A Dangerous Method

[skizzerflake]

A fine movie if you're interested in the history of psychoanalysis...Freud and Jung battle it out for the soul of a troubled woman. Is her hysteria caused by sex or symbolism? They were ready to spend years analyzing her, but I guess today we'd just give her some psych meds and push her out the door to wander the streets eating from trash cans.

This movie is very old-school European, lots of talking, little or no action, lots of letter writing and staring off into the garden. Because I actually have some long past training in this stuff and because there are not many movies about psychoanalysis, I couldn't miss it, but my guess is that most people can.

The performances are somewhat interesting, the set and setting well done, but, it's just dull. Where we saw it a homeless guy bought a ticket and for a while regaled us with his horrific coughing and loud side comments and wisecracks about the movie, until he got kicked out. The movie was definitely better WITH the bum's comments; kinda like Mystery Sci Fi Theater 3000, except that he wasn't a robot. That doesn't say much about the movie.

 

[redgirl]

So is this just you sharing your thoughts on this movie? Are you recommending it or warning us?

 

[skizzerflake]

So is this just you sharing your thoughts on this movie? Are you recommending it or warning us?

Both and neither. If you have an interest in the founding fathers of psychotherapy, as far as I know, it's the only time Freud and Jung's story has been put on film. The characters are well rendered as I know them from psych reading and it is an important piece of 20th century history, regardless of what you think of psychoanalysis. That's the recommendation.

On the other hand, if laborious discussion and contentious letter writing about libido fixation and eternal archetypes falls flat on you, you're likely to find it about as interesting as watching somebody fill out their tax forms. That's the warning. It's mainly a movie for academics.

 

[redgirl]

I'll definitely do my best to get my hands on this movie. I'm sure I'll be rooting for Jung the whole time but we'll see. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Alex2507]

It's mainly a movie for academics.

I'm sorry to disagree with you yet again because I liked the movie but I'm far from being an academic. I would have liked a little more revelation of Freud's use of coke. Personally I thought he was a quack and I would have liked seeing him portrayed as one. I even thought the movie to be fast paced. The letter writing business I thought to be handled much the same way a modern setting would cover the exchange of a few emails with interesting content.

I'm sure I'll be rooting for Jung the whole time ...

This is the perfect place for me to make some sort of crack regarding what goes on in the film but they did such a good job of keeping the characters real and complex that I found myself sort of rooting for everybody.

The closing text summation saddened me. Seeing how the characters were impacted by history just goes to show that sometimes you just can't catch a freakin' break.

*Special Note: A must see for Rick.

 

[skizzerflake]

I'm sorry to disagree with you yet again because I liked the movie but I'm far from being an academic. I would have liked a little more revelation of Freud's use of coke. Personally I thought he was a quack and I would have liked seeing him portrayed as one. I even thought the movie to be fast paced. The letter writing business I thought to be handled much the same way a modern setting would cover the exchange of a few emails with interesting content. ....

Cocaine was only a small part of what Freud was about. It was legal back then, lots of people used it to some extent and Freud was not haunting alleyways trying to score. What he wasn't, however, was a quack, at least in the sense of being a deliberate fraud. Basically there WAS no psychiatry back then and Freud moved attitudes about psych problems from the realm of exorcists to the realm of doctors. Not much of what he taught is still believed, but he is the founding father. He "adopted" Jung because he was a talented newcomer, and a non-Jewish German. Freud thought that Jung might be a better promoter of analysis since anti-Semitism would not be a problem for him. As it turned out, Jung went off on his own path.

 

[Alex2507]

Not much of what he taught is still believed ...

That's what I meant by 'quack', not that he was a fraud. Being wrong is enough for me to not have to pay him any respect. I was aware that he served as a point of reference and the movie touched on that too. I guess I might cut him a little slack but my experience with cokers isn't that they're social, recreational users. It's not that kind of drug. When coke heads come up with ideas everything usually turns to sh!t until they get out from under.

In the movie all the characters were portrayed as two sided coins. Even though flawed, none were without redeeming qualities. I was disappointed that there weren't any special features because I found the whole thing interesting and now consider myself nearly cured for just having watched it.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

A fine movie if you're interested in the history of psychoanalysis...Freud and Jung battle it out for the soul of a troubled woman. Is her hysteria caused by sex or symbolism? They were ready to spend years analyzing her, but I guess today we'd just give her some psych meds and push her out the door to wander the streets eating from trash cans.

This movie is very old-school European, lots of talking, little or no action, lots of letter writing and staring off into the garden. Because I actually have some long past training in this stuff and because there are not many movies about psychoanalysis, I couldn't miss it, but my guess is that most people can.

The performances are somewhat interesting, the set and setting well done, but, it's just dull.

Hehe, see I didn't think it was dull. It was quiet but I liked the 'space' the director gave it and the cinematography was good too.

I just wish I would have read up more on the characters before watching the movie, I think having some back history would have helped me understand some of the dynamics a bit more. I don't think I knew enough to really understand the movie. Although short, I thought the guy who played Otto Gross was a favorite character, that actor is great in his movies.

I guess I might cut him a little slack but my experience with cokers isn't that they're social, recreational users. It's not that kind of drug. When coke heads come up with ideas everything usually turns to sh!t until they get out from under.

I know lots of people that use coke just as espresso or something. Maybe a little bump for a road trip or long night but not fiends. Actually fiends I've found to be the exception. I think they are just the ones that stand out hehe. Not condoning cocaine use, btw, **** that ****. lol.


*edit*

Forgot to mention:
Sound isn't action packed but well recorded, dialog is clear, mastering well done.
Picture quality is also very nice.

 

[Alex2507]

I know lots of people that use coke just as espresso or something.

I guess I missed class the day Freud was teaching Miami to use coke responsibly.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

I guess I missed class the day Freud was teaching Miami to use coke responsibly.

Hehe, I guess I say that to say this: drugs are part of our lives, our development and are unbelievably un-extraordinary. Kurt Cobain, later dying from heroin, once said "the problem with drugs is that after a while it all becomes like breathing air." The novelty wears off, the effectiveness wears off, or for a recreational user it becomes boring.

I'm not a doctor, but, I don't believe any drug that treats symtoms rather than causes is a real solution. Maybe cocaine could be a temporary relief while a patient got under control, but I doubt it could 'cure' anything. I'm ADD, cocaine calms me down rather than hypes me up (as do other stimulants such as adderall, caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines). He may have seen people who reacted that way and thought it was a path to a cure?

One thing I liked about the movie is it could spur lots of interesting discussion.

 

[Alex2507]

... cocaine calms me down rather than hypes me up (as do other stimulants such as adderall, caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines). He may have seen people who reacted that way and thought it was a path to a cure?

I got 5 bucks says he just liked getting high and thought getting his patients high was a hoot. I mean think about it, get all coked up and watch crazy people that are all coked up. That's gotta be fun.

One thing I liked about the movie is it could spur lots of interesting discussion.

Agreed. I meant to read up on Otto Gross. He seemed pretty interesting and the text at the close of the movie sure made me curious about how that happened to him. His philosophy was rather radical.

 

[shadyJ]

That's what I meant by 'quack', not that he was a fraud. Being wrong is enough for me to not have to pay him any respect.

By this logic none of history's doctors and scientists are owed any respect, no matter what insight or innovation they have given us. This is a thoughtless position to take.

 

[Alex2507]

This is a thoughtless position to take.

Thanks for being so gentle. It's just the kind of thing I like waking up to.

 

[zhimbo]

By this logic none of history's doctors and scientists are owed any respect, no matter what insight or innovation they have given us.

I agree that being "wrong" isn't enough. But Freud was more than just wrong. He thought he was creating a new science of mind, but he failed miserably at approximating scientific reasoning. His theories rested almost entirely on post hoc interpretations of cases, and had no actual predictive power. Freud's theories are one of the most commonly cited cases of an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" - there's no way any evidence can count against them, because the theories were so flexible that any evidence could be explained - after the fact.

But his influence on our culture is huge, and some of his methods have proven useful even if the theories behind them are problematic.

Oh...and I still very much liked the movie. The movie isn't about Freud but about Jung, for one thing, and as much Freud was off-track in his thinking it was still a interesting context for a film.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Look at you guys! Gettin' all pseudo-intellectual on us!

Alex already has me reading up on T.E. Lawrence and now I have to look up Freud and Jung too!? It's a good thing Wikipedia is free and things are a bit slow at work...

 

[Alex2507]

I'm just hoping they come out with a made for TV mini series that tells the story of Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil in my life time. That's some real head shrinking right there. Those guys can cure up to 6 people per hour and that's with commercials. It's like the Indy 500 of counseling. Maybe we can get Dr. Mark to handle the audio for that festival of healing.