As a film on it's own, I feel, Spellbound falls short on emotional impact. It is as cerebral and unfeeling in it's story telling as its protagonist (Bergman). For this reason, I could not connect with it in a meaningful way, other than to inspect and analyze it. Which, I suppose you could call performance art. Extra points for that...
His films through the 40's seem to be goldmines for deconstructing the brilliance of his later films that he made through the 50's into the 60's (his golden age). They are clunkier, more basic versions, and so, easier to understand the moving parts. I have a feeling that films like Rope (up next), Under Capricorn, and The Paradine Case, leading into films like To Catch a Thief and The Wrong Man will show us how he started to form the polish that leads to the greats we know today
Well, I definitely saw this before. But, it was very interesting seeing it again now that I'm beginning to understand what seems to be Hitchcock's Freud phase in the 40's. This one, involving a 'psychoanalyst' as the protagonist chasing down an analysis to absolve her subject of a crime, to me this reveals Hitchcock's obsession with psychology and its importance to human drama. Films like Rebecca, The 39 Steps, and Shadow of a Doubt, all threadbare psychological thrillers, all lead up to this.
Haha, it's worth it to see this movie just for the most bizarre montage you've ever seen. We go from all wrapped up, to a bizarre twist that puts Peck convicted in jail. All in about 30 seconds and without one shot of Peck, totally low budg. It really feels like a rewrite after they shot the film.
Holy crap, they were! Egg coffee is a thing!
Now Playing: Hitchcock's Spellbound (1945) starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck.
Welcome to laserdisc.party, a movie-flavoured instance home to friendly video store chitchat and general bonhomie.