Possessed by 'Van Heflin'?????? - Possessed (1947) Discussion

[–] Devans00 17 years ago

I agree, HoferPM-1. Van Heflin has never done it for me. I figured he was one of those stars who were a product of their time. That is, what was sexy in the 1940s is not necessarily sexy now.

Not everyone can be Carey Grant or Robert Mitchum. Charisma and appeal that's close to ageless.

>>Oh, well that's different. Nevermind!<<

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blondrbbt 17 years ago

Personally I found Van Heflin very attractive and what a beautiful voice. But, for discussion's sake, let's presume he doesn't fit that movie star hunkiness mold then or now and it baffles some why the character of David would cause such a passionate reaction in Louise.

Ever notice how on many of these DATELINE or COURT TV programs documenting real-life cases of obsessions, stalkings and sometimes even murders that, much of the time, the victim is not necessarily heart-stoppingly handsome or beautiful. And many times there's a husband/wife/significant other in the picture who wants very much to make the person happy...but to little or no avail; in POSSESSED, the Raymond Massey character? Also a mentally ill woman on the edge, as was the character of Louise, could easily attach to herself to whomever was available to her, if only momentarily, and believe that he was the "one"...then refuse to let go. Sad, but not a rare occurrence.

That's my interpretation of Louise's focus on David.

reply

[–] angelroom 17 years ago

totally agree

reply

[–] jaddeo 17 years ago

I agree 100% that the object of one's obsession many times has nothing to do with the outward physical appearance of a person. I for one have obsessed over people in the past that others would find hard pressed to find classically beautiful people. That being said I think Van Heflin is attractive and sexy. My mother had a crush on him when she was growing up so there were women out there that found him extremely appealing. And my mother was and is a very beautiful woman. There is so much more than looks that make up the attraction between two human beings. Believe me, sexual chemistry can go a long way and often has nothing whatsoever to do with facial beauty. I think Van Heflin works extremely well in this movie. He has that cocky swagger that certain men have who know they can have any woman they want beacause of certain other attributes they possess. Love em and leave em. He's an excellent actor. Watch his heart wrenching performance along with Maureen Stapleton in Airport.

reply

[–] Jane_Doe01 17 years ago

What shallow subject matter in the OP. Sounds like a young kid who has yet to experience a relationship of his own.

reply

[–] mikebeacher 17 years ago

I do not get it ? It is not about personal taste....and if we would start with this, the first thing would be, that Joan Crawford looks like a man or a transsexual...and even this doesn't matter, because she is a good actor - so why and who cares about the personal taste of someone...it is just a good movie with good actors.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flanagan-3 15 years ago

I totally agree with your assessment of Heflin as a jerk and I would add arrogant.When he said the line "All I've ever done is fall out of love with you, that's a mans privilige."I thought voting was a PRIVILEGE.

reply

[–] cynkat 16 years ago

mikebeacher, your post made me laugh out loud. I have always wondered why Joan Crawford was considered beautiful, although as an actor she was certainly outstanding. Those eyebrows, and the overall "harshness" of her face, along with the ridiculous wide mouth painted on with very dark lipstick, gave her such an unattractive, garish, HARD look. I have seen earlier photos of her during the silent movie career when she look much softer, if not exactly beautiful. Oh well, to each their own!

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous" -
Ludwig Börne

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryGood (7) 8 years ago

So agree - in Grand Hotel she looks pretty but afterwards yikes … more Rocky Horror Picture Show.

reply

[–] carolmr527 11 years ago

I think Van Heflin is attractive and sexy, too!

reply

[–] parisel 16 years ago

I don't think the character of David is even relevant. Louise must have been mentally ill before they even met...If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else she met at that time...

It was all in her and he was just an object to obsess about. Didn't really matter who it was.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

reply

[–] jescci 16 years ago

Many good points made above. In addition, the way I see it, Heflin's role was not big enough for an "A" list actor. "B" list actors had limited sex appeal.

As far as Heflin being stiff or lacking passion, that goes with his character. He's emotionally unavailable for Louise and for Carol for that matter as well.

I will admit while watching the film I was a bit baffled by his character's hold over Louise. At one point I couldn't help thinking - maybe he's got a big thigamagig. Someone else alluded to that above.

reply

[–] luverofmovies 16 years ago

Van Heflin was a wonderful actor - excellent voice and not unattractive at all. I agree with you about his character being emotionally unavailable to either Louise or Carol, and that's the way Heflin played it. David's work was his real passion.

reply

[–] jaddeo 16 years ago

I find some of these posts a bit frustrating. Being obsessed with someone, most of the time, has very little to do with how good looking they are. Secondly, Van Heflin, while not a matinee idol, is an attractive man to many people and an excellent actor. While he was not a superstar he was an "A" list actor not a "B" list actor. He had already won a supporting actor Academy Award for JOHNNY EAGER and was always cast in quality "A" films for most of his career. I thought he was excellent in this film. Also, I think Crawford is a beatiful woman. She definitely has a hard edge and masculine quality but she is attractive and beautiful. My point being, and it is a very cliche but true one, is that: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

reply

[–] marcchanois 16 years ago

agree, having a "masculine" face doesn't mean the woman isn't beautiful....

agree again, heflin was an A actor who usually played leading and supporting roles in A films

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the sphynx 15 years ago

I'd've dumped Van Heflin's David for Massey's Dean in a heartbeat. No contest. So I too was a trifle annoyed at how gaga Louise was for this cad.

reply

[–] jeffpatt888 15 years ago

I think the Academy knew they had to give Crawford an Oscar at one point or diminish their own prestige (cf. John Wayne & "True Grit"). So, when Joan displayed a passable amount of meaty acting chops in "Mildred Pierce" a few years prior, they said alright, this'll do. They were hardly going to give it to her again so soon. To take any movie professional and see what they won an Oscar for, and then to assume that's their best film, is dicey at best.

I personally agree that this is her best film, certainly in terms of her playing a role and not just being "Joan Crawford."

reply

[–] singjohn 15 years ago

LOL! I was thinking the same thing. Van Heflin never was a pretty boy, or even a Casanova type. He was more of the "everyman" in his films. Many male stars of that era were like that. Joseph Cotten was that type. Almost so bland that he disappears next to his female co-stars. Zero sex appeal.

However I see this film as being ahead of its time. Ever watch the TV Show "Snapped"? You hear about these women doing the most heinous things all for the love of some guy. Then they show his picture and it makes you go, "WTF?"

Romantic obsession is not at all about the object. It's about something lacking within the obsessor! David kept denying Louise's love and not returning her affection until it drove her insane. But at anytime Louise could have made the choice to end it. She had other options.

A healthy person would move on and say, "He's just not that into me." More fish in the sea!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] strugglesthebear 15 years ago

Van did look a little toad-like in this film.

reply

[–] hermwalt 15 years ago

i am enlightened. And shallow.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] singjohn 14 years ago

Yep. I got all of that. The reference to her illness. Blah, blah.....

I wonder what kind of person slings insults at people they don't know?......

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Regina_Giddens 14 years ago

Yeah, this thread made me laugh, because I thought exactly the same thing. I didn't find David attractive, and really, I was rooting for Louise to suddenly forget David, realize she was in mad love with Mr Graham, and for them to live happily ever after

But at the same time I knew it wasn't about my own personal taste. We're probably not even supposed to be able to relate to Louise's obsession with David, since it's a product of her mental illness. It's probably supposed to be illogical.

But you are, Blanche. You are in that chair!

reply

[–] carolmr527 11 years ago

Heflin was also attractive and wonderful and masculine in the Barbara Stanwyck noir The Strange Love of Martha Ivers.

reply

[–] es_sj 12 years ago

Romantic obsession is not at all about the object. It's about something lacking within the obsessor!

Very perceptive; I wish more people realized this!

reply

[–] shadycady 12 years ago

That is a great point.

The Divine Genealogy Goddess

reply

[–] netshopper-2 15 years ago

I find them about equal in the looks department. The film starts at a point where the romance is ending. I thought David would have said a lot of things to her prior to the break up that would have her taken in, we just don't get to hear them. He was pretty clever with his comments and likely could use his words to manipulate a woman when he needed to. He also seemed elusive which for some women is attracing. It still happens, with women clinging to bad boys when the nice guy is right there.

I kind of liked Joan's looks better(and her acting) when she was older, especially unmade up. She had the perfect look for film noire. She was not a great beauty(or actress) in her younger days.

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 12 years ago

I'd say they're about equal as well. What I didn't get is why Louise was so hooked on him, but clearly they had a history before this film takes place. He probably told her what she wanted to hear initially, only to turn away once she was in his grips.

And I agree Joan Crawford had the perfect look for film noir. The direction of this film is outstanding, with a lot of very impressive tracking shots, like when Louise is first led into the hospital on a gurney. The use of shadows is hypnotic. I couldn't imagine this film in color.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 12 years ago

For some reason, my old posts got deleted. But I never understood why people found Heflin so unattractive. (I would have much preferred him as Ashley Wilkes than priss-butt Leslie Howard).

But then, that "pretty-pretty" look, male or female, tends to leave me cold almost as a rule.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;

reply

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

I'm watching the film now, and sometimes she acts like a woman scorned until you notice there are no vengeful looks, just an uneasiness as she tries to reconcile life. That morphs into her delusional state and whatever illness she was diagnosed with. What's great about this film is that she is in the medical profession, but cannot heal thyself.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply