Cinematic Analysis: Formalism and Psychoanalysis in Cronenberg
An expert critique of David Cronenberg’s transition from postmodern surrealism to objective psychological drama. This review examines the technical-linguistic shift in the filmmaker’s late career and the "technological nightmares" of his foundational 20th-century works.
R. Daniele / S. Bacon
10/8/20114 min read
David Cronenberg – A Dangerous Method
The subject of this intervention is David Cronenberg's latest film, A Dangerous Method (Ref. 1), a European and Canadian production released in theaters—as previously noted in our related article—on September 30th, the same day as the remake of Let Me In (Ref. 2). As we have already observed, this film, while technically impeccable and shot with masterful, perfected technique, no longer shares much with the Cronenberg who historically initiated and developed cinematographic postmodernism in the final three decades of the twentieth century—a movement whose other undeniable face is represented by David Lynch (a filmmaker whose historical vision, conversely, remains uncompromised by his more recent filmography) (Ref. 3).
As mentioned, this latest film, to be framed within high-level contemporary cinema, follows an original and organic path for the Canadian director. It continues the line undertaken recently, starting with A History of Violence (2005)—a style that is, so to speak, less Canadian and even less "Cronenbergian," almost more American, yet still a contemporary psychological drama.
The film's synopsis is widely available and is based on John Kerr’s book A Most Dangerous Method. The title, in both the book and the film, refers to the danger implicit in an analytical method based on the analyst's participation in the patient's pain to the point of transferring it into themselves.
What we distance ourselves from is the common trope suggesting that Cronenberg is engaged today, as he was then, in analyzing the impervious paths of the human intellect—whether from the "outside" (referring to his historical cinema) or from the "inside" (referring to his recent work). This link between the two types of cinema by the same author seems superficial and critically unfounded, as the analysis of the human mind is not the peculiar characteristic of either period. In the recent production, and specifically in this latest film, this notion is confused with the film's themes, whereas the narration is impeccably objective and detached. The analysis of the human mind is not the object of a reflection conducted through the film; rather, it is the object of its story, whose protagonists are Carl Gustav Jung, Sigmund Freud, and a singular patient of the former. From the perspective of film analysis, the story is merely one level of discourse, while the technical-linguistic and aesthetic features are, conversely, the determining factors. Therefore, the film, as a medium of authorial expression, embodies a precise description that aims above all to show its absolute objectivity.
Essentiality and elegance are thus the hallmarks of the direction, as well as every other aspect of the film—from screenplay to editing, from production design to costumes. Given Cronenberg's history, these choices seem dictated by a desire to demonstrate technical proficiency—a "stylistic choice of manner"—rather than the unconditional artistic expression of the historical Cronenberg. Furthermore, what we have termed "psychological drama" refers to the observation of psychological problems within small groups: the family in A History of Violence (2005), the gangster-hero in Eastern Promises (2007), and the analysts in the film currently under review—all set against the backdrop of contemporary society (Ref. 5).
The films preceding this one, with Spider (2002) as a turning point, present strong authorial reflections evident in every aspect, strictly connected to the translation of themes from an originally objective nature to a completely different, surreal, and fantastic level. Clearly, the current film does not function this way; in it, historical data takes precedence over the technical-linguistic and aesthetic characteristics for which Cronenberg’s cinema is studied worldwide. These attributes are instead ascribed to the narrated story and its subjects of historical interest. It should be noted that the final traces of what we defined as the "translation between real and unreal levels" are found in A History of Violence (2005) and disappear entirely thereafter.
Conversely, Cronenberg’s twentieth-century cinema holds an undeniable historical-critical importance regarding its technical-linguistic features and the reflection conducted through the medium of cinema on the relationship between man and his reality/unreality. In that context, his nightmares were connected to a technological and mechanistic world that became increasingly imposing from the 1970s onward. There, the reference to the human mind was certain, but not assimilable to a mere psycho-pathological interpretation, as extensively shown by critical bibliography (Ref. 4).
Ultimately, an interpretation perhaps suggested by "good old Cronenberg" exists if one admits that the narrative is connected to a distrust of psychoanalysis as a science. Jung eventually descends into a life of duplicity and pettiness, and the only surviving analyst after Freud’s death is the former patient who, during the film, transitions from being highly unbalanced to the seductress of her doctor, and finally to a practicing analyst herself. From the narrative, we infer the following: the analyst is a figure who is either not up to the task (Jung) or is themselves the product and origin of a pathology (the patient). [S. Bacon / R. Daniele]
Related Articles: CINEMA: LET ME IN (2011.10.01)
References:
1. http://www.adangerousmethod-themovie.com/
2. http://www.letmein-movie.com/
3. http://davidlynch.com/ (web archive at the time), and the actual: http://davidlynch.com/
4. Alberto Artese, David Cronenberg: la rabbia della forma, Rimini: Comune, 1987; Enrico Bisi, Dead ringers, l'implosione nel cinema di David Cronenberg, Torino, Universita degli studi, 2001; Valeria Borello, Il corpo nel cinema di David Cronenberg, Torino, Universita degli studi, 1999; Gianni Canova, David Cronenberg, Il castoro cinema. 1993; Michele Canosa (a cura di ), Il cinema di David Cronenberg, la bellezza interiore, Recco, Le Mani, 1996; Riccardo Dalle Luche - Alessandra Barontini, Transfusioni, saggio di psicopatologia dal cinema di David Cronenberg; Fabrizio Liberti, David Cronenberg, dal cinema della mutazione all'horror esistenziale, Roma, S. Sorbini, 1995; Elisa Mangili, Videodrome (1982) di David Cronenberg, Pavia, Universita degli studi, 1994; Marcello Pecchioli, Effetto Cronenberg, metacritica per un cinema delle mutazioni, Bologna, Pendragon, 1994; Paolo Vernaglione, David Cronenberg, Napoli, Ed. Scientifiche Italiane, 1995 [http://www.davidcronenberg.de/].
5. A reference for this kind of filmography: http://www.movieplayer.it/personaggi/david-cronenberg_532/
