David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen on the set of A Dangerous Method
By Jennifer Wilson
When I learned that I would have 15 minutes to talk with David Cronenberg about his film A Dangerous Method, I was elated…and then alarmed. A Dangerous Method is a complex film adaptation of Christopher Hampton’s play,The Talking Cure which was, itself, originally a screenplay based on John Kerr’s book A Most Dangerous Method. See, it’s complicated already and we’re only talking about the source material. A Dangerous Method is the fictional account of a true story: a psychiatrist and his young mentor become great friends and colleagues only to see their great bond turn to bitter rivalry. And oh yes, the psychiatrist and his mentor are Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). The two most renowned figures in the HISTORY
of psychiatry. Their rift begins over Jung’s affair with a young patient, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), which Freud condemns, but the conflict deepens over each man’s “method.” Freud wanted to focus on treating patients with his “talking cure” while Jung wanted to explore mysticism and the occult.
of psychiatry. Their rift begins over Jung’s affair with a young patient, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), which Freud condemns, but the conflict deepens over each man’s “method.” Freud wanted to focus on treating patients with his “talking cure” while Jung wanted to explore mysticism and the occult.
After seeing A Dangerous Method I noticed there were a few things that were not covered in this film, and so my conversation with Cronenberg mostly focused on Freud’s alleged affair with his sister-in-law, and Jung’s alleged anti-Semitism.
I was reading about the relationship between Freud and Jung and two things came up that were not in the movie. The first is that Jung wrote that he felt Freud was having an affair with his wife’s younger sister, Minna Bernays.
Now, Jung didn’t say that until he was in his eighties. And people wonder, first of all, was he senile? Was he making it up? Because he had no proof. He basically said he walked into Freud’s apartment and could immediately tell that Freud was having an affair with his sister-in-law. And in that one shot of the Freud family, I do have the sister-in-law in there. And when you go into his apartment which is now a MUSEUM in Vienna, you do see that her (Minna’s) bedroom was right off their bedroom, and it’s kind of a strange structure but they did have limited space. When Minna’s husband died, they took her in. And she was undeniably a companion of Freud’s intellectually and they did travel together when his wife was taking care of the kids. Does that mean they were having a sexual affair? [Shrugs] But you also have to ask yourself was Jung just trying to balance the fact that everyone knew he had a mistress for forty years? Not wanting to allow Freud to have the moral upper hand, maybe Jung just had to besmirch him by saying this. We don’t really know, but it’s kind of amusing because right up to the end of his life, Jung was still battling with Freud.
in Vienna, you do see that her (Minna’s) bedroom was right off their bedroom, and it’s kind of a strange structure but they did have limited space. When Minna’s husband died, they took her in. And she was undeniably a companion of Freud’s intellectually and they did travel together when his wife was taking care of the kids. Does that mean they were having a sexual affair? [Shrugs] But you also have to ask yourself was Jung just trying to balance the fact that everyone knew he had a mistress for forty years? Not wanting to allow Freud to have the moral upper hand, maybe Jung just had to besmirch him by saying this. We don’t really know, but it’s kind of amusing because right up to the end of his life, Jung was still battling with Freud.
The other thing I read is that Freud openly accused Jung of being anti-Semitic.
Kiera Knightley in A Dangerous Method
Freud does talk about anti-Semitism in the movie. He says, “The fact that we’re all Jews is a problem.” And Jung naively says, “I don’t see what that has to do with it.” And that’s because, being a good Swiss German Christian bourgeois, he couldn’t imagine what it was like to live as a Jew in Vienna where anti-Semitism was encoded in law. Jews couldn’t be in THE MILITARYor in the government, there were many restrictions on Jews. Jews knew they were literally second-class citizens. Jung later did say things that were, in the context of his time, very common because genteel anti-Semitism was accepted. He said Freudian analysis only works on Jews and that Jews should dress differently so that we know who they are. From our perspective that sounds like anti-Semitism, but we have a different sensitivity to these things today because WWII showed us the danger of anti-Semitism. You will find Freudians who say, flat out, that Jung was anti-Semitic. But I think he would be shocked to hear people say that because I think, in his head, it wouldn’t register. Primarily, I think the split between Freud and Jung had to do with religion. Freud was an atheist. He said, we are what we are, and accepting what we are is the true road to health, to not pretend to be something else. And Jung said no, we can transcend what we are, we can become angelic, spiritually reborn. Jung went into a sort of mysticism as Freud thought he would. But whether Jung was an anti-Semite or not does not necessarily invalidate Jungian analysis.
or in the government, there were many restrictions on Jews. Jews knew they were literally second-class citizens. Jung later did say things that were, in the context of his time, very common because genteel anti-Semitism was accepted. He said Freudian analysis only works on Jews and that Jews should dress differently so that we know who they are. From our perspective that sounds like anti-Semitism, but we have a different sensitivity to these things today because WWII showed us the danger of anti-Semitism. You will find Freudians who say, flat out, that Jung was anti-Semitic. But I think he would be shocked to hear people say that because I think, in his head, it wouldn’t register. Primarily, I think the split between Freud and Jung had to do with religion. Freud was an atheist. He said, we are what we are, and accepting what we are is the true road to health, to not pretend to be something else. And Jung said no, we can transcend what we are, we can become angelic, spiritually reborn. Jung went into a sort of mysticism as Freud thought he would. But whether Jung was an anti-Semite or not does not necessarily invalidate Jungian analysis.
I was curious about the scenes that indicate that Freud was uncomfortable with Jung’s wealth. Like when Jung is in first class on the ship to America, while Freud is in second class.
Freud was inventing this new form of therapy and he had to figure out how he was going to make a living from that. How did he charge people, by the hour, by the session, how much should he charge? It was difficult to monetize this. You know, he had six children to support. He wanted to bond with Jung but there were huge differences between them, not only RELIGION, but Jung was independently wealthy without having to work for it. I think it was a bit disconcerting. But, yes, I mean if you go visit Jung’s villa…it’s definitely not Freud’s apartment in Vienna.
, but Jung was independently wealthy without having to work for it. I think it was a bit disconcerting. But, yes, I mean if you go visit Jung’s villa…it’s definitely not Freud’s apartment in Vienna.
No comments:
Post a Comment