MovieChat Forums > Spellbound (1945) Discussion > Beautiful Ending, One of the BEST films!

Beautiful Ending, One of the BEST films!

posted 13 years ago by nimstic
8 replies | jump to latest

Anyone thought the ending of this film as the most intense, powerful and the most beautiful part?

(SPOILER)
The scene between Constance and Murchison.... it wasn't a slip made by him but a miscalculated plot. Constance brilliantly makes him realize that. A war between two psychoanalysts. What a powerful mind battle! I LOVED how Ingrid Bergman delivers a performance that leaves a very cunning, intelligent Murchison confused and almost willing to be turned in for one murder (that allows him some room for litigation) than two (that will give him an assured term, even chair). I thought that was a stroke of genius and a beautiful ending to an clever plot!

I really do not accept the criticism by a lot of reviewers here about the psychoanalytical theory. Hitchcock, the genius he is clearly presents the theory to you in the beginning montage. It is clear that this is the foundation of the premise construct of the film. This shows that Hitchcock did not rule out a possibility of this theory becoming invalid or questionable someday. It may also be because he thought a lot of the viewers need an understanding of the validity of what happens in the film. To me, the plausibility of the psychoanalysis is NOT a concern at all. I think this is the lamest criticism one can come up with. A film made before Newton may not really present gravity like the way Einstein and other Quantum guys theorized it later. To have such a criticism 50 years later after the film was made is such an act of stupidity!

Even then, I think Hitchcock is a man of such intellect and artistry that he never really left much room for critics. I am just so impressed and spellbound by his works and Spellbound is another one in the list that deserves repeated viewings and further analysis.

[–] Cherubim1 12 years ago

Agreed. It's one of Hitchcock's finer works and is right up there with Notorious.

[–] Bree_33 11 years ago

Hitch really did understand the nature of human desire and passion.

------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»

[–] Charlot47 10 years ago

Yes! Watching his films will probably teach you a lot more than reading Freud. And they’re more fun.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"I think this is the lamest criticism one can come up with".

Something that renders the film fundamentally dumb is "the lamest criticism"? And it's not just the ill-conceived concepts themselves, it's the seriousness they're taken with and the heavy handed clumsiness and awkwardness of their presentation that really drive the film towards the embarrassingly ludicrous.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Charlot47 10 years ago

You are quite right that all the cod psychoanalysis is deeply embarrassing, as it was later in “Marnie”, but I think intelligent viewers have always been able to look beyond the mumbo-jumbo to its dramatic use. The story is not about this particular black art but about the human dilemmas of its practitioners.

[–] nimstic 10 years ago

I agree with you, I am glad some people do understand the difference between a science research paper and a work of fiction (leaving alone the fact it was made many decades ago)

I am not even going to bring myself to respond to franzkabuki because I do not wish to expend my thoughts for something that could very likely be a futile discussion.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

But what are we looking at, when looking past the mumbo-jumbo (IF that is indeed possible to any significant degree, considering it's the film's central conceit everything revolves around)? The cinematography is excellent, yes, but what else? A syrupy romance sparked in an altogether unbelievable manner? A miscast Miss Bergman, whose main claim to authenticity as a psychiatrist is made via decorating her with eyeglasses (which has the unfortunate consequence of making the set-up seem like something one might witness in a porno movie - a hot bespectacled "scientist" chick who's about to be visited by a pizza boy or someone bent on "fixing the cable")? A poor performance by Greggary Peckary? Dialogue that often feels false even when mental health is not the topic? A stretch of suspense adventure that begins promisingly yet fizzles out much too soon?

There are, of course, plenty of films considerably more ridiculous than Spellbound that're perfectly enjoyable, but there's something about this often pompous and didactic tone that's irritating about Spellbound; for all the frivolities and silliness Hitch may perhaps have been aware of, it's still clearly devised as a SERIOUS film - and, inevitably, a seriously stupid one. And what "human dilemmas" of any notable complexity do we really encounter here? What insight into, well, anything, are we offered?

Marnie's more curious as well as tolerable bundle though.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 9 years ago

Some spoilers below:

This film had potential. It could've been one of Hitch's bests and that's saying something. There were some brilliant moments, of emotions and suspense. The magic started with the scene of doors opening during the kiss. The letter scene was also very well done, with all those doctors taking turns in stamping it without noticing it. The scene where John wakes up during the night, feels disturbed in the bathroom, brings the razor downstairs, for Constance to find the Dr. on the sofa was bizarre and full of tension. And then the dream sequence. The climax with all the tension during the explanation and it being the battle of wits of two doctors. These were all done brilliantly. I don't have a problem with the usage of psychoanalysis. It does make for some interesting analysis in terms of solving a mystery. Expecting something like Italian neo-realism, something that can happen to a common man from Hitchcock is certainly madness and quite a lot of his films would fall apart if we question the plausibility of how events play in a Hitchcock film.

But it still doesn't get anywhere near perfect. I'm not sure if some aspects were forced on Hitchcock, some of which I'd like to bring them up. I'm leaning towards the negative considering Ingrid Bergman's performance here. She was romantic, but she wasn't convincing as a doctor. I saw a matured performance from Gregory Peck in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', but he didn't do that confused amnesiac role very well here. He was more like an angry man for no reason. The dream sequence could have been improvised, especially considering the amount of ideas put it into by Dali. Also, the dream sequence should never have been a retelling. It should've been presented right after the POV shot of John drinking milk, culminating with the masked man laughing on the screen and Constance coming down to see the her professor lying on the sofa. That would've been even more chilling. And finally, there was just too much spelling out for the audience. Of course, the audience had to buy into the central idea, but the film could've been much better if it remained more mysterious.