by Victoria Potenza, Staff Writer

It seems to me the measure of the true perversity of the human race, that one of its very few reliably pleasurable activities should be the subject of so much hysteria and repression.

I watched this film several months ago with the intent of writing about it then. Instead, I have let A Dangerous Method bounce around in my head for quite some time. One of the reasons for that that is this is my first time writing about a non-horror or horror-adjacent Cronenberg film. The director's slow transition from horror to drama-driven narratives has always fascinated me. Especially now, when we wait with bated breath for Crimes of the Future, his return to the horror/sci-fi genre. I was especially fascinated with A Dangerous Method because of my personal connection. My Masters was on the history of women and mental health care in the United States, and so watching women go through the process of being misdiagnosed and mistreated always puts me on edge. But after going through so many of his films, I trust Cronenberg. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised by how, from a sex and gender perspective, this particular film is very tied to Cronenberg’s ideas we has seen through much of his earlier work. For this reason alone, I am surprised at how little this film is talked about in the larger scope of his filmography. Stripped of the blood and guts of his early films, A Dangerous Method is still steeped in the ideas and themes that Cronenberg has worked through.

A Dangerous Method, adapted from the stage play,  is a historical biopic that focuses on the ever changing relationship between Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Sabina Spielrein. The film opens with Sabina Spielrein (Kiera Knightley) diagnosed as hysterical and sent to Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) to undergo treatment. This case creates a bond between Jung and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortenson) as they continuously share their thoughts and ideas on the case. Eventually these relationships become more complicated; Sabina and Jung begin a sadomasochistic relationship. This relationship changes them both, forcing Jung to grapple with his morals and making Sabine more interested in becoming a psychoanalyst herself. As Cronenberg puts it, this film is an intellectual menage trois between these main characters that profoundly affects all of their lives. 

In an interview about the film from Indiewire he speaks to the the roots of hysteria and the historical oppression of women:

The word hysteria comes from the Greek word that means uterus, and it was considered to be a disease of women, and in fact they used to remove the uteruses of women in order to cure this disease.  Which I think now we might see as resulting from the repression of women in terms of their intellect and their sexuality, so it’s a complex thing.  But I can say that Keira’s performance, we felt, was rather subdued compared with the reality of what her symptoms actually were.

Considering the time period and what Sabina goes through, it is incredible how much agency her character ends up having. While it seems that she is simply the glue holding Freud and Jung together, she uses her experiences with these men to her benefit as she goes on to medical school and eventually becomes their colleague. Her unique perspective is a fascinating counterbalance between the two men.

This is the third film of Cronenberg’s that seems to explore dysfunctional thrupples along with Crash and Dead Ringers. More so, it feels like a threesome only exists to bring the men closer together and for them to sublimate their own queer affection for each other. I do not necessarily know if this is Cronenberg’s doing or if I simply want every film to be a secret gay movie, either way it seems that this happening three times is enough for it to be an interesting cross section of his filmography. In Dead Ringers, the brothers simply cannot explore this love and in Crash it is more that the men have a harder time exploring this sexual hangup than they do getting turned on by car crashes. It is Sabina that says something particularly interesting in this regard “I'm saying perhaps true sexuality demands the destruction of the ego.” Destruction of the ego might just be the biggest hurdle for these men when it comes to grappling with their own sexual hang ups and experimenting with wha they truly want. 

Through these three main characters and side characters like Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel), we delve into many of the ideas surrounding sexuality at the time. Their conversations and debates in this realm are not dissimilar to ones we still have today. In one scene, Sabina is conversing with Jung she mentions her awareness that she has very little sexual experience considering she is studying psychoanalysis, in response Jung says “Law students are not normally expected to rob banks.” The fact that Jung compares sex to a criminal act is fascinating considering his profession. This simple remarks highlights Jung’s issues around confronting his own sexuality and kinks. The lack of awareness around his repressed sexuality ultimately causes him much pain throughout the film especially in regards to his relationship with Sabina.

In his Indiewire interview, Cronenberg goes on to say that:

There’s a voyeuristic element involved in S&M and one of the reasons that I had her looking in a mirror is because these people were always observing themselves.  There’s no way they would have any sexual experience without writing down what their responses were.  So that voyeuristic element was from them as well.  It was the nature of this new creature, this psychoanalytic beast that they were creating, that they would watch what they were doing as human beings, because you are of course your own first subject if you are a psychoanalyst.

The characters in this film not only have to deal with their own sexuality, but they have to explore their interest in sex in two different ways; sex as something to be studied and sex as something that is meant to be experienced and enjoyed. As Otto Gross puts it “I think Freud's obsession with sex probably has a great deal to do with the fact that he never gets any.” Gross more than anyone wants to experience sex and encourages his colleagues to do the same. While discussing Jung’s attraction to Sabine he mentions the idea that pleasure is never simple, to which Gross explains that “Of course it is. Until we decide to complicate it. What my father call maturity, what I call surrender”

Even Freud has his curiosity limitations, he does not want to deal with anything outside the bounds of his comfort level, a pretty uptight response considering his expertise. On the other hand Jung seems more interested in at least exploring S&M sex with Sabina, but struggles when it comes to grappling with how that plays into his identity as a father and husband. Both of them are stuck whether they believe it or not and I believe it is this that causes them to pick apart the other when it comes to each others hang ups. 

As in many Cronenberg films, women seem to have an easier time exploring their sexuality. Whether it be Nicki Brand in Videodrome exploring the bounds of pleasure and pain, Helen Remington in Crash exploring with men, women, and cars, or Claire Niveau in Dead Ringers looking for increasingly extreme sex play. While Sabina is the one who starts out as the patient and the “hysterical woman” she is the one who is most open to exploring the bounds of her sexuality. In one scene with Jung he asked her if men aren’t supposed to be the ones who make the initiative in sex to which she repsonds “don’t you think there is something male in every woman and female in every man? Or should be?” This comment feels very tied to much of the themes we see throughout Cronenberg’s filmography. While this film is not within the same genre, its characters are still exploring and theorizing about their bodies, gender, and sexuality. Sabina reflecting on the fusion of man and women, even if only in the mind is something that comes up frequently. This puts her right along Cronenberg’s other female protagonists. 

This film should be talked about more in the greater conversation of Cronenberg’s work, especially when it comes to the themes around sex and gender. Cronenberg finds very genre specific ideas to work through even in his historical drama which is fascinating to see. I am interested in how this might reflect into the other later works of his career. I even find some of the ideas in this film very much tied to his son’s film Possessor, in which the lead, Tasya Vos, finds pleasure in becoming other people, especially the man she is with throughout most of the film. I hope to find that there is more themes like this to derive from late stage Cronenberg.