Skip to main content

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man
(1956)

(SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man. He told Hitch “your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

It’s easy to understand why the director wanted to make the film. The subject matter relates, after all, to his lifelong fear of authority, and more particularly, the authorities (having been famously locked in a cell courtesy of his dad, for five long minutes, at an impressionable age). Here was a man, Manny Balestrero (a typically sombre Henry Fonda) unjustly accused of armed robbery and put on trial after officers of the law essentially fitted him up, intent on securing a solved case with minimum fuss. Manny’s life proceeds to fall apart, most disastrously in the case of wife Rose (an impressive Vera Miles), who suffers a nervous breakdown and ends up in an institution.

Bowers: It’s nothing for an innocent man to worry about. It’s the fella that’s done something wrong that has to worry.

Hitch, filming in New York – well, the bits that weren’t shot in the nice-and-warm on a soundstage – imbues The Wrong Man with the kind of authentic lustre you’d expect from a true-life tale. The early passages, as Manny is bounced around by the police and pointed out by witnesses, carry an effective sense of the terror of absolute helplessness when the system announces it has you in its sights (albeit also of Manny’s passivity and cluelessness about his rights). There are potent moments, such as his misspelling of the stick-up note the way the perpetrator did, and the manner in which its quite easy to see Manny, through the eyes of the victims, as tantamount to Once Upon a Time in the West’s Frank rather than the mild-mannered husband and father he is. And the entire opening section dramatizes the lie of “If you haven’t done anything, you have nothing to fear”.

But one is also aware of the over-stylisation Truffaut points out. Particularly egregious is the “POV” of the incarcerated Manny, as the camera faces him and then moves around and above and below, capturing his despair/disorientation.

Once Manny is out on bail, The Wrong Man’s tension mostly evaporates, with Anthony Quayle appearing as an attorney who won’t even get to win his client’s trial and Rose gradually losing her grip. Hitch fessed up to the failure that was honouring to the facts of the case, whereby a significant chunk of the picture’s second half is devoted to Rose’s deteriorating state (Miles may be very good, but that doesn’t mean the scenes really play).

More damagingly, there is a mistrial (“Your honour, do we have to sit here and listen to this?” asks one of the jurors!) And then the actual guy is caught (Richard Robbins, sharing a certain bony facial structure with the leading man). Hitchcock Liked the “ironic coincidence” of the perp being discovered as Fonda is praying, but I don’t think that’s the message conveyed. Rather, it plays out sincerely, as divine intervention, and so represents another miscalculation on his part.

Hitch was a little deflated by Truffaut’s charges, one suspects (“Let’s just say it wasn’t my kind of picture”), but it solidifies in my mind that here he was, during his most prolific period, amid some of his greatest successes, but with a run of four movies (form The Trouble with Harry to The Wrong Man) that really weren’t all that. The best of them, To Catch a Thief, pales in comparison to other highs from that decade (Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, North by Northwest).

Pauline Kael called The Wrong Manunusually drab”. She recognised its “almost Kafkaesque nightmare realism” but complaining that the material slips into tedium rather than tightening the screws. There’s even some of the director’s favoured cod-psychology thrown in for good measure (“Her mind is in an eclipse… She sees great dangers everywhere” the sage shrink tells Manny). Maybe that is what they told him, but it’s also the rare point in the picture where Hollywood hyperbole seems to intrude.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.