← Back to Reviews
in
That's how Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingmar Bergman) is described by one of her flirting colleagues. Emotionally distant and clinically accurate is how she prefers to handle herself. It's as if she didn't remember how to show her emotions, love or be loved. "The greatest harm done to the human race has been done by the poets" she says at dinner as she tells of how poets fill people's heads with false expectations of love, kisses, embraces, etc.
That's until she meets her new boss (Gregory Peck), a young doctor, who ends up being not her boss, but rather a victim of amnesia who has taken up the place of a Dr. Edwardes for some reason. Going by the initials "J.B.", the young man doesn't seem to remember anything about his past, what he did, whether he was married or single, but more importantly, how he ended up taking Dr. Edwardes identity, and what happened to the real one.
In a way, both Constance and J.B. are victims of a similar spell. They're both trapped by different circumstances, the former by her career and the latter by guilt. Because of this, they both find themselves unable to show or feel emotions or love. But as they meet each other, kisses become "lyrical poems" and embraces become "Shakespearean dramas".
Sure, there's a murder in the background and a quest to find out what happened, but the real focus of the story is how Constance and J.B. interact with each other, helping each other break away the cages that have held them captive for so long, even though they try to convince themselves that it can't be real. Watching Bergman and Peck interact is a real treat, particularly the former who I thought was quite good in this.
The murder subplot is paper-thin, sorta similar to other late 30's Hitchcock films, but it is well executed. I also give props to Hitchcock and the writers for trying to instill the script with a loose thread of real psychology, even if its application feels convoluted, or too convenient for the story. Much is said about the Dalí-inspired dream sequence, but I was a bit underwhelmed at how brief it was. Still, I thought the film was pretty good and entertaining with some solid moments of tension, Hitchcock's direction was almost flawless, and most of the performances were good.
Grade:
SPELLBOUND
(1945, Hitchcock)
(1945, Hitchcock)
"It's rather like embracing a textbook."
That's how Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingmar Bergman) is described by one of her flirting colleagues. Emotionally distant and clinically accurate is how she prefers to handle herself. It's as if she didn't remember how to show her emotions, love or be loved. "The greatest harm done to the human race has been done by the poets" she says at dinner as she tells of how poets fill people's heads with false expectations of love, kisses, embraces, etc.
That's until she meets her new boss (Gregory Peck), a young doctor, who ends up being not her boss, but rather a victim of amnesia who has taken up the place of a Dr. Edwardes for some reason. Going by the initials "J.B.", the young man doesn't seem to remember anything about his past, what he did, whether he was married or single, but more importantly, how he ended up taking Dr. Edwardes identity, and what happened to the real one.
In a way, both Constance and J.B. are victims of a similar spell. They're both trapped by different circumstances, the former by her career and the latter by guilt. Because of this, they both find themselves unable to show or feel emotions or love. But as they meet each other, kisses become "lyrical poems" and embraces become "Shakespearean dramas".
Sure, there's a murder in the background and a quest to find out what happened, but the real focus of the story is how Constance and J.B. interact with each other, helping each other break away the cages that have held them captive for so long, even though they try to convince themselves that it can't be real. Watching Bergman and Peck interact is a real treat, particularly the former who I thought was quite good in this.
The murder subplot is paper-thin, sorta similar to other late 30's Hitchcock films, but it is well executed. I also give props to Hitchcock and the writers for trying to instill the script with a loose thread of real psychology, even if its application feels convoluted, or too convenient for the story. Much is said about the Dalí-inspired dream sequence, but I was a bit underwhelmed at how brief it was. Still, I thought the film was pretty good and entertaining with some solid moments of tension, Hitchcock's direction was almost flawless, and most of the performances were good.
Grade: