Persecuzione

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.

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.

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?

The Upturned Glass is directed by Lawrence Huntington and written by John Monaghan and Pamela Kellino. It stars James Mason, Rosamund John, Pamela Kellino, Ann Stephens, Morland Graham and Brefni O'Rorke. Music is by Bernard Stevens and cinematography by Reginald H. Wyer. Plot finds Mason as Michael, a brilliant surgeon who falls in love with Emma Wright (John), the mother of a young girl whose eyesight he saves. Trouble is that Emma is married to a man who works overseas a lot and it's a relationship that ultimately has to end. When word comes that Emma has been tragically killed after falling out of a top floor window at her home, Michael decides to investigate further. It's an investigation that leads Michael down very dark roads.....

What a time to go buy a house, you must be demented!

One of the last British films Mason made before leaving for America to work contractually for MGM, The Upturned Glass is a Hitchcockian like thriller that's tinted with a film noir edge. With Mason co-producing and his then wife, Kellino, co-starring and co-writing, it was very much a personal project. The film finds the "Mason's" experimenting with a flashback structure that is in turn covered by a Mason narration. Always easy to follow, the picture does however shy away from offering up easy answers, purposely leaving some things tantalisingly dangling in the air. It also retains a murder mystery interest before diving head first into that of a study of a psychological break down. There's some devilment in the narrative, even a bit of cheeky daring that shows its hand once Mason's lecture that opens the film is seen in the light it was meant to be.

Today I sat in judgement.

With Wyer's photography dealing in shadows and smoky lenses, and Huntington showing a keen eye for atmospheric composition during scenes involving the empty house and the village chapel, there's enough visual treats for the film noir crowd to feast on. Into the equation as well is the vagaries of fate, a theme so prominent in the great noir pictures of the past, the outcome of this picture is defined by a decision Michael makes, the irony of which is as snappy as a crocodile. The finale has been lamented by others due to its suddeness, to that I have to say they missed the point, it's suitably cold and closes the picture perfectly. The title has even been called into question, some even saying it has nothing to do with the film or is unfitting? It all fits during the best period of dialogue between Michael and Dr. Farrell (O'Rorke)! I do believe this is a film worthy of reappraisal by a more genre compliant audience.

It's not overtly film noir, but the blood line is there, and with Mason on simply irresistible form this is highly recommended to fans of noir and Hitchcockian flavoured black and whites. 7.5/10 MPI's Region 1 DVD is a decent print, some snap and pop from time to time on the edges, and the sound mix is always audible if not pristine throughout.

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.