A Dangerous Method

A Dangerous Method
I tried to like this film. I am always proud of a Canadian director doing well (David Cronenberg). I noticed in the credits that Canadian funds were involved. The history of the development of psychoanalysis is fascinating, I certainly had heard of Jung and Freud but was not well informed about their relationship in developing psychoanalysis and their eventual split.
I knew nothing about Sabina Spielrein. In my opinion she was the key player. Keira Knightly plays the role of Sabina.
I think Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming the man of the hour as an actor. He seems to be everywhere. He plays the part of Dr Jung.
The film opens with the scene of a dark horse drawn carriage heading to an asylum in Switzerland. The screaming and ranting Sabina is being held by two military persons. She is dragged into the asylum. Her family history was of beatings by her father which strangely seemed to sexually turn her on.
Dr Jung is in the new process of ‘Talk therapy’. He sits behind the patient and talks with them. Apparently it works because the beautiful Sabina becomes cured and decides she also wants to be a doctor and work in this field.
Dr Jung and Sabina have an affair. Eventually Dr Jung is aware that his behavior cannot continue.
The contrast with Dr Jung’s family life and spirited relationship with Sabina is fascinating. His wife is beautiful, calm and wealthy. She cares about her husband. Sabina brings tumult into the relationship. It was also a sadist masochist relationship.
Dr Jung meets Freud and the two discuss their theories on sexuality and psychoanalysis. I found their discussions very interesting.
The film has received outstanding reviews. “I can only state how I felt watching the film. (I do admit I was frazzled and disturbed by the man crunching on candy beside me. Yes I did tell him to stop)
I found the acting very stilted. It will be argued that they were portraying the situations and the characters of that day. I argue it still has to be believable. .Keira Knightly had a difficult role with all her tantrums and excessive wailing and body actions. I certainly do not know if that was the way it might have happened. It didn’t feel authentic enough for me and seemed to be over acting.
Was there a reason that every woman and child in the film wore white? They were lovely costumes but I question the validity. Did it have anything to do with purity? I don’t think so.
I was totally fascinated at the end when the audience is informed what happed to all the characters. I was especially interested in Sabina Spielrein.
The timing for the film is before the First World War I found the costumes delightful (except for all white). The furnishings of Dr Freud’s office were fascinating. I wonder where he collected all the artifacts? I remember visiting his office (not as a patient) when in Vienna. His home is now a museum. I don’t recall all the artifacts.
This is another case of a film that partly works. Freud and Yung contributed much to the history of analysis and psychosis. They were probably the first to link sexuality to behavior. There is always something positive you can take away from a film. I guess I just expected more from a film that was being talked about so much.