"A Dangerous Method", let's talk about sex, doctor

A Dangerous Method

It's probably me, sure. Because with the exception of "Spider", the cinema of David Cronenberg has been pretty insufferable. Sometimes morbid ("Crash"), others just (sorry) stupid ("Eastern Promises", "A History of Violence"), with "A Dangerous Method", I have to use another adjective. I found this movie interesting, with great potential, but the final result is disappointingly flat.

The premise was intriguing. An insight on psychoanalysis, from the perspective of their fathers, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, with Sabina Spielrein completing the triangle. An intellectual and emotional, sentimental conflict that gave shape to their theories but also determined their lives. On paper, this could be original and absorbing matters to deal with. Even the fact Cronenberg was directing it was intriguing, due to his personal record as the body horror or venereal horror genre master's, considering sex was supposed to be a major factor on the discussions of both psychoanalysts. But the film doesn't live to its expectations.

In my opinion, what makes the movie shallow is the lack of character development. Contrary to the usual pattern in cinema, I believe "A Dangerous Method" would need a longer length to engage the spectator, to make the film compelling or to introduce real depth on it. As it has been edited, the film starts with a a quite vibrant pace, but once the (potentially absorbing) conflicts are exposed, it becomes clearly unbalanced towards the turbulent relation between Spielrein and Jung, leaving an insufficient amount of scenes for the development of the relationship, then clash between Freud and Jung, and skimming over events that should matter for the development of the film, which is a bit frustrating (the near-the-end reading letters part it is indeed very annoying). Maybe Cronenberg wanted to explain the ideas of the two psychologists/psychoanalysts with the physical relationship between Spielrein and Jung, but if that what's the purpose, the result is a big failure.

With that structure, the film acquires an unexpected inertia, even apathy. I do think Michael Fassbender makes the film worth watching as he creates a powerful, troubled Carl Jung, while Vincent Cassel is also exciting as relevant secondary character Otto Gross. But on the other hand, Viggo Mortensen portrays a caricature of a very affected Freud. His character demanded more scenes to be developed and confronted to Jung. Finally Keira Knightley is a disturbing, controversial Spielrein. Her extreme shifts from hysteria to be the one capable of confronting such a personal drama is hard to believe, at least to me. As I said, an unbalanced, quite lifeless film.

SCORE: 5/10

"Black Swan", the darkest of fairy tales

Black Swan

It was hard to put myself in front of this film. To all the Oscar's "white noise" about Portman's tour de force (with the usual physical effort included) I was adding the two previous films from director Darren Aronofsky: the horrible "The Fountain" (among the worst movies of the last 10 years, no question about it) and the spectacular amount of clichés that "The Wrestler" is. So, to say it politely, I was quite reluctant to see "Black Swan". But after I finally did, I can say it was worth it.

Two major factors are the reasons for the overall positive consideration. First, the stunning visual conception of the film, the weight of the details (Nina's toys in her bedroom, her skin, the objects from the almost unrecognisable Wynona Ryder as Beth, to name a few), its gothic and disturbing imagery and the strikingly dreamy, dark and absorbing atmosphere. And second, Natalie Portman's performance, not only because her tortured impersonation of Nina, but also for being capable of showing a childish, immature (to the point of getting you nervous) and extremely fragile character.

Having said that, "Black Swan" has also some important question marks. The main one being, again (sorry to insist with the comparison with "The Fountain") is about the strength of the script. We get attracted to the feverish obsession/dream/descent into hell of Nina, so we know that what we are seeing is her subjective and distorted vision. But the few points of "reality", responsible of providing us with the much needed information to go through the story are either weak or clearly insufficient, so the psycho thriller part is not very strong. The best examples of these could be the roles of the artistic director, Thomas, and Nina's mother, Erica, strongly portrayed by Vincent Cassel and Barbara Hershey. While they serve the purpose of adding more creepiness to the dark and twisted fairy tale, but they don't help to the coherency of the plot, as we know little about their motivations behind their actions.

And linked with that, one cannot avoid wondering if the amount of complexity in Nina's paranoia deserved something more than the simple "Swan Lake" black/white duplicity, developed into the topical part of the film where Nina learns about evil (the "Odile/Black Swan") or in practical terms, lust. My doubt about "Black Swan can be epitomized in the sentence "I just want to be perfect" that Nina repeats a couple of times during the film. Is that genuine innocence or a serious failure of the script, making a mighty powerful character so disappointingly empty? The movie impacts, disturbs and grabs you, but is that a lasting impression? 

SCORE: 6,75/10