MovieChat Forums > A Dangerous Method (2011) Discussion > From a person in the psychological field

From a person in the psychological field

posted 12 years ago by hoochiemoochie
40 replies | jump to latest

When I finished this movie and considered that IMDB has it at a 6.7 I was taken aback. As a person in the field of psychology I thought it was wonderful. It was intriguing and compelling. I loved how the movie was driven by dialogue and acting because that is a rare thing in film nowadays. I was never bored as Jung and Freud discussed their opinions, methods, and differences throughout the film.

Maybe this is the kind of movie that can only be fully appreciated by those with interest in this field. I'm not saying a person can't enjoy it if they don't have interest in psychology but I don't believe they will be able to fully appreciate it. Also it is important to note that I am not saying that every person involved in psychology will love the film.

Finally, I realize that 6.7 is not a bad score, but it should be at least a 7.5 in my opinion. I rounded up and gave it an 8 but it is a solid 7.5 for me and it is baffling that it is not at least a 7 on this site considering the excellent acting, great story, interesting dialogue, etc.

[–] urbisoler-1 12 years ago

The late Philip Wylie (see Generation of Vipers, among others) never graduated from Princeton. Nevertheless, he studied psychology, knew and interpreted Carl Jung in several major works. He was taken to task by Columbia University eggheads who, as usual, think they know it all and an upstart like Wylie should stick to his "girlie" books that began his literary carer. Dr Jung thought otherwise. With an appreciative letter from Dr Jung in his arsenal he summariy dismissd the liberal professors as arrogant elitists. Wylie was forever underestimated.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KatzMeowz 12 years ago

I just can't understand why anyone in REAL psychology would put any store in this field beyond vague historical interest. Psychoanalysis is pretty much treated at complete bunk by most psychologists and those who study psychology.

I gave it 1 star for pretentious psychoanalytic babble and Knightly's jutting jaw and skinny arm contortions!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Psychology =/= psychoanalysis. So it's, almost, like saying theists and scientists debunk each other. So what? They don't agree. That's it.

You need quite clearly to learn the differentiations of the 'psychological' world before you will be able to discuss, in any credible way, what this film presents.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

To say that a movie about psychoanalysis has little to do with psychology is false

Ah, but I didn't say that. Of course both are psychological! The person I posted was speaking as though Psychoanalysis and Psychology are interchangeable. They're not and as each evolved became increasingly at odds.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

So what did your statement 'to say that ...', which I quoted, mean?

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

No. It would have been better had I written to whom or what were you addressing that statement. You posted it in a reply to me but say it wasn't addressed to me, so I'm a bit confused as to what or to who this statement is speaking.

I believe, sir, you're making an assumption about the meaning of those words that isn't contained in the words themselves. That's your deal.

Given you didn't know what I meant I think this remark is filled with its own assumptions and a bit rich, so-to-speak.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mehki_Girl 12 years ago

No, it was just a badly written and badly directed movie...

[–] Davole45 12 years ago

I completely disagree with you. I'm not in the field of psychology, but the subject matter interests me (I'm a med student with biology undergrad if that matters). Though the movie is dialogue heavy, none of the conversations of opinions, methods, etc... were very well developed. Rather, you just got the main points without any justifications. I think the reason it bored me while entertained you is because you knew the things that I was searching for in the movie already. I gave it a 5 for these reasons.

[–] okmarzo 12 years ago

I'm not in the field of psychology either but I have read many writings of Freud, Jung and as well as many other philosophers. This film was indeed underrated, perceived inaccurately and misunderstood.

Many people feel as though all the 'talking' they do in the film leads to nowhere. But the point behind their debates, discussions shows us the obvious disagreements that lead to their falling out.

As a filmmaker, the film was beautifully shot, acting was great and well written. Really enjoyed it. I gave it an 8 as well.

[–] wicked_nessa620 11 years ago

i think there should be a disclaimer for this film, being; do not watch unless you are heavily versed in freudian theory, aware of hysteria, and aware of splitting of freud's "students" into their own area. not to mention being able to stomach and understand S&M.

i really loved this film as a psych student with a heavy interest in freud and trauma.

i can see other's criticisms as a lack of knowledge. i would be bored if i didn't all ready know about the psycho-sexual stages of development, the id, ego, super-ego, the differences between unconscious, subconscious, and conscious...the electra complex, transference, counter transference, etc.
to someone who doesn't know the basis of freudian theory it would appear the conversations lead to no where.

also, hysteria in freud's time was VASTLY different than what we today know as being "hysterical". i believe that's where the criticism of keria's "over-acting" comes from...because people actually don't even know what she's portraying to begin with.

and to anyone who says psychoanalysis is discredited just needs to be slapped. there would be NO TALK THERAPY without freud so next time you want to talk about your problems thank him because otherwise we'd all be hysterical in the sense that the sabrina character was.

[–] keykeyx100000 11 years ago

My boss suggested it to me. He is a therapist. His wife is a social worker. I'm a therapist. We all loved it.

Perhaps it's easier to enjoy knowing a little more about the history of the characters. Not sure..

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mary_Jane_Abba-Zaba 10 years ago

I loved how the movie was driven by dialogue and acting because that is a rare thing in film nowadays.

Same here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that can't appreciate these things. They don't want an intelligent film that makes them think, they want something easy to follow, preferably something that overloads them with visual stimulation. I can't say I am surprised by the IMDB rating, and various reviews. Most of his films don't get the praise they deserve.