Tag: Psychoanalysis

FREUD’S LAST SESSION – Review

(L-R) Matthew Goode as C.S. Lewis and Anthony Hopkins as Sigmund Freud, in ‘Freud’s Last Session.’ Photo credit: Sabrina Lantos. Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) and C.S. Lewis (Matthew Goode) debate their opposing views on religion verses reason on the verge of World War II, in FREUD’S LAST SESSION.

FREUD’S LAST SESSION is based on the stage play of the same name, in which the now-elderly famous Dr. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, invites the much younger professor C. S. Lewis, a rising Oxford don who will write the Narnia book series, into his home in London, to which the Jewish doctor fled ahead of Hitler’s invading troops from his native Vienna. On the brink of Britain’s entry into WW II, these two intellectual giants meet for the first time and discuss a range of philosophical topics, including the existence of God and meaning of life.

Their views could not be more different. C. S. Lewis, a scholar who was once an atheist and now a devote Christian, and Sigmund Freud, a Jewish doctor who had became an atheist, engage in a fascinating, frank intellectual discussion that sometimes becomes fiery. Yet when they periodically a break from their intellectual sparring, they are cordial and an unexpected friendship forms over the course of the visit.

There is no evidence the two famous men ever actually met, so the debate is fictional, but it is a still a pure delight, and with a refreshing example of how to disagree – vigorously – without making it personal. The play mixes brilliant dialog and debate, sharp smart humor and a remarkable warmth, providing a wonderful, intriguing discussion that offers a model of how to disagree without descending into schoolyard taunts and insults.

At least that is what happens in the play. The film, however, is another matter, despite a screenplay co-written by the play’s author Mark St. Germain along with director Matthew Brown.

For some reason, playwright Mark St. Germain was not satisfied with making a film out of his excellent play. It isn’t that the playwright now favors one view over the other, but that he dilutes that intriguing philosophical debate altogether, by instead having the characters spend more time digging into the other’s personal lives, uncovering flaws and scandals. The intellectual debate now shares time with personal sniping, and some subplots unrelated to the two characters’ discussion.

The stage play’s clear narrative arc and its fine two-actor debate are transformed into a film that periodically veers off into a separate exploration of Freud’s relationship with his daughter and protege, Anna Freud, and her personal life, and C.S. Lewis’ memories of trauma in WWI and personal relationship secrets. Combining these two largely unrelated themes – personal versus philosophical – turns this enjoyable, satisfying play into a messy, melodramatic, much-less satisfying movie.

The film is particularly harsh towards Freud, giving us a rather unsavory look at Freud’s personal life. At the same time, Anthony Hopkin’s Freud is especially aggressive in delving into Lewis’ traumatic WWI experiences and his own secrets, including a possible sexual attraction to the mother of deceased friend killed in the war.

The focus of the two-character play is further diluted by expanding the cast, bringing in characters only discussed in the play and more. Liv Lisa Fries plays Anna Freud, the famous doctor’s daughter and caretaker who was a renowned psychoanalyst in her own right, and her secret relationship with another woman, Dorothy Burlingham (Jodi Balfour), a psychoanalyst who became the founder of child psychology. The film also adds Jeremy Northam playing Freud’s old friend and colleague Ernest Jones, while Orla Brady plays Lewis’ companion Janie Moore, the mother of Lewis’ fallen friend.

Instead of two great minds engaged in an interesting debate on the existence of God and other matters, we get the two famous men scoring points by digging into each other’s personal lives in search of scandal. Instead of an example of how to disagree without being disagreeable. we get a gossipy tit-for-tat drama that occasional returns to the philosophical debate at the center of the play.

Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode are talented actors and well cast as Freud and Lewis. They turn in strong performances but are weighed down by the unfocused script. The supporting cast is good as well, and the film has beautiful photography, with fine period details and settings. Director and co-writer Matthew Brown works to open up the play so it doesn’t feel too stagy. But there is no overcoming this script, which is a major departure from the excellent play on which it is based. The play is smart, with witty humor and warmth. The film just feels leaden and mean, for the most part.

There is a subplot about Freud’s devoted daughter Anna, under her father’s thumb, and her personal struggles over her feelings for Dorothy, something of which her famous father does not approve. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor but there is a bit of Archie Bunker in this bossy, rigid version of Freud, bullying his daughter and not always so nice to his guest, Prof. Lewis. Matthew Goode’s Lewis is respectful towards to the famous older man, as he is in the play, but Lewis still stands his ground in the philosophical arguments – when the film manages to fit them in between all the daddy-daughter drama – and he is a bit more overwhelmed when the good doctor delves into Lewis’ secret feelings about his traumatic WWI experiences and the complicated personal life that followed the war.

Given that this film is based on such an interesting and refreshing play, this messy melodrama movie adaptation is a major disappointment. Those who didn’t see the play, of course, will not know the missed potential but still it is hard to see anyone finding this confusing and gossipy drama very appealing, and when it spends so much time on Freud and his daughter, might even wonder why C.S. Lewis is there at all. Despite all that, the last part of the film reverts to the play, with an unexpected friendship developing between the two men. In the play, it is easy to see why but in the film, it is puzzling why Lewis would feel such warmth towards Freud, who is mostly unpleasant towards him, and why Freud would return that warmth and also put his trust in this young man he had known only a few hours.

While Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode deliver good performances, there is no overcoming this messy script, no matter how fine the acting, period details, photography or production values. Given the delightful original play and this excellent cast, this film could have been so much more, making it a major disappointment and a true shame.

FREUD’S LAST SESSION opens Friday, Jan. 19, in theaters.

RATING: 2 out of 4 stars

A DANGEROUS METHOD – The Review

Psychoanalysis is arguably still as polarizing in today’s society as it was a century ago when Sigmund Freud first conceived it. The very idea of all human neurosis being derived from a primal sexual foundation has controversy written all over it, which is what makes it such a fitting topic for David Cronenberg. Cronenberg’s career has spanned from RABID (1977) to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and most vividly with VIDEODROME (1983) and NAKED LUNCH (1991) – all of these films have one thing in common; sexually charged, taboo subject matter.

A DANGEROUS METHOD tells the story of Carl Jung, a protégé of Freud’s, and his triangular relationship with him and patient Sabina Spielrein during the emergence of psychoanalysis. Jung and Sabina go through a sort of symbiotic metamorphosis. Cronenberg focuses on the shift in character that occurs in Jung, which occurs in conjunction with his treatment of Sabina. They’re relation begins as strictly doctor-patient but transgresses into a sexual enlightening experience for both parties, leading to events to affect the professional relationship of all three characters.

For Cronenberg, A DANGEROUS METHOD is impressively subdued. The film is far less visually graphic and the events are far more cerebral than visceral. Regardless, the thematic elements of sexual taboo, fear and perversion are still very much in play. The film is adapted from the book of the same name by John Kerr, which lends the film its historical relevance. This is most likely the primary reason for a more restrained approach, but the film still works remarkably well.

Michael Fassbender (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays Carl Jung, a highly educated and passionate follower of Freud’s theories, the first to apply these concepts in treating a patient. That patient in Sabina Spielrein, played with remarkable intensity by Keira Knightley (NEVER LET ME GO). Freud is played by Viggo Mortensen (THE ROAD). Each character carries a specific level of emotional intensity throughout the film, allowing the dialogue-driven story to convey peaks and valleys to further engage the audience. Vincent Cassel (BLACK SWAN) plays Otto Gross, a small character with a significant purpose as a catalyst for Jung’s metamorphosis. Cassel also provides the sole source of crucial comic relief as the morally uninhibited and sexually obsessed doctor turned patient in Jung’s reluctant care.

Mortensen, playing a somewhat older character, is the calming element of the triangle. Freud rarely steps away from his levelheaded, perhaps stubbornly confident roots. Freud is very much a supporting character, a vessel through which Jung and Sabina channel their destructive yet therapeutic behavior. Fassbender strips away the confidence of Jung’s youthful ambition, breaking his psyche down into its conflicting parts from which he rebuilds himself. He shows the most range within his single character. But its Keira Knightley who outdoes herself in A DANGEROUS METHOD, showing an entirely new depth to her range, an extreme not similar to but far beyond her performance in DOMINO.

Easily the most exhilarating and profound moment in A DANGEROUS METHOD is during Jung’s initial session with Sabina. The film begins with Sabina being carried, kicking and screaming, into the hospital where Jung will attempt to treat her. In this long, boldly static scene the camera remains stationary. Cronenberg composes the frame carefully, creating a geometrically aggressive shot with Sabina in the foreground and Jung seated just off to the side and behind her, just slightly out of focus as he proceeds to dissect Sabina’s condition through a series of questions. Knightley’s performance is at first intimidating, even off-putting as she virtually assaults the viewer with her interpretation of Sabina’s physically manifesting psychosis. However, after a very short period of time, as I began to be drawn into the intricacies of her acting I began to realize the brilliance of the scene. Cronenberg set up the shot, and then allowed Knightley to carry the scene and she does with spellbinding conviction.

A DANGEROUS METHOD is a sexual film, without being blatantly graphic and direct with that sexuality. Cronenberg works so comfortably within this context that it never feels awkward or forbidden, but rather like the logical progression of such relatively fringe science to the time. Psychoanalysis is a science that feels much more like an art, a curious juxtaposition that really doesn’t occur in any other branch of the sciences. Cronenberg successfully presents a portrait of two maverick minds in a way that humanizes them, instead of placing them infallibly on pedestals. A DANGEROUS METHOD suggests the human animal is not greater than its primal instincts, but has the power to accept itself for what it is and in turn discover freedom from blindly imposed sexual morals.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

A DANGEROUS METHOD – SLIFF Review

Psychoanalysis is arguably still as polarizing in today’s society as it was a century ago when Sigmund Freud first conceived it. The very idea of all human neurosis being derived from a primal sexual foundation has controversy written all over it, which is what makes it such a fitting topic for David Cronenberg. Cronenberg’s career has spanned from RABID (1977) to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and most vividly with VIDEODROME (1983) and NAKED LUNCH (1991) – all of these films have one thing in common; sexually charged, taboo subject matter.

A DANGEROUS METHOD tells the story of Carl Jung, a protégé of Freud’s, and his triangular relationship with him and patient Sabina Spielrein during the emergence of psychoanalysis. Jung and Sabina go through a sort of symbiotic metamorphosis. Cronenberg focuses on the shift in character that occurs in Jung, which occurs in conjunction with his treatment of Sabina. They’re relation begins as strictly doctor-patient but transgresses into a sexual enlightening experience for both parties, leading to events to affect the professional relationship of all three characters.

For Cronenberg, A DANGEROUS METHOD is impressively subdued. The film is far less visually graphic and the events are far more cerebral than visceral. Regardless, the thematic elements of sexual taboo, fear and perversion are still very much in play. The film is adapted from the book of the same name by John Kerr, which lends the film its historical relevance. This is most likely the primary reason for a more restrained approach, but the film still works remarkably well.

Michael Fassbender (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays Carl Jung, a highly educated and passionate follower of Freud’s theories, the first to apply these concepts in treating a patient. That patient in Sabina Spielrein, played with remarkable intensity by Keira Knightley (NEVER LET ME GO). Freud is played by Viggo Mortensen (THE ROAD). Each character carries a specific level of emotional intensity throughout the film, allowing the dialogue-driven story to convey peaks and valleys to further engage the audience. Vincent Cassel (BLACK SWAN) plays Otto Gross, a small character with a significant purpose as a catalyst for Jung’s metamorphosis. Cassel also provides the sole source of crucial comic relief as the morally uninhibited and sexually obsessed doctor turned patient in Jung’s reluctant care.

Mortensen, playing a somewhat older character, is the calming element of the triangle. Freud rarely steps away from his levelheaded, perhaps stubbornly confident roots. Freud is very much a supporting character, a vessel through which Jung and Sabina channel their destructive yet therapeutic behavior. Fassbender strips away the confidence of Jung’s youthful ambition, breaking his psyche down into its conflicting parts from which he rebuilds himself. He shows the most range within his single character. But its Keira Knightley who outdoes herself in A DANGEROUS METHOD, showing an entirely new depth to her range, an extreme not similar to but far beyond her performance in DOMINO.

Easily the most exhilarating and profound moment in A DANGEROUS METHOD is during Jung’s initial session with Sabina. The film begins with Sabina being carried, kicking and screaming, into the hospital where Jung will attempt to treat her. In this long, boldly static scene the camera remains stationary. Cronenberg composes the frame carefully, creating a geometrically aggressive shot with Sabina in the foreground and Jung seated just off to the side and behind her, just slightly out of focus as he proceeds to dissect Sabina’s condition through a series of questions. Knightley’s performance is at first intimidating, even off-putting as she virtually assaults the viewer with her interpretation of Sabina’s physically manifesting psychosis. However, after a very short period of time, as I began to be drawn into the intricacies of her acting I began to realize the brilliance of the scene. Cronenberg set up the shot, and then allowed Knightley to carry the scene and she does with spellbinding conviction.

A DANGEROUS METHOD is a sexual film, without being blatantly graphic and direct with that sexuality. Cronenberg works so comfortably within this context that it never feels awkward or forbidden, but rather like the logical progression of such relatively fringe science to the time. Psychoanalysis is a science that feels much more like an art, a curious juxtaposition that really doesn’t occur in any other branch of the sciences. Cronenberg successfully presents a portrait of two maverick minds in a way that humanizes them, instead of placing them infallibly on pedestals. A DANGEROUS METHOD suggests the human animal is not greater than its primal instincts, but has the power to accept itself for what it is and in turn discover freedom from blindly imposed sexual morals.