Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts
Monday, March 13, 2017
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Just watched...
...David Cronenberg's 2011 film "A Dangerous Method."
Freud and Jung. It seems like the men and their difficult relationship were and still are examples of how different we as human beings can be. Only Freud with his personality type and experiences could have created psychoanalysis, and only Jung, with his own personality type and experiences could have created analytical psychology.
Adapted from the 2002 stage play "The Talking Cure," which was in turn adapted from the non-fiction book A MOST DANGEROUS METHOD: THE STORY OF JUNG, FREUD, AND SABINA SPIELRIEN by John Kerr, Cronenberg's film captures a sort of short-of-breath tightness that creates anxiety and tension. As a film device, it works quite well. Of course Cronenberg started out as a gore director, then horror, then horror psychology, and now he is delving into a kind of dark psychology that clearly descends from his past films. This tightness could have something to do with the fact that this film adaptation comes not only from a stage play, but that the screenwriter, Christopher Hammond, is also the playwright. On a stage, there is no luxury of expansive locales, no enormous cast of featured actors and extras (generally speaking), and no sweeping sense of story. We are focused on a few places and a few individuals.
In this case, we are focused on Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Jung's first patient, Sabina Spielrien. The basis of the film is rooted firmly in fact. After treating Sabina for a while, Jung wrote to Freud in order to consult about Sabina and the psychoanalytical techniques Jung was using. They corresponded about Sabina's case and struck up a friendship. Freud considered Jung to be the heir apparent to psychoanalysis. But as the two continued to correspond and eventually meet, their differences in their personalities and experiences became more apparent to each of them, ultimately resulting in a contentious split. During this time, Jung "cured" Sabina of her emotional issues. She wished to be a psychologist, and with Jung's encouragement, she became his student and eventually his colleague.
But this is where things get a little dicey. It is now widely held that Jung and Spielrien had a sexual relationship. Her letters, discovered in 1977, mention such an affair. Letters between Jung and Freud also mention Jung's "indiscretion." But Hampton and Cronenberg do what Peter Schaffer did in "Amadeus." Did Salieri poison Mozart? There is no evidence to support or deny such a claim, but the play puts forth intriguing suppositions. As does "A Dangerous Method." Did Jung take advantage of an unbalanced young woman? Did he have a sado-masochistic affair with a patient? These are details we do not know. And I must say that although I understand the dramatic and artistic license that is being taken here, and do appreciate it on an artistic level, I regret that it colors the life, work, and legacy of Carl Jung. I will confess that I am a Jungian at heart; Jungian beliefs most closely match my own. And the fantastic work that Jung did not only in the realm of psychology, but in the realm of literature, the arts, of the study of global cultures and religions, and human development itself is a little overshadowed by this dark--and at times, lurid--fiction. The film leaves off at the beginning of Jung's personal breakdown and the start of his greatest work into the world of the unconscious. I am aware that this film is not a straight biography of Jung, but it leaves me wishing it were.
Having said that, the film itself, for what it is, works well. The period sets, costumes, and details are correct. As I mentioned earlier, this is a tale of anxiety and tension and Cronenberg directs it with an appropriate sense of anxiety and tension. He also gets the best out of his actors. Michael Fassbender plays Jung with a restrained subtlety and Viggo Mortensen plays Freud with a quiet prickliness. Here are images of the originals and their film counterparts:
But special mention goes to the talented Keira Knightley for her intense, agonizing portrayal of Sabina Spielrien: agonizing for viewers and for Knightley since she had to occupy a very dark, exhausting place for the duration of this project. Knightley had the unenviable task of being mentally unstable but all the while making complete sense. Her storyline and performance touch on issues of child abuse, sexual abuse, and the belittlement of women during that period. Spielrien became a psychologist despite--or perhaps because of--her mental instabilities. But more than that, she became a psychologist at a time when women were not thought to have the brain power to do much than play a pretty tune on the piano or to do some embroidery. Spielrien might deserve a film of her own.
Recommend? Yes, it is worth seeing for the performances and for a bit of historical background on the birth of psychology. But if you are not familiar with him, please do yourself a favor and discover the rich legacy of Carl Jung.
http://adangerousmethod-themovie.com/
Freud and Jung. It seems like the men and their difficult relationship were and still are examples of how different we as human beings can be. Only Freud with his personality type and experiences could have created psychoanalysis, and only Jung, with his own personality type and experiences could have created analytical psychology.
Adapted from the 2002 stage play "The Talking Cure," which was in turn adapted from the non-fiction book A MOST DANGEROUS METHOD: THE STORY OF JUNG, FREUD, AND SABINA SPIELRIEN by John Kerr, Cronenberg's film captures a sort of short-of-breath tightness that creates anxiety and tension. As a film device, it works quite well. Of course Cronenberg started out as a gore director, then horror, then horror psychology, and now he is delving into a kind of dark psychology that clearly descends from his past films. This tightness could have something to do with the fact that this film adaptation comes not only from a stage play, but that the screenwriter, Christopher Hammond, is also the playwright. On a stage, there is no luxury of expansive locales, no enormous cast of featured actors and extras (generally speaking), and no sweeping sense of story. We are focused on a few places and a few individuals.
In this case, we are focused on Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Jung's first patient, Sabina Spielrien. The basis of the film is rooted firmly in fact. After treating Sabina for a while, Jung wrote to Freud in order to consult about Sabina and the psychoanalytical techniques Jung was using. They corresponded about Sabina's case and struck up a friendship. Freud considered Jung to be the heir apparent to psychoanalysis. But as the two continued to correspond and eventually meet, their differences in their personalities and experiences became more apparent to each of them, ultimately resulting in a contentious split. During this time, Jung "cured" Sabina of her emotional issues. She wished to be a psychologist, and with Jung's encouragement, she became his student and eventually his colleague.
But this is where things get a little dicey. It is now widely held that Jung and Spielrien had a sexual relationship. Her letters, discovered in 1977, mention such an affair. Letters between Jung and Freud also mention Jung's "indiscretion." But Hampton and Cronenberg do what Peter Schaffer did in "Amadeus." Did Salieri poison Mozart? There is no evidence to support or deny such a claim, but the play puts forth intriguing suppositions. As does "A Dangerous Method." Did Jung take advantage of an unbalanced young woman? Did he have a sado-masochistic affair with a patient? These are details we do not know. And I must say that although I understand the dramatic and artistic license that is being taken here, and do appreciate it on an artistic level, I regret that it colors the life, work, and legacy of Carl Jung. I will confess that I am a Jungian at heart; Jungian beliefs most closely match my own. And the fantastic work that Jung did not only in the realm of psychology, but in the realm of literature, the arts, of the study of global cultures and religions, and human development itself is a little overshadowed by this dark--and at times, lurid--fiction. The film leaves off at the beginning of Jung's personal breakdown and the start of his greatest work into the world of the unconscious. I am aware that this film is not a straight biography of Jung, but it leaves me wishing it were.
Having said that, the film itself, for what it is, works well. The period sets, costumes, and details are correct. As I mentioned earlier, this is a tale of anxiety and tension and Cronenberg directs it with an appropriate sense of anxiety and tension. He also gets the best out of his actors. Michael Fassbender plays Jung with a restrained subtlety and Viggo Mortensen plays Freud with a quiet prickliness. Here are images of the originals and their film counterparts:
But special mention goes to the talented Keira Knightley for her intense, agonizing portrayal of Sabina Spielrien: agonizing for viewers and for Knightley since she had to occupy a very dark, exhausting place for the duration of this project. Knightley had the unenviable task of being mentally unstable but all the while making complete sense. Her storyline and performance touch on issues of child abuse, sexual abuse, and the belittlement of women during that period. Spielrien became a psychologist despite--or perhaps because of--her mental instabilities. But more than that, she became a psychologist at a time when women were not thought to have the brain power to do much than play a pretty tune on the piano or to do some embroidery. Spielrien might deserve a film of her own.
Recommend? Yes, it is worth seeing for the performances and for a bit of historical background on the birth of psychology. But if you are not familiar with him, please do yourself a favor and discover the rich legacy of Carl Jung.
http://adangerousmethod-themovie.com/
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Just watched...
...Ridley Scott's newest film "Prometheus."
I have been waiting to see “Prometheus” since I saw the first trailer many, many months ago, and I will say that the final product in some ways went beyond my expectations, but in other ways, it just met them. That is not to say that the film is in any way disappointing. The story is certainly engaging, but perhaps because it covers some territory that has been around for decades (the CHARIOTS OF THE GODS idea that primitive man was visited by alien astronauts from other planets), it felt somewhat familiar.
Of course it is actually a prequel to the “Alien” series, but this film certainly stands on its own as a story. There is no need to know any of the previous “Alien” lore… but the experience might prove a bit richer if you have that background. The film provides some answers to questions in the first “Alien,” and finally provides explanations and gives us the basis for what came next. But as I said, this is a stand-alone story that can be enjoyed solely for itself. “Prometheus” does not concern itself so much with face-hugging, killer aliens and action-hero-type antics. This is a film that tackles, as well as a major-studio Hollywood film can (they still want to make money, afterall), the large, existential questions that have bothered us since we could ponder such things: Where do we come from? Why are we here?
I don’t want to talk too much about the story because to do so would be to give away plot points that deserve to be experienced fresh. I will say however that the art direction is marvelous and in particular the speculative technology that was designed and built for “Prometheus” is absolutely beautiful. The human technology is gorgeous; I hope we have such extensive use of holographic visuals before 2089, so I can be around to see it! And the alien technology is stunning: it is a fantastic mix of mechanical and bio-technology that seems possible (especially with a recent announcement from Stanford about a team of bioengineers who have created rewritable digital data storage in DNA), but, at this point in our development as a species, so far out of our reach and… well, alien. Arthur C. Clarke did once say that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
The cast is uniformly good too. Noomi Rapace is convincing and empathetic, Charlize Theron is icy and commanding, and the rest of the cast were certainly up for the task (I must take a moment to say that although he was perfectly fine, I feel badly for actor Sean Harris who was a tiny bit wasted: he did not have much to do but go from surly to really angry). But for me, the standout was the wonderful Michael Fassbender as the android David. To play the maddeningly calm robotic A.I., Fassbender looked to Sean Young’s performance as Rachel in the seminal Scott film “Blade Runner,” along with inspiration from HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and David Bowie as “The Man Who Fell To Earth.” His performance is subtle, fascinating, and pitch perfect, with inflections of envy and malice.
Finally, it has sequel (what do you call a sequel to a prequel?) written all over it. Although this story is not a cliff-hanger and is finalized, there are elements that will carry on. I can't wait to see what comes next. A tantalizing secret is dropped after the final credits: what happens on 10/11/12? (Could it be simply—and disappointingly—the DVD release?)
Recommend? Yes, without hesitation. “Alien” fans will love it. Sci-fi fans will love it. And anyone who has a curious mind will enjoy it.
http://www.prometheus-movie.co.uk/
http://www.projectprometheus.com/
I have been waiting to see “Prometheus” since I saw the first trailer many, many months ago, and I will say that the final product in some ways went beyond my expectations, but in other ways, it just met them. That is not to say that the film is in any way disappointing. The story is certainly engaging, but perhaps because it covers some territory that has been around for decades (the CHARIOTS OF THE GODS idea that primitive man was visited by alien astronauts from other planets), it felt somewhat familiar.
Of course it is actually a prequel to the “Alien” series, but this film certainly stands on its own as a story. There is no need to know any of the previous “Alien” lore… but the experience might prove a bit richer if you have that background. The film provides some answers to questions in the first “Alien,” and finally provides explanations and gives us the basis for what came next. But as I said, this is a stand-alone story that can be enjoyed solely for itself. “Prometheus” does not concern itself so much with face-hugging, killer aliens and action-hero-type antics. This is a film that tackles, as well as a major-studio Hollywood film can (they still want to make money, afterall), the large, existential questions that have bothered us since we could ponder such things: Where do we come from? Why are we here?
I don’t want to talk too much about the story because to do so would be to give away plot points that deserve to be experienced fresh. I will say however that the art direction is marvelous and in particular the speculative technology that was designed and built for “Prometheus” is absolutely beautiful. The human technology is gorgeous; I hope we have such extensive use of holographic visuals before 2089, so I can be around to see it! And the alien technology is stunning: it is a fantastic mix of mechanical and bio-technology that seems possible (especially with a recent announcement from Stanford about a team of bioengineers who have created rewritable digital data storage in DNA), but, at this point in our development as a species, so far out of our reach and… well, alien. Arthur C. Clarke did once say that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
The cast is uniformly good too. Noomi Rapace is convincing and empathetic, Charlize Theron is icy and commanding, and the rest of the cast were certainly up for the task (I must take a moment to say that although he was perfectly fine, I feel badly for actor Sean Harris who was a tiny bit wasted: he did not have much to do but go from surly to really angry). But for me, the standout was the wonderful Michael Fassbender as the android David. To play the maddeningly calm robotic A.I., Fassbender looked to Sean Young’s performance as Rachel in the seminal Scott film “Blade Runner,” along with inspiration from HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and David Bowie as “The Man Who Fell To Earth.” His performance is subtle, fascinating, and pitch perfect, with inflections of envy and malice.
Finally, it has sequel (what do you call a sequel to a prequel?) written all over it. Although this story is not a cliff-hanger and is finalized, there are elements that will carry on. I can't wait to see what comes next. A tantalizing secret is dropped after the final credits: what happens on 10/11/12? (Could it be simply—and disappointingly—the DVD release?)
Recommend? Yes, without hesitation. “Alien” fans will love it. Sci-fi fans will love it. And anyone who has a curious mind will enjoy it.
http://www.prometheus-movie.co.uk/
http://www.projectprometheus.com/
Friday, December 2, 2011
BEAUTY: Man--Michael Fassbender
Michael Fassbender.
His newest film, "Shame," is out today in limited theatrical release in the U.S.
*sigh*
http://michael-fassbender-online.net/
His newest film, "Shame," is out today in limited theatrical release in the U.S.
*sigh*
http://michael-fassbender-online.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
