|  | 
| even the spanking scenes in Method were lackluster. | 
We  open on a picturesque view from a hill in the farm lands of Switzerland  where Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) a well-educated and  well-mannered gentlemen with good looks and charm runs a hospital for  the criminally insane. He is seeking to cure these poor unfortunates  with the new and controversial 'talking cure' that's been going around  those parts. His first subject is a overly realized perception of mental  instantly that filmmakers dressed in period clothes and tousled the  hair of, I am speaking of course of none other than masturbation fodder  for a whole generation and Wonderbra aficionado Keira Knightly who just  can't stop screaming, damn it. The bitch has issues, let's put it that  way, and strangely enough, they all stem from her being spanked by her  pop pop when she was a little girl.Fancy that. Could she be more of a  perfect candidate for psychotherapy? I venture nay. She's thus the  perfect subject for Jung and his new 'experimental method' this  'psychoanalysis' that couldn't possibly work, well he'll prove all of  them wrong, and he'll use her as his prototype. That means a lot of time  alone together recalling all kinds of nasty shit. A few spank scenes  worthy of a soft-core short later and they are completely in love, the  student and the master. Fancy that!
Keira really outdid herself,  and I'm not sure if I mean that in a positive way, call me crazy but I  STILL have a problem with her playing serious roles. She chewed the  scenery so hard it was almost comic. She did that under-bite and finger  claws film cliche thing that just infuriates me, and overall really  tried to make herself unappealing, when all she had to do was that nude  scene where she and Fassbender are in bed together after coitus for all  of us to see that she has the upper body of a per-pubescent boy.  Regardless, she might have been the most redeeming quality of this film  and this statement includes the Cronenberg and his underwhelming  lackluster portrayal of three central figures in sexual psychology and psychoanalysis. 
Basically  it was all talk no action, which is an elementary no-no in cinema. Why  the filmmakers felt the need to take nearly two hours to explain  Freudian theory backwards and forwards to us like we're all idiots is  beyond me, and it doesn't make for a dramatic narrative at all. It  didn't even present it in a way that was remotely interesting or sparking  the curiosity of the greenest Freud layman (no pun intended). Bottom line is anyone with half a high school education will know the basics of Freudian psychology.
Basically  the filmmakers got frustrated with compressing almost half a century of  scientific psychological research into a film so they decided to focus  on making it aesthetically pleasing by throwing money at the costume and  production design departments with one grand rule: make sure Keira's  nipples are showing in every scene. 
This film was an enormous let  down. If I can compare it to a sexual scenario which would be  appropriate in this context, it would be like finally bedding that one  person who you've lusted over since you were aware of your sex organ  functions and never felt you were good enough to get, and though they  were the hottest thing you'd ever had a wet dream about, they were the  worst lay you've ever had, including your right hand on a wine-soaked  evening. Definitely skip, you will not be missing anything. 
Please do yourself a favor and watch Freud (1962) directed by John Huston and starring the incomparable Montgomery Clift as the titular character (no pun intended). Below is a clip. Get on it. Seriously. 
Also, you should watch the psychoanalysis-inspired film by Hitchcock called Spellbound (1945) if you haven't already, starring Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman with a cameo by Mikhail Chekhov and a dream sequence directed by Salvador Dalí. It doesn't get much better than that folks. Both films in full versions on the youtubes. 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment