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 written 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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence