Skip to main content

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case
(1947)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case, his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Hitch seemed hung up on his ideal version, understandably so since he suffered so many mandates from producer David O Selznick, not least screenplay rewrites (having been adapted by Alma and Hitch, then James Bridie): “He would write a scene and send it down to the set every other day – a very poor method of work”. Further, he believed the instances of miscasting were “very detrimental to the story”. He wasn’t keen on Peck playing an English lawyer (although I thought there was a touch of Timothy Dalton to his cadence). Hitchcock wanted Olivier or Ronald Coleman, and hoped to woo Garbo for Valli’s Mrs Paradine. Selznick dictated Valli, and Louis Jordan as the valet and lover; Hitch favoured Robert Newton, as he “should have been a manure-smelling stable hand”.

Certainly, Jordan is never that, but his is nevertheless a compelling performance as Andre Latour; victimised by Peck’s Anthony Keane, who is blind to Mrs Paradine’s guilt, he is suitably tortured, indignant and defiant. It is Keane who kills his case by proceeding to “prosecute” Latour over Mrs Paradine’s protestations. Finally, she confesses to her culpability in court, so as to make it clear that Latour was not involved (mirroring Keane’s infatuation with her, she murdered her husband to be with Latour, who hates her for what she did, and for succumbing to her wiles).

The chief problem with the picture is that Keane’s blinkeredness is too extreme to be believable. Ultimately, that’s down to both Valli and Peck, but since the picture hinges on his obsession and refusal to hear common sense in respect of her and the case, it’s a significant shortcoming. Maybe Hitch was right, and a more experienced actor could have added layers (Peck merely adds whitened sideys). Pauline Kael complained, “Talky and stiff, the film never finds the passionate tone that it needs”. Which is true, but the talky and stiff courtroom proceedings of the second half are considerably more engaged than the rather faltering first, in which Keane does his own detective work while others recite opinions on his smitten-ness.

Todd’s Gay Keane is especially curious. Hitch referred to her as “too coldly written” but I wouldn’t quite characterise that as the issue. If she were coldly written she might sensibly have thrown her husband out. Instead she over-empathises with his every response, comforting herself in the knowledge that nothing can truly come of his mental liaison yet coming across as a self-flagellating doormat in the process. It’s probably symptomatic of the picture being so brazen with Peck’s infidelity of intent, if not deed, that the yo-yo is a paragon in the form of his wife; ultimately, she’s no more believable than her husband.

Nevertheless, Charles Laughton is dynamite as Judge Horfield (Laughton was by a considerable distance the best thing about Hitch’s earlier Jamaica Inn). He’s introduced as a dining partner of Keane, forthright in his views of any and everyone (“I do not like to be interrupted in the middle of an insult”) and shockingly lascivious towards Gay when he gets her alone-ish on the sofa. It’s the kind of moment Hitchcock excels at, emphasising the minutiae of Gay’s discomfort (the director’s technical showboat moment, however, finds Latour entering the courtroom and round behind Mrs Paradine, achieved in two takes). During the trial, the back and forth between the dismissive Horfield and Keane, attempting to force in his agenda, makes for the best material in a picture that needs as many fireworks as it can get. Later, Horfield dispassionately relates to his wife that Mrs Paradine will be hanged, picking his teeth as he does.

Also of note are Leo G Carroll as the prosecuting counsel, Charles Coburn as a solicitor friend of Keane, and Joan Tetzel, overwritten as Coburn’s inquiring and instantly astute daughter (referring to “Men who’ve been good too long get a longing for the mud and want to wallow in it”). Ethel Barrymore is also very good as Laughton’s oblivious wife.

Hitchcock complained “I was never too clear as to how the murder was committed… I never truly understood the geography of that house, or how she managed the killing”. That aspect, however, is small potatoes, since the hows are never as important to the picture – which in any case eschews flashbacks – as motive. As usual too, he was interested in the individual at the mercy of the system, of someone who had never been in such a situation subjected to the harshness of the prison system; little of that translates in Valli’s impervious performance. The Paradine Case definitely isn’t helped by Peck’s presence, which serves to button the material down, but there’s enough going on around the edges to make this at least diverting.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

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.