Alex da Silva 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?

clanciai 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.

malcolmgsw This film was released at the height of the interest in psychological thrillers.the film starts up quite slowly works up to a crescendo and then rather falls flat at the end.It is nevertheless an intriguing film in many ways.Mason has it fixed in his mind just how easy it would be to kill Kellino.However the reality is that it turns into a violent struggle with him ending up strangling her then tossing her out the window.This rather anticipates the scene in Hitchcock's Torn Curtain with the gruesome killing of the Stasi agent.One wonders if Mason wished he had gone through with the actual deed bearing in mind his acrimonious divorce from Kellino a few years later!There is mention of an upturned glass but its meaning is never properly explained.At the end Mason commits suicide by leaping off a cliff.This is incorrect for 2 reasons.Firstly nowhere in the description of Paranoia,is there an indication that the symptoms include suicidal tendencies.Also there are no chalk cliffs near Portsmouth.One final point.I wonder if the American censors office asked for a change of endings.They would not sanction a suicide by a criminal as they considered it a mortal sin.Also they insisted on moral compensating values ie the villain must pay for his sins.

MartinHafer Up until about 80-90% of the way though the film, I was very impressed by "The Upturned Glass". It was an interesting thriller that was unique and worth seeing. However, towards the end, the film seemed more hastily written and a bit dumb--especially when the murder occurred.James Mason plays a neurologist who is well-known for his great lectures. In a hall packed with students, he tells the story of a patient who murdered but was NOT mentally imbalanced. While he changes the names of the characters, the film audience can see that the story is about Mason himself--he will eventually kill someone. The story explains all the events leading up to it. Then you learn that he has NOT yet killed but wanted, in a crazy way, to tell others about his plan before executing it. All this is quite good. However, when he then executes the plan, it's amazingly sloppy and he makes many mistakes. I didn't like this but at least the film in the end redeemed itself with a dandy ending. In many ways, this is almost like a British version of noir. Interesting and worth seeing.By the way, look for the scene with the 'American' soldier. His accent was TERRIBLE and he clearly sounded like a Brit trying to sound American. I assume in American-made films, we Yanks must sound the same way when we portray Brits!