Here’s what I liked about David Cronenberg’s new movie, A
Dangerous Method, loosely based on the early history of
psychoanalysis — as filtered through the work of psychologist
cum historian John Kerr (A
Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina
Spielrein) and playwright Christopher Hampton
(The
Talking Cure) — in spite of its having reduced
that history to little more than a celebrity soap opera. He sets
out four different theories about the job of what used to be called
the “alienist” or, as P.G. Wodehouse would put it, “the loony
doctor” which are still held today. The watchword of Sigmund Freud
(Viggo Mortensen) is the injunction: “Whatever you do, give up any
idea of trying to cure them.” Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender),
Freud’s younger disciple, fitfully accepts this view of his
profession but is too much the enthusiast to accept it for long:
“It’s no good showing the patient his illness squatting like a toad
in the corner.… We must teach him to reinvent himself,” he says.
Jung also has some sympathy for the view of another renegade
Freudian, Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), who anticipates some of the
radical psychiatry of the 1960s by commanding: “Never repress
anything” — and by living his own life by that creed with
predictably disastrous results.
Like many a lesser man, Jung allows himself to be
persuaded by Gross’s creed only to the extent that he gives himself
permission thereby to do something which, without it, he knows very
well to be wrong. That is, he indulges his lust for a young
patient, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), whom he has cured of
hysteria and whose love-by-transference for himself is liberally
peppered with masochistic urges left over from the paternal abuse
that caused her mental illness in the first place. When Jung tells
her that his love-making with his wife is “tender” she replies:
“With me I want you to be ferocious; I want you to punish me.” And,
reader, he does! Foreplay for them appears to consist of his
belting her with, er, a belt while she moans with apparently
orgasmic pleasure. Is he just politely obliging her kinky desires?
Or does the man who says more than once that there are no
coincidences find an answering sadism in himself to complement her
masochism? That seems by far the more likely explanation, yet the
film appears to have no other interest in the kinky side of Dr.
Jung. A curious omission.
Miss Spielrein goes on to become a psychoanalyst herself
and a pupil of Dr. Freud after Jung guiltily rejects her. Hers is
the fourth psychoanalytic path, as she tells a surprised Freud
that, in her view, sex is not motivated by gratification of the ego
but by the desire for self-annihilation. “True sexuality demands
the destruction of the ego,” she says, which is “the opposite to
what Freud proposes.” But the film doesn’t take a position on this
difference either. The salient moment of Sabina’s relations with
Freud comes when the great man tells her that there was never any
future for her in a relationship with Jung and that her dream of a
“blond Siegfried” (she and Jung are both enthusiastic Wagnerians)
was never going to come true. She should “put no trust in Aryans,”
he tells her. “We are Jews, Miss Spielrein, and Jews we shall
always remain.” There is, then, a nice dramatic irony in the fact
that — as we are informed by a card at the end — she was later to
be shot by the Nazis.
By this time, Freud has broken off his once close
relations with Jung over the latter’s “mysticism” (as he sees it),
which threatens the whole scientific foundation of psychoanalysis.
A century later, long after that foundation has been called into
question for quite different reasons and psychiatrists have mostly
moved on from “the talking cure” to prescribing psychotropic drugs,
it’s a little hard to see the point of the Freud-Jung quarrel
except as a quasi-Oedipal conflict — O, the irony! — that might
provide an operatic plot if only somebody died in it. In place of
individual tragedy, Mr. Cronenberg, working from Mr. Hampton’s
screenplay, places a Jungian premonition — he accepts him as some
kind of clairvoyant, it seems — of the First World War, still a
year or so distant at the movie’s end, which was to sweep away Old
Europe and the system of civilized repression on which (they say)
it was founded.
That seems to me to be a cheap way of borrowing
significance for a story that otherwise might seem to lack it. More
importantly, it obscures the still vital and still unanswered
question of whether we ought to live with our neuroses or to try to
cure them. Mr. Cronenberg might argue, as some liberal pacifists do
these days, that the war, like all wars, was the product of
bottled-up passions which could be released in much less harmful
ways by a therapeutic approach. His earlier film with Mr.
Mortensen,
A History of Violence, seems to
me to be based on some such view of the world. If only we could
find the root cause of violent or anti-social acts or of
mental illness we could prevent them. Maybe they even have the same
root cause: repression. The character of Otto Gross tells us that
he’s not going to fall for that one, but without some such
inevitably facile solution to its problems, the film really has
nowhere to go apart from this vaguely portentous ending and a
lingering memory of the lovely Miss Knightley in Victorian-style
undies being whaled on. Whatever turns you on, I guess.
