Both Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis were living in England when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in 1939. Freud had recently left Nazi-controlled Austria with his family and was residing in London. Lewis, then at Oxford, was beginning to make himself known as a writer and theologian with the publication of The Pilgrim’s Regression And Out of the silent planet.
There is no record of the two men meeting. But what if they had?
A new film, Freud’s last session– directed by Matthew Brown, adapted from a play of the same name by Mark St. Germain, and in select theaters from Friday December 22 – imagines a hypothetical home visit from the Oxford don to the father of psychoanalysis, aged 83 years old. Anthony Hopkins (who also played Lewis in Shadow Lands) brings complex depth to Freud in his final weeks of life, and Matthew Goode (of Downton Abbey And The game of imitations) is a younger, more serious Lewis who feels a little embarrassed about having satirized Freud in The Pilgrim’s Regression.
Soon, however, two of the greatest minds of the 20th century are debating everything from the existence of God to the origin of evil to the meaning of suffering. It’s a heavyweight match, and Freud’s last session offers ringside seating. A brief exchange gives the meaning of the debate:
Freud: Your God who created good, or whatever, must also have created evil, evil. He allowed Lucifer to live; he let it flourish. But logically, he should have destroyed it. Am I right? Think about it.
Louis: God gave Lucifer free will, which is the only thing that makes goodness possible. A world full of creatures without choices is a world of machines. It was men, not God, who created prisons, slavery and bombs. Man’s suffering is man’s fault.
Freud: Is this your excuse and explanation for pain and suffering? Did I cause my own cancer? Or is killing me God’s vengeance for my unbelief?
Louis: I don’t know. …That’s the hardest question of all, isn’t it?
If this back and forth constituted the entire film, it would amount to a dramatized version of psychiatrist Armand Nicholi’s 2003 book, The question of God, which brought the philosophies of Lewis and Freud side by side in a nonfiction format and inspired St. Germain’s play. But the storyline’s inclusion of troubled pasts, family strife and personal suffering elevates Lewis’s visit from an intellectual struggle to an emotionally gripping drama – and the blossoming of a friendship based not on shared values or common interests but on vulnerability and service.
As World War II progresses, air raid sirens and a bomb shelter send Lewis into a panic attack caused by PTSD from his service in World War I. Meanwhile, Freud’s oral cancer and inoperable oral prosthesis cause him constant, sometimes unbearable, pain. When frustration arises, the two men move from debating ideas to investigating each other’s personal lives for weaknesses or hypocrisies, including Lewis’s. much debated relationship with the mother of a fellow soldier, Janie Moore, with whom he lived for many years.
However, when one of the men sees the other suffering, he intervenes to help him. The climactic moments are not brilliant arguments, bold blows delivered by one or another scholar. These are times of pain, fear and selflessness. They might be better evidence of God than even Lewis can muster.
Polarization has been the buzzword of our decade. We are told that it is Worse than ever before in American history (or maybe this is not the case), that the problem is policy (Or maybe it’s us), and that we must become better at listening, at asking questions careful questionsto expose ourselves to more views.
But what if the cure for polarization doesn’t speak Or listen? What if it was service?
We are called to “have the same mentality as Jesus Christ,” the one who “came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Phil. 2:5; Mark 10). : 45). We are told to “bear one another’s burdens, and in this way we will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). Being persuasive is not part of the instructions; in fact, many of our arguments will never make sense to unbelievers (1 Cor. 1:18).
Freud’s last session does not end in a rhetorical victory. Neither man “wins” the conversation, which is hardly a spoiler given their well-known careers and opinions. But they come out changed. Freud finally opens up to being, as he puts it, “manipulated” by the beauty of life, and he is ready to have a healthier relationship with his daughter Anna. Lewis, it is suggested, finds new insight into his recurring fantasy of a forest that evokes awe of the divine.
Louis Labels the emotion of the forest as “joy”, and he and Freud both admit to a life of desire for it. But discussing free will and the problem of evil does not bring them joy. Rather, it manifests itself in small acts of presence and service, and we don’t need the intellect of CS Lewis to share that with an unbelieving world.
Beware of the spectator
It’s Freud, so we’ll talk about sex. He and Lewis discuss this topic with many others, and in one scene a woman describes a dream involving sexual trauma. Some flashbacks to Lewis’ time in the trenches and hospital also contribute to the PG-13 rating.
Alexandra Mellen is editor-in-chief at Christianity today.
