User reviews

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."

This movie is surreal. Literally, it has a lot of surrealistic scenes to mess with your mind, but also the whole presentation is surreal because there are so many bizarre angles. At its heart, it's a sober portrayal of depression and humanity's discontent (so you'd think it would be slow & heavy). But mostly it's humorous, at times as silly as the movie "Airplane!". It also features historical references, but you can't help feeling that the writer is being deliberately playful, distorting facts right before our eyes with a wink and a smile. In all, I think it's an entertaining experience, especially if you don't take it too seriously.

It definitely has the qualities of a period piece romp, like maybe "Casanova" (2005), "Molière" (2007) or one of my faves, "Impromptu" (1991) about Chopin. But "When Neitzsche Wept" has a more subtle tone which prevents me from saying it's intended to be a comedy like the others I mentioned. Also, don't expect a biopic because it's not really about any particular man so much as it's about everyman's internal struggle between passion (freedom) and logic (duty).

This film takes a somewhat light-hearted approach to a very dark subject, and I think that's what makes it unusual and clever. It's entertaining and digestible, but also there are a few powerful monologues delivered by Neitzsche (Armand Assante) that I had to rewind and hear again because they seemed to appear out of nowhere. Then suddenly we're back to a crazy scene of a redhead woman in diapers jumping around a crib. Don't worry, it all makes sense; it's just... surreal!

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.

I just wonder how many people are going to be tuned in to seeking out and sitting through a film all about psychoanalysis, detailing very briefly the more desperate incidences in the lives of some of the most brilliant minds ever to have graced Earth. My heart hopes as many as possible but my mind tells me not many will bother, and given this that's quite a shame. The film is a concentrated study on illness and the effects of illness but the said sickness is more affiliated to love or problems of a psychological kind. The events, no matter how fabricated over history, are still compelling and the film just about works as a drama or a study of an individual's actions given their emotions that run on a dizzying high.

The film follows Josef Breuer (Cross) and Friedrich Nietzsche (Assante) who meet and attempt to help one another. The setting is 1870s Vienna in Austria at a time when some of the most brilliant minds ever would congregate to pioneer the study of psychoanalysis; love as an illness and what makes us who we are through these events. On this occasion, Nietzsche has fallen for a woman and she is Lou Salome (Winnick). This acts as the catalyst for him to seek help from Breuer, an experienced and responsible doctor who has battled his own demons in the past to do with one of his parents' early death. Nietzsche at first seeks to run from his problem, thinking escaping to Switzerland will compensate for the pain following the rejection of marriage.

But this isn't the end of it. There is no surprise that a film dealing with psychoanalysis, and containing Sigmund Freud, has a few mind games up its sleeve. The film is uncannily seductive in its general atmosphere and quite humbling on other occasions. Breuer is good friends with Sigmund Freud himself (Elman) and they both seem overly concerned with Nietzsche which propels them into at least pretending one of them needs help from Nietzsche in return.

In order to achieve this, Breuer assumes the stance that he himself is falling in love with one of his patients and requests the help from Nietzsche in return he help him get over his break up. There's a lot of psychology going on here and a lot of scenes and content that deals with mental health. Nietzsche undergoes perhaps the more interesting study of the characters because his is the more dramatic, slipping into despair and depression after initially trying to combat the break up with 'remedy' from prostitution and, like I mentioned, fleeing entirely.

The point When Nietzsche Wept has going for it the whole time is the age of these primary characters. This is not a (another?) mere look at young people in contemporary America or wherever trying to get over relationships or trying to instigate one so that they may have sex, this is a thoughtful and interesting look at people of an older age dealing with real issues that at the time, remained as scary and as ambiguous as you could possibly imagine. The frightening thing that should remain at the back of the viewer's mind is 'what if you were very ill, but you did not know of the illness you have?' Twinned with this, what if you did not know of the treatment and the pain or whatever would simply not disappear? Nowadays, we're all fine with our doctors and so forth and our teen sex comedies that act as an escapist or humoured look at coming of age or love or sex or whatever but When Nietzsche Wept is a pit stop; a look back at times past.

The film is a grand display of surrealism, dreams often beginning naturally enough before descending into chaos. We the audience ask the question of what is going on and just when it seems the impossible or the downright obscure is about to happen, our questions are answered. The film is a study into the great minds that pioneered certain theory but it's a look at their own struggles; their own struggles that helped shape an understanding in the first place. The film is a study of a delicate mentality as expressed by those of a brilliant natural intelligence.

Whether it's the bizarre manner in which Breuer refers to Freud as 'Siggy' or the odd scenes to do with diegetic classical music complete with orchestra that Nietzsche himself composes to the bemusement of those around him, the film remains an interesting look at a subject that is being dealt with head on rather than in a metaphorical or dramatic way, much like Hitchcock and Lynch have done in the past. But don't be fooled for it isn't a documentary and it does retain a fair amount of drama throughout. It may not be as good a metaphorical study but it remains interesting and thought-provoking.

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.

Fine production values, a dry sense of humor throughout, literate script, decent casting (Assante transcends his usual "heroics" and plays a crumbling soul nicely and Cross is always workmanlike and solid), and, slyly, the film (as the book did) finally gives Nietzsche credit for inventing modern psychoanalysis (since Freud, et al, in the field stole from his works outrageously and lavishly, without assigning him the proper credit for his startlingly original insights into the world-historical human, all too human capacity for self-deception).

A tough work for an adaptation, but this movie succeeds where something like "Freud" dismally collapsed into timid clichés.

Nietzsche would have gotten many a devilish laugh out of this work's visual craftiness.

And appreciated being treated, not as a cartoon "Overman" idol, but a struggling, flawed, tragic-comically-profound human.

"Ecce Homo", his anti-"autobiography" warned those who followed not to take him too seriously.

If this film stimulates a few people to pick up his "Joyful Wisdom" (La Gaya Scienza) or "Dawn", it will have made its honorable point.

Yalom was, in essence, giving Nietszche a posthumous brother's embrace for his loneliness and struggle and brilliance and scorn and lack of recognition while he lived.

This movie does the same.

To a guy, who, friendless and abandoned and ignored through much of his writing life, still affirmed the Universe and humanity in the words:

"Man would rather have the Void for a purpose than be void of purpose." -F.N.

Worth a viewing.

It is not a great movie. It is not a masterpiece. It may be boring and fake at first sight. But... A film about a Nietsche. Not very different of the philosopher. The character is seductive, power and Armand Assante is brilliant in his skin. The atmosphere is carefully recreated. Colors, gestures, social conceptions are pieces of a small visual museum. So, the movie is a good introduction to understand the shadows of XIX century end. For look the existence with the eyes of men of a special way to discover the essence of to be. Certainly, the film gives only sketches of great people. Lou Salome is more than strange muse of a philosopher and Nietsche is prophet in another sense than the character. No bad, no extraordinary. Only good subject of reflection. And introduction to cultural scene.

My comments on this movie have been deleted twice, which i find pretty offending, since i am making an effort to judge this movie for other people. Please be tolerant of other people's opinion. Obviously writing in the spirit of Nietzsches works is not understood, so ill change my comment completely.

I think this is a really bad movie for several reasons.

Subject: one should be very careful in making a movie about a philosopher that is even today not understood by the masses and amongst peers brings out passionate discussions. One thing philosophers do agree on is that Nietzsche was a great thinker. So making a movie about his life, which obviously includes his 'ideas' is a thing one should be extremely careful with, or preferably, don't do at all. Wisdom starts with knowing what you don't know. One might think this is not a review of the movie itself, but the movie is not about an imaginary character, it is about the life of someone who actually lived and had/has great influence on the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow. If someone tells a story about a tomato, i can express my thoughts about the story itself, but also about the chosen subject, the tomato. There is a responsibility for producers when they make a movie about actual facts. Specially in a case like this and this responsibility was not taken.

Screenplay: One of the first things i noticed were the ridiculous accents. Why? It distracts from what it should be about; Nietzsche and the truths he found. It doesn't help putting things in a right geographical perspective or time! Come on, make it proper English or better yet; German! Even Mel Gibson got that part right... letting his characters speak some gibberish Aramaic in the Passion.

Secondly, it is well over-acted.

3d, Assante is not an actor to depict Nietzsche. Bad casting.

4th, facts are way off.

And so on. Its a waste of celluloid.

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.

The movie has a fabulous premise; what would have happened if the philosophical genius & insight of Nietzsche could have been practically incorporated into the developing field of psychotherapy! The film shows an imaginary collaboration between Josef Breuer & Nietzsche while they try to deal with each other's psychosexual issues.

But, I regret to say that besides the wonderful premise, the only saving grace of the film is Armand Assante as Nietzsche. He fits the part very well. All the rest of the cast are horribly miscast & have atrocious accents! Their acting was hammy at best. Salome & Anna O. Are unlikeable & superficial. The screenplay doesn't reflect the fact that both these women were extremely intelligent & very accomplished. I had expected a very serious attempt at making philosophy accessible to the general public but instead it ended up looking like a farce!

I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.

Occasionally ridiculous in the dream/hypnotherapy sequences and borderline slapstick bio-pic in others, 'When Nietzsche Wept' somehow remained compelling enough to have me sit right through to the end despite an unconvincing father of psychoanalysis still having to show ID for the age of consent (Jamie Elman as Freud) and Katheryn Winnick as cigar chomping proto ladette femme fatale Lou Salome.

There is very little exploration of Nietzche's philosophical ideas here but instead his incredibly prescient innovation in the realm of psychology as seen through the prism of the incipient discipline of psychoanalysis in Vienna circa 1882. Ben Cross is brilliant as the likeable albeit conveniently repressed and commensurately flawed Dr Breuer, adrift in a loveless marriage, a materially successful career but bereft of passion, danger or excitement in his unfailingly dutiful life. Things start to resemble the relationship between poets Verlaine and Rimbaud at this point (see Agnieszka Holland's 'Total Eclipse' from 1995) with Nietzsche advising Breuer to throw off the shackles of his unthinking conformity and embrace his freedom. Nietzsche certainly never did this, having died a virgin (despite being portrayed in a whorehouse) and was an invalid for most of his adult life on a pension paid for by academia. Whether Breuer actually makes this existential plunge is open to debate as the Director would have us believe this whole extended sequence was under Freudian hypnosis. Armand Assante was assigned one of the most thankless casting gigs of all time by being asked to portray the most innovative and radical thinker humankind has produced in over a thousand years. My gut feeling, on a personal level is that when Friedrich Nietzsche entered a room, that room got larger i.e. Assante exudes a cynical but palpable personality consistent with what he sees as his remit but I suspect Nietzsche was silent, inscrutable and withdrawn which is clearly anathema to cinematic portrayals. The movie is based on Irvin D. Yalom's 1992 novel which I haven't read but is purportedly concerned with the idea of limerence which as an idea is about as robust as 'gender' in 2023.

Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud did work together and they did collaborate on a book about Anna O, who was most likely Bertha. Lou Salome did have relationships with Nietzsche and Freud and many others. All of these things are true.

But, Breuer did not treat Nietzsche. That is in the author's (Irvin D. Yalom) imagination, and what a great imagination it was. The story makes a super philosopher seem human, with frailties that we all suffer. It also makes for an interesting story of how psychoanalysis came about. I can imagine that it really did develop this way as Breuer and Feud discovered what worked and what didn't. We see free association or "chimney sweeping" as Bertha called it, we certainly see transference, and much more as the discipline developed.

Ben Cross was excellent, Armand Assante gave the best performance I have ever seen from him, Jamie Elman let us see Feud as a young man, Katheryn Winnick certainly makes me want to see her again, and Michal Yannai was delightful.

A great period piece that will delight all who care about philosophy and psychology.

The first 20 minutes of this film are torture! I don't mean to disrespect anyone, however, the actress playing Lou Salome was awful. Perhaps that's why we saw so little of this character, I have a feeling scenes with her were cut dramatically (no pun intended). Also, the Dr's secretary suffered from a severe case of hamming it up. While the ideas & dialogues were interesting, and some of the acting was very good, it took much too long to get where it was going. Scenes are disjointed & there is a huge portion where we don't see the main character but there is no real explanation for this. The cinematography was not "brilliant" as someone here has suggested. The accents were more fake than a bad weave. To be honest, I have seen TV movies that were better than this, some of them starring Armand Assante. Go rent one of those!

The first thing to make you judge well is that you know this movie is built on a fiction novel just like "The last temptation of Christ", so it's not real and not meant to say anything about the real Freud or Bruer or Nietzsche themselves.

you just have to fall deep into this good story and be sure it's a very touching one, as you know how a very strong man can cry over a moment, one moment.... nothing like you ever can expect.

I found the dreams amazingly directed as you know most directors make silly dream scenes, and the music also was just a very wise pick since nothing made but just picked from known and famous classics, that made it closer to the ear.

i suggest it as a-must-see movie

Its not a tremendous film, a must see, of a picture at his own, When Nitszche Wept is very good driven style of fan fiction, that manage to get us near to a lot of Niche, and Freud, concepts -but in reality is only near, because as lots of book-film adaptations, it takes a to much of the director's point of view-, it gets it right in some moments and is not a waste of time at all, but it suffers from his flaws, the nature of art, is specific to each category it belongs, this is most like and homage, and want us to remember very important things, and don't care about being very technical with the acting, the passing, or the writing itself, it's made great with the cameos that it have, and the good vibe the producers have toward those beautiful mind that they were, but maybe fails, to stand alone as film,

I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money.

WHEN NIETZSCHE WEPT gives us an insight into the beginnings of Psychology and particularly the Treatment of Talking as begun not by Sigmund Freud, but instead by the brilliant yet troubled mind of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the Viennese physician Dr. Josef Breuer. Pinchas Perry adapted the novel by the same name by Irvin D. Yalom and also directs this period piece. The film works on many levels: the flavor of the period is well captured (though Vienna in the film is Bulgarian locations!), the ideas are fresh to some, and the pacing and use of moments of fine classical music tidbits add flavor. If only more attention had been paid to the theories discussed...

1872 is the time and two men are haunted by demons, and the 'demons' happen to be failed love affairs with famous women. Dr. Josef Breuer (Ben Cross) is a famous physician but is obsessed with an hysterical young woman Bertha (Michal Yannai). Another beautiful lady enters Breuer's world in the form of Lou Salome (Katheryn Winnick) who has had a brief affair with the philosopher Nietzsche (Arman Assante) and feels he needs Breuer's help with his 'Talk Therapy'. The two men meet, share fears, and agree to a mutually beneficial relationship: Breuer will help Nietzsche with his migraines (due to his obsession with Lou Salome) and Nietzsche will share his philosophical approach to the world to help Breuer with is recurring nightmares. The resulting experience is an introduction to psychoanalysis as a treatment, a treatment that fascinates the young Freud (Jamie Elman).

The action is a bit heavy on the dream and surreal sequences instead of being a learned exploration of a very important period of history. The quality of acting is variable: Assante seems the only one to wholly grasp his role as Nietzsche. The film has many flaws but in the end it is an interesting introduction to the history of an important movement in medicine. It takes patience to watch but it is well worth the viewer's time. Grady Harp

The casting is awful. Only one of the four main, historical characters looks like the real person, and it's infuriating to see an ugly (sorry) Nietzsche and a cute Freud and even a very pretty Lou Salome. (although it's actually fantastic to see the actress every time she graces the screen) Growing a mustache on just anybody doesn't work; I don't care if he played in American Gangster that same year! The acting is bad, but I like hearing Nietzsche's ideas or what he might of said if he met the founding fathers of psychoanalysis on his historic trip through Austria during his actual depression from his actual failed relationship with Salome who was indeed a playgirl of sorts with the period's intellectuals. It's definitely an independent film in the sense that it's amateurish. There are interesting and surreal dream sequences although they aren't awesome. Maybe they resemble the book, but I'm just telling you to keep your hopes grounded. The title should have mentioned the psychoanalyst(s) instead of weeping. I don't care what the book was called. Adaptations are often renamed anyway. I think Nietzsche and the Nazis is a better movie for hearing Nietzsche's thoughts and even arguments against the accusation that his sister gave his works to the Nazis who twisted all of their meanings although that movie also isn't great; it's just a guy talking and playing dress up in front of progressively Gothic/romantic scenery, and the first hour is all about the Nazis.

I was looking forward to this: to meaty ideas at one of the most interesting junctures in history.

The meeting of forefathers of the Vienna circle in this fictional film leads down many strange paths and experiments in several ways to convey despair, hope, love etc;

However, there are some major faults. Firstly, the accents: thus use of faux German accents is just horrible throughout. It does not add realism or challenge but is rather distracting.

And secondly, the script is overladen and over-weighted by its attempt to be serious: it is all too much. One of the signs of good filming is the ability to speak into the silences: here the opposite it true, the silences are ALL filled with nonsensical and pompous lines that are so unlike any real voice.

On the positive, costume, and lighting are good.

Overall, a huge disappointment. I came away unconvinced that these were the giants of modern thought.

It is perhaps the most damning review one can offer: this film diminishes rather than augments their reputations.