I had been looking forward to seeing this film, with an interest in the subject matter that bridges both the personal and professional. It was good, but hardly life changing and I won't be ordering the DVD. Whilst the performances were pretty good, and the script at times rather amusing (though a psychotherapy training is probably helpful here) there seemed to be something indefinable missing from the storyline and the characters weren't, I thought, developed to their full potential which left me wanting more - of what, I'm not entirely sure.
The film centres upon the relationship between Jung and Freud, and the dangers of the 'talking cure' to the hysteria they come into contact with amongst their clinical population. Their correspondence, growing affinity for one another, based on a deep seated mutual respect, the reciprocal envy, mistrust and inevitable demise of their relationship is all well documented but the focus is strongly centred upon one particular patient, giving an illusion that these men had no one else to work with.
Keira Knightley's jaw irritated me beyond belief, particularly in the early scenes where she acts the part of an extremely disturbed woman sent to Jung by her father. We later see Jung (played by the brilliant Michael Fassbender whose career is clearly on a roll this year) defy professional boundaries and enter into an unethical and tempestuous relationship with his patient, Sabina Spielrein, a guinea pig for his radical approach in which he seeks to liberate individuals from their fragmentation seeking to go above and beyond diagnosis, and nurture them towards fulfilling their potential. We see Spielrein as both his lover and his assistant as she makes a remarkable (and, at times, somewhat unconvincingly linear) recovery whilst training as a psychiatrist and analyst.
Her troubling visage notwithstanding, Knightley's portrayal of Spielrein is captivating, and yet frustratingly two dimensional. The triangle between the characters is intense and we barely get to meet anyone else throughout the film, Jung's long suffering wife, Emma making a brief but rather dismal appearance, as well as Cronenberg's depiction of the Bohemian maverick addicted analyst, Otto Gross.
Whilst I resonate with Jung's struggle to swallow the whole of Freud's theory, entirely conceived of in terms of sexual drives and appetites, that was probably the extent of my emotional engagement with the cinematic portrayal of their feud. True for the most part, this isn't the most thrilling of films and is, I might dare to suggest, unlikely to reach much acclaim beyond the densely concentrated population of psychotherapists residing in North West London. What the production does bear witness to is the savage scepticism the approach was met with, that the field as a whole continues to battle with today. My own links with Freud are distant yet somehow irrefutable. I trained and continue to practise at the Tavistock Clinic, and his work has undoubtedly informed my own approach. What cannot be denied however, is my stronger leaning towards the work of Jung, whose sentiments have always struck me as more humanistic.
Analysis, a lengthy intervention requiring precision on the part of the analyst and a patient patient provides some individuals with the salvation they seek. For many it is not, and never will be, such a key to longed for liberation. 
The priority attached by Jung to actualising a patient's potential is something that features explicitly and implicitly throughout my work, regardless of the setting or time frame. My own journey has fed my curiosity and born my fascination with the idea of freeing the self to become who it can be by thoroughly exploring the spectrum of possibility, whilst investigating inhibitions and assessing the obstacles, both real and imagined. Telos Therapy is, after all, about becoming the person you want to be.
Comments
Post a Comment