(Credits: Far Out / Sony Pictures Classics)

In 1939, just before Great Britain declared war on Germany, the elderly, dying Sigmund Freud reportedly received a visit from an unnamed Oxford don. Those minimal facts were the basis for playwright Mark St Germain’s 2009 off-Broadway production, Freud’s Last Session, in which the visitor was fancifully identified as Oxford professor C. S. Lewis, and the plot consists largely of the two men’s imagined conversation. That play has now been adapted by St Germain in collaboration with the film’s director, Matthew Brown, best known for The Man Who Knew Infinity. However little basis, in reality, the plot may have, the two main characters, approximations of a famous Christian apologist and a longstanding atheist, have the potential for drama or at least a lively debate. 

Lewis has been invited to Freud’s London home in the script’s imagined scenario. Freud is evasive about the exact reason for the invitation, but a possibility is Lewis’ satirical version of Freud in his book, Pilgrim’s Regress, and Lewis begins by apologising for any offence given. This opens the door to a lengthy, varied conversation that balances friendly chat, intellectual discussion, and verbal fencing match. The primary conflict is between Lewis’ position as a Christian apologist and Freud’s as a longstanding atheist. Even when they speak of other things, the divergence of faith with disbelief seeps into all their discussions. These differences eventually give way to arguments and accusations, which bring out both men’s secrets, past traumas, and hidden fears heightened by Freud’s terminal illness and considerations of suicide. The script explores the possible sources of two very different views of the world.

The storyline, although dialogue-heavy, is by no means limited to drawing room conversation. Everything takes place with the impending war as a backdrop, with grim radio news updates punctuating the visit and offering context for some of the discussion. The two men’s outwardly polite argument is augmented by cutaway scenes which illustrate or explain what they are discussing or provide insight into the mind or thoughts of a character. When the conversation turns to Lewis’ traumatic recollections of the war, we see scenes of his experiences on the battlefield and post-war, some of them quite disturbing.

There are glimpses of Anna Freud’s arrest by the Gestapo and of one of her early psychotherapy sessions with her father. There are also images not based on reality, which illustrate the individual’s deeper beliefs, concerns, or state of mind – such as Lewis wandering into the magical forest of his Narnia stories. Anna Freud’s activities are also followed in a subplot that sheds light on Freud’s inner life. These creatively managed scenes provide a depth and insight that the discussion alone would not achieve and often reveal a deeper truth that one or the other of the men avoids.

The film’s strength is definitely its cast, led by Anthony Hopkins as the fictionalised Freud in a powerful, multi-level portrait that reveals both Freud’s genius and his many human failings. Matthew Goode as C S Lewis gives a more restrained performance but a moving and effective one. Also significant is German actress Liv Lisa Fries’ performance as Anna Freud, giving a brilliant portrayal of an intelligent woman whose life is diminished by a rather one-sided relationship with her famous father. Hopkins plays Freud as self-assured to the point of arrogance,

confidently relying on the “authority of science” in his debate with Lewis. Goode’s version of C. S. Lewis is less aggressive in the argument but quietly holds his own. The movie does not take sides but provides an interesting conflict as Freud rather smugly points out inconsistencies in Lewis’ beliefs, while Lewis, in turn, finds holes in Freud’s insistence on a psychological rationale for all human endeavour, including faith and morality. Daughter Anna Freud provides further insights into her father’s motivations, which turn his own theories back on himself. 

There is no winner or loser in this fictional dispute. The script sensibly leaves matters largely unresolved and, following a mostly cordial conclusion to the visit, leaves both men facing their own fears, each in his own way, in a moving and satisfying conclusion. An imperfect but thoughtful story is made more intriguing by universal issues, good direction, and a stellar cast.