SPELLBOUND | Psychoanalysis Ate My Mystery | The Critic Richard Thrill on Hitchcock’s 1945 Film

Spellbound, 1945, is Alfred Hitchcock’s murder mystery about Gregory Peck's psychologist who isn’t who he says he is, then falls in love with Ingrid Bergman’s psychologist, who is exactly who she says she is, and then falls in love with him right back. The mystery can be summed up as: why is this man not who he says he is, and is that such a bad thing? Praised for its cinematography and the Salvador Dali sequence, it’s a movie that introduced the ideas of psychoanalysis to the broader public, for better or worse.
1991 was not a great year for Hitchcock, at least from Thrill’s point of view. The 1940s were 50 years old, something hard to fathom (or calculate) unless MOMA's "The Art of the 40s" exhibition made its way into your brain. Thrill attended the exhibition in April, shortly after seeing Silence of the Lambs, a film which may have also contributed to his uncertainty about the film's merits. Hitchcock got off easy, though. Thrill was less kind to the Picasso, Piet Mondrian, and Jackson Pollock paintings on view ("Shards, right angles, and crap-morons paint the world for fools. Where are the goddamn comic strips?").
Written, edited, narrated, and scored by Brian Hischier
Twitter: @BRHischier

[@alexdawson]

What a mean spirited, vacuous review! ;(

[@moviemonster2083]

Boy, are you wrong! It's a good movie negatively affected by bad psychology. That's all. Hitch was very into psychoanalysis and at that time, many thought it would solve all human emotional problems, very naive. He used the same textbook Freudianism in 'Psycho', yet would you dare call that a bad movie just for that reason? 'Spellbound' also had beautiful black and white photography and a witty script. The suspense was effective and lasted all the way through. Really fun movie.

[@reviewlets5171]

That’s a totally fair assessment, thanks for taking the time to share your view. The photography in particular is stunning. Psycho is a masterpiece, and it’s psychological overtones don’t bother me. Personally, I think of Freud as very compelling literature, but the story in Spellbound seems to suffer from discarding a lot of Hitchcock’s perceptiveness re human nature in favor of what must have often felt like silly quasi-motivations off the analyst’s couch. More importantly, you’re right to temper my frustration at the naïveté, since it is of its time, and thus the psychology is completely separate from the cinema. I try to watch this every couple of years, and I keep hoping to change my mind overall. Not there yet, but maybe someday.

[@donoxlee]

Nice video, it was helpful and nice channel. You deserve more subs!

[@reviewlets5171]

I’m glad you enjoyed the videos, thanks!