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

"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.