Jimmy P. (2013) Reviews

• Interesting for the right audience.

  MartinHafer2014-08-15

  "Jimmy P." is an unusual film for many reasons. Although the film's star Benicio Del Toro is a pretty hot commodity in films these days, this Oscar-winning actor decided to take a very different sort of part in this film. In the last year, for example, he's been in a couple HUGE Hollywood films--"Thor: The Dark World" and the recent mega-hit "Guardians of the Galaxy". But "Jimmy P." is a much smaller sort of film--one with very modest pretenses and which is not exactly the sort of film the average viewer would enjoy. My assumption is that he just liked the role and it offered him a good chance to act without all the special effects and eye candy of a typical film. Regardless, it is interesting and worth a look--particularly if you are interested in the history of psychotherapy. When the film begins, a WWII vet, Jimmy Picard (Del Toro) has come to the VA hospital because of the intense pain he's been feeling. However, despite many, many tests, the doctors can find nothing physically wrong and eventually one of them suggests his problems might have a psychological basis. In a wise move, the psychologist at the hospital suggests they find a psychotherapist who has a background in anthropology so that they can address not only Jimmy's emotional problems but see this in the context of his American Indian heritage. In other words, perhaps there are problems specifically related to this ethnic background. So, the hospital goes searching for such a man and they enlist the help of a French therapist, Georges Devereaux (Mathieu Amalric). Much of the film consists of the therapy sessions between Devereaux and Jimmy and focuses on the insights that they learn and the progress he makes. As far as the history of psychotherapy goes, this is a fascinating film. And, since I used to be a psychotherapist and teacher (teaching psychology among other subjects), I was familiar with the analytic bent of therapy in the 1940s and wasn't surprised at the way therapy was portrayed in the film. Its focus on sex, repression, free association and the like were BIG back then, though today this is not at all typical of counseling sessions which are now much more problem-centered and short-term in nature. Plus, today, most therapists believe that more than just sex is behind all our emotional problems. This is NOT a criticism at all--just an observation and to let you know that the style of the meetings between the Jimmy and Devereaux are not at all typical of what you'd find today. To me, this was pretty interesting--and, yes, I know for the average person this isn't exactly exciting stuff. What is pretty exciting, however, is the nice, gentle sort of acting you see here. Del Toro and the rest of the cast did a very nice job and the movie is an interesting slice of life movie. But, unfortunately, a lot of folks probably wouldn't rush to see this sort of realistic story as there aren't many 'exciting' portions to the film--just a decent little story. Finally, Benicio Del Toro is a fine actor and he did a fine job in "Jimmy P."--but, I do wonder why the filmmakers didn't hire an actual American Indian to play this role instead of a Puerto Rican American? After all, there probably aren't many opportunities for members of various American tribes to act in films and this might have been a nice chance to give someone a chance to play the role intended for an American Indian. While no one would ever think of having a white person play a black in films these days, it's still surprising to see which actors often play Asians and American Indians in films. I also noticed that lots of supporting parts were played in Jimmy P. by American Indians--perhaps one of them might have been cast in the lead.

  More

• Well-intentioned which touches out on powerful themes, somewhat drawn-out

  sfviewer1232013-10-03

  An intellectual labor of love in which the director tries to recreate the psychotherapeutic relationship between a French psychoanalyst (in reality a Hungarian-German Jew who converted to Christianity) and a Blackfoot Indian vet suffering from inexplicable symptoms in the late 1940s in a VA hospital in Topeka, Kansas. Played by Benicio del Toro (who is Puerto Rican) and Mathieu Almaric (who is half-French half-Polish Jewish), the film drags at times but does delve into some interesting psychological (although of course it goes *much* more seamlessly/painlessly than most analyses in reality). Almaric's character wins over Del Toro's with his initial knowledge of Native American cultures (actually Mojave but there are parallels to the Blackfoot). From there he tries to synthesize his anthropological knowledge with what seem to be a pretty standard fare of sexualized Freudian clichés (witnessing the primal scene, explicit discussions of vaginas (which I thought Del Toro's character spoke about far too easily for the mores of that day and age)). The relationship between the two men are supposed to be a life-changing event but I felt the film fell a little short in depicting that reality (also a film review (for which I know the director is not responsible) described their friendship as resulting from their both being outsiders, but Almaric's character never reveals his true background (his lover mentions at one point the fact that he changed his name but that is it, perhaps there were other scenes that didn't make it past the editor (I went to the premiere in NYC with the director and main actors and they said there are a lot of scenes that got cut)). In the latter part of the movie there are strong hints that Jimmy's (Del Toro's character) headaches, fits of rage and alcoholic binges are the result of systematic sociopolitical mistreatment of native Americans but the subject is only strongly hinted at, not really discussed explicitly by Jimmy in any deep or meaningful way. This was to me perhaps more interesting than the anthropological Freudianism of the first 90 minutes of the film, but the director was trying to adhere to a book on the subject and real-life events (psychology back then was even more grossly unaware of psychopolitical factors compared to now). Perhaps subtly discourages the notion that Jimmy is suffering from PTSD (a diagnosis which did not exist at the time, but the phrase "shell shock" is not used either) because he never saw combat or killed anyone (he was involved in mine-clearing operations after the German retreat). Also interesting insofar as his injury was to his head, thus perhaps implicitly challenging the often presumed relationship nowadays in vets between TBI (traumatic brain injury) and PTSD? (Then again the director was following real-life events so I don't know his intentionality.) A worthwhile film but a little odd insofar as it (to me) underemphasizes the ethnocultural forces in the characters in favor of a "special friendship" (in a universalized way) despite the fact that it is the decultured nature of American psychiatry which was at the root of doctors' inability to help Jimmy in the first place. Also couldn't stand the way a couple of actors (thinking of Almaric and Joseph Cross specifically) who think that acting means being as anxious and/or intense as possible in every scene. P.S. The film does drag a bit (114 minutes) (I'm not someone who normally complains about "art-house" films with slower (French) pacing either.)

  More

• Intriguing film about traumatic loss of culture and identity

  macktan8942014-07-02

  Each of us springs from cultures that form our worldview, guide our behavior, create our sensibilities. But non-whites, especially, are coerced into discarding that identity and, through acculturation, becoming someone that they really aren't, someone who, over time, can no longer understand why they dream of a bear, a fox, and a baby and what in the world those images mean. An early scene in Jimmy P shows a white doctor asking Jimmy to respond to a picture he's shown of some white demonic guy with a knife in what looks like an operating room. Jimmy can't free associate anything from that picture. Not because he's crazy, but because it's meaningless to him. But later he can uncover meaning in a dream that includes a bear, a fox, and a baby. Over a generation or two, Jimmy has lost many connections to his own past and cultural traditions. Although he can still sense them, he can't interpret them as they relate to his own psychological issues. He's broken laws that the dominant cultural doesn't regard as criminal at all. Not understanding this, he punishes himself even though freed by a white court of law. Although Thunderheart may have been more entertaining, Jimmy P is enlightening about the psychic damage that happens when cultural and ethnic peoples are punished for who they are and made to ape other cultures to become accepted.

  More

• Slightly mentally non-decolonized

  Dr_Coulardeau2013-09-30

  Based on a true story, this film is a documentary fiction. A Blackfoot Indian who has fought in France in the Second World War and had had an accident there that let him comatose for a couple of days experiences great behavior disorder when back I n the USA. He is treated in Topeka, Kansas, as a veteran and they come to the conclusion that there is nothing physiologically wrong with him and at the same time the diagnosis that comes next, that of schizophrenia, does not accommodate all the symptoms. The boss of this military hospital knows a French anthropologist, trained as a psychoanalyst, in New York and he invites him for a couple of consultations with the patient. From a couple it will lead to a few dozens if not more, one a day for a rather long period. At the time psychoanalysis could only look for personal disorders at the sexual level having to do with parents, infancy, childhood, and then women (for men). The case concentrates on women and the patient finds some relief in that approach. This is very interesting how the anthropologist who is a specialist of come North American Indians, the Mojave actually, uses his knowledge of Indian culture and one language to build some trust between him and the Indian and on the basis of that trust he is able to penetrate the private life and mind of the Indian. But he does not really use the understanding of Indian culture to see what is shown in the film but not exploited at all, the fact that the Indians are systematically negated in their culture by all kinds of institutions. We can see in the film the fact that this military hospital for veterans does not have one Indian nurse or doctor able to understand the alienation of Indians in white society. Then you have the daughter of the Indian who is in the hands of catholic nuns for her education. Then you could speak of the way these Indians dress in the most white American way possible, with ties, shirts, suits, and the girls the very same way with scarves, dresses, etc. Hair cuts are standard north American. At the same time this Indian cannot get money at the post office or the bank without a good Caucasian (not North American since the French doctor is able to do it) signing for him. A white nurse tells the Indian a tall tale one day in another hospital where he is supposed to go through special tests, and she cannot in any way ignore that what she is telling him is B.S. And even the French doctor who was called in because he was an anthropologist who had spent two years with the Mojave Indians, at the end, asserts that he did not help the Indian because he was an Indian but because he was suffering. In other words he negates his own expertise. And that is justified in his mind because he did think his expertise was not with Indian culture (that was only a means to build trust) but psychoanalysis. He even, early in the film, creates some blurred situation when he advocates the typically French godless secular philosophy to an Indian who declares himself a Catholic though he knows about old Indian religions that he has "rejected" under the influence of course, but not of alcohol this time. It is also called duress. The problem we are dealing with here is Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome of American Indians who have been vastly exterminated, then locked up in reservations under rules that forced them to drop their cultures, their dances and their languages, to get educated and integrated in the American society, language, culture and all. What is the intention of Arnaud Desplechin? To remain as close as possible to the way the case was treated at the time? Maybe but naïve since the audience cannot sort out the real stake here. Yet it is surprising he does not use what has become standard today over the last ten years. It is called the decolonization of the mind. He only shows how the Indian mind is colonized and never questions his psychoanalytical approach that makes the syndrome the result of personal sexual problems. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

  More

• A different look into psychoanalysis, and how we are all human no matter how different

  punishable-by-death2014-11-30

  This one slightly reminiscent of A Dangerous Method, but this has a lot more to say, and frankly make the aforementioned movie now seem extremely below par. The psychoanalysis explored here is incredibly intriguing, and different, and makes Cronenberg's piece seem very distracted and far less interesting, despite both being true stories. I've liked Mathieu Amalric as soon as I saw him in Venus In Fur (still criminally underrated as Polanski back in form) and TGBH also, and here he lands one of the lead roles and does a fantastic job as a bit of an eccentric but confident anthropologist. He and Benicio Del Toro were the only reasons I watched this initially. Del Toro is playing a war vet who suffers head trauma and is having spells of major migraines and blindness since. Plus he is playing a native Indian, so there are many subtle themes woven into the narrative without shouting them at you. The main thing I took from it was how as people from different cultures, we are at the same time very different but also all human and more similar than we think. It also touches on the treatment of native Indians, though it is barely there, just again written subtly into the narrative: Because he is Indian and drinks occasionally, all the white American doctors think he is a drunk, hence his symptoms. One of the rare times he actually speaks to them is to tell them "my name is Jimmy, not'chief'". He for the most part will only talk with the anthropologist. Del Toro nails the brain trauma victim, as I think I took more from his character personally as he reminded me a lot of myself. People say you are crazy, are schizophrenic, a drug-addict, when in reality you have brain trauma. Your mind is not well. You are judged. This aspect of the movie was done perfectly as I was able to relate with Del Toro's character immediately, and everything about his character and his actions were realistic and executed with finesse. It is not a fun experience, and even less fun when you are put in a nuthouse because of it and are surrounded by truly lost souls as you wonder "why am I here?" Definitely one of the better films that takes place in one of these facilities, though it has nothing on Cuckoo's Nest or Persona. The scenes where he talks about his past were really well done too, I was never confused as to what was a scene from the past or otherwise. Most of that is due to Del Toro, as he plays two different characters essentially, pre-accident and the present. He will only talk to the anthropologist played by Amalric, as he has been asked for, despite being a doctor with a shady reputation. But he happens to specialise in native Indians, and his approach to psychoanalysis is interesting to say the least. It was further intriguing to see him use more unconventional methods – to western culture at least – and rather focused on spiritual aspects that the native Indians believe and practice. His respect for the religious ways of his client is admirable and the world would be a better place if more doctors were that open-minded. The basic story is predictable as all hell, and I really wish the movie inserted more conflict between the two. But there are some truly great, emotional scenes between Del Toro and Amalric that dig deep into the human condition, and despite their cultural differences they realise that they are not so different. It certainly helped that the script was well-written and filled with interesting, unconventional ideas. This was also a fascinating look into how war vets were treated after WWII when it came to brain injuries. It is quite haunting, especially considering the fact treatment for people like Jimmy P. is somehow even worse in today's world, especially with US Army propaganda proclaiming they are 'Protecting freedom' and 'keeping us safe' - two of the most-cringe worthy quotes constantly repeated on US television, especially in sport, by athletes themselves, which on its own is disturbing given how big sport is in the US. I could go on and on but I won't, I simply thought this was a great metaphor for how army veterans are treated if returning home maimed and disabled. The government they thought they were serving simply does not give a toss about them, which is the unfortunate reality. I was waiting for this to go down an unexpected path as it winded down.. It kinda does and kinda doesn't. But it is a true story so I guess they stuck to the actual events. Overall a very interesting film that, despite its flaws, tells an interesting story while also touches on various social subjects that happened to be a part of his life and treatment at the hospital. 3.5/5 – Sorry DC, I love your work, but this one is infinitely superior to your own take on psychoanalysis. This film has a big heart and makes for an emotional watch.

  More