Spellbound (B+ or 3.5/4 stars)
In what is the very 1st major Hollywood film that tackles psychoanalysis, director Alfred Hitchcock employs Ingrid Bergman & then up-&-coming star Gregory Peck to headline his 'Spellbound'. Dr. Constance Peterson (Bergman) is a brilliant but cold, strongly opinionated psychoanalyst in a mental institution located in rural Vermont, who aggravates her male colleagues by not returning their amorous advances. Replacing Dr. Murchison (Leo G. Carroll), her new boss, Dr. Edwardes (Peck), immediately attracts her & they eventually fall in love; much to the consternation of her jilted colleagues. But circumstantial evidence indicates that Dr. Edwardes is actually an impostor who has taken the (apparently) dead man's place & is trying to assume his position -- that is, until he prudently flees to a Manhattan hotel.
There, he'll try to figure out the cause of his dizzy spells, who he REALLY is and ... how he became Dr. Edwardes. Constance goes to the hotel to see the impostor whose sanity is under question. She finds him, sympathizes with him, they suddenly fall in love and, with confidence in the intuitive rightness of her love, she becomes convinced that he is truly a victim of amnesia. In an act of desperation, she takes him up to Rochester, NY to meet her elderly mentor, sage psychoanalyst, Dr. Alex Brulov (Michael Chekhov). Brulov gets the amnesiac to speak about one of his dreams (one that was designed for the film by Salvador Dali -- fascinating stuff!). The movie then transitions into a murder mystery tale as the amnesiac - through Constance's loving help - unlocks her lover's past secret which enables him to visualize who Dr. Edwardes is, where he is, & what's happened to him. Any more plot discussion would ruin what occurs in the final 10-15 minutes.
What a nifty motion picture. But then, with Hitchcock at the helm, should I really be surprised? I was entranced by the performances. I was intrigued by the Freudian analysis component of the plot; as mentioned, never before had psychoanalysis been a major plot point in a Hollywood film. And I was fascinated/held in suspense by the murder mystery component to see how that all fit-in to the psychoanalysis part. The script, written by Ben Hecht, was aided by actual psychoanalysts who were on Hitchcock's set to make sure that everything we were watching wasn't just some hooey. Now, perhaps mileage will vary on the viewer depending on how much you know or believe in psychoanalysis (the notion that a doctor(s) gets the patient to spill his guts and ... poof ... he's miraculously cured).
My only major critique of 'Spellbound' would be that the film lacks resonance once it's over. I was transfixed to the screen for the duration; trying to figure it all out. Once everything is all sorted out, it is satisfactory, but there's little else to grasp onto, so to speak. That's not to say that this movie isn't one you won't want to see again ... you will! I'm just saying that the story is what it is and you movie on. Having said all of that, really: Ingrid Bergman's intoxicating performance, Gregory Peck's curious ambiguity, Michael Chekov's wonderful lending of 'wise old man' humor, the distinct narration, flowery dialogue, plot twists, Hitchcock's imaginative visual panache, SUPERB music score (by Miklos Rosza) & the overall scope of the story all coalesce to make 'Spellbound' be quite the spellbinding movie.
There, he'll try to figure out the cause of his dizzy spells, who he REALLY is and ... how he became Dr. Edwardes. Constance goes to the hotel to see the impostor whose sanity is under question. She finds him, sympathizes with him, they suddenly fall in love and, with confidence in the intuitive rightness of her love, she becomes convinced that he is truly a victim of amnesia. In an act of desperation, she takes him up to Rochester, NY to meet her elderly mentor, sage psychoanalyst, Dr. Alex Brulov (Michael Chekhov). Brulov gets the amnesiac to speak about one of his dreams (one that was designed for the film by Salvador Dali -- fascinating stuff!). The movie then transitions into a murder mystery tale as the amnesiac - through Constance's loving help - unlocks her lover's past secret which enables him to visualize who Dr. Edwardes is, where he is, & what's happened to him. Any more plot discussion would ruin what occurs in the final 10-15 minutes.
What a nifty motion picture. But then, with Hitchcock at the helm, should I really be surprised? I was entranced by the performances. I was intrigued by the Freudian analysis component of the plot; as mentioned, never before had psychoanalysis been a major plot point in a Hollywood film. And I was fascinated/held in suspense by the murder mystery component to see how that all fit-in to the psychoanalysis part. The script, written by Ben Hecht, was aided by actual psychoanalysts who were on Hitchcock's set to make sure that everything we were watching wasn't just some hooey. Now, perhaps mileage will vary on the viewer depending on how much you know or believe in psychoanalysis (the notion that a doctor(s) gets the patient to spill his guts and ... poof ... he's miraculously cured).
My only major critique of 'Spellbound' would be that the film lacks resonance once it's over. I was transfixed to the screen for the duration; trying to figure it all out. Once everything is all sorted out, it is satisfactory, but there's little else to grasp onto, so to speak. That's not to say that this movie isn't one you won't want to see again ... you will! I'm just saying that the story is what it is and you movie on. Having said all of that, really: Ingrid Bergman's intoxicating performance, Gregory Peck's curious ambiguity, Michael Chekov's wonderful lending of 'wise old man' humor, the distinct narration, flowery dialogue, plot twists, Hitchcock's imaginative visual panache, SUPERB music score (by Miklos Rosza) & the overall scope of the story all coalesce to make 'Spellbound' be quite the spellbinding movie.