The only reason I wanted to see A Dangerous Method is because it was made by David Cronenberg. I don't know or care much about psychology. I am liking Michael Fassbender's work so far, but Viggo Mortensen is pretty hit-and-miss for me and Keira Knightley generally stars in the film adaptations of books I never wanted to read. Cronenberg, though, is always (in my experience) interesting as a filmmaker, at the very least. I was a little hesitant to see A Dangerous Method, though. I just had difficulty seeing the promise of a Cronenberg movie that was fenced in by actual historical figures and facts. That practically guarantees a lack of head explosions, and what's the fun in that?
A Dangerous Method centers around Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), one of the first and foremost trailblazers in psychoanalysis. Young, married, and Fassbendery, Dr. Jung is at the cutting edge of his profession, back when Freud's ideas were still new and radical. Jung took a particular interest in his patient Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). When she came to him, Sabina was defiant, afraid, and spastic.
In other words, she was a perfect test subject for psychoanalysis. Jung is able to treat Sabina so that she no longer covers herself in feces and throws unreasonable tantrums. Through the course of treatment, Jung learns quite a bit about Sabina; he learns that she is extremely intelligent, understands psychoanalysis, and has a spanking fetish. While it may be hasty to call her "cured"...
Fingernail biting: the final obstacle to sanity
...Jung decided that Sabina was capable of living a normal life and encourages her to study to become a doctor, like him. Around this time, Jung is invited to a meeting of the foremost minds in psychoanalysis, where he meets his idol, Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). Freud recognizes Carl's brilliance and takes Jung under his wing, as his heir apparent. Jung has his doubts about the absolute nature of Freud's theories --- is everything about sex? --- but keeps those thoughts to himself.
Like Freud's ridiculous "Beard Theory." Pah! Mustaches are the future!
As Jung's fame grows, so does Sabina's insight. As a successful patient as well as a successful psychoanalyst, her thoughts are often clever and unique. As she and Jung develop their professional relationship, however, it becomes apparent that Sabina is very attracted to Jung. Obviously, this is a case of transference. But what's a little transference between friends?
Spanky, spanky!
Their romantic relationship complicates things. On a personal level, Jung has a wife whom he feels morally responsible for (and who is extremely wealthy), even if he does not share a deep connection with her. He is magnetically attracted to Sabina, physically and intellectually, but he does not want to give her the love child she craves. On a professional level, Sabina could easily make their relationship public knowledge and discredit Jung with the rest of Freud's faithful. Jung's increasingly vocal criticisms of Freud's refusal to change his theories even a little also threatens his status as Freud's heir apparent. Oh, Carl Jung --- you so crazy!
Relax --- it's just an expression
The acting in A Dangerous Method is quite good. Viggo Mortensen, in particular, was both charming and compelling as Sigmund Freud. Michael Fassbender gave an interesting performance as a cold, calculating man that could not deny his passion. Keira Knightley, when she wasn't doing an impression of a mentally ill person, was good as a needy, manipulative temptress.
"I want you to word associate me so hard...!"
In the beginning of the film, though, Knightley's craziness was unintentionally funny. I'm sure she did her research, and that Sabina Spielrein really did have some crazy spastic movements. I'm just not 100% certain that the best way to convey that illness is jutting out your jaw, like it's trying to escape your face. I will say that this is the best Tasmanian Devil impression I have seen on the big screen. It was a complex role, and she nailed the dramatic parts --- she just seemed silly when she played "crazy." Vincent Cassel was good as the intelligent (but unrepentantly lusty) Dr. Otto Gross, who provides one of the explanations for the film's title. Cassel is at his best when he is doing dirty, dirty, things, and that's what Gross was all about.
Dr. Gross, with his 1 o'clock appointment
The only other cast member worth mentioning is Sarah Gadon, who played Mrs. Jung. Hers was a small part, but she conveyed the repressed emotions of her character well.
David Cronenberg's direction in A Dangerous Method was not as impressive as the acting. I genuinely liked how well he developed the characters and how the actors were directed. However, it is up to the director to take that and make it into something compelling, if not simply entertaining. Simply put, this is a dull movie. The most dramatic moments come when characters are reading letters. It is so boring, in fact, that the novelty of Fassbender and Knightley's bondage and spanking scenes barely breaks the monotony. For the record, I have no problem (in theory) with a slow-paced film.
Dramatic pause and...now sip your tea
I do not, however, have much tolerance for being bored. It is not the pacing that is at fault, though. The larger problem of A Dangerous Method is the story focus. The conflict between Jung and Freud was interesting, as was the forbidden romance of Carl and Sabina. Unfortunately, this script split the story's focus between those two plots. Either one could have made for a compelling film, but there isn't room for both to be represented equally. Instead of a compelling drama about either relationship, we get what amounts to a Carl Jung biopic. Biopics are not my favorite film genre, but if anyone can spice up the traditionally predictable biopic structure, it would be David Cronenberg. He likes to make films with cool characters and unusual imagery, and that is exactly what is needed for an interesting biopic. Instead, we get a haggard-looking Keira Knightley in an ill-fitting bodice.
Knightley is a size zero, so that makes her clothes...size -2?
While I believe that Michael Fassbender did a very good job as the subtle, reserved Carl Jung, he simply is not very compelling as a main character. We don't see his actions as interesting or dynamic --- heck, we don't see him taking action. There are just conversations, followed by letters, followed by reply letters, followed by conversations. Period piece dramas don't have to be dull, but A Dangerous Method is not a movie I would use to prove that point. Good acting can only take a movie so far without a plot that makes you care about the characters.
Mesrine: Killer Instinct, or L'instinct de mort in its native French, is a film with many names. Sometimes, it is called Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One (Part One), sometimes it is Mesrine: Part One - Killer Instinct. Whatever you call it, this is the first entry in a two-part biopic about France's most famous criminal, Jacques Mesrine. He was a murderer, a bank robber, a kidnapper, a celebrity and a best-selling author. Not surprisingly, the story of man with so many proverbial hats doesn't fit into only one film. Killer Instinct was originally released in theaters just four weeks before Mesrine: Public Enemy Number One, which struck me as strange. Then again, I probably would have gone with the above movie poster to promote the film, instead of this French one:
Why would you put two actors on the poster for a two-film story of one man?
I guess it just goes to show how little I know about French films.
Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) was not a normal person. He came from an average French family, with a timid but hard-working father and an overbearing mother. He fought for France in Algeria. And yet, he somehow became an international criminal celebrity. Mesrine: Killer Instinct doesn't try to answer exactly why that happened, but it does put throw out some possible explanations for how it came about. I don't really like describing the plots for biopics, so here's a quick list of Jacques Mesrine's highlights in Killer Instinct:
He got his first taste of violence in Algeria
He quickly graduated to criminal thug after the war
He chose his criminal buddies over a life of peace and love with family
He robbed banks
He kidnapped a millionaire
He went to prison
He broke out of prison
He broke back into prison
The film opens with an arty introduction scene, with several shots being shown in different parts of the screen, all slightly out of sync, a la The Thomas Crown Affair. Obviously, something is being planned. We don't have to wait long for it to come to fruition; soon enough, Mesrine (and his girlfriend and her dog) are caught in a hail of gunfire. Does Mesrine die? If I was French, I'm sure I would know the answer to that. But, since there is a second movie, I'll hazard a guess that he survives. With that as the audience's introduction to the story, there is certainly a feeling of finiteness to Mesrine's tale. The only question is whether Killer Instinct can suitably lead up to that moment of gunfire while still being the opening chapter in this story.
What makes Mesrine: Killer Instinct worth watching is Vincent Cassel's performance. He is playing an obviously bad man, but he doesn't fill this character with remorse or some sort of psychosis. Instead, Cassel treats Mesrine as a man who cannot abide any boundaries, even imagined ones. When his wife implores him to choose a family life instead of a criminal career, he damn near executes her for trying to fence him in; that scene sheds light on most of Mesrine's important choices --- he will react violently and defiantly whenever he is told not to do something. This is definitely the best performance I have seen from Cassel to date.
He's winking to acknowledge your jealousy over his awesome 'stache
His supporting cast is stuck with fairly boring characters, but they all do pretty well. Gilles Lellouche and Gérard Depardieu have some fun as Mesrine's small-time criminal buddies, although I thought Depardieu was surprisingly intimidating for such a jolly-looking fellow.
I couldn't find a shot of Depardieu laughing at racist jokes, so I went with his second-funniest scene
Roy Dupuis was a little more sinister as Mesrine's more hard-core criminal partner. Does he deserve to share the movie poster with Cassel? Definitely not. Mesrine's anti-establishment attitude obviously made him a dangerous guy to be around, so naturally women found him irresistible. I liked Elena Anaya as his wife, the one women who isn't portrayed as a pushover or whore in this film. Cécile De France played a crazy woman just fine, but I wish she would have had more to work with toward the end of the movie.
With the opening scene of the film showing deliberate directorial intent, I assumed that Jean-François Richet's fingerprints would be all over this movie. They actually aren't. The film doesn't have a traditional dramatic arc, which is pretty common (sadly) in biopics, but it also feels disjointed, especially as the film jumps forward in time. I really liked the attitude Richet seemed to take with Mesrine --- there are no rose-colored glasses here, but he isn't portrayed as a monster, either --- but I'm not exactly sure what point he is trying to make. The action and violent scenes look pretty good, which is not a surprise, coming from the director of the sweet Assault on Precinct 13 remake, but I was surprised at how frequently Mesrine got hurt. Violent men lead violent lives, but you usually don't see them suffer minor wounds in movies, so that was a nice touch.
A good lead actor and solid direction doesn't necessarily make for a great film, though. While I liked Cassel, his performance wasn't magnetic enough to overcome an incomplete story. When you consider that this film is nearly two hours long, this film should have had something definite to say about Mesrine. Yes, it chronicled his rise to infamy. That wasn't enough for me. This felt like a Part One, like a two-hour setup for the next movie. That's frustrating; while I understand that the two films are meant to be seen as a pair, I was expecting this to stand on its own more. Will I watch Public Enemy Number One? It's very likely, and I might be able to look on this a little more favorably when I have seen the full picture. As it is, this is an interesting start to a fascinating character's tale, but it fails to provide a sense of resolution or even a sense of urgency to see the second part. It just ends. And that's not good enough.
I don't get ballerinas. I see the appeal of ballet (dancing, music, women with the bodies of twelve year-old boys), but I cannot fathom the mind of a ballerina. There is so much pressure, both mental and physical, and the payoff is disgusting feet.
Ballet causes leper feet. Fact.
Does that mean that Black Swan will have just as little payoff? That's a tough call. The film stars Natalie Portman (which is good), is directed by Darren Aronovsky (which is typically depressing), and has some very strong sexual scenes (which is good) that are frequently referred to as weird and uncomfortable (which is less good). Going into this, I was interested in the film's possibilities, but wary of the many signs that I would not enjoy it.
Nina (Natalie Portman) is one of the many supporting ballet dancers at New York's Prestigious Ballet Company, where the star ballerina, the apple of director Thomas' (Vincent Cassel) eye, is the aging legend, Beth (Winona Ryder). For his next production, Thomas wants to do a new take on Swan Lake, one that is raw and passionate; just as importantly, Thomas doesn't want Beth to be his star. The timid Nina sees her chance to seize greatness, and tries her hardest to impress Thomas. Her form is technically perfect, but lacks passion. That's a problem, because the lead in Swan Lake plays both the fragile and pure White Swan and the sexy and dangerous Black Swan. Thomas eventually ends up casting her for the role anyway, thanks to a faint spark he sees deep within her. Still, he demands that she find a way to unleash that trapped-up passion for the performance, and he points to the newest girl in the company, the raw and unpolished Lily (Mila Kunis), as an example of what it takes to be the Black Swan.
That doesn't sound too weird, does it? Well, Nina lives with her mother, Erica (Barbara Hershey), who was also a ballerina; Erica places a lot of pressure on her daughter to fulfill her own ballet dreams. For added creepiness, there is no lock on Nina's bedroom door. Clearly, Nina's social life is not terribly exciting, but that's not too weird. Well then, how about the unexplained rash on Nina's back that keeps getting worse as the movie progresses? Or the flashes of goose-pimples (or should I say swan-pimples?) that pop up on her skin at key moments? Well, if that's not weird enough for you, how about Nina's obviously loose grip on reality? She sees her own face on the bodies of strangers all the time and sometimes has imaginary encounters with others. What, exactly, is going through her tiny dancer's mind?
Darren Aronofsky has a tendency to make movies about things I don't really care much about. That doesn't make him a bad director, it just means that he doesn't regularly deal in what I regard as cinematic awesomeness. Whatever his subject taste might be, you have to admit that the man can shoot a movie. The cinematography was very effective in Black Swan. I thought the special effects (and there were a lot of them, surprisingly) were handled very well and the editing allowed for the greatest impact whenever Aronofsky wanted to get weird or creepy. I didn't particularly enjoy the shaky hand-held camera scenes, but that technique was clearly being used to disorient the viewer and leave them uncertain of what they had seen. All in all, the camerawork and editing were very effective. I thought Aronofsky handled the actors well, too, although I believe this was more of a director piece than a showcase for great acting. Aronofsky did a good job telling the story, too, even if I didn't particularly care for it. Actually, that's putting it a bit mildly. I think all the artsy storytelling and camerawork done by Aronofsky was wasted on a substandard story.
I don't know much of anything about ballet, aside from whatever I learned in the cinematic ballet masterpiece, Center Stage. I don't know any ballets in general, or anything about Swan Lake, in particular. And yet, even I was able to pick up on the intended parallels between the plot of Swan Lake and Black Swan. I understand the artistic drive to add layers to a story, but this just seemed a little weak to me. Do we really need the story of Black Swan to be so tied to that of the ballet? Doesn't that neuter any suspense the film is trying to build? Yes, it does. It also makes the film more predictable and boring. This story device just brings the rest of the movie down.
I was also left cold by the story itself. I thought it was generally predictable, even with the strange/creepy moments supplied by Aronofsky. Big surprise, ballerinas have issues with their image. What's that, performers are extremely jealous of each other and protective of their positions? I'll notify the Associated Press. A young performer has been pushed into that profession by a parent's desire to succeed vicariously through their child? Gosh. Ballerinas are crazy? I would never have thought that bulimics that do things with their body that nature never intended (look at their feet!) might not be completely sane. A lot of this story was simply trite. Yes, the direction is impressive, but the story is shallow and so are the relationships in the movie.
Now this looks like an interesting ballerina movie! No cliches here!
A lot of the attention Black Swan received was for the acting of Natalie Portman, and I will admit that she did a good job. She looked like a skeleton ballerina, and she did a very impressive job portraying somebody that is slowly going crazy. She also did a great job playing an uptight character whose emotions were easily understood by the audience --- that's difficult when a character is reserved. However, her character has a wild side waiting to be unleashed, and that wild side is played by another actor (for the most part). That means that we never really see a wide range of emotions in Portman's performance, which is a shame. Mila Kunis was surprisingly good as the carefree dancer; I normally despise her voice and her acting, but I thought she was pretty good here. Barbara Hershey did a good job as the obsessive mother, although I think her character was one or two good scenes away from something startlingly vicious. Oh, well. Winona Ryder's small part was okay, I guess, but nothing too special. As for Vincent Cassel...yeah, I guess he was fine. I have had a hard time not hating him in movies ever since his yoga break dancing scene from Ocean's Twelve.
Overall, I think that the boring predictability of the story more or less negates the solid acting. Portman was good, but her character was, as demanded by the plot, necessarily undeveloped. I liked Aronofsky's direction, and the camera work was impressive. But without either A) a cool story or B) any real relationships on-screen, this drama doesn't quite work. I'll give it due credit for its impressive technical achievements, but I just didn't like or enjoy this picture.
Now, as a red-blooded American male, I cannot review Black Swan without commenting on the sexy Natalie Portman masturbation and lesbian scenes. I will admit they were cool, but I think hat this really stupid and immature video (read: borderline NSFW) sums up my feelings.
Most films that deal with the mafia, in its various forms, tend to sensationalize it. Sure, you usually end up dead by "lead poisoning," but the trip there looks pretty entertaining, right? Not so much in this movie. Maybe there is still a bit of Cold War stigma attached to the Russians, or maybe they're just scarier criminals than the traditional Italian movie mobsters. Whatever the case, this film does not romanticize their lifestyle at all.
I wouldn't really categorize this as a mob movie, in the traditional sense. Sure, there are mobsters, but that association of criminals is secondary to the fact that this is a crime film. The movie begins with two deaths. They seem to have no immediate connection, but as a dead girl's diary, a midwife, and a Russian mob family all become intertwined, the connection becomes clear. This is a plot heavy film that demands attention, otherwise the suspense and the plot twists will be ineffective. If you're willing to shut up and watch, though, you're in for a gritty treat.
Naomi Watts plays a midwife in Britain that attends to a teenage girl's delivery. The girl dies, unknown and without identification, but the child survives. Determined to get the baby to its family, Watts finds a diary, written in Russian, as the girl's sole belonging. Her Russian immigrant uncle is unwilling to translate the diary, but Watts is able to find the name of a restaurant, so she goes there. The restaurant is clearly the legitimate business front for a Russian mafia family, run by Armin Mueller-Stahl. His son, played by Vincent Cassel, is ineffective and mean; Cassel's bodyguard and driver, Viggo Mortensen, is brutal and loyal. At first, Mueller-Stahl feigns ignorance of the dead girl, but becomes very interested when Watts mentions a diary, written in Russian. From this point forward, the plot begins to tighten its proverbial webs. The characters seem claustrophobic as their options dwindle and violence becomes imminent. Watts realizes the mistake she made, unwittingly going to the Russian mob, and sees how easily she, her family, or even the unwanted baby can be hurt by these men. Vincent Cassel tries to please his father, but his brutality and stupidity shine through and his "heir apparent" status becomes questionable. Viggo sees his loyalty and talents rewarded, but was unaware of the price he would be asked to pay.
I don't want to give away much about this movie because the drama comes from putting the pieces together yourself. I will, however, point out one of the excellent choices this film makes. You might expect the main characters, Viggo and Watts, to have a star-crossed romance here; in films where loyalty to an organization is paramount, the outside love interest is a common source of conflict. Not so much here, although I will admit to some sexual tension.
The lack of romance makes this plot significantly less predictable and more awesome. Director David Cronenberg does a great job throughout, both with the actors and the camera work. Armin Mueller-Stahl is great as the godfather-type character; that description doesn't do the character justice, though. This godfather is feared and is crafty. He plays his cards close to the vest and plays people like chess pieces. I think his best moment was when he appeared in Naomi Watts' hospital, just to show how easily he could enter a secure ward without a problem. It's difficult to portray something as complex as a very dangerous man calmly restraining himself, but the menace is present in most of Mueller-Stahl's scenes. Naomi Watts does a good job, too, although her main job is to realize just how deep of trouble she has gotten into. It was nice to see a determined female lead that did not depend on a romantic interest to achieve her goals. Vincent Cassel is fine here, which is a huge step above his Ocean's Twelve performance. Viggo Mortensen, on the other hand, is extremely impressive. His character design is just one of the reasons for this; Russian mobsters have their crimes and achievements displayed on their bodies with tattoos, and his collection makes him look pretty bad ass. They were realistic, too; he went out for dinner after a day of shooting without having the makeup removed and noticed an Eastern European family fall silent in his presence. Viggo does show off his man junk in this movie, but you'll notice that I pointed out the lack of romance (although not sex) in this film. No, Viggo's nudity comes from an awesome (and, in all probability, eventually legendary) fight scene. Normally, male nudity is used for uncomfortable humor in movies. Here, it A) shows off the body art and B) makes Viggo seem all the tougher for taking on armed (and clothed) assassins in the buff. While Mueller-Stahl's menace is restrained, Viggo's is vibrant. You see the things he is willing to do without batting an eye, so when he speaks to Watts and her family, it makes his choice of words and actions sometimes frightening.
I'll admit that I'm not a huge fan of anyone involved in this movie. I can usually take or leave Viggo; sure, Lord of the Rings is great, but Hidalgo? Really? That's your follow-up? Vincent Cassel has earned my lifelong ire for being one of two elements that made Ocean's Twelve absolutely unwatchable. Naomi Watts is okay, I guess, but I'm not used to her not screaming. David Cronenberg has made some great movies, but some of his work is just too weird (Naked Lunch) or too creepy-James-Spader-y (Crash) for my tastes. This movie rises above all that to make, at worst, a solid crime flick. Obviously, my take is a little better than an "at worst." Not a simple movie, but not a difficult one to understand, I like just about everything in this film.
