Résumés(1)

Zurich, 1904. Carl Jung, 29 ans, psychiatre, est au début de sa carrière et partage sa vie avec sa femme, Emma. S’inspirant des travaux de Sigmund Freud, Jung tente le traitement expérimental connu sous le nom de psychanalyse sur Sabina Spielrein, âgée de 18 ans. Sabina, jeune Russe cultivée qui parle l’allemand, a été diagnostiquée « hystérique », et a la réputation d’être agitée et violente. Lors de ses séances avec Jung, elle expose une jeunesse gâchée par les humiliations et une composante sexuelle sado-masochiste. Grâce à leur correspondance, Jung parvient à une grande complicité intellectuelle avec Freud, sur le cas de Sabina. Freud demande à Jung de traiter un collègue, Otto Gross, toxicomane et amoraliste impénitent. Sous son influence, Jung va balayer sa propre éthique et se laisser aller à son attirance envers Sabina. C’est le début d’une liaison dangereuse dont les conséquences vont être aussi inattendues que fondamentales. (Mars Distribution)

(plus)

Critiques (11)

POMO 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

français Je me ferais un plaisir de jouer avec Mademoiselle Spielrein et de fumer un cigare avec Freud, mais je préférerais m’asseoir tranquillement au bord du lac de Zurich plutôt que d’assister aux conversations languissantes avec Jung le malléable et l'indécis. Viggo Mortensen assure et l’esthétique de l’image est savoureuse, mais où est l’émotion ? Ici, on regarde des stars de cinéma grand public qui récitent des phrases non compréhensibles par la plupart des spectateurs. Par contraste, Lunes de fiel par Roman Polanski était bien plus poétique et passionné dans son témoignage sur les recoins sombres de la sexualité humaine. ()

Lima 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Cronenberg gives a brief insight into the core ideas of Freud and his pupil Jung in an audience-friendly and simple form, which is a rare and welcome gift compared to complexly worded lectures on psychoanalysis or literary scholarly attempts to interpret their work. Yet, thanks to the breathtaking performances of all three leading characters and the masterfully written dialogues that often provide a hidden point, I find Cronenberg's film also attractive for the audience. ()

J*A*S*M 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Sinfully unexciting. Formally, A Dangerous Method is a film with very little to reproach, and it will probably delight film theorists, but I’d be lying to myself if I gave it a higher rating. I just didn’t like it, I didn’t find it interesting in the least and the idea of having to watch it again is pretty terrifying. Cronenberg’s old perversion and subversiveness have disappeared under a ton of academically precise make-up, and now just bubble peacefully deep beneath the surface. And looking for it is not fun. ()

Malarkey 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais So, let’s sum it up. What we have here is a movie where the main parts are Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. And on top of that we have this crazy girl, who had won a windfall in her life and is now making up for it with sexual deviation. The setting – both Zurich and Vienna – is more than nice. And last but not least, there is a cast of actors in which one is better than the other. Judge for yourselves: Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley or Vincent Cassel. That’s quite a cast of actors, isn’t it? But David Cronenberg lays it on you in the first minute that you immediately have to stop and think about whether Keira is serious about acting or whether she should maybe call it quits after this film and disappear into another area of art. And then you also realize that even though Jung and Freud are quite interesting characters from history, you will be so bored with them that even your ninety-year-old grandma whose only hobby is to feed her chickens twice a day could not be more dull. I’d been looking forward to an interesting premise and what I got was utter disappointment in all respects. At first sight, it’s such an interesting movie, but at second sight you won’t believe it a corner of the street in Vienna, let alone Zurich. ()

Marigold 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Art Nouveau pure filmmaking about dirty things inside a person. A comprehensive network of relationships man vs. woman, father vs. son, Freudianism vs. Jungianism - yet very simple and accessible... Masterful direction, the breathtaking Mortensen, precise Fassbender and surprisingly demonic Keira Knightley (probably in the role of her life). And a script with dialogues so brisk, funny and intelligent that I consider this film to be one of the top experiences of recent months. ()

DaViD´82 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Sedentary theatrical Cronenberg and a bodice ripper without emotion. A Dangerous Method of psychoanalysis without depth. Yes, it's as sad as it sounds, if not sadder. The only bright moments are when Jung and Freud have the offices to themselves, those old pigs. ()

3DD!3 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais A superb Cronenberg exercise in conversation. The onerous theme of psychology and sexuality is supported by excellent acting performances. Keira’s transformations are brilliant and both Fassbender and Mortensen (constantly chewing that cigar) enjoy their dialog sequences. Detachment and cold comments on the issue is appropriate for scientific research and the even the very smallest expression of emotion is punished by the destruction of the afflicted characters. ()

NinadeL 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais This film has great subject matter with unusually bad casting. I'd quite like to experience more of the decadently untamed Zurich, but if that's not possible, then there's nothing worth mentioning. ()

Kaka 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais I would expect some wild in the form of decapitated heads or at least explicit sexual creations from David Cronenberg, but there is nothing like that in this film. Well, there is a certain effort towards the latter, but it's more of an artistic walk around it rather than something happening. So, as viewers, we're left with nothing else but to rely on the superb performances, the sensitive film aesthetics, the excellent period setting, and exceptionally well-handled psychology, skillfully transferred onto the big screen. When philosophical debates don't come across as boring or complicated, but quite the opposite, and they even have some pretty excellent points. It's just that the whole thing feels a bit cold and too overly contrived. ()

Othello 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais That Cronenberg is in there. It lies concealed in Keira Knightley's nipple crawling out of her corset, Vincet Cassel's face, the subversive dialogue, and especially the character of Jung (who has a lot of points of contact with James Woods' character from Videodrome), but it's littered with tons of costumes and understated studio work, and somehow lacks a significant personal investment. Otherwise, Viggo Mortensen is incredible! PS: Keira Knightley is cast brilliantly and Cronenberg takes advantage of all her physical imperfections (breasts, British-sharp physiognomy, arched forehead, prominent chin, a figure that generally begs for professional help) and makes the actress accentuate them ()

kaylin 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais David Cronenberg directed an excellent film, which is mainly adorned with strong performances. Personally, I have always been interested in Freud and to some extent identify with his theories, so I would rate the movie even higher. For some, it may be full of "psychobabble," but I really enjoyed the discussions between Jung and Freud, as well as Jung and Spielrein. Cronenberg perfected his last film to Hollywood perfection, but it fits the time period, concept, and story quite well. ()