eventually led to a mentorship between the two men, and blah blah blah, now everything looks like a penis or a vagina.

For those of you expecting to fulfill your slash fiction fantasies of seeing two intellectual luminaries get their hot fuck on in early 20th century Vienna, I am here to crush your hopes and dreams. No, Freud doesn’t give anyone the Lewinsky with his trademark cigar. No, Fassbender doesn’t squat over anyone and give them Jung’s trademark “Hot Carl.” Keira Knightley gets spanked while spilling — well, trickling — out of a corset, which made most of the audience guffaw rather than sigh enticingly. As well they should have, because it is patently absurd.

Cronenberg didn’t write the screenplay — playwright Christopher Hampton developed the script from his own play The Talking Cure, which itself was derived from John Kerr’s book A Most Dangerous Method. The exchanges between Freud and Jung are occasionally droll, but otherwise, the plot is ridiculously boilerplate. Scrub off the Jung/Freud historical aspects, and basically it’s a girl bangs teacher story. You could explain it in 80’s song titles. Student is “Hot For Teacher.” Teacher is “Too Shy.” Meets his mentor who’s a “Cold Hearted Snake.” Teacher meets Freud’s patient Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), a former doctor who’s “Just A Gigolo.” Gross convinces Jung to have “Endless Love.” Jung finds his Student “Simply Irresistible,” takes her to “Funkytown.” Teacher realizes he’s “In Too Deep.” His wife finds out, says “It Takes Two,” and “I’ve Had The Time of My Life,” so “Stay.” Teacher tells Student “Don’t Stand So Close to Me.” Student takes a “Sledgehammer” to his reputation. Jung leaves. “Bad Medicine.”

And that’s all a shame because the acting’s very good. Fassbender has the hard job of playing straight man, and he manages to pull off that sausage-like tensile feeling that this straight-laced dude’s about to just explode. His passionate moments are only effective because he spends so much of the movie being so rigid. Mortensen shines as Freud, he’s just a spectacular bastard, literally oozing with arrogance while puffing on that goddamn cigar. Godon could easily be overlooked as Jung’s wealthy wife, but she makes you remember that those delicate ladies of the 1920’s sometimes carried derringers. Cassel is in the film briefly playing a bon vivant, a doctor who proclaims the sensuality of life and screws all his patients, how you should live without reservation. He’s the right man for the job, and you can literally see the juices running down his cheeks from the bite out of life he’s taken.

Keira Knightly starts off the film with such promise. It’s one of those borderline performances that dandles right around over the top and maddening perfect. Her facial contortions are where Cronenberg gets his grotesqueries. She practically breaks her own jaw with her madness, twitching and writhing and shrieking. It’s horrifying. But then, once Jung “cures” her, she quickly falls into “Carriage-drawn Keira,” which is how most filmmakers see her — a Bennett bearing a bonnet. It’s simply period romance, and so it’s hard to laud her performance when we’ve seen it before and with how remarkable she was when she was batshit crazy. Even her accent is understated, though people will probably attack her for it. I just was impressed she didn’t fall into the Count Chocula school of Eastern European Accents.

A Dangerous Method isn’t a bad film. It’s just a film we’ve seen before. Even with the decent acting and the occasional influx of grotesque, Cronenberg doesn’t manage to elevate his narrative above “Desperate Housewives” intrigue. All the interesting bits that he generates in the beginning of the film are quickly washed away by the generic speeches we always see of men in period haircuts grasping waifs about the shoulders and professing their admiration whilst standing in the English countryside. If Cronenberg gets recognized for this film, this ridiculous Kinsey by way of Gosford Park, it’ll be a shame, because his last two efforts have been far more fascinating.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked Review: Washed Up & Left For Dead | My Week With Marilyn Review | Look At The Stars, Look How They Shine For You









Comments

PRISCOOOOOO!!!!

I've been abstractly looking forward to this for awhile; I guess I will abstractly enjoy this?

Bottom line: this would make a truly fantastic porno. If they kept Viggo and Fassbender.

Posted by: Internet Magpie at November 25, 2011 3:15 PM

[i]You could explain it in 80’s song titles. Student is “Hot For Teacher.” Teacher is “Too Shy.” Meets his mentor who’s a “Cold Hearted Snake.” Teacher meets Freud’s patient Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), a former doctor who’s “Just A Gigolo.” Gross convinces Jung to have “Endless Love.” Jung finds his Student “Simply Irresistible,” takes her to “Funkytown.” Teacher realizes he’s “In Too Deep.” His wife finds out, says “It Takes Two,” and “I’ve Had The Time of My Life,” so “Stay.” Teacher tells Student “Don’t Stand So Close to Me.” Student takes a “Sledgehammer” to his reputation. Jung leaves. “Bad Medicine.”[/i]

I'm nominating this for the Pulitzer.

Posted by: frank_247 at November 25, 2011 3:37 PM

or in italics....

Posted by: frank_247 at November 25, 2011 3:41 PM

I read No, Fassbender doesn’t squat over anyone and give them Jung’s trademark “Hot Carl.” and had to stop reading for a moment to laugh hysterically. Then the Funkytown reference made me start wheezily laughing again. Great review!

Posted by: snapnhiss at November 25, 2011 3:48 PM

I once had a coconut with a shell face that was named Hot Carl.

I gave it to my neighbour Rockin' Ron when I moved out.

Posted by: Bert at November 25, 2011 4:11 PM

Good review. The performances are good, even though Knightley may be over-acting quite a bit, and it looks great, but the film also just feels like a series of vignettes with no real feeling or drama to it. Basically what I’m trying to say was that I was bored and this story just never really got off the ground. Check out my review when you get the chance.

Posted by: Dan O. at November 25, 2011 5:21 PM

Ah shit! I thought this was the movie about the doctors that invented the vibrator.

Posted by: BWeaves at November 25, 2011 11:01 PM

That's Hysteria, Bweaves.

I'm disappointed, I'd been so excited to see this. How better to wash away memories of years of psychology courses than with two of my favorite actors? Perhaps I'll wait for the DVD and watch it on mute.

Posted by: mb at November 26, 2011 5:31 AM

I'm sad.

Cronenberg did so much with 'A History of Violence'.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at November 26, 2011 1:22 PM

What's really a shame is that this is actually a very interesting story of stolen intellectual property. Spielrein recovered and became an analyst, later writing a paper that Freud plagiarized for the death drive in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle", for which he's gotten credit, and which has become his most productive work for late 20th-century thought. And she NEVER was credited for it.

Posted by: MissGina at November 26, 2011 3:04 PM

My friend who saw this said it was really fair to Spielrein who was forgotten and was not credited for her achievements in the same field as Jung and Freud. Nice feminist history. I think I'll go see this one. Viggo, Fassbender and Keira (who I love BTW) make it better.

Posted by: severine at November 27, 2011 3:08 AM

The promos for this certainly didn't give any indication there was more to the story than a strange menage a trois vibe with a hint of kinky. It sounds infinitely more interesting now after reading about the plagiarism.

Posted by: snapnhiss at November 27, 2011 8:00 AM

Viggo does so few films...I'll see it. And Cassel! I love Cronenberg. I'll just hold my nose when Kiera is on screen.

Posted by: klingonfree at November 27, 2011 9:48 AM

So what the review is really trying to say is that, aside from the acting, it's a typical soap opera story? Because I'm not sure the author really got the point across.

Posted by: csb at November 27, 2011 3:34 PM

That is a great review for a movie I'll never see. Hilarious!

Posted by: ChickaBoom! at November 28, 2011 9:41 AM

So basically I'm going to watch a film about the (arguably) greatest minds in the field of psychiatry for the eye candy? I'm not sure what that says about me. Great taste, less intellect?

Posted by: cinekat at November 28, 2011 10:49 AM

an excellent review of a film that didn't deserve all the words.
simply put, this movie could cure insomnia.... and it was well acted.

Posted by: snake at December 29, 2011 10:52 AM

interesting points, food for thought

Posted by: petshop at January 15, 2012 10:44 AM