HYSTERIA ( 2011 ) – The Review

HYSTERIA, a film that is ” based on true events “, takes several unrelated elements to create an unexpected cinema delight. It’s set in Victorian England, so we’ve got the look of a ” Masterpiece Theatre”-type prestige production. And because of that historical aspect, you may expect something very somber and serious. It’s about the creation of a new invention, but this is not a film for a high school history class. Its cast is full of well-respected British actors ( and a terrific American ) who seem to be having a grand ole’ time.  A good way to describe this film is Merchant-Ivory by way of Judd Apatow.

Let’s see if I can relate the story without getting too…unseemly. In the medical waters of 1880’s London, young physician Mortimer Granville ( Hugh Dancy ) is swimming upstream to no avail. The establishment still believes in leaches and medicine show elixirs ( and they don’t believe in germs! ). After losing his hospital job, he heads home to vent his frustrations with scandalous party guy Edmund St. John-Smythe ( Rupert Everett ), who has embraced the new emerging technologies like the telephone and electrical generators ( the St. John-Smythe family took in young Mortimer when he lost his parents many years ago ). After a long employment search Granville is finally hired by Doctor Robert Dalrymple whose practice specializes in the treatment of women’s hysteria ( a catch-all prognosis then for practically any female emotional problem ). And business is ‘a boomin’! The job includes room and meals in the Dalrmple home so soon Granville meets the widowed doctor’s daughters : Emily ( Felicity Jones ), a reserved mannered young woman interested in music and phrenology ( the study of cranial bumps ), and her older sister Charlotte ( Maggie Gyllenhaal ) , a progressive hellion who helps run a charity house that helps the lower classes ( much to Father’s chagrin ). Soon the younger doctor is trained in administering the treatment to the growing line of patients, using his hand to manually stimulate the ladies’ most , ahem, private areas. This can be a long, arduous progress. The young man does well for a time ( he soon is engaged to young Emily ), but the treatment soon takes its toll on him with a version of Carpel-Tunnel Syndrome that no soaking in cold water or wrist brace can cure. He loses his job and returns to St. John-Symthe, who’s working on an electric feather duster. Wow, this device really soothes his arm. Hmmm, with some adjustments could this be used for the hysteria treatments and get him his job back? And he could marry Emily. But there’s something about Charlotte…

As I hinted earlier, this is not a big portentous prestige work, but a spirited bit of historical whimsy thanks to the spritely direction of Tanya Wexler from a tightly constructed script from Stephen Dyer and Jonah Lisa Dyer. The gorgeous costumes and art direction are a great help ( Luxembourg does a fine job standing in for Victorian England ). But it’s the cast that really sells this story. Dancy carries on the Hugh Grant romantic hero traditions as he registers exasperation, embarrassment and amusement when Cupid’s arrow finally finds him. Jones builds on her fine screen work in last year’s CRAZY LOVE with an original take on the genteel lady-in-waiting role. It’s wonderful to see Pryce step away from some of the mainstream blockbusters to play this stodgy gentleman who is the darling of London’s grande dames. Gyllenhaal seems just as comfortable on these cobblestone streets as she did in the Gotham City highrises ( and the that British accent we last heard in NANNY MCPHEE RETURNS doesn’t waver for a second ). The film’s MVP has to be the great Everett in the kind of a role that George Sanders specialized in during Hollywood’s Golden Age. He gets more laughs from a single word and a raised eyebrow than are generated in most mainstream movie comedies. He makes us want to see a follow-up film centered on his amoral character. The romance is fairly predictable ( do we really wonder which sister will capture the doctor’s heart ? ), but that’s a minor quibble considering how breezy this look at the past zooms along. Be sure and stick around for the end credits as the film makers take a look back at ( as one catalog page calls them ) ” women’s aids “. Like the rest of the movie this will give your funny bone a nice tickle ( ahem, sorry! ).

Overall Rating : 4 Out of 5 Stars