re: The Cabin in the Woods. TulaneLSU's 2011-12 movie review thread

It definitely felt like a movie that was longer than 1:45, and at the 1:20 mark, I started to feel bored. Nevertheless, the acting is very good and the script decent enough to keep me interested for the majority of the scenes. I feared, at my point of boredom, that the film would move into inanition, but there were two scenes that rescued it.

The praise it is receiving, however, is unwarranted and I see that praise as a stormy petrel of the reactionary, self-congratulating movement in some Hollywood circles today. But hey, at least it wasn't as bad as Drive.

quote:

---

Total word count: 429

Total words in sentences that actually discuss the content of the film: 120

---

That's more than 25%, so I think it qualifies for one of his more germane reviews.

quote:

---

TulaneLSU's 2011 movie review thread

---

2012 bruh

quote:

---

The mind of a genius is an amazing thing: able to entertain itself when needed

---

Genius inspires...you repel. Your ego is a false prophet.

A Dangerous Method Normally, at ten in the morning on a weekday, the theater is destitute of people, save a few gadabouts, much like a sports stadium an hour before the gates open. A still electricity, a pregnant expectation is in the air. So you can understand my surprise when I entered a sea of Orleans Parish students with their own argot that had already flooded the theater. Teachers bringing their classes to the theater isn't very uncommon these days. I've seen numerous classes, from private, parochial and public schools brought to the movies in the last year or two. I realized they were there to see Red Tails, which to me looks like a cheap version of a classic, Glory. As I passed the , I excoriated the teachers in my mind. Why would you bring students to a movie theater when you could be teaching them yourself in a classroom? I thought. But no sooner did that thought pass my mind that I realized the reason I had chosen A Dangerous Method was entirely didactic in nature.

I feel ashamed to share this arcanum with my beloved and fastidious followers: I do not know all that much about Freud or Jung. True, I did read most of their works in my early teens, as any curious male going through puberty does. But I hadn't read either of them since and I would feel dishonest if I claimed to be fluent in their thought. A Dangerous Method was to be my refresher. To my utter surprise, however, I knew this story, or at least most of it. The movie, based on A Most Dangerous Method, a terrific academic study on the relationship between Freud and Jung, followed this book from my youth fairly closely. When John Kerr wrote that the relationship "is not an easy story to tell critically," he was right. At times both the movie and the book resemble historical fiction. The writer makes liberal use of speculation and imagination, especially in the private conversations.

But this is a movie, not a book, review, and the movie does pretty well what it sets out to do: teach us about Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. If you were teaching an into class in psychology or in the thought of either men, the movie would be a useful prolegomena. Not only do we see how the personality of each man influences their thought, we are given a splendid overview of their thought. It isn't overly academic or pedantic. The summation of each man's thought fits into the narrative as well as an enzyme and its substrate. I thought the most interesting discussions were those on religion. Jung, of course, thought religion unlocked many of the mysteries of our psyche. Freud, on the other hand, saw religion as a remnant of primitive people and dismissed it as illusion. His Future of Illusion summarizes his thought on religion, for those who are interested.

The most provocative theory in the movie is that Freud grew angry at Jung out of jealousy. Freud saw Jung's idealism and imagination as a threat to his systematic approach to psychology. Freud, in the movie, also seems jealous that Jung is an "Aryan" (a Protestant) and is very wealthy. We see that very clearly when Jung is unapologetic about his first class accommodations while Freud, who believes he is a superior in every way, is stuck in economy. I was uninterested in Spielrein, and to me, she played no important part in the movie. I also found it problematic how casually the Swiss bourgeoise of the early 20th century treated adultery. Quite frankly, it made me sick. There is no reason to see this movie in a theater, though, but if you'd like a good intro to the beginning of the field of psychology or the personalities of these men, it's worth seeing at home. 5/10

quote:

---

There is no reason to see this movie in a theater

---

Even if you are a Cronenberg fan?

quote:

---

I do not know all that much about Freud or Jung. True, I did read most of their works in my early teens, as any curious male going through puberty does.

---

quote:

---

I do not know all that much about Freud

---

Tell me about your mother............

The movie does not ignore Freud's prescribing of the drug to his patients. But it does so tastefully and subtly with the first scene with Otto Gross.

quote:

---

Crazy, he is know for being an intellectual, when his greatest(loosely used) achievement, was spreading the popularity of coacaine and writing that insulfation of the drug is harmless to the body.

---

Several prominent members of the medical community used and promoted it as well. It was seen as a tonic for inspiration and discipline. I guess it took them awhile to realize their nasal cavities were eroding, that their blood pressure was sky high, and that it was toxic

Whatever. My weekends would be nothing without it. Someone cut me up a fat white caterpillar line

edit: William Halstead, one of the fathers of aseptic, anaesthetic, and masectomy techniques was a heavy cocaine user.