Alfred Hitchcock arrived in Hollywood in 1939 under most auspicious circumstances. Fifteen years of work in his native England had produced over two dozen films, including future classics such as The Lodger (1927), The 39 Steps (1935), and The Lady Vanishes (1938), establishing the 40-year old as Europe’s premiere director. The three films mentioned, along with Blackmail (1929), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and Young and Innocent (1937) more than justified his future nickname as “The Master of Suspense.”
What Hollywood would provide Hitchcock was a larger canvas upon which to turn out finely polished thrillers that made his British films appear to be the work of, in Hitchcock’s own words, “a talented amateur.” But Hollywood would take its own sweet time giving his talents and need for supremacy on the set their full support. Contrast this to Orson Welles, who as a neophyte filmmaker in 1941 was given carte blanche by RKO to produce Citizen Kane. Of course, after making one of the greatest films of all time, Welles battled the wrath of the studio system (and the Hearst machine) for the rest of his life leading to a tragic diminishment of his contributions to cinema. Hitchcock may have had his ups and downs in America, but he ultimately won the war.
For some years, Hitchcock had been chomping at the bit to come to America, and the man who heroically brought him there – and then, ironically, became the villain in this story – was producer David O. Selznick. Clearly, Hitchcock benefited from being presented to the U.S. film scene by the producer of Gone With the Wind, who now sought to repeat that film’s success by nabbing the rights to 1938’s hugely popular novel, Daphne du Maurier’s Gothic romance Rebecca and then hiring the greatest British director to helm it.
Rebecca turned out to be the bonus film for our first class. We actually got so caught up in the main film of the week that we never got to talk about Rebecca. I’m not particularly torn up about this because, in many ways, I see this as only tangentially a Hitchcock film. The struggles between the director and his overbearing producer have been well-chronicled. David Thomson, in his biography Showman: The Life of David O. Selznick, offers a detailed portrait of the producer’s desire to control every facet of the picture, bombarding Hitchcock daily with one memo after another with every expectation that his grateful would obey his orders.
The problem, as Elliot pointed out in class, was that both men saw themselves in the role of the film’s auteur and neither one wanted to budge. The result, for me, is a film that only comes to life when Hitchcock’s influence is apparent, particularly in the opening sequence and the scenes between Joan Fontaine’s timid Mrs. de Winter and Judith Anderson’s seriously loony depiction of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. The pivotal moment for me is when the two of them meet in Rebecca’s bedroom, which Mrs. Danvers has kept pristinely intact since her mistress’ death, and the servant’s obsession with her employer is given full sway. Everything about this scene, from Fontaine’s entry and exploration to their final confrontation, is pure Hitchcock – in the shots, the lighting, the mise en scene and the performances. Would there had been much, much more of this in the final cut of the film!
Rebecca was a big, hugely successful book, and Selznick wanted to give it the luxury treatment you found in all those MGM literary adaptations. He also had ideas! – such as a final shot of the smoke from the house fire coursing up into the sky to form the letter “R” – that did not jibe with Hitchcock’s taste or desires. In the course of making the film, both men won and lost their fair share of battles, and the resulting hybrid of Selznick and Hitchcock won Best Picture at the 1940 Academy Awards. That it would be the only Hitchcock film to do so in his lifetime, despite the pure Hitchcockian brilliance of at least a dozen future titles, speaks to the cruel ironies of a life spent in Hollywood.
Selznick and Hitchcock had a three-picture deal, but it would be five years and six loan-out pictures (by which Selznick reaped a huge profit) before they would directly battle again on a day-to-day basis. In the meantime, Hitchcock wanted America to get to know him, both in terms of seeing the kind of filmmaker he could be and in giving them a valentine that let audiences know he now embraced the U.S.A. as his home.
This ended up taking a little while. His next film, Foreign Correspondent, which came right on the heels of Rebecca (and actually ended up going up against that ultimate winner at the Oscars), is a delightful espionage film starring Joel McCrea and Laraine Day. Next came a misstep: Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which gave him the chance to work with Carole Lombard but otherwise added no luster to his career. Maybe he thought working in the distinctly American genre of screwball comedy would further warm American audiences to him; it didn’t work.
The next two films, Suspicion and Saboteur, probably have their fans – what Hitchcock film doesn’t? Suspicion is distinctly British, in plot and character, and it has earned the enmity of classic detection fans everywhere for the way the screenplay takes a highly promising source – Before the Fact (1932), Francis Iles’ suspenseful portrait of a woman about to be murdered by her husband – and takes it down a woefully inferior path. Hitchcock blamed the studios for this (you can’t kill Lynn Fontaine, and you can’t make Cary Grant her killer). Donald Spoto blamed Hitchcock. The rest of us enjoy certain Hitchcockian touches and then bemoan what might have been.
Saboteur is, for me, the most turgid and overlong of Hitchcock’s “innocent man on the run” thrillers. The fact that North by Northwest is nearly thirty minutes longer and feels more taut and fun says volumes. Saboteur has a good opening and a fabulous climax (atop the Statue of Liberty), but everything in-between is dragged down by the performances of Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane (Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, who both turned him down) and by an episodic cross-country trek of a screenplay that contains more than one episode too many. In many ways, the character arcs of Cummings and Lane match those of Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll in The 39 Steps, and one only wishes that the latter could have replaced the former.
One Academy Award-nominated film that had gone up against Rebecca in 1940 was an adaptation of Thornton Wilder’s hit stage play, Our Town. It ran for years on Broadway, and at some point, Hitchcock went to see a performance. He left inspired. Why not create a film that took, as its setting and theme, the fragile wonder of a small American town, just like Our Town’s Grover’s Corners? Indeed, why not reach out to Thornton Wilder himself to write just such a screenplay as an acknowledgment to U.S. audiences of Hitchcock’s devotion to his adopted home? The result was Shadow of a Doubt. It was born out of Hitchcock’s most emotionally satisfying partnership with a scriptwriter, and it’s telling that while Wilder identified Our Town as his favorite child, Hitchcock would often say the same thing about Shadow of a Doubt.
Despite being known for preferring to work in a studio where he could exercise tight technical control over every image and technical aspect of a production, Hitchcock was eager to film Shadow on location. Always a fan of the Bay Area, he decided to select locations in the North Bay’s Santa Rosa, then a prosaic town that you could have found almost anywhere in the U.S.A.. It turned out to be the perfect setting for an domestically epic battle between good and evil that was both purely Hitchcockian and spoke directly to the American people.
There are images and ideas that one can unpack over and over again in Hitchcock’s films, and they appear in plenitude in Shadow of a Doubt. The overarching theme that Hitchcock will return to again and again is that of love and family. A staunch Catholic, the director held traditionalist views on the importance of marriage and a cozy hearth. Over and over, he would introduce us to heroes (and the occasional heroine) who were emotionally adrift and who had to be radically shaken out of their resistance to social and romantic connections. This is Daisy Bunting in The Lodger and Richard Hannay in The 39 Steps; it’s Alice White of Blackmail, whose fight with her policeman boyfriend leads her to be assaulted, to commit murder, and to come to rely on that same boyfriend to save her life.
Another major idea of Hitchcock’s that appears here is the trope of doubles, where two people who share many qualities, physical, emotional, or spiritual, also stand as diametric moral opposites of each other. And that is what we find here in A Tale of Two Charlies, beautifully portrayed by Teresa Wright and Joseph Cotten.
Except for the fact that she is a teenaged girl, Charlie Newton (Wright embodies the typical Hitchcock hero. She is on the cusp of something important in her life – growing up, leaving her family, getting married – and until she finds it, she will be wracked with a deep sense of dissatisfaction. Lying on her bed in her parents’ shabby, comfortable Santa Rosa home, she complains to her father, “Have you ever stopped to think that a family should be the most wonderful thing in the world and that this family has gone to pieces? We just sort of go along and nothing happens. We’re in a terrible rut.”
Tellingly, nobody else agrees with her. Despite Charlie’s protestations that her mother is being denied a full and happy life, Emma Newton (Patricia Collinge) is perfectly happy to be a wife, mother, and civic-minded woman. Her husband, Joseph, (Henry Travers) is a good provider, proud of his position of responsibility (but not too much responsibility) at the bank, patient with his children, and more than happy to sneak off with his socially-awkward neighbor Herb (Hume Cronyn in his debut film performance) to hold forth on their shared love of true crime. (They clearly love classic detective fiction as well, and this Agatha Christie fan smiled broadly when Herb said, “Did you read this one? You can talk all you like about Sherlock Holmes. That little Frenchman beats them all!”)
Everyone tolerates Charlie’s grouchiness as a passing phase that she will grow out of when she figures things out, but Charlie herself will not dismiss it. She means to do something about it, and she proceeds to send a telegram to her favorite Uncle Charlie (Cotton), for whom she was named, and who she is sure will lift the family out of its rut. This is a dangerous wish to make in a Hitchcock film: it is always granted, always to the wish maker’s peril.
For Hitchcock has let us know things about Uncle Charlie that the Newtons do not know. The film’s opening in Newark, New Jersey shows Charlie on the run from the police, who suspect him of being the Merry Widow Killer, who has so far offed three middle-aged widows for their money. In these early scenes, Cotten creates a perfect portrait of a sociopath – ice cold with his landlady, ruthlessly playful with the cops tailing him, and then transformed on a dime to a benign charmer as he sends his own telegram to his sister in Santa Rosa, informing her of his impending visit.
Sometimes the link between Hitchcock’s doubles is physical, as in Strangers on a Train and North by Northwest. Here it seems almost psychic, as both Charlies realize simultaneously that they need each other. The highly compelling arc of this story is watching how their dependence on each other proves the undoing of Uncle Charlie and the painful but necessary maturation of his niece from (apologies to Blake) innocence to experience.
It begins in earnest with a ceremonial moment, the giving of rings. Uncle Charlie has brought presents for everyone, and what he gives Charlie is a precious emerald ring. Charlie doesn’t want any gift, and while she says her uncle’s presence is gift enough, there is a sense that Young Charlie (along with her baby sister Ann) possesses the instinct to distrust her uncle. Ann expresses that a couple of days after Uncle Charlie arrives by, out of nowhere, pleading to her parents to allow her to sit away from him at the dinner table. As for Young Charlie, from the start she peppers her uncle with questions and notices odd little things – like the engraving on the ring that later establishes it as belonging to one of Uncle Charlie’s victims. This all goes into an unconscious file that Charlie will access later when her fantasy world begins to fall apart.
The damage is initiated by two detectives who show up undercover as magazine journalists writing about the “typical American family.” One of them, played by MacDonald Carey, will fall in love with Charlie and provide her with the traditional marriage that signals (to Hitchcock at least) a happy ending. Much was made in our class discussion of plot issues connected with these two policemen, problems that echoed some sharp observations made by critic Roger Ebert in his review of the film:
“ . . . you question the absurdity of two detectives following a suspect from New York to California, apparently without being sure of how he looks, and hanging around idly outside his residence for weeks while chatting up the suspect’s niece; one of them eventually even proposes marriage.”
It is a clunky plot device, made more so if one stops to think how much Uncle Charlie gives away to the family all by himself through his growing inability to mask his psychopathy. When things go a little wrong, his genial mask slips awfully quickly, revealing a raging monster underneath. Young Charlie hopes her uncle will rescue her from the dull sameness of her hometown, and at first she is mildly frustrated when Uncle Charlie seems to be at odds with her about Santa Rosa. He calls it a refuge and talks of settling down there. His sister Emma greets that announcement with joy, while Young Charlie mutters, “How could you?”
But gradually, our heroine starts to grasp the true difference between her mindset and that of her uncle. For all his moralizing about the good ol’ days, Uncle Charlie lets his hatred for mankind seep out in all sorts of ways. His gifts are wildly inappropriate: wine for the dinner table, wads of unexplained loose cash put in the bank to appeal to Joseph’s boss, childish toys to keep the precocious Ann a baby, and a hot ring to bind Young Charlie’s loyalties to him. And always these mutterings of the rottenness of society spurt out of his mouth, most notably in a classic moment for both Hitchcock and Cotten at the dinner table, when Uncle Charlie lets his psychotic freak flag fly:
“The cities are full of women, middle-aged widows, husbands dead, husbands who’ve spent their lives making fortunes, working and working. And then they die and leave their money to their wives, their silly wives. And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best hotels, every day by the thousands. Drinking the money, eating the money, losing the money at bridge. Playing all day and all night. Smelling of money. Proud of their jewelry but of nothing else. Horrible, faded, fat, greedy women… Are they human or are they fat, wheezing animals, hmm? And what happens to animals when they get too fat and too old?”
Throughout, the camera holds close to Uncle Charlie’s head in profile, and when his niece cries out, “But they’re alive, they’re human beings,” Cotton turns his cold, dead eyes directly to the camera and says – to us, “Are they?”
The film is full of such visual touches that identify Hitchcock’s mastery of the medium. He repeatedly places the two Charlies in profile to each other and often manipulates lighting to indicate the evil of one and the goodness of the other. He dives into both their minds with POV shots as they behold each other. (Hitchcock often lets us physically inhabit the heads of his villains, giving our willing voyeurism as we watch his films unfold an even darker edge.) One of the director’s trademark ways to illustrate a power dynamic is through the use of stairs. Those at the top possess all the knowledge and, sometimes, the power – although many an innocent in a Hitchcock film has climbed up the stairs to meet a horrible fate.
There are two sets of stairs in the Newton house, and they both do triple duty in conveying the conflict between Young Charlie and her uncle. There is also a train. A lot happens on trains in Hitchcock: Iris Henderson searches for the missing Miss Froy in The Lady Vanishes. The heroes of The 39 Steps and North by Northwest meet the cool, beautiful blondes who hold the key to their fate in their hands on a train. Guy Haines and Bruno Antony meet and fall in love on a train (okay, that doesn’t happen, but . . . . just wait!) And in Shadow of a Doubt, the train brings evil to Santa Rosa with a rush of dark smoke and then resolves the problem at the climax. “In the end is my beginning . . . “
In the end, Shadow of a Doubt succeeding in establishing Hitchcock as a. successful American film director. The next time he worked with Selznick (which will form our discussion in two weeks), the film they produced was distinctly more Hitchcockian than it was, er, Selznick-ian. (And their final film together would, indeed, be their final film together. Selznick would fade into obscurity, while Hitchcock’s best years – and films – were to come.)
From 1943 to 1950, Hitchcock produced seven films I would like to say that Shadow of a Doubt was the harbinger of a Golden Age for the director, but that would not begin until 1951. And while the 40’s produced a few comparative duds – The Paradine Case, Under Capricorn, Stage Fright – there were a couple of real gems which we will cover. Meanwhile, we have a most interesting film for next week, and while our bonus film, to my (Mr.) Memory, is the more entertaining picture, one cannot argue that our main film did not display great ambition, even controversy, on Hitchcock’s part, even if at times the production team was treading water and many critics and fans found themselves feeling all at sea.
See you next week.
25 thoughts on “￼CLAP HANDS, HERE COMES CHARLIE: Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt”
Excellent analysis, Brad. I’ve always thought Hitchcock such an interesting director. And of his films, I like Shadow of a Doubt the most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, so you’re in agreement with the Master himself, Margot! Excellent!! 🤨
LikeLiked by 1 person
The lady Vanishes and Rebecca, for me were just brilliant. I can understand Hitchcock’s frustration with Selznick as in my experience most of the Americans I worked along side were intractable characters.
I enjoyed your excellent summary of Alfred Hitchcock and his work in the USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, James! And I’m sorry for any bad experiences you’ve had with Americans. I live here, and I’m not altogether satisfied with some of them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
SPOILER ALERT !
Though the film is superb, I was disappointed with the unrealistic ending. Is it believable that the two Charlies were alone in the car with no other passenger and no railway staff ?
Also,Uncle Charlie had just asked the porter to bring the luggage he had in the other car. Wouldn’t he be afraid of the porter returning ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the second half of the film prepares us for this. Uncle Charlie’s growing fear of his niece makes him fall apart, with one murder attempt after another failing. I would imagine that his final attempt is an act of psychopathic desperation.
Next week-Lifeboat ?
Gung vf gur pbeerpg nafjre.
It has been several years since I watched Shadow of a Doubt , and though I remember finding it somewhat slow-going – the portraits of the small town folk seemingly of more interest to Hitchcock than the suspense plot – I did still enjoy it, and your post will undoubtedly prompt me to revisit it and view it with more mature eyes. What Hitchcock does bringing Evil to the small town is excellent; a concept ahead of its time and which will pave the way for the kind of films that John Carpenter jumpstarted with the revolutionary Halloween (1978).
I also have a particular fondness for Rebecca , though I do agree that there’s not much of Hitchcock to be found in it. An excellent cast with some fine performances make it a real pleasure to watch though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No sequel compares to what the first Halloween accomplishes, from the opening tease where we see the angelic guise of a monster revealed to the, albeit dated, condemnation of teen sex, to the transformation of a quiet tomboy into a super-hero. I think Halloween owes more to Psycho than Shadow of a Doubt, but both films do share that monster invasion of bucolic places – and both do it really well.
I know what you mean by the slowness of Hitchcock’s film, but some of that is possibly intentional. Plus, Hitch is still gathering his forces for the Golden Age to come!!
to the, albeit dated, condemnation of teen sex
I’d have said that HALLOWEEN’s attitude towards teen sex and female sexuality was wildly out of place in the 70s. And it’s something that people noticed at the time. On the other hand it fits right in with the neo-puritanism of today.
When I was at U.C. Berkeley in the 70’s, everyone was having lots and lots and lots and LOTS of sex . . . except for me. At the time, I used to romantically see myself as Nick Carroway, kicking back and observing the escapades of all the other characters around me. Fortunately, I never saw myself as Michael Myers . . . . .
Yeah, the reality of life in the 70s didn’t always line up with the public perception. But attitudes towards sex were very tolerant and most importantly sex was a subject that could be discussed freely and openly. Today there are countless aspects of sexuality (especially teen sex) that nobody even dares to talk about. Attitudes towards sex today are moving more and more towards the attitudes of the 1950s when sex was just too shocking to be openly discussed. And there wasn’t the out-and-out misogyny in the 70s that is so common today.
I often wonder if HALLOWEEN represented the actual views of co-writers Carpenter and Debra Hill views or whether they were being ironic. I’m inclined to think they were being ironic.
I took a class on women in cinema a few years ago and read a fascinating analysis on “final girls” in slasher movies of the 70’s and 80’s. At first look, one supposes a fairly feminist outlook by showing these monsters being defeated by a young woman. But these women are, more often than not, boyish tomboys and always virgins. In short, they’re not feminine; some, like Laurie Strode, are pretty darn masculine. As nice as it would be to credit Carpenter and his ilk for irony, I wonder if they were actually unwilling to challenge outright the male-dominant sexual norms of the day.
As nice as it would be to credit Carpenter and his ilk for irony, I wonder if they were actually unwilling to challenge outright the male-dominant sexual norms of the day.
You can’t blame Carpenter for the fact that a lot of talentless hacks slavishly copied his formula.
The period from about the late 50s up to the late 90s was one in which attitudes towards both sex and women were in constant flux. Everything had been thrown open to debate. Everything was up for questioning. There weren’t any rigid social norms any more. Some people didn’t like that and there were social reactionaries trying to push back but the important thing is that everything could be debated openly. You could make a very pro-feminist movie or a very anti-feminist movie. Then, in both cases, people could have very enjoyable arguments about it.
Today we don’t get the open debate any more and we get private corporations (such as social media corporations) imposing censorship and shutting down debate. The atmosphere today in regards to sex and women is oppressive and stifling. We’re being pushed towards neo-puritanism but it’s not being done openly.
One of the reasons I love the books and movies of the past is that you never know what to expect. You’ll suddenly get an outrageous opinion tossed at you out of nowhere, which is always fun.
By the time Carpenter made HALLOWEEN there weren’t really any male-dominant sexual norms. I certainly can’t recall encountering any.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post Brad, just makes me want to go and get my Blu of SHADOW OF A DOUBT right now (but I won’t as it’s bedtime). Not sure what Lynn Fontane is doing in here ( 🙂 ) … and sadly it’s a myth that OUR TOWN was a big hit – it was massively influential but originally ran for a little over seven months, which is OK for s straight play but … Shame that. I saw a revival with Alan Alda and Robert Sean Leonard in London some 30 years ago and remember it well. I love Wilder’s work (especially his novels) and theirs was a great collaboration. I couldn’t agree more about the doubling and the doppelgangers – a fascinating theme in his work. Incidentally, have you read Leonard Leff’s book on Selznick and Hitchcock? Well worth a look if you haven’t. Can’t wait to read about the next one 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had not heard of Leff’s book – although now that I bought the latest Hitchcock book, this one keeps popping up on Amazon. Thomson’s biography of Selznick goes into his relationship with Hitchcock in excruciating detail, so I’m not sure I need to read any more about it.
I am not so keen on the Thomson to be honest. (And his book on Welles should be avoided). But hey, there’s far too many books on Hitch out there, I quite agree!
Nice job! Really enjoyed reading this even if I’m a little late! Kay
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Kay! I provide no expiration date and am grateful for any visit!
I guess I’m inclined to be more generous towards SUSPICION because I have such an intense dislike for those Francis Iles books. But then I have a weird aversion to inverted mysteries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You and me both! I like some mystery in my mystery. The whole “will-they-figure-out-he-dunnit” trope is poor company. (It was just sorta fun in Colombo with all the guest stars and all the cat-and-mouse.) As for Suspicion, I’m going to have a chance to re-evaluate next week. It has been a long time since I watched that one.
As for Suspicion, I’m going to have a chance to re-evaluate next week.
The secret to enjoying Suspicion is to forget the Iles novel completely and treat the movie as an entirely different story having nothing to do with the novel.
There may be mild spoilers in the next part of my comment, for those who are particularly spoiler-phobic.
Instead of being a story about a man planning to murder his wife the movie is about a woman who starts to suspect that her husband may be planning to murder her. It’s a subtle but vital difference. The emphasis in the movie is on the woman’s suspicions (hence the change of title), and what those suspicions do to her and to her marriage. What makes the movie story work is that, like Lina (the Joan Fontaine character), we don’t know if her suspicions are correct or not. I think that that is what Hitchcock decided to focus on once he realised that he would not be allowed to follow the story of the novel. For me it works.
Now there are major spoilers for the movie in the next part of my comment.
I must admit I haven’t seen the movie for some years (I need to revisit as well) but my feeling the last time I saw it was that there was still a touch of ambiguity in the ending. Everything is all sorted out, but then when you start thinking about it you find yourself starting to feel a trace of – suspicion!
Of course if I rewatch it I might change my views completely!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know that Cary Grant was Hitchcock’s dream man in that Grant embodied the elegance and dash (and adulation by women) that Hitchcock wished he could possess. I think he was excited by the possibility of giving the character a dark double nature that audiences would never dream of; Grant himself was more complicated than appearance suggested. Hitch succeeded in doing that to a lesser, less interesting (for me) degree. I find it fascinating that the studio refused to let Grant play a murderer but were fine about him being a suicidal loser. I loved the ending Hitchcock had planned of Johnny cheerfully mailing a letter for his wife as she succumbed to the poison, not k owing he was sealing his own fate! That should’ve pleased the censors.
OK, you’ve done it now. You’ve tempted me. Suspicion is one of the few Hitchcock movies I don’t own but now I’ve gone and added it to my shopping cart. I’m just going to have to watch it again.
LikeLiked by 1 person