A Dangerous Method Review

23rd Jun 2012

I have an academic background in the history of psychology so have done a fair amount of reading around Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud so inevitably I am going to scoff at the historical accuracy of this film. On the other hand I am utterly in love with Michael Fassbender so pretty much anything I watch with him in it has the potential to be distorted in my mind as I focus on his handsome face. Sadly the Fass can’t save this film for me. As a whole it simply is not a good film. My first viewing was difficult, the second I could barely finishing watching the film. But why does it feel so wrong to me? I’m not sure I can quite figure that out.

The film follows the famed relationship of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), their initial meeting of the minds over psychoanalysis and the eventual breakdown of the friendship. This however is sold to us as the sub-plot and it is Jung’s romance (for a better word) with the woman Sabine who begins as his patient and becomes one of the first female psychoanalysts.

The film is visually stunning, full of rich pre-WWI period details and with a score that matches it perfectly. This however is the most positive thing I can say about the film. The scenes, in an odd parallel to the demonstration of word association depicted, feels disjointed, leaping from topic to topic and unfortunately I cannot find a deeper interpretation to understand what it is that director David Cronenberg is trying to say or explore. Conversations seem to cut into the middle of them, they are staged and contrived to fit in the information I assume is considered what we need to hear.

Unfortunately one of the worst things about this film for me was Keira Knightly. I’m not a huge fan but find her watchable in other films. This one I felt like covering my eyes at times. Her interpretation of hysteria feels so over the top and forced it makes the skin crawl (and no I don’t think the discomfort I feel is because it is an accurate portrayal of mental disturbance). It is completely distracting the way in which she expresses her emotional turmoil by jutting out her lower chin. You shouldn’t be cringing at the physicality of an actor in a scene which demands you listen to the words. This may just be my own prejudice but I also found her skeletal frame disturbing.

Fassbender and Mortenson do put in admirable performances and it is widely accepted that the scenes revolving around them are interesting and involving. Maybe this film would have worked much more for me if it had been just about their relationship and left the Sabine story in the background, may be a different actress in the role of Sabine would have changed the dynamics. By taking on this film Cronenberg should be examining two fascinating historical men and a complex woman in an age where women were locked away and deemed mad for trying to step outside the conventional social roles. As well as these two intriguing areas there is also the exploration of human sexuality (something the Fass obviously has an interest in as reflected in his choice of roles). There is an opportunity here to look into how human behavior and sexuality becomes ingrained in us from an early age and the levels of human psychology.

All these fascinating elements probably sum up why for me this film was such a failure. There is so much rich material but Cronenberg spreads himself too thin, nothing is given the attention it deserves and I was left frustrated and annoyed with the whole experience. If you’re interested in these topics, forget this film. Pick yourself up a few books which cover the subject matter instead and just picture the Fass as Jung as you read.