When Nietzsche Wept (2007) Reviews

• Disappointingly melodramatic interpretation

  agacyb2007-08-06

  I read the book several years ago, and didn't remember much of it, beyond being fascinated by the psychological-philosophical explorations of the legendary characters and intrigued by the migraine issues that Nietszche and Breuer attempt to solve. But the book is deeply intellectual, and it was difficult to imagine it translated to the screen. Unfortunately, the director's interpretation falls very limp indeed, despite valiant attempts by a cast of worthy actors. Melodrama substitutes in most scenes for subtlety and quiet depth. Two-dimensional beauty in the female characters substitutes for the much harder to convey inner beauty. I found the heavy-handed artificial accents maintained by all to be especially distracting, if not constantly irritating -- the thick German/Austrian/Russian accents were like bad scenery pulling the focus from any authentic expression of the characters. The wisdom of Nietszche is disappointingly obscured in this mediocre effort. "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

• When the Audience wept: A grotesque vision of Nietszche

  jl1-42008-02-01

  The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.

• The Facts in the Case of Doctor Breuer.

  rmax3048232008-09-15

  What an ambitious film! Richard Wagner, Josef Breuer (Ben Cross), Friderich Nietzsche (Armand Assante), and Sigmund Freud (Jamie Elman), all of whom knew one another on or around the streets of Vienna in 1872 with, in the case of Wagner, only one degree of separation. Where are OUR giants? I'm trying to figure out why the film didn't work all that well for me. For one things, I'm not familiar with the book it's based on, although I don't know if that's an obstacle to my appreciation or not. Other reviewers who are familiar with the source seem to feel the movie stinks. It's true that it's pretty talky and some of the atmosphere is rarefied. See, the way it works is that Breuer, a mentor to Freud, is having lots of problems of his own and agrees to treat Nietzsche's migraines and "despair" in return for Nietzsche's teaching him how to deal with his loneliness and feelings of emptiness. And though I can more or less keep up with Breuer and his pronouncements, I sometimes got lost with Nietzsche. "Time is our greatest burden," he tells Breuer, "and our greatest challenge is to live in spite of it." And, "Death only loses its terror when one has consummated one's life." Huh? There have been many other attempts to bring great minds set on different courses together. Steve Allen had a TV show in which dinners were shared by the likes of Alexander Hamilton and Carmen Electra, and recently there was "Mindwalk" with Sam Waterston, but compared to this film, those efforts were more like episodes of Sesame Street. Still, it's interesting to witness the birth of modern psychology as it climbs out of the medieval murk and gets a double dose of philosophy and science. No more phrenology or physiognomy. And, according to this story, Breuer gets the notion of the Oedipus complex from Nietzsche and the three intellects together assemble the notion of the unconscious (though it was hanging around for centuries unnoticed by most practitioners). There's even a hint of family counseling and Milton Erikson when Nietzsche points out that Breuer is blaming himself for the illness of Bertha Pappenheim, one of his hysterical patients, when in fact by exhibiting her symptoms in such worrisome profusion, Bertha Pappenheim has got Breuer by the short hairs. As Erikson was to say a hundred years later, there are two ways to get people to carry you around -- one is to be powerful enough to order them to carry you around and the other is to collapse. There's a bit of humor too, especially when Nietzsche prompts Breuer to close his eyes and imagine what would happen if Breuer were having breakfast with his amour and threw a handful of insults at her. Ben Cross is adequate as the tall, deep-voiced, uptight Breuer. Elman is good as the 25-year-old Freud. Armand Assante is great as Nietzsche of the monstrous mustache and spectacles, an exceptional actor. What colorful, shocking, and well-integrated dreams they had in those days. And I mean "dreams" literally. (Not just in the film but as described in Freud's works.) Mine tend to be far less organized, with images and personalities melting into one another, filled with non sequiturs -- and whoever is responsible for the lighting in my dreams ought to be brusquely spanked. Every scene is under lighted and tinted orange. Let's get with the program, shall we? Anyway, I was alternately bored and involved in the sometimes complicated goings on, but was genuinely moved at the end, when Nietzsche does, literally, weep. I don't know why exactly. Maybe just the sight of two men who have been trading barbs along with insights acknowledging that they are dear friends. It's nice to see people get along.

• A rare glimpse into a rare struggle

  highlama2008-01-10

  Knowing nothing of the book, and based solely on the DVD cover and description I expected a disappointingly shallow, titillating pseudo-intellectual romp through the fields of pretense. But the portrayal of the rare humanity of these characters as they confronted their obsessions and limitations drew me into rapt attention at the next plot development. Perhaps I'm just shallow and easily amused, but this story gave a fairly good look at a decent man, Joseph Breuer, and his struggle to really feel his humanity. This is an important story, one rarely told because how many story tellers have been through the fire of transformation to live for real? Where do you find an audience willing to sit through something they're desperately trying to avoid themselves? Maybe package it as a shallow and titillating pseudo-intellectual romp. Sure there were times when I saw through the weave of the story, for a moment I even saw Assante speaking lines rather than Nietzsche talking but for the most part this story was to me a real story of people really evolving right before our very eyes. That's not something you're going to see every day.

• Absolutely fantastic

  movielover3592007-08-09

  Funny how movies work... the first bloke to comment was disappointed but I thought it was absolutely wonderful. The acting of Armand Assante is brilliant and made me almost cry at one point. The other actors are all okay, I liked the crazy girl a lot, delightfully entertaining performance - but NOTHING prepared me for Mr. Assante being SO brilliant. The movie is a period piece, but it has a modern feel to it, but not in an annoying way, it was quite lovely, how they made it move very quickly, even though the subject matter is serious and intense. It was never boring even for a second. The conversations are very interesting, and I think I can say with full blown honesty here that watching this movie may have changed how I view life to some degree. Nietzsche was just such a fascinating fellow. Truly amazing film. Oh, also it's got some great dream scenes. And it was nice to see Frued as a young man, very interesting. Nietzsche was so bloody fantastic. Thank you for adapting the book. This is what independent film should be - movies with new ideas that penetrate the heart. Peace.