Freud

"Alone, he fought against his own dark passions...against the taboos of an outraged world...knowing that the shocking truth could ruin his career...destroy his marriage." The above quote is from the movie poster for "Freud" that currently is posted on IMDB. I mention this because the quote was meant to make viewers think they were about to see a sexy movie...which is far from what really is in "Freud"! I kind of wish the poster WAS what you'd see in the movie, in fact, as exploring Freud's own sexual impulses and quirks might have been interesting...especially since the guy smoked 24 cigars a day and had some weird dreams involving his daughter! Looking at these contradictions between himself and his theories might have been really interesting. The story stars Montgomery Clift and is okay....at least for me. The average viewer might want a very superficial and simple view of the man...though I really think a decent overview of Freud's life would work best as a mini-series. Clift's acting is fine, though he looks nothing like Freud. I think a Germanic actor also would have been better. Still, it's not bad and is mildly entertaining...if a bit dull and sterile.

source: Freud

Who knew? This film, about the discovery of the oedipus complex, was shown to us in a Psychology this week. The fact that it is college material, might make you think that this is a boring film and it is in some ways. The film is much, too long and the acting is much (well eh) too dramatic and overdone. There are some good aspects about this film too, though. I thought it was pretty interesting and it also had a couple of laughs. In conclusion that did not do much good though, because this film is about 30 - 45 minutes too long. 5,5 out of 10

Extremely well made by director John Huston. What sounds like it could easily be laughable (Montgomery Clift as Freud?!?) is in fact a very interesting, at times even suspenseful film. Clift, playing Freud in his thirties, is exceptional. In fact, this is probably his finest post-accident performance; controlled and at times almost subtle. He's well-matched with a great supporting cast including Larry Parks as his mentor, Susannah York as a particularly troubled patient and Susan Kohner as his patient (if not always understanding) wife. Director Huston and scriptwriters Charles Kaufman & Wolfgang Reinhardt (retooling work done by Jean Paul Sartre) make no judgments on Freud's theories, instead leaving this very open-ended. The interesting supporting cast also includes David McCallum, Eric Portman as one of Freud's more disagreeable seniors, and Fernand Ledoux as French doctor Jean-Martin Charcot, who helped pioneer some of they hypnosis theories Freud would later become so famous for. The not so subtle music score is by Jerry Goldsmith and the cinematography is by Douglas Slocombe. A great movie.

An Impossible Outing, Trying to Condense Psychoanalysis Founder Sigmund Freud, His Cutting-Edge (actually unheard of) Approach to Psychiatric Problems of the Mind, IN 2+HRS. His Ground-Breaking Approach, Examinations, and Treatment of Patients went From Applause to Ultra-Skepticism and Outright Ridicule throughout the 20th Century,. His "Discoveries" and Treatment are Still Controversial to This Day. But Director John Huston had Wanted to Try and Bring "Freud" to the Screen for Decades. So He Hired Montgomery Clift even though Their Relationship was "Strained" after "The Misfits" (1959). The Behind the Scenes Activity is Infamous. Some Claim Huston was "Sadistic" to Clift, who was Suffering Himself from Repressed Homosexuality. But Clift, in the End, Delivered a Bravo Performance. Susannah York, at the Tender Age of 17, also Delivers a Mature and Very Effective Performance as the Film's Very Troubled Central Patient. The Score by Jerry Goldsmith is Moody, Striking, and Nominated for an AA, as were Charles Kaufman and Wolfgang Reinhardt for the Screenplay. The Strength of the Film is the Dark Norish Cinematography, it's Then Taboo Subject of Sexuality, and the Spirited, but Talky (Psycho-Therapy's Medicine) Script. A Truly Off-Beat Film Restrained by the Code and a Generally Repellent Subject for Some Folks, at the Inner-Workings of Humanities Primal Drive. For those Reasons and the Fact that it is a Fine Experimental Film, its... Worth a Watch.

I found this film by accident. A happy one? Montgomery Cliff, John Huston, Jean-Paul Sartre and an image of Marilyn Monroe are purposely put together though it comes across as accidental. On the plus, it is educational to see how something mainstream presents material which should be avant guard. The dream sequences are interesting for that reason as the film would have been much better if they pushed the envelope. Instead, the film maintains a balance in the imaginings of what an Oedipal Complex were, of what dreams are like, and, I suppose, the images are as developed as they could be for 1960's America. For that reason I recommend it: The film is a bit of time capsule in how films were made. Against the film, the pacing is unnecessarily slow and the acting is wooden or melodramatic for todays audience. The dialogue presents the Freud's ideas with ease but there 's no art in the language.

According to the Citadel Film Series book about the films of John Huston, he was interested for about 20 years in bringing Sigmund Freud's life and work to the big screen. When he finally got a script from philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre it was an eight hour epic which he finally trimmed down to less than two and half hours. A manageable length and it only covers the years 1885 to 1891 when Freud developed his theories about infant sexuality and the Oedipal complex. Just the mere fact that when you mention psychology and ask who is the person most associated with the field and Freud is the answer 99% of the time qualifies him to be the first man of his field. Those theories which he expounds have been challenged down through the years, but more often than not his peers are building on what he started and not just outrightly dismissing Freud. The subject is probably too complex a one to bring to the screen for the lay person, but Huston makes a valiant effort. Huston also had Code parameters to deal with in 1962. Huston is also helped along by a great performance he coaxed out of Montgomery Clift and God knows Clift was a man by that time beset with his own demons of the mind and had seen enough of psychology as well as more addicting methods of pain control. Huston had the devil's own time with Clift, but Clift responded greatly. It was a miracle this film was finished at all. This was Montgomery Clift's last really great film. He did a rather pedestrian spy novel The Defector four years later as his last film. That was like a tune up film for him to do before he was to start Reflections In A Golden Eye. Monty was way too gone by then and essentially just walked through that one. He should have gone out with Freud. There are a couple of other performances of note. Sussanah York as the girl who Clift treats that really gets him thinking along the lines of sex and David McCallum as well as a mental patient who shows some interesting subliminal sexual behavior under hypnosis. Larry Parks also makes an appearance as Freud's colleague, friend, but critic in the end Joseph Breuer. Essentially Freud is Clift's show all the way and a grand show it is. And this review is dedicated to my father Leonard S. Kogan who was most prominent in this field and had a bust of Freud along with Einstein and Washington among the bric a brac in our house as people he admired.

It's always interesting to see how the art of cinema... a form of expression which much too often suffers under an audience and financial backers who demand simple entertainment, easily taken in and processed... deals with topics that are more complex and intricate than can be explained to the common movie-goer in a limited space of time, that being between an hour and a half and about three hours(in recent years, there has been a return of the longer running times... for better or for worse, and with ranging success). Psycho-analysis was also dealt with by the master of suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock... in Spellbound, in 1945. He, as Huston does here, gave it a fair treatment, though oversimplifying it some. What's interesting is that Huston, while his film seems to be the lesser known, is actually the better representation of the subject(though, mind you, not necessarily the better film). This deals with Freud and his discoveries, following him for half a decade, giving what may be a fairly accurate account of his first work with hypnosis and psycho-analysis. We see a few of his patients, and the film focuses on him as he works on one particular patient... whose symptoms strongly resemble some he, to a (considerably) lesser degree has himself, and we experience how he develops and presents(and is met with strong protest and outrage, as he indeed was in real life) one theory which would become a cornerstone of his psychological writings and his view on man. I will not reveal what it is here, but anyone should know what he believed before watching this, since it is a rather provocative idea(and it is somewhat glorified in this film... Freud comes across as more of a misunderstood genius than the hopeful man(who did yield some important and interesting discoveries) that he was in real life). The cinematic values of the film are fine... the pace could have been more consistent(it should be noted that I watched a cut that was 120 minutes, not 139, long), and there are one or two scenes which seem obsolete, but there's little else that stands out, neither positively nor negatively. The film's score is dramatic, but that is not uncommon for a movie of that period. There are several nice touches in the film, in regards to who it is about... among them the Freudian slip in a scene with a patient. I recommend this to anyone interested in psychology, regardless of their view on Freud... it's interesting to watch, and fairly nicely done, to boot. Just keep in mind that it's neither a documentary nor a proper biographical film. 7/10

I agree with most of the positive reviews here at IMDb, so I will concentrate on another aspect of the film. Hollywood legend contends that during the shooting of FREUD, John Huston gleefully and sadistically brutalized poor, trusting Montgomery Clift, both physically and emotionally. The story took hold and has been repeated countless times by Clift biographers down to this day, despite the lack of any corroborating witnesses, plus no other actors ever came forward to say that Huston was so cruel to them on other shoots. For the most part, John Huston didn't care what people said about him, but this story actually did damage to his reputation. It is the only negative story about Huston that he felt the need to respond to. In his 1979 memoirs, AN OPEN BOOK, Huston gives a detailed account of the shooting of FREUD, and addresses the specific allegations against him. We may never know the whole truth, but Huston does quite a credible job of defending himself. Naturally, his side of the story never got as much attention as the original charges. You should find the book and read it. More trivia: After Jean-Paul Sartre's death, his admirers published much of his original, unused screen treatment, and predictably condemned John Huston for not filming Sartre's eight-hour screenplay (as if anyone would have tolerated an eight-hour movie). Because of Sigmund Freud's theories, FREUD was arguably the first motion picture to deal, even briefly, with the subject of incest. In real life, Freud contended that many adolescents go through a phase where they have sexual feelings for their parents of the opposite sex, and then go into denial that they ever felt such things after they get older. If Freud was correct, the denial is very strong, for he is reviled for this theory to this day. But readers, can you HONESTLY say that, as a young teen, that you never once cast a glance at mom's legs or her cleavage? FREUD is a good biographical film, and it is a shame that it has never been pleased on VHS or DVD. One has to wonder why---maybe Freud's theories still hit that raw of a nerve?

I saw this film 40 years ago and see that no VHS is available, which is a pity. It is much better than "The Young Freud" which has recently been showing on PBS. It captures in some depth the creativity and uniqueness of Freud's early discoveries, which were amplified by him and others throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. We see him doggedly and devotedly looking for the root causes of a psychological illness which masqueraded as a physical (neurological) illness for centuries. His discoveries, stemming from this time, have greatly influenced modern thinking, such that we call our times "The Age of Anxiety." They have led to the appreciation of childhood sexuality and abuse and have taken psychological abuse out from under the carpet, where these pivotal events have been hidden for centuries. Freud was able to see the classic appeal of the Greek tragedies and interpret why they retain their power and are performed today, 3000 years later!