Persecuzione

In this suspenseful movie, we meet James Mason as he lectures about crime to a group of students. He is an eminent neurologist. In flashback, we learn of the girl whose eyesight he's saved. In the course of doing this, he fell in hove with her mother.

It's a murder-mystery; so that's as much plot as I'll give. Pamela Mason is appropriately unappealing as the woman's nosy sister-in-law. Mason, one of my favorite actors, is very good.

As a suspense movie -- a noir, of sorts -- it is excellent. It positions itself as more, unfortunately. Initially, it's intriguing to realize that the central figure in the case history Mason's reciting is himself. But there are red herrings. More distracting, there is philosophizing -- not to mention a most unsatisfactory final scene.

One of the earlier reviewers suggested that the film takes "the easy way out." I partially agree, but think that the real reason for the disappointing finale was the censors. They, in their moral righteousness, did their very best to ruin any number of UK and American films. In this case, the ending makes little sense. Otherwise, a very satisfying early addition to the film noir genre. The photography and pacing are perfect and carry the bleak mood. A minor quibble is that the notion of the lovers breaking off wasn't totally credible, but then, perhaps it was a different moral universe in the 1940s. Mason, as always, is excellent to the point that the viewer cannot take his eyes off of him (not that one would want to). Pamela is a hateful character, as from all reports, she was in real life.

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.

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 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.