I may not be the biggest connoisseur in David Cronenberg films, but I can easily state this is the best Cronenberg film I have seen thus far. While A History of Violence was widely praised, I saw a predictable film with moments of brilliance that was marred by too little unoriginal storytelling. With A Dangerous Method, I found myself instantly drawn to this semi-biographical film that tells the story of three individuals obsessed with the evolved 20^th century science of psychology.

Sigmund Freud has just perfected the art of curing mentally unstable individuals through the use of psycho-analyses therapy sessions, where the patients can be free to express their bottled emotions and qualms to the non-judgmental ears of their psychiatrists. Michael Fassbender, displaying another incredible acting performance, plays Carl Yung, an intelligent and sophisticated German psychiatrist who rigorously follows Freud’s methods of psycho-analyses and ideology until they begin to frustrate him with their narrow-mindedness. One of his patients, a wildly unstable Jewish woman named Sabina Spielrein, played physically impressive by Keira Knightley, is the experiment Yung uses to witness Freud’s success in new methods of curing mental patients. However, Yungs’ encounters with Spielrein and another of Freud’s patients, Otto Gross, unravel the animal urges he has kept safely hidden away in the mask of upstanding moralistic and professional behavior he exudes.

The film, along with Yung and Spielrein, asks the question of whether the desires of the human mind should and can be contained. Is it cruel to neuter one’s human urges and desires in favor of conventional behavior, or is the idea that “normal” behaving individuals are superior and can cure the mentally unstable who give in to their own hidden urges and feelings, viewed as deplorable by society, sound and indisputable? The truth behind such questions leads not only to dire consequences between patient (Knightley), doctor (Fassbender), and mentor (Freud), but also to some incredibly diverse and interesting discoveries made about the idea of psychology resulting from the trio’s verbal and physical interactions. Freud, surprisingly yet effectively cast to Viggo Mortensen, is one to think that all mental instabilities can be linked to sexuality, while Yung sees the mental quandaries of the mind due to some mystical or theological reason. The debate between religion and rigid logic is too simple a debate to describe in this film as the primary line in which Yung and Freud stand divided, but the complexities between the two modes of thought through elaborate dialogue, a tight screenplay, and fiercely passionate performances kept me glued to the screen at all times. I felt like I was being both entertained and educated in new ideas the further along the film went. In fact, this was probably the most fast-paced film I have seen all year. The film dives right into the subject matter, and never let’s go until the credits begin to roll.

One cannot review this film without talking about Keira Knightley’s performance as the insane and sexually deprived Sabina Spielrein. Some may view Knightley’s acting as over-the-top in its attention-seeking nature. Knightley literally has long takes of her entire body convulsing from head to toe. She completely wraps herself into the performance, and while it may be uncomfortable to watch, especially perhaps for some older Academy voters, it gave me the sense that Knightley sinks herself into the grit of her role with abandon. The way she contorts her body to match the mental instability that Spielrein struggles with is fascinating in its horrific realism of a person in such mental angst that they cannot even control their own natural body. Without a doubt, this is Knightley’s strongest, most demanding role to date, and she does not waste a frame of it.

Another thing I find interesting about the film is the way it precursors the coming World Wars. There is a lot said in the film of Yung’s religious Aryanism opposed to Spielrein and Freud’s liberal-minded Judaism. It is as if the divide between the pair, from so small a debate of what perspective one should look at when studying psychology, can blow up into coming events like the First World War, and eventually the Holocaust. There is a chilling tone in Fassbender’s voice as he warns Spielrein to stay away from Vienna whenever she makes suggestion of travel. Although Spielrein was probably confused by Yung’s warnings, the gravity of his words hits home to the audience as we realize the coming events of the Second World War, and what it means for a Jewish woman like Spielrein to be traveling around that part of Europe. The film, like Yung’s character, is somewhat prophetic of the coming events in history, and that is what makes it such a fascinating film to watch unfold.

If there is a single weakness in the film keeping it from perfection, it is the fact that so much of what the character’s are feeling is still kept under wraps by the time the movie closes. Despite some pretty shocking transitions in behavior, one never fully understands the exact reasoning behind these transformations. I believe this has nothing to do with the performances by Knightley, Mortensen, or Fassbender, but by the times they were living in, where sharing ones true intimations was rare and slightly taboo. If Cronenberg had allowed some explanation for the bizarre behavior that occurs in the film from his characters in greater depth, we may not have been so shocked at some role reversals, specifically when at times it was hard to tell who was the patient and who was the psychiatrist. All three characters seemed to juggle between those roles, and it would have been nice to see some ease of transition between behaviors and role reversing instead of instantaneous switches of the ego. I do not wish to spoil the entire plot of the film, but keep track of Fassbender’s Yung especially, and the way his character evolves from his first frame on-screen to his last. Like me, you will probably be perplexed by some of the off-the-wall identity transitions without explanation.

Brilliant, Insane, and Monstrously Seductive.

In all, Mortensen, Knightley, and Fassbender are a great trio of actors placed together in a compelling love/ideological triangle. Their performances, so varying yet effective, are what ultimately sustain our interest. Yes, this film is a purely character-driven, dialogue-based film, but it is through these methods that the film derives its entertainment value. Expecting explosions and war-based action, and you will be sorely disappointed. The explosions come from the tense relationships surrounding the trio, their warring and combative words, and ultimately their prophetic ability to prepare the audience for the coming monstrosities of both World Wars.

Related posts:

4 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI