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.



Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .