A Dangerous Method -- David Cronenberg/Viggo Mortensen's latest

Mortensen is great, of course, but he's such a physical actor, it's hard to imagine him as Freud.

Did you see Eastern Promises? The best parts of his performance were the stillest.

I haven't seen that, but what I meant is that it's hard for me to imagine him playing a wordy intellectual like Freud. He seems to be best at playing tight-lipped, no-nonsense type of guys.

Your imagination is underdeveloped, then.

you've spoken with freud?

@tuomas

Mortensen is great, of course, but he's such a physical actor, it's hard to imagine him as Freud.

but he has a great, rangy beard.

that was a dumb move by waltz btw.

how could he just waltz away from such an opportunity >:(

how can you say that unless you know what he chose instead amtrst

wait didn't the article say he chose to play another nazi?

or at least, one of the articles i read said that.

Er, I wouldn't call that sex scene in A History of Violence "spirited", "disturbing" more like.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:40 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

don't forget the awesome 69 scene.

Gotta rewatch me some History of Violence

<3 maria bello in cheerleader outfit

I remembered the 69 scene, but when the article mentioned that sex scene in AHoV, I assume it means the, er, more memorable scene.

Cronenberg brought his wife on set & had sex in front of Viggo & Maria to show them how to act that scene out.

it's hard to imagine him as Freud

Well, no stranger than the last movie star to play him, M. Clift (still haven't seen that one)

Cronenberg brought his wife on set & had sex in front of Viggo & Maria to show them how to act that scene out.

― How to Make an American Quit (Abbott), Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:19 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

wut

i read that too somewhere

O_O uhhhhhhh woah

I need to watch AHoV again too

keep thinking this is some kind of spoken-word covers project

Oh wtf, AHOV is $7.99 on amazon.com for the blu-ray version. I think I own most of the other recent Cronenberg films because at the prices they sell for I can't afford to *not* buy them.

i thought abbott was making a funny

damn dude

Cronenberg brought his wife on set & had sex in front of Viggo & Maria to show them how to act that scene out.
― How to Make an American Quit (Abbott), Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:19 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

wut

― nitzer ebbebe (gbx), Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:32 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i read that too somewhere

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:33 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

i think it's in the audio commentary on the DVD. and all concerned relate the story somewhat nonchalantly.

I think once you're around Cronenberg long enough, that's probably one of the least out-there things he'd do. Or say.

lol I thought Abbot was joking too but... well it does seem like the kind of thing Cronenberg would do

i saw an interview with m bello where she was on a righteous tear about the double standard in movie ratings; kill a shitload of people and you can get pg13, show a woman having an orgasm and it's straight to R (i think this was her part in the cooler that happened to?)

but then it's like her entire career after that has been to prove that point

Cronenberg and his wife did the same thing when they were technical advisers on The Room.

The comment on this article is priceless

looooooollll

Maybe Dr. Ilsa should have cameo in her son's new movie?

Maybe Dr. Ilsa should have cameo in her son's new movie?

LOL

Title change.

that's silly, what was wrong with the original title?

A Dangerous Method sounds like a sequel to A Beautiful Mind.

seriously!

"Extraordinary Measures" was recently taken, you see.

A Dangerous Method

ugh. i agree that "talking cure" isn't going to lure them in (sounds like an art film) but this title just plain sucks. oh well, if the movie's good i won't much care. too bad "analyze this!" was taken.

there shd be legislation against filming non-anglo stories in english

why? who cares? lots of great movies not made in the "correct" language.

they're always in these terrible affected 30s english accents or in this instance probably guttural sturm und drang histrionics, as soderbergh said (re 'che') it's a lot easier to get financing this way but it always suggests a sort of cultural imperialism or at least laziness

freud and to a lesser extent jung are canonical figures within that austro-german tradition, freud has a very distinctive literary voice

it's cool in something like 'time bandits' but given cronenberg's 'deeply serious treatment of the subject' it will probably jar, though of course if it doesn't bother you then good for you! i didn't mind too much in polanski's 'the pianist', anyway

You can use deeply serious accent stereotypes to convey things too, though. I think framing a film in austro-german stereotypes and perceptions from a North American viewpoint could be just as serious, if not more so.

but it always suggests a sort of cultural imperialism

often but not always. lots of french films (in french) about italians and vice-versa. chinese films about vietnam, etc. it just sort of happens. agreed that the "middle" solution--having characters speak english but in german/french/italian/polish/whatever accents--can be irritating/distracting. but i sympathize with directors faced w/ this problem, there's no real good solution short of pulling an inglorious basterds and having people speak french and german for 2/3 of the movie.

john mctiernan was a bit obsessed w/ this and found unique formal workarounds in most of his films.

there's no real good solution short of pulling an inglorious basterds and having people speak french and german for 2/3 of the movie.

there's yr solution! if a costly picture like that can do it then it lessens the excuse

and as said, cultural imperialism is the strong form but often it just seems slovenly in a film depicting historical events in supposed verisimilitude

and as you say there are workarounds, like they could pretend the girl was english rather than russian, hardly the greatest mistruth! freud spoke english and probably jung too....

that's clearly not a very good idea but anything to avoid keira knightly speaking middlebrow english theatre dialogue in smudged mitteleuropa inflections

but mctiernan would do stuff like zoom into the mouth of sean connery speaking russian and zoom out and bam! he's speaking english. like by acknowledging the artifice he would forestall all complaints.

http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/freudbird.jpg

http://www.kinogallery.com/kino/kinogallery.com_dangerousmethod_shot_2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ7JKmcLTsI

i cant believe waltz turned this down to do water for shitty-ass stupid elephants - otoh we're probably richer for having a movie where viggo plays freud - so stoked for this

fuck this jane austen bullshit

I would love to see more movies that happen in an early 20c medical environment. That whole era of leather straps and brass plates is horrifying and amazing.

Thought this was quite good. As I've mentioned on this and other threads, I haven't liked a Cronenberg film since Dead Ringers. I remember reading an interview with him sometime in the '90s, and it was like he'd developed a chip on his shoulder in terms of the industry and the general public not properly appreciating his films--not a good position from which an artist to do his work, if you ask me. Maybe some of the accolades for A History of Violence (didn't like it) and Eastern Promises (didn't see it) helped him move past that, I don't know, but it felt like he was really in control here. My knowledge of the principals and the subject matter is very basic, and that probably helped--someone who knows more might find inaccuracies and simplifications. Cronenberg's an exceptionally smart guy, though, and I trust him to be careful about that. Keira Knightley should have been up for all the awards--there's a ferociousness to her performance that's very unsettling, especially in the early scenes (more muted but still present towards the end). Viggo Mortensen wasn't quite how I imagine Freud--more wry than severe--but he and Fassbender are good. The (brief) flagellation scenes were the only part of the film that struck me as obvious, but I suppose they have to be there. My favourite Cronenberg film is The Dead Zone; I'm probably the rare person who think he gets better when he reins it in a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uEBuqkkQRk

I'm probably the rare person who think he gets better when he reins it in a bit.

If I'm interpreting "reins it in" correctly, I'm with you. Reined-in Cronenberg: all the eighties films after Videodrome, Naked Lunch and the two most recent ones. M. Butterfly is where reined-in just looked like repression, however.

I should clarify that...He had a habit of sticking in really gross stuff past the point where I didn't think he needed it anymore: the ending of Videodrome (mostly excellent), the ending of The Fly (ditto), parts of Naked Lunch (not a fan). He reminded me of Husker Du trying to force hardcore onto Zen Arcade at a point where I didn't think they needed that anymore either. Again, most Husker Du fans disagree.

My favorite Mould project is Sugar so...

Those Husker Du folks had their moments.

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2193-notes-from-a-videodrome-test-screening

LOOOOOOL

"more plot"

Coming to this as someone who hasn't really seen what the fuss is about w/Cronenberg since Crash (and Videodrome as a film he won't better) things seem to be on the up again: liked Eastern Promises a lot and this was quite good. Never thought I'd say he'd be good at costume dramas but there you go.

Don't get the 'nothing ws resolved', and not sure it was the pont. Because like psychoanalysis at that point in time it left all the main actors in a state of flux, right? The discipline took off, but was it going to shake off its scpetics? It was developing its sidelines: child psychology on one end, its links to mysticism at the other; and attracting all sorts of 'characters', which was terrifically done by Cassel's Otto. The film sorta ended just in time, ws getting a tad bored with all the letters and it was clear that all relatinships weren't going anywhere except a link to the talking cure that they helped establish.

This is Keira's first great role. The early scenes were fine as someone desperate to tear her body apart than breathe a second longer, and she sorta maintained that edge in the tightly controlled scenes later on, as if she wasn't entirely cured. Terrific.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006PTL1GC/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2/186-7670710-2797121?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0Y7Q6JXR7CTDM368YQ06&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_i=0679735801

Product Description
Dude has been racing through life with a fast car, a loud guitar, a sexy girlfriend and a big mouth. But when a confrontation ends with deadly threats, he finds himself speeding head-on toward a showdown that will settle the score for good.

otm? lol

hahahaha

I just watched it again -- it still holds up. Viggo is so droll.

just read DeLillo's Cosmopolis, can see why he was attracted -- limo full of screens and monitors, guy getting daily physicals, etc. An interesting challenge for adapting, as it's full of things that are difficult for actors to say naturally ("I want to bottle-fuck you with my sunglasses on"). Hope he left out the rap-star funeral procession tho.

they gave him this one. Pattinson next

We'll see, but I think there'll be many angry teen girls leaving this one.

arrrgh, guess I mistook this for DC general thread

Just saw this, and I thought it was okay. At first I was a but distracted how mannered everything was (for example, Freud's and Jung's breakup happening via letters), but then I realized that I've merely become used to Hollywood style biopics, where extra drama is always added to these kind of stories, so I began to like the movie's attempt to reconstruct events in a manner that was probably closer to how upper-class people interacted in the early 20th century. There's plenty of dramatic things going on, but appearances and manners must be kept; this kinda ties in with the movie's theme of how frankness in sexual matters disrupts the bourgeoise idyll.

However, I thought the biggest weakness in the movie was that it tried to focus both on the Jung-Spielrein and the Jung-Freud affair, and really, 100 minutes wasn't enough for both. For example, even though there are hints towards it, the Jung-Freud breakup still feels kinda unsubstantiated, as the movie doesn't sacrifice enough time for the events leading to it. I realize that one of these stories probably couldn't have been told without the other, but IMO the movie should've focused on just one of the two relations, and keep the other on the background.

Also, I found it kinda irritating that the movie seemed to support Jung's believe in the paranormal: first he predicts the wood in the shelf cracking, and in the final scene he seemingly foresees the 1st World War. Of course, both of these could've been just coincidences, but I'm not sure why the writer (or the director) felt it was necessary to add those scenes; the script could've simply stated this was one of the main differences between Jung and Freud without hinting that Jung was right. But maybe I just feel like this because I'm a sceptic, and sided with Freud on this issue?

I got the exact opposite impression, the film felt more stacked against Jung than anyone else

The point of the wood in the shelf cracking scene was more about how differently both men interpreted the same event, rather than showing either to be right about it. I suspect Cronenberg himself would side with Freud.

Well, in the wood cracking scene it felt like he was being a bit silly, but the last scene was clearly meant to imply he dreamed of WWI before it had started. Okay, IIRC the scene happened just months before the war broke, and that point in history there were already plenty of signs that something like that could happen, so I guess you could explain it by Jung simply guessing subconsciously that a war was coming, without any precognition... But whatever the explanation, it was obvious that Jung's dream was correct. So, unless it's a historical fact Jung had such a dream before WWI started, I'm not sure why it was added to the script?

(x-post)

The wood cracking scene was based on a real incident. The movie downplays Jung's eccentricities in favor of emphasizing his bourgeois Protestant stuffiness--in reality he had a life-long history of prophetic dreams and interest in mysticism before any of the the events portrayed in the movie.

this movie was so so boring

it was really bad

It's not top tier Cronenberg but I liked it as a pretty good Rohmer film.

wrong wrong and wrong

I saw it again when released on DVD about six weeks ago and still thought Viggo was marvelous though.

my admiration for this film grows the more time has passed.

i'm sure the rest of you will be sated by Fassbender's Ian Holm android tribute act, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

so bittersweet being on morbs' side in an argument.

Morbz as usual can't resist questioning the motives of naysayers.

I think you mean so sunshine and lollipops. xp

I don't question, I de-CLARE

so bittersweet being on morbs' side in an argument

I actually love it the rare few times it happens.

y'all may be aging into wisdom

my first time I didn't recognize Keira Knightley

My first time wasn't with Keira Knightly.

My overall takeaway from this is Keira Knightly is really a terrible actress (also disturbingly emaciated too). That distraction aside I guess I might have really like it, but unfortunately she's on screen for like 60% of the film.

I liked this movie but I miss old body horror Cronenberg. There's a deleted scene on the AHOV DVD in which some gangster has a giant open, puffy, pulsating chest cavity wound with steam and crazy colored lights. And Cronenberg in the commentary for it says something like, "It was really 'Cronenberg'!" which is why he decided to excise it. Is this the last time we'll see such a thing? I like his new movies, too, but it makes me a little sad to think that stuff may never be in one of his movies again.

I liked all the fights between Freud and Jung played out through discussions of dreams, ancient deities, etc., and mannered ripostes to one another's letters.

I guess also I was the only one who thought Vincent Cassel was crazy hot (and also just crazy). He has great eyelids and nose!

nah I kept waiting for an afterdinner Freud-Jung grapple

The film should have been good (director, actors aside from Keira) but it was rather mediocre to be honest. Didn't help that I really loathe Freud. lol.

I liked this more than most. Mortenson was terrific. Top-notch passive-aggressive cigar-smoking.

And yes, Cassel was a blast.