Empathy (2003) User Reviews

Where is the EMPATHY

[Cecil-B · 5/10 · 8 July 2004]

As a member of the Psychoanalytic community, but not a Psychoanalyst, I feel qualified to opine that this film has nothing informative to say about this difficult subject. A few years ago, the writer Janet Malcolm dubbed it "The Impossible Profession", which nicely sums up the arduous training requirements and the hardships of putting the technique into practice.

Siegel approaches her subject from the above-it-all position of the skeptical reporter, whose rude and disingenuous questions put the subject in a bad light no matter what answers are offered. "Do you ever lie to your patients?" she asks. The question may tell us more about the "auteur's" problems than could possibly be revealed by the discomfited analysts. When I heard this tacit accusation I wanted to snap "What are you--two years old?"

If anyone is telling fibs, it is Ms Siegel herself, though she believes she escapes that accusation by tipping us off to deliberate torture of the truth. Her documentary mixes straightforward interviews with concocted sessions with a pretend patient. She brings all the players together at the end in a cast party, which has the effect of levelling the high and mighty one more time. The person with the camera is the one in control, the puppeteer. Everyone else is just "the talent".

Who can forget the late Anna Russel's contemptuous dismissal of the very kings and queens of Opera on whose glorious talents she made herself rich and famous. "Great singers have resonance where their brains ought to be." Of course Ms Russell's whole shtick was burlesquing opera, and she never called any of her comic routines an examination of serious vocal music.

Others may have found the conceits of the current film to be clever ways of getting a fresh look at a much-discussed subject, I had trouble keeping up : oh I see, this looks real, but it's actually constructed; and the previous scene contained the phony patient talking to real analysts. We should also get to hear an academic in the field of architectural design discuss the main piece of furniture in the analyst's office, the Eames Chair. By its very nature, says the expert in furniture, the chair suggests certain things about who has the power in the analytic consulting room. Again we're confronted with the "dishonesty" of analysis, where even the furniture is intended to reinforce a relationship of dominance and submission.

The professor was occupied throughout her discursive tour of the psychology of space and shape by the breast-feeding of her baby. Whether our society is rather backward in accepting this as a public activity is a question in its own right, but at this juncture such behavior still is freighted with meaning. I felt more buffeted by this piece of theater than I ever have by the analyst's choice of chair.

If any phenomenon is held up for examination by this film, it is the power we give to people who have the motive and the means to put our pusses in front of the public. I saw analysts dropping their pants to please this director. Far from taking what they said as the truth, I'd say that I've been witness to coerced confessions.

I saw this movie as a guest at its pre-release showing in Philadelphia, and I'd imagine that with a full house instead of a half dozen media commentators the funny parts would have seemed a whole lot more hilarious. It's possible not only to confess against one's will but to laugh in spite of being appalled.

The current flap over Michael Moore's docu-torial alerts us to the weaknesses of taking big liberties with the facts. Even a work of declared fiction loses its punch when the audience finds out that key elements of the story are just wrong. That's why good authors and screenwriters really research their subject matter, and often collaborate with a consultant from the field undergoing study.

Cecil-B Philadelphia, PA

It twisted theory of architecture, psychoanalysis, and the life of a struggling actor into one.

[mcpeake · 8/10 · 25 August 2004]

Empathy in short is part fictional - part documentary about psychoanalyst. The film is about getting to the root of therapist thoughts and intertwining it within a character story. I really enjoyed this independent flick. It brought together the psychoanalyst's process of joining the internal with the external and making the distinction vague and blurred. The main theme of this film was to make the audience unsure of what was real and what was true, what was a projection of thoughts and what was reality. It twisted theory of architecture, psychoanalysis, and the life of a struggling actor into one. I found it extremely entertaining and interesting.

The director, Amie Seigel, probed the psychoanalyst with questions you have always wanted to ask but unsure if you wanted to know the answers. Her filmed almost seemed more like a collection of intimate moments and thoughts, then someone actually saying and thinking these things out loud and for a camera. She plays on vulnerability, which made the audience a bit uncomfortable and surprised by the scene.

The film was a bit lengthy and at times was trying to be too vague/creative/artful with its scenes. There were a few scenes that did not remove your attention from the film but were reaching for something that was not ever going to be there, therefore creating a wasteful transition from one scene to the next. The story itself was intellectual and insightful. It masterfully combined architectural and psychoanalyst theory with a character desperate to break out of her voice over life. The film allowed the audience to 'imaginatively step into another's perspective and consider how things look from over there, as if one were an insider while one is not one in fact.' [Google] In other words the filmed allowed the audience to experience empathy.

Brilliant! Fascinating mix of materials. A beautiful collage.

[lisaboltanski-1 · 10/10 · 7 July 2004]

I really loved how this film turns the psychoanalytic questioning back around onto the psychoanalysts, how it mixes all these different styles. Watching it, I was constantly asking myself questions (is this real? are these actors?) and wondering where it was going next, and it just kept opening up further and further. I also thought it was funny, really full of intelligent humor and parody. LOVED the part with the chair & sofa. Hilarious. Thank god for films like this.

A Fetid Amalgam of Half-Baked Dreck

[srcann · 9 August 2004]

In viewing this "film," my wife and I, found ourselves in the curious position of knowing quite a bit about psychoanalysis, film-making, deconstructionism, architecture and modernism. As a "narrative" the "film" was a reminder that experimentalism is no substitute for talent. De-constructing something is no excuse for bad lighting, unprofessionally executed two-shots, lying to the participants and the audience, or treating your "talent" (analysts and auditioning actresses alike) with contempt. Whether we look at the narrowly chosen, baiting questions asked of the analysts, the inaccurate and pointless pseudo-parallels between modernism and psychoanalysis, or her clumsy misuse of deconstructionism as a bludgeon in an apparent personal grudge, she seems a dilettante. It is telling that she is outclassed by the analysts who seem to want to take her seriously and try their best to be genuine. Perhaps her recipe for success will be found in more therapy rather than in more film-making. Should she choose the latter, she would be well advised to consider that technical and intellectual laziness is ill-concealed by splashy experimentalism.

boring, talking heads

[baron-9 · 4/10 · 12 April 2004]

This could have been interesting. The fact that people still practice psychoanalysis - even in a non-traditional form - could have invited questions about whether, for example, they have explained to their patients that other forms of psychotherapy might be less expensive and equally effective. But the questions asked by the interviewer seemed mostly naive, like, "Do you lie to your patients?" The analysts were not politicians or professors, who have learned to take a dull question and turn it into something they want to answer. For the most part, they simply answered. There were clever features of this movie, but it could not keep me awake. It was mostly talking heads, in a world of abstractions.

THE film about psychoanalysis! Finally!

[elizabethadler · 10/10 · 6 June 2005]

I saw this film recently and was really fascinated to see something so thoughtful, intense and unusual about the subject of psychoanalysis. "Empathy" is up there with "Klute," "Another Woman" and "The Son's Room" as one of the definitive films about psychoanalysis, and is certainly braver in its creative, unusual approach than the others. I found the related themes of voyeurism, watching, looking, modern architecture (transparency), personal shame, disclosure and documentary ethics fascinating. And the film is truly humorous, ironic and appreciative.

After seeing "Empathy" my friends and I went out and talked for about three hours about all the issues the film raises, its great combination of fiction and documentary (not a docudrama!) and were all really impressed with how the film got us thinking.