Possessed

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.

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.

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.

My main reasons for watching 'Possessed' were Joan Crawford, a great actress (one of the best of her day) responsible for some fine performances regardless of her off-screen personality, and the very intense and brave subject matter (although going overboard on the melodrama was always going to be a danger). Van Heflin and particularly Raymond Massey have done good performances elsewhere, and Franz Waxman penned some fine music scores.

'Possessed', what an attention grabbing title too that doesn't mislead thankfully, did disappoint me just a little, as it had all the ingredients to be great and even a classic. Mostly though 'Possessed' was a solid, good even, film, with a lot of things done excellently and executes its heavy and not easy to pull off subject more than laudably and actually very well even. Not everything is great but a lot of elements are extremely well done.

Am going to start with what could have been done better. The acting was fine on the whole, but Heflin's character is very one-dimensional and very difficult to find any kind of appeal. It is not a typical role for Heflin and to me he struggled and didn't look comfortable, more intensity and charm was needed and there was nowhere near enough of either. Stanley Ridges is better but a bit too neurotic for a character that should be sympathetic.

Some of the film does get a little too melodramatic, particularly in the middle where some of the psychology waffles a little too self-indulgently and if Waxman's score was a little more subtle at times that would have helped.

Crawford however is superb in a role tailor-made for her, the more intense moments are incredibly bone-chilling without feeling too over-played. Geraldine Brooks, who really shines and this was just her film debut, is the other cast standout and Massey makes the most out of an underwritten role and is really quite good.

The photography is excellent throughout, especially clever and very atmospheric in the point of view shots. Waxman's score could have done with more subtlety, but it is sumptuously orchestrated and quite haunting. The direction is at ease with the subject and has the right amount of tension without on the most part over-heating it. The story is not always perfect but it is still gripping from beginning to end, the mental illness element is handled with tact but also in a way that is both quite frightening and moving and it's suspenseful. The first act in particular is terrific.

In conclusion, solid if falling slightly short of bigger potential. 7/10

Possessed (1947)

*** (out of 4)

Joan Crawford's incredible performance is the highlight of this thriller. In the film she plays Louise Howell, a woman who begins to suffer a mental breakdown after the man (Van Heflin) she loves walks away from her. Even though she marries another man (Raymond Massey) the stress of the other one leaving her just causes her mind to collapse. It's very important to point out the fact that this film was released thirteen years before Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO and I say that because of how much credit that film gets when it comes to looking at mental illness. Viewing POSSESSED today it's easy to see where the film is going as it is quite predictable and there's no question that some of the mental illness terms are out of date. With that said, for the most part this is a fairly good thriller that manages to keep your attention thanks in large part to the terrific cast. I'm not sure what else can be said about Crawford but there's no question that she was on quite a row at Warner. First with MILDRED PIERCE then HUMORESQUE and finally POSSESSED, the actress was really pushing herself and it made for three incredible performances. What's so amazing about her performance here is how many different personalities she manages to play. This character goes through all sorts of mental "issues" and I really loved the various ways Crawford brought them to the screen. It could be as simple as someone turning their back on her or someone telling her that they're not in love. There are several scenes where she's imagining things happening to her and Crawford is just flawless. It certainly doesn't help that Heflin is perfect as the snake and Massey is also extremely good as the supporting husband. Geraldine Brooks also deserves a lot of credit for her wonderful supporting performance as the step-daughter. Director Curtis Bernhardt brings a lot of style and atmosphere to the film and there's also some wonderful cinematography that helps. Again, the film is quite predictable but this doesn't take away the fun or the brilliant work by Crawford.