Freud

What happened to the dream scene? This film is now at long last available on DVD. Unfortunately this new DVD version is still missing the dream scene that I clearly remember seeing on the films cinema release back in 1962. It occurs when Freud can't follow his fathers funeral into the cemetery. Instead he faints and then we are plunged into his famous dream - the one about "the eyes shall be closed". (Freud recounts it I believe in The Interpretation of Dreams). In the film the only remnant of the dream remaining is a night time shot of noisy train pulling out of a railway station. Thats the tail end of the dream for anybody wondering what it is. Then Freud describes to Breur what the dream was about. Why this scene is repeatedly cut from the few bootleg versions available and now the new DVD version I have no idea. Its a pity because like the other dreams in the film it was impressively filmed by Huston.

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!

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?

Hypnosis, hysteria, moody B/W photography, beards and a haunted Montgomery Clift combine in a fascinating movie.

I have seen this film a few times and each time I appreciate it a little more. It concentrates on the years in Sigmund Freud's life around 1890 when he made his groundbreaking studies on the nature of sexuality.

Although I had the impression Freud was more of a solo act, the film shows that after a falling out with the head of the Vienna Hospital, Dr. Theodore Meynert (Eric Portman), friend and mentor Dr. Joseph Breuer (Larry Parks) played a big role in his discoveries.

As Freud deals with one intriguing case after another, he encounters Cecily Koertner, played by a sexy Susannah York, who has a disturbing father hang-up and enough problems for a battalion of pioneering psychiatrists. This was relatively early in Susannah's career and she just about steals the show. Sadly she is gone now, a bit young at 72.

Montgomery Clift's performance has a quality of suffering that he didn't have to fake. Director John Huston pieced together Clift's performance because the actor's life was pretty well out of control by this stage. However, a recent documentary, "Making Montgomery Clift", gives another side to the story with more blame levelled at Huston for the problematic production. That aside, what a presence Monty still had, he was probably the only actor who ever remotely intimidated Brando.

Insights come when Freud deals with the troubled Carl von Schlossen who has savagely attacked his father. Schlossen was played by David McCallum a few years before "Man from Uncle" fame. When Freud deduces the attack was over the younger Schlossen's jealousy of his mother, Freud is shocked into the realisation that his own infantile feelings for his mother may well have gone beyond love of her strudel.

Huston approached all this as a mystery thriller, especially when the treatment of Cecily reveals to Freud that just about all repressed emotional disturbances are based on conflicted feelings toward mum and dad.

Jerry Goldsmith's score helps drive the film; it's as atonal as they come, but it grows on you. Again, like many of the stars, it was early in the career of the great film maestro.

The film mixes in dream sequences with plenty of symbolism reminiscent of the films of Ingmar Bergman. In fact the whole thing has a Bergmanesque quality. And talk about the id and the ego, John Huston delivers God-like narration at key points.

Huston made many great films as well as a couple of duds, however "Freud" was a bold idea; it's challenging, but beautifully made and deserves to be ranked among his best.

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