This slow and subtitled French film that is based on actual events won't be one many are going to out-right enjoy although I found it to be rather interesting as I find its subject matter -- 19th century female hysteria -- to be most fascinating.The film is about Augustine, an illiterate young French housemaid (played by French singer/actress Soko), who suffers a debilitating seizure one evening while serving dinner that leaves her partially paralyzed. She is thus admitted to the Parisian psychiatric hospital, Pitié-Salpêtriere, where she is diagnosed as a hysteric (!) and treated by renown physician Jean-Martin Charcot (Vincent Lindon - Mademoiselle Chambon).The medical world of the 19th century was dominated by uber-intelligent men (that "intelligent" part could be debated) and it was common for a woman who experienced something that a man couldn't easily explain and/or understand to be diagnosed with "hysteria" (a "nice way" of saying a female sexual perversion). If a woman acted in any manner society found confusing or even slightly objectionable, she was a "hysteric" who could find herself institutionalized and subjected to some horrifyingly abhorrent and offensive "treatment(s)" at the hands of men who claimed a medical interest in her well-being.The time period and "understanding" of this predominately female ailment IS genuinely fascinating and if this topic sounds even remotely intriguing, I implore people to seek out the topic and read up on it as Augustine is merely about A case -- AN instance -- in this outrageously baffling era of medical (mal)practice when many male doctors found it to be en vogue and "fashionable" to make these diagnoses! The level of quasi-ignorance shared by these male "geniuses" in the medical field who simply did not understand women is mind-blowing.I think a better film would have focused more on the doctor and his evolving understanding of hysteria over the years that followed this brief amount of time spent with this one patient, Augustine. There is a reason the film was not entitled Charcot. Instead, the direction of Alice Winocour (a WOMAN!!!?!) has used a specific example to reveal a sad universal truth of the time and expose just how farcical this "ailment" was while subtly implying perversions may have lain elsewhere. As Winocour's first full-length feature film that is clichéd a time or two, she shows much promise. Diagnose that, Charcot! Again, the movie is hard to simply "enjoy" but it is one that could hopefully shed some more light on this bizarre chapter of modern medicine.

This film kept my attention from start to finish. Beautiful woman, mysterious ailment, reserved doctor, 19th century setting, beautiful costumes, beautiful settings and scenery. Sensuous undertones and a dash of smoldering sexually. I must watch again, this time with my lady.I am a man of letters and my review is more than adequate. Requiring ten lines before a review may be published does a disservice to those who write reviews and those who read (or more accurately, can not) the reviews.This film kept my attention from start to finish. Beautiful woman, mysterious ailment, reserved doctor, 19th century setting, beautiful costumes, beautiful settings and scenery. Sensuous undertones and a dash of smoldering sexually. I must watch again, this time with my lady.I am a man of letters and my review is more than adequate. Requiring ten lines before a review may be published does a disservice to those who write reviews and those who read (or more accurately, can not) the reviews.This film kept my attention from start to finish. Beautiful woman, mysterious ailment, reserved doctor, 19th century setting, beautiful costumes, beautiful settings and scenery. Sensuous undertones and a dash of smoldering sexually. I must watch again, this time with my lady.I am a man of letters and my review is more than adequate. Requiring ten lines before a review may be published does a disservice to those who write reviews and those who read (or more accurately, can not) the reviews.

Maybe not worth an Oscar nomination, but the French singer SoKo did a great job with this role (not unlike the young actress, Quvenzhané Wallis, who did a great job in an otherwise a painfully flawed "Beast of the Southern Wild"). "Augustine" does a great job of highlighting the attitudes and practices that existed during the 19th century as psychiatry was trying to become a science. And as backward and ignorant as the beliefs of Charcot will appear to many, who lack a sense or knowledge of history, it is even sadder to think that Charcot was actually a genius compared to most of the people of his era, and that he was a definite improvement over the entire rest of human history that preceded the 19th century. At least Charcot tried to break out of the ignorance that enveloped (and still envelops much of) humanity when it comes to the "mentally ill" and the epileptic. The worse part of the movie is the ending, that final encounter between Charcot and Augustine after Charcot's presentation of Augustine to a group of French scientists; it just didn't make sense. But overall "Augustine" is better than average...and nowadays that's a lot since even better-than-average films are so rare.

**SPOILER FREE***I couldn't write this entire review without spoilers but I'll write a short one without any. This is the story of Augustine, a 19 year-old woman who is sent to an asylum because she has crises and is apparently 'possessed.' She is treated by Charcot (Vincent Lindon) who was a real french doctor who worked with hypnosis to treat hysteria and made several advances in the field of Parkinson and sclerosis. Here however, Charcot's skills seem mostly to take off girl's clothes. Nothing is said about what Charcot really does or why he does it. He uses hypnosis to observe Augustine's crises but he doesn't really seem to care for the other patient. He quite obviously wants to sleep with Augustine and has a really nice monkey at home. That's what I walked away from. The film itself would have been quite good if not for major plot holes. Vincent Lindon whom I love, was quite fantastic in this, as usual, as was the girl playing Augustine. It seems the film is going somewhere until the very end when you realize it really isn't. It's too bad because, because Augustine was 'almost' a very good film. ***SPOILERS***Augustine, following one of the biggest crisis is left with paralysis on her right side (it seems she can still move however, but she can't open her eye and she can't feel anything.) She is obviously sexually repressed and at age 19, still doesn't have her period. Charcot writes in his diary that she is starting to feel better. She had a dream that animals were being bled and now she has her period! Like magic, because Charcot really didn't do anything in the film, as far as we're aware. Then she has another crisis and the paralysis moves to her left side. But she can still move everything except for her arm. Charcot undresses her a few times and decides he wants to present her to the academy to get more funding. But just before the presentation, she falls down the stairs and can move her arm! So she decides that she is healed (even though her main issue was her recurring crises) and she fakes a crisis at the academy, going all out to touch herself while looking Charcot in the eye. Huge sexual build up of course, so Charcot leaves everyone at the academy to go have sex with Augustine and then he lets her escape the asylum. So what is the morale of the film? No one realized just because her paralysis is temporarily gone doesn't mean she is healed? Was she just so horny it caused her not to move? They had really good substance and wasted it to make this film a sexual affair between Charcot and Augustine. I did still enjoy the film beyond that, I am disappointed.