Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 420-422: Days of Future Past Part Six

Welcome once again to our time-travelling trip through the decades as we attempt to fill in the gaps of the challenge.

First of all apologies for jumping around the timeline a bit but at the last minute I managed to get my hands on a copy of 1931 nominee Five Star Final. Although the film was released around the same time as Trader Horn, I found that the newspaper drama felt a lot more contemporary. Mervyn La Roy's film focuses on editor Joseph Randall who finds himself under pressure to increase the distribution of his tabloid. He's talked in to producing a series of articles focusing on the twentieth anniversary of a murder committed by the notorious Nancy Voorhies. Little does he know that Nancy is now happily married and has a daughter who herself is about to tie the knot. The revelation in the papers soon spoils the family's happiness and results in both Nancy and her husband Michael committing suicide. What I initially thought was going to be a drama in the same vain as previous early nominee The Front Page turned dark very quickly. The double suicide coupled with the general reaction to the event meant that Five Star Final was one of the earliest examples of a press satire. It was quite easy to deduce that Five Star Final's origins lay on the stage however LaRoy at least went out of his way to use the cinematic techniques available to him. Most notably he employed some clever editing during a sequence in which Nancy is desperately trying to get Randall to drop the story about her family. As Randall, I thought Edward G. Robinson was brilliant as he conveyed his character's guilt perfectly and his final speech was brilliantly delivered. Although The Front Page is definitely of its time I think it holds up a lot better than the three films in the previous post and I found it to be an incredibly easy watch. It's also no surprise to learn that the film was one of the two that made Robinson a star and I'm only surprised that he hadn't been a big name before Five Star Final was released.

We now move in the right direction for probably the last 1930s film I'll review for as part of this blog. The Citadel is an interesting film that almost feels like three episodes of a miniseries featuring Robert Donat's trainee Doctor Andrew Mason. The first part of the film looks at Mason's training in a small Welsh town in which he meets resistance from the senior doctor's wife but at the same time is able to help out several villagers. The second part of the movie looks at Mason's move to a Welsh mining village and his marriage to beloved schoolteacher Christine. Once again Andrew faces opposition, this time from the miners who don't want him to change the way they've been doing things for years. Andrew refuses to punch their unfit for work cards and wants to explore the troubling coughs that the miners develop. Eventually frustrated he leaves Wales for London but he struggles to find patients for his burgeoning clinic. The final third of the film looks at Mason's corruption at the hands of the Harley Street set and the fact that he makes a lot of money from doing very little. I personally found the general structure of The Citadel to be quite frustrating as, just as one plot starting to develop, director King Vidor changed the action to another location. The one memorable moment of the film comes halfway through when Mason helps rescue several people from a collapsed mine. However, the film then gets a little dreary as we see Andrew become more and more enchanted with the superficial London lifestyle. I have to say that the point The Citadel was making was quite an obvious one and I found the ending completely anticlimactic. In fact the only thing that saved it was the central turn from Robert Donat who certainly showed qualities that would later see him cast in his Oscar-winning role in Goodbye Mr. Chips. Aside from Donat though there was very little about The Citadel that was memorable and at the end of the day it feels like yet another also-ran nominee.

But describing our next film; The Yearling as an also-ran nominee would almost be giving it too much credit as its one of the most inconsequential pieces of cinema I think I've ever seen. Set in 1878, The Yearling follows the adventures of the Baxter family - former Civil War soldier Penny, his withdrawn wife Ora and their son Jody. Throughout the film Ora's emotional state is explained away by the fact that she'd lost all of her other children and only Jody remained. I have to say if I was in Ora's position I'd be a little annoyed to as Jody is especially annoying. Films like The Yearling only work if the cute child star isn't annoying and unfortunately in this movie that isn't the case. It's particularly annoying as the majority of the film deals with Jody's relationship with a young fawn named Flag who he tries to raise. But, when the time comes to set him free, Jody doesn't take it and instead experiences proper loss for the first time. Whilst I can see what director Clarence Brown was trying to achieve with The Yearling the results are incredibly mediocre. Aside from Claude Jarman Jr's cloying performance as Jody, the cast are uniformly forgettable. Most surprising was the fact that Jane Wyman, who was so superb in Johnny Belinda, made little impression in her role as Ora. To be fair to Wyman the role didn't require much of her apart from sitting sour-faced whilst performing some menial task. Though Gregory Peck tried his best to make us warm to Penny, I found him a little too squeaky clean and didn't think he came down hard enough on his son. Surprisingly The Yearling was nominated for seven Oscars including for the performances given by Peck and Wyman. The fact it won in the colour cinematography and art direction categories leads me to believe that its main appeal to the Academy was its bright colours. Indeed, when films were primarily still shot in black and white, I'd feel that The Yearling would definitely stand out in the crowd. But it's a film that hasn't aged well and at the end of the day I don't think it would've been nominated at all were it not for the fact that it had been filmed in colour.

The only good think about watching The Yearling was the fact that it was the last Best Picture Nominee of the 1940s that I was yet to watch. To that end the next post looks at my completion of both the 1950s and 1960s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 206: A Star-Studded History Lesson

As I previously mentioned in my post on The Graduate, the 1960s were definitely a decade of change when it came to film-making. At the same time, several of the old-fashioned epic style films were being made, some with bumper casts. The next two posts will deal with these star-studded epic films and we start with How the West Was Won. The film was an interesting one, as it split its story into five parts with three of these directed by Henry Hathaway and the other two by John Ford and James Marshall respectively. In addition, How the West Was Won marked itself out visually as it was filmed in a three-strip cinerama which had both post and negative affects on the viewing experience. The story itself deals with generations of the same family initially known as the Prescotts, whose daughters would both go on to marry and have children. Over time we saw how the families battled the wild rivers to get to the west, how they battled through the civil war and ultimately dealt with outlaws to claim the land for themselves. The two sisters - Eve and Lilith, had different fates with the former creating a homestead on the place where their parents died. Eve's son Zeb would later go on to fight in The Civil War and negotiate with the Native Americans. Lilith meanwhile hooks up with a gambler and inherits a run down gold mine before finally reuniting with Zeb and his growing family. The story comes full circle as the Prescott family finally settle in the west once and for all.

Seeing as it was made in 1962, How the West Was Won has a very old-fashioned feel to it and almost seems a little out of place Similarly, the big name cast are mostly wasted with John Wayne being the biggest example as his role is nothing more than an extended cameo. Indeed, the actors who have the biggest parts are Debbie Reynolds and George Peppard, neither of whom are promoted as the main stars of the piece. I felt that actors such as James Stewart, Henry Fonda and Gregory Peck popping up for two minutes did nothing to enhance the film and instead made the story feel a little flabby. That's not to say I didn't enjoy How the West Was Won and found it to be a colourful western epic which passed the time fine. The sweeping scenery and Spencer Tracy's assured narration were definitely the film's biggest strengths while I learnt a lot about the formation of America. At the same time, I was never blown away by the film and none of it really stuck with me after the DVD had finished playing. The three-strip cinerama process also made the film seem a little odd with the visible strips of paper almost looking a little messy. Overall, while not a bad film, How the West Was Won was quite unremarkable endeavour which is odd when you consider who was involved.

Next time a similar sort of film to How the West Was Won, but one that is a lot darker.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 202: Much More War

In my last post I complained about the amount of war films nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in the 1960s. I reckon that my feelings about war films come from the fact that I was forced to watch so much of them as a kid. Though all of these films have their plus points, I find myself switching off every time a massive action scene occurs. The Guns of Navarone definitely fits into the category of war film that I was forced into watching on weekend afternoons in my youth. The story concerns a group of men who are sent to destroy a number of massive radar-guns that have been aimed at the Greek island of Navarone by the German army. These guns are aimed at the island in order to threaten Turkey into joining the Axis Powers during World War 2. The group of men sent on the mission include mountaineer Keith Mallory, explosives expert John Miller, Greek army captain Anthony Stavrou and their leader Major Roy Franklin. The group disguise themselves as Greek fishermen but encounter peril from the get-go when their boat is hit by a storm and the majority of their possessions are destroyed. Meanwhile Franklin is injured during a climb and Mallory ends up taking control of the unit as they meet up with some of the island's local resistance fighters. Eventually the team are captured by the Germans but, thanks to a diversion from Stavrou, they are able to overpower their captors and disguise themselves as German officers. However, Miller later discovers his explosives have been tampered with and realises that there is a mole within their midst. So it remains to be seen if the guns of Navarone will be destroyed or if our heroes will fail their mission. Which one do you think is more likely?

I'm going to try and be a little positive in this review and say there were some things I liked about The Guns of Navarone. The lead performances from Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn all had something to offer even it all three have done a lot better. As Mallory, Peck was a natural leader but was full of regret about what he'd done in the war up to this point. Mallory's blood feud with Stavrou was also an interesting theme running throughout the film as I found it utterly intriguing that the latter had promised to kill the former after the war was over. I did enjoy Quinn's turn, even if it was a slightly more aggressive version of his Zorba the Greek character that he would play several years later. Meanwhile Niven acted almost as the light relief of the film but then turned towards the end as he found out who the saboteur was in their group. My main issue with the film is that I just wasn't invested enough in any of the characters and therefore I didn't really care when they started dying in the final scenes. I do have to admit though that the action scenes were fairly spectacular for the time and that the film did deserve to win its Special Effects Oscar. I feel like I'm repeating myself when I'm saying the film is far too long but I don't feel that the story needed two and a half hours devoted to it. Overall The Guns of Navarone was a well-acted war film with some great set pieces but I never really found myself immersed in the action in the way I feel I should've been.

Next time I take a step away from the action with something a little more sedate.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 194: Another Day in Court

In the 1950s we had two courtroom films that were nominated for Best Picture in the same year. The 1960s has also had its fair share of courtroom films, so join me as I spend another day with two more legal movies.

The first movie is almost solely set around the trial of a man convicted of shooting another man in cold blood. The film in question - Anatomy of a Murder has often been hailed by law professors as the greatest pure trial movie in history and after watching it it's easy to see why. James Stewart stars as Paul Biegler a former DA who now runs a failing law firm alongside a loyal secretary who sticks by Paul despite his lack of cases. Biegler is contacted by Laura Manion who wants him to defend her husband Paul who has been charged with the murder of innkeeper Barney Quill. It transpires that Biegler went to Quill's inn after discovering that Quill had raped Laura but once getting there shot him in cold blood. As Biegler realises the case will be a tough one to win, he decides to go with a defence of temporary insanity. This involved explaining to Paul exactly what he wants him to say on the stand and hopes this will be enough to get him off. Meanwhile Paul also tells Laura to dress more demurely in court as her seductive outfits may give the wrong impression to the jury. Paul's other issue is that the prosecution have drafted in a hot new attorney in the form of Claude Dancer who initially rungs rings around the world-weary Paul. It is only when Paul does some digging that he discovers the relationship between Quill and his barmaid Mary. Paul implores Mary to come forward as a witness as he feels that his case would depend on her testimony. But with Dancer getting the best of Paul, is Mary going to be enough to win the case?

I would agree that Anatomy of a Murder is a great trial movie and one that bases most of its action in and around the gathering of evidence. Despite being over two and half hours long, Anatomy of a Murder flew by thanks in part to Wendell Mayes' script which is incredibly well-paced, and giving a lot of time to each individual part of the story. Even though the vast majority of it is set in the courtroom, Otto Preminger still manages to make his film seem utterly stylish. The film is also given a contemporary air thanks to the Duke Ellington soundtrack which makes Anatomy of a Murder seem a lot less stuffy than other trial movies of the time. This is also true of the film's content, as it was one of the first to deal with both rape and sex in graphic terms as they both play heavily into the trial itself. Of course the cast are all terrific, with James Stewart earning a Best Actor nomination for his role as the once great DA who has now fallen on hard times. New kid on the bock George C Scott was also awarded a nomination for playing the young and hungry Dancer with some of the film's highlights being their courtroom sparring. Elsewhere, Lee Remick's sexuality makes you question whether or not Quill did force himself on her, while Eve Arden is on brilliantly comic form as Biegler's secretary Maida. Overall, Anatomy of a Murder is a fantastic film, full of intrigue, great performances, an amazing soundtrack and a well-paced script. It's also probably the best film I've ever seen that's largely set in a courtroom.

The other film covered in this post isn't largely set in a courtroom, but is still all based around trial. The film in question is Robert Mulligan's adaptation of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. For those who have never read the book, the film is all seen through the eyes of 'Scout' Finch a young girl with a big imagination. Along with her broth Jem, she lives in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama where their father Atticus is a pioneering lawyer. Atticus believes that everybody should be given a fair trial regardless of their race, sex or beliefs and this ethos often gets him into trouble. The middle section of the story sees Atticus defend Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a local girl with a violent father. A lot of the irrational townspeople take against Atticus defending Tom and want to kill Tom before he even gets to court. The pivotal scenes in the film do take place in the court as Scout and Jem sneak into the courtroom to see their father in action. These scenes allow us to witness how innocent Tom actually is however the racist jury don't see it that way and find Tom guilty. From there the tension in the film rises as the people of Maycomb take against Atticus for pleading Tom's innocence and for wanting him to take part in a retrial. Atticus' actions also put Scout and Jem in danger however they are eventually saved by an unlikely guardian angel.

As someone who hasn't read the book, I went into To Kill a Mockingbird with no prior knowledge of the story. What I found this to be was an innocent observer's view of an unjust society and another of cinema's most iconic courtroom scenes. I thought watching this and Anatomy of a Murder as a double was interesting as that film's protagonist may well be guilty, while Tom Robinson is blatantly innocent. Russell Harlan's cinematography is keen to make us feel like we're watching the entire story through Scout's eyes and makes sure the camera is at her level. Robert Mulligan also makes the whole town of Maycomb seem like a sweltering, confined environment where prejudice is rife and where everybody knows each other's business. I was personally entranced by the performances from the two young actors, Mary Badham and Philip Alford, who played Scout and Jem respectively. Badham was brilliant as the narrator of the piece and was rewarded with a Supporting Actress Nomination for her part in the film. Meanwhile, I found Brock Peters to be absolutely enticing as the tragic Tom Robinson as he really made you feel sorry for his character. However this film will be most remembered for Gregory Peck's Oscar-winning turn as the mighty Atticus Finch. Peck is captivating throughout the film's run and is able to make Finch into one of cinema's biggest heroes of all-time. Peck's Finch is admirable without being preachy and he is able to anchor the film perfectly. While To Kill a Mockingbird may not be as stylish or compelling as Anatomy of a Murder, it is full of heart and real character and that's why I fell in love with the film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 163: Up, Up and Away

Another day, another war film however at least this one takes things from the soldiers on foot to those up in the air as we join the men looking to go Twelve o'clock High. Henry King's film centres on the 918th Heavy Bombardment Group known as a 'hard luck group' to most as they often suffer fatalities and very few missions see all the men from this squadron return back safely. A lot of the blame for this can be centred on their commander Keith Davenport who is too personal with his team and has driven himself crazy with worry so those in charge believe that he needs to be replaced. They eventually decide that his replacement should be his friend Frank Savage a more level-headed gent who has been working a desk job up to this point in the war. Savage initially alienates most of the company as he chastises them for not carrying out proper security checks, wearing the wrong uniform and generally having a bad attitude. Just before most of the company are about to ask for transfers he is advised by Major Stovall, played by Dean Jagger who won a Best Supporting Actor award for his role, to try and draft in a young pilot and he does this by bringing in Jesse Bishop. Soon the group warm to Savage but like Davenport he starts to go a bit bonkers as the war begins to be fought more and more in the air and it is the task of those around him to try and keep him sane.

For a film set during the war and about flying squads, 12 o'clock High doesn't half feature a lot of men talking in rooms so much so that if it was made today you would've thought Aaron Sorkin had written in it. Of course all the procedural dialogue is important in order for the audience to know how and why the powers-that-be have chosen Savage as a replacement for Davenport but it drags down the first half an hour or so of the film. The film really starts getting going when Gregory Peck takes the helm and his performance as the initially by-the-book Savage is the greatest strength of Twelve o'clock High. He is ably assisted by Dean Jagger who gives a great performance as the former lawyer Stovall who becomes Savage's greatest ally and indeed is the person who is featured first and last in this film while I'm not sure if this was an Oscar-worthy role it is certainly a memorable one in terms of the film's ensemble cast. The most spectacular scenes are those when we are allowed up in the air with the squadron as they try and take down the superior Luftwaffe. This is also a very patriotic film as we see a German radio station mocking the bad luck squadron and the film ends with a celebration of everything these men fought for only several years prior. So an uneven film which really gets going once Peck emerges as the star and we are able to enjoy some spectacular aerial sequences but one that perhaps relies too much on patriotic feelings to get its point across.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 130: A Trip to Italy

After two pretty heavy classics I'm ready to have a bit of a break and a bit of light relief so next up are two films both featuring Americans living in Italy and, in the case of the first film Roman Holiday, what happens when a member of the royalty rocks up. That member of royalty is put-upon Princess Ann, played by Audrey Hepburn in her first major role and the only one that would get her the Best Actress Oscar, who while on an official visit to Rome escapes to see the city. Eventually finding herself tired out she is encountered by Gregory Peck's American journalist Joe Bradley who begrudgingly allows her to sleep on his couch. Bradley eventually discovers her identity and smelling a scoop decides to try and trap Anne long enough so he can write a story about it to impress his editor. But during their trip around Rome, accompanied by Joe's photographer friend Irving who is secretly taking pictures of the princess, they inevitably fall for each other and share a kiss before Anne realises that she must return to her duties and leaves Joe in the cold. Joe realises that with his new found feelings for Anne he can no longer publish the story and tells his suspicious editor that he has no idea where the princess is convincing Iriving not to sell the photos they journey to the palace for a press conference where the princess discovers that they are both members of the press. During the press conference Joe and Anne both share their feelings for each other in thinly veiled messages while Irving presents Anne the pictures he took of the three of them together. The final scene sees Joe lingering in the palace eventually leaving.

It is this final scene that stuck with me most of all as I was glad that the film ended with the two going their separate ways rather than having a happy ending. As a whole Roman Holiday was a satisfying film there were parts of it where I found myself getting a little bit bored. I thought Hepburn did very well in her first starring role and opening scenes in which she finds herself tiring of her overly-structured life were particularly endearing. Her chemistry with Peck was also one of the things that made the film work and the way she grows as a character as their relationship develops was another plus point to the film. However I just felt there was just too much dilly dallying and too many establishing shots of Rome it's like William Wyler was trying to drum home the fact that it was shot entirely on location in the Roman capital. Hepburn did indeed deserve her Oscar but I'm surprised that Peck didn't get a nomination as he was just as good as her and the closing scenes really showed a vulnerability to the character that a lesser actor couldn't have mustered. I also don't understand why Eddie Albert, as Irving, was nominated for Supporting Actor when Peck didn't get a look in as Albert had such a minor role in the film that I didn't feel an Oscar nomination was justified. Roman Holiday is certainly a very light film but the romantic comedies of today can't really hold a candle to it.

I'm not sure if the next film Three Coins in the Fountain, also considered itself a romantic comedy, but one of the problems with it was that it had no definite tone. The Fountain in question is the Trevi Fountain in Rome and the three coins belong to American women working as secretaries in the Italian capital played by Dorothy McGuire, Jean Peters and Maggie MacNamara. Inevitably each find love McNamara plays Maria the newest secretary out in Rome and is told by Peters' Anita that Rome is horrible place for secretaries to fall in love. But soon both find romance Maria with an Italian prince and Anita with local boy and fellow office worker Georgio however the latter's romance is in jeapordy as the boss has a strict rule about the American girls fraternising with the Italians. Finally McGuire's Frances has been in love with her boss the reclusive writer Shadwell, played by Clifton Webb, but her coin in the fountain finally works out as the two fall in love but the hindrance here is the fact that Shadwell finds out he is dying. Three Coins is the first film since I entered the 1950s that is filmed in Technicolor and that it was one of its advantages. The colour cinematography, which one it an Oscar, allows the film to capture some of Rome's landmarks in beautiful sparkling colour and therefore does a better job of selling Italy than perhaps Roman Holiday does. The other thing the film is famous for is the Dean Martin song of the same name which is better remembered than the film and won it its second Oscar. However beautiful it might look and sound there was really not enough going on for me in Three Coins to keep me interested. I feel that if it had been One Coin in the Fountain then I may've been hooked but there wasn't enough time to cover all three romances in depth especially that between Anita and Giorgio which was almost a two-scene love affair. The corniest part of the whole film is the final scene in which each woman is at the fountain and is greeted by her respective love interest. I think if this film had been made today then it wouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar but back in the 1950s a sparkly new colour film made in Italy was probably seen as being revolutionary by the Academy.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 83: Have I Got Jews For You

We're back to the winner's enclosure again with the social commentary film that got the Best Picture award at the 1948 ceremony. The film deals with the theme of anti-Semitism something that 20th Century Fox boss Daryl F Zanuck felt strongly about at the time after being refused entry to the L.A. Country Club on account of his religion. Zanuck was approached by other studio heads, most of them being fellow Jews, to ask him not to go ahead with the project as they feared it would stir up trouble for them as well. The role of journalist Philip Green was originally offered to Cary Grant but he turned it down and Gregory Peck took the part against the advice of his agent. However in the end the film triumphed against this initial adversity and went onto win three Oscars - Picture, Director and Supporting Actress for Celeste Holm.

The plot itself looks at Peck's Green a widowed reporter who moves to New York with his son and mother to write for a new magazine. His boss tells him to write about anti-Semitism and he eventually decides to go undercover as a Jew to see how he is treated by various members of the community. Throughout the film Phil deals with several incidents including being treated differently by a doctor who is dealing with his mother's heart condition and also sees his son being bullied at school for having a Jewish father. Phil also romance's his bosses niece Kathy who is aware of his article but advices him against it. After a brief courtship they are to be married however Phil gets annoyed at Kathy when she tells members of her family about her new fiancée not being Jewish at all. Phil is again met with adversity when he tries to book a honeymoon at a posh hotel but is told that they are all booked up when they discover that he is Jewish. Phil's old friend Dave, who is Jewish, comes to stay with him while he looks for a house for him and his family however the Jewish Dave is met with adversity when he finds a lot of landlords won't rent to Jews. Kathy then reveals to Phil that there is a Gentleman's Agreement among landlords about not renting to Jews something that astonishes him. The character of Kathy is the film's most interesting as she admits to being against anti-Semitism but at the same time doesn't do anything to stop it and indeed admits to Dave that she didn't say anything when someone made an anti-Semitic joke at a dinner she had. As well as Dave the film's only other Jewish character is Elaine, Phil's new secretary, who reveals that she has hidden her religion in order to get the job and later is stunned when Phil reveals that he isn't actually Jewish. Elaine's role in the film is to show that sometimes even Jews are made to feel ashamed of themselves and want to escape the stigma attatched to be Jewish. After Phil's article comes out he is praised but at the same time wants to leave New York after breaking up with Kathy over her feelings about his article. Phil is comforted by the magazine's fashion editor Anne, a woman whom he had built up a friendship with throughout the film, who tells him that Kathy is nothing more than a hypocrite and Kathy realises why Phil was angry with her after a meeting with Dave. The film ends with Phil arriving at Kathy's apartment presumably to reconcile with her.

While not being entirely perfect Gentleman's Agreement was still a fairly enjoyable film with a direct message but one that was never hammered home. I felt that the message about anti-Semtisim wasn't as blatant as it could've been and that the cast played their roles well. Gregory Peck made Phil seem like a real human being although one who may've been a bit too worthy for his own good, he was willing to do good for all around him while at the same time encountering adversity. For me though the supporting characters were much more interesting, I'm not sure why Celeste Holm won the Oscar but her character is a breath of fresh air, she is a woman in a man's world and floats through the room dishing out insults and at the same time becomes a shoulder to lean on for Phil. Also worth a mention are John Garfield and Anne Revere who were both compelling as Dave and Phil's mother respectively. However my favourite performance came from Dorothy McGuire as the mixed up Kathy, her journey is the film's most interesting and Mcguire gives a layered performance that earned her an Oscar nomination. Overall a well-written and well-acted message film that I'm glad won the Best Picture award because it proved it initial critics wrong if nothing else.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 74: It's All a bit Mental

Although many people consider Alfred Hitchcock to be the greatest director of all time most of his most famous works, such as Psycho, Rear Window, North by Northwest and Vertigo, were never nominated for Oscars. Instead only four of his pictures made betweeen 1940 and 1946 were nominated for Oscars. This was the period in which Hitch was working for David O Selznick something that he hated doing and eventually left to set up his own production company. The first of the four films was his only winner - Rebecca and the last of the four is the focus of this entry, that film being Spellbound. Spellbound focuses on Green Manners Mental Instution and specifically on Dr Constance Peterson, played by Ingrid Bergman. Green Manners is having a change of direction as the head of the institution Dr Murchinson is being replaced by a younger model in Gregory Peck's Dr Edwards. However it soon emerges that Peck isn't who says he is and is a man with amnesia moonlighting as Edwards. Peterson decides to help Peck's character escape and try and find out what he's hiding and who he really is. She does this with the help of her old mentor Dr Brulov, played by an Oscar-nominated Michael Chekhov, who specialises in analysing dreams and piece by piece the puzzle comes together. To say anymore would be to ruin the film for those who haven't seen it however I would like to highlight two scenes. One is a dream that Peck has which Brulov and Peterson then analyse. The whole dream sequence is a master class in surrealism and responsibility for the scene was handed from Hitchcock over to surrealist Salvador Dali who brilliantly depicted someone's psyche although one of the scenes featuring Bergman as a statue didn't make the final cut. The other scene sees one of the characters pointing a gun at someone else, the shot is focused on the gun and as the character who the gun is focused on leaves the room we follow the gun as it is rotated around and pointed at the head of the person who is holding it. When the shot is fired the screen then goes red, the film's only splash of colour, which gives the death about significance.

Another thing that should be highlighted is Miklos Rosza's Oscar winning score, which is able to capture both the romantic and dramatic elements of the film and almost dominated the entire film at some points. Neither Bergman or Peck were nominated, although Bergman was nominated for another film, I think Peck overall didn't demonstrate his full potential as an actor while Bergman's performance was decent enough given Constance a cold edge which was easily thawed with the appearance of Peck. One of my main criticisms is that I didn't really buy their romance which was one of the points that the film's narrative focused on and overall this film wasn't one of Hitchcock's best. But I'm glad I watch Spellbound as its one of the only Hitchcock films I've never seen and even though it's not one of Hitch's best it's still a very well made and well conceived picture.