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 (5)
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)Videos (21)
Reviews (13)
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.
()
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.
()
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.
()
David Cronenberg is known for delving into human sexuality in his films, but here he takes a more intellectual approach, focusing on the psychological aspects rather than the explicit details seen in his earlier works. I’ve never been particularly interested in Freud or Jung, so I’m not deeply familiar with their work or legacy. Thus, I have to trust Cronenberg’s portrayal of these two iconic figures. The subject matter is fascinating, but it required my full attention to avoid missing anything. The film is dialogue-heavy, and the conversations are often conducted in complex, technical language, making it easy to get a bit lost at times. I was absolutely captivated by the directorial precision, beautiful interiors, and the stunning settings. Visually, the film is incredibly impressive, showcasing Cronenberg’s top-tier craftsmanship. The acting is also top-notch. Michael Fassbender proves once again that he’s one of the best actors of his generation, and Keira Knightley and Viggo Mortensen deliver brilliant performances as well. Despite all these positives, A Dangerous Method remains a somewhat challenging film for me. If I had a deeper interest in psychoanalysis and analytical psychology, I’m sure I’d appreciate it much more. As it stands, it’s a high-quality film that broadened my knowledge, but it didn’t profoundly impact or resonate with me.
()