Skip to main content

Make way for Pengallan!

Jamaica Inn
(1939)

(SPOILERS) I’m sure there’s been a move to rehabilitate each of Hitchcock’s more neglected pictures at some point, doubtless to varying degrees of success. Jamaica Inn, certainly, is justifiably deemed one of his lesser works, his last before eloping to Hollywood and a rare journey into history for the director, one with little for him to get his corpulent teeth into. It looks great, Cornwall atmospherically conjured in the studio, but art direction and cinematography simply aren’t enough.


Hitch apparently wanted out almost as soon as he read the screenplay (he knew star Charles Laughton, as well as being of similar gait and age, and agreed to make it sight unseen), bringing in Sidney Gilliat to rewrite Clemence Dane’s adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s novel. Laughton was originally earmarked for the uncle, but decided he fancied playing the squire instead (who had to be rewritten from a villainous vicar – the brother of innkeeper Uncle Merlyn – due to Hayes Code stipulations) and brought in JB Priestley to beef up his dialogue.


The aspect of these changes that most aggrieved the director was having to knock the whodunit aspect on the head, revealing the squire as behind it all before the half-hour mark. I’m not sure how legitimate a complaint this is in isolation, as Hitchcock frequently experimented with the suspense of the audience knowing something the protagonist doesn’t. In this case, however, there’s definitely something up, as Jamaica Inn has no wind in its sails.


While Hitchcock referred to Laughton as “a nice man. A Charming man” he was also profoundly annoyed by his behaviour, observing that “He wasn’t really a professional film man”. Laughton requested that he be shown only in close shots until he worked out Sir Humphrey’s walk, which turned out to be “inspired by the beat of a little German waltz” and played a scene as a small boy who had wet himself (I have to admit, I can’t tell which that is). Laughton is definitely hamming it up hugely in Jamaica Inn, and I usually have a great deal of time for prime ham, but it doesn’t really slice here. This may be because the plot is so sloppy, and his performance fails to offer effective contrast.


The result, between his star’s demands and producer Erich Pommer, was that Hitchcock felt he was refereeing the picture rather than directing it. His next film, Rebecca, would see him slam dunking Du Maurier, but here her milieu entirely gets the better of him. That said, what’s wrong with Jamaica Inn is mostly about pace and tension; it isn’t actually bad. How it ended up in Michael Medved’s The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (And How They Got That Way) is a mystery (perhaps he just wanted a Hitch on his list).


And it only actually begins to become a chore during the last 40 minutes. While Maureen O’Hara (in her screen debut, picked by Laughton and destined to play opposite him in his next big hit, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) rather fades in and out of being the lead character depending on the requirements of Laughton and the need for heroics from undercover cop (well, law officer) James Trahearne (Robert Newton, who would turn to villainy a decade later, first as Billy Sykes in Lean’s Oliver Twist and then as Long John Silver in Disney’s Treasure Island), her introductory passages do engage.


Dropped off way past her intended stop (the titular inn) by a fearful coachman, she fetches up at Sir Humphrey Pengallan’s abode, a plush, decadent palace complete with a horse in the hallway. She proceeds to show mettle in the face of her lecherous uncle Merlyn (Leslie Banks) and attempts to persuade her aunt (Marie Ney, playing the familiar battered wife, ritually justifying her husband’s actions) to have shot of him, amid some rather insensitive remarks (“You were beautiful” she says of her aunt in years past) before saving Trahearne from a lynching and making a run for it herself soon after.


This sequence is a glimpse of classic Hitchcock at work: Trahearne strung up, Mary watching through a hole in the floor – she breaks through the boards to reach the beam and cut through the rope. It does seem to have been rather foolish and not very savvy of Trahearne to be spread dissent among his fellow wreckers if he meant to maintain his cover, however. Later, they must escape from a shore cave as the wreckers give chase, before being taken in by Sir Humphrey. Certain moments and performances stand out. 


Emlyn Williams plays Merlyn’s second Harry as psycho dandy in a hat, spitting in a guard’s face as he awaits execution, and could almost be regarded as a predecessor to Alexis Kanner in The Prisoner and Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. Merlyn is offered surprising near-redemption as he rescues Mary for the sake of his wife (“I’ll manage her, just like I manage my Patience” he threatens early on), before both he and Mary are killed by Sir Humphrey (“A good, clean shot, wasn’t it?” observes the latter casually), and there’s a palpable air of sexual threat surrounding Mary throughout, in these wild, inhospitable climes.


Then there’s Wylie Watson (Mr Memory in The 39 Steps) looking forward to a proper public execution, with the women watching. And Sir Humphrey’s exit, as he leaps from the rigging before he can be strung up (“What are you all waiting for? A spectacle? You shall have it, and tell your children how the great age ended. Make way for Pengallan!”) It’s been underlined that Sir Humphrey’s actions are mitigated somewhat by his being mad (his grandfather suffered from such a condition, and Mary protests as much at the end), but Laughton’s performance is such that this element never really beds in.


Perhaps the best scene, though, is the opening. Merlyn instructs “No one gets clear of the wreck!” as his crew brutally fall upon the survivors; in the aftermath, Harry whistles nonchalantly as he wipes his bloody knife on his sleeve. Such incidents aren’t enough to make this shine, unfortunately. The great director clearly didn’t want to linger on what he saw as a failure (albeit, not commercially); this is one with less than a page and a half of commentary in the Truffaut book. It may also not be a coincidence that this was his last film without a cameo (although, perhaps the prospect of dressing up in period garb dissuaded him).




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the