Directed by:
David CronenbergCinematography:
Peter SuschitzkyComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel, Sarah Gadon, Katharina Palm, André Hennicke, Arndt Schwering-Sohnrey (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
David Cronenberg directs this drama based on the relationship between the two founding fathers of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. The film, which draws from both the stage play, 'Taking the Cure', by Christopher Hampton and the 1993 book, 'A Most Dangerous Method', by John Kerr, also portrays Jung's sexual affair with one of his female patients. Set in early 20th century Europe, the film traces the intense personal and professional relationship between Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and his protégé, Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). When married family man Jung takes in beautiful young Russian patient Sabina Spielrin (Keira Knightley) for treatment at his clinic in Switzerland, she quickly becomes his muse and the two soon embark on a passionate sadomasochistic affair. Meanwhile, Freud and Jung's views and theories are developing in opposing directions, eventually leading to an insurmountable rift between the two. (Lionsgate UK)
(more)Reviews (12)
Sinfully unexciting. Formally, A Dangerous Method is a film with very little to reproach, and it will probably delight film theorists, but I’d be lying to myself if I gave it a higher rating. I just didn’t like it, I didn’t find it interesting in the least and the idea of having to watch it again is pretty terrifying. Cronenberg’s old perversion and subversiveness have disappeared under a ton of academically precise make-up, and now just bubble peacefully deep beneath the surface. And looking for it is not fun.
()
I would gladly play with Miss Spielrein and smoke a cigar with Freud, but I’d rather sit down by Lake Zurich than take a part in his long-winded dialogues with the malleable and indecisive Jung. Viggo Mortensen is great and the visual esthetics delicious, but there are no emotions. A film where mainstream stars recite phrases only a few viewers will understand. Compared to this, Polanski’s Bitter Moon was far more poetic and passionate in its testimony about the dark corners of human sexuality.
()
Cronenberg gives a brief insight into the core ideas of Freud and his pupil Jung in an audience-friendly and simple form, which is a rare and welcome gift compared to complexly worded lectures on psychoanalysis or literary scholarly attempts to interpret their work. Yet, thanks to the breathtaking performances of all three leading characters and the masterfully written dialogues that often provide a hidden point, I find Cronenberg's film also attractive for the audience.
()
A rather logical step (forward) in Cronenberg's filmography. From practice, i.e. obscure, low-budget independent horror movies (Shivers, Rabid, The Brood), and obscure, bigger-budget horror movies (Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly), the director worked his way up to theory and started making polished dramas with capital from major Hollywood studios. The subversiveness of the earlier metaphysical body horror movies (a genre for which he holds the copyright) has not disappeared from his more recent films, but it is more artfully hidden and thus all the more dangerous. Just like the dark ideas. Safely tucked away in our subconscious until two gentlemen began to ferret them out at the beginning of the 20th century. Contemporary observers perceived the method employed by the fathers of psychoanalysis as talk therapy. Patients talked; Freud and Jung listened. The Dangerous Method adopts this approach, but with the difference that Freud and Jung talk through most of the film while we listen. Cronenberg’s favourite themes of sexual repression and the destructive power of sexual desire are addressed using a straightforward yet refined vocabulary and subtle hints. The most fascinating development takes place in the case of the father-son relationship between two men for whom each other’s existence gradually becomes both a driving force and something that they would rather deny. In the spirit of the axiom that a doctor must get sick in order to know what illness he is treating, The Dangerous Method is a clinical study of an unorthodox love triangle. The base of that triangle is Jung, a man with an admirable appetite who, with regard to others, does not place restrictions on himself either in terms of food (with Freud’s family at the table) or in terms of sex (he clearly feels no remorse for his infidelity). More than for himself, this egoism is thus destructive for the other two crucial people in his life, i.e. for Sabina, who undergoes a convincing transformation from a patient to a doctor (see the first and last shots of the film), which is critical for the plot, as well as for Freud. We peculiarly see Jung with them only on the boat that his wife gives him. For viewers who are familiar with basic psychoanalytical concepts, the comprehensibly composed Freudian symbolism provides a guide for finding one’s bearings in the labyrinth of desires that the characters allow themselves to be controlled by (Otto Gross, libido personified, could be Jung's unbridled id, whereas the authoritative Freud represents his restrictive superego). The Dangerous Method is a drama that is thoroughly well thought out on at least two levels, where the upper level – understanding – reveals the director’s mastery of the classic narrative style. No editing goes to waste, the composition of the shots is impressively economical thanks to the great depth of field, the placement of the characters in space reflects the relationships of voluntary and forced subordination and dominance between them, the narrative is fluid and focused, and the intertwining of the romantic and professional storylines is almost perfect. With this film, I believe the Canadian eccentric has advanced to the category of great directors. 85%
()
(less)
(more)
So, let’s sum it up. What we have here is a movie where the main parts are Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. And on top of that we have this crazy girl, who had won a windfall in her life and is now making up for it with sexual deviation. The setting – both Zurich and Vienna – is more than nice. And last but not least, there is a cast of actors in which one is better than the other. Judge for yourselves: Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley or Vincent Cassel. That’s quite a cast of actors, isn’t it? But David Cronenberg lays it on you in the first minute that you immediately have to stop and think about whether Keira is serious about acting or whether she should maybe call it quits after this film and disappear into another area of art. And then you also realize that even though Jung and Freud are quite interesting characters from history, you will be so bored with them that even your ninety-year-old grandma whose only hobby is to feed her chickens twice a day could not be more dull. I’d been looking forward to an interesting premise and what I got was utter disappointment in all respects. At first sight, it’s such an interesting movie, but at second sight you won’t believe it a corner of the street in Vienna, let alone Zurich.
()
Art Nouveau pure filmmaking about dirty things inside a person. A comprehensive network of relationships man vs. woman, father vs. son, Freudianism vs. Jungianism - yet very simple and accessible... Masterful direction, the breathtaking Mortensen, precise Fassbender and surprisingly demonic Keira Knightley (probably in the role of her life). And a script with dialogues so brisk, funny and intelligent that I consider this film to be one of the top experiences of recent months.
()
Sedentary theatrical Cronenberg and a bodice ripper without emotion. A Dangerous Method of psychoanalysis without depth. Yes, it's as sad as it sounds, if not sadder. The only bright moments are when Jung and Freud have the offices to themselves, those old pigs.
()
A superb Cronenberg exercise in conversation. The onerous theme of psychology and sexuality is supported by excellent acting performances. Keira’s transformations are brilliant and both Fassbender and Mortensen (constantly chewing that cigar) enjoy their dialog sequences. Detachment and cold comments on the issue is appropriate for scientific research and the even the very smallest expression of emotion is punished by the destruction of the afflicted characters.
()
This film has great subject matter with unusually bad casting. I'd quite like to experience more of the decadently untamed Zurich, but if that's not possible, then there's nothing worth mentioning.
()
I would expect some wild in the form of decapitated heads or at least explicit sexual creations from David Cronenberg, but there is nothing like that in this film. Well, there is a certain effort towards the latter, but it's more of an artistic walk around it rather than something happening. So, as viewers, we're left with nothing else but to rely on the superb performances, the sensitive film aesthetics, the excellent period setting, and exceptionally well-handled psychology, skillfully transferred onto the big screen. When philosophical debates don't come across as boring or complicated, but quite the opposite, and they even have some pretty excellent points. It's just that the whole thing feels a bit cold and too overly contrived.
()
That Cronenberg is in there. It lies concealed in Keira Knightley's nipple crawling out of her corset, Vincet Cassel's face, the subversive dialogue, and especially the character of Jung (who has a lot of points of contact with James Woods' character from Videodrome), but it's littered with tons of costumes and understated studio work, and somehow lacks a significant personal investment. Otherwise, Viggo Mortensen is incredible! PS: Keira Knightley is cast brilliantly and Cronenberg takes advantage of all her physical imperfections (breasts, British-sharp physiognomy, arched forehead, prominent chin, a figure that generally begs for professional help) and makes the actress accentuate them
()
David Cronenberg directed an excellent film, which is mainly adorned with strong performances. Personally, I have always been interested in Freud and to some extent identify with his theories, so I would rate the movie even higher. For some, it may be full of "psychobabble," but I really enjoyed the discussions between Jung and Freud, as well as Jung and Spielrein. Cronenberg perfected his last film to Hollywood perfection, but it fits the time period, concept, and story quite well.
()