If you’re unfamiliar with Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents or Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, then A Dangerous Method is the celluloid equivalent to Sparknotes. Throughout, the screenplay consists of nearly identical excerpts of both. Since these books were, respectively, written twenty-six (1930) and thirteen (1917) years after the movie is set (1904), I have no major issue with the screenplay as such, though it feels a bit odd to be able to foresee the dialog coming verbatim.
That aside, the movie is decent, mostly because of Kiera Knightley’s performance as Sabina Spielrein, one of the first female psychoanalysts – and because of David Cronenberg’s look at the female presence in the Freud/Jung dynamic.
Spielrein, whose most famous work is the essay “Destruction as the Cause of Coming into Being,” was admitted to mental hospitals as a young woman and eventually became both a patient and a colleague of Carl Gustav Jung. As the movie notes and embellishes on, they also had a romantic relationship centered on dominance and submission. This relationship ultimately gives rise – and credence – to the theories centering on the positive / disgusting feelings that revolve around intercourse that are presented in her essay.
At the same time, these theories being worked through by a young woman are similarly waded through by Frued and will come to be the focal points of most of his work in psychoanalysis.
And, this is what makes A Dangerous Method interesting: the heavy focus on the female body and human sexuality overshadows the important contribution made Spielrein, an actual female body, not simply a manifestation of anxiety or a momentary figment in a dream. According to the film, Sabina’s existence corroborates Freud’s theories, but she also encourages and challenges Jung’s. Most importantly, her work sets the stage for both and, at times, refines the vagueness found therein.
It’s here that Cronenberg – in characteristic fashion – veers away from the most obvious perception of his subjects and focuses the camera away from the two most famous psychoanalysts and centers it on the lesser recognized doctor who had a grand impact. Much like his passing over the gross mutation within The Fly to focus on industrial capitalism, Cronenberg looks through the lore of Freud and Jung to look at an example of the neurosis that formed the basis of their theories.
However, the film has issues. First and foremost, the only person who successfully carries an accent throughout the film is Knightley, whose Russian is quite consistent. Jung (Fassbender) and Freud (Mortenson) sound like they’re from London. In one sense, we could read Knightley’s Russian as a signifier of her “otherness.” She is both female and Russian, so she is far from acceptable. But her Russian would sound no less unusual in the presence of Jung’s German or Freud’s Austrian accents.
The problem here is that the film becomes sloppy with this inconsistency. While it wouldn’t be a great film even if the accent-problem were remedied, I was often reminded of the inconsistencies in DiCaprio’s The Man in the Iron Mask. How is it that the King of France speaks as if he is from Brooklyn, and how is it that John Malkovich is the only person who consistently pulled off a French accent – despite the presence of Gerard Depardieu? But I digress.
Also irksome is the glossing over of the relationship between Freud and Jung. The mythology of their friendship / rivalry is known, but it’s also more complicated that it appears in the film. In all, the issue is that their communications could be a film in itself, and I wish that it were kept separate, allowing A Dangerous Method to focus solely on Spierlein, not on the underlying homoeroticism between Freud and Jung, or the Oedipal dynamic, or incomprehensibly interpreted symbols in dreams.
Admittedly, the film can’t be faulted for what I wish it were; but the inclusion of the latter bunch of narrative points bogs it down a bit and makes us ponder whether Freud’s cigar is merely a cigar, or…just a bigger cigarette.
