People have been using the psychology of Freud and Jung to analyze David Cronenberg’s films for years. Now Cronenberg has turned the table, and given us a film about the friendship between the two fathers of psychoanalysis.
I didn’t know what to expect - I don’t suppose many did. For a man known for his violent oeuvre, A Dangerous Method is surprisingly academic and intimate. That’s not to say that the film is without violence, or sex, but it would more easily be qualified as a character study of Carl Jung. Michael Fassbender is fantastic as the young doctor, though it seems that his patients have more influence over him than he does over them. Keira Knightley is Jung’s patient, on whom he attempts Freud’s ‘talking cure,’ treating her hysteria with psychoanalytic dialogue. Jung’s practice of Freud’s theories is fodder for a friendship between the two men. In his third film with Cronenberg, Viggo Mortensen makes for a friendly and accessible Freud, constantly puffing away on cigars. Mortensen’s voice is remarkable; I could listen to him for hours. Still, it’s clear that Freud is less interested in Jung as a colleague than as a disciple. For all their discussion (their first meeting is said to have consisted of a thirteen hour conversation), Freud is the master, Jung is the student.
The overall theme of the film is intimacy - the unexpected places in which we find it, and the sudden ways in which it can be destroyed. There’s not much to be garnered here that you couldn’t find in reviews, articles, and interviews, but it is masterfully told with excellent performances. Vincent Cassel is a welcome addition to most any project, including this one. Even Knightley breaks from her usual coarseness for some effective acting, though her Sabina Spielrein is hardly the most graceful thing on film. The wordy screenplay is exactly what you’d expect from Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liaisons, need I say more?) - highly detailed, but after half an hour, it feels as though the film should be much farther along. Thankfully it’s in Cronenberg’s hands, bound to be enlivened.
Knightley may be front and center in the artwork, but the film belongs to Fassbender and Mortensen. The film is a defining moment in Fassbender’s career as he takes the lead deftly and with great consideration. Sigmund Freud was originally to be played by Christoph Waltz, who would have no doubt been brilliant. He left the project to do Water for Elephants, which I am not entirely sure was the right decision for that film. It’s hard to imagine Christian Bale (also courted for the role of Freud) bringing the gentleness and ease of authority that Mortensen cultivates. I mean, he’s Batman, for pete’s sake. That’s like casting Daniel Craig as a revolutionary reporter. Oh wait... (coughGirl With the Dragon Tattoocough)
In any case, A Dangerous Method is a Cronenberg film I would actually watch again. To say that Cronenberg’s brazenly violent style and content is not my cup of tea would be an understatement - but the man has talent and does craft quality cinema. For those of us who haven't got the stomach for Videodrome or Eastern Promises, it’s a chance to see an excellent filmmaker at work.
Bonus link: Interesting article from Kevin Blumeyer at ropeofsilicon.com - all the cool parts of the commentary without having to watch the film again.
<http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/nine-things-i-learned-listening-to-david-cronenbergs-a-dangerous-method-blu-ray-commentary/>
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Capsule Reviews
I saw several movies in the last few days - here are my thoughts, in brief.
Friday March 16th: Mermaids
I watched this 1990 classic only after being unable to explain to my coworker how I had missed out on it. And indeed, I have no idea. I never would have predicted that I would so thoroughly enjoy this coming-of-age story in which a young woman’s rebellion is challenged by her teenage deires. Aspiring to be a nun, Charlotte (adolescent Winona Rider) is quickly enamored of her new home - but is it because she lives downhill from a convent, or because of the handsome groundskeeper? Can it be both? While her mother (the ever-entertaining Cher) continues to be an embarrassment with her sexy dresses and fast-moving, public relationships, Charlotte struggles with her own identity. The big surprise in this film is not a minitaure Christina Ricci (a mere nine years of age at the time), but rather the enormous appeal of Bob Hoskins. Hoskins is the Perfect Man in this movie. Watch and learn, gentlemen. The film and its characters are creative and quirky in the just the right places, perfectly conventional in others. For a coming-of-age film, Mermaids holds up really well - even if the title doesn’t.
Saturday March 17th: Young Adult
Mavis has issues. Her happily-married high school sweetheart Buddy is now a first-time father, while she struggles to ghostwrite the latest (and last) in a series of young adult novels. She sets out to prove that she and Buddy are meant for each other - a mission that seems far too obvious and immature for Charlize Theron. For better and worse, screenwriter Diablo Cody has created a character that is true to her issues - no more sympathetic than pathetic, and undeserving of the kindness she is shown. Patton Oswalt is underused and undervalued as a former classmate of Mavis’, whose identity is so much more than his handicap - not that anyone bothers to notice. But if you ever imagined the high school beauty queen would grow up to be a train wreck, Young Adult is your chance to see it actualized.
Monday March 19th: The Resident
What’s impressive about The Resident is the top-notch talent attached to it. The trailer itself is practically a warning label. This Movie Will Suck. It’s an overlong Criminal Minds episode with no heroes in sight. A predictable premise that tries too hard to create suspense and red herrings very early on - and fails. The only suspense in this film is: “Where is Lee Pace? And why isn’t there more of him?”
Friday March 16th: Mermaids
I watched this 1990 classic only after being unable to explain to my coworker how I had missed out on it. And indeed, I have no idea. I never would have predicted that I would so thoroughly enjoy this coming-of-age story in which a young woman’s rebellion is challenged by her teenage deires. Aspiring to be a nun, Charlotte (adolescent Winona Rider) is quickly enamored of her new home - but is it because she lives downhill from a convent, or because of the handsome groundskeeper? Can it be both? While her mother (the ever-entertaining Cher) continues to be an embarrassment with her sexy dresses and fast-moving, public relationships, Charlotte struggles with her own identity. The big surprise in this film is not a minitaure Christina Ricci (a mere nine years of age at the time), but rather the enormous appeal of Bob Hoskins. Hoskins is the Perfect Man in this movie. Watch and learn, gentlemen. The film and its characters are creative and quirky in the just the right places, perfectly conventional in others. For a coming-of-age film, Mermaids holds up really well - even if the title doesn’t.
Saturday March 17th: Young Adult
Mavis has issues. Her happily-married high school sweetheart Buddy is now a first-time father, while she struggles to ghostwrite the latest (and last) in a series of young adult novels. She sets out to prove that she and Buddy are meant for each other - a mission that seems far too obvious and immature for Charlize Theron. For better and worse, screenwriter Diablo Cody has created a character that is true to her issues - no more sympathetic than pathetic, and undeserving of the kindness she is shown. Patton Oswalt is underused and undervalued as a former classmate of Mavis’, whose identity is so much more than his handicap - not that anyone bothers to notice. But if you ever imagined the high school beauty queen would grow up to be a train wreck, Young Adult is your chance to see it actualized.
Monday March 19th: The Resident
What’s impressive about The Resident is the top-notch talent attached to it. The trailer itself is practically a warning label. This Movie Will Suck. It’s an overlong Criminal Minds episode with no heroes in sight. A predictable premise that tries too hard to create suspense and red herrings very early on - and fails. The only suspense in this film is: “Where is Lee Pace? And why isn’t there more of him?”
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Moneyball
How do you make a movie about statistics? Without being a documentary or School House Rock, how do you tell the story of what it means to use numbers to build a baseball team? You hire Brad Pitt.
I like baseball movies, but the truth is that the film has rather little to do with the sport and has been streamlined to tell the story of sticking with something (or someone) in which you fervently believe. The willingness to risk one’s reputation for the sake of possible progress is at the fore here, in an enjoyable albeit unbalanced film. Moneyball received six Academy Award nominations, and won none of them. The nominations came as quite the surprise - a win would have been a miracle.
Brad Pitt is well-liked, widely known, and highly respected in Hollywood, as his character is in the world of baseball. It’s not exactly a stretch. The few scenes he has with his onscreen daughter are used to humanize the character, make him vulnerable and relatable - because the rest of his time onscreen is spent in stares of pent-up frustration and deep thought. We have to have backstory and family time to maintain interest in the character, to invest in his ideals for baseball. And I’m not sure what Jonah Hill did to earn a Best Supporting Actor nod - was the Academy really so surprised that he’s capable of more than Get Him to the Greek?
Regardless, there’s a much more interesting story in Moneyball; behind the dugout, in the locker room, and in the manager’s office. In the practices we don’t see. I could care less about the growth of this ragtag team - what’s fascinating is the conflict generated by a business manager who knows the game, a coach who has no idea what’s going on in his clubhouse, and a young man plucked from his cubicle and thrown into the fray. It’s touched on, alluded to, and hinted at, but with so much soapboxing about taking chances, pursuing what you believe in, and the importance of family, what we come away with is the overwrought sentimentality of an after-school special. Couple that feeling with Pitt’s gym scenes - I feel dirty.
One can only suppose that the studios were looking for another Blind Side: a moving sports film that would appeal to men, women, families, and the Academy. Instead, Moneyball is a bit wide of the mark. But maybe all they wanted was to get on base.
I like baseball movies, but the truth is that the film has rather little to do with the sport and has been streamlined to tell the story of sticking with something (or someone) in which you fervently believe. The willingness to risk one’s reputation for the sake of possible progress is at the fore here, in an enjoyable albeit unbalanced film. Moneyball received six Academy Award nominations, and won none of them. The nominations came as quite the surprise - a win would have been a miracle.
Brad Pitt is well-liked, widely known, and highly respected in Hollywood, as his character is in the world of baseball. It’s not exactly a stretch. The few scenes he has with his onscreen daughter are used to humanize the character, make him vulnerable and relatable - because the rest of his time onscreen is spent in stares of pent-up frustration and deep thought. We have to have backstory and family time to maintain interest in the character, to invest in his ideals for baseball. And I’m not sure what Jonah Hill did to earn a Best Supporting Actor nod - was the Academy really so surprised that he’s capable of more than Get Him to the Greek?
Regardless, there’s a much more interesting story in Moneyball; behind the dugout, in the locker room, and in the manager’s office. In the practices we don’t see. I could care less about the growth of this ragtag team - what’s fascinating is the conflict generated by a business manager who knows the game, a coach who has no idea what’s going on in his clubhouse, and a young man plucked from his cubicle and thrown into the fray. It’s touched on, alluded to, and hinted at, but with so much soapboxing about taking chances, pursuing what you believe in, and the importance of family, what we come away with is the overwrought sentimentality of an after-school special. Couple that feeling with Pitt’s gym scenes - I feel dirty.
One can only suppose that the studios were looking for another Blind Side: a moving sports film that would appeal to men, women, families, and the Academy. Instead, Moneyball is a bit wide of the mark. But maybe all they wanted was to get on base.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)