1945
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
All right so this is a strange one. On the one hand, it is Hitchcock so it is very entertaining and has excellent pacing. On the other hand, it is probably one of the most offensive and weird Hitchcock ever made.
We have a great cast here at least. Ingrid Bergman plays the typical female doctor seen in the 40s. In other words, even though she is a successful doctor she is not happy until she falls in love, at which point she loses her smarts and starts acting like melodramatic teenager. Opposite Ingrid is Gregory Peck and I must admit, I completely fell in love with him from this movie in high school and subsequently had a bunch of pictures of him in my locker. Ah, young love. We also have a stereotypical German.
This movie is fun, though; the plot will keep you guessing. I would love to laugh about the silliness of some of the twists but I don't want to spoil it for you so I will refrain. When Peck became terrified of the table cloth, though, I almost spit out my drink.
Most people will say that the film is amazing for its dream sequence, one which only goes on for about two minutes. I think every Hitchcock is indispensable, though, so watch it!
RATING: ****-
Interesting Facts:
One of the first Hollywood films that dealt with psychoanalysis.
Dream sequence created by Salvador Dali. Ew, I knew he would creep up again.
HITCHCOCK RADAR: Forty minutes in, coming out of the elevator.
Alfred Hitchcock referred to the film as "just another manhunt wrapped up in pseudo-psychoanalysis".
Yeah, Bergman's character went from smart and self-contained to silly and helpless once a man got involved. All that psycho babble did not really do the movie good either. Not my favourite Hitchcock.
ReplyDeleteSo Gregory Peck has a dread fear of the colour white and stripes? I am reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the Knights Who Say Ni have a dread terror of the word "it". Only that was played for silly laughs and this was played for straight-faced tension. I'm humming Seven Nation Army to myself now.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of Hitchcock. Seen so many films before I ever thought of chasing lists, read the books about him. Also a bit of a Dali fan. But, oddly, I'd never seen this before. Not sure I liked it mind, despite some inventive little tricks contained within.
A shame that Dali's sequence was all cut (even though you can tell that the replacement uses some of his signature images), but I can well imagine that the last thing that the film needed was a twenty-minute surrealist diversion with no direct connection to the plot.
Yeah that would have been a bit self indulgent. This might actually be my least favorite Hitchcock (which is still decent btw).
ReplyDeleteHave you seen The Trouble With Harry or Family Plot?
DeleteNeither! Do they throw a wrench in my "there is no bad Hitchcock" theory?
DeleteDepends upon how forgiving you are, I suppose. Family Plot is like some weak TV movie where no one is even trying to raise it above that level. If you saw it at 2pm on some cable channel, you wouldn't be frothing "Oh my God, it's incredible how bad TV movies are!" But it's hard to reconcile with the idea that this is the same guy who made Psycho and North By Northwest. Perhaps my lasting sensation was one of pity that he had been reduced to this.
ReplyDeleteThe Trouble With Harry is a gentle, harmless thing strolling through the hills of Vermont. Nothing too objectionable about it, but quite different from the high-octane stuff he was making at the time so some people get quite annoyed by it.
Dessie is right to throw 'Harry' and 'Plot' up as reasonable contenders for any imaginary title of 'not so good' Hitchcock, but I will defend 'Harry'.. I quite liked it, as long as you are not looking for a classic Hitch. Dessies summery as "a gentle, harmless thing " is pretty spot on. Now call that damning with faint praise if you want, but that's not quite what I (nor I suspect Dessie) mean.
ReplyDeleteIt's pleasantly watchable enough. The problem is that the only people who would dig it out sixty-odd years later are going to be hardcore Hitchcock fans who just can't get enough of the tension, the set-pieces, the ice-cool blondes etc. And it has none of these things.
DeleteActually, if you want a poor Hitch film, I just couldn't see the point of Mr & Mrs Smith. Even if I adjust myself to the mindset of a frivolous romcom, It still seems poor. Am I being harsh?