Showing posts with label hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hitchcock. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Single, Solitary Reason
Spellbound or The House of Dr. Edwardes, written by Francis Beeding, is almost completely worthless. In fact, the single, solitary reason why I even keep my copy is: The pictures on the inside cover. They're from the movie, and I loved the movie. Otherwise, the book is rubbish.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Concerning Spellbound
(Suggested by The House of Dr. Edwardes by Frances Beeding.) Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is strictly a woman of science. One of her coworkere at the mental hospital Green Manors refers to her as a "human glacier." Then she meets handsome Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck), the new head of Green Manors. He sweeps her off her feet, but she soon discovers that there's something odd about him. He seems to be on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and it isn't long before Constance discovers that he isn't Dr. Edwardes at all. In fact, he's suffering from amnesia - and a deep-seated belief that he killed Dr. Edwardes.
Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.
The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.
The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.
Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.
(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)
My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.
The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.
The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.
Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.
(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)
My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
In Relation To I Confess
A man comes to Fr. Logan (Montgomery Clift) and confesses to a murder. When the police begin to investigate, Fr. Logan faithfully upholds the seal of the confessional and says nothing. But as circumstantial evidence begins to cast suspicion on Fr. Logan, the real killer becomes nervous. Will the priest take the fall to protect the murderer, or will Fr. Logan become frightened enough to confess what he heard?
They just don't make movies like this any more. Granted, it's a little over dramatic in parts - nearly all Alfred Hitchcock movies are. But the rest of the movie - and the rich Christian symbolism in particular - is well worth the one or two eye-rolling moments.
The passion and death of Jesus is a motif throughout I Confess. When he is accused of the murder, Fr. Logan must choose between clearing his name and obeying Jesus, who once said "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23b). As he is wrestling with what to do, he passes crucifixes and statues of Jesus on the road to Calvary. There is also a prominent crucifix in the court room. These images, often either prominent or even in the foreground of camera shots, compare Fr. Logan's suffering with that of Jesus, who also suffered for other people's sins.
Ultimately, my favorite thing about this movie is the portrayal of a strong Catholic priest. After the horrible scandal that has surfaced in the last few years, it's refreshing to watch a movie about a priest who actually tries to live up to his vocation - being a shepherd to God's people.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, some violence)
They just don't make movies like this any more. Granted, it's a little over dramatic in parts - nearly all Alfred Hitchcock movies are. But the rest of the movie - and the rich Christian symbolism in particular - is well worth the one or two eye-rolling moments.
The passion and death of Jesus is a motif throughout I Confess. When he is accused of the murder, Fr. Logan must choose between clearing his name and obeying Jesus, who once said "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23b). As he is wrestling with what to do, he passes crucifixes and statues of Jesus on the road to Calvary. There is also a prominent crucifix in the court room. These images, often either prominent or even in the foreground of camera shots, compare Fr. Logan's suffering with that of Jesus, who also suffered for other people's sins.
Ultimately, my favorite thing about this movie is the portrayal of a strong Catholic priest. After the horrible scandal that has surfaced in the last few years, it's refreshing to watch a movie about a priest who actually tries to live up to his vocation - being a shepherd to God's people.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, some violence)
Monday, September 20, 2010
Pertaining To Jamaica Inn
Miss Mary Yellen (Maureen O'Hara) has recently lost her mother. She pulled up stakes in Ireland and is en route to the Cornish coast to live with her aunt Patience (Marie Ney). When she arrives, she discovers that Jamaica Inn, which is run by her aunt and uncle, has a very bad reputation. For what, she doesn't know. But she soon finds out - and has to flee for her life.
Pros: Personally, I really like Maureen O'Hara. This was her first movie, and though she was a little weak on the acting in parts, I liked her character and she was absolutely beautiful. Plus, her facial expressions are hilarious! I liked the hero, too, and Charles Laughton, who plays Sir Humphrey Pengallon, is one of my favorite old-time actors. There were a few surprising developments in the storyline. (After all, it is a Hitchcock!)Cons: The first scene was so badly done I wondered what on earth I was doing watching this movie. *Cough, cough* But it got much better. Also, I feel like I've watched and read dozens of stories with wreckers. They're all essentially the same: Desperate characters who need money badly... they cover up beacons so ships crash onto the rocks... then they murder the people on board.
My Rating: T (mild sexual content)
Picture from movieberry.com
Monday, September 13, 2010
Regarding Shadow of a Doubt
The Newton family is falling apart. At least, according to the oldest child, Charlie (Teresa Wright). Named Charlotte after her uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten), young Charlie is determined to stop her family from sliding into a rut. On an impulse, she decides to send her mother's kid brother a telegram begging him to come for a visit. Then she finds that he had the same idea and was already on his way. Elated, young Charlie eagerly welcomes him into the Newton household, completely unaware of his dark secret.
Pros: This is Hitchcock at his best! Suspense drips from this movie, particularly in the later scenes when young Charlie begins to catch on to her uncle. Oh, and I love Teresa Wright. She wasn't a particularly great actress, but her characters were usually sweet, good girls. And the dad's friend Herbie (Hume Cronyn) is hilarious!My Rating: OK (murder)
Picture from hollywoodoutbreak.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)