"A Dangerous Method" (2011) Review

Statistically speaking, you will not see A Dangerous Method (2011).  Distributor Sony Pictures Classics has seen fit to give it only a two-city release, and then, only in specialty theaters.  So unless you live in LA or New York, you won't see it until it's out on video.

The fact that it's not a very good film doesn't help.

You can usually tell when a film has been adapted from a play.  Closer (2004), Frost/Nixon (2008), 12 Angry Men (1957), Glengarry Glen Ross (1992); they've all got dialogue that's been pounded out on an anvil.  I could tell that A Dangerous Method was based on a play, but it was more for the five-person cast and the miniscule number of sets than the dialogue.

A Dangerous Method is an incomplete film.  It feels like a first act.  There's more story in the post-credits intertitles than in the actual film. 

As you probably know from the trailer, A Dangerous Method tells the story of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and his affair with a Russian patient named Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), which complicates his already-complicated relationship with friend and mentor Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). 

If that sounds scatterbrained and unguided, that's because the film itself is scatterbrained and unguided.

Individual scenes are interesting, but the movie never really builds to anything climactic, the story lacks a sense of progression, and none of the stakes are properly explained.  It's very hard to tell how any individual scene has lead to the next. 

Simply stated, the film is interesting but undramatic. 

The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a rumination on repression and desire or a straight re-telling of the birth of psychoanalysis, and as a result, the film lacks cohesion.  The movie feels like a terrible missed opportunity, because either of those tales would've made for a riveting film. 

Freud and Jung are often arguing, but rarely do we know what about.  Their central feud is clear-enough, but why we're supposed to care is another story.  His affair with Sabina is probably the most dramatic bit of the film, but there's far too little of it. 


Far, far too little.

I get that all of this is probably because the real-life story played out in exactly the same way, but that's why you've gotta pick your biopic properties so carefully.  Yes, what went on is undoubtedly important, but is it dramatic enough to warrant the creation of a film?

The movie is not completely without merit.  I'm not one to recommend a mediocre film just for one performance, but the work Knightley turns in is simply incredible.  I imagine the temptation to show off while playing a mental patient would be insurmountably strong, but Knightley's performance is impressively unselfconscious. 

I suppose there's more to say, but you've probably already decided whether or not you're going to see it and I've got Thanksgiving leftovers to eat.  See you tomorrow for the weekend meme!

--Serge