• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

My Year with Hitch

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 22: 'Jamaica Inn' [1939]
Source: DVD

Hitchcock takes a backseat to Charles Laughton in this period drama, his last English film. Laughton plays a Squire who orchestrates shipwrecks off the Cornish coast to purloin their booty. Robert Newton, later to play the most famous fictional pirate of them all, is the hero out to unmask the ringleader and possibly win the hand of the beautiful Maureen O'Hara in her first starring role.

This film is an oddity, not just in the subject matter but also in that there is nothing of Hitchcock to be seen here. Like 'The Farmer's Wife' or 'Waltzes from Vienna', it feels as though anyone could have directed 'Jamaica Inn'. The sets are great, as are the use of miniatures for the shipwrecks, and some of the acting is excellent (Leslie Banks as the sleazy uncle in particular). Other than that, though, I'm not sure what to make of this one. I didn't hate it, but I didn't much enjoy it either.

I saw the Cohen Media version on DVD (another library borrow) and it is excellent. Very clear and sharp and worth checking out if you absolutely have to watch this film.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
I envy your local library's AV section :D .
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
All the libraries in the Milwaukee area are linked so the selection is large. Not so great on blu-rays but there are few DVDs I haven’t been able to get so far.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Was planning on watching most of these through with you, but time just hasn't allowed, unfortunately. 

It's Rebecca next, right? Just thought I'd mention that the book is excellent and one of my favourite novels. Hitchcock adapts it well from my recollection, but a key moment is severely watered down (which I would assume was due to Hollywood limitations at the time). <<< Saying that, if you happen to be a reader, I highly recommend reading the book first!

Jamaica Inn and The Birds were also adapted from writings of the same author (Daphne Du Maurier). Both great reads (but neither hold a candle to Rebecca!  ;) )
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 23: 'Rebecca' [1940]
Source: Criterion blu-ray

The only Hitchcock film to win a Best Picture Oscar (he never won one for Director) stars Laurence Olivier & Joan Fontaine in a psychological masterpiece. After the sudden death of his first wife, Maxim de Winter takes his new young bride back to his Cornish mansion, known as Manderley. But echoes of Rebecca, the first Mrs de Winter, seem destined to pull them apart.

This film makes for uncomfortable viewing. Joan Fontaine is so beautiful and vulnerable, and the psychological torment that she experiences - first by the aloof and patronising Olivier, later by the terrifying housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers - is palpable. There is suspense in the drama, but it comes with a long fuse. Hitchcock takes his time with these characters and it pays off richly. There are nice touches - shadows and light often enhance the foreboding atmosphere - but it is the acting that lingers. The leads are extraordinary.

Plot twists enliven the third act, with none of the silly and illogical turns of earlier films. This is serious Hitchcock, out to impress his new employers and audience. He nails it.

I watched the Criterion blu-ray and it is fantastic. There's a whole load of bonus features I haven't even started on yet, but the film itself is worth the price.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Rebecca' [1962]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

This live TV version from 1962 stars James Mason as Maxim de Winter, going toe-to-toe with Olivier. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast don't measure up. The credits claim that this version was adapted from the film's screenplay, and it is very similar, albeit much truncated. Here we start as the newlyweds arrive at Manderley, and some other scenes (such as the inquest) are told second-hand, perhaps to reduce the need for more sets/actors. Still, it hits most of the original beats, just a little off-rhythm. A Cliff notes version, if you wish.

It's interesting, and Mason is very good, and at less than an hour it's worth a look.

EDIT: Forgot to mention - as this is a live TV recording, the picture is awful. It looks vertically stretched in places, as if it's been taped from a TV onto VHS. On the plus side (for some, me included), it does have the original TV breaks, with commercials for gas appliances. A little slice of early 60s Americana.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 24: 'Foreign Correspondent' [1940]
Source: Amazon Video, Criterion edition [streaming]

Hitchcock's second American film also picked up a Best Picture nomination ('Rebecca', his first US film, won that year) - not a bad start to his Hollywood career. Hitch returns to his familiar well of spies, murders and double crosses, as an American journalist - the Foreign Correspondent of the title - covers the intrigue of the run-up to the Second World War in Europe.

There is a lot to see here, and it is mostly good to great, but for some reason this film failed to grab me as other similar Hitchcock vehicles have done. The scene in the rain, as a man flees through a sea of umbrellas, is wonderful, and the climax on the plane is equally so. However, I didn't feel the whole was as good as the sum of its parts. The acting was fine, including some familiar Hitchcock actors (Edmund Gwenn and George Sanders), and Laraine Day looked lovely throughout. There is some humour in the script, and a nice running joke of the leading character constantly losing his hat, but overall the film seemed longer than necessary. This is very much a patriotic film, from an ex-pat Englishman to his new countrymen - a rallying cry to pay attention to the war 'over there' and, perhaps, lend a hand. The ending, therefore, comes across a tad heavy-handed, but necessarily so, given the time. 

I supposedly watched the Criterion version on Amazon Video, but it didn't look like it. It was certainly watchable, but nowhere near the standard expected of a top-notch restoration. Disappointing.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
Garp said:
Week 24: 'Foreign Correspondent' [1940]


I supposedly watched the Criterion version on Amazon Video, but it didn't look like it. It was certainly watchable, but nowhere near the standard expected of a top-notch restoration. Disappointing.

I think you were conned. Ask for your money back. I own the Criterion blu-ray and it looks top-notch:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Foreign-Correspondent-Blu-ray/85081/#Screenshots

I think I mentioned it elsewhere but... Christopher Nolan has sighted the plane-sea-crash at the end as inspiration for his 'Dunkirk'.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 25: 'Mr. and Mrs. Smith' [1941]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

Another atypical Hitchcock, this time a screwball/romantic-comedy. Having discovered that their marriage wasn't legally binding, Mr. Smith (Robert Montgomery) is slow to pop the question a second time. Mrs. Smith (Carole Lombard) therefore decides to throw the bum out and have some single fun of her own. Hilarity ensues as the erstwhile husband tries to win his bride back.

Or I assume that was the intended result, although 'hilarity' is somewhat stretching it. Perhaps 'pockets of whimsy', if that doesn't sound too pompous.

Hitchcock apparently agreed to direct this film as a favour to his friend Lombard, and he does an average job with a below-average script. You won't find any great sparks of genius in the direction, but there are the occasional good lines and scenes, and the leads have a chemistry that works. But overall it's more of a miss than a hit. This is no 'Bringing up Baby' or 'Philadelphia Story' (high benchmarks, I know) and comes across as a wasted opportunity for all involved. 

I watched this on Amazon Video and it looked good. Some hiss during quieter scenes, but not too distracting. Still, with hindsight I should have saved my money and just watched the DVD I had from the library for free. I doubt it would have made any great difference.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 26: 'Suspicion' [1941]
Source: Blu-ray

Joan Fontaine sure can pick 'em. After suffering emotional aloofness at the hands of Laurence Olivier in 'Rebecca', here she falls for the habitual gambler, slacker man-child Cary Grant who may or may not be out to off her and/or his friends for the loot. 

Fontaine won the Oscar that year for her portrayal of the bookish Lina, though her Second Mrs. De Winter was a better role the previous year and her nod here may be in lieu of that oversight. (Other Hitchcock alums include Leo G Carroll, Dame May Whitty and Nigel Bruce, with Cary Grant in his first of four collaborations with Hitch.) Grant is cocky and mercurial, yet still seems to attract friends and admirers because, well, he looks like Cary Grant. Still, it takes some suspension of belief that the sober Fontaine would fall so heavily for him, with so obvious flaws.

There are some great touches to be seen here. The film opens in darkness, with only Grant's unmistakable voice to be heard for several seconds. Later, when Lina convinces herself that her husband has murdered Beaky (Nigel Bruce, playing a wonderfully bumbling upper class stereotype), the lighting and sound change dramatically as she reenters her house. Hitch has more fun with shadows here, reusing some tricks from his silent era. The shadow of the the round, multi-paneled window becomes like a web as Fontaine stands in the centre of it, caught in a marriage to a man she adores but who may ultimately devour her. The scene of Grant ascending the stairs with a glass of milk is justly famous, showing how well Hitchcock could make even the simplest of gestures suspenseful.

The ending is anti-climatic, necessarily so to protect Grant's good guy image, and only takes away slightly from the tension that has been building up. A great way to celebrate the half-way mark in this year-long project.

I watched the Warner Archive Collection blu-ray and it was very good. Some scenes were softer than others, some more grainy, but free of specks or noticeable age. Sound was clear and mostly hiss-free.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
I'll join you for Saboteur, Garp. Its in my unwatched boxset and I'm feeling the Hitch itch again.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Suspicion' [1988]
Source: DVD

This 1988 version is a curiosity. The original Hitchcock screenplay gets an 'adaptation', with Anthony Andrews taking on Cary Grant and, more surprisingly, Jane Curtin replacing Joan Fontaine. I say 'adaptation' as very little is changed - lines are hardly different, if at all, and some scenes are shot-for-shot remakes, a la Gus Van Sant. This possibly could have worked if they had set it in the 1940s, but for some reason (financial?) we're in contemporary 1980s. As such, it's a disaster. The premise doesn't work over 40 years later, and the dialogue is preposterous now. Were there really men in their 30s calling their friends "Old Bean" in 1988? As a plot point, it's necessary, but it does nothing to ground this film to anything like reality. Similarly, I could just about buy Fontaine fainting at the thought of her husband as a murderer in 1941; but Curtin in 1988? Not so much.

Andrews is passable as Johnnie, but Curtin is terrible. She's such a wet blanket throughout that you wonder whatever Andrews sees in her. She shows no spark whatsoever, and there is zero chemistry between them. The only interesting touch was an inanimate object - the book Curtin is reading when Andrews first comes to call is 'Hitchcock' by Francois Truffaut. I was expecting a more modern ending, but no, that would have been too original. What we have instead is one of the most unnecessary remakes I have ever sat through. Even as a curiosity, I'm not sure it's worth checking out.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 27: 'Saboteur' [1942]
Source: Blu-ray

Hitchcock returns - again - to the wrongly-accused-man-on-the-run scenario in what amounts to a fairly formulaic, paint-by-numbers thriller. After a fatal fire at an aircraft factory, Barry Kane is accused of sabotage and must go on the run to clear his... well, you know the drill by now.

There is a lot to like here, but less than dynamic leads and a slow middle drag the film down to the mediocre level, unfortunately. Robert Cummings is too wooden in a role that definitely needed some pep, and has little chemistry with his reluctant companion-cum-love interest Priscilla Lane. Still, there are flashes of excellence, especially in the beginning where the smoke of the fire creeps across the screen, and the climax atop the Statue of Liberty. The use of sets and back projection blends together wonderfully, and the slow ripping of the sleeve adds some brilliant tension. For me, though, the scene in the cinema is a highlight, another favourite Hitchcock touch of mixing the theatrical with his real-life. It's also interesting that the only people who side with the protagonist are those on the outskirts of society - the disabled (a blind man), the grotesque (circus freaks) and the loner (a truck driver). In a scene that flashes back to 'The 39 Steps', and forward to 'North by Northwest', Barry tries to escape capture by addressing the guests directly at a charity ball by inventing an auction. In a sense, it encapsulates the film for me - seen it before, and better.

I watched the blu-ray from the Masterpiece Collection. No major complaints as far as I'm concerned with either picture or sound. Minimal age-related issues in the picture but otherwise very good.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
I always wait to read your reviews after I've written mine, as I find it interesting to compare. Looks like you were able to pick out more positives than me! (I didn't mention it, but I'll admit the tearing sleeve added maybe just a touch of tension ;) )

Saboteur (1942)

A rehashed script reminiscent of 39 Steps and a dash of Foreign Correspondent - only with bad dialogue, mediocre characters and zero suspense. The set up for the plot is weak, as is the set up for having the girl tag along - in which an all "seeing" blind man forces his niece to help a fugitive he's had no real opportunity to suss out. The bad guys motivations are also thin and vague. They themselves being typically posh, tolerant and cheery - all the classic cliché characteristics, but no real air of sinister charm. 

There's a scene towards the end in which gun shots are cleverly masked by the gun firing on screen in a cinema - but other than this and a handful of nice shots, there's nothing to shout about here.  The set piece atop The Statue of Liberty was decent visually, but lacked excitement and felt like it was trying too hard to be iconic. Shortly after this the film ends without any real conclusion or resolution. 

 From what I've seen so far, it felt like the least interesting Hitchcock flick so far directorially, as if Alfy was just going through the motions. 

A watchable flick, but pretty average by Hitchcock standards. 


I watched the same copy as you, Garp. Image was crisp and sharp and audio clear to the ear. Looking forward to the rest of the set!
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Yeah, I think I was probably a little more forgiving as I'm half-way through this project and I've seen a lot worse from him so far.

I'm off on vacation for a week, but I still intend to keep to my watch schedule, though I might not be able to review them here on time. I'll try, but they might be more rushed.  :D
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Hope I'm not jumping the gun by posting my review before you, Garp! I'll keep it in spoiler tags for now. 

Shadow of A Doubt (1943)

Flawed in numerous ways, but very enjoyable and possibly my favourite of the ones I've watched so far this year.

A mysterious man, clearly on the run from something, decides to lay low and visit his sister and her family. Known fondly as the fun, rich uncle often too busy visit, the family eagerly welcome him - but all is not what it seems. Young Charlie (niece) is smart and inquisitive, and it's not long before she realises her uncle is hiding something. 

 The tone of the film is somewhat schizophrenic, feeling more like an espionage-type mystery to begin with, before a twist then pivots things into more of a horror/Thriller direction - all the while keeping up the lighthearted comedic elements that go along with the family drama/setting. 
As seems to be the case more often than not, the romance element feels rushed and shoehorned, and the ending is all too convenient and tidy.

Although problematic, I can see why this was Hitchcock's favourite, simply because it's so fun. But at the same time, I wouldn't come close to saying that it's his best work, and I completely understand the viewpoints of those that think it's terrible. However, whether you think the film is good or bad, it is surely hard to deny that strong elements of classic Hitchcock genius are present. Various little visual elements serve to play on the characters/viewers mind, such as the squeezing of the napkin and the slamming of the garage door - provoking paranoia with a harmless occurrence, while preluding to something more sinister.

Perhaps my favourite part of the film were the humorous, yet disturbing little conversations that Charlie's father has with his friend Herb, in which the practicalities of committing murder are casually entertained between them as a morbid hobby. There is a particular scene in which Herb suggests that he has poisoned his drink, only for us to realise it is only with harmless bicarbonate soda - nevertheless, I found myself holding my breath, making it clear that the master is at work even during what is seemingly comic relief.

Perhaps just a personal association, but these scenes also conjured up thoughts of the inciting conversation in Strangers on A Train, and I couldn't help but wonder if this could somehow have been the germ of the idea...

I watched the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection version. Good picture and audio, though perhaps a touch less crisp in comparison to Sabatuer.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 28: 'Shadow of a Doubt' [1943]
Source: Blu-ray

A short review, as I watched this over a week ago before my vacation and the details are a little hazy. Joseph Cotton plays Charlie, the uncle with a secret that his namesake niece slowly uncovers. No major set-pieces as you would expect of Hitchcock at this stage of his career, but some good performances. I too enjoyed the back-and-forth between the father (a pre-Clarence Henry Travers) and his best friend over the perfect murder techniques, plus the slow close-up of Cotton during his monologue on America was very effective. However, it didn't grab me overall on first viewing, but I'd be willing to give it another chance down the road sometime. Agreed that picture and sound were less stellar than 'Saboteur', but still very good.
 

ssj

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
53
i keep coming to this thread with the expectation of reading about your time with christopher hitchens. :D

enjoying the rebues, garp.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Thanks ssj!

BONUS: 'Step down to Terror' [1958]
Source: DVD

This B-movie remake of 'Shadow of a Doubt' whittles the story down to a slim 76 minutes, hitting most of the major plot points. Uncle Charlie becomes Brother-in-law Johnny (played by Adam West lookalike Charles Drake), returning to his hometown to visit his mother and his widowed sister-in-law, Helen. The initialed ring, the tearing of the news story from the paper, the late night visit to the library, the sabotaged step - all these are present. Charlie/Johnny's rant is thrown away here and is not nearly so effective, and the climax on the train is missing (possibly too expensive to shoot). Rod Taylor, later to be seen in Hitchcock's 'The Birds', is well cast as the detective on Johnny's trail. As B-movies go, it's fine, but not really worth the trouble it took to seek out.

I watched a DVD I bought cheaply off eBay, which had obviously been copied off the TV and burned to disc. Quality is as you would expect.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Lifeboat (1944)

A great little gem, and not the usual Hitchcock thriller. I haven't seen Rope, but to my knowledge this is a similar setting - in that the entire film features several characters confined to one location.

During WW2, several people are stuck on a life raft after having thier ship blown up by the Germans, one of which ends up as a prisoner of war aboard thier boat. Contrasting characters and opinions clash when deciding what to do with him and whether or not he can be trusted. Tension ensues. 

It took me a while to settle into this one. It's a slow burn, but when the tension built it remained and kept me hooked. The turning point for me was the amputation scene, in which the crew trust thier German prisoner to cut off the leg of thier sick peer. The shoe from his missing leg then becomes an interesting visual tool throughout the film -  crude juxtaposition, for example, during the feet flirting of two characters. The laces are also used to collect and drink salt water, leading to the amputated man's dehydration, disorientation and - with (literally) a little nudge - subsequent murder. Finally, the man who gives this final "nudge" is beaten to death with the very same shoe. 

Although the film ultimately wraps up in a fairly convenient, "happy" way and includes the usual romantic element, I was quite suprised at how dark/heavy parts of it were and what it managed to get away with. Interestingly, the criticism that bombarded the film when it came out was chiefly aimed at the character of the German and how he was supposedly portrayed in a positive light. The film was made during the war, so naturally the subject was sensitive, but considering that the German is found to be the enemy, is hated by characters throughout, commits lies and murder and in response is violently beaten to death at the end, I find this accusation surprising. Sure, he perhaps comes across as sympathetic at the start, but by the end you feel almost as much hatred for him as the rest of the characters. 

Following this criticism, John Steinbeck also declared that he wished not to be associated with the film, it being based on an unpublished novella of his, which he wrote purely for the sake of adapting to the screen. Unlike Greenes "The Third Man", which was similarly written specifically for screen adaptation, Steinbecks "Lifeboat" remains unpublished, making it hard to determine just how much the film differs from the source material. 

I watched the "Masters of Cinema" blu-ray. Picture was good, but fairly grainy, with occasional dirt - a bit underwhelming compared to the last two I watched, which were from the Masterpiece collection. 

Audio was a little muffled at points, but clear for the most part. I did feel the need to switch on subtitles occasionally.
 
Top Bottom