director: John Huston
This biopic focuses on some of the events between 1885 and 1890 from, as the title says, Freud’s life. The personal perspective and the expressionist focus on characters and their well-documented dreams are violently contradicted by the opening and ending parts that are narrated by the director in the most positivist/scientific manner. Freud (Montgomery Clift) becomes just another case of a great dead man, a scientific genius in the line of Copernicus and Darwin. In that sense the whole story moves towards the discovery of the Oedipus complex (revealed in the last part of the movie).
Male hysteria or in Freud’s own term, little hysteria, becomes a major theme of this movie and the dramatic engine in the search of an over-arching theory to cure his patient and his own painful neuroses.
Besides the cinematic portraits of Freud, Breuer (Larry Parks) or Viennese physicians, the exploration of Charcot’s persona is one of my personal delights in this movie. Charcot (Fernand Ledoux) and his practice with hysterics (male and female), hypnosis and celebrity are depicted in the way that I imagined the whole business by reading tons of literature on this phenomenon. Freud’s role as PhD student under Charcot’s supervision is explored in a delicate and faithful manner in relation to the written materials on the subject.
Freud's therapy with Cecily Koertner (Susannah York) represents the discovery of the talking cure with its free associations and hilarious “Freudian slips” and also “the cure” for male hysteria in the sense of abandoning it and Freud becoming a father of a major theory. The focus falls on a scientific/ not-fully-embodied discovery of the Oedipus complex and the martyrization of the individual rational scientist in the face of a retrograde society that denies progress. No indication of Viennese anti-Semitism or scholarly masculinism. Freud’s struggle with the Viennese society becomes an individualist fight for novelty and innovation. In this sense, John Huston’s movie is an ode to modernism in scientific discourse.
The cinematic language follows the film noir/expressionist aesthetics and gets mixed very well with the accurate theoretical/psychoanalytical language. What I particularly liked about it was the lack of fear in dealing with theory. There are some complicated ideas out there that you would never hear in more recent biopics, but Charles Kaufman managed to squeeze them in the script (or better say Jean-Paul Sartre, who’s name disappeared from the project after his second draft was considered too long). Surprisingly the narration works better this way. The story becomes more engaging, this is one of the few theoretical thrillers that I have seen.
At the level of acting-directing, Montgomery Clift was under a lot of pressure on the set: the director used the Freudian setting for outing his main actor, emphasizing the repression part (as a direct connection to him being gay) while filming and provoking Monty to speak about his sexuality. No wonder Monty tried to avoid this movie or any contact with its director, to the point of being sued by Universal for the delay of the production.
All in all, Freud is not easy to forget.
image: the Polish version of the poster, from here
