Hitchcock's Biggest Disappointment

*******SPOILER ALERT******* For many years I always considered that the "masked killer" in the dream sequence was a rather obvious way to merely hide the killer's identity from the audience. But wait......it turns out that Ballentine (Peck) ACTUALLY DID see the killer wearing a mask previously. Where? In the operating room during the attempt to save Garmes who had cut his throat. Everyone was wearing a surgical mask, including Murchison. Then JB has a breakdown. And then something amazing happens - Murchison takes his mask off! And manages to look really sinister while doing so. Imagine it. Just part way through the film and the killer is literally unmasked right in front of our eyes. And we still don't get it!
Speaking of Murchison, imagine what must have been his shock upon first seeing Ballentine/Edwardes. He wasn't expecting ANYONE to take his place, having eliminated his successor. Well, if you look carefully, you'll actually see that shock registered very subtly on the screen. When he opens the door he STUMBLES ever so slightly! It's between a medium and long shot, but it's there. And what's more, I believe I detected a very brief look of shock on his face, which quickly fades as he sizes up the situation. I'd be extremely interested to know if any other viewers have ever seen any of this, or what you think of my comments.

I agree with most of the points raised here. I'm a big Hitchcock fan but this film was a huge disappointment. I think Hitch tried to make an 'arty' film instead of doing what he does best...storytelling.

Thankfully, this style is not repeated in the rest of films.

go away crybaby, no one cares about your bitch session.

I disagree, I've always liked this film, in spite of all the eye-rolling when the characters get to babbling about 1940s psychiatry.

But I think I like it almost entirely because of the stars, I love Bergman and Peck, and here they're not only at their most beautiful and charismatic, they get a rare chance to play highly intelligent characters. Maybe I like it because they're good enough to put over a weak script.

The script is a mess. Setting aside the psychobabble, there are conversations throughout the film that are excessively talky. Far too much exposition is rendered verbally instead of visually. It's very unlike Hitchcock who normally communicates more non-verbally than he does through dialogue.

---

There is a reason for that...and a reason that the "next Hitchcock film in line" -- Notorious the next year, with Ingrid Bergman again -- has a better script and is(to my mind, even give the box office success and Oscar noms to Spellbound)...a better movie:

The reason is that the bad script for Spellbound -- billed to five people, including the great Ben Hecht(who would get sole credit on Notorious) ..was reportedly largely written by an UNBILLED David O. Selznick -- and his WIFE ....who were both big into Freudian psychology and wanted to get the "facts" on Freudian theory and their own ideas about it into the film. Moreover, Selznick was very involved and supervisory over the making of Spellbound.

Conversely, when Hitchcock set out on the writing, pre-production and making of Notorious the next year -- Selznick was reported immersed in production work on...Duel in the Sun...intended by Selznick as another GWTW and something worse.
Thus Selznick was neither around to influence the writing of Notorious nor its making. Thus Notorious has a tighter script and plays better than Spellbound.

It got worse. After Notorious did well, Selznick RETURNED to supervising Hitchcock -- and co-wrote the screenplay WITH BILLING -- for The Paradine Case(1947) which as gone down in Hitchcock history as ..well, not too good(I don't think ANY Hitchcock film is "bad.")

CONT