The Upturned Glass

A prominent neurosurgeon (James Mason) investigates the death of his lover (Rosamund John) in "The Upturned Glass" from 1947.

Mason plays Dr. Michael Joyce, an unhappily married man. He tells his students the story of a doctor who, after helping a young girl regain her sight, falls in love with the girl's mother, Emma (Rosamund John). Her husband is away; they decide never to see one another again.

Soon after, he learns that Emma has fallen out a window to her death. Michael doesn't believe it's suicide and sets out to find the killer. One way he does this is by getting close to her sister-in-law (Pamela Kellino).

Kellino in reality was Mason's wife, Pamela Mason, who co-wrote an excellent script. It has the perfect British atmosphere - dark, foggy, and mysterious. Kellino's role (no surprise) is an especially good one, that of a mean-spirited, uncaring woman interested only in money. Mason is terrific.

Highly recommended. An absorbing film.

This is a very unusual and intelligent thriller, like most thrillers involving doctors usually are. It is the first of James Mason's very few own productions and features his own wife, Pamela Mason, here Pamela Kellino, as the second of the two ladies he is involved with, both of them leading to disaster. The intrigue cleverly leads astray at times while at the same time it sharpens as the doctor (James Mason) finds his own case constantly more crucial. He stages a kind of mock trial with himself by giving a lecture at the medical theatre with all rows filled with young attentive students, and one student almost sees through his show and sharpens his case even further. Is he in control or is he not? Has he the right to judge what's right or wrong or has he not? The film poses many questions, and the questioning becomes increasingly more critical, until in the end he is faced with the final trial as a doctor, when an emergency calls on him to perform one more brain surgery. It's the doctor who assists him who puts him to the final test, and these scenes are the most interesting and important in the film. James Mason as the doctor has no other choice than to be consistent with his own argument and conclude his own case after having received an understated sentence by his elderly colleague. It's a remarkable film, not for its direction, which could have been better, but for its very thought-provoking story with the presentation of a case which not even doctors could in any possible way be called upon to give a fair judgement of. The tragedy of this case is that James Mason, one of the best actors ever, a constantly brooding romantic hero, more Hamletian than Byronic, has no other choice, which probably no one could reasonably disagree with.

In addition, you can't help recognizing some details here from other, later films, that boast its influence, especially Hitchcock's "Vertigo", displaying the identical problem of a man's involvement in two women related with each other, Hitchcock much developing the theme to an equally crucial crisis but in another direction, while the very vertigo scenes Hitchcock must have got the idea of from here.

It should also be noted, that John Monaghan, the script writer, appears as an extra (the truck driver), He made some similar appearances in some films, but this is the only film he wrote, with Mrs Mason as co-script writer. The intrigue with its complications and arguments is so psychologically interesting, that you find more in it each time you see it. For that reason, in spite of its flaws, I will give it a full 10.

That's the advice that doctor Brefni O'Rorke (Dr Farrell) gives to surgeon James Mason (Joyce) when giving an analogy comparing insanity to an upturned glass balancing on a mantelpiece. So, that's exactly what Mason does! The film is told in flashback as Mason narrates a lecture to students on the topic of the criminal mind. He presents a case of a sane man committing murder. It's no revelation to the film audience that he is recounting his own story. What is interesting in this technique is that we realize he hasn't actually carried out the act and we then find ourselves in real time at the end of the lecture as he goes ahead with his plan after what can be seen as his confession to the students.

The root of his problem is a love affair with Rosamund Wright (Emma) which cannot be. The ending of the relationship coincides with some tragic news and Mason then turns to Pamela Mason (Kate) to discover the truth and exact revenge. The real events of the tragedy are never fully confirmed and so Mason's actions are very suspect. Is he insane? He certainly seems to be acting on a whim. Pamela Mason is excellent in her role and certainly had me rooting for her. I'm not sure this was the intention, though!

The young girl whose sight Mason saves at the beginning of the film is played by Ann Stephens who died aged 35 in 1966. I can't find any details on how she died. Can anyone help on this? It would be interesting to know. She delivers some amusing dialogue about not liking her hair and Pamela Mason's dialogue regarding her is flippantly wonderful – I'll send her boarding – ha ha. The best of us have all spent time boarding as a child. As for the film's title, I still don't know what an upturned glass means? Which way?

This is why I have always loved classic film - the QUALITY OF ACTING.

Story: While not hugely original, it has enough original ideas and themes that kept me interested nearly 100% (which I'm not want to do). The story is largely about three (3) elements: a) A brilliant brain surgeon, b) a man obsessed with justice, and c) the insidious nature of isolating oneself. Combining all three made for a compelling story, though again, not overly intriguing. One complaint is that the opening scene should have been an anchor, that we would have been routed back to in the end, but we're not. For me, that leaves that facet of the story extraneous, or just a big disappointment.

Acting: James Mason's acting skill is on the order of Alec Guinness, and the like - fully committed to character and never flinches on camera. Complete immersion in character keeps the viewer unaware that the actor is "acting." My only (chief) complaint is that the whole story (screen time) is virtually Mason the whole time, which can be monotonous. He's top shelf, but overused here.

Tempo: Excellent tempo as the film and story weave along, though again, Mason ties up the whole screen which drags down the rhythm for me.

Directing: Excellent camera work, scene quality with no major complaints save the near "obsession" with the lead character (Mason).

Summary: Well done film for its era and genre, and excellent acting. Mason overpowers the screen which left me somewhat disappointed by the lack of variety among the characters. Overall a solid 7.5 / 10.

James Mason's final Gainsborough melodrama before packing his bags and leaving for Hollywood is a good-looking psychodrama produced and written by it's stars, sleekly crafted by it's director (with whom Mason had already established a good working relationship a few years earlier) and with a flavourful score by Bernard Stevens.

The inscrutable title is the result of a last minute change from a film about the Brontes to a replacement retaining the title but substituting an entirely different plot.