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

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.