Sex and sensibility
A Dangerous Method (2011) is a film about temptation and seduction, the breaking of professional etiquette, the falling out between two aging academics and the use of a ‘Talking Cure’ for people suffering from mental problems. Another poignant insight into the life of the soul from director David Cronenberg, who is no stranger to controversy and not afraid of exploring the perverse side of human nature. Abnormal animalistic behaviour, tormented psyches and sadomasochistic tendencies are all treated with his usual flair, tact, style and sympathy.
The film has a dark, obscure side and is unsettling, but definitely not dirty or tacky – it has found a form of sensuality all of its own. Keira Knightley takes a huge risk by taking on the tricky role of Sabina Spielrein, a disturbed young Russian.
She has matured into nothing short of a screen goddess, that merits at the very least an Oscar nomination. Her spirited, harrowing depiction of an insane, frustrated nymphomaniac and her road to recovery shows her depth, diversity and allure, and I was almost expecting a football-style shirt-removing celebration after her verbal victory, but our English rose had already done a topeless scene, God bless you maam, and perhaps not appropriately, given the austere Austrian setting. Yes, I think a Damehood is order here, in addition to the Oscar.
Psychoanalysis is Austria’s biggest export after the apple strudel. But was it ‘the method’ that cured our gorgeous Sabina, or just a decent shag? Is there a place for pyschoanalysis? Absolutely, but let’s not get carried away believing it to be a science. The correct place for this sort of thing is, of course, the pub, where spurious ideas about sex can be discussed endlessly over copious amounts of beer, as is the English tradition.
Played by the studious and sanguine Michael Fassbender, Jung puts his career and reputation on the line by failing to control his own libido as he slips into a torrid affair with his irresistible patient. Viggo Mortenson plays the serious historical figure of Freud with well-calibrated austerity and authority. His friendship with Jung hangs by a thread, as the young disciple becomes frustrated with his master’s inflexibility.
The use of the word ‘method’ reminded me of one of the greatest movie scenes of all time between Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now (1979), which goes along the lines of ‘Do you think my methods are unsound? I see no method here sir.’
OK, this may be stretching my point a bit, but you catch my drift. As Mike Dundee pointed out in Crocodile Dundee (1986): ‘What’s the use of an analyst if you’ve got mates?’
Isn’t ‘talking’ what we’ve been doing since we invented language? Is there more to psychoanalysis than dream interpretation and word games? Not according to this film. For a deeper and a more interesting view on the subconscious or unconscious and a telling counter-point to the psychoanalysis phenomena, I recommend The Fantasia of the Unconscious (1921) by D. H. Lawrence.
Philosophy was a much broader subject at the start of 20th century than at the end. Psychology grew into a science and psychoanalysis, well, is still practised by gypsy fortune tellers and those annoying websites that claim to be able to tell you whether or not your ex-partner is still in love with you. Jung’s weapon, the method of his master, lacks punch – it’s lucky he had a backup plan and belt for the problematic Sabina.
The pace of the film is steady and its communication of ideas and material just about right, giving touching observations and thought-provoking dialogue that is not at all dull or overly complicated. As the story unfolds, the line between hunter and prey becomes blurred, similar to the relationship between Paul and Jeanne in Last Tango in Paris (1972).
Who is seducing who? Who has the upper hand? Who is manipulating who? Who is using and who is abusing? Dr. Jung becomes the victim in the end and the connection between sexuality and emotional disorder becomes hazy. With interest in their subject drying up, the two academics run out of steam and start to bicker – left with a withering vision, dead wisdom and a too-hot-to-handle patient.
Like in Bend it like Beckham (2002), the wily Miss Knightley steals the show and beats both Jung and Freud at their own game. Sex is sacrifice, she argues. Losing your ID, or ego, is part of the course – the sexual act obliges a nullification of the self…for spiritual enlightenment I would put my faith in 1980s pop singer Stacey Q of Two of Hearts fame above Jung or Freud.
I was sceptical of the importance of Jung and Freud concerning their contributions to the understanding of the human condition and subconsciousness before I saw the film, and am even more so now. But this aside, the film tackles an interesting topic and it succeeds because of great directing and superb acting.
It’s encouraging that mainstream film-making has evolved to an extent where ideas about existence, sex and emotional stability can be dealt with in such an intelligent and thorough manner, but it leaves me with just one question – when is someone going to make a film about the life of D. H. Lawrence, the true architect of the modern human mindscape?
99 mins. In English and German.
Hello Marc. Your favourite feminist reader is back with one or two remarks. I agree with the accolades you lavish on Keira Knightly for her excellent performance, although I might not have put it quite like that myself.
Nevertheless, she did indeed surpass herself in this film.
I have more difficulty with your analysis of Spielbein’s problems. The word ‘nymphomaniac’ pathologises female sexuality and suggests that there may be something aberrant about sexual desire in a woman. Spielbein was a normal young woman trapped in a society where sex was a taboo subject. I am not a big fan of Freud myself, but if you doubt his contribution to psychology, then at least you can perhaps give him credit for having pointed to the repression of sexuality being at the root of a lot of psychological problems.
Freudian psychoanalysis, like any theory or approach, is a product of its time. Psychoanalysis, along with other forms of therapy, have come a long way since Freud’s day, but the film shows very effectively in what kind of context the discipline was born and some of the tensions between its main proponents (although on the Freud/Jung relationship the film left me wanting a little more insight).
So Marc asks the question does psychoanalysis work or is it cheaper and more fun to just go the pub with your mates? Marc correctly points out that psychology grew out of philosophy and gradually and deliberately positioned itself as a serious science by purporting to be able to measure, quantify and classify human behaviour. There are plenty of people around who question whether psychology did not lose something by becoming over-scientific. Both Foucault and the anti-psychiatry movement have challenged the definitions of psychological malfunction and the extent to which pathologies are created by society and are relative to the norms of that society.
For example, homosexuality was only removed from the DSM (official list of mental disorders) in 1973. Chamberlain, a member of the anti-psychiatry movement claims that “psychologists pick up a fee for doing what friends and lovers do for free”, so you are not alone in your scepticism, Marc. The only thing I can say is you have to have very wise friends. You could always do an empirical comparative study and see whether a shrink can help you to uncover things about yourself that don’t emerge after four pints of beer in a noisy pub with a giant television screen. You may be surprised….
Hi Paula,
‘There are plenty of people around who question whether psychology did not lose something by becoming over-scientific…For example, homosexuality was only removed from the DSM (official list of mental disorders) in 1973.’
It seems to me that law, culture and religion are still playing catch-up with science with regards to homosexuality and I think the point is that homosexuality *was* removed from the DSM. Psychology has the flexibility to drop defunct ideas because psychologists adopt a scientific mindset, not in spite of that. That’s because embedded within the scientific mindset is a reverence for scepticism, scepticism of one’s own ideas and everyone else’s.
Perhaps Freud’s greatest legacy is to have explored a methodological approach that has since been shown to be flawed. But that is a fine scientific legacy in my opinion. The history of science is awash with flawed methods and flawed theories and it is almost a foregone conclusion that an established theory will eventually be overturned.
‘You could always do an empirical comparative study and see whether a shrink can help you to uncover things about yourself that don’t emerge after four pints of beer in a noisy pub with a giant television screen. You may be surprised…’
Or study the extent to which ‘memories’ of childhood trauma become implanted rather than discovered within the ‘psyche’ by analysis? See, the empirical study of memory reveals it to be pliable and open to suggestion…
PS. I can’t help but agree with Chris’s defence of the scientific method, however.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Paula, you are in danger of becoming my favourite feminist, which is a bit like picking out the best-looking man in a burns unit…;-)
You have, however, given me cause for doubt. When I said that ‘psychoanalysis is still practiced by gypsies’ I was making the point that psychology has grown into a science practised by professionals, while psychoanalysis is still a black art practised by any Tom, Dick or Harry. Am I wrong on this point? It seems that some people regard psychoanalysis and psychology to be the same thing. Although I see the connection, I thought they were two distinct disciplines, no?
I defend my use of the word ‘nymphomaniac’. I seem to remember a conversation between Freud and Jung, where Jung categorically stated that Sabine was a ‘frustrated nymphomaniac’ (his medical dioagnosis). Did I imagine this?
I agree that Freud’s work did help to promote discussion on sexuality and repression and reduce taboos, along with the work of others, including D.H. Lawrence. I’m always open to ‘empirical comparative studies’, especially ones involving large TV screens and a pub, but why only four pints?
Hi Marc,
This is a barely disguised excuse to have a rant and win James’s 1000th message prize, but:
Psychoanalysis is a branch of psychology and, as far as I know, one has to train for a number of years to become an accredited shrink.
There are branches of psychology that are far more dodgy that are not regarded with the same contempt. Psychometrics is a good example, in my opinion. In fact, if we really want to bang the hypothetico-deductive drum then whole swathes of psychology could be consigned to the bin. That includes my favourite branch, evolutionary psychology, which desperately wants to be ‘science’ but probably isn’t, in the strictest definition of the term.
In fact, the same kind of issues that the philosophers of science chucked at Freud back in the day were also thrown at Darwin. This obsession with demarcating between science and pseudo-science doesn’t stop there. Whole swathes of contemporary physics and cosmology might go the same way until the only bonafide science left is chemistry – born of alchemy, no less – and I hope you’d agree that this would be intolerably dull.
‘Science’, as it is typically understood, only really occurs within the neuro-psychology departments. Harumph.
Luckily, contemporary philosophy of science has tempered its ire towards psychology and focused the attack on Mr. Popper and the hypothetico-deductive method itself. A good job really, because scientists across the board never really applied the method with any rigour anyway. They did alright, however…they still worked out that the earth spins around the sun.
All of which might leave you wondering what any of the above has to do with A Dangerous Method, or your post for that matter. Nothing, really. But it had the words ‘psychology’ and ‘Freud’ in it, tho’ I couldn’t find space for ‘Nympho’.
All the best.
PS. James, was that the 1000th post? Do I win the prize?
Hi Chris,
As ever, an excellent, incisive and intelligent contribution, but I must confess that, as I have learned more from Marc’s original post and your commentary than I ever knew previously about psychiatry/psychology, I must hand over to Marc and Paula (you still there, Paula?
) to deal with the thrust of your argument.
However, I can tell you that:
(i) Unfortunately, no, yours was the not the 1,000th, but;
(ii) Picturenose critics’ comments will not count towards the magic 1,000 in the short time remaining before we hit it, so, keep the intelligent responses coming, and you’re in with a *very* good chance. And by intelligent, I do not mean responding to this post with ‘Hmmm, OK then, thanks James’.
Speak soon,
J
As someone who is viewing this on a mobile created in the past five years, could you put the option to view the site in standard format at the top of the page, if you must default me to mobile format?
OK, I’m not Mr Chang – but do I win? Are we over 700 yet?
Also, for what it’s worth, can I use my insomnia by having another crack at the 1,000th comment and saying that, polite as Chris is, there’s no “real” science going on within cognitive neuroscience, just bigger toys.
Nick, Mr Chang
, many thanks for your enquiries. To answer them in order, then:
(i) You’ll have to ask Colin, he’s the techie around here;
(ii) Way over 700, very near indeed, thanks for asking, and;
(iii) No you can’t. Please note, no further exchanges on this particular *fascinating* topic will count towards the *magic* 1,000. I thank you.
Hi James,
Can I ask for a recount? I’m pretty sure my post *was* the 1,000th…
Hi Chris,
Well, it’s nice to see that this has descended into the facile puerility that I would have expected from some of my oldest and bestest friends.
Chris, unless you have access to Picturnose’s WordPress account, I am not really sure where you are getting this information from, so, to answer your question, yes, you obviously can ask for a recount, as you just did, but you may not. 
Oh, and this ‘exchange’ does not count towards the tally, either.
Mate, there are now 625 posts quilled in heaven on this site – pick one, make an intelligent comment, and who knows?
Best of luck, my friend.
J
I got around to seeing this so can add a relevant comment rather than rant about psychology and science.
I thought it played very much like an analogy for Freud’s theory of mind itself.
Mortenson doesn’t play Freud so much as he plays Jung’s superego, reprimanding Jung for his intellectual and sexual excesses. Coke-snorting Vincent Cassel pops up to play Jung’s id, intent on seducing him to the dark side, and Fassbender sits in the middle, flitting between the dictates of his id and super ego.
Cronenburg has a laugh packing a costume drama full of sadomasochim and dwelling on unseemly topics such as anal fixation. But, oddly for Cronenburg, it all seemed very prurient. More so than, say, Shainburg’s Secretary (2002), which has similar themes or his own back catalogue such as Crash (1996), for example, in which the good guys set about humping one another’s wounds.
Its Cronenburg-lite, really. Not matching the richness of History of Violence, (2005) Dead Ringers (1988) or The Fly (1986).