A Dangerous Method, the new David Cronenberg movie — based upon the 2002 Christopher Hampton stage play entitled, The Talking Cure, (which in turn was based on the 1993 non-fiction book by John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method) — is not only about the relationships you see on the screen between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein, but a breathtaking metaphor for Freud’s depiction of the mind.
A successful effort on a multitude of layers, the movie offers us a rollercoaster ride in a car filled with a motley group of historical characters in psychology and psychoanalysis. The movie depicts the life of Jung and Freud’s relationship from the time they first met in 1907 until their professional relationship collapses in 1913 — a short 6 years. I saw a screening of the movie earlier this month.
But it would be wrong to characterize this as a story only about Jung and Freud’s relationship. Instead, it’s a larger-than-life tale about the first days of psychoanalysis and Jung’s career, set against the backdrop of pre-war Europe, artfully relayed on many different levels.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1992-2012 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 24 May 2012
|
I’m sorry, even your description of what you consider the deeper analysis in the film sounds very superficial to me. It sounds as if Cronenberg is basically attempting to sell the image of Freud as the great, uncompromising moral visionary and scientist who broke with Jung because of his ethical failings. Jung, on the other hand appears not only ethically challenged, but also wooden and lacking in personal warmth and humanity, who broke with Freud under the influence of a kind of evil genius, and not really for his own solid reasons. The story is clearly biased.
Outstanding review of a very thoughtful picture.
This movie was nothing if not nuanced. All the relationships were nuanced, even that between Freud and Jung. No one was all good or all bad. Everything was shades of gray, and that made it eminently watchable.
A few things you touched on, Dr. Grohol, could merit some underscoring. I’ve watched the picture twice, and paid careful attention to some details the second time through.
First, Jung and Spielrein’s professional relationship was, as you point out, over at the time that their imagined affair began. At least two years had interevened and probably more, Jung had already made his first visit to Freud in the interim, and Spielrein was a medical student at the time that sex entered the picture between them. One of the problems was that the affair was actually discovered by Freud, as opposed to Freud’s own affair with his sister in law, Minna Bernays, which was kept sub rosa and not really confirmed until recently.
Second, you point out correctly how quickly Spielrein’s psychological issues seem to resolve in her analysis. While there is plenty of cinematic license to be had, the fact is that back in the early days of psychoanalysis, there were not the four, five, and more years of interminable psychoanalysis we see these days.
Thirdly — and this you don’t mention — there’s an argument to be made as to the two parts of the Spielrein/Jung relationship. There’s the analytic work done when she was in treatment at Jung’s hospital, and then the influence that Jung had on her as a friend and mentor starting at least two years later. In fact, Jung was a mentor. Spielrein ultimately became a brilliant analyst in her on right, until her tragic death in her native Russia at the hands of the invading Nazis.
Lastly, those early days of psychoanalysis were wild and wooly. Freud and his associates were consistently analyzing each other, even as they went on vacation together. Melanie Klein analyzed her own kids. Notions of boundaries that we have now didn’t exist, in some ways, or were just being formed. It was a heady time, and it was a dangerous time, exploring dangerous material from a dangerous paradigm. It was, in fact, a dangerous method in many, many ways.
I hope everyone with an interest in the arena sees this movie. It’s talky, yes, but it’s about a subject where the currency is talk. Much of the talk is scintillating.
Thanks for this review. I sure wish to watch this movie.
Best review I have read. Most have been from movie critics who paint a far darker film. Obliviously not of an intellectual view.
Now I have some interest. Well done.
I’ve seen the film and rate it somewhere between worthwhile and outstanding. The affair between Jung and Spielrein is historically accurate (Jung confided in lletters to Freud). The scenes are lovely (historically vivid), the acting fine (Freud a little stereotyped, Sabina maybe overdone). Freud’s famous fainting spell is overdramatized. A lot is covered, a complex subject well-presented.
Beyond the review. I thoroughly disliked the film. There was no passion in either of the principle characters Jung and Freud. There was a certain sensationalism surrounding the “case”, yet not enough concern for Sabrina’s personal journey. There were uncomfortable jumps in the story. I have enough of a personal perspective on the times, the prevailing paradoxes, and the many dimensions of Freud and Jung to have disliked the tone of the film. Stay away! It’s ultimately a very boring experience.
Thank you for this! We saw it last night and enjoyed it a great deal. One question, though. Did you mean to say that the super-ego is our conscious or our conscience? Wouldn’t it be the latter?
“The simplistic of explanations is that the super-ego is your conscious — all that is critical, moral, ethical and just.”
Kelly M is right. This is clearly an error and should be “conscience”. I would assume that Dr Grohol also meant “simplest” rather than “simplistic. Perhaps the article was dictated? It should have been proof-read!