Quelqu'un derrière la porte

A man is brought to a hospital with a severe case of amnesia and neurosurgeon Laurence Jeffries takes it upon himself to help out the patient. He dismisses it as intoxication, and pretends to take him to the station. However he brings him back to his home, but the motivation for this is unclear, and everything he's doing to supposedly treat him is done in secrecy. The identity of the stranger is becoming clearer, but so are the doctor's true intentions as he begins to manipulate the situation.

Confined, low-key low-budget French/Italian psychological drama with commendable performances by Charles Bronson and Anthony Perkins. The whole-set-up is like a stage show, were it lies heavily upon the expressively versatile performances and ambitiously novel material. The layer-bound premise is totally illogical, but strangely absorbing with its unforeseeable offbeat nature of offering up numerous surprises, and interestingly unlikely developments. However there are some questionable, teething problems involving the scheming, and its possible outcome. There's just too many cracks, to make it bullet proof that you just wonder if there was much thought put in behind it. Still there are elements that are smartly conceived, and this can be contributed to the manipulative tension (where the repressed anger, and violence is played out through a human tool) and mind-messing that director Nicolas Gessner (the man behind the superb 'The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)') ably works in. As well the believably committed turns of the two leads. Bronson and Perkins worked off each other magnificently. Perkins' cold, planned performance with Bronson's disorientated, assailable figure is sincerely pre-figured. There's no doubt this is one of Bronson's best acting turns. Jill Ireland is adequate in her small role. Gessner's sure-footed direction subtly paints a glum, intrusive puzzle with unique filming techniques that slowly strings you along to a powerfully bitter climax, which finally concludes on an inspired final shot of possible sickening regret. Sometimes it loses out by ponderously stretching it out too much with some raggedy editing, and another weak spot was the playful, but unremarkable misplaced music score by Georges Garvarentz. It just didn't add any sort of punch, or feel. Pierre Lhomme's slick cinematography is steadily framed.

Average thriller of a psychological nature about Anthony Perkins as a brain specialist finding amnesiac Charles Bronson and convincing him that his wife is his wife and is having an affair - all the while having a real affair. This is Perkin's way of dealing with the messy affair. There is quite a bit of plodding here as well as some leaps of logic in the script that are not easily believed. Perkins and Bronson are able to create convincing enough characters to make it work relatively well. Perkins plays the malevolent, to a large degree impotent(of taking command of the situation)doctor with his customary workmanlike manner. Bronson does get to act and though looks a little too lost at times fares well enough too. Lovely Jill Ireland plays the good doctor's sexy wife but does little for her role or the film other than looking quite appealing. The end is really not effective as it leaves no real resolution to any of the plot strands revealed. The director does have some obvious talent and the film moves briskly mercifully.

Back in the good old days, before the success of "Death Wish" forced him into playing the same role of the angry vigilante over and over again, Charles Bronson was a fine, versatile actor; in this 1971 film, he actually plays the victim of a larger scheme (though he does some victimizing of his own, too), and he's the best - if not the only - reason to see this otherwise static, plodding thriller. Anthony Perkins disappoints as the slightly deranged brain surgeon. The version I saw was in French, though the actors clearly spoke English on the set; this only added to the strangeness of the experience. Oh, and good luck to anyone trying to figure out what the title has to do with anything else. (**)

In the late 60's, having not made the box-office impact he so desired in America, Charles Bronson began acting in European films, where he immediately became a hit, establishing the enigmatic screen persona he is still known for today. Some of the films he made during that time were great, others weren't, but all held entertainment value of one kind or another. One of the more intriguingly off-beat was 'Someone Behind the Door', following a neurosurgeon who takes a strange man suffering from amnesia into his home, seemingly to recover his identity. However, as time marches on, it becomes clear that the doctor has other, far more sinister plans in mind, and his manipulation of the amnesiac's memories are just the beginning.

Directed by Nicolas Gessner, 'Someone Behind the Door' is an occasionally tense psychological thriller that isn't particularly well-written, but features two fine central performances from Bronson as the amnesiac and Anthony Perkins as the neurosurgeon, as well as artistic, stylish cinematography from Pierre Lhomme.

There is an atmosphere of dread and mystery that is palpable from the opening shots, which grows in intensity, ever-building towards an explosive finale. Lhomme's odd use of space and his irregular framing heightens this feeling of intrigue- as well as being visually stimulating to watch. It may not be the work of Sven Nykvist, but it is effective at creating and maintaining the tone of quiet, enigmatic agitation that runs throughout the film.

Perkins and Bronson might seem like an odd combination, but they work together brilliantly (apparently enjoying an off-screen friendship to boot). Bronson powerfully underplays his role, seeming like a cat cornered in a veterinary surgery- his fear, vulnerability and frustration is quite palpable. Bronson shows us the pain someone suffering from amnesia would undergo in a subtle, quiet and very effective manner. Later in the film, when his past is made known to himself and the audience, it is a highly impactful moment solely because of his strong, measured performance (as the writing in the screenplay really is consistently average). There are relatively few times in his career when he would have the opportunity to display his range as an actor- here you can witness one of his more interesting performances.

Perkins was a massively talented, versatile performer and proves that fact once again here. As the duplicitous neurosurgeon, he is seedy, vile and utterly watchable. He brings a natural charm and levity to the role that is most appreciated, as the character is quite contemptible- one could imagine a lesser actor playing him as a one-note, manipulative villain. Perkins was more intelligent than that, making the fellow oddly likable- though still utterly monstrous.

Jill Ireland also has a small role as Perkins' wife, though her performance makes little impact, and the character isn't one of much- if any- depth. However, this is less of a problem with her than it is with the writing. The screenplay is credited to four people- including Gessner and Marc Behm, who wrote the story to 'Charade', among others- and while it has some interesting and tense moments, it is terribly mediocre.

While the central conceit is intriguing- if far-fetched- the story is far too predictable, the dialogue too stilted and the characterization too tenuous to leave a positive lasting impression. Without the depth of Bronson's performance, his character would be incredibly boring and under-written, and without the joy of Perkins' one, his character would be a caricature of an evil doctor- nothing more. How the four writers couldn't come up with some good dialogue or meaningful characterization is confounding, considering they all proved their talent when working on other projects.

All that said, the film is entertaining and suspenseful, due in large part to the stylish camerawork and fine central performances from the lead actors. While 'Someone Behind the Door' suffers from derivative, lifeless screenwriting at times, it's not a bad film, containing some genuinely surprising moments of real tension. For fans of Bronson and Perkins, it's highly recommended- though fans of Gessner's signature, strange brand of cinema might be a little bit disappointed.

Nicolas Gessner :" For close-ups of hands,I usually inserted my own ,because it's an intricate and tricky operation .But obviously ,I couldn't do it with Tony ,because he had such very characteristic hands "

Fluent in French for he had been learning this language since he was hardly four, Perkins would work twice with Claude Chabrol ("le scandale " " la décade prodigieuse") and that director would probably have made a better film than Gessner on a screenplay based on a play (it was performed on stage in France). The English refused to co-produce the film cause the unions refused American stars as the leads ;it was released in both versions , Perkins' voice is heard in both.

But the movie is not bad ,with a good atmosphere ,and ,it helps, several scenes filmed on location on the wild British coast in Folkestone.Perkins is well cast as a shrink , forbidding ,daunting and formidable under his wide smile .

The contrast between the two personalities ,at once in the movie and in real life,is striking : the flanky elegant aristocrat Perkins and the macho sturdy Bronson ,here cast against type ,and a little ill at ease in a part of an amnesiac who becomes a puppet in the doctor's hands .The fact that Mrs Perkins (Jill Ireland)in the film was Bronson's real life wife adds to the confusion of a somewhat far-fetched plot the ending of which is not really satisfying , but they perhaps wanted an open one.The plot ,although intriguing , is not as efficient as Anthony Shaffer's or Agatha Christie's plays .

"The slight tension between them enhanced their performance" Gessner said ;Bronson was distruthful and feared that his director and co-star could lead into doing things he would regret .Anyway it was not easy to cast against type an actor so sure of himself (and who made much more money at the box office).

It met mixed critical reception in 1971,but since it has aged pretty well , thanks to the two principals, whose relationship is fascinating.