During the 1940s, there were several films about mental illness and most that I have seen are psychological mumbo-jumbo--filled with nonsense and portraying insanity in the most ridiculous ways. One of the most famous and seriously flawed of these film is SPELLBOUND. Despite being directed by Hitchcock and having a good reputation, most of what occurs in the film has nothing to do with mental illness and the way the therapist (Ingrid Bergman) behaves in the film is not only unethical but downright stupid. Thank goodness for films like POSSESSED that proved that Hollywood was capable of producing a reasonably good psychological drama. Unlike POSSESSED, this film seems like they actually consulted with real therapists and the way the story was written was a bit hard to believe but actually plausible. When therapists talked about the mental illness Ms. Crawford's character had, they really were reasonable in their diagnosis and the terminology they used was correct for that day. Hats off for this aspect of the film.<br /><br />Now the plot of this story is in many ways pure soap opera--with more twists and turns than you'd see in any other genre. The combination of the four main characters and their many problems sure gives the audience of entertainment for the cost of admission. Now the father (Raymond Massey) and his daughter (Geraldine Brooks) are relatively "normal" in the film. However, Van Heflin plays a somewhat sociopathic creep--a guy with little depth but a lot of charm. He's unwilling to commit to a serious relationship with Joan at the beginning of the film, but later he sweeps a much younger lady (Joan's step-daughter) off her feet and when confronted admits that much of her appeal is her money! Joan Crawford's character, however, is the main focus of the film and wow does she have a lot going on psychologically! In the beginning, she seems normal enough but when rejected by Heflin, she shows that there is a strong streak of obsession and delusion about her--and she comes off sounding like a crazed stalker. This is only the beginning, however, as throughout the course of the film, it's apparent that her problems run much deeper as she paints an amazingly accurate portrait of a woman sinking into the depths of schizophrenia (with paranoid and catatonic features). While some portrayals of this illness have been better in recent years, Ms. Crawford, the director and the writers did an amazing job for the time--an image that would still hold true today. No mumbo-jumbo here--just an accurate picture of what it would be like to slip into madness and eventually into catatonia. The only obviously wrong aspect of this is the amazing results they got using drugs to break through her unresponsive state--this just isn't possible. However, considering how this set up the film and was necessary for the narrative, this can easily be overlooked.<br /><br />Okay, so if you're not a psychotherapist or psychology teacher, is the film worth seeing? Absolutely. Apart from the psychological truths in the film, there is some dandy romance, lots of unexpected twists and turns and darn fine acting throughout. Apparently this plum role was first offered to Bette Davis (who also apparently foolishly turned down the lead in MILDRED PIERCE) but Ms. Davis was about to go on maternity leave. Frankly, though I adore Ms. Davis as an actress, Crawford was so good here that I don't mind at all--she had a great knack for playing playing characters on the edge of sanity.<br /><br />See this film. About the only reason it didn't score it a 9 is that towards the end Van Heflin's reaction to Crawford didn't make much sense. It was obvious Crawford was dangerous and unbalanced--yet he foolishly taunted her. Everyone knows you DON'T dare a crazy person to shoot you--they usually DO!!! Duh.