Showing posts with label Keira Knightly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keira Knightly. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 February 2012

A Dangerous Method

We had a quite a few options for films this weekend, so I was going to pick one tonight and then my partner could pick one for tomorrow. To say I was disappointed with my choice would be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes it had Keira Knightly in it, which is always a flashing amber warning light but it was also directed by David Cronenberg, starred Viggo Mortensen and Michael Fassbender as well as being about Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. So it sounded good on paper.

Actually Keira, bless her, is far from the worst thing about this movie. In fact she has perhaps found her vocation, playing a mad person who likes a bit of a spanking. I can see it would have been the odd sort of role that awards committees love and she certainly put in the required amount of overacting to be considered, if only it had come in a decent film. Which 'A Dangerous Method' isn't.

It’s nicely shot, well made and reasonably well acted. It’s just a shame about the screenplay. The film is about the professional relationship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). Unfortunately too much of the film was taken up by discussions between these two men. These went pretty much how you'd expect discussions between two psychologists to go and you wouldn't really have wanted to sit in on that. Would you? Somehow I expected them to have jazzed it up, showed the back story, developed the characters etc etc.


I guess the spankings were there to liven things up but it was all a bit laughable really. Although not laughable enough to count as light relief. I suppose I best explain that there’s a third party in this professional relationship called Sabine Spielrein (Ms Knightly).

An insane Spielrein is sent to Jung’s clinic in Zurich for treatment, where he uses a new form of therapy known as the ‘talking cure’. Basically Jung sits behind his patient whilst they attempt to describe their problems to him. In her case, these turn out to be sexual fantasies generated by her father's ill treatment of her as a child. My diagnosis would have been that she was insecure and in need of attention but then I’m just the viewer here and not the psychologist.


As it turns out, I could have prescribed the same treatment Jung does but doubt I’d have got away with it. He didn’t think he’d get away with it either until a meeting with the maverick psychoanalyst\patient\mad man (delete as applicable) Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel). Gross convinces Jung that there’s only one remedy for her mixed up libido and, by the way mate, monogamy is for wimps.

So Jung gives Spielrein the attention she craves and the spankings via a prescription of regular sex, taken as often as needed, with him. Code of ethics? What’s that?

It does seems to work, Spielrein recovers and turns out to not be as stupid as she looks as she enrols in medical school. Where she becomes... another psychoanalyst. FFS. Meanwhile Jung takes his successful treatment method on to another patient.


So everyone is happy. Well except Jung’s wife Emma (Sarah Gadon) and even she didn't seem too bothered. Perhaps because, on the evidence provided, it seemed pretty crap sex anyway. In a clever parallel with the film itself, there is little passion or emotion on display. So she probably thought she was better off out of it.

Amidst all this 'excitement' are the insomnia curing discussions between Jung and Freud which involves a lot of reading of letters, which is hardly compelling viewing. Eventually their relationship deteriorates over a clash of ideologies.

Reading my review back it makes the film sound far more interesting than it was. It’s a weird film but sadly not remotely weird enough to be interesting. David Cronenberg made a name for himself with films about dark, controversial topics, so this seemed a perfect fit for him but it’s as tedious as a psychoanalysis session. I guess it was probably educational but only in the way an Open University broadcast would be. You have been warned.

Sunday, 9 September 2007

Atonement

Before we went my partner told me of her dilemma, whether to read the bloody book first or not because generally life's too short to read Ian McEwan. Personally after hearing what she has said about the ones she has read and after having seen Enduring Love, I have no plans to read any of them but will happily see the films.

In this case, DO NOT under any circumstances read the book first because it will totally ruin the film for you. You really do not want to know how it finishes in advance.

I had my reservations about going because of the casting of Keira Knightly and James McAvoy. Surely so much wet in one place will cause us all to drown under the sentimentality of the generic costume-drama formula. I was wrong; I should have had more faith in Mr McEwan and the director Joe Wright.

The McEvanisms are great, scenes are replayed from different perspectives, there's a touch of running the film backwards, and then huge time jumps forwards, even perhaps a touch of sideways. You'll either love it or hate it; strangely I kept up and loved it.

The first hour is brilliant. 13-year-old Briony Tallis misunderstands what she sees from her bedroom window when she sees her sister Cecilia (Knightly) dive into a fountain, a very deep one, as their housekeeper's son Robbie (McAvoy) watches.



Then when Robbie writes a letter to Cecilia, he gives it Briony to give to her sister but he gives her the wrong draft. Briony reads the rather 'direct' letter before delivering it.

Here we get a tip on how to pick up women. There's a key word in this letter and the film dramatically repeats it several times, letter by letter, just in case you missed it or in case anyone has covertly snuck their 14-year-old Daughter in to see the film. It's wonderfully shocking because the film had been so prim and proper up to that point.

However it seems that with our Keira the direct approach works best and Robbie must have been glad he didn't send her the intended traditional softly softly romantic letter after all. I was just disappointed that when she led him into the library and leant back against the desk she didn't just lie back and say 'go on then Robbie'. Actions speak louder than words and all that but sadly no. Mind you before you could say 'kiss my ...' he had her climbing the bookcase in ecstasy. I am taking notes. Worryingly Daughter probably was too. Unfortunately Briony witnesses this rather strange love scene, which confirms her belief that her sister is the victim of a mad sexual predator.



Keira reckons she may become famous for the earlier fountain scene where you can see her bush through her wet clothes. Strangely this is noticeable when viewed from the sister's window but not when the scene is repeated close-up. Lost your bottle eh Mr Wright? Anyhow Keira is wrong; the scene she will be famous for is the one where the housekeeper's son did it with conviction in the library.

Then when Briony's friend and cousin, Lola is attacked and presumably raped, as a childish act of revenge, she lies to the police and wrongly accuses Robbie. The police believe her, and Robbie is imprisoned and thus separated from Cecilia.

After such a whirlwind of a start, the film then falls a bit flat. We move on four years and Robbie is in the army to attain early release from prison. He pines to get back to Cecilia, who is now working as a nurse in London. Meanwhile Briony, who has now realised her mistake, is trying to atone for it.



Some of the scenes in France and particularly at Dunkirk (shot in Redcar), are overlong and did not appear to add much to the film. It would have been better to have spent more time wallowing in Briony's guilt and on the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia and how this affected the family etc but I don't know if the book deals with this or not.



It picks up again towards the end. Robbie confronts Briony about what she's done, his anger causes her to cower in the corner, terrified he will strike her. I almost stand up and for the second time I want Keira to say to McAvoy 'Go on then Robbie', lets see you put her through that window but sadly no he doesn't.

At the end Vanessa Redgrave appears as an elderly Briony and tidies up all the loose ends. Not. Instead she delivers an unexpected twist that had all the girls in the audience reaching for the Kleenex and all the boys muttering 'Cool' under their breath. It's all so Ian McEwan. Ultimately she finds a way of telling a second lie to try and atone for the first, if only in her own mind.

Overall, a mostly riveting film full of young British talent with a very clever story. Even old Keira Flat Chest was not as wooden as usual and didn't do anything wrong but then all she had to do was smoke, look wistful and shag McAvoy. Not terribly taxing and her accent seemed all Middlesex girl pretending to be an American actress playing an English girl.

McAvoy was actually rather good, although he did seem to leave his accent somewhere in the French countryside. Although for me he'll never top being strung up by his nipples in The Last King Of Scotland. His finest moment.

The star though was Saoirse Ronan who was outstanding as the young Briony.

I don't like a happy ending and this one spoilt the film a touch for me. Having them frolicking by their dream cottage that they never shared in real life was over the top. As were scenes like seeing Cecilia floating artistically beneath the underground.

The film will surely pick up Oscar nominations:- best film, director Joe Wright, actor (James McAvoy), supporting actress (Saoirse Ronan), editing, cinematography, the haunting score, which reverberates throughout the film with the rhythmic tapping of typewriter keys... blimey they might even give Keira a mention.

Obviously Knightly/McAvoy fans will like this film no matter what. For everyone else it'll depends on whether you 'get' Ian McEwan or not. I rather liked it. What's next Ian?