A YEAR OF HICTCHOCK WEEK 36 – STRANGERS ON A TRAIN

Strangers on a Train is another Hitchcock film that I had already seen before the challenge began and one which I knew to be very good! 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a successful tennis player who is attempting to get a divorce so he can marry his true love, the senators daughter. When he meets the incredibly creepy Bruno (Robert Walker) on a train a sinister deal is formed between the two, leading to some incredibly tense moments. 

THE GOOD

The film is incredibly tense throughout and a prime example of exactly how to build suspense on film. This comes at one point in which two things are happening at once. Haines is playing a tennis match that he must win, whilst the sinister Bruno heads to a carnival in order to plant some evidence framing Haines for murder. As both characters hit pitfalls in their plans tension build quickly, culminated in a shot of Bruno attempting to pick a lighter up from a drain.

The themes and settings of film are very Hitchcockian with the obvious ones being a murder by strangulation and the innocent man attempting to clear his name. The climax also takes place at a carnival with many of the rides being the cause for the great tension. 

By far my favourite part of the film is the character of Bruno and the performance by Robert Walker. Bruno is a mentally estranged person who convinces himself of things that are untrue, yet always remains composed and clever. Making him a very threatening villain within the film. There are several sequences in which he stalks different characters which come across as truly haunting, especially one scene at a tennis match in which the audience turns their heads from side to side whilst Bruno sits perfectly still.

 

THE BAD

There is very little wrong with this film, the only downfall being that at times the dialogue does feel a little too forced and a few plot points appear from nothing. However these problems are very minor.

CAMEO O’CLOCK

Hitch makes a cameo early in the film boarding a train carrying a double bass.

FINAL THOUGHTS

One of Hitchcock’s highest rated and understandably so. A joy to watch and as tense as you can get. 5 Hitchs.

    

 

A YEAR OF HITCHCOCK WEEK 35 – STAGE FRIGHT

Stage Fright is a Hitchcock film in which he returns once more to the story of the framed man. It is an interesting film with many comic touches and some great performances.

WHAT HAPPENED?
Famous actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich) has murdered her husband and frames her lover Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) for the murder. Cooper goes on the run with a young girl who is in love with him, Eve Gill (Jane Wyman). Eve thus sets out on a mission to clear his name by going undercover as Inwood’s maid, however all is not what it seems and Eve soons finds she does not love Cooper as she thought but actually a nice detective inspector. Everything is lying to everyone leaving the final 15 minutes for all the truths and twists to come out.

THE GOOD

The story is extremely intriguing as the plot is always twisting and turning with new characters contributing something, which ultimately changes everything for everyone.

There is a lot of tension in the picture that is built up perfectly making it is clear to see why Hitch is known as the master of suspense as he uses symbology such as bloodstained dress to tell the story in a very visual fashion.

 

There are several moments of pure comedy in this film which lighten the tone for example Marlene Dietrich’s character forgetting the name of her maid or a man trying to win a doll at a fairground. 

The performances of all the actors particularly the two female leads are very good with Marlene Dietrich stealing the show as the strange, haunted actress.

THE BAD

The film is generally good with the only real problem being that it gets a little repetitive at points; as there are several scenes that simply show a character listening to another character through a door.  This although interesting first time becomes a little tedious as it seems to be the only way in which characters can discover new information.

 

There is also something about this film that will not allow it to be seen as one of Hitchcock’s best; although it is difficult to figure out just what this is considering technically it is near perfect.

CAMEO O’CLOCK
Hitchcock makes a rather obvious cameo walking down the street and giving Jane Wyman a queer look.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS

Stage Fright is a good Hitchcock film in terms of tension, narrative and performance however there seems to be something magical missing that means it can only be given four Hitchs.

   

A YEAR OF HITCHCOCK WEEK 34 – UNDER CAPRICORN

With Under Capricorn, Hitchcock decides to tackle another period drama; this time set in 1831 Australia. The film despite being better funded than his previous period dramas Waltzes from Vienna and Juno & the Paycock suffers from many of the same flaws.

 

WHAT HAPPENED?
When an Irishman Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) arrives in Australia he meets the lavishly wealthy ex-convict Flusky (Joseph Cotten) who is married to the alcoholic and insane ‘Hattie’ (Ingrid Bergman). Adare soon becomes embroiled in a romance with Hattie and secrets connecting the pasts of all three are soon discovered.

 

THE GOOD

The sets of the film are very good and almost painting like. The exterior painted sunsets in particular are magnificent to look at in a nostalgic fashion; with the use of colour really bringing the production design to a level unseen in a Hitch film thus far.

There are also several moments of good tension for example the use of shrunken head or the tension built up over some ruby’s; however these moments of visual storytelling are limited in a film which is very dialogue heavy.

THE BAD

Much like in Juno & The Paycock, Hitch for some reasons seems to believe he can escape with having the actors talk about things that are uninteresting for long periods of time. Much of the film contains characters speaking of the past in well-written albeit uninteresting dialogue. This goes on and on to the extent where one was wishing for a flashback as the events of ten years ago seem a whole lot more interesting compared to the time in which the story is set. 

The film does pick up a little towards the end but never quite escapes from its heavy talk based nature and is generally a bore.

CAMEO O’CLOCK
There are two cameos by Hitchcock in this film, neither particularly obvious. The first comes at the very start when Hitchcock watches a speech by the new general.

 

The second comes about 10 minutes later as Hitchcock stands on the steps to the courthouse.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS

Good sets and costumes do not make a good film and Under Capricorn is an example of such. It may look good but the lack of a good story and far too much dialogue are the downfall of this film making it one the worst I have seen in this challenge. 2 Hitchs.

   

A YEAR OF HITCHCOCK WEEK 33 – ROPE

This weeks film is intense thriller Rope which makes two landmarks for this challenge. Firstly it is the first colour film, which is nice, and secondly it is the film that before this challenge began I would have stated as my favourite Hitchcock film.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) kill one of their school friends just for the ‘art of murder’, hide the body in their apartment and then throw a party inviting their deceased friends parents and their old housekeeper from school (James Stewart).

THE GOOD

The main talking point about the film is the experimental nature of it, the entire film is shot as if it’s a single take (there are several hidden cuts), something that has often been attempted in cinema but rarely pays off. In this film however the effect is quite astounding as it gives a real claustrophobic atmosphere to the piece; the audience is never allowed to rest and or leave the room. Something exciting is always happening and the effect leads to great tension particularly as the film reaches its climax.

Because of the single shot nature and the fact the piece is very performance based and the dialogue is some of the best of any Hitchcock film seen so far. The contrasting personalities of the two lead characters are perfectly performed by Granger and Dall whilst Stewart is also excellent as the schoolmaster whose suspicions are aroused.

 

There are a few fantastic moments especially regarding the use of the titular rope. Every time the piece of rope is in shot the tension within the scene seems to rise, an effect that is astounding considering the simplicity of it.

 

THE BAD

My main flaw with the film is that because it is so full on with something always happening, it is difficult at times to consider the true meaning of everything that is said. The pacing of the film is incredible fast and the use of a single shot makes it appear even faster and especially on a first viewing certain subtlety’s can be missed.

CAMEO O’CLOCK

There are two possible Hitchcock cameos in the film, neither being particularly obvious. One comes about 55 minutes in at which Hitch’s figure appears on an neon advert on a distant advertising the fictional weight reduction product Reduco (previously seen from his cameo in Lifeboat)

 

The other cameo is unconfirmed but it is believed to appear in the first (and only) exterior shot of the film. Hitchcock is supposedly one of the people walking down the street.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS

Rope is a fantastic, albeit experimental film. I think it’s wonderful that a director of Hitchcock’s esteem was given the freedom of creativity to make a film like this and it is something a modern director would not be allowed. 5 Hitchs.  

    

A YEAR OF HITCHCOK WEEK 32 – THE PARADINE CASE

The first Hitchcock film that I am to review is 2013 is The Paradine Case, a courtroom drama/romance with some brilliant tenseness. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Anthony Keane (Gregory Peck) is a happily married lawyer who is brought in to defend a fascinating widow (Alida Valli) accused of murdering her husband. Keane soon falls in love with this woman and finds himself obsessed with getting her off with the murder, as Keane’s wife discovers his infatuation things come to a head in the trial.

THE GOOD

The film is good as an example of how Hitchcock is a master at building tension from very little. Within the film nothing particularly tense happens until the last half-hour yet somehow Hitch builds a great sense of drama throughout trivial scenes such as Peck looking around a house.

There are several scenes which are beautifully staged for symbology particularly surrounded the widow Mrs. Paradine, for example when she is arrested and sent into a bare prison cell or as she waits in a corridor to go into the courtroom.

The performances of all the cast are excellent with Peck being the outstanding performer just as he was in Spellbound a few weeks ago. He seems to know perfectly well who his character is and his motivations are clear throughout.

THE BAD

The film takes a long time to get going, you are interested first off in the fact that a woman has been arrested. However there is then 20 minutes of establishing Gregory Peck as the happily married lawyer that just seemed to stretch out a bit too long.

Some of the sub-characters although well acted and scripted also seemed a little pointless when viewing the film, the daughter of a fellow lawyer for example giving a running commentary over the court-case was unneeded and took attention away from the important things that where happening.

CAMEO O’CLOCK

Hitchcock makes a cameo about 40 minutes into the film exiting a train station and carrying a cello.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Paradine Case is far from the best Hitchcock film but also far from the worst. It is extremely typical of what to expect without ever really surpassing itself. Therefore I award it a simple 3 Hitchs.