SOMEONE BEHIND THE DOOR (TWO MINDS FOR MURDER)

France/Italy, 1971, 94 minutes, Colour.
Charles Bronson, Anthony Perkins, Jill Ireland.
Directed by Nicholas Gessner.

Someone Behind the Door is a Charles Bronson psychological thriller (not action thriller) made in France in 1971. Its alternate title, Two Minds for Murder, gives the theme. While obvious in many ways, the story involves its audience in wanting to see how an evil plot for murder will work out. Anthony Perkins is the star and offers yet another portrayal of nervous madness. Bronson is an amnesiac whose behaviour and personality make sense only by the end. The plot (and the plot in the plot) is quite contrived but steadily worked out. However, a much more conclusive and definite ending would have been more appropriate for this kind of thriller.

1. The success of this film as a Charles Bronson vehicle, as a thriller? Its conventions, qualities?

2. The significance of the title and the focus on the stranger? The alternative title of Two Minds for Murder? Which the more suitable,for thews?

3. The quality of the film as a French film, British locationsf American actors? The credible was the plot, characterisation. authentic settings?

4. How plausible were the basics of the plot? The use of coincidence? Did this nutter for audience involvement? Understanding of the plan?

5. The importance of the opening: the brain. memory. brain surgery? The role of the doctor as a healer. as a destroyer? Indication of what was about to happen?

6. The characteristics of Anthony Perkins as Dr. Laurence Jeffries? The picture of him and his skill at work. the mysterious aspects of his behaviour, his kindness to the stranger. yet concealing him? The small lies that he told? The gradual revelation of his character as he snooped on his wife? His attack on his wife? His deception of the stranger? The various kinks and mannerisms? How sane was he?

7. The mystery of the stranger? His characteristics, and his lack of personality? The way that he was found, the impact of his being dazed, the nature of amnesia? How important was it for the audience not to know his background? Audience sympathy for him in his plight? In the way that he was treated? As a victim of the doctor? The gradual revelation of his character as he assumed all the characteristics of the doctor with his vengeance?

8. How well did the film establish the mysterious relationship of each? The doctor transferring his own character and attitudes to the stranger? The use of small details such as the gun. staining the suit etc.? How much easier was it to follow when the doctor's true nature was revealed? An audience watching as a plan unfolded, knowing what was to come yet helpless?

9. The growing importance of the attention to detail: with the suit, writing the letter, phone calls, creating a situation for various characters to interpret it wrongly?

10. How malicious and cold-blooded was the plan? The motivation of the doctor? His being an actor and yet a spectator? The effect on the character of the stranger as he assumed all the details to be truth about himself? His vengeance, the fight, his wife and the provocation of the photo, Paul Damien as the villain?

11. The film's presentation of Frances, her deception of her husband, her deserving the fate that he prepared for her?

12. The importance of the suspenseful build-up for the arrival of Damien and the anger of the stranger?

13. Damien walking into the trap? Frances and her confusion? The confronation by the stranger and the irony with the doctor watching in the distance? Damien's violent death? The attempted rape of Frances and the discovery of the memory of the stranger?

14. What would happen to him when he went back to the asylum? The pathos of his wandering along the cliff? His not realising what the doctor had done to him?

15. How satisfying was the end with the tick-tocking of the clock and of the heartbeats? What would Frances do? What would Laurence do? What did he deserve? How interesting a psychological melodrama?