FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A musician (Henry Fonda) is falsely accused of being a thief, and struggles to assert his innocence; meanwhile, his wife (Vera Miles) descends into a mental breakdown from the strain of the situation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anthony Quayle Films
• Courtroom Drama
• Falsely Accused
• Henry Fonda Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Living Nightmare
• Mental Breakdown

Response to Peary’s Review:
Alfred Hitchcock’s dramatization of the travails of falsely accused New York musician Christopher Emmanual Ballestreros is his most documentary-like feature — and also, perhaps not coincidentally, the most depressing film in his entire oeuvre. As Peary notes, the “first part of the picture, in which Fonda is arrested outside his home, questioned, fingerprinted, paraded in front of witnesses, and tossed in jail, is masterfully directed with a sense of precision that’s even above Hitchcock’s usual standards”, and “perfectly illustrates [his] lifelong terror of being arrested for a crime he knew nothing about.” Peary argues that “this Kafkaesque sequence is so frightening that everything that comes afterward seems anticlimactic”, positing that “Miles’s breakdown is bothersome rather than compelling because it takes time away from the mystery” — but I don’t quite agree; rather than finding Miles’s mental collapse distracting, I feel it actually deepens the power and heartbreak of the screenplay, given that it shows the truly irreparable harm done by the false accusation.

Fonda is well-cast in the title role; he’s the ideal “everyman”, an “initially dull Hitchcockian hero whose every minute is planned out and whose life doesn’t vary at all from day to day” — and a rare Hitchcockian protagonist “without any sense of humor” whatsoever. Miles provides a nuanced, sensitive portrayal as his increasingly disturbed wife, and the supporting performances throughout the film — many by seemingly unknown actors — are finely rendered; note, for instance, the utter believability of the three terrified women in the Social Security office who initially accuse Fonda’s character. Meanwhile, Robert Burks’s stark cinematography perfectly captures the nightmarish noir milieu within which Fonda and his family find themselves, and fine use is made of authentic New York City locales.

With all that said, I must now admit to postponing my revisit of this highly regarded Hitchcock title for as long as possible; as DVD Savant puts it, “There’s nothing wrong with this picture except that it breaks Hitchcock’s primary rule – it doesn’t please the audience.” Hitchcock’s fidelity to the real-life story he was telling results in an oddly depressing and disturbing viewing experience; while The Wrong Man is undeniably a masterful film on many levels, it’s one which most film fanatics will probably want to consider a “once and done” title. At the very least, any viewer will come away with a heightened understanding of the importance of never, ever providing information to the police without first consulting a lawyer; Fonda’s best intentions here (giving lie to the oft-repeated quote that “an innocent man has nothing to fear”) do nothing but get him even deeper into trouble.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Manny Ballestreros
  
• Vera Miles as Ruth Ballestreros
  
• Robert Burks’ noir-ish cinematography
  
• Fine use of authentic New York locales
  

Must See?
Yes, once — but don’t expect to want to return to this one.

Categories

• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A wheelchair-bound photographer (James Stewart) confined to his NYC apartment begins to suspect that one of his neighbors (Raymond Burr) has killed his wife. With help from his glamorous girlfriend (Grace Kelly), his personal nurse (Thelma Ritter), and a former war buddy (Wendell Corey), he tries to gather evidence to support his claim.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Grace Kelly Films
• Hitchcock Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Murder Mystery
• Peeping Toms
• Raymond Burr Films
• Thelma Ritter Films
• Wendell Corey Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary rightfully refers to this Alfred Hitchcock thriller — adapted from a short story by Cornell Woolrich — as an “undisputed masterpiece”, and spends the bulk of his review analyzing the film’s multiple enticing themes. He asserts, however, that while “much has been written about this film being about how we are all Peeping Toms… too much is made of [this] theme; that we are all snoopers is a given.” Instead, he argues that “what [Hitchcock is] most interested in is what we discover when we study people”, beginning with the fact that “people are into such dull, regimented lives that when they do anything that varies from their routines (as Burr does), neighbors will become suspicious and may suspect them of doing something terrible.” Indeed, part of what makes the film so consistently engaging on a narrative level is that we’re never quite sure whether Stewart is right in his suspicions, or simply suffering from an overly active imagination; the various “clues” we’re given throughout the storyline (such as the fact that “Burr’s wife’s handbag is still in the Burr apartment”) remain circumstantial evidence at best.

As Peary notes, a “related and equally important theme (central to most Hitchcock films) is that even the most [seemingly] predictable people are capable of doing wildly unpredictable things” — demonstrated by the fact that “Kelly, who’s the type to fret over a broken fingernail, can be gallant enough to climb up a railing into a murderer’s apartment”. Speaking of Kelly, she’s not only as gorgeous as ever here (wearing “Edith Head’s lavish, sexy costumes”), but, as noted by Vincent Canby in his NY Times review of the film for its 1983 re-release, gives “probably her most successful performance, one in which the facts of her public personality and the fiction of the film become marvelously mixed”. We are actually able to have some fun with her notorious ice-princess persona, since it’s called out time and again by Stewart.

Ultimately, Kelly’s impossible beauty and charm (could she BE any more perfect?) simply serve to heighten the fact that Stewart is scared to death of marital commitment (as wryly evidenced by his silently judgmental observations of various married couples in apartments across the way). As noted by Gary Mairs in his review of the film for Culture Vulture, “he fears domestication… and the stories he watches in his neighbors’ windows come to resemble projections of all his worst connubial fantasies”. To that end, Mairs picks up on the Peeping Tom theme once again by arguing that Stewart’s “desire to watch overwhelms his desire for [Kelly], and he only really becomes aroused when she joins him in peeping.” Speaking of such matters, Hitchcock and screenwriter John Michael Hayes get away with an astonishing amount of sexual subtext for the times — most notably in Kelly’s brazen assertion that she’ll be spending the night in Stewart’s apartment, followed by pulling out and donning a sexy negligee; as Jonathan Rosenbaum points out in his analysis of the film, “one suspects the censors were placated only because Jeff’s plaster cast made sex between him and Lisa seem unlikely.”

Any discussion of Rear Window‘s multiple merits as a cinematic masterpiece would be incomplete without mentioning its sheer technical bravado. Hitchcock was clearly at the top of his game when planning and executing his vision for the film, given his consistently innovative approach to the material. Collaborating with DP Robert Burks — and given a truly impressive set to work with (possessing no less than 31 apartments!) — Hitchcock tells nearly the entire story from a camera “situated in the living room of [Stewart]… so we sense how trapped he feels while stuck in his apartment”. Until Stewart pulls out his camera’s zoom lens as makeshift binoculars, we’re restricted to the same limited view of his neighbors’ existence as he is; we’re never privy to anything more than what Stewart himself can see — which is what makes the finale so terrifying (though I won’t say more about that here, at risk of revealing spoilers).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jimmy Stewart as Jeff
  
• Grace Kelly as Lisa (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Thelma Ritter as Stella
  
• Robert Burks’ cinematography
  
• The truly impressive set
  
• Edith Head’s outfits
  
• Masterful direction

Must See?
Of course; this one merits multiple enjoyable viewings.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• NY Times Retrospective Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Greatest Films Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM’s Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The dowdy daughter (Bette Davis) of a domineering matriarch (Gladys Cooper) is encouraged by a friendly psychiatrist (Claude Rains) to take a trip abroad, where she transforms into a sleek and elegant young woman, and soon falls in love with a troubled married man (Paul Henreid) whose daughter (Janis Wilson) is just as insecure as Davis herself once was.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bette Davis Films
• Bonita Granville Films
• Character Arc
• Claude Rains Films
• Irving Rapper Films
• Romance
• Spinsters

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “shrewdly” scripted adaptation of Olive Higgins Prouty‘s novel by labeling it “a ridiculous soap opera that is great fun”. He refers to it as “both one of cinema’s great romances and one of the most manipulative tearjerkers about female sacrifice”, noting that it’s “full of dramatic love scenes, verbal battles, humor, tears, and, best of all, mature dialogue between Davis and men.” He calls out in particular the film’s infamous “final scene” between Davis and Henreid, featuring “Davis acting both noble and sacrificial; Max Steiner’s swelling music coaxing tears to our eyes; Henreid, for the umpteenth time, lighting two cigarettes simultaneously and handing one to Davis (their inhaling and smoky exhaling is the equivalent of sexual intercourse); and Davis delivering that beautiful last line: ‘Don’t let’s ask for the moon when we have the stars’.”

The storyline for Now, Voyager is contrived beyond belief, but enjoyably so — if you’re willing to go along for the ride. A classic “women’s picture” (DVD Savant refers to it as “the perfect distillation of narrative themes and romantic elements to attract the female audience in 1942”), Now, Voyager chronicles Davis’s magical transformation from a beetle-browed, plump spinster on the verge of a nervous breakdown, to the most popular guest on board a cruise ship — a woman unafraid to finally emerge from under the crippling dominance of her abusive mother and spread her wings, exactly how she chooses. Davis, naturally, is superb in this tricky central role, while Claude Rains is top-notch in a too-small (but critical) role as her kindly psychiatrist (if only we all had such a guardian angel/father-figure waiting for us in the wings!). Henreid, despite Davis’s apparent initial misgivings, is finely cast as her illicit European “lover”, and Gladys Cooper is appropriately hiss-worthy as her villainous mother (as noted by DVD Savant, “Not until Psycho did the movies come up with as potent a horror-mother as old Mrs. Vale”).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bette Davis as Charlotte Vale (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
  
• Paul Henreid as Jerry
  
• Claude Rains as Dr. Jaquith
  
• Gladys Cooper as Mrs. Vale
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic “women’s picture”.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• TCM Articles
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
On a dark and stormy night, a group of travelers — including a honeymooning couple (Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart) and their friend (Melvyn Douglas), as well as a portly young widow (Charles Laughton) and his female companion (Lilian Bond) — seek refuge in the house of two eccentric siblings (Ernest Thesiger and Eva Moore), their butler (Boris Karloff), and various other mysterious family members.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boris Karloff Films
• Charles Laughton Films
• Horror Films
• James Whale Films
• Melvyn Douglas Films
• Old Dark House
• Psychopaths
• Raymond Massey Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “splendid, much overlooked” (is it, still?) horror film by director James Whale “exhibits his usual flair, wit, sophistication, and fascination with perverse characters.” Indeed, as Peary points out, the “five inhabitants” of the titular house “make the eccentric families found in screwball comedies seem normal”: after being “greeted” at the front door by the family’s “mad, mute butler (Boris Karloff) with scars on his forehead, a scruffy beard on his chin, and a constant urge to drink himself into a violent rage”, the clueless visitors quickly encounter “elderly, prissy, cowardly, atheist Ernest Thesiger and his partially deaf, unfriendly, fanatically religious sister, Eva Moore” — only to find that the family’s eccentricity extends much further, as they are introduced to the elderly siblings’ “heavily-whiskered 102-year-old father” (played by a woman, Elspeth Dudgeon!), and the most mysterious family member of all (Brember Wills).

As Peary argues, the “film is outrageous from the outset and becomes increasingly bizarre”. Although “Whale displays tongue-in-cheek humor at the beginning to lull viewers into a false sense of security”, he then “plays up the suspense and terror in the final few scenes”. (If you’ve never seen Old Dark House, don’t read reviews, as most will give away spoilers, and it’s much more fun to simply watch how things unfold.) Peary points out that “as always, Whale makes dramatic use of shadows, sound effects, wild angles (especially when filming faces), and dramatic close-ups”, and notes that DP Arthur Edeson provides “standout [cinemato]graphy” which “greatly contributes to the atmosphere” (check out the stills below). Also of note is the stunning make-up work done for both Karloff and (in particular) Dudgeon.

Interestingly, Peary’s review neglects to point out the film’s historical significance as the forerunner of all such “old dark house” films. What’s especially remarkable is how successful Whale is at satirizing the nascent genre he was simultaneously introducing: as creepy as events do eventually become, we’re treated to plenty of campy humor throughout, notably in the laughably mundane romance which immediately flourishes between Douglas and Bond (their dialogue together is priceless), and in some of the banter offered by Thesiger and Moore (who are as kooky as all get out, but never posited as any kind of a genuine threat themselves). Meanwhile, the family members are such a collectively outlandish bunch — and the visitors’ reactions to them so hilariously muted — that, at least until the very end, one can’t help viewing the entire affair as some kind of fantastical joke.

Note: Modern film fanatics will naturally be interested to know that the gorgeous blonde here (Gloria Stuart) is none other than “Old Rose” from Titanic (1997).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fabulously creepy make-up
  
  
• Arthur Edeson’s cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an early horror masterpiece by a famed director.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review