THE SEVENTH VEIL is a dear film favourite of mine. I find the film semi-addictive, very enjoyable and strangely hypnotic, even haunting. This surprise little hit of 1945 (made on a small budget)did wonders at the box office and picked up an Oscar.
I won't summarise the plot here, but I will offer an interesting discussion on the film for those who like to enjoy yet also ponder the meaning behind THE SEVENTH VEIL....
It's a film that attracts a lot of divisive opinion. To many, it's enjoyable romantic kitsch- harmless fun. Some (my mother would fall into this category)find it mildly disturbing that our heroine, the lovely, brilliant yet tortured concert pianist Francesa (Ann Todd), runs straight into the arms of the guardian, Nicholas (an excellent James Mason in his best early role) who cut her off from having a normal life and also attempted to smash her fingers with his ever-present (some Freudian fun?) cane. Others call it a fine little film, a classic even. Still others (critic Pauline Kael) refer to it as a "sadomasochist's sundae", and point out that Nicholas and Francesca are clearly going to need years of "couples counselling" to achieve a normal, functioning relationship.
One of the main criticisms levelled at it is it's now-dated psychiatry theme. However, the theme pleasingly does not meander in too much psychobabble (unlike the same year's SPELLBOUND), and Herbert Lom, in a role that is now cliché, is very good indeed. I like the flashback structure (again, now a standard cliché of the Hollywood film)and I think it, along with the Freudian overtones, would have seemed fresh in the 1940's.
Other criticisms that seem to frequently appear are the casting of Ann Todd and her appearance as fourteen year old girl in school dress. Some ask why the did not simply get a teen actress who resembles Todd to play Francesca as a girl? Budget constraints have often been cited as a reason for this. However, I think it's more to do with the film-makers idea that having Todd voice-over narrate and then play Francesa all through childhood, adolescence and womanhood would build her character and establish narrative flow. I personally don't mind the schoolgirl scenes (even if Todd, at 36, looks far too old and is trying just a little too hard to be an earnest adolescent)-they certainly don't lessen the film for me.
As for casting Todd, she of the alabaster Garbo-like face, well, I don't mind that either. I thinks she's fine in the role. Never an emotive or even an expressive actress, Todd does suggest Francesca's austerity, guarded repression and shyness well. Her eyes in the scene where she receives a caning from the headmistress do a lot more for me than words could. She certainly does a good job faking the piano-playing scenes.
I think the film is weakest in the "Max" scenes. I feel he is just there as a plot convenience (three suitors instead of two), his part is rather poorly written (and rather blandly acted)and he just seems to be a filler to get Mason really cranky and send Todd into a breakdown. Peter would probably be the most "normal" choice for Francesca...yet does he really want her anymore?
The ending is probably the major quibble folks have with the film. Why, after copping seemingly nothing more than abuse, should our heroine run to Mason? I think the implication is that she has, unconsciously, loved him along yet needed to have Lom take off those "veils" for her to realise it. Or maybe she knows she really does love him all along ("he has a strange power over me"..."I don't think I can help myself") but is afraid of the harsh front he wears to mask his own true feelings. Yes, Mason does love her- and, as we see in that very revealing scene (and Todd doesn't see it...)where Nicholas slowly softens and smiles as Francesca is giving a concert, he treasures her. The way he gets the flowers ready and quickly plucks one off (presumably to present to her), makes him seem like an uncertain, yet besotted suitor. Then she walks straight past him in search of Peter- does anyone else feel really sorry for poor Nicholas at this point in the film? I know I sure do! He wants to be with her all the time...obsessive, yes, yet oddly natural given his great love for her...
Mason, of course, is the key to the film. His Nicholas, sitting dourly in his chair and stroking a cat, seems at first, to be another cranky, sardonic (yet delicious!) villain in the vein of Lord Rohan (The Man In Grey) or Lord Manderstoke (Fanny By Gaslight), two of his most famous Gainsborough roles. Yet his character arc becomes something quite different entirely. There is something very saddening about Nicholas- and I'm not making excuses for the cane-beating or emotional abuse-that draws the viewer to Mason's character (and, indeed, it's a wonderful performance from Mason, and does he look darkly handsome!). Before Francesca comes into his life (and, as we, the audience know all along and receive official confirmation at the end)he has lived a lonely life as both a physical and emotional cripple. Very rich, but very sad. Sounds strange, but I hate the thought of Nicholas limping around his mansion, without Francesca and only her portrait to comfort-or further emotionally cripple him?-him, hiding his thoughts to himself. Ah, maybe it's the unabashed romantic in me, but Nicholas needs Francesa with him- as he says, in that desperate attempt to make her stay that ends with her hands being beaten, he "can't live without her". It's certainly an interesting relationship!
I won't summarise the plot here, but I will offer an interesting discussion on the film for those who like to enjoy yet also ponder the meaning behind THE SEVENTH VEIL....
It's a film that attracts a lot of divisive opinion. To many, it's enjoyable romantic kitsch- harmless fun. Some (my mother would fall into this category)find it mildly disturbing that our heroine, the lovely, brilliant yet tortured concert pianist Francesa (Ann Todd), runs straight into the arms of the guardian, Nicholas (an excellent James Mason in his best early role) who cut her off from having a normal life and also attempted to smash her fingers with his ever-present (some Freudian fun?) cane. Others call it a fine little film, a classic even. Still others (critic Pauline Kael) refer to it as a "sadomasochist's sundae", and point out that Nicholas and Francesca are clearly going to need years of "couples counselling" to achieve a normal, functioning relationship.
One of the main criticisms levelled at it is it's now-dated psychiatry theme. However, the theme pleasingly does not meander in too much psychobabble (unlike the same year's SPELLBOUND), and Herbert Lom, in a role that is now cliché, is very good indeed. I like the flashback structure (again, now a standard cliché of the Hollywood film)and I think it, along with the Freudian overtones, would have seemed fresh in the 1940's.
Other criticisms that seem to frequently appear are the casting of Ann Todd and her appearance as fourteen year old girl in school dress. Some ask why the did not simply get a teen actress who resembles Todd to play Francesca as a girl? Budget constraints have often been cited as a reason for this. However, I think it's more to do with the film-makers idea that having Todd voice-over narrate and then play Francesa all through childhood, adolescence and womanhood would build her character and establish narrative flow. I personally don't mind the schoolgirl scenes (even if Todd, at 36, looks far too old and is trying just a little too hard to be an earnest adolescent)-they certainly don't lessen the film for me.
As for casting Todd, she of the alabaster Garbo-like face, well, I don't mind that either. I thinks she's fine in the role. Never an emotive or even an expressive actress, Todd does suggest Francesca's austerity, guarded repression and shyness well. Her eyes in the scene where she receives a caning from the headmistress do a lot more for me than words could. She certainly does a good job faking the piano-playing scenes.
I think the film is weakest in the "Max" scenes. I feel he is just there as a plot convenience (three suitors instead of two), his part is rather poorly written (and rather blandly acted)and he just seems to be a filler to get Mason really cranky and send Todd into a breakdown. Peter would probably be the most "normal" choice for Francesca...yet does he really want her anymore?
The ending is probably the major quibble folks have with the film. Why, after copping seemingly nothing more than abuse, should our heroine run to Mason? I think the implication is that she has, unconsciously, loved him along yet needed to have Lom take off those "veils" for her to realise it. Or maybe she knows she really does love him all along ("he has a strange power over me"..."I don't think I can help myself") but is afraid of the harsh front he wears to mask his own true feelings. Yes, Mason does love her- and, as we see in that very revealing scene (and Todd doesn't see it...)where Nicholas slowly softens and smiles as Francesca is giving a concert, he treasures her. The way he gets the flowers ready and quickly plucks one off (presumably to present to her), makes him seem like an uncertain, yet besotted suitor. Then she walks straight past him in search of Peter- does anyone else feel really sorry for poor Nicholas at this point in the film? I know I sure do! He wants to be with her all the time...obsessive, yes, yet oddly natural given his great love for her...
Mason, of course, is the key to the film. His Nicholas, sitting dourly in his chair and stroking a cat, seems at first, to be another cranky, sardonic (yet delicious!) villain in the vein of Lord Rohan (The Man In Grey) or Lord Manderstoke (Fanny By Gaslight), two of his most famous Gainsborough roles. Yet his character arc becomes something quite different entirely. There is something very saddening about Nicholas- and I'm not making excuses for the cane-beating or emotional abuse-that draws the viewer to Mason's character (and, indeed, it's a wonderful performance from Mason, and does he look darkly handsome!). Before Francesca comes into his life (and, as we, the audience know all along and receive official confirmation at the end)he has lived a lonely life as both a physical and emotional cripple. Very rich, but very sad. Sounds strange, but I hate the thought of Nicholas limping around his mansion, without Francesca and only her portrait to comfort-or further emotionally cripple him?-him, hiding his thoughts to himself. Ah, maybe it's the unabashed romantic in me, but Nicholas needs Francesa with him- as he says, in that desperate attempt to make her stay that ends with her hands being beaten, he "can't live without her". It's certainly an interesting relationship!