A Dangerous Method

This is the story of Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein. A book was written about these people by John Kerr, and Christopher Hampton wrote in 1997 a screenplay based on the book and intended as a vehicle for Julia Roberts. This never came to fruition, and Christopher Hampton adapted his screenplay to a play, The Talking Cure, which had great success at the National Theatre in London, starring Ralph Fiennes and Johdi May. In 2002 David Cronenberg made, with Ralph Fiennes, the film Spider and, through his acquaintance with Fiennes, Cronenberg became interested in The Talking Cure. Christopher Hampton adapted his play back into a screenplay which became this film, A Dangerous Method. So - Is it a book? Is it a play? Is it a film? You decide.

Spielrein, played by Kiera Knightley, acting for all she's worth, was initially Jung's patient. The film recounts how she became his lover and subsequently became a psychiatrist. Jung was married with an increasing number of children, and whether there was ever a physical relationship between him and Spielrein is pure speculation, but it makes a good story. Jung is here played by the ubiquitous Michael Fassbender, and Freud is played by Vigo Mortensen. Freud in this film is really a spectator on Jung's antics, and these do lead to split between them because of Jung's deceptiveness.

This is a period film with some tendencies towards the worst of period films - idealisation of imagined past manners, immaculate interiors, beautifully-maintained old cars, scenes set in front of beautiful old buildings with immaculate grounds. etc. For Cronenberg this represents a considerable step towards the middle of the road. This film is dialogue-bound and not very cinematic. Worst of all, despite having been written by a respected playwright, it has some terrible lines. Cronenberg has said that he was drawn to this project. My only question is: what was he thinking?

I am not a fan of Keira Knightley but here she acquits herself well, with much effort and commitment. I couldn't understand why she was given a bath with her clothes still on, but I'm not worrying too much about that, although it was a bit disappointing. Mortensen has the best part as Freud while Fassbender's Jung seems young, one-dimensional and uninteresting. The story is really a romance dressed up in the paraphernalia of psychiatry and, although the film is not long, I found myself looking at my watch several times. There are some BDSM scenes which, I suppose, were useful when the trailer was made.

Rampart

This film embodies one of the raw essences that make me love cinema - it is hard-boiled and cynical in a tradition that goes back to Chandler and beyond, and to the best films noirs of the 1940s. It has wonderful cinematography that is simultaneously noirish yet very colourful and bright, contrasty, with burnt-out whites. It has an amazing cast, including Robin Wright, whose fan club I joined straight after seeing State of Grace, Ned Beatty, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Buscemi.

Co-written by its director Oren Moverman and James Ellroy, it is the story of a tough and cynical cop, Dave Brown, played by Woody Harrelson, in possibly the best part of his career. Womanising and filled with hate, he is torn between his two ex-wives, his daughters, and a crisis in his career brought on by an excess of violence. He is improbably self-aware and articulate as he copes with his superiors, seeming more savvy than them, and expressing the existential essence of the film. We are challenged to wonder whether he is in any way sympathetic and whether he is capable of redemption; whether he is producing the culture which he inhabits, or whether he is a product of it.

Moverman and his cinematographer, Bobby Bukowski, had a great time with a very mobile camera, achieving a noir style and conjuring many abstract images. There is one scene, towards the end, where Brown descends into a 'lower depth' of drugs and depravation where the film risks parody, but otherwise this is a treat for the movie-lover.

The Descendants

This is Alexander Payne's first film since he made sideways in 2004. It is an adaptation of the first novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings who collaborated closely with Payne on the film, even to the extent of being, along with members of his family, in the film.

This is, of course, a George Clooney film and he is excellent, playing an unhappy man coping with two daughters and wearing bad shirts, while his wife lay dying.

Some people have spoken of this film as a comedy but it is moving and tragic, yet laced with irony and humour in the way life can be for those who are sensitive to see it; and this is what Payne does so well.

Seeing this film made me think of Robert Redford, who was the previous generation's star of American cinema. Both Clooney and Redford are good-looking and serious, being politically engaged and directing films of their own. I like Redford but I'm now starting to think that I prefer by a small margin Clooney because of his modesty in taking unglamorous parts, and because he has made more angry and politically engaged films.

I think The Descendants stands up well as a George Clooney and as an Alexander Payne film.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

I enjoyed this film. It is well-made and thoughtful. The film starts with a young woman, Martha, played by Elizabeth Olsen, fleeing through the woods. She is escaping a backwoods commune that she has been living in. She is very distressed and is collected by her sister, Lucy, played by Sarah Paulson, and goes to live with her. Her sister is living a middle class life with her new British husband. The film cuts between Martha's life with her sister and flashbacks to the life she had on the commune.

The commune has its own belief system and new members are indoctrinated by the strong consensus of the members already there. The commune cultivates crops and dabbles in crime. There are many more women than men and the principal man, Patrick, played by John Hawkes, helps himself to the women as he sees fit. They feel honoured when they are chosen.

Martha, who is clearly a dropout, tries to adapt to her sister's life.

This is an honest, good and very well made film. I nevertheless thought that it has some shortcomings. Patrick's character is charming and devious. He is played by John Hawks who was previously in Winters Bone. Hawkes seems to be making a career of playing backwards types. If I had made the film I would've cast someone who is less in the ready-made mould of this type of character. The commune has all the characteristics - bizarre beliefs, amorality, sexual freedom - that someone like me, who knows nothing about it, has been led to assume that they have from various television programs. So nothing fresh there. While living with Lucy Martha behaves in ways that Lucy and her husband can't understand and are sometimes offended by. There are rows and Lucy tries hard to be kind and to accommodate her sister. I did feel that more could have been made of the contrast between Martha's alternative view of the world and Lucy and her husband's conventional middle-class view.

The film stopped abruptly and unexpectedly, leaving me unsatisfied.

The film is very well made with excellent acting and outstandingly good cinematography. I did wonder whether the things that happened after the film ended may not have been more interesting than the things that happened during it.