SPELLBOUND (1945) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: Alfred Hitchcock Writers: Ben Hecht and Angus MacPhail (based on the book by Francis Beeding) Starring: Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Michael Chekhov, Leo G. Carroll, Rhonda Fleming, John Ermery, Norman Lloyd, Bill Goodwin
Psychoanalysis has played a big part in the realm of suspense/thrillers since the 40s, creating films that would use an analysis to make up for the typical investigating. Recent films like "Final Analysis" and "Kiss the Girls" has relied on a therapist to become the protagonist, and for his work to play as the detective work in the film. Well here's the first one to ever do this: Hitchcock's "Spellbound." And while not many thrillers have used this idea as well as this original film, it's still not the greatest film, especially for a director as amazing as Hitchcock.
"Spellbound" is nevertheless an intriguing film from start to finish. It deals with a female protagonist (not a big thing in thrillers of the 40s): Dr. Constance Petersen (the amaing Ingrid Bergman), who works at an institute as their only female doctor. One day, the place is introduced to a new head of the institute: Dr. Edwards (a very young Gregrory Peck), who begins to show strange signs of some kind of psychological intemperment, reacting bizarrely to things as simple as rubbing a fork against table cloth, or the black stripes on a sweater.
Soon enough, though, Constance and Edwards are hitting it off, and finding out they love eachother. But as soon as this happens, it turns out that Dr. Edwards is not whom he seems. He is really a man named John Ballantine, and the real Edwards is dead. But Constance finds out quickly that John is not a cold-blooded killer, but really a deep amnesiac.
Constance risks her entire career to find out about this man since she loves him, and flees with him into hiding to an old professor of hers, the eccentric Dr. Brulov (Michael Chekhov - no relation to the Star Trek guy - sorry, had to be said), where she is sure that she can cure him by analysis, and discover whether or not he actually did kill Edwards. The film unfolds beautifully, holding our interest throughout, but the ending is somewhat anti-climactic, but works, and even spurns one of the most tense sequences at the end, even if it is pretty contrived.
There are several flaws with the film, such as: why does Constance risk her entire life and career for some guy she just knew for a couple days, even if she does swear she loves him? There's a great dream sequence designed by the dream-meister himself, Salvador Dali (Hitch must be a big fan of "Un Chien Andalou"), and it's great and all, but how does John, who dreamt it, remember every single detial so clearly? I know that when I've had a dream that weird that I can only remember instances of it.
However, what makes the film rise high above the flaws of the film is the way that this film is absolutely spellbinding. The film, as I said, unfolds wonderfully, and this is so; I was guessing the entire time. The film doesn't know a whole lot about psychology, but it at least knows the basics, and uses these to suspenseful heights, which are steady throughout the film as you can seldomly see what direction it will be going in.
The acting from everyone is pretty great, with Bergman showing that she's a strong woman, although not too strong as she risks her entire career over an amnesiac man whom she apparently loves (the film could have backed this up a little bit more). Peck is great, although his look of confusion and hypnotism gets so redundant that I started snickering as the film goes on. And Michael Chekhov as the wily old man steals every scene he's in.
There are, of course, the great Hitchcockian moments throughout the film, some which were pretty innovative for the time. There is a really nifty chase scene which is done intelligently as Constance and John are trying to flee from the police while not making any noticable riffs. There's a scene where John is under a trance and it is very forseeable that he may kill someone (with a brilliant follow-up scene). The dream sequence, as I said, is trippy and cool as hell, although too unvague (and makes too much sense). And the finale is, as I said, forced, but with a great POV shot, is done so tensely that yes, I cringed.
Although most of the time, it is, as the title says, spellbinding, it's still not the greatest film. Maybe it's the fact that psychology and suspense are tough bedfellows, but I still can't remember a film that blended these two ideas together in a neat coherent whole. It's a minor disappointment when held up to a lot of Hitchcock's other flicks, but measured on its own, is a rather satisfying film to watch. Fun, albeit not the most intelligent fun it could be, but is still the best suspense film dealing with psychoanalysis that I can remember.
MY RATING (out of 4): ***
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews