Skip to main content

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt
(1943)

(SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Peter Bogdanovich pinned it down best, I think, when he observed that the film has the most realistic feel of any of Hitchcock outside of The Wrong Man. Indeed, that one is a little too dry and beholden to its (true) source material for my tastes. Shadow of a Doubt, in contrast, observes realism in terms of its behaviours. There’s still room for humour here, around the fringes, and there’s still room for gaps in logic (everything relating to the police investigation is on the unlikely side), but the central dynamic between the two Charlies is gripping and believable, in its own way a cat-and-mouse where everyone else becomes trivial.

Pauline Kael liked Shadow of a Doubt, but rightly reckoned that “it certainly isn’t as much fun as several of his other films”. Elsewhere, Time Out’s Geoff Andrew was onto something when he suggested it was a “sharp dissection of middle American life, in its own quiet way an ancestor of Blue Velvet”. Indeed, Dimitri Tiomkin’s ridiculously upbeat small-town bliss score can only be wickedly ironic on Hitch’s part, while wholesome Charlie (Teresa Wright) wishing for something interesting to happen, only for a serial killer to descend on the household, is exactly the kind of in-over-your-head scenario Kyle McLachlan stumbles upon after discovering an ant-strewn ear.

I’ve never really taken to Joseph Cotten as a likeable lead, so both occasions of Hitchcock employing his services (the other being Under Capricorn) feel shrewd and illuminating. This one particularly so, as Cotten seems positively inspired by Charles Oakley’s easy cruelty and charming veneer. Park Chan Wook updated the proceedings with Stoker, of course, but I’d argue the relationship between Charles and Charlie is more interesting for lacking explicit incestuous undertones (if that makes sense). Wright effortlessly traverses the terrain from bored and precocious teen – “How can you talk about money when I’m talking about souls?”; feigning concern for her workhorse mother while doing nothing to help her – to mature beyond her years in the face of the stark truth of her uncle.

The centrepiece dinner scene finds both lead performers given superb material, as Charlie, onto Merry Widow Murderer Charles, makes it clear she knows. He in turn sees her challenge combatively, delivering a still extraordinary monologue about the widows, the “useless women”, he comes across in the cities: “faded, fat, greedy women”. For one supposedly so collected and calculated, I’m not overly impressed by Charles’ attempts to do Charlie a mischief – a sabotaged step on the stairs to the back door, attempting to asphyxiate her in a garage filling with exhaust fumes – but these incidents, designed to be passed off as mishaps, up the ante of their interiorised locking of horns, with no one else apprised of their conflict. The final altercation on the train, as is Hitch’s habit, is brief and wastes no time in taking us to the end credits, but that’s more refreshing than anything, particularly from the perspective of an era where endless climaxes are endlessly piled on top of each other.

If Cotten and Wright are essentially playing a two-hander for much of the proceedings, certainly in terms of claustrophobic focus, the supporting cast are meticulously chosen, with the possible exception of Macdonald Carey as Charlie’s love-interest detective. Then again, his unremarkable dependability feels about right for the balance of the piece; there shouldn’t be any danger that he’ll muscle in on the attention and take it from Wright and Cotten. Patricia Collinge is tremendously sympathetic as Charlie’s pushover mother (and sister of Charles). Charlie’s choices hinge on the perception that her mother wouldn’t be able to take the awful truth about her brother, and we glimpse the veracity of this in the occasional moment where she perceives something is wrong, yet the enormity of it is quite beyond her grasp (the second time Charlie comes into danger).

The rest of the family and neighbours are also colourful. Henry Travers is the true-crime aficionado father, trading methods of murder with neighbour Hume Cronyn (at this stage in his career resembling a cross between Rick Moranis and Steven Spielberg). This represents the picture’s most consistent streak of levity, but even then, it functions as a morbidly twisted commentary, given Charlie’s proclivities. Edna May Wonacott is also memorable as Charlie’s bookworm kid sister, and Wallace Ford winning as Carey’s easy-going partner.

Charles was based on 20s serial killer Earle Nelson, but that crumb of fidelity fails to make his transposed psychological explanation – he wasn’t the same after he got hit by a truck as a child – feel any less awkward and cumbersome. Charles’ position, a very modern, nihilistic position, is all the more compelling undiluted by explanations (“Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you’d find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?”). It’s curious that Shadow of a Doubt, despite its contemporary setting and being made at the height of the WWII, makes no reference to the war (it’s sandwiched between very WWII fare Saboteur and Lifeboat). Perhaps that bubble it occupies partially explains its box office failure. More likely, it was simply ahead of its audience; there’s an undiluted quality here that, despite the era mores, lends Shadow of a Doubt a very modern feel, certainly more so than anything the director had delivered to that point.






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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism