Hysteria

source: Hysteria

Any movie that manages to offer you some knowledge of a little known piece of medical history, to give you a lot of laughs from beginning to end and that manages to mix in some social commentary along the way has to be a winner. The fact that "Hysteria" manages to do all that is first of all a great credit to Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer and Howard Gensler, who were all involved in the crafting of the story. It's wonderfully told. It' also wonderfully performed by pretty much the entire cast, mainly Hugh Dancy, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jonathon Pryce, with some strong supporting performances thrown in, and director Tanya Wexler moves the story along smartly and crisply. There's really no "filler" but this also doesn't feel rushed. It's perfectly paced. So, technically, this is a marvellous movie. It captures attention from its rather unusual subject matter - the invention of the *. It causes, I suppose, a bit of a blush at times - particularly as you watch a variety of women, feet in stirrups, reacting to the "treatment" they're receiving, first manually from their doctors, and then using this magical new device. Let's be honest. Who knew that the * was actually used very legitimately to offer a new form of treatment to women diagnosed with a condition that was recognized until the 1950's - hysteria. As one watches the "treatments" (all shown with a maximum amount of discretion and modesty, of course) one is tempted to think of these doctors as just dirty old men getting their kicks, but the movie makes clear that they really weren't. They believed in this condition and in this treatment, which relieved the symptoms of hysteria by bringing on a "paroxysm" - medical jargon for an *, which had to be called a paroxysm because - well - women just didn't have orgasms, did they? It's actually quite fascinating to see the portrayal of medicine at the time (the movie is set in London in the 1880's) and we see not only hysteria and its treatment but debates about germs and the causes of infections. And it is quite funny, in a sexually suggestive (but not really sexual) way. What I really liked about this, though, was that in the midst of the fun about the invention of the *, there was an interesting social commentary going on, revolving largely around the role of women, the debate over female suffrage, the treatment of the poor at the time. That was all woven quite seamlessly into the story. Now, having said all that, let's note that the history of the development of the * isn't correctly portrayed. Dr. Granville (Dancy) didn't actually invent the machine for the purpose of treating hysteria in women, but rather for treating muscular disorders in men, and it was other doctors who discovered it a useful aid in the treatment of hysteria. I also haven't found any reference to the romance portrayed between Granville and Charlotte (Gyllenhaal) - whose character serves primarily to bring a feminist perspective to the story. (Granville's wife's name was Mary Ellen Ormerod.) Historical inaccuracies aside, though, the movie is still a lot of fun to watch, and does offer a fair representation of some of the attitudes toward women and the poor that existed at the time. (8/10)

an admirable work. and this is not a surprise. first - for the cast. second - the script, subtle, seductive, mixture of accuracy and precise lines of joy. an old fashion style romantic comedy. same rules, same science of detail. and history of a classic pleasure instrument. the Victorian atmosphere is perfect spice in this case. and good plate for rehabilitation of masterclass humor. I admit , I am subjective. Hugh Dancy and Rupert Everett are two of my favorite actors. and Maggie Gyllenhaal seems be, in this film, a version of Katherine Hepburn. but, more that, it is just an adorable, lovely, seductive comedy. and it is enough !

Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is an up and coming doctor in 1880's Britain. Dr. G is aware of all of the current medical information so when he insists on cleaning the wound of a lady's leg, regularly, while she is in hospital, the senior doctor fires him. What an injustice! Nevertheless, Dr. M goes back to his residence with a wealthy, eccentric inventor (Rupert Everett), he won't take any monetary loans. Most wonderfully, a new opportunity soon presents itself. A Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Price) is searching for an assistant in his treatment of women with hysteria. What's that? It turns out that Victorian ladies of the times have mental difficulties and the cure of the day is, ahem, manual stimulation of the women's private parts. That is, massage leading to *! Yes! Naturally, any woman with the means "comes" regularly, haha, to visit Dr. Dalrymple, hence the need of a second practitioner! Our Dr. G, quite proper, throws himself into his work. In truth, there are a variety of draperies that make the operation as modest as possible. The older doctor, a widower, also has two daughters. The younger, Emily (Felicity Jones) attracts Mort's attentions right away, for she is all refined loveliness. But, the older one, Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who breezes in and out of the house on her way to a clinic/help station for the poor, is brash as well as beautiful. She's also an advocate for women's rights to a T so Mortimer is quite aghast at her doings. One unhappy day, Dr. Mort develops a crimp in his hand and can't properly administer the treatment to a demanding woman so Dr. D gives him the boot. That's when Dr. G, back at the inventor's home, sees possibilities in the man's mechanized feather duster! Ho ho! Also, Charlotte has a run-in with the law that lands her in jail. Does our Mort really prefer Emily? Please, movie lovers, don't overlook this film because of its subject matter. Yes, it is a historical look at the invention of the *, which will upset some. But, set in Victorian times, the flick absolutely presents the most demure look at such a subject that ever was! In the spirit of the times, the treatment for hysteria is regarded as perfectly acceptable where as in modern times, both doctors would have been behind bars posthaste! The tale is mostly a romance, which will please many. As such, Dancy is terrific as the doctor while Gyllenhaal is most admirable and lovely as the woman ahead of her time. Jones, Pryce, Everett, and all of the other supporting cast members are great, too. The look of the film, with its sumptuous costumes, sets, and photography is a boon for the eyes, too. Then, as stated, the script and direction are lively, humorous, and never offensive. However, because of the adult subject matter, no one under 18 should be allowed a view. That said, most folks over that age will find it wonderful and charming, setting off vibrations of laughter and sighs.

Tanya Wexler's "Hysteria" is about Dr. Mortimer Granville's invention of the electric * to give women orgasms and how it set the stage for the elimination of feminine hysteria as a medical diagnosis. Although focusing on a true story, this is a very funny movie. A lot of the humor comes from the obvious absurdity of the Victorian mores. Hugh Dancy plays the lead role, but Maggie Gyllenhaal's suffragist is the truly important character. It's one of those movies that manages to be both mordant and entertaining at the same time, and I'm sure that you'll enjoy it. Also starring are Jonathan Pryce, Felicity Jones, Rupert Everett and Ashley Jensen (Christina on "Ugly Betty").

Why anyone would make THIS film with THIS setup? Why not just be honest and make a generic "cute" movie? Predictable films can be undeniably entertaining, but they can of course also be DOA. This is the latter, and the "quirky" setup just makes it that much more obvious. I was intrigued by that setup, as I'm assuming anyone who's drawn to the film would be. But it doesn't stick around for very long, and frankly, that's probably for the best: wait, bringing old women to * in an old fashioned doctor's office is AWKWARD? Who would've guessed? There are some even more awkward attempts at making that more...I dunno, edgy? But they don't succeed. (Spoiler, and potentially offensive, I guess: after a doctor brings a patient to climax, he's kicked backwards into a wall and bumps his head. He touches the bump, and gets blood on his hand. Hey, where did he just have his hand? Doesn't blood come out of there sometimes? HA! It's impossible to imagine that the scene was done in innocence and just happened to have the menstrual connotation...and if by some bizarre chance it was, it's even more depressing to think the filmmakers could be that oblivious. Even if you'd normally find the thought offensive, you'd most likely be too busy rolling your eyes for it to actually offend.) I confess I left halfway through, but even if the concept of the "treatment" had returned in a vastly improved form, it wouldn't have been enough to save the rest. I'm totally good with dumb, predictable rom-coms, but this is way too dull, even without the bait-and-switch of the topic emphasizing the fact. The three stars up there are for Jonathan Pryce, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Rupert Graves. They're enjoyable, but only because they're likable as actors, and even they couldn't rise above the material: stuffy old England, hero decides to marry a "proper" woman, ends up falling in love with her "improper" sister. Happily ever after and all that. No, I didn't actually stay to see that happen. But trust me, it did.

I had heard great things of this movie, so I was delighted to see it at my local video store, having missed it on release, and grabbed it. I was disappointed. I found Dr Granville Mortimer to be ineffectual and unconvincing, while the sister he wasn't engaged to was over the top and too ardent about her passionate fight for social(with incidentally the cleanest, smartest place in the slums ever seen), and real issues. I felt that the whole film was a token effort - the queues of middle aged ladies, the tidy slums, and the enormous leap between social classes, so easily made. I was disappointed to see the esteemed Jonathon Pryce in his role, I felt he could do better somehow. For me the film fell between two stools, neither really funny (just the odd chuckle) nor a solid statement about the state of women's life as it was. And so predictable with the sisters.

The acting and production values in this movie are good, and there are a few laugh here and there. If you enjoy watching a movie about the rather stupid ideas of Victorian times and vibrators, then this is the movie for you. All I can say is thank god I didn't purchase this movie and that I stopped watching it about half way through. Boring is the operative word here. I wouldn't even spend the time to download this movie for free. Dumb, stupid and boring. "We all know that the female organ cannot feel any pleasure without the insertion of the male organ". Were doctors ever really that stupid? They couldn't read literature from other parts of the world? Classic "Brits are superior to everyone else and therefore what we say is true and whatever any other cultures says must be false". Do yourself a favor and skip it.

While I guess some might be offended by the way some things are depicted here, the movie itself plays it safe when it comes to the story. It is pretty predictable and you will know where this is heading not long after the movie has started. But the movie itself has so much heart (especially Maggie G.), that you are more than willing (no pun intended) to look over those flaws. The jokes work, the characters are finely drawn and the movie itself is really nice. Again do not expect anything deep and you won't be disappointed. I haven't checked my history books either to look if the characters were based on anyone particular (it does leave you with that impression)

As is unfortunately the case with far too many films, Hysteria is not of one mind – that is to say that it tells two very different stories that are only tenuously linked thru the main characters rather than thru any particular plot points. It purports to be based on real events and indeed some portions of the film are historically accurate. It also represents one of the few romantic comedies to present itself as a partial biopic. However, much of the film is conjecture, albeit at times somewhat fascinating and entertaining conjecture. Indeed, the doctors' visits discussed below are quite amusing if not in the best taste for certain discerning viewers. Hysteria tells the story of Dr. Mortimer Granville who found himself working for another physician who treated women for "female hysteria." This hysteria was once considered a real medical condition throughout Great Britain and on the European continent reaching its height of diagnosis and treatment in the late Victorian Era. Such hysteria was treated in a multitude of ways, but Hysteria focuses on Granville's adoption of the method used by the physician for whom he worked – the fictional Dr. Robert Dalrymple. Their method of treating hysteria was to ensure that their female patients achieved a "hysterical paroxysm." Simply put, what all of these hysterical women really needed was to experience an *. The visitations by woman after woman to the doctors' office provide some fascinating and sometimes hilarious results. Just imagine a Judd Apatow film set in Victorian England and you will have some idea of what transpires in these visits. Ultimately, Granville – with monetary and technical assistance from a wealthy friend (wittily played by Rupert Everett) – creates the first electric device for a woman to satisfy herself without a man's assistance. One might think this was an interesting enough topic for a Victorian period-piece comedy, but husband-and-wife screenwriters Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer add other intersecting plot. Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) has two daughters. One is an extremely strong-willed, steel-spined fighter for women's issues named Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and the other a demure, science-minded ladylike supporter of her father's more conservative views named Emily (Felicity Jones). When first meeting the daughters, Mortimer (Hugh Dancy) is startled by Charlotte's behavior and attitudes and finds Emily much more to his liking. Mortimer and Emily begin a courtship of which her father approves as Dalrymple hopes to leave his practice to Mortimer with Emily by his side. However, Mortimer becomes increasingly interested in the spirited and winning Charlotte. When she stands up for her beliefs and publicly confronts her father and the police, Mortimer comes to her aid in court and we can see that they are destined to be together. So how, you may ask, are the events described in the second and third paragraphs of this review connected? Well, they aren't really, and that is a major problem with the screenplay and the film itself. As suggested above, the film contains two distinct stories that are intertwined in an unusual and ultimately disappointing fashion. The cast is rather unremarkable, but then again they are not given much to do except play the characters so often seen in period comedies of this sort. Dancy seems to play the same character in nearly every film (with few exceptions). Jones has little to do but be pretty and polite. Pryce once again plays an English gentleman seemingly befuddled by those around him. Gyllenhaal (whose English accent is never quite right) once again plays a woman of conviction and spirit as she's done many times before. They adequately do their duty in representing these stock characters, but alas the script is not strong enough to make their efforts worth our while. Todd FilmPulse.Net