A Dangerous Method, the new David Cronenberg movie — based upon the 2002 Christopher Hampton stage play entitled, The Talking Cure, (which in turn was based on the 1993 non-fiction book by John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method) — is not only about the relationships you see on the screen between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein, but a breathtaking metaphor for Freud’s depiction of the mind.
A successful effort on a multitude of layers, the movie offers us a rollercoaster ride in a car filled with a motley group of historical characters in psychology and psychoanalysis. The movie depicts the life of Jung and Freud’s relationship from the time they first met in 1907 until their professional relationship collapses in 1913 — a short 6 years. I saw a screening of the movie earlier this month.
But it would be wrong to characterize this as a story only about Jung and Freud’s relationship. Instead, it’s a larger-than-life tale about the first days of psychoanalysis and Jung’s career, set against the backdrop of pre-war Europe, artfully relayed on many different levels.
The story is largely told through Jung’s fascination, treatment and eventual affair with one of his patients, Sabina Spielrein (played by Keira Knightley). She is brought to the hospital where Carl Jung (played by Michael Fassbender) works in 1904, against her will and at the behest of her father. Jung takes her case and decides to try something different than the usual treatments of the day (such as having the patient submerged in a cold bath or bloodletting). He undertakes the “talking cure” — a method he read about in a paper by Sigmund Freud (played by Viggo Mortensen).
The talking cure — what we’d refer to as psychotherapy today — was practiced according to Freud’s standard early routine of psychoanalysis. The therapist sits out of view of the patient, in order to allow the patient to more freely associate and talk about the issues in their lives. The “dangerous method” refers to the fact that, at the time, this method of treatment was largely untried and came under attack by the existing medical profession as being potentially dangerous for the patient.
For dramatic effect, therapy sequences are shortened and what might take a typical patient months or even years to acknowledge and discuss, Sabina exposes her dark secret fairly early on in a therapy session with Jung.
Jung eventually gets to meet with Freud after some correspondence passes between them. Jung’s initial meeting with him is like two lovers meeting for the first time — they talk and talk for hours (13 by the movie’s reckoning). Instant Best Friends Forever, Jung and Freud continue talking and corresponding over the intervening years.
Otto Gross, a minor character and one of the Freud’s earliest disciples, was played by Vincent Cassel. Cassel’s performance almost stole the movie. Gross was sent to be a patient of Jung’s by Freud early on in their relationship. Gross was having some troubles with substance abuse (as we would say nowadays), and Freud was hopeful that under Jung’s supervision, the psychoanalyst Gross might be helped.
But what Gross did, according to the movie, was help transform Jung’s way of thinking and cement his belief that Freud didn’t have all the answers. Gross also confessed with pride his conquests with getting his patients to sleep him. This opened the door in Jung’s mind to the possibility of sleeping with one of his patients — Sabina.
After Sabina moves away (and is technically no longer Jung’s patient), Jung gives in to his desires for her (and her for him), and they begin a torrid affair.
Freud and Jung’s relationship begins to show cracks as Jung continues to insist that sexuality must not be all there is at the core of people’s problems. There must be exceptions, Jung suggested. Freud thought that while perhaps possible, it was important to stay focused and keep to the party line. Freud also became increasingly concerned with Jung’s fascination with the supernatural and mystic. He did not believe such theories were the proper pursuit of science or his psychoanalysts.
But perhaps the relationship’s end was cemented with Freud learning of Jung’s affair with his former patient. Although Jung eventually calls an end to the relationship (forcing Sabina to contact Freud and let him know of the affair), the damage has already been done. Freud rightfully believes such relationships to be inappropriate.
That is, as they say, the surface analysis of the movie and the characters moving within it.
Underlying such a shallow analysis, however, is the deeper depiction of Freud’s theory of personality — that there is a super ego, id and ego all battling within us to help us make decisions and shape our behavior. The simplest of explanations is that the super-ego is your conscious — all that is critical, moral, ethical and just. The id is your desires and all that appeals to your basest instincts. The ego is the the organized, realistic part that tries to make sense of the id’s drive and balance it out with the super-ego’s focus on perfection and morals.
In the movie, we see this theme played out in at least two ways.
First, with Jung’s romantic relationships, we see Sabina act as the id — driving all that is instincts and violence in their sexual liaison. Jung’s wife, Emma (played beautifully by Sarah Gadon), acts as the super-ego — the perfect wife and mother of Jung’s children, living in a perfectly idealistic home. Jung himself is the ego, trying to balance his life between these two driving forces, between lust and passion on one side, and responsibility and duty as a father and loving husband on the other.
Second, with psychoanalysis itself, we see Otto Gross act as the id — suggesting all of the new “talking cure” psychoanalysis should be in the service of having patients enjoy unencumbered “freedom” (freedom from society’s norms and sexual mores, in his mind at least). Freud acts as the super-ego — setting up the ideal model of psychoanalysis with a rigid, unwavering theoretical model behind it. And again, Jung himself is caught in-between, acting as the ego, trying to satisfy the id’s desires of helping free patients from their miseries, while acknowledging the father-figure and wisdom of Freud’s super-ego.
Once you begin to see all the different ways this movie can be viewed, it takes on even greater depth and meaning. The enjoyment of the performances becomes amplified, and the story even more nuanced (suggesting a second viewing will both further enhance and explain these meanings).
Unfortunately, I was unmoved by Fassbender’s portrayal of Jung, as he seemed to play Jung with a wooden detachment that didn’t give you much to latch on to. Yes, Jung was an intellectual himself, and an aristocratic Swiss Protestant too (his wealthy lifestyle thanks to his wife). These are not characteristics that suggest an emotional or intense personality. But at the same time, I just didn’t feel the same presence on screen as I did when Mortensen or Cassel was in the scene. My viewing partner disagreed and thought Fassbender’s performance was spot-on, so I leave that for you to decide.
My viewing partner was less impressed with Knightley’s performance, suggesting she couldn’t get it out of her mind that it was Kiera Knightley playing the character. I didn’t feel the same way and thought that while Knightley’s performance often bordered on the theatrical, she was well-suited for the role. Knightley plays Sabina with all the physical tics and fits that, back then, would’ve been characterized as “hysteria” — perhaps to too great an effect, as it becomes a bit distracting whenever she’s in a scene and starts with her physical tics.
Mortensen, playing a more restrained role than you might typically expect, was delightful to watch as he brought Freud to life. Constantly chomping on a cigar throughout the movie (after all, sometimes a cigar is merely a cigar), Mortensen’s emotional range and nuances were perfect. Sometimes when playing such a well-known historical figure, it’s easy to go over the top. Mortensen never did, making his scenes more engaging than most others in the movie.
Some purists will inevitably whine about how this isn’t a realistic portrayal of Jung and Freud’s relationship, and glosses over many finer academic points. Perhaps the story too casually treated the topic of inappropriate doctor/patient behavior — that a professional such as Jung would sleep with one of his patients (keeping in mind that while the movie suggests their relationship was sexual, historically we can’t say for certain one way or another). I would just remind people that it’s a drama — in this case, a fictionalized account of a historical set of facts.
The movie is based upon a play, so don’t be surprised by the lack of action after the tumultuous opening and a few sex scenes (with brief nudity). There is, however, a great deal of two people talking on screen. Because of its intellectual nature, the movie may have a hard time finding a large audience. It will find a natural audience, however, in anyone who’s ever studied psychology seriously, and indeed in anyone who’s tried psychotherapy.
In the end, Cronenberg’s film is a historical psychological masterpiece. Would I go see this movie again? Yes, in a heartbeat. As long as you don’t confuse it with the action-oriented new “Sherlock Holmes'” films, I think you’ll be in for an enjoyable look at what Freud and Jung’s relationship might have been like.
A Dangerous Method is now playing in New York and Los Angeles and is coming soon to a theater near you.
15 comments
I’m sorry, even your description of what you consider the deeper analysis in the film sounds very superficial to me. It sounds as if Cronenberg is basically attempting to sell the image of Freud as the great, uncompromising moral visionary and scientist who broke with Jung because of his ethical failings. Jung, on the other hand appears not only ethically challenged, but also wooden and lacking in personal warmth and humanity, who broke with Freud under the influence of a kind of evil genius, and not really for his own solid reasons. The story is clearly biased.
Biased, yes. As is your comment on this article. That is one of the points on the differences between Freud and Jung. Keeping separate from the patient is required for many reasons, not the least for a greater objectivity. This appears to be simple but Jung allowed his personal desires to effect his judgement as to his patients best interests IMHO. It does not require that he did or did not consummate the relationship for it to have a detrimental effect on the patient.
Outstanding review of a very thoughtful picture.
This movie was nothing if not nuanced. All the relationships were nuanced, even that between Freud and Jung. No one was all good or all bad. Everything was shades of gray, and that made it eminently watchable.
A few things you touched on, Dr. Grohol, could merit some underscoring. I’ve watched the picture twice, and paid careful attention to some details the second time through.
First, Jung and Spielrein’s professional relationship was, as you point out, over at the time that their imagined affair began. At least two years had interevened and probably more, Jung had already made his first visit to Freud in the interim, and Spielrein was a medical student at the time that sex entered the picture between them. One of the problems was that the affair was actually discovered by Freud, as opposed to Freud’s own affair with his sister in law, Minna Bernays, which was kept sub rosa and not really confirmed until recently.
Second, you point out correctly how quickly Spielrein’s psychological issues seem to resolve in her analysis. While there is plenty of cinematic license to be had, the fact is that back in the early days of psychoanalysis, there were not the four, five, and more years of interminable psychoanalysis we see these days.
Thirdly — and this you don’t mention — there’s an argument to be made as to the two parts of the Spielrein/Jung relationship. There’s the analytic work done when she was in treatment at Jung’s hospital, and then the influence that Jung had on her as a friend and mentor starting at least two years later. In fact, Jung was a mentor. Spielrein ultimately became a brilliant analyst in her on right, until her tragic death in her native Russia at the hands of the invading Nazis.
Lastly, those early days of psychoanalysis were wild and wooly. Freud and his associates were consistently analyzing each other, even as they went on vacation together. Melanie Klein analyzed her own kids. Notions of boundaries that we have now didn’t exist, in some ways, or were just being formed. It was a heady time, and it was a dangerous time, exploring dangerous material from a dangerous paradigm. It was, in fact, a dangerous method in many, many ways.
I hope everyone with an interest in the arena sees this movie. It’s talky, yes, but it’s about a subject where the currency is talk. Much of the talk is scintillating.
Thanks for this review. I sure wish to watch this movie.
Best review I have read. Most have been from movie critics who paint a far darker film. Obliviously not of an intellectual view.
Now I have some interest. Well done.
I’ve seen the film and rate it somewhere between worthwhile and outstanding. The affair between Jung and Spielrein is historically accurate (Jung confided in lletters to Freud). The scenes are lovely (historically vivid), the acting fine (Freud a little stereotyped, Sabina maybe overdone). Freud’s famous fainting spell is overdramatized. A lot is covered, a complex subject well-presented.
Beyond the review. I thoroughly disliked the film. There was no passion in either of the principle characters Jung and Freud. There was a certain sensationalism surrounding the “case”, yet not enough concern for Sabrina’s personal journey. There were uncomfortable jumps in the story. I have enough of a personal perspective on the times, the prevailing paradoxes, and the many dimensions of Freud and Jung to have disliked the tone of the film. Stay away! It’s ultimately a very boring experience.
Thank you for this! We saw it last night and enjoyed it a great deal. One question, though. Did you mean to say that the super-ego is our conscious or our conscience? Wouldn’t it be the latter?
“The simplistic of explanations is that the super-ego is your conscious — all that is critical, moral, ethical and just.”
Kelly M is right. This is clearly an error and should be “conscience”. I would assume that Dr Grohol also meant “simplest” rather than “simplistic. Perhaps the article was dictated? It should have been proof-read!
The id/ego/supergo setup is pretty conventional and can be identified by a high school literature student. Far more interesting was the division over method, reflecting the strains of intellectualism in a soon-to-be devastated Europe: the anarchist Gross, the scientist Freud, the romantic Spielrein, and the mystical Jung who by the end is going into his visionary (and perhaps escapist) Red Book stage. All of these kinds of minds were resistant to fascism, as well as containing elements of the impulses that would lead to it. For many years after reading Jung’s collected works, I had dismissed him as a hack, but I understood his reaction to Freud much better after this film, and even had some sympathy towards his position that the mind is vaster than we can know. I had the feeling that the imaginative Cronenberg was sympathetic to the romantic/imaginary axis too.
“In the end, Cronenberg’s film is a historical psychological masterpiece.” I think this is right. This is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time. I agree with your viewing partner’s assessment of Fassbender’s performance which I thought was excellent. I think reviewer’s characterization of Kiera’s overacting is wrong. She’s playing a hysteric, she was great. And I like’d Vigo’s take on Freud. I guess there are more Freudians posting reviews here. I resonate with all of Jung’s choices including the affair. Sabina claims Jung used Freud’s method to heal her but one could say the affair itself played as significant a role if not more in her healing. Granted Freud is the father of psychology but Jung broadened its possibilities in ways unfathomable by Freud. Thank you Mr. Cronenberg, what an amazing creation.
Freudian psychoanalysts who switch to Humanistic psychology are Jung at heart.
Comments are closed.