While watching A Dangerous Method, the thought that ran
through my mind, at least consciously, was "Is it possible for auteurs to produce
masterpieces in the world we live in; a world that doesn't particularly want
them and is not prepared to recognize them even if they did appear?" The only real way this could happen, (at least
in the English-speaking world), would be if men like Cronenberg and others of
his generation - Gilliam, De Palma, Coppola, Carpenter, Malick, Scorsese,
Spielberg, Lucas - were to retreat from all filmmaking trends of the past 30
years and make films as they did in the 70s.
Unfortunately, those of this group with the power to do what they want -
(Lucas, Scorsese, Spielberg) - appear to have no interest in doing this and
have been absorbed into the bland omni-style of Hollywood that they helped create. And those who do manage to make original
films - (Coppola, Malick, Gilliam) - find their work mostly unwelcome and
disparaged.
The point I'm slowly getting around to making is that even
though A Dangerous Method is a fine film, the hand of Cronenberg is felt but a
few times throughout its 99 minutes. Yes,
there is his extremely welcome formality and confident camerawork that is a
pleasure to watch, and yes, there is his long-held interest in parapsychology
and aberrant sexuality in the story itself, but something is still missing. With its period European setting and steadfast
loyalty to Christopher Hampton's pedestrian play, the film pulls Cronenberg
dangerously far into the territory of Masterpiece Theatre respectability. All of Cronenberg's features from Stereo
(1969) to Videodrome (1983) were grounded in a completely subversive
sensibility that had a finger to the pulse of contemporary society. While a focus on existential issues has remained
over the years, as in masterworks like Dead Ringers (1988), Naked Lunch (1991),
Crash (1996) and A History of Violence (2005), by this new film it has
gradually dwindled to the periphery along with the more borderline
horror/sci-fi elements that made Cronenberg's name. Up to now, this has been more than acceptable
because he was able to successfully fuse his vision with difficult source
material that he did not originate; (Burroughs, Ballard, etc.). Here, though, he comes off more like a stage
director hired to mount a handsome new production of Hampton's play. I would much rather have seen Cronenberg create
his own story about Freud, Jung and some of their more fascinating patients. All the elements are in place, including
excellent performances by Michael Fassbender as Jung and Viggo Mortensen (in
his third consecutive film for Cronenberg), as Freud, but the drama is so
sedate and stagy that Cronenberg has little to do but frame the endless reading
of letters in somewhat interesting angles.
Cronenberg left behind a career in biology in favor of cinema, but increasingly
his films are becoming less and less cinematic, populated with the kind of
pretty A-list actors - (Keira Knightly in this film, Robert Pattinson in the
forthcoming Cosmopolis) - who would have been too afraid for their reputations and
comfort to have considered appearing in Cronenberg's earlier films. Bottom line: A Dangerous Method is a good
film, but it's not the tour-de-force or testament film we so desperately need
from someone of Cronenberg's eminence.
Like I said, it may be that he feels no urgency to make such a film
anymore because no one would notice it or care.
No comments:
Post a Comment