Skip to main content

He looked exactly the same when he was alive except he was vertical.

The Trouble with Harry
(1955)

(SPOILERS) Hitch was very partial to this atypical comedy, one he took on over Paramount’s objections (“With Harry I took melodrama out of the pitch-black night and brought it out into the sunshine”). The Trouble with Harry probably represents very few Hitchcock fans’ favourite of his films, so it is conversely a prime contender for “most underrated” lists. I’m not hugely on board with it, I have to admit. It’s enjoyably lightweight (it has that in common with his previous film) but almost painfully self-conscious in its quirkiness. Funny as The Trouble with Harry often is, its trouble is that it’s so aware that it’s Hitch doing outright comedy, it loses a lot of goodwill along the way.

Captain Wiles: Next thing you know, they’ll be televising the whole thing.

Truffaut referred to the picture’s “disconcertingly nonchalance”, and its particular streak of black humour – “To my taste, the humour is quite rich” as Hitch put it – didn’t really wash with US audiences (who had also previously rejected Capra’s Arsenic and Old Lace; later, the decidedly more lowbrow Weekend at Bernie’s would prove a big hit based on similarly corpse-based humour).

Jack Trevor Story’s 1949 novel was translocated from England to New England and with it the “understatement” of the characters’ attitudes to something as commonly disturbing as a dead body; here, it elicits abject indifference. Bernard Herrmann’s forebodingly jaunty score – his first for director and the latter’s favourite, apparently – strikes precisely the right tone, and Hitch sets up suspense motifs throughout in much the way he would with a straight thriller. There’s potential discovery with the body, on the hill, digging graves, in a bathtub by the sheriff. But in this case, always to humorous or amenable resolution. There’s even a cupboard door swinging open forebodingly at junctures, but it proves no more than a red herring.

Captain Wiles: I’ll be there with a clean shirt and a hungry face.

The central quartet of potential couples are winning enough, although the female leads come out decidedly best. Shirley MacLaine is entirely adorable – not something you can say of her latterly – in her movie debut as widowed Jennifer (it’s her husband lying on the hillside, his shoes recently removed by a hobo). Mildred Natwick – later Oscar nominated for Barefoot in the Park and fifty playing forty-two – is the lonely spinster fired up by the chance of something with Edmund Gwenn’s tugboat Captain Wiles (Gwenn is reuniting with the director for a final time after a decade and a half break). She’s wonderfully deadpan throughout; witness her matter of fact reporting of how her father met his end “caught in a threshing machine”. Gwenn – a quarter of a century Natwick’s senior – is an endearing old duffer, but sets the low-key tone of the entire affair. It’s all much too amiable and relaxed to ascend to the screwball farce levels of the aforementioned Capra film, even with the back and forth quips and banter from John Forsythe’s Bogart-lite delivery as artist Sam Marlowe.

Captain Wiles: She’s a well-preserved woman.
Sam Marlowe: I envy you.
Captain Wiles: Yes, very well preserved. And preserves have to be opened some day.

The inclusion of more salacious suggestiveness (above) is presumably considered to be of similar tonal innocuousness to the morbid premise. The interaction of the main quartet is breezy enough, but peripheral elements can rather grate. Such as Doctor Greenbow (Dwight Marfield), myopically surfacing at intervals while studiously engaged in bouts of perambulatory book reading. “Kind of strange, isn’t he?” is about right, but forced and irksome is more accurate. Then there’s the out-of-nowhere development of the fantasy millionaire buying all Sam’s artwork and the latter’s fantasy altruism in response.

Arnie: You never know when a dead rabbit might come in handy.

At one point, Wiles announces “I haven’t got a conscience” and generally that seems to sum up Hitch’s cheerfully ambivalent attitude to his characters. This was only the director’s third colour film, and if Robert Burks’ photography of autumnal Vermont is resplendent, Hitch’s frequently Achilles’ heel with his later films – of starkly unforgiving joins between location and set “exteriors” (essentially, most of the hillside sequences) – is fully present and incorrect.

Peter Bradshaw labelled it “radical absurdist cinema”. Which, well, no. When The Trouble with Harry is over, I doubt you’ll be immediately reflecting on it as either radical or absurdist. Determinedly amiable, frothily macabre, lightly lurid. Perhaps.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.