A Dangerous Method

1E

A Dangerous Method came close to receiving a 0. Although the title suggests it will be a exegesis of the development of psychoanalysis and the controversy between Freud and Jung, in fact the movie is more of a chick flick about the adulterous relationship between Jung and his first patient Sabine Spielrein.

To give the devil its due, the movie did fairly accurately represent Freud, Jung, and Spielrein. Freud was paternalistic to the point of arrogance. Jung was a Swiss Protestant, who dabbled in mysticism, parapsychology, alchemy, etc. In the beginning, Jung was a Freud groupie, but as he developed his own ideas, Freud dismissed him from the inner circle.

And Jung did have an adulterous relationship with Sabine Spielrein, who became a thoughtful psychoanalyst in her own right. That noted, Spielrein was a Russian Jew. Granted she was cultured and sufficiently affluent to be admitted to the Swiss psychiatric hospital at which Jung was a junior attending.

Jung had a madonna/whore affect. His wife was “pure” and bore him 5 children. Whereas Spielrein was intellectually and emotionally seductive. By contrast to his Victorian wife, Spielrein was exotic. Think Ivanhoe. Jung could neither break from his wife nor commit to Spielrein, who eventually married another Russian physician. Spielrein and her two children were killed by the Nazi’s in 1942 in her native Russia.

The movie did a poor job of showing the contrast between Emma Jung and Sabine Spielrein. In the movie, Emma Jung was attractive, warm, and attentive. Spielrein was appropriately depicted as wildly hysterical in the beginning of her therapy, but, with the exception of one scene, never fully developed into an exotic seductress. In one scene, as the sexual tension has been building, while they are sitting on a bench in a park, Spielrein finally takes the initiative to kiss Jung. As Spielrein recovers and becomes a doctor herself, we learn nothing of her life away from Jung.

Overall, I was disappointed that the relationship between Freud and Jung

1E

The Artist came close to a 2.

There is only about 3 minutes of talking in this almost entirely silent film. The story, told in other films, most notably Singing in the Rain, concerns the tumultuous transition from silent movies to talkies. Note that the silent era lasted an entire generation from approximately 1900 to 1929. Consequently, there was a well developed industry in the production of silent movies, including actors who were established. As is obvious to anyone who has watched silent movies the acting requires much more visual action to tell the story. Hence, the change to talkies was quite dramatic. It makes intuitive sense that the first talkies were musicals as it was easier to add songs often derived directly from the Vaudeville circuit. Al Jolson, was the most highly paid performer of the 20’s.

The Artist retells this story, loosely based on the story of John Gilbert. The leading character, Georg Valentin is the leading actor of the silent era. He is successful, lives in a large Hollywood mansion, and has a marriage that is stale, although not hostile. He meets and helps a lovely young actress, Peppy Miller, get her start.

Of course, Peppy is infatuated with Valentin, and additionally is appropriately grateful to him for his help. The movie does an excellent job in portraying their warm friendship. It is handled very delicately, without sexual inuendo, just an admirer. And moreover, Peppy is depicted as a warm woman, with a heart, who succeeds due to her innate talent.

Valentin does not make the transition to the talkies due to his pride. His deterioration is well depicted, but a little overly trite. The director could have cut some of this, but the story is well told.

And, of course, as Peppy becomes a leading lady of the talkies, she helps him recover and re-enter film. As she rescues him, their relationship blossoms, again handled delicately. Their love for one another has the tint of admiration and respect, making it more credible than is often displayed on screen.

It is all predictable, but the story is entertaining none the less.

The Artist steals unabashedly from many other films, both from the silent and talkie era. Film afficianados will recognize many of the scenes from other movies. It does not detract from The Artist, but is obvious.

All of that noted, this is a thoroughly enjoyable two hours of cinema. Clever, entertaining and a break from the usual. As I noted, this was almost a 2.

1E

There have been over 30 film and tv versions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective, Sherlock Holmes.  The general story is familiar to most audiences. Holmes is a hypercerebral detective, whose sous-detective is the bumbling Dr. John Watson.  Holmes has an equally brilliant brother, Mycroft, who while working for the British Government plays a very small role in a couple of the books.  Additionally, Holmes arch-enemy, Dr. Moriority, is equally as brilliant, but evil in devious ways.  These books, written in the late Victorian period, reflect the simplistic notions of good and evil, and the characters of Holmes and Moriority depict such respectively. 

The Conan Doyle stories are uncomplicated procedural detective novels.  Each is highly structured, leaving clues that only Holmes perceives (although a regular reader knows where to look).  Additionally, Holmes has an unusually perceptive eye and is quite wise about human nature.  Hence, he makes many of his startling inferences by understanding his nemeses and predicting how they will behave and respond to the stress of their crimes.

Although he is a contemporary of both Dickens and Dostoyevsky, Conan Doyle does not write in the deeply pyschological manner of either of those.  Instead, he takes a more cognitive or reflexive approach to the behavior of his enemies.

When film goers think of Sherlock Holmes films, they must refer to the role as played by the late Basil Rathbone, who played in no less than 15 Sherlock Holmes movies, with Nigel Bruce portraying the portly Dr. Watson.  Having seen many of these films with them in the lead, it is hard to adjust to newer interpretations.

That noted, the current versions, with Robert Downey and Jude Law fail on a variety of levels.  They do establish the same comraderie as depicted between Rathbone and Bruce, but on a very different plane.  Where Rathbone is brilliant and aloof, Downey is all action.  Somewhere along the line, in the current version, Holmes has learned karate, ju-jitsu, and tikwando.  Most of the current version is filled with physical fights, including shoot outs.   Granted the special effects move the plot along and there are some funny scenes which involve howitzers (you have to see it to understand how canon can be funny). 

Stephen Fry plays Mycroft Holmes and is terrifically eccentric.  If you know Stephen Fry from either his other movies or from his quiz show on BBC America, you will know this eccentricity fits him perfectly.

Frankly, the movie reminded me of Iron Man set in Victorian England.

In this version, Holmes uses physical force far more often than his intellect.  And even the parts that demonstrate his extraordinary powers of observation were almost surreal.  The director, Guy Ritchie, slowed the action to show how Holmes perceived what others had missed.  And the cutting was so fast that the audience barely had a chance to register what it was that Holmes observed.  Some of the fun of the older films was discovering along with Holmes, sometimes as he explained it to Watson, how he induced from small clues larger directions and plans of the criminals.

This is mostly another action film, and departs from the classical Holmes movies in a big way.  It lacks the participation of the audience in solving the crime.  Hence, the audience is simply passive to the action.  In the original series, made in the 30’s and 40’s engaged the audiences in the story much more so.

Overall, this is an entertaining film and enjoyable.  As I noted above, you might be better off watching the Basil Rathbone films, some of which are available on Netflix.

Rating 1I

Brutish, brilliant, and Breughel describe The Mill and the Cross.  It is not for the squemish.  That noted it is an extraordinary film.

Breughel was active in the middle 1500’s when Flanders was under the yoke of Catholic Spain at the height of the era of persecution of non-believers.  The Spanish Inquisition lingered and all non-Catholics were either crucified or had to become a “Converso”.  Even then, gruesome tests were conducted to determined who was faithful to the “true religion” and many did not survive the tests themselves.  The movie depicts this both accurately and graphically. There are crucifixions shown in great detail and the viewer is not spared the outcome from the whipping, beating capture of the less faithful through the actual crucifixion itself.  You have been warned.  And the scenes of such are long and painful for the audience.

That noted, this is still an excellent film.  The general plot is a decoding of Breughel’s painting “The Procession to Calvary”, which hangs in the HistorishKunstMuseum in Vienna.  The film takes you through how each section of the painting was developed and what it is meant to convey.  It is a powerful, almost religious exegesis of the painting.  And both the setting and the costumes strongly support the cast in bringing the message to the audience.  The dialogue is quite sparse, the action is slow, but the visual effects carry the plot very well.  The scenery is extraordinary despite being set in one little Flemish Rennaisance town in Flanders.

From what I know of that period in Northern Europe, I would suggest that the costumes, behaviors of adults and children alike are accurate.  Much of the film shows the quotidian activities of the inhabitants of the town.  And these people and their daily life add strongly to the sense of time and place.  The Catholic Spanish soldiers are, simply stated, scary.  It is almost a thriller.  There are no “good guys” in this movie who come to the rescue of the persecuted.  The citizens of the town are simply subjected to the cruelty of the Spaniards.  Anyone who protests is crucified.

If having read this, you are still interested in seeing the movie, i would suggest taking a look at the painting first.  Or rather studying it in great detail.  Let your eye move into each section of the painting, and from that you might be able to anticipate the movie.  It is not all violence and cruelty.  Daily life, mothers, children, fathers and townsfolk, continue with ordinary life of eking out subsistence living.  They laugh, play instruments, dance and the children behave normally down to the siblings teasing one another.

And do not misread me here.  The violence is part of everyday life for these people, it is not added to be sensational, it is not gratuitous.  It is simply the way things were in Flanders in the 1500’s.

Despite all the harshness of the film, I would recommend it highly.  It is superbly filmed, the setting and colors of the costumes are beautiful.  The film moves slowly, which magnifies life both small and large for these people.  And the movie is a real break from boy meets girl, father-son bonding, coming of age, action thrillers, clever bank heists and the rest.  It is truly a different evening out.

For further reading on this era, I recommend “The Dogs of War, Ferdinand and Isabella”, by James Reston, Jr and any of the novels by Arturo Perez-Reverte which are set in this era.  Reston offers an overview of the origins of the Spanish Inquisition and Perez-Riverte tells the story from a soldier’s viewpoint.

This movie rates a 1 and an I for intellectual stimulation.  It is certainly thought provoking.

Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

1E*

We are certainly  a long way from Gene Autry’s trick cowboy riding of the movies of the 30’s.  Along with Yakima Canutt, one might argue that they began the combination of purposeful action of stunts in movies.  We would agree that the stunts of Harold Lloyd, most notably, were daring and visually engaging, but his stunts were primarily for the sake of a “oh my”, not to move the action along.  By contrast, the trick riding and shooting of Gene Autrey, particularly in Phantom Empire was part of the plot.  Similarly, the scary vertiginous stunts in Mission Impossible moved the plot along quite well.  They were occasionally too long and not always credible, but why go to the movies if you do not intend to suspend belief in reality anyway. 

Mission Impossible weaves a variety of subplots into a cohesive race to block an atomic warhead.  Geographically, it moves among Russia, Hungary, Dubai, and India.  Each with its own subplot.  The villains and semi-villians are played well.  The true villain is clean cut self-righteous academic, whereas the semi-villians are more typical thugs.  This twist of demeanors makes for great entertainment.  The team surrounding Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, provides both physical beauty in the female lead and comic relief in the other two team members.  The lead woman, Agent Carter, while agile, is a little flat as an actress.  Although poised, she fails to demonstrate anything other than standard responses to most situations. 

All of that noted, this is 2 hours of excellent entertainment.  The plot is coherent, the stunts truly spectacular, and the interaction among both the good guys and the bad guys works. 

It is interesting to compare it to the best of the James Bond movies.  And it lacks by comparison.  Why?  Simply stated, Ethan Hunt lacks the savoir fair of Bond.  Hunt also lacks the vulnerability of Bond, lacks his wit, and lacks his intelligence.  Hunt is more of the professional assassin than do-gooder.  He seems to act more as an alpha male, rather than believing in “the cause”. 

Although the movie is excellent, it is not likely a movie that you would watch a second time.  There are no profound themes in it. 

Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Movies are rated 0,1,2

0 - don’t see it (5% of all films)
1 - acceptible
2 - destined to become a classic (5%)

Additional designation:

E - the movie was entertaining
I - the movie was intellectually stimulating

0

While only 5% of films receive my lowest rating, unfortunately, I cannot recommend wasting money on this movie.  Why?  Well, the acting is superb.  The cast is excellent: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainbourg, Keifer Sutherland, John Hurt, etc.  The cinematography is similarly excellent.  Simply stated, the plot intends to be philosophically provocative, and it fails miserably. 

The general plot, which is described in every review, is the end of the earth by an asteroid collision from the vantage point of an extremely dysfunctional family.  The film is humorless.  And at 2 ½ hours, it becomes tedious.  Dunst’s character has some undiagnosed severe mental illness.  The entire first act revolves around her unconsummated wedding, although she has intercourse with a minor character.  There is a disjointed subplot with her boss at a PR firm, which does not seem to fit at all.  The minor character is a newly hired lackey at the firm.  In the second act, as the asteroid approaches, Dunst demonstrates sanity in the face of death of her family, as the rest of them come unglued.

Why the other critics adored this movie may be due to the excellent acting, especially by Dunst, but it is not worth the price of admission for such. 

Spend your money on something fun…


Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Rating - 1I

Ah the French, how they can be so large and so small at the same time.  No other country achieves such parallelism in its culture.  And the title, which is explained in the movie, and is not here a spoiler, is described as prickly on the outside, but different on this inside - how apt. 

The protagonist is an extremely precocious 11 year old girl, planning to commit suicide on her 12th birthday.  She lives in a luxurious apartment with wealthy parents, who are dysfunctional in rather ordinary ways. In fact, she views death as a way to avoid whatever comes next in her life and although meticulously considered, she is rather casual about her anticipated suicide.  The janitor of the building, which has only 5 similarly luxurious apartments, is an unattractive woman who lives alone.  She is dour, but dutiful to her dweller-clients.  She is polite, and while not exactly unfriendly, neither is she warm.  She is slightly disdainful at the louche life of the people who live in the building, as is the 11 year old. 

Instead of leaving a suicide note, the protagonist uses an old movie camera to record her life or rather the life of those around her.

A widowed Japanese man moves into the building and develops relationships with both the janitor and the 11 year old.  He is very courtly, old world, reserved, and wise.  And this plot devise only works because he is foreign.  It would not work if he were also a Parisian. 

And then there are the cats.  The janitor has a beautiful, albeit lazy tomcat.  The Japanese has a pair of sleek Siamese cats.  The cats become interesting foils to the story.  They metaphorically represent their owners through the occasional interactions with their respective owners. 

The janitor is a secret reader of serious classics.  Her love of Tolstoy is used to connect her to various characters in the film, but is overdone and slightly heavy-handed.  The famous, and now almost trite, first line from Anna Karenina, is used at various points in the movie. 

Although I am not an expert at film technique, I would judge the filming, directing, and editing to be excellent.  The entire movie is filmed inside the apartment building.  The layout of the girl’s apartment, which is three sides around a courtyard, so that she can watch the goings on of her family is clever.  So while, the apartment building might seem confining, there are a lot of shots through the many windows and glass doors of her apartment.  By contrast, the janitor’s apartment seems to have no windows at all. 

This films rates a 1I.  As you may remember, 1 connotes a good film, worth seeing, but not something to rush out to see immediately. The I connotes that it is intellectually interesting rather than simply entertaining (=”E”). 

Finally, this film reminds me of Eric Rohmer, especially Claire’s Knee.  It is delicately done.  The characters strike me as real people, generally getting along as well as they can.  They live day to day, confronting the small exigencies of life as best they can, just like the rest of us.

Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Rated 1E*

Beyond the ordinary and somewhat predictable cops and robbers (drug smugglers in this case) plot, the dialogue is filled with a fair amount of funny, off-beat, and in-your-face iconoclastic attacks on stereotypes.   For example, the bad guys quote from Schopenauer and Nietzsche.  The three smugglers engage in an ongoing philosophical conversation about the nature of being a drug smuggler.  While not particularly truly reflective, it fits in a plot with characters who themselves break stereotypes.  And there are layers to the stereotypes.  The protagonist is a rural Irish sergeant, who abides by his own set of rules, in a classic and somewhat overdone heroic mold.  The only thing he does not do is chain smoke.  The other protagonist is an African-American FBI agent sent to Ireland to catch the smugglers.  [plot spoiler] He graduated from prep school, Yale, and is a Rhodes Scholar.  Yet in another very subtle layer, he mentions his sons are named Stokely and Huey.  This is an obvious reference to two of the leaders of the Black Power Movement of the 60’s, Stokely Carmichael and Huey Newton.  You have to listen very carefully, over the heavy Irish brogue, to get all the lines.  It is sort of a version of In the Heat of the Night. 

The movie is set in Galway, Ireland, and I expected the usual “terrible beauty” of Ireland.  Instead, we saw very little scenery.  The cinematography was acceptable, and the editing was likewise acceptable.  There were a few bits that seemed to appear without appropriate reference, suggesting some cutting of set-ups, but overall, the film flowed well.

Brendan Gleeson, who plays the rural cop is superb.  Don Cheadle, who plays the FBI agent is a little erratic.  At moments, he is stiff and in others he utters profanity, while in character for cops in difficult circumstances, might have been better depicted straight.  The bad guys are in character, even with their somewhat absurd musings in metaphysics.  The discursions neither detract nor add much to the plot, but are likewise amusing.  The audience around us loved them (the discussions not the bad guys).  This is not, however, Hamlet.  They show no remorse, on the contrary, they note how much they enjoy their jobs as smugglers, simply noting the vagaries of such. 

There is a subplot regarding the sergeant’s dying mother.  I suppose it is intended to show another facet of the lead, but it does not achieve much. 

Ed (Associate Professor of Film at UNC) tells me that The Bad Lieutenant with Nicholas Cage, set in New Orleans, has a similar plot.  I have not seen this movie, so I cannot compare them. 

The Guard is neither a light comedy nor a thriller.  It likely purports to tell some profound thoughts about stereotypes, but it fails there too.  That noted, it is highly amusing, with funny dialogue throughout. 

While there is a fair amount of violence, it is in the form of gun fights, without much blood displayed.  There is reference to sex, but nothing explicit shown. 

Reading my review, you might get the impression that I did not like this film, to the contrary, it was one of the better films I have seen this summer.  It is sufficiently funny to be worth seeing and the plot is sufficiently interesting to keep your attention throughout.  I guess, I would only suggest that you do not expect more than that.

I recommend this movie as a 1E, it is very enjoyable from beginning to end, despite being somewhat predictable.  It does not get a 2 rating because of the predictability.  It is a fun evening at the movies, but nothing that cannot be seen as a rental.

Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine

*The rating system is:

2 - a must-see movie that can be seen more than once, and makes a significant contribution to a movie collection.
1 - the movie is worth seeing.
0 - not worth seeing

E - the movie is entertaining
I - the movie is thought provoking