Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn alfred hitchcock. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn alfred hitchcock. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 4, 2015

THAT DIZZY FEELING

A review requested by Matthew Blackwell, with thanks for contributing to the Second Quinquennial Antagony & Ecstasy ACS Fundraiser.

One doesn't get too many chances to write about the reigning Best Movie Ever Made, as 1958's Vertigo was anointed by the 2012 Sight & Sound critics' poll, the closest thing we have to the official definition of that title. And it's all the more daunting when one comes within a few notches of agreeing with that assessment. But we're all here now, so let's just dive right into the most complex film made by Alfred Hitchcock, one of the most terrifyingly gifted men to ever direct a movie.

Vertigo being the kind of film that plainly invites superlatives and hyperbole, let me give you some more of it: it is perhaps the single film in existence that most interestingly uses subjectivity. For it is a profoundly subjective movie, as it should be given its role in the auteur's career: this is closest that Hitchcock ever came to a personal confession of his sins on celluloid. Those sins being an obsession with blondes and a tyrannical disposition towards abusing them emotionally and, every so often, physically, in order to get them to be exactly what he demanded to make his movies as perfectly as possible (one of the cruelest of those abuses took place in the filming of this very movie: he forced lead actress Kim Novak to jump into the freezing San Francisco Bay for take after take, to no genuine purpose).

And it's not just that Vertigo is subjective; it uses that subjectivity to fuck with us. Which of course it would, being a Hitchcock picture - eight years earlier, he'd directed Stage Fright, a movie whose entire purpose in life was to smack the viewer around a little bit for daring to assume that movies always take place in the third person, and for much of the following decade, his films were all about finding ways to use the audience's expectations about how movies worked against us, causing us untold torments (this would, of course, culminate in his dauntingly modernist Psycho two years after Vertigo). Like a great many people, the first time I saw Vertigo, I was baffled by its odd decision to reveal its twist ending at the three-quarter mark, apparently robbing it of an entire act's worth of tricks and surprises (there are indications that Hitchcock himself had misgivings about including the reveal, and was overruled by producers). The director's famous image of a bomb exploding under a table in his interview with François Truffaut - shock is blowing up the bomb, suspense is showing the audience the bomb and then having people converse for ten minutes while they sit at the table - explains one reason for placing the reveal where it is, but it only leads to a deeper wrinkle. For the suspense we feel isn't on behalf of the protagonist we've been following for an hour and a half, but on the character hiding a secret from him, who has been totally deprived of any interiority for that same hour and a half. What's really unsettling about the Vertigo plot reveal isn't simply that it confounds our expectations for how thrillers should be structured, but that it spontaneously breaks the thread of absolute subjectivity that the film has, till that point, thrived on. From that point onward, in fact, Vertigo becomes a tug-of-war between two POVs, putting us inside the mind of the controlling erotically obsessed antihero while also letting us look at the dreadful impact of his obsession on the object of his desire. It's some of the most psychologically acute cinema I am aware of, and it's entirely situated within the realm of polished Hollywood genre fare. Not a bad trick.

But since there is a full three-quarters of a movie leading to that point, and not everybody has seen Vertigo, let me back up. The situation: Det. John "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart) has retired from the San Francisco police department following an unfortunate incident where a sudden flare-up of his previously unsuspected acrophobia leaves him incapacitated while another cop falls off a roof to his death. Looking to toss him some work, an old college friend, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) offers him a curious job: Gavin's wife Madeleine (Novak) has been wandering around town every day in an apparent trance, and Gavin is convinced that she's being possessed by a ghost. But he needs someone to track her movements before he can do anything to help her, either through parapsychological or psychiatric means. And so Scottie follows Madeleine, eventually discovering that she's grown obsessed with the portrait and legend of Carlotta Valdes, a woman who killed herself after her child was stolen away from her about a century prior. Scottie's urge to save Madeleine from the influence of the past quickly goes beyond professional courtesy; he's falling desperately in love with her, in fact, and it's doing a real number on his ability to do his job objectively.

It's a fine story - novelists Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac wrote their D'entre les morts primarily so that Hitchcock would be able to adapt it into a movie, after he lost the chance to make Les diaboliques to Henri-Georges Clouzot - but not in and of itself the stuff of Best Movie Ever Made territory. Really, what it is it but a paranormal riff on the film noir classic Laura? But on this fine, not tremendously unique story, Hitchcock and his immensely gifted crew hang some of the most portent visuals ever committed. Vertigo is, among other things, one of the cleverest color films ever made: the director, costume designer Edith Head, and art directors Henry Bumstead and Hal Pereira (with an enormous assist from cinematographer Robert Burks) rely on a controlled color palette to do a stunning amount of work for them. It's not as simple as color-coding the film, as Hitchcock would do six years later in Marnie (where, by all means, it works wonderfully). It's a much subtler way of using color in a relative way: what matters is not, inherently, that this scene is red and that scene is green, but that this scene is redder than the scene preceding it, that scene is greener. The film idles in a very plain, moderately saturated mode, with Scottie's world - especially the apartment of his best friend and solitary anchor, Midge Wood (Barbara Bel Geddes) - decked out in calm browns and greys, with the colors that show up having that soft, pastel look of '50s color film stock. But when he first encounters Madeleine, she drags in a whole range of aggressive colors: lush red walls bright blue sky, harsh pink flowers, vibrant blonde hair, shiny green cars, and the orange grandeur of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Color, in Vertigo is clearly linked to dream states, whether they're actual, literal dreams (Scottie's nightmare at the three-quarter mark is triggered by garish filters bathing the whole image in solid sheets of color), or simply the dazed state that following Madeleine for the first time puts him in. Their first encounter is one of Vertigo's signature gestures for a lot of reasons, in fact: besides representing only the second time (following the blue-soaked opening scene) that the film has boasted rich, vividly saturated colors, it also does away with dialogue for almost ten straight minutes, in favor of Bernard Herrmann's gorgeous score, circle round and round on the soundtrack. It's mesmerising and dreamy itself, the most subjective sequence in the whole enormously subjective feature, keying us in to Scottie's dazzled mind by means of deliberately leeching all the realism from the filmmaking and replacing it with intense, heightened style.

And yet, through all of this, Madeleine herself is the most emphatically grey thing in the movie, thanks to the suit that Head provided for her, on the logic that it boasted a particular shade of grey that no blonde woman would ever wear. I can't speak to that, but there's no denying that centering all of the lavish, luscious color around a woman in grey feels distinctly "off", and the way Novak wears the uniform stiffly, moving in studied, inorganic lines ends up serving as the best kind of foreshadowing, since it doesn't feel like foreshadowing - it's easy to read the color and movement as signs of Madeleine's mental detachment, since our understanding is connected to Scottie's limited, obsessed appreciation of her.

The first three-quarters of Vertigo do an extraordinary job of portraying that obsessive state through everything from Stewart's fearless performance - the most uncharacteristic of his career, full of sweat and dagger-like stares and feverish line deliveries - to its constantly limited camera angles to its unspoken emphasis on the titular state. The word "vertigo" is stated only once - acrophobia gives Scottie vertigo, and the vertigo is what makes hims cease to function, as he explains to Midge in the film's second scene - but a vertiginous state saturates the movie, right from its opening credits, with their iconic spiral shapes devised by John Whitney, Sr. Much of the aesthetic of Vertigo is centered on spirals, on going round and round in circles: Madeleine's characteristic whorl of hair, spiral staircases, the twists and turns and ups and downs of San Francisco itself. Herrmann's score keeps looping around into itself, presenting a swoony state that could be read as Romanticism - his music owes a clear debt to the "love and death" themes in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, which the score openly quotes at points - but could just as easily identify the increasingly insular, mad mental state of the main character.

Everything that goes into making the first three-quarters of Vertigo such an excellent marriage of our perspective to that of the increasingly frazzled lead makes it that much more startling when it breaks from it: every time that Midge asserts herself and lets us see the inner life of the woman who could be all the stable, sane, pleasant things Scottie is willfully and needlessly rejecting (Bel Geddes is truly amazing with not much screentime, portraying a good friend and smart sparring partner who is aware of the hopelessness of her own erotic fixations and willing to give up on them when necessary, thus making her the healthy counterpoint to Scottie, while being an interesting character in her own right: her sadly upbeat reading of "I don't think Mozart's going to help at all", her final line, edges out Stewart's angry, self-lacerating "You shouldn't have been that sentimental" as my favorite line reading in the movie), for example, or of course when it enters its final quarter and becomes a totally different movie. There's an easy Vertigo to imagine, in which the blunt-talking brunette Judy Barton (Novak), with her clunky outfits and garish eyebrows, is just the accidental victim of Scottie's fixations, but the Vertigo we get is far more interesting, since it gives us a whole new film's worth of character details in Judy's relationship to her terrible, immoral behavior, and allows us a much more complex counterpoint to Scottie's descent into mad desire than the simply decent Midge. The enormous shift in focus precipitated by the unexpected twist pre-ending makes Vertigo not a film about one man going nuts from obsession; it makes it into a much more challenging, interesting film about different ways of being broken by desire, of trying to ignore one's mistakes or committing to them so fully that they no longer even register as behavior (Midge, who owns her mistakes, is indifferently ushered out of the movie - there's no room for decent people in Vertigo's final half-hour).

In short, there is a Vertigo that's a great psychological thriller about obsession, and for the most part, that's how we like to talk about the Vertigo that exists. But really, Vertigo is more complicated and slippery than that, demanding far more of us as viewers than any other Hitchcock film, more than any other Hollywood film broadly located in the realm of genre. This is, undoubtedly, why it limped through the box office in 1958 while receiving detached, unhappy reviews. He is a great and endlessly important filmmaker, but Hitchcock was still primarily an entertainer; Vertigo is less of a simple entertainment than anything else he directed. That's not the reason it's also his best film, but it's only because he was willing to do something challenging and upsetting that he could reach the depth and subtlety which does make Vertigo a masterpiece among masterpieces.

Thứ Bảy, 5 tháng 7, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1954: In which one of the greatest visual storytellers in the medium's history tries his hand at its hoariest gimmick

The first wave of 3-D did not last very long. The first film to showcase the new Natural Vision technology, Bwana Devil, was released in November, 1952; in 1955, only one movie, Revenge of the Creature, was released in the United States in 3-D. In between those two points was a flurry of activity that saw literally dozens of 3-D films fling themselves out at the audience like a paddle ball aimed right at the camera lens.

Compared to our current, undying wave of 3-D, the '50s fad went from gimmick to cheap exploitation film trick to yesterday's new so fast that almost no A-list filmmakers had a chance to try it out. There's one major exception: no less a master filmmaker and cinephilic icon than Alfred Hitchcock was able to make a 3-D movie in the vanishingly brief window when it might have been possible for him to do so. Though that window closed fast enough that his film, Dial M for Murder, was released after the unreliable process had lost enough of its appeal that it wasn't even put into general release in that format. Not until revival screenings starting in the 1980s did most audience members have a chance to see it in all of its dimensions. Even closer to home, it became the very first movie from the '50s to be released on a 3-D Blu-ray, for those of us in the fraction of a percent of people who've actually invested the money into home 3-D to enjoy whenever we want, secure in our knowledge that even if we're spendthrift geeks whom no-one will ever love, at least the ghost of ol' Hitch is nodding approvingly.

Coming in the middle of a run of absolutely stunning masterpieces, Dial M for Murder honestly is hard to describe as a major film in the context of the director's career; it came out the same year as Rear Window, with which it shared a leading lady, and that comparison alone is sufficient to prove that the earlier film doesn't find the filmmaker at his best (and it proves the same for the leading lady, when it comes down to it). But minor Hitchcock, especially minor '50s Hitchcock, is hardly disposable in the same way that, say, "minor Renny Harlin" would be, and the 3-D version of Dial M for Murder is especially a worthwhile and I might even go so far as to say important piece of work. It's arguably the leanest Hitchcock film since Rope, six years prior (which is his other major gimmick-driven film, for that matter), with only one major set and five (arguably even just four) significant characters to keep track of; its plot consists of really just one thing, which is presented in a narrative structure that resembles an essay. First the concept is explained, then we see the concept put into execution, then we see the concept re-explained, then the concept is deconstructed. It's about a murder plot: it is, I want to repeat and stress, about a murder plot. And really nothing else.

There's a pleasing purity in this, and a certain reduction to an essential Hitchcockian core: the whole movie becomes the explication of a man, who has been unmistakably slighted but in no particularly egregious or unusual way, reacting in the most cold-blooded, psychopathic and sociopathic way against the woman in his life. Or viewed from the other direction, it's about having the most theoretically sanctified and precious place in the world - the home that one's own money has bought and paid for - turned into a chamber of horrors designed to kill oneself. Specifically, the script which Frederick Knott adapted from his own play centers on Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), a retired tennis star living in London with his wife Margot (Grace Kelly), and largely on her money. Margot, we learn first, is all excited to resume a year-old affair with American mystery writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings); we learn second that neither of the Wendices were all that happy with the marriage almost immediately after it started, though Margot seems at least slightly more interested in making it happy; we learn third that Tony knew about the affair almost immediately, and has been biding his time all these months carefully setting up all the pieces for a flawless murder. This involves coercing a vague acquaintance from university, C.A. Swann (Anthony Dawson), through blackmail and money, to act as the human cog in a perfectly-timed series of events that Tony describes to his patsy and the audience with monstrously detached pride.

One teeny fuck-up gets in the way, though: a busted wristwatch puts Tony's timing off by a few minutes, which is enough to put Swann off his rhythm, and an errant pair of scissors that happens to be in exactly the right place allows Margot to kill her killer first. That brings us right about to the film's halfway point, with Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) investigating the crime scene on the obvious assumption that Margot committed murder; but Hubbard is obviously a clever sort, and the improvisation Tony was forced to engage in has quite a few holes in it.

Thanks to the exact order in which details are presented, Hitchcock and Knott lay before the viewer a rather spectacular series of whirring gears to behold: we know everything that any character might possibly be aware of from the get-go so the thrill of watching the film has nothing to do with the question of what happened, and everything to do with the question of what Tony will do to deal with what happened. It's beautifully tense, and Milland is absolutely suberb, playing his anti-hero as being just clever enough that his mental acrobatics are legitimately admirable and exciting to behold, without ever giving the character even an ounce of charisma or warmth. He's just pleasant enough to Margot that, give or take a certain brittle Britishness, it's not impossible to wonder that she'd trust him and want to have some way of either salvaging the marriage or letting it die peacefully; but that's the same tone he takes when idly discussing how he's been stalking and manipulating Swann, and it's the same tone he takes in the story's final moments, when it's his own freedom in the balance. He is perhaps the most perfect sociopath in Hitchcock: he has absolutely no interest in morals or the wellness of humans, up to and including himself.

That being said, the film's superlative moment is one where Milland is barely even a presence: Swann's skulking through the apartment, his attack on Margot, and her frenzied struggle to escape. It's a terrific scene for a thriller, and in 3-D it becomes one of the all-time great sequences in Hitchcock, particularly during a jarring moment when Kelly thrusts her hand straight at the camera in a gesture of helplessness and terror. This is the one and only "something pops out of the screen" gag in the whole movie, which makes it stand out more; it's also a shocking moment of implicating the audience and our space during a particularly intense fight scene. Dial M for Murder is a film almost exclusively about the space of the home, with only one scene and a handful of cutaways taking place outside of the Wendice apartment; this becomes even more pronounced in 3-D, when the space becomes tangible and we can begin to notice just how much the blocking and the position of objects in the frame (to take advantage of the added dimension, the filmmakers loaded up the foreground with furniture and knickknacks), and especially how much the physical space seems to diminish and contain Margot. It's a threatening place for her even before the attack, but that's when it becomes the stuff of nightmares: harshly lit by cinematographer Robert Burks with a single key light designed to look like it's in a different room, the parlor becomes a chaos of angles and shapes, less a home than a pit of traps and blockades.

This excellent scene notwithstanding, Dial M for Murder doesn't do much with Margot, which feels like a wasted opportunity: we know from her other Hitchcock collaborations that Kelly and the director had a terrific rapport that he very rarely reached with his actresses, and while in her limited way she's able to make Margot seem real and plausible, Kelly simply doesn't have the material to make her interesting. She's the MacGuffin in the story of how Tony bloodlessly plots a perfect murder and then dances around trying to fix it when its perfection turns out to be not quite all there. And that's certainly fine, though it makes the film a little bit cooler and more remote than most of Hitch's thrillers, where the protagonist is also sympathetic. There's nobody to root for here: Tony is too obviously and persistently amoral, Margot is barely present, and Mark only slightly more than she. And as for Hubbard - well, we never root for the police in a Hitchcock film, do we?

All of which leaves Dial M for Murder feeling just a touch too much like an exercise to rank alongside the unflagging likes of Strangers on a Train or Rear Window or North by Northwest. Though as those titles imply, it's an exercise made by an enormously talented constructor of thrillers in the most fertile period of his career, and while it has a handful of damaging flaws, among them a rather bland Dimitri Timokin score, and a final scene that depends on one character acting in ways that seem a little too beholden to the writer's contrivance for comfort, this would still be at or near the top of many solid director's filmographies. It's stretched as tight as it can possibly be, and merciless in the execution of its perfect machine of a story, and it incorporates a gaudy gimmick that deepens both the human interest and the intensity of the thriller, and it's undeniably a work of genius, even if it's not that genius's finest hour.

Lastly, you know how some (all) Hitchcock films with rear projection make it look kind of hackish and bad? Oh my God, you don't know how bad Hitchcock rear projection can be until you've seen what it looks like in a 3-D movie, where it is literally just a flat pane behind three-dimensional people.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1954
-Otto Preminger's Carmen Jones, starring Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte, is a watershed moment for African-Americans appearing in mainstream cinema
-Disney's live-action work reaches its first peak with the lavish adventure 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
-Nicholas Ray turns the Western on its ear with the strange and magnificent Johnny Guitar

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1954
-In Japan, Honda Ishiro sees Americans our giant monsters and raises us, with the iconic Godzilla
-The very first British animated feature is released, an adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm
-Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders take a Journey to Italy under the guiding hand of Roberto Rossellini

Chủ Nhật, 15 tháng 9, 2013

PERSONAL CANON: THE AIR IS CRISP, THE LEAVES ARE CHANGING COLORS, THE BODIES ARE DEAD

Alfred Hitchcock is probably the closest thing to a consensus pick for the greatest film director of all time, between critics, historians, general audience, and hardcore film buffs, but even he was a mortal, and could not do every thing he applied himself to. Notably, and predictably for a man promoted as "the Master of Suspense", he wasn't much of a hand at comedy, at least not at straight-up comedies. Comic relief he could do as well as anybody you've ever heard of, as anybody who's ever seen North by Northwest can attest. But his "pure" comedies are rare, generally underseen, and not generally regarded among his best films by those who've seen them. And while I'll agree that 1941's Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a problematic late screwball put over largely by Carole Lombard's strength of will, and 1976's Family Plot (which I do regard as being particularly under-appreciated) is certainly a perverse enough piss-take on Hitchcock's whole career, particularly as it was his very last movie, the man did direct one comedy that works on just about every level for a movie to work, and which I do think rates somewhere around the very peak of his career: The Trouble with Harry, released in 1955 during Hitchcock's greatest period of influence and popularity. Rear Window was just a year old, To Catch a Thief wasn't even two months old, and Alfred Hitchcock Presents had just begun its indescribably iconic run on TV. It was, in short, during the half-decade period in Hitch's career when he was most able to do absolutely anything he wanted, and what he wanted to do was this.

This is a film set and shot in rural Vermont (as opposed to bustling, hectic, urban Vermont), where two locals, a recent transplant, and a visitor all cross paths with a dead body. For that, you see, is the trouble with Harry Worp (the immaculately still Philip Truex): nobody's quite certain what killed him, and they're damned if they know what to with him now. Old Captain Wiles (Edmund Gwenn), who was hunting illegally the morning of Harry's death, the first to find the corpse, is certain it was one of his errant bullets that felled the man, and he's anxious to hide the body before the law comes snooping. This turns out not to be the case at all, and then it's the turn of Harry's estranged wife, Jennifer Rogers (Shirley MacLaine) to think she done the deed, smacking the abusive bastard on the head with a milk bottle when he tracked her and her son Arnie (Jerry Mathers) to ground. The very charming spinster Miss Gravely (Mildred Natwick) is equally sure that she must have done it, clonking him in the head with the heel of her shoe when he tried to attack her in his bottle-dazed state.

Even just putting that little bit down is arguably spoiling too much for a movie that stubbornly refuses to be watched and appreciated as widely as it should be, but The Trouble with Harry is far more about the tone with which its plot toddles along than the actual details of that plot. The sense I have, every time I've seen it, is that's a quintessentially Vermonter kind of story: it's about four people (the fourth is visiting painter Sam Marlowe, played by John Forsythe) being mightily inconvenienced by a corpse, but not actually finding themselves particularly upset by it. Or made even the littlest bit nervous. It's about likable, friendly, gently quirky people behaving in a briskly pragmatic way about death, without an ounce of gravity or "respect for the dead" involved: Harry is buried and dug up so many times over the course of slightly less than 24 hours that even Jennifer, recapping it all at the end, admits that she can't remember why it happened the third time. And this information plainly causes her no distress at all.

As a result of all this, it ends up being one of the most perverse films in Hitchcock's catalog, and what a terrifically perverse collection that is. Death is traditionally held to be sacrosanct in some way; nice people treat it with a kind of gravity and awe. Well, the people in The Trouble with Harry are unfailingly nice, and they are also quite unimpressed with Harry's corpse as anything but an object. An object that is, incidentally, framed by Hitchcock and cinematographer Robert Burks with an unfailingly puckish sense of humor, such that simply seeing bits of Harry poking into frame results in some of the biggest laughs in the whole movie. Whatever Hitchcock's affinity with comedy, there should be no doubt that the filmmakers behind this image, for example, new exactly what they were doing:

Besides tweaking one of the biggest taboos out there, the film's other chief attempt to thoroughly discombobulate the audience lies in its tone. Basically, this is a weird comedy: structurally, it cannot be regarded as anything but a farce, with repetition and piled-on misunderstandings and a third act struggle to keep things held together in the face of a dubious authority figure. But the momentum is so laconic and slow that it's practically asleep (this is the part that especially feels Vermont-ish), and that is, itself, part of the joke - the film is hilarious, often, because of how coolly everybody is under-reacting, and the deliberate pace of the characters is exactly what makes them such amusing oddballs. It's a dry, subtle form of humor altogether, and Hitchcock was lucky to have performers able to meet him at exactly the right sweet spot: Gwenn is particularly great at playing in this relaxed mode, but MacLaine - making her uncommonly assured feature debut - is right up there with him, and she lands all of the very best line readings, talking about death and abuse with a kind of bored wisdom.

It's too low-key and restrained to ever result in huge, heaving laughs, and maybe that's part of why the film has never found an especially enthusiastic audience, but it's still one of the absolute funniest movies of the 1950s, not least because it is perhaps the most puckish; the best kind of comic film for the trickster Hitchcock to release onto the world. In the meantime, it's also a consummate piece of moviemaking: capturing the Vermont locations (and the locations recreated in a Vermont gym following bad weather) with eye-bleeding beauty, and especially the impossibly painterly feeling of a New England autumn. It is, in fact, one of the best movies about autumn I can name, despite the number of interior sets dressed up with spray-painted leaves.

The best part of all is that even with its frivolous tone and comedy, it's still tangibly a Hitchcock film, with the director demonstrating how thriller principals can be applied to humor, and for the same reasons: the longer a payoff that we're fully expecting is deferred, the bigger the release when it shows up (there's a magnificent scene where we're on pins and needles waiting for Harry's body to fall out, and then just at the last minute, it doesn't fall out, because it turns out not to have been there - fucking glorious filmmaking). It's an unusual application of technique, but it works flawlessly, and the whole movie is both absurd and tense for its entire running time, despite none of the characters ever noting that it's either of those thing.

On top of everything else, the film was the first teaming between Hitchcock and composer Bernard Herrmann, and the bouncy score, with all of its half-formed marches in unusual keys, is one of the very best things that man ever wrote, for Hitch or anybody else. So, you know, it's delightful, offbeat, beautiful, and it's historically important. Pretty fantastic all around, and a movie that continues to surprise and entrance me no matter how often I see it.

Thứ Tư, 7 tháng 8, 2013

BEST SHOT: SHADOW OF A DOUBT

Alfred Hitchcock Day at the Film Experience continues with the return, after a brief hiatus, of Hit Me with Your Best Shot, this time centered on Shadow of a Doubt, frequently identified as Hitch's favorite among all his own movies, and easily one of his best films - my private Hitchcock Top 10 fluctuates constantly, but there's never been a time when this film wasn't on it.

The movie, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it (and if you have any affection for the director's work whatsoever, you absolutely must), is about Charlie (Teresa Wright), a girl living in the quaint, WWII-era California town of Santa Rosa, where she is intensely happy to receive a visit from her namesake Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten). It's a life-changing event in the young woman's life, but even more after a pair of detective inform her that her beloved uncle is the prime suspect in the "Merry Widow" serial killer case.

Thus springs forth one of Hitch's most intense thrillers, a collision of the warmth and domesticity of suburban America with one of cinema's most perverse attacks on the all-American notion of family. Wright and Cotten both give absolutely gorgeous performances (among the best in all Hitchcock, one might even say), and the blackhearted glee with which the magnificently unsentimental auteur violates the sanctity of hearth and home makes it one of his very finest pieces of nasty-minded entertainment. For my shot, I've perhaps unimaginatively gone to one of the very first moments of foreshadowing, before we in the audience have good reason to believe that Uncle Charlie really is the monstrous killer he's suspected to be, but in the very instant that we realise, with an unfocused by certain sinking feeling, that he's hiding something pretty dark.

Uncle Charlie has just given Charlie a present of a ring, one that happens to have initials carved on the inside of the band. The young woman's confusion is totally guileless and unsuspecting, while the uncle's carefully-sculpted flat look tells of something more menacing and secretive than anything that Young Charlie might even be capable of imagining at this point in the story. The contrast between their two expressions foreshadows not just the bloody secret that drives the drama, but also the relationship between these two central characters that animates it and gives it psychological depth beyond the mechanical perfection common to even Hitchcock's worst thrillers. This is, we might say, the emotional inciting incident of the film, which will proceed to explore the tension between the niece who knows nothing and suspects far too much, and the uncle who knows everything and wants at all costs to keep anybody else from finding it out. The way that Cotten takes a split-second too long to come up with a reaction to Wright's bright, babbling questions lights the fuse represented by this shot, and from there we're off to the races.

It's too great a film to have even its central force represented by a single shot, or a single scene, but as it's the single beat where all of sudden, something very dark creeps into this bucolic setting (even more than the magnificent dinner scene that follows shortly, where Uncle Charlie attempts to prevent the rest of the family from identifying the name of Franz Lehár's"Merry Widow Waltz". It's a great example of why Hitchcock was called the Master of Suspense: who else could make heartstopping cinema out of a man trying to distract people at a dinner table, for reasons we don't even know yet?), and so it gets my vote as a defining image from a movie rich enough to have almost nothing but defining moments.

HITCH'S PEOPLE

This month's group list at The Film Experience is, I must say, an especially awesome one: the ten most memorable (not "best") performances in an Alfred Hitchcock film. For all that we think of him as a visual director first, trying to whittle down all those films into a manageable ballot was totally brutal, and as much as I like my own top 10, and the group's top ten, I think an equally strong list could be made out of performances that failed to make either list at all.

Herewith, my own ballot, and since I could barely live with cutting it down to 20, not only do I have runners-up, I have runners-up to the runners-up. You will quickly note that I gravitate towards Hitchcock's villains.

1. Anthony Perkins as "Norman Bates", Psycho (1960) [#1 on the TFE list]
2. Judith Anderson as "Mrs. Danvers", Rebecca (1940) [on the TFE list]
3. Claude Rains as "Alexander Sebastian", Notorious (1946) [on the TFE list]
4. Robert Walker as "Bruno Anthony", Strangers on a Train (1951) [on the TFE list]
5. Peter Lorre as "Abbott", The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
6. Thelma Ritter as "Stella", Rear Window (1954)
7. James Stewart as "Scottie Ferguson", Vertigo (1958) [on the TFE list]
8. Dame Mae Whitty as "Miss Froy", The Lady Vanishes (1938)
9. Teresa Wright as "Charlie", Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
10. Walter Slezak as "Willy", Lifeboat (1944)

1st Runners-up (chronologically)
-Joseph Cotten as "Uncle Charlie", Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
-Tallulah Bankhead as "Connie Porter", Lifeboat, (1944)
-Barbara Bel Geddes as "Midge Wood", Vertigo (1958)
-Martin Landau as "Leonard", North by Northwest (1959)
-Barry Foster as "Robert Rusk", Frenzy (1972)


Honorable Mentions (chronologically)
-Peggy Ashcroft as "Crofter's wife", The 39 Steps (1935)
-Ingrid Bergman as "Alicia Huberman", Notorious (1946) [on the TFE list]
-Edmund Gwenn as "Captain Wiles", The Trouble with Harry (1955)
-Janet Leigh as "Marion Crane", Psycho (1960) [on the TFE list]
-Alec McCowen as "Chief Inspector Oxford", Frenzy (1972)