Zack Gill
Arts Editor
Canadian director David Cronenberg’s newest film, “A Dangerous Method,” which portrays the story of the relationship between famed psychoanalysts Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, is a far cry from the director’s acclaimed horror films.
“A Dangerous Method” features excellent performances from an extremely talented cast, but the film’s script lacks the intensity and passion of the figures it attempts to portray.
When up-and-coming psychoanalyst Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) begins treating the gifted but positively manic Russian Sabine Spielrein (Keira Knightley), he employs the newest methods in his field theorized by Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) to reach the roots of her condition.
As Jung and Freud grow closer to one another, Jung also grows closer to Spielrein, and the two begin a sadomasochistic sexual relationship. Jung is forced to deal with the ramifications of his relationship with his client through his relationship with Freud and the scientific community of Switzerland and Austria.
Mortensen has become Cronenberg’s own little chameleon, and rightfully so. In their third straight collaboration after Cronenberg’s “History of Violence” and “Eastern Promises,” Mortensen gives yet another phenomenal performance. His Freud is simultaneously passionate and restrained, and completely convincing. Mortensen has come a long way since his days in Middle Earth.
Meanwhile, Fassbender continues to prove that he’s one of the best working actors in cinema today. His portrayal of Jung is often times cold, but still manages to somehow be completely human. The audience sympathizes with him even as he commits adultery.
Still, the best performance in the film, and perhaps one of the best performances of the entire year, comes from Vincent Cassel, who portrays the hedonistic psychoanalyst Otto Gross. Although Gross only gets about fifteen minutes of screen time, audiences will likely find the womanizing, drug-abusing anarchist the most memorable feature of Cronenberg’s film. Cassel dials down the intensity he shows in films like “Black Swan” and “Irreversible” to instead portray Gross as calm, smooth, and self-assured. He also displays surprisingly impeccable comedic timing.
Knightley, on the other hand, is a noble failure. It takes a lot of spunk to play a character that goes through spots of psychosis, and she exhibited a newly found range in last year’s “Never Let Me Go,” but Knightley is too theatrical to be convincing. Her Russian accent seems to get in the way of her performance, and her physical decisions, from facial tics to outright mania, seem too broad for the restrained tone of the film.
Although “A Dangerous Method” clocks in at a mere ninety-four minutes, Cronenberg’s film feels twice the length, with its plodding pace and bizarre narrative choices. Cronenberg has made a cold film that fails to capture the human spirit of individualism that Freud and Jung embody. Visionaries and pioneers deserve a film similar in scope.
Further, Cronenberg and his screenwriter Christopher Hampton seem to forget that “A Dangerous Method” is a film and not a radio drama. In a clunky narrative decision, much of the length of the film is devoted to the voice-over reading of letters between Freud and Jung. Hampton forgets the cardinal “show, don’t tell” rule and bores the audience along the way. While it is true that much of the source material for the film is based on the letters left behind by the two psychoanalysts, certain liberties should have been made to keep the film engaging.
“A Dangerous Method” is ultimately a boring film and a surprising misstep for Cronenberg. Thankfully, at a meager ninety-four minutes, it ends pretty quickly. “A Dangerous Method” is rated R and is playing now in limited release.
Leave a Reply