- Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung and Viggo Mortensen as Sigmung Freud
As Viggo Mortensen strode into the room, I had difficulty restraining my awe and admiration for him and his craft. His presence was a reminder of the qualities each actor brings to their characters in A Dangerous Method. But when asked about his portrayal of such a well-known historical figure, he frankly expressed the initial doubts he had when he was offered the part: “that’s odd, I don’t look like him. I don’t know how I’m going to look like him.” Speaking with the characteristic drawl of Received Pronunciation English and wearing pomaded hair, a well-groomed beard, and contact lenses to disguise his piercing blue eyes, Mortensen is rendered almost unrecognisable in the role. His naturally imposing frame and probing gaze, though perhaps not historically accurate, aptly matches the gravitas of Sigmund Freud’s authority.
Mortensen’s Freud cuts an intriguing figure, but is only one in a trio of A Dangerous Method’s personalities. The film illustrates a slice in time that encompasses a brief yet fruitful friendship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Freud, leading to the establishment of psychotherapy as a discipline. The picture opens in 1904, where a hysterical young lady, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), is checked into the Burghölzli psychiatric hospital and assigned to Dr Jung for treatment. He is enthused by the chance to implement Freud’s “talking cure” on the new patient. It works, and Sabina strives to resolve her psychological condition while Jung strikes up a correspondence with Freud on the basis of her case. Thus erupted a notable rapport between Jung and Freud, which was further strengthened after Jung went to visit Freud in Vienna and they conversed for 13 hours almost without break. They bond over their shared interest in developing psychotherapy, but even then, the differences between them are apparent. They disagree on Sabina’s inherent personality traits. Jung’s voracious academic appetite is symbolised by his incessant eating, while Freud ingests scarcely anything, save for cigar smoke. Jung’s keen excitement and ambition for psychoanalysis contrasts with Freud’s serene confidence of one who is already a leading figure in the field.
Michael Fassbender’s natural intensity amplifies Jung’s intellectual zeal. A fantastic actor to watch, his mounting doubts are almost palpable as his existing morals are swayed by a persuasive new patient, Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel). Sex addict Gross played by any other would not be half as beguiling without Cassel’s raw energy and unconventional charm. While Cassel steals every scene he is in, Keira Knightley tries to – and fails to – do the same through some vigorous scenery chewing. Yet, this is not to say her contribution was wholly negative. Knightley’s taut lines lend themselves beautifully to the inner turmoil of Sabina Spielrein. But the latter’s convulsive tics, stammering, and unease, were so bizarrely interpreted by Knightley as to detract from the immersive quality of Cronenberg’s cinema. The sympathy she commanded from me in the beginning was only because I hoped that as Sabina’s condition improved so would her performance; and thankfully it did when she took it down a notch after the first act. Unfortunately, the questionable Russian accent persists throughout.
The screenplay by Christopher Hampton, who also wrote Dangerous Liaisons and Atonement, though at times incisively clever, is unfortunately inadequate. The film was adapted from Hampton’s play, The Talking Cure, so perhaps these flaws have been carried over. In any case, for all the emphasis that is placed on the cure, it is only superficially portrayed. Jung gains Sabina’s trust and stabilises her enough to realise her dream of being a psychiatrist with such efficiency, it seems almost convenient. Furthermore, Jung and Sabina’s affair is set up as something so instinctual and lustful that Jung’s eventual declaration of love is close to unconvincing, save for Fassbender’s loud sobs and passionately clenched fists. We see each subject mature somewhat and reflect as time passes, but in a film that essentially revolves around human relationships, there is neither enough exploration of them, nor even of each individual’s motivations. Mortensen insists that “[he] didn’t think anything was missing” from the film, but even he admits that it would have been “interesting to see Freud in the United States in 1909,” where he was lecturing with Jung, and to see the assault of American culture on his pre-conceived ideas. Alas, “it was never in the script.”
A Dangerous Method is an impeccably assembled film from an excellent director; the research and effort that went into it is evident from the detail in every aspect. However, it ultimately comes across as wooden and sterile. Perhaps – as Otto Gross might say – too repressed, regardless of all the spanking endured by Knightley. If it were not for the extraordinary performers on screen it would be classified as unremarkable, but as it stands, it is an average film that could have been exceptional.
Rating: 3/5
A Dangerous Method is in cinemas 10th February.
Related posts:
- Review: Orgasm Inc. [****]
- Review: Drive [****]
- Review: In a Better World [****]
- Review: Red State [**]
- Review: Puss in Boots [****]
Tags: Burghölzli psychiatric hospital, Carl Jung, Christopher Hampton, Film, Keira Knightley, Michael Fassbender, Part B, Sigmund Freud, Vienna, Viggo Mortensen
Pingback: International Psychoanalysis » Blog Archive » Cronenberg Goes Freudian