What would it look like if two of history’s most formidable thinkers came face to face? That tantalizing question is brought to life in Freud’s Last Session. This new film imagines a debate between Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and C.S. Lewis, the acclaimed Christian author. It’s easy to picture the verbal sparring these towering figures might have engaged in.
Bringing gravitas to this meeting of the minds are two powerhouse lead actors: Anthony Hopkins as the curmudgeonly Freud and Matthew Goode as Lewis, conveying both wit and weariness. They face off in Freud’s London home in 1939, with war looming. It’s a dream scenario for those fascinated by philosophy, faith, and the forces that shape human beliefs.
Freud’s Last Session translates to screen a Mark St. Germain play of the same name. With its chamber-drama intimacy and titanic central characters, this production intrigues as historical speculation. Will the film version realizes the promise of its premise? Hopkins and Goode make a dynamic duo, but does the story deliver on the intellectual fireworks it seems destined for? Let’s pull up a seat for this heavyweight bout.
Debating God as War Looms
Freud’s Last Session unfolds in September 1939, with rumblings of war threatening Europe. Seeking stimulating conversation in his final days, Sigmund Freud invites newly religious author C.S. Lewis to his London home. An unlikely friendship forms between the caustic psychoanalyst scoffing at faith and the younger Oxford don making an earnest case for God.
Even as they volley arguments, the drumbeat of real-world conflict intrudes. Radio dispatches report Hitler’s blitzkrieg into Poland. Air raid sirens pierce the skies as Freud and Lewis take cover in a neighborhood church – a bit of symbolic irony. These tense backdrop details remind us of the era’s stakes.
Yet the film also journeys into the past through flashbacks. We glimpse Freud’s domination by a weak father. And we relive Lewis’ painful years at British boarding school, his trauma in the trenches of World War I, and his transformative religious conversion. Their personal histories shine light on the beliefs they fiercely debate.
Intertwined stories also reveal complicated relationships with the women in their lives. Freud has a strangely intense bond with his daughter Anna, a psychoanalyst herself. And Lewis remains tied to his friend’s mother years after the war. These subplots underscore how even brilliant thinkers grapple with emotional complexities.
As an imagined meeting of icons, Freud’s Last Session frames its central debate around rich historical context. With the world in upheaval, two great minds wrestle with life’s essential questions.
Wrestling With Life’s Great Questions
At its core, Freud’s Last Session depicts an intellectually provocative clash between two titans representing opposing worldviews. Freud takes the position of rational skepticism, seeing religious belief as a “ludicrous dream” and “insidious lie” humans embrace out of fear. Lewis argues faith offers profound truth about the spiritual nature of existence. Their ideological face-off raises timeless questions about whether life is best navigated by reason or belief.
As with any substantive debate, their stances reflect deep-rooted personal experiences. Through flashbacks, we learn of Lewis’ abandonment by his mother’s death and father’s emotional distance. His years battling disillusionment and depression ultimately give way to his renewed Christian devotion. Likewise, Freud’s family tragedy and brush with anti-Semitism under the Reich inform his adamant rejection of religion as escapist folly.
Beyond the central God debate, interpersonal relationships also drive major themes. Both Lewis and Freud visibly struggle with the women closest to them – the ever-present shadows of Lewis’ lover and Freud’s dutiful daughter reminding us of love’s innate complexities. Unpacking Freud’s controlling bond with Anna even sparks discussion about the blurry lines between parenting and pathology.
Other motifs flow through as well, like art’s power to channel spiritual truth. When an air raid strikes, Freud admires the sublime beauty of neighborhood church windows – symbols his rationalist worldview rejects but his artistic eye instinctively appreciates. It suggests our contradictory nature when facing life’s great unknowns.
As an imagined meeting between two icons, Freud’s Last Session lets immortal ideas breathe through flawed individuals. At stake are humanity’s eternal quandaries – why we believe, how we love, what we cling to when death nears. No easy answers emerge, but the questions find fresh light in a battle for the ages.
Standout Portrayals
Freud’s Last Session lives or dies on the strength of its central performances. Fortunately, Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode deliver praised turns as ideological sparring partners. Hopkins fittingly takes on famed psychoanalyst Freud, capturing his stentorian voice, sly wit, and barely concealed pain. It’s a portrait etched in mercurial genius – Hopkins nailing the bravado and weakness of age as death nears.
As his dogged debate opponent C.S. Lewis, Goode radiates intellectual intensity and empathy. Reviews compliment his ability to convey both Lewis’ debonair charm and the ghosts of trauma that shaped his spiritual worldview. We believe Goode’s Lewis could hold his own against Freud’s withering critiques.
Of the supporting cast, Liv Lisa Fries draws positive notices as Freud’s adult daughter Anna. She movingly expresses Anna’s anguish in living up to her father’s demands, unable to publicly embrace her own identity. As Lewis’ close companion Janie, Orla Brady also registers in a minor role, hinting at unresolved grief over her soldier son’s death.
But make no mistake – Freud’s Last Session succeeds through the voltage of its central pairing. Like prize fighters repping opposed doctrines, Hopkins and Goode make each jab and counterpunch feel momentous. The film offers a masterclass in wielding beliefs and rhetoric as dramatic weapons. Their clashing acting styles mesh to keep this battle of wits crackling. Here is a draft Discussion of Adaptation from Stage to Screen section:
From Stage to Screen: A Mixed Bag
As a filmed version of Mark St. Germain’s play, Freud’s Last Session faced the tricky challenge of “opening up” what originated as an intimate two-hander piece. Expanding the story risked diluting its concentration. Yet keeping the entire story confined in Freud’s study may have felt visually stale.
In opting for a middle road, director Matthew Brown employs flashbacks and locales like neighborhood churches and army trenches to provide backstories. But reviews suggest these scenes create an uneven jumble rather than seamless narrative enrichment. The editing feels disjointed as we lurch between eras and subplots.
Particularly detrimental is how side stories involving Lewis’ war memories or Freud’s daughter fracture the central debate’s momentum. Like friends chatting through an enthralling movie, we lose strands of compelling argument. The theological tension dissipates when we exit Freud’s living room.
What does work in the adaptation are the lead performances. Hopkins and Goode deliver such engaging incarnations of their real-life characters that they remain riveting to watch. We invest in each man’s perspectives thanks to the actors’ skill. But set dressing and camerawork take a backseat to their potent work.
There’s an inescapable sense that the source material might have worked best left untouched on stage. Without flashy editing or scenic detours, Lewis and Freud’s clashing worldviews could have dueled directly with razor-sharp dialogue as the sole spectacle. In trying to “open up” the play, the film diffused its potentially incendiary dramatic core. The result is a mixed bag salvaged chiefly by magnetic star turns.
Evoking the Era Visually
Freud’s Last Session makes the most of its 1939 setting, surrounding its verbal sparring with rich period atmosphere. Reviews praise the film’s technical achievements in summoning pre-war London through set design and visual details.
Production designer Luciana Arrighi deserves credit for the look of Freud’s lived-in home, its dark wood and leather furnishings exuding gravitas fitting for the famous psychoanalyst. Cinematographer Ben Smithard envelops the space in moody interiors lighting, the warm glow of practical lamps and fireplace flickers contrasting nicely with steelier hues in flashback scenes.
Smithard’s camerawork doesn’t dazzle with expressive styling, but it glides smoothly between speakers during long stretches of dialogue. And when the film transitions into Lewis’ misty memories of wartime trauma, Smithard etches those passages in shadowy chiaroscuro. It’s a subtle way to underscore the ghosts of the past haunting Lewis’ present.
The costumes likewise help establish the period setting, from Freud’s suspenders and dressing gown to Lewis’ slightly worn tweed jackets. There’s a sense that while this isn’t an expensive production, its technical craftsmanship effectively transports us into a visually convincing 1939. The imagery may not seer itself into one’s memory, but it unobtrusively serves the story.
An Imperfect Union of Parts
In the end, Freud’s Last Session emerges as a missed opportunity – an inspired idea undercut by flawed execution. It offers just enough of a lightning-in-a-bottle spark to regret what might have been with some wiser directorial decisions. The makings of a great chamber drama lie trapped in the inconsistent final product.
First, the positives: Hopkins and Goode make the film worth seeing for their acting chemistry alone. Even when debates stall out, we find them endlessly watchable as embodiments of towering intellects. It’s also to the movie’s credit that it attempts to stage philosophical inquiry for a mainstream audience at all. Its heart is clearly in the right place.
But the multifold weaknesses ultimately outweigh the strengths. Director Matthew Brown falters in expanding the play to screen through disrupted chronology and tangential subplots. Every segue away from the core Freud/Lewis dialectic drains voltage from their clash. And when debate scenes do unfold, they lack sufficient specificity and resonance. The arguments only occasionally transcend general talking points to pierce deeply.
One concludes that Freud’s Last Session might have worked best left raw on stage. Freed from the burden of opening up locations and backstories, the central battle between faith and reason could have escalated without distraction. Sometimes two titanic actors in a room battling big ideas needs little window dressing. We’re left to wonder what this film might have achieved with a sharper directorial scalpel rather than clumsy additions that diffuse its power. A little more restraint could have gone a long way.
Parting Thoughts: Ambitions Unrealized
In the final tally, Freud’s Last Session emerges as a respectably ambitious but flawed endeavor. One can appreciate the aim to dramatize a battle of titans on screen. The acting and production values also bring a glossy sheen. But as a whole, the film misses the substantive mark its fascinating premise seemed destined for.
The admirable qualities still shine through: Hopkins conjuring Freud’s waning fire, Goode radiating convicting empathy as Lewis, the period details transporting us to pre-war London. But in adapting from stage to screen, the story loses the incisiveness and focus philosophical debate requires. Frenetic editing fractured rather than enhanced the central dialectic, and scattered backstories caused both perspectives to lose coherence.
Perhaps a more selective directorial eye could have helped the film fulfill its potential. Trimming meandering threads to hone in on the resonant Freud/Lewis conflict may have brought genuine intellectual drama to the fore. But as delivered, the final product feels fragmented, never earning the inspiring meeting of minds it promised. Still, one applauds the creative ambitions – even if the result fell short of profoundly engaging both hearts and minds.
The Review
Freud’s Last Session
Freud’s Last Session offers intermittent flashes of brilliance, courtesy of its titanic leading men and fascinating premise. But uneven storytelling causes the film to miss the dramatic mark, failing to deliver on the penetrating philosophical debate it seemed destined for. Admirable creative ambitions outweigh the scattered final product.
PROS
- Mesmerizing central performances by Hopkins and Goode
- Ambitious concept imagines a debate for the ages
- Strong production values and period details
CONS
- Adaptation fractures focus and philosophical tension
- Uneven incorporation of flashbacks and tangents
- Central debate lacks specificity and resonance
- Fails to fully realize the promise of the premise
