On December 31st, 2011, the New York Times published its three top film critics’ picks for the 2012 Oscar nominations. After a month of seeing every film in theaters, I excitedly awaited a lovely sense of accomplishment at having seen most of the movies on the list. Oh, how wrong I was. To my shock (and disappointment), added to my obvious predictions (Tree of Life, The Descendents, Hugo, etc.), were many films that I had missed. And some that I hadn’t even heard of. Even more shocking than the movie list, however, was the complete lack of agreement between the three critics. The only film that A.O. Scott, Manohla Dargis, and Stephen Holden could agree on was David Cronenberg’s A Dangerous Method. I had to see that movie.
A Dangerous Method has some wonderful attributes. I’m a particular sucker for a period piece and Method’s sets, costumes, and make-up were all up to par (especially after seeing J.Edgar, a movie where I couldn’t wait for the main character to die so that the film would be over). Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen both deliver thoughtful and entertaining performances. And I must say that I was impressed by Cronenberg’s variability, especially after seeing Videodrome, which I can safely say is one of my least favorite films of all time. The film also did a nice job of laying out Freud’s principles, his relationship to Jung, and what the field of psychology would have been like at the time that the film is set. Unlike J.Edgar, I felt that I actually knew enough about what was going on to compliment the film.
Yet, for me, A Dangerous Method failed to elicit any true catharsis. No matter how much I liked or disliked the main characters, I never felt with them, and barely ever for them. On the part of Keira Knightly, this was merely due to poor acting. Although Knightly has never been my favorite, I’ve never been offended by her presence on screen. Until now. From the very beginning, her portrayal of Jung’s patient was forced and unrealistic. Her accent was almost as distracting as the age makeup of J.Edgar. In terms of Fassbender’s character, Jung, acting was not to blame, but rather the character’s overall development. The unsympathetic nature of the main character hindered the plot. I wanted to see the pains of making his decision— to watch him weigh the costs and benefits. Instead, I only saw his decisions’ consequences. In terms of Viggo Mortensen, he was barely in the film at all. I can safely blame the lack of Freud’s character development on script problems rather than completely on acting or directing. Perhaps, in reality, the small character of Jung’s wife, Emma, was actually the film’s most well developed character. I sympathized with her, even though I didn’t necessarily support her viewpoint, desire the same outcome as she did, or really even like her.
Yet another problem with the film, one that I feel Cronenberg must have had something to do with, was the insistance on bringing telepathy into the plot. In the film, Freud himself says that any preoccupation with telepathy is foolhardy and detracts from the scientific nature of psychology. I would agree with Freud, and advise Cronenberg in the same manner about the use of telepathy in his film: junk it. It made a perfectly realistic, serious film seem flimsy and meandering.
Apparently the Academy was just as confused as I was about the NYT critics’ selection. Although there were nine Best Picture Nominees, A Dangerous Method was not one of them. In fact, the film actually received a grand total of ZERO nominations. Just what was it about this movie that caused such praise, and then such disappointment? I can’t be sure. Thoughts, film society?
By Becca Edelman
No comments:
Post a Comment