I think this film has several advantages. One is its narrative method. At first we thought it was just a vulgar love story. The new dean Edward (played by Parker) fell in love with the young and beautiful psychologist Constance. (Played by Bergman), the two fell in love at first sight-again at first sight, but the new dean soon showed his difference: he was afraid of the lanes drawn by the fork on the tablecloth, and afraid of the stripes on the pajamas. Pattern... His performance is completely unlike a doctor or scholar with a famous psychology book. So who is he? Does Constance love inhumans? Suspicious points one after another, tempting you to look down.
The second advantage is that the subject matter of the story is very well selected. This film is undoubtedly one of the first films on the theme of psychoanalysis in film history, and it occupies the status of the originator of such films. The first time I heard about Freud was from this film, and later I bought "The Interpretation of Dreams" by Vugong. Although I still don’t understand the meaning of dreams, it also made me pay attention to dreams, knowing "Dream is not just a bunch of meaningless appearances as it appears on the surface. It is a shortcut to the unconscious and
the key to the deepest layer of personality." At the same time, it also began to pay attention to some ordinary things in life. People are concerned about things, doubt whether those things are really understood by others? This film may have produced a large number of skeptics as a result.
The third advantage is the horrifying atmosphere created by the entire film, especially the shooting of dreams, long shadows under dim light, and the curtain of big eyes. All of these rendered a patient’s dreams vividly and vividly, which I learned later. This is Dali’s design, no wonder.
Of course, this film is not perfect. For example, the explanation of the dream scene is novel, but the precise explanation of all the scenes in such a well-organized one-to-one correspondence oversimplifies the psychological analysis, which seems a bit superficial.
Finished talking about the actors in the film. Since I have watched Bergman twice in the past two days, I can’t help but talk about how I feel about Bergman. Bergman is very natural. She should be very good at playing some more intelligent intellectual women. Her personality should be very stubborn, and at the same time she should be indifferent and fanatical in appearance. , Basically belongs to the natural actor, perhaps because of this, she is extremely popular. Bergman has a beautiful appearance and a pair of big insightful eyes. The disadvantage is that the edges and corners of the face are too sharp, and the height is a little bit taller. It is easy to make short audiences (such as me) feel depressed, but no matter how picky you are, you must Acknowledge that she is an excellent actor and is bound to be loved by others.
Bergman was born on August 29, 1915 in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. During his time in Hollywood, he made many popular films, including "Casablanca", "Beauty", "Under the Gas Lamp", "Jan of Arc" and so on. "Reckless Action", "Liu Fu Inn" and "Murder on the Orient Express" are her later masterpieces. In his later years, he completed the filming of "Autumn Sonata" and "A Woman Called Golda" with tenacious perseverance and superb acting skills, and received unanimous praise from film critics and audiences. On August 29, 1982, this great actress died in her London apartment at the age of 67.
Visibility: *****
View more about Spellbound reviews
