From Viggo Mortensen

A Dangerous Method: The Unbearable Burden of Knowing Freud and Jung

A Dangerous Method. 2011. Directed by David Cronenberg. Screenplay by Christopher Hampton, based on his play The Talking Cure.
Starring Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Sarah Gadon, & Vincent Cassel. Telefilm Canada/Ontario Media Development Corporation/Corus Entertainment/eOne Films.
Rated 14A. 99 minutes.
Biography/Drama

★★★★
POSTER
I’ll say it loud and proud ’till the day I die: I am one of David Cronenberg’s biggest fans.
His films are incredible slices of human life twisted around the innovations of everything from technology to media to psychology, as well as all sorts of other themes and topics. While his earlier work is dominated mostly by the physiological, over the past decade or so Cronenberg has kept his eeriness as he’s moved towards examining aspects of the mind. Cronenberg first moved slightly from body horror in 2002 with the Ralph Fiennes-starring Spider, which examined the fractured mind of the titular character through years of psychological torment. Then came A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, both taking a look at the fluid identities of dangerous men involved in the world of organized crime.
But if the second act of Cronenberg’s career has shifted focus more towards psychology then the granddaddy of them all is A Dangerous Method.
Via screenplay written by Christopher Hampton – based on his own play The Talking Cure, which is also based on the book A Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein –  the audience is transported into the relationship between groundbreaking psychiatrists Drs. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, along with the presence of Sabina Spielrein, who went on to become one of the world’s first female psychoanalysts. The style Cronenberg brings here is his typically great eye for framing and an overall gift of storytelling. But more than that he takes his talents in the arena of body horror and manages to make the psychologically uneasy aspects of this story all the more affecting.
Pic1
A few reviews I remember seeing when this was first released accused Knightley’s performance of being hammy, over-the-top, among other suggested negatives. There’s no way I can agree. In the initial scenes you can grasp the incredible emotional trauma of Sabina, as Knightley dives directly into this woman’s skin. It is a fearless performance from the top. Sabina was a hysteric, and that is how many of them are prone to behaving. Although her accent doesn’t always hit the perfect mark, her overall performance is solid. Her energy as an actress has always been good. Never more formidable than here.
The chemistry between Knightley and Fassbender is fiery, too. For his part, he brings Jung to the screen with an odd charm, one which slowly evaporates over the course of the film. At first he seems a proper man whose interests lie solely in psychiatry, unearthing new practices and honing old ones to modern methodologies and more modern issues/illnesses. Partway through there’s a gradual realization Jung is as repressed, if not more so in some ways, than some of the patients he treats. Through Fassbender we find Jung’s human side and also his hideous one. He seeps talent in every film in which he stars, this is no exception.
Finally, it’s the even more amazing chemistry between Fassbender and Mortensen that makes this film so engaging. Mortensen has a good look for Freud, as well as the fact he captures the air of the men well, right down to little details such as the constant cigar smoking, the pensive and animated conversation, his calm demeanour and way of speaking. He and Fassbender play well off one another – the former with a highly serious tone and set of mannerisms, the other a slightly more loose and freewheeling type. Together, as the tension rises from one conversation to the next, their performances reel us into a psychoanalytic world of ego, jealousy, competition. And their subtle touches as actors, along with the well written screenplay, gives them the ability to work without melodrama. These two together offer nothing but the best.
Pic2
Jung: “Only the wounded physician can hope to heal

Part of Jung’s resentment of Freud is that the latter seems to have no problem with sex. Maybe he’s not a ladies man either, yet he willingly dives headlong into sexuality as the root of just about every problem we as humans experience. Meanwhile, it is clear Jung had hangups, which emerged vividly in his relationship with Sabina. So Jung likely thought Freud’s preoccupation and fixation on sex was ill conceived simply because of his own desire to break free sexually, a.k.a cheat on his wife.
One major reason I love A Dangerous Method is because it takes a long, hard, raw look at people who are widely regarded as geniuses in the field of psychiatry. Of course anyone in the know realized Freud was into cocaine, as well as other bits and pieces of both his and Jung’s life. However, exposing the darkness underneath all the masterful work is something intriguing. In that way, Cronenberg further digs into the mind: the collective mind. As we try to believe doctors and other figures of such authority are often better than ourselves, we often forget they are simply human.
The conversations between Freud and Jung are wonderful, in acting and writing. Tension mounts as their opposing views bump up against one another, rubbing each other raw. Every conversation seems to get a little more anxious, each one has more attitude – often from Freud – and the relationship between these two great thinkers deteriorates, almost invisible to their own eyes as it’s happening. Then all of a sudden they’ve grown miles apart during the interim. The progression and downfall of their relationship is certainly precipitated by the affair Jung engages in with Sabina. But the inflated egos of both Freud and Jung lay the foundation for a breeding ground of contempt between them, an inescapable and unavoidable rift.
7165353086_5c09b880c8_o
There are absolutely some flaws to this movie. The fact remains A Dangerous Method is a complex and interesting piece of cinema facilitated by the prodding mind of David Cronenberg. Without a focus on body horror, he puts a tight lens on the horrors of psychology. The dangerous method in question lays waste to the mental capacities and thought processes of Carl Jung, as it also taints Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein. The famous Talking Cure is of course a great thing, one that’s given birth to what we know today as therapy, couples counselling, and so much more.
At the same time, the Talking Cure can lead to dangerous things if not taken by the reins. Someone like Jung, particularly in his affair and resulting mess involving Sabina, talked too much, and perhaps needed his own therapy while falling under the influence of first Freud, then Sabina in her own way, even Otto Gross and his ruminations on the uselessness of monogamy
This true story about the burgeoning days of modern psychiatry and psychoanalysis is a 4-star film with a trio of fabulous performances, the ultimate driving force behind its impact. Great directing, great acting, and a solid screenplay. If you have an interest in the topics at hand, check this out, but either way it is still a nice, interesting work of historical drama that gives us insight into the towering figures of Freud and Jung now that the past few decades have pulled further back the curtain on their personalities and personal lives.

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III – A Remnant of ’90s Horror

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. 1990. Directed by Jeff Burr. Screenplay by David J. Schow.
Starring Kate Hodge, Ken Foree, R.A. Mihailoff, William Butler, Viggo Mortensen, Joe Unger, Tom Everett, Miriam Byrd-Nethery, Jennifer Banko, David Cloud, Beth DePatie, & Toni Hudson. Nicolas Entertainment.
Rated R. 85 minutes.
Horror/Thriller

★★1/2
POSTER
In the 1990s, I was growing up. By the time I was 10, which would put us at ’95, horror movies were already a staple in my life. To the chagrin of my parents, who lovingly tried their best not to corrupt my young mind. Yet my grandfather let me watch a ton of stuff before I should’ve been able to, after that my best friend’s parents let us watch whatever we wanted, as long as they knew what we were watching. So around 10 or 11 I first saw things like A Clockwork OrangeThe Shining, and far less majestic stuff like LeprechaunDr. Giggles, and so many other horror flicks. Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III is a movie I still remember seeing on the shelf at my local video shop, Allan’s Video. Before I’d ever seen the original of the series I remember wanting to pick this up and watch it. When I finally saw Tobe Hooper’s classic it rocked me. Then I went about seeing the series.
This is definitely not the worst of the series. Nor is it close to being best. But it’s a far cry from a couple of the real rough efforts. The third chapter in Leatherface history at least has legendary Ken Foree. Plus, there’s a really terrifying quality to the entire story. As things play out you’re almost sweating right alongside the main characters. The story also opts not to go the route of having a big group of people who meet up with the crazed cannibals. Instead the group is smaller, as well as the mix of personalities is interesting. And as always there’s at least a bit of hack and slash for us to enjoy. At least it’s not Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.
leatherface-texas-chainsaw-massacre-iii-5
On the Texas highway travels a fighting couple, nearly separated but still somehow together, Michelle (Kate Hodge) and Ryan (William Butler). As they go, news reports of mass graves out in the desert circulate; putrefied corpses rotting underneath the sandy ground.
After a run in with a crazy gas station attendant, Michelle and Ryan meet a man named Tex (Viggo Mortensen). He helps them out, though, they end up losing track of him after the gas station lunatic wields a gun and runs everyone off. Afterwards out in the desert, the couple end up running into survivalist Benny (Ken Foree).
But worse than all that, the three of them later run into Leatherface (R.A. Mihailoff), whose family is big, weird, and really, really hungry.
Pic2
Far from being unique, the scene where Michelle can’t kill an armadillo, twitching and dying on the roadside, is poignant. Yes, that trope has been used time and time again, many of those being in slasher or horror movies in general. But juxtaposing the maniacal ways of Leatherface and his clan which come out later is a perfect way for us to begin understanding the division in mentality between normal people and cannibal nutcases. Y’know, like we need a lot of convincing. This scene, right near the beginning, lets us in on her character as someone who, at that point, is unwilling to even put a dying animal out of its misery. And it sets the tone, in a way. From there we see Leatherface carve up bodies. And there’s almost a wish, a longing to return to the moments where all we knew was the roadkill.
I love that Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger were both involved with this one because they always bring great authenticity to horror with their practical effects. Right from the beginning, these are on display. Then once we move inside the Sawyer home, of course things get even more macabre. There are a number of truly gruesome moments in the last 35 minutes or so. However, that’s only if you’re watching an uncut version. The original one that ran in theatres lacked much outright gore, all in order to satisfy the MPAA. So if you do watch this one, please do so with an unrated copy that holds so much more. Otherwise you won’t get the Berger/Nicotero genius, and Leatherface suddenly isn’t so violent or scary anymore.
On top of nice effects there’s also Kane Hodder; another legend. Well he lent his hand to the stunts for Leatherface, which allowed for Mihailoff to play the bulkier figure while Hodder pulled off the few more trying bits of action. Always a treat for Hodder to be involved in any way. He is a true classic of the genre.
Pic3
Having Viggo Mortensen in there is a nice touch, though, he was relatively an unknown at the time. His performance is okay, and he doesn’t go completely over the top as you might expect in a film like this one. Along with him and his subtle creepiness, R.A. Mihailoff does a fine job with Leatherface. When playing a role that doesn’t require actually speech there might be a tendency to do other emotive things that can render a performance into pure ham – such is the case in the previous film, and even though I like the sequel to the original a lot the Leatherface role comes off highly cheesy. Here, Mihailoff is more unsettling. He lurches around with a heavy presence and his guttural sounds are more primitive than mentally challenged, as they were in the performances of others who’ve played the role. With Foree in the mix it’s usually a good thing, depending on the material. Not much to use, but Foree does well with the tough nice guy character, and certainly his size helps give the character himself an honest quality. For a mediocre horror flick the acting definitely could have come off worse.
Pic4
There’s not a ton to offer here, but enough so that Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III doesn’t come out bottom of the barrel in the series. Once again, you have to check out the unrated version. If not then you’ll be getting a terribly edited, cut to shit piece of horror cinema, and the nastiness of the franchise will not come through. That theatrical release does the film a grave injustice. While it isn’t a great movie, it is especially terrible if you’re watching it that way. Stick to the unrated material and this entry is half decent. Enough to give you a little thrill on a dark night, when you’re by yourself, or a couple of friends want to watch something creepy.