I wonder how Carl Jung would react to this movie if he were
still around to see it. There are some very private moments portrayed
here. At one point the movie goes so far as to follow Jung and one of his
patients into the bedroom for that most basic ritual of sadomasochistic sexual
behavior. Part of me would think that Jung would be mortified that this would
be up on a huge screen for everybody to see. But then another part of me reminds the other part of what
exactly Jung was involved in. There is a fine comic
moment in the film when Professor Sigmund Freud has Carl Jung over for dinner
and politely explains to him that he should feel absolutely free to discuss
anything and everything at the table. And there sitting at the table are all of Freud’s children,
the majority of which are at or near very impressionable ages. This is based on a true anecdote. Freud’s children did indeed sit through many a dinner conversation that focused
explicitly on sex, psychotic compulsions, and all sorts of other taboo conversational
topics. So that part of me would not be surprised if Carl Jung would, instead of being totally embarrassed, actually take the stage at the end of the movie and ask the audience point blank
what exactly they thought about it and please feel free to focus in on the
kinky stuff.
The “dangerous” method refers to such behavior.
Instead of repressing thoughts and conversation about sex, taboo, psychotic compulsions and
the like, go ahead and talk about it and try to be as specific as possible as
to why you feel and think the way you do. Such a therapeutic method was first
suggested by Freud, but according to the movie was never experimented by him.
Carl Jung apparently was the first and the patient he first tried it on was a young
Russian woman named Sabina who came to his hospital in fits of hysteria. Jung
puts her in a chair, sits behind her (presumably so she can’t see his reactions
to her craziness and feel to shamed to speak more of it), and quietly asks her
questions that would be very impolite in any regular conversation. Does it
work? Yes, it seems to, at least in the sense that it grants the sort of relief
one may feel after solving a complex riddle. The problem is still there, but at
least now we know what it is. This movie work on the audience in the same way. We are presented with a person that is crazy. The seemingly random shrieks and fits are confusing and
frightening. But we observe and listen and slowly achieve an understanding. Suddenly the person makes sense, her actions become predictable, and the fear and uneasiness that accompanied us dissipates. We feel relief. The best of movies like psychoanalysis strive for that ecstatic “Aha!” moment. There is one
such moment in this movie and if Keira Knightley gets a nomination for her
performance (which is not unlikely), it will probably be that moment people are
recognizing her for.
Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are played by Michael
Fassbinder and Viggo Mortenson respectively. Now here are two actors with
Presence. They are perfect choices for playing intellectual heavyweights. I’ve
praised Mortenson before (see review of “Eastern Promises”) but I have yet had
the chance of writing about Fassbinder as he has only this year started to take on starring roles. Most people probably know him as
Magneto in this summer’s “X-Men: First Class.” I remember him being very
striking in that as well. There is something very solid about his
face/person/body. I think he would make a perfect Roman Emperor or at least a
marble statue of one. The scenes with Freud and Jung talking, whether in
agreement or in disagreement, are always stimulating and make the movies best
scenes. In fact, some of the best lines are supposedly taken directly from the
letters they wrote each other. Those two could really turn a phrase and when they meant
the words to hurt, the phrases could be especially piercing. It is a
disappointment then that this movie treats Freud as a truly supporting character.
The main storyline is the affair between the married Jung and his patient
Sabina. When Freud enters the picture, he serves that storyline. His character
lacks his own conflict or overarching ambition. It is spoken by Freud that he
has many enemies to himself, his profession, and psychology in general, but these
enemies are not shown or battled with. Freud is seen either through Jung’s or Sabina’s
experience or not at all.
There is plenty of psychological talk about egos
and sex instincts and the death instincts and the like. Some of it you may find
familiar. Other topics not so much. The movie does a commendable job of not
holding discussions back to a standard level of education. This may make some
of the conversations inaccessible to understanding but not unentertaining. All
the characters are especially intelligent and the screenplay puts up no
obstacles to them expressing themselves at the peak of their intelligence. If you are a huge psychology buff,
this movie will not disappoint. If like me, you know some things and not others, and
are not entirely sure of the accuracy or usefulness of the whole thing, it is at least never
annoying. In some ways it is rather comic. Psychology then (and now) is very new. Freud admits as much and goes on to say that he is probably wrong
about everything being about sex and surely theories will be revised when more research is done. In the meantime he is just describing his
scientific experiences as he observes them. I especially liked a conversation
in which Jung describes one of Sabina’s childhood recollections about a preferable
way to defecate. Freud nods his head and diagnoses her as anal-retentive and
predicts that she is probably also especially fastidious, clean, organized, and the
like. No, says Jung, actually she is quite the opposite. Hmm, says Freud, oh well
maybe it’s a Russian thing. (Freud is very subtly funny in this movie. In real
life he apparently was subtly funny as well. I am a huge fan of his book on
jokes. When I write of comedy on this blog, it is mainly his ideas that I am espousing.)
Of course the basic problem with psychology is not
that it is incorrect but that it has a tendency to be too vague and broad to be
incorrect. It is not hard to find sexual motives or childhood neuroses as a
part of any action we take. They are there. But that doesn't mean that it is the only reason why people do things. Really there are probably a thousand reasons why people
do things and those only include the reasons we can think of. And that still ignores
the possibility that people may indeed not have a reason for doing things. I am reminded of an anecdote from the
comedian Louis C.K. about how he loaded the dishwasher
one night and then didn’t turn on the wash. His wife scolded him and asked,
“Why did you do that?” Louis relates to the audience, “Why did I do that? Do you understand what that question assumes? That I
had a reason for not putting on the wash, like I had a thought process about it. Like I
didn’t because I wanted to be a total dick and piss her off, which would really
be the only reason not to run the dishwasher. Why can’t I just be stupid? Why
didn’t I put the wash on? Because I am a total dumbass, that’s why.” I think
this possibility is something rather thoughtful people like Jung, Freud, or
Sabina tend to not think about, and I think it is because they spend so much time thinking about why people do things that they forget that most people do not think as much as they do about why they do things. They probably don't get laid enough either.
