When Nietzsche Wept 2007

Harri reviewed When Nietzsche Wept (2007)

The Film Is Something to Be Overcome.

Nietzsche and Freudian psychoanalysis in a motion picture? The medium has been unforgiving to philosophic themes, but this one might work. Yes, I had great expectations immediately, even though some part of me realized the obvious difficulties.
In terms of casting, I did have high expectations about all the major performances. In the background I recalled Cross's successful and powerful work in Chariots of Fire (phenomenal lead) and in First Knight (memorable antagonist), giving me reason to expect a fitting portrayal. I can't recall an exceptionally good role from Assante, but on the other hand, he has rarely performed less than adequately. Thinking of his version of Odysseus convinced me that he has the capacity to portray monumental historical figures with appropriate intensity.
Katheryn Winnick has been praised for his recent work and this was the first opportunity for me to examine her talent.

Interestingly, apart from a few minor mishaps, acting did not prove inadequate at all. Even though Armante's portrayal of Nietzsche does not quite correspond to my idea of the philosopher, he managed to create the necessary illusion of really becoming the character. Despite occasions of unreconcilably weak scriptwriting that illusion never quite lost its hold. This is not the real Nietzsche, but a good and convincing Nietzsche nevertheless.
Cross does equally convincing work as an insightful psychiatrist embarking on a daring journey deep into the minds of both his patient and himself. He is able to present distinct forms of anxiety and mental suffering in a manner completely suitable to a narration that represents Nietzsche's opinions on life.
Winnick brings fresh air and colour to the setting with a charming and warm performance.

What lacks is the story. Even though thematically intriguing, the film fails to deliver a wholesome and consistent story. Dramatic development appears more forced than authentic and the resolution more a textbook example than part of real life. The dramatic aspect of bringing theoretical philosophy onto multiple layers of real life is both delightful and dreadful, perhaps a desired effect. However, it also creates a fantastical mood that serves to further distance theoretical philosophy from normal experience, instead of bringing them together, which is apparently aimed at.

This criticism is not primarily about the films portrayal of Nietzschean philosophy, whether misread or not. Generally, criticism influenced by post-modern ideas should not wince before misrepresentation; however, as notable and influential philosophical ideas are left watered down in the process of interpretation, an informed critic will feel certain pity for both the uninformed audience and the informed. Those yet (mostly) unfamiliar with Nietzsche's philosophy will receive some clear introductory remarks accompanied with substantial amount of confusion. Those who already understand Nietzsche's thinking and have formed a certain view or opinion of it will be greatly hindered, by their resistance to this interpretation, from enjoying the occasional finesse in the film's presentation of conflicting ideas and in its play on historical fact and narrative fiction.

All in all, the film is a laudable undertaking but fails in its primary goals, despite being mostly entertaining.