User Reviews

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.

Huston does very good work here, using a fine script in presenting the story of Freud not as a standard biography, but concentrating only on his initial work in examining the effect of the subconscious mind on conscious (though perhaps involuntary) actions - an idea believed preposterous at the time. The narrative is presented essentially as a psychological detective story, as Freud tries to discover the root causes of one patient's multiple afflictions and aberrant behavior, none of which has any physical cause. The film uses depictions of memories, dreams, thoughts as visual clues - all progressively revealing more - to lead us (and Freud) steadily closer to the underlying truth in the case, as well as in other areas disturbing him.

The opening and closing narration (by Huston) is effective, though the occasional narration he does as the story progresses bothered me a little; it was as if they felt there was something missing from the film which had to be explained in voiceover, and it also pulled me out of the story momentarily. Probably it would have been more effective if Clift (rather than Huston) had done the narration, from Freud's point of view, in the body of the film.

The film, which maintains a serious, fiercely somber atmosphere throughout (similar to The Elephant Man though perhaps more so here), does not proceed with any real speed - you'll need to stay with it; and the dark, harsh style of photography and music (while effective) might be difficult for some viewers. You need not agree with Freud's concluding theories (many of which are not held in particularly high regard today) in order to recognize the importance and validity of his primary methods and pioneering work in what was then a highly ridiculed field. 8 of 10

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

John Huston does a great job telling the story of Freud's discovery of the subconscious and the Oedipus complex -- and turning the plot into a mystery -detective story.

Clift gives a sobering, troubled performance as Freud -- perhaps because Clift, like Freud, was haunted by his own demons.

The film is in black and white which is very effective, especially in the night and dream sequences. The music and atmosphere suggest vintage TWILIGHT ZONE. This is a fascinating film which reveals Freud in a new light and makes us look at ourselves also in a new light.

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.

While this film would never set the box office on fire in today's world, there still remains a place for serious, intelligent, albeit talky ventures such as this. Plot is presented as a series of case studies, none of which are particularly convincing. Montgomery Clift's portrayal reveals just as much about the troubled actor himself as it does about Freud. If you've ever wondered what happened to Susan Kohner after her knockout performance in "Imitation of Life," she turns up here in her final film appearance in a very low-key minor role as Freud's wife. Too much attention is paid to Susannah York's character, plagued with a host of psychological ailments. David McCallum's Oedipus complex is far more compelling. The dream sequences are artfully conceived and photographed, adding a spark of excitement to the proceedings. Kino Lorber DVD transfers contain some truly awful commentaries, but this time film historian Tim Lucas' fact-filled narration is as interesting as the film itself.

I use this film in my course, Psychopathology in the Cinema, at Adelphi University to depict the early years of modern psychoanalysis. It is also an excellent dramatic film.

Mini bio of Psychoanalysis's father Sigmund Freud, this true genius is told by an angle purely academic explaining how he reachs over such unknown ground, the study of the mind, he tries figure out for a long time how the mind was split when it had an injury mechanism, leting it on sick mind, the high level of awareness is reduced sharply, taking the ill on mental confusion, Freud also discovers on mind what he says more ahead as the dark corner, where hidden the matter, a kind of the mental protection that later becomes in a triggering factors to psychomatic matters right away, but the most intriguing theory and controversial subject was oedipus complex, after that statement almost killing him, we must don't expect a comercial movie, it's just allowed for knowledge purpose only, in another amazing performance by the late Montigomery Cliff!!!

Resume:

First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.5

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.

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!

This isn't anything beyond what you'd imagine it to be.

On the positive side, it's well constructed, Clift does a fine job as the notorious Austrian psychoanalyst and even 'looks' closer to him than previously expected.

Susannah York does an excellent job as "the patient" in this one. It really was a very challenging role by all accounts, and she helps make this as believable and 'relatable' and realistic as this film deserved.

But then, there's the fact this film lasts a whole two hours and twenty minutes, and given the point of the film once it's finished one could probably see about half an hour removed from it as a reasonable option. There wasn't any need for all that footage, and the essential dialog and scenes had easily enough to exist within a frame of about 1hr50.

The film doesn't for instance exploit the darker aspect of the man and settles for a regular early 60's mainstream rendition. In that sense, the film doesn't look or feel like an 'intellectual film', but perhaps could've introduced more of the imagery and visual symbols etc...

So on no level are we really dealing with something special. It's a good Freud bio film, but it is too long, and too linear.

6.5/10

In Montgomery Clift's penultimate role, he plays the man who revolutionized the understanding of the human mind. John Huston's Academy Award-nominated "Freud" is done like a suspense thriller, with the black-and-white cinematography showing Sigmund Freud asking a patient (Susannah York) about her dreams. An intense movie, and one of Huston's finest.

Co-star Susan Kohner is the mother of Chris and Paul Weitz, who co-produced "American Pie".

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

"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.

I'll give this to John Huston: he liked to experiment from time to time at levels that Hitchcock enjoyed. What Huston seems to have wanted to do when he set out to make this curious biopic of Sigmund Freud's life and work was to make something more surreal and dreamlike than a typical film, and that's where it is most interesting. In terms of actually connecting emotionally, I find the mechanics of the film unnatural and clanky, a natural outgrowth of heavy reliance on Freudian analysis as the dramatic driver (I had similar complaints about Spellbound).

Sigmund Freud (Montgomery Clift) is a young medical student in Vienna who runs against the common practices of the time as exemplified by the head of the hospital Theodore Meynert (Eric Portman), especially around a woman Freud says is suffering from hysteria which Meynert disagrees with. He goes to Paris to study under Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot (Fernand Ledoux), using hypnosis to get people to uncover mental blocks that manifest in physical behavior like shakes and self-imposes paralysis. There, Freud meets Josef Breuer (Larry Parks) with whom he develops a professional relationship to dig deeper into the subconscious.

Now, the whole fascination with Freudian analysis by people like Huston and Hitchcock has always felt...odd to me. The opening narration (by Huston) is all about how the birth of psychoanalysis is one of the three greatest moments of self-discovery in human history. The other two are the heliocentric model of the solar system and evolution. They loved this stuff, and yet, Huston was still a drunk who shot big game (while making movies about how big game hunting is bad), and womanized all over the place. Any psychoanalysis didn't seem to do much in terms of altering any of his behavior. I do not understand their awe with which they view this series of questioning until you come up with a hidden memory that is supposed to sudden fix everything in the person's life. It feels like magic...oh wait. I get it now.

Anyway, that's how it always plays out as I watch these sorts of movies. The brave doctor asks a series of questions, set to increasingly dramatic music, until the patient opens their eyes wide and discovers a hidden memory and their lives are all better. Now, I won't say that Freud actually does that, because the film doesn't. What it does do is track, off and on, Freud's treatment of Cecily (Susannah York) (loosely based on a real patient) as Freud works deeper into his theories, modifying things as Cecily and even himself have experiences that contradict his theories, requiring further refinement.

The full dramatic turn is around Freud's embrace of childhood sexuality since his theories that sex is the basis of all neuroses can't hold up to the evidence that inciting events happened before sexual awakening. So, instead of saying that his theory is dumb and stupid, he just digs deeper until he makes the conclusion that children want to sleep with their parents of the opposite sex and kill the parents of the same sex (the Oedipal and Electra complexes onset from birth, essentially). It's presented as a controversial idea that drives Breuer away from Freud after having successfully saved his career at one point, and the finale of the film is Freud triumphantly, and to much booing from his peers, presenting his theories to the rest of the doctors, essentially painting him as a martyr (he would live for decades longer, of course).

The story itself is...weird, especially in the light that Freudian analysis is largely considered a fossil of psychology that no longer applies anymore. At the most forgiving, one could say that Freud laid groundwork that later psychologists would build off of, but his child sexuality stuff was not any of that, and ending it on that note is weird, to say the least. On top of it all, performances are largely stilted, Clift putting in a restrained buy largely unremarkable central performance as well, focusing on trying to make a clinical film instead of a highly emotional one.

If it were just the straight story of Freud's early career, I'd be far less sanguine on the film overall. However, what I end up finding most interesting is the surrealistic sequences (helped in no small part by the early score from Jerry Goldsmith) that cover Huston's early narration and a few dreams that do actually feel like dreams (movie dreams that don't feel like dreams bug me). These are bravura sequences that stand apart from the rest of the film as very interesting exercises in borderline experimental cinematic language. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it saves the film, but it takes a middling, kind of weird hagiography of a celebrity psychoanalyst and makes it more interesting than it has any other right of being.

Huston was obviously trying something here, but I don't think he gave the kinds of things he wasn't experimenting with the kind of attention necessary to make it work. Throw in the fact that he was obviously completely enamored of Freudian analysis itself, and you've got what essentially amounts to a secular saint in his mind that he could never stand against.

Eh. It's more interesting than it deserves.

The original script was written by the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. It has been significantly changed by other writers before the movie was shot. But we can be sure that it was hardly altered in those respects upon which I shall focus. It is usually assumed that philosophers have undergone a specific training in logical and clear thinking. Hence, Sartre's participation should guarantee that the movie was free from elementary and flagrant errors, whether of a logical or empirical nature. Unfortunately, when their private and favourite ideas are concerned, many philosophers are prepared to throw all logic and clarity overboard. Numerous thoroughly analysed examples can be found, inter alia, in my own academic writings. It is an incidental fact that I have not yet discussed Sartre in print. He is no exception. For some reason he was emotionally attracted by psychoanalysis. Therefore, he opened his mind for all conventional propaganda, and came to perceive Freud in the same mendacious way, in which Freud always tried to present himself, viz. as the lonely and uncompromising searcher for truth who, despite prejudiced resistance from his colleagues, made revolutionary and highly unexpected discoveries.

Some of the lies of this movie can be unmasked by any laymen. Others may need advanced research. I shall start with the latter. Today, no genuine scientist denies that no trace of interesting observations can be found in the writings by Freud or his followers. Much more prominent is their capacity for giving treatment to a patient during as much as 15 years, without detecting conspicuous circumstances which are crucial to therapeutic success, and which a competent clinician could have found out in 15 minutes. (This is not a rhetoric exclamation of mine. Cases of this variety have been thoroughly documented.) Nor is any part of the theory supported by any observations. And despite extensive labour, no one has found a single patient who had been cured or improved by Freud (or by any of his followers). It is a pattern of lies that neurotic symptoms are caused by ‘repression' (involving complete amnesia) of childhood experiences; that psychoanalysts have invented a specific method for lifting repression; and that patients undergoing psychoanalytic treatment will suddenly recollect childhood experiences, which it is absolutely impossible to get access to by any other method. - Michael Yapko has established that 28 % of those licensed psychologists in the U.S. who attend conferences, believe that recollections from the patient's earlier reincarnations can be obtained by means of hypnosis. This fact tells little about patients, hypnosis, or reincarnation. Instead, it tells much about many people who are attracted by the psychological profession.

Let us try out the possibility that every result of modern research about Freud and psychoanalysis is faulty. Can other lies be found in the movie, which will be manifest to any layman? Definitely. In the beginning of his career Freud applied hypnosis in order to unearth experiences which supposedly had caused the symptoms and the disease. This is not a category of misinformation that a layman could expose. But note the subsequent step: Freud abandoned hypnosis and proceeded with non-hypnotic treatment. The movie depicts how patients nevertheless recall the same kind of hitherto repressed events. However, what is the nature of Freud's non-hypnotic treatment? If we may believe the film, it is nothing else than ordinary conversation. Almost all people have often participated in such colloquies. Of course, if I talk with a friend about my school days, I may recall many events I may not have thought of for 40 years, and may gradually recall things I did not recall immediately. But Freud makes it absolutely clear that lifted repression is altogether different from this pattern. He asserts that the variety of recollections he helped forth could never have emerged during ordinary colloquies. - - - If Sartre had applied his capacity for critical thinking, he would have felt that Freud's account COULD NOT be true. And any layman who devoted a few seconds to reflect on the logic of the movie, would have arrived at the same conclusion. In other words, if the movie mirrors the true state of things, the recollections and symptom removals were a kind of supernatural miracles.

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 think this film has to be placed in it's time. In the early 1960s, Freud was still champion of American Psychiatry, but he was beginning to get rocked by sharp left jabs. When was the right cross going to come to knock him down? Clearly soon. Thus, he was no longer seen as the visionary man of science who illuminated the human condition-which this film says explicitly it is about. You really couldn't make the standard Freudian biography anymore. A strength of this film is it did not actually do so despite its claims to the contrary. It tells a fantastical tale of a strange guy. Just right!

Freud's reputation has morphed into this current image: A gifted fiction writer who created weird "illnesses" which no one ever quite saw in read life. He described the patient's fantastic back stories (dwelling in their subconscious), and his magical treatments which always worked. A lot of "theory" (ever changing, unscientific and contradictory yadda yadda) was also tossed around over the years.

Cift staggers around as if his pacemaker had just gone off and given him an unexpected jolt. Huston said he was frequently drunk or stoned. He was perfect for the part: a dazed confused guy having fantasies. Exactly what this movie was about.

The very underrated 1962 picture "Freud" shows again why its director John Huston was a masterful biographer and adapter of the works of others. As much as a movie is able to, he captures the slightly mad, intense world of psychoanalysis using its father as his dramatic subject. In fact, the film is a perfect and popular introduction into this the most personal of sciences. The film puts me in mind of Hitchcock's "Spellbound", Bergman's "Wild Strawberries", Lynch's "The Elephant Man" and Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" - all of which deal with the stuff of which nightmares are made.

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.