Image courtesy of Sony Pictures ClassicWith director David Cronenberg’s affinity for examining the human psyche throughout his body of work, it’s no surprise that his latest film, A Dangerous Method, delves into the roots of psychoanalysis by examining the relationship between Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the woman who ultimately inspired both men, Sabina Spielrein. Cronenberg’s film is based on Christopher Hampton’s play, The Talking Cure, which in turn, is based on John Kerr’s non-fiction book, The Most Dangerous Method.
The term “psychoanalysis” and the name “Sigmund Freud” have gone hand-in-hand since its inception. Everyone’s heard of Freud. Many people have even heard of Carl Jung. But who was Sabina Spielrein? According to Kerr’s book, Spielrein was “one of the first woman psychoanalysts,” and “wrote 30 professional papers,” some of which were even cited by Jung and Freud.[1] In Method, Cronenberg brings Kerr’s examination of the influence Spielrein had on Freud and Jung via excerpts from Spielrein’s diaries and written correspondence with both men to the big screen.
The movie opens in 1904 with a young, hysterical 18 year-old Russian woman by the name of Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly) being institutionalized at the Burghölzli Clinic in Zurich and placed under the care of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). At first, Spielrein has nothing to offer except her extremely overacted fits (wherein Knightly comes dangerously close to jutting her bottom jaw out of her head). Eventually, the hysterical body distortions stop, and Jung decides to employ a experimental therapy technique recently developed by Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) called psychoanalysis, or “talk therapy.”
After only a few talk therapy sessions, Jung discovers that Spielrein is sexually aroused by the humiliation and pain of physical punishment. With Spielrein’s hysterical fits no longer an issue, Spielrein (still a patient) begins assisting Jung with his research, and Jung contacts Freud to share the news of his success with Spielrein’s psychotherapy treatment. The two men finally meet in person and begin a six year collaboration period with Freud mentoring Jung as his intellectual heir.
The real theme of the movie doesn’t become apparent until everyone’s repressed issues start surfacing. Spielrein struggles with repressing her socially unconventional sexual arousal. Jung tries to repress his sexual attraction to Spielrein as well as the Oedipal Complex he feels towards his substitute father-figure, Freud. And Freud sublimates his repressed obsession with sexual desires into all of his academic theories. Yet, the oddest thing about all these repressed sexual desires is how Cronenberg represses his own desire to make them visually scintillating on screen.
The only person not trying to repress anything is the immoral drug addict and fellow psychiatrist Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), whom Freud asks Jung to take on as a patient in the clinic. After a few talk therapy sessions in which Jung listens to Gross rationalize an anti-monogamy standpoint, Jung finally caves into his own Id desires and violates his doctor/patient relationship with Spielrein. Ironically, their sexual tryst turned out to be a double-edged sword. For Jung, it transgressed his ethical responsibilities and led to the dissolution of his professional relationship with Freud; yet, it also “healed” Spielrein by allowing her to “normalize” taboo sexual desires.
For the most part, Cronenberg’s film is an interesting look at an overlooked historical figure in the history of psychoanalysis. Though, at times, it seems to come across as more of a stage play than it should. Part of that could be due to the fact that the film was adapted from a screenplay originally written for a theatre production which heavily relies upon dialogue. It could also have something to do with the subject matter itself – talk therapy. However, the biggest issue lies with Cronenberg’s failure to fully utilize the visual medium of cinema.
Because he keeps his camera and characters visually distant and reserved like the trio of psychiatrists he’s examining, Cronenberg never really pulls the audience into the angst of the character’s conflicting emotions. Instead, he allows them to spend so much time talking about sex they end up repressing everything but the clinical aspect of the Id’s favorite pastime. Better utilization of a cinematic ability to get up close and personal with the characters would also help in the scenes where it seems as if there’s more sexual tension between Freud & Jung than there is between Jung & Spielrein.
As for the story itself, it’s a fascinating one, but the subtext of its ideology is slightly bothersome. On one hand, it’s nice to see a film bring light to a woman who was written out of our male-dominated history, especially one who influenced two of the most important people in all of psychology. On the other hand, she’s portrayed as a hysterical, immoral mess who enters into a sexual relationship with Jung knowing full well that he is married with a pregnant wife.
Yet, the real irony of the situation lies in the treatment of Spielrein’s hysteria, specifically in regards to the history of the disorder. The ancient Greeks believed hysteria was strictly a female disorder in which the uterus would become dislodged and “wander” throughout the body causing various physical symptoms and ailments (hystera = Greek for “uterus”). In the 2nd Century, hysteria was thought to be caused by sexual deprivation and/or dissatisfaction, and the standard treatment for “hysterical” women was either sexual intercourse or manual vaginal stimulation (i.e. masturbation).[2] It wasn’t until 1895 that Freud expounded upon Josef Breuer’s study of “Anna O” and determined that hysteria is caused by psychological factors rather than biological ones.
Here’s the rub: Freud’s famous Anna O case is the first documented instance where the treatment of psychoanalysis – ferreting out the psychological roots of a physical problem by merely talking to the patient – cured a woman of female hysteria. It happened in 1895. Sabina Spielrein was admitted to the Burghölzli Clinic in 1904 (9 years later) with a diagnosis of hysteria. Jung treated Spielrein with psychoanalysis, which somewhat cured her, but not enough for Spielrein to leave the clinic as a patient. Only after repeated sexual encounters full of titillating spankings, courtesy of Dr. Jung, does Spielrein become fully “cured.” How’s that for a mixed message?
Of course, none of this will have any bearing on those who haven’t studied psychology. Those audience members will see what the filmmakers want them to see – the woman who influenced Jung’s theories on transcendence and Freud’s thanatos theories – which is indeed an interesting story. However, for those of us who are a little more up to speed on the subject matter at hand, A Dangerous Method will probably leave you questioning more than it should.
© Left From Hollywood
WORKS CITED
1 Kerr, John. A Most Dangerous Method. New York: Alfred Al. Knoph, Inc., 1993.
2 Maines, Rachel P. (1998). The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria", the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The term “psychoanalysis” and the name “Sigmund Freud” have gone hand-in-hand since its inception. Everyone’s heard of Freud. Many people have even heard of Carl Jung. But who was Sabina Spielrein? According to Kerr’s book, Spielrein was “one of the first woman psychoanalysts,” and “wrote 30 professional papers,” some of which were even cited by Jung and Freud.[1] In Method, Cronenberg brings Kerr’s examination of the influence Spielrein had on Freud and Jung via excerpts from Spielrein’s diaries and written correspondence with both men to the big screen.
The movie opens in 1904 with a young, hysterical 18 year-old Russian woman by the name of Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly) being institutionalized at the Burghölzli Clinic in Zurich and placed under the care of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). At first, Spielrein has nothing to offer except her extremely overacted fits (wherein Knightly comes dangerously close to jutting her bottom jaw out of her head). Eventually, the hysterical body distortions stop, and Jung decides to employ a experimental therapy technique recently developed by Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) called psychoanalysis, or “talk therapy.”
After only a few talk therapy sessions, Jung discovers that Spielrein is sexually aroused by the humiliation and pain of physical punishment. With Spielrein’s hysterical fits no longer an issue, Spielrein (still a patient) begins assisting Jung with his research, and Jung contacts Freud to share the news of his success with Spielrein’s psychotherapy treatment. The two men finally meet in person and begin a six year collaboration period with Freud mentoring Jung as his intellectual heir.
The real theme of the movie doesn’t become apparent until everyone’s repressed issues start surfacing. Spielrein struggles with repressing her socially unconventional sexual arousal. Jung tries to repress his sexual attraction to Spielrein as well as the Oedipal Complex he feels towards his substitute father-figure, Freud. And Freud sublimates his repressed obsession with sexual desires into all of his academic theories. Yet, the oddest thing about all these repressed sexual desires is how Cronenberg represses his own desire to make them visually scintillating on screen.
The only person not trying to repress anything is the immoral drug addict and fellow psychiatrist Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), whom Freud asks Jung to take on as a patient in the clinic. After a few talk therapy sessions in which Jung listens to Gross rationalize an anti-monogamy standpoint, Jung finally caves into his own Id desires and violates his doctor/patient relationship with Spielrein. Ironically, their sexual tryst turned out to be a double-edged sword. For Jung, it transgressed his ethical responsibilities and led to the dissolution of his professional relationship with Freud; yet, it also “healed” Spielrein by allowing her to “normalize” taboo sexual desires.
For the most part, Cronenberg’s film is an interesting look at an overlooked historical figure in the history of psychoanalysis. Though, at times, it seems to come across as more of a stage play than it should. Part of that could be due to the fact that the film was adapted from a screenplay originally written for a theatre production which heavily relies upon dialogue. It could also have something to do with the subject matter itself – talk therapy. However, the biggest issue lies with Cronenberg’s failure to fully utilize the visual medium of cinema.
Because he keeps his camera and characters visually distant and reserved like the trio of psychiatrists he’s examining, Cronenberg never really pulls the audience into the angst of the character’s conflicting emotions. Instead, he allows them to spend so much time talking about sex they end up repressing everything but the clinical aspect of the Id’s favorite pastime. Better utilization of a cinematic ability to get up close and personal with the characters would also help in the scenes where it seems as if there’s more sexual tension between Freud & Jung than there is between Jung & Spielrein.
As for the story itself, it’s a fascinating one, but the subtext of its ideology is slightly bothersome. On one hand, it’s nice to see a film bring light to a woman who was written out of our male-dominated history, especially one who influenced two of the most important people in all of psychology. On the other hand, she’s portrayed as a hysterical, immoral mess who enters into a sexual relationship with Jung knowing full well that he is married with a pregnant wife.
Yet, the real irony of the situation lies in the treatment of Spielrein’s hysteria, specifically in regards to the history of the disorder. The ancient Greeks believed hysteria was strictly a female disorder in which the uterus would become dislodged and “wander” throughout the body causing various physical symptoms and ailments (hystera = Greek for “uterus”). In the 2nd Century, hysteria was thought to be caused by sexual deprivation and/or dissatisfaction, and the standard treatment for “hysterical” women was either sexual intercourse or manual vaginal stimulation (i.e. masturbation).[2] It wasn’t until 1895 that Freud expounded upon Josef Breuer’s study of “Anna O” and determined that hysteria is caused by psychological factors rather than biological ones.
Here’s the rub: Freud’s famous Anna O case is the first documented instance where the treatment of psychoanalysis – ferreting out the psychological roots of a physical problem by merely talking to the patient – cured a woman of female hysteria. It happened in 1895. Sabina Spielrein was admitted to the Burghölzli Clinic in 1904 (9 years later) with a diagnosis of hysteria. Jung treated Spielrein with psychoanalysis, which somewhat cured her, but not enough for Spielrein to leave the clinic as a patient. Only after repeated sexual encounters full of titillating spankings, courtesy of Dr. Jung, does Spielrein become fully “cured.” How’s that for a mixed message?
Of course, none of this will have any bearing on those who haven’t studied psychology. Those audience members will see what the filmmakers want them to see – the woman who influenced Jung’s theories on transcendence and Freud’s thanatos theories – which is indeed an interesting story. However, for those of us who are a little more up to speed on the subject matter at hand, A Dangerous Method will probably leave you questioning more than it should.
© Left From Hollywood
WORKS CITED
1 Kerr, John. A Most Dangerous Method. New York: Alfred Al. Knoph, Inc., 1993.
2 Maines, Rachel P. (1998). The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria", the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Posts
