Skip to main content

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright
(1950)
(SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.
 
Of course, others have used the unreliable narrator, both before and since, sometimes overtly so (Rashomon, released the same year). On occasions, it’s a key reveal (Fight Club, Shutter Island). Rarely, the narrative is entirely unspooled, the viewer left without any idea if what they have just seen is accurate or complete invention (The Usual Suspects, The Life of Pi). In theory, those should be the greater sins (their trickery is to make them an emblem of pride rather than shame). In comparison, Hitchcock’s cheat is small potatoes.
 
Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) tells besotted actress pal Eve Gill (Jane Wyman) that his lover, stage dame Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich) has killed her husband and he’s copping the blame for it. Eve, being a good-hearted sap (and besotted) agrees to help him, which entails enlisting father Commodore Gill (Alastair Sim) and investigating the case herself. Wyman gets to don various guises and ends up falling for Michael Wilding’s Detective Inspector Smith. Which is just as well, as Cooper was lying; he killed hubby, albeit at Charlotte’s instigation.
 
This revelation comes late in the proceedings, Cooper admitting his deed while he and Eve are hiding out from the police in the theatre, a confession having been extracted from Charlotte. Cooper proceeds to moot murdering Eve, believing it could help his case for an insanity plea; Todd’s compellingly ruthless here, the strongest showing he makes in a picture where he’s off screen for swathes. That’s generally a weakness, though; the plot revolves around Eve’s investigation, and Wyman is fine in a spirited-but-mousey fashion, but it means the characters providing the plot motor, Cooper and Inwood, are little more than silhouettes (and in Dietrich’s case, meticulously lit silhouettes). 
 
Of course, Dietrich doesn’t need much to make an impression, and she proceeds to do so in abundance, but it only ever feels as if she’s doing a star cameo. That sort-of works in a meta sense, as a theatre star in the piece, but like the plot generally, it isn’t the most elegant of constructions (the screenplay, credited to Whitfield Cook from Alma’s adaptation, with additional work from James Bridie and Randall MacDougall, comes from Selwyn Jepson’s 1948 novel Man Running). What that means is that the local colour, the idiosyncrasies of Hitch back doing a quirky English contemporary production (as opposed to the po-faced The Paradine Case), one that has more in common tonally with something like The Lady Vanishes, is able to shine through. 
 
Indeed, while I can readily appreciate Dietrich’s star wattage, she’s the least of the attractions in Stage Fright. Rather it’s the amount of fun to be had with the eccentricities on display. It’s perhaps a shame someone as “straight” as Wyman (whom Hitch found a bit of a pain due to her feeling of being over shadowed by glamorous Marlene) is in the lead, but it does mean everyone else gets uninterrupted limelight. Aside from the indiscretion of the lie, Truffaut convinced Hitch to give Stage Fright unfairly short shrift, scraping together his admittance that he “had lots of fun with the theatre-benefit garden party”. Sycophantic Truffaut agrees it was “funny” but then, being a rather choleric gallic, professes “I didn’t care for Alastair Sim… I objected to the actor as well as the character”. Hitch, going with the flow, admits he’s a problem (the trouble of shooting a film in England; “They all tell you, ‘He’s one of our best actors; you’ve got to have him in your picture’. It’s that old local and national feeling. That insular mentality again”). 
 
This is merd, to put it mildly. Perhaps what Truffaut is getting at in part is that Sim doesn’t blend into a Hitch film. He is ever Alastair Sim. Which means he is an absolute delight throughout the picture, informing its humour and zest. He gives Stage Fright buoyancy it would otherwise lack, and one very much feels Hitch has been led by his interviewer in this case. 
 
If anything, there isn’t enough of Sim, and he’d have been best used actively investigating the case (since, as has been noted, there’s little sense of danger in the proceedings, owing to Eve’s performances being more deceits than imperilling her life, it would have done no harm to have Sim becoming embroiled to more comedic effect). In the immediate moment, he also seems to be putting on his Inspector Hornleigh hat (“I don’t know how this bloodstain got into this dress, but I do know someone smeared it on deliberately”), but he ultimately has no idea that Cooper is the culprit. 
 
Generally, though, his cavalier manner is a breath of fresh air. When Smith reprimands him for letting his daughter endanger herself with a “What sort of father do you think you are?” he responds “Unique”. Which is a uniquely Sim response (apparently, James Bridie suggested Sim to Hitch, so it’s a fair bet his dialogue was written especially). Having allowed Cooper to stay the night, Gill suggests, as the former retires, “If you want anything to read in bed, you’ll find some quite good murder mysteries”. His rapport with his wife (they do not live together and she disapproves of him, to his mild amusement) played by the almost two-decades-older Sybil Thorndike is very funny (“Forgiveness, Mr Smith. The seat of a happy married life. That and good long stretches of the absence that makes the heart grow fonder”). 
 
It isn’t often that a movie finds a place for a crazy dad, less still that he manages to steal the show. Later, Sim brings pay-off money to Nellie Goode (Kay Walsh providing a suitably conniving turn) and cannot disguise his distaste (“You’re a blackmailer, aren’t you?”) His finest moment comes with an inspired scene shared with the wonderfully loony Joyce Grenfell at the fair Hitch so enjoyed designing. Gill has the idea of laying a trap but needs to win a doll to do so (so as to smear blood on her dress and then confront Charlotte with it). This requires hitting bullseyes at Grenfell’s stall (“Oh, would you like to shoot a duck?” – it’s all in her delivery). And some subterfuge in order to lay claim to the prize. 
 
Wilding, reuniting with Hitch following Under Capricorn, is a bit more Alan Cumming than David Tennant this time. His easy charm is a good fit for a detective role that needs a sense of humour to avoid becoming part of the wallpaper (his frustration at Eve getting shot of him, then having to make nice with her friends, one of them being Patricia Hitchcock’s Chubby Bannister, is good evidence of his comic timing). Also to be seen are Andre Morell, Miles Malleson (the “helpful” man in the pub who keeps bothering Eve), Alfie Bass, and Irene Handl, most of whose business ended up on the cutting room floor. 
 
I’m definitely on the side of Stage Fright being underrated. It is a fairly inconspicuous affair at this point in the director’s career, untypical of the star-led fare that would embody his most prolific decade and without showy set pieces or dramatic fireworks. But it’s hugely likeable, even if that’s mostly at the behest of a supporting player Hitch found easy to dismiss. 

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