Hemmungslose Liebe

Several doctors in this film speculate that Ms. Crawford's character might be suffering from mental illness. Are they right or wrong? This is a big question to be answered in "Possessed" because it seems that somebody here could be BERSERK and might even be a candidate for a STRAIGHTJACKET!

I am a little disappointed that there isn't as much plot-based drama in this film as in MILDRED PIERCE. Mildred Pierce has drama consistently built into the plot whereas this film has a lot of Crawford engaging in dramatics and neuroses rather than more active drama. However this is a more psychologically oriented film (not a noir) and Crawford's acting is believable and solid. Raymond Massey does a good job in the Walter Pidgeon role (or is it Walter Pidgeon in the Raymond Massey role?) You also get a polished jewel of a performance by Stanley Ridges.

Basically a soap opera with a well-done psychology theme, "Possessed" will probably hold your attention due to Crawford's excellent performance. This film is an impressive accomplishment for her.

Another coup for Joan Crawford, 1947's Possessed (Joan co-starred with Clark Gable in a 1938 film of the same name), sees the star in a great vehicle in which to show off her many dramatic talents.

The hospital scenes are a bit over the top, and Stanley Ridges plays the psychiatric doctor a bit too eagerly. I half expected him to start wringing his hands with an Igor-type `yes, master – I think it's working, master' look on his face every time one of the drugs he gave Joan Crawford began taking effect. Ridges' performance is earnest, but his approach made me giggle more than once.

What's good about the film is its insight into issues regarding mental illness and its compassionate, non-exploitative exploration of the subject matter. This is accomplished in spite of Ridges' misguided portrayal of Dr. Willard, and due in large part to Crawford's brave, unglamorous portrayal of patient Louise Graham.

On the whole, Possessed is a very entertaining film that left me wanting to know what would happen next.

I think the death of Dean Graham's first wife is rushed and a bit muddled. Her character should have been actually introduced (even in one brief scene) rather than merely heard or talked about in flashback. Instead, there is just a big jump right into the marriage of Dean and Louise. This lack of transition really annoys me, although I can't exactly pinpoint why – I guess the whole thing just feels rushed.

Conveniently appearing and re-appearing on the scene is architect David Sutton, always around to throw Louise into a tizzy, as she cannot seem to get over the fact that he has broken off their relationship. It's difficult to understand David's appeal, as his character is extremely smarmy and smug, and he has no socially redeeming values whatsoever. To illustrate this, he shows up un-invited to Dean and Louise's wedding reception for the free food and drink. Ultimately, Dean's daughter Carol falls for him. Why, ladies??

If one can get past this implausible plot thread and take the story at face value, this is when the film really takes off, and Crawford's neurosis/psychosis picks up speed. The film improves greatly from here, and the plot advances nicely.

CAST/PERFORMANCES: Joan Crawford (Louise Howell Graham) – Crawford's transformation from personally neurotic, yet mild, unobtrusive caregiver to scheming, paranoid, jealous, unstable woman scorned is fairly believable, given the plot. I adore her voice, and the circumstances of the script, her role, and therefore her dialog really allow Crawford to express herself well, and she is a treat to hear as well as watch, as usual.

Raymond Massey (Dean Graham) – Massey is such a natural actor that I always adore his performances, and here is just wonderful. I love the scene where he dances with Crawford – watch as he forgets himself and sticks his tongue partway out with the effort of the dance. That, his quoting Bugs Bunny and his very tender, heartfelt scenes with Joan (his Dean Graham character is so sweet and patient) are a standout. I think it was a good casting choice to go with Massey, as his self-effacing nature is perfect for this role.

Van Heflin (David Sutton) – Despite the character's flaws (a very difficult role to play), in the actor's capable hands, it is done well. In his inimitable style and voice inflection, Heflin has the best line in the film, which he delivers offhandedly while pacing the floor: `I'm sorry, Louise – I seldom hit a woman, but if you don't leave me alone, I'll wind up kicking babies.'

Geraldine Brooks (Carol Graham) – a lovely actress, who I am sure I've seen in other films, as her name sounds familiar. She‘s very good as Carol, and gives a lively and strong performance as Massey's daughter. Her reaction to her mom's death and to Crawford's motives for marrying her father are very believable.

A good cast, interesting plot, and decent execution make for a fine film noir.

Just what does Van Heflin's David have the makes Joan Crawford's Louise go literally mad for him?

Doesn't appear to be that much in the looks department. Perhaps just that special touch that signals, "either you've got it or you haven't."

Whatever the case, Louise pleads, cajoles, rants and raves for David the entire film. What does our David do?--merely tell Louise the truth: that he's simply not in love with her.

Granted, David's rather flippant, self-absorbed and bored, but that's his prerogative. Instead of accepting this and moving on with her life, Louise insists on minding David's old business and clinging to bygone days.

All this "to-do," when a simple scan of a Dale Carnegie text might have solved the problem.

Louise does have her supporters: young stepdaughter Carol and aging hubbie Dean do what they can to bolster Louise's confidence. Since Geraldine Brooks and Raymond Massey portray these respective roles, there's sure to be strong convictions expressed.

Made just two years after her Oscar-winning turn in "Mildred Pierce," Crawford is in her mature mettle here. Although the same title was used for a Crawford film 16 years earlier, the similarity is in name only.

"Possessed" allows Joan to suffer royally and she does, pulling out all the schizophrenic stops to slam this one home. Since no one reels better than Crawford, it's an engaging performance in an engrossing film.

Joan Crawford was born to play this role. She's a scary woman. You can't fake those looks. With five marriages herself (even tho that wasn't the case in 1947, it was in her future) she knew this subject matter very well. I don't know what it is about Crawford, but she's scary. She seems so unbalanced as a person that this role was PERFECT for her.

I watched this film on cable (Turner movies) only to see who Raymond Massey was. As a Seinfeld fan, there's an episode where Kramer's physique is compared to Raymond Massey.he's got a `Raymond Massey like physique.'

I was drawn into the mood of the movie and Crawford's seriously co-dependent personality. Her portrayal of a possessed woman in love was dead on. Many times these type of women look so perfect on the outside, working in a `servant' type position, so quiet on the outside with a wicked inner life brewing. Crawford nailed this personality.again, too perfectly.

I'm amazed at the depth of characters older movies have and the rather intense subject matter. I'm always amazed at how little life really has changed.wipe out technology and people are basically people.jealousy, anger, envy, strife.the Bible is true, all have fallen short, in 100AD, 1947, or 2004.

This movie takes the smoldering talents of Joan Crawford and lets them burn the screen down, right before your eyes...she's utterly convincing as a fairly demented "possessed" lover, torn to pieces by hideous dysfunction. The lowest of lows, and not many highs...

Mildred Pierce laid the template down; Possessed fills the template and makes it its own. What I personally love is the "Hollywood Gothic" aspect, the redolence of that: every frame is steeped in it, every moment is cradled in its embrace. One of those movies that you watch, mouth agape, and whisper to yourself, "Christ, the aesthetics...was the world ever really like that?" Apparently so.

Oh, and for the record - it was a better world.