Spellbound (1945)

[Mr. Arkadin]

Just a reminder that this wonderful film will be on tonight. Spellbound is currently OOP and not availible on DVD unless you were lucky enough to grab a Criterion copy while they had rights to the film.

Unfortunately, this movie often takes a back seat to the later Hitch/Bergman vehicle Notorious (1946), but I've always felt Spellbound was at least its equal, if not the superior film.

Many interesting ideas that became staples of Hitch's later work, are explored here. Hitch had played with sexual undercurrents and themes before, but with this film (and all his subsequent works) he began to take a deeper look at sexuality and its influence in our lives. Also, many staging techinques like the trial played out on Bergman face, would reappear in other films like Dial M for Murder (1953). The Dali centerpiece would inspire the dream sequence of Vertigo (1958), and also the use of the color red that would prefigure Marnie (1964).

Finally, the film is wonderfully acted and played with top marks going to Michael Chekhov as Bergman's old mentor, and Rhonda Fleming debuting as a sexually-warped inmate with a little bit of rage problem managment.

Spellbound is often not considered one of Hitchcock's masterpieces, but its definitely the transitional film, without which, the later great movies could never have materialized.

[jdb1]

I don't like this film very much, and the more of Gregory Peck I see, the more I feel that I just don't accept him as a lover. I find Peck too reserved, but without the underlying heat of, say, a Gary Cooper.

I think Bergman tears up the screen to his detriment in this one - she is so big and bulky and overpowering, and Peck didn't yet have the chops to counteract such a co-star (I'm not a big Bergman fan anyway). I don't feel any such dynamic in Notorious - Cary Grant is more than a match for Bergman there (as is Claude Rains). I do like Rhonda Fleming's bit - too bad she didn't get such meaty roles as her career progressed.

These days, I look in on Spellbound once in a while to hear the Theramin, to see the Dali sequence, and to count how many references from High Anxiety I can find (hooray for Prof. Lillolman!)

[mrsl]

Judith:

As much as I adore Gregory Peck, I have to admit you are correct in your opinion of him and Ingrid. I would however, suggest you catch him later with Ava Gardner in On the Beach but . . . I also have to admit when thinking up a decent 'lover' role on his part, I was having a little trouble recalling one, so I looked up his filmography on imdB and realized he played very few 'lover' roles. In most of his movies he is already married, or a military man away from women. Of his entire career, he only made about 10 movies where he is actually 'courting' some girl, and in most cases, his character is not looking for a 'playmate' so much as a 'lifemate'. Even as cute and playful as his character was with Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday, he knew nothing could come of it and didn't even try to argue with her when she asked him to let her out of the car, and not look back. He knew long before the press conference what had to happen.

He was definitely a match for Susan Hayward in Snows of Kilimanjaro, also along with Ava. In most cases when he was still single, the movie was a comedy. He seemed to prefer playing meaty roles like General Savage in 12 O'Clock High, and the Guns of Navarone. Or some other serious character like Atticus Finch, or Captain Newman, M.D., which was half comedy and half drama.

So in most cases he played the lawyers and left the playboys to Cary and Clark.

Anne

[SSO Admins]

I saw this a couple of weeks ago at the local repertory theater, and the big screen did nothing for it, IMO.

I will copy a comment I left at the excellent The Roadshow Version blog a week or so ago:

The major problem with Spellbound is just how cheesy the whole psychoanalysis thing seems today. Nothing about it is as simple as it’s presented here. It’s like you made a movie where the whole plot hinged on the earth being flat. Plus, Ingrid Bergman’s loyalty to Gregory Peck is silly and frankly offensive, especially when you compare her to Teresa Wright in SoaD or Tallulah Bankhead in Lifeboat. It wa a huge step backward for female characters in Hitch flicks.

Yet another problem — the scene where Peck and Bergman are skiing looks faintly ridiculous on a TV screen, but it looks patently stupid on a big one — the audience was laughing, and they tend to be pretty respectful.

I also agree that Peck didn't have the chops to stand up to Bergman (who I adore), like serving prime rib with a mild Chablis. Two weeks later I saw Notorious in the same theater, and she and Cary Grant almost set the place on fire -- the sex appeal of both stars was almost palpable.

[charliechaplinfan]

Notorious is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. Cary and Ingrid are perfectly cast as the lovers. Claude Rains is a Hitchcock great baddie.

I saw Spellbound many years ago. Gregory Peck didn't leave a great impression on me, unlike in Roman Holiday. Maybe I should revisit it. I doubt it will top Notorious.

[SSO Admins]

Spellbound doesn't out and out suck -- it is a Hitch film, after all. But it's not close to being in the same league as Notorious.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I always enjoy the film and I think it gets lower marks than it should because of comparisons with Notorious which came out the following year. While I do agree that the psychobabble plot is the weakest element, I never had a problem with Bergman or Peck, but the sappy dialogue they are often made to say in their love scenes.

Supposedly, Hitch was assaulted daily with memos from Selznick who came up with the idea about a film of psychoanalysis from which Hitchcock adapted The House of Doctor Edwardes by Frances Beeding. Selznick wanted the sappy stuff and even had his psychoanalyst on the set with Hitch as a "consultant", which nearly drove him round the bend. That the film got made at all was a miracle, but that Hitchcock was able to experiment and lay groundwork for later masterpieces was even more impressive.

Despite all the flaws, the movie still holds up remarkably well for me personally. Spellbound is by no means a perfect film, but it contained a lot of firsts for Hitch and was a necessary stepping stone in his work.

[Dewey1960]

The 1940s was a pretty spotty decade for Hitchcock. Arguably, two of his best films emerged from that period (SHADOW OF A DOUBT and NOTORIOUS), plus two films that can now be judged as purely experimental (LIFEBOAT and ROPE). His trio of entertaining and well-made espionage thrillers (FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, SABOTEUR and SABOTAGE) are little more than just that. His big commercial success of the decade (REBECCA) is generally held in high regard (I just saw it for the first time recently and could barely stay awake through it) and at least three are downright dull affairs (MR & MRS SMITH, THE PARADINE CASE and UNDER CAPRICORN). Just where SPELLBOUND sits among this group is debatable (personally I might toss it into the experimental group). It's certainly not as entertaining as some of his other films, but definitely earns points as an adventurous (if not particularly plausible) psychological drama, even if Peck does smother much of the inherent fun of the storyline with his somnambulistic performance.
Still, even second rate Hitchcock is generally far superior to and more interesting than the work of many other Hollywood directors of the period.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Hi Dewey, It's interesting because in a analysis book I'm reading on Fritz Lang's films, there is a definite link drawn between Spellbound and the Secret Beyond the Door (1947). Both films have many similarities and are quite dreamlike in look and perspective.

I have to confess I'm a big Hitch fan, my favorite of his films being Rope (1948). They were some of the first films I ever saw, introduced to me by my father.

While I think Notorious is a finely crafted film, and would agree that Lifeboat and Spellbound are experimental, I personally think the deepest works of those you mentioned would be Sabotage (1936), Shadow of a Doubt (1943), and Rope (1948). These three films have many layers and go far beyond some of Hitches other entertainment fare in themes and symbolism. Hitch generally made a good product (few real stinkers), but I consider those three, the deepest of his thirties and forties output.

[Dewey1960]

Ark: I agree with your comment about Lang's SECRET BEYOND THE DOOR (funny, I just had the opportunity to see it again recently!) In fact, I am now inclined to crack open my old VHS tape copy of SPELLBOUND, as I think it just might qualify as the double-bill of the month! (Hitchcock and Lang; it rarely gets much better than that!) Thanks for the inspiration! (Four exclamation points in one post; wow!) (Er, five.)

[SSO Admins]

I've been seeing a Hitch movie a week at a local theater's retrospective. Right now we're almost through the 40s.

Just about anyone would agree that SoaD and Notorious were two of his best of the period. They're excellent movies any way you look at it.

Lifeboat was better than expected. Tallulah Bankhead really carried this one. Even though the supporting cast was quite good, she owned the picture. Rope is coming up in two weeks, and it's been so long since I've seen it I'm not sure I can comment intelligently on it right now.

Saboteur I think would have been a better film with a better cast. Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane (as gorgeous as she was) just didn't have the acting chops to pull this off well.

I don't think Gregory Peck really came into his own as an actor until much later. In the 40s he seemed like a poor man's Cary Grant, and nowhere is this more obvious than in Spellbound.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Hi Jon, Lifeboat is a great film that walks many interesting social lines with an excellent cast. I hope you enjoy Rope.

Saboteur is my personal favorite of Hitches "Wronged Man on the Run" trilogy. The other two being The 39 Steps and North by Northwest. There is so much to see in this film that it really needs to be viewed a couple of times to appreciate everything within it's frames. An interesting work (and virtual tour of the U.S.) that more people should be familar with.

I would agree that Cummings was the weakest actor of the three in the trilogy and even go a step further to say he was quite possibly the weakest actor in Saboteur itself. However, I think it gives the film a suspensful quality as Cummings seems truly overmatched by his adversaries.

Donat in my opinion, is clearly the best actor of the three and balances heroics with a run for your life attitude as few can. Although he and Cummings both end up in handcuffs, Donat's character makes better use of the prop by chaining himself to his costar. Donat's interaction with those he meets on his journey is also better written and well acted. Much smoother in my opinion than Cummings or Grant. Finally Donat's speech to unawares is the best of the three with Grant's "auction" coming in a close second.

On comedic terms, all actors are pretty evenly matched. Cummings has my favorite scene though, when he suggests to the effeminate spy who wants his kid to have long golden curls the advice of a haircut: "it might save the kid a lot of grief."

As far as the villians, Saboteur and 39 Steps clearly have the edge here. Their characters are powerful, sophisticated, and confident. Otto Kruger makes the better use of his wordy lines like a spider spinning webs of deceit and propaganda--all with a sneering smile. He also keeps popping up in unexpected places, which adds to his menacing quality.

Costars are no contest for me. I'm a big Priscilla Lane fan and love her spunky qualities. She was beautiful, but you never felt like she was afraid to get her hands dirty. She had great ability to balance comedy and drama in her roles and comes through in spades here.

Saboteur's weakness is twofold--the wordy propagandic script, and believability of some of its situations. Cummings also has a bit of trouble and tends to rush his speeches (but I'll give him a break here--that stuff was so wordy ANYONE would have trouble with it.). I also think that The 39 Steps has a better ending in the death of Mr. Miracle.

All in all, I love the first two films very much. I think that Saboteur is the best touring film and has a bit of an edge in comedy on 39 Steps which I find to contain a more serious aspect and is perhaps a better spy film. North by Northwest is the weakest film for me (especially the ending), but contains one of the best film scores of all time in my estimation. I love Cary Grant and he does a great job here, I'm just not a big fan of the film itself.

As for Peck, see Keys of the Kingdom (1944) made the year before Spellbound if you have any doubts about his acting ability in this period.

[Moraldo Rubini]

The only reason I watch Spellbound these days is for the Dali-designed dream sequences, which I find beautifully haunting. I wonder whatever happened to the trimmed footage of these sequences? Hitch often talked about the bizarre Dali ideas of Ingrid Bergman covered in ants, but Ms. Bergman discussed actual filmed material, including "...a wonderful twenty-minute sequence that really belongs in a museum."*

I never had a problem with the cast, as much as with the script. I rather liked Gregory Peck in it. And he was a success with the audiences in this part.

Peck we know to be the new rage, and if any further proof were needed, it was to be found in what happened at the previews of Spellbound. We could not keep the audience quiet from the time his name first came on the screen until we had shushed the audience through three or four sequences and stopped all the dames from "ohing" and "ahing" and gurgling...**

The Criterion Collection edition of this movie had the worst audio commentary I'd ever heard. Pontificating about the psychological aspects of the movie (which were fairly specious to begin with).

Rózsa's score is swell though. I have pal whom I've known since Junior High School. We grew up going to classic movies together, and to this day I'll draw "ski tracks" in white linen tablecloths as she does her imitation of the theramin.
__________
*/ The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, Spoto, p. 155.
**/ Memo from David O. Selznick, p. 349.

[charliechaplinfan]

I agree that a bad Hitchcock is still a good film with only one or two exceptions.

Has anyone mentioned Suspicion and Strangers on a Train. They're two good films from the forties. My other favorites are Notorious, Rebecca and Shadow of a Doubt.

I absolutely love Story of A London Fog. I know it's a silent but it shows that early on Hitch had realised about the fundamentals of filmmaking. Especially on building suspense. I was rivetted and had no idea of the outcome.

I think Hitch's work of the forties is very different to his work of the fifties. Rear Window, Dail M For Murder, To Catch A Thief, Vertigo and North By North West are all films I can watch time and time again and just slip away into the colourful world of Hitchcock. Everything was near perfect. The music and cinematography just welded together so well.

I like his sixties films but not as much as the fifities.