Alfred Hitchcock retuned to Britain in 1950 to make Stage Fright. From the mid-1940s he had started to become quite experimental in his approach, both technically and in narrative terms, and most of his 1940s experiments were critical and commercial disappointments. Stage Fright was another experiment and it had a decidedly mixed reception.
The willingness to experiment was part of Hitchcock’s genius and he would certainly have been aware that it was extremely risky. A director who has several flops in quick succession can find himself reduced to making cheap B-movies for Poverty Row studios. But if you don’t take risks you don’t learn anything and while Hitchcock made mistakes he never made the same mistake twice. And without his willingness to take risks we would never have had towering masterpieces like Rear Window, Dial ‘M’ for Murder, Vertigo, Psycho and The Birds.
In Stage Fright he utilises a certain plot device that makes this his most controversial and divisive film. I can’t describe the plot device because it would constitute a huge spoiler and if you haven’t seen this movie before it’s best to approach it without knowing about it. Knowing about it can prejudice the viewer against the film. And there are those who consider the device to be a masterstroke rather than a flaw.
Hitchcock himself considered it to have been a very serious mistake. What he was trying to do was perfectly valid, but after the movie was completed Hitch realised that the device did not work as he had intended it to work.
The movie begins with a young man, Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd), on the run from the police. He is suspected of murder. The murder victim was the husband of major show business star Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich). Jonathan and Charlotte are lovers. There’s blood-stained dress that Jonathan will need to destroy.
Jonathan is involved with another young lady, aspiring actress Eve Gill (Jane Wyman). Even is hopelessly in love with Jonathan. She will do anything to help him prove his innocence. She considers Charlotte to be a very bad woman.
Jonathan is a man caught between two women, a sexy femme fatale and a good girl. Eve is a woman caught between two men. She’s in love with Jonathan but now she’s met Detective-Inspector Smith (Michael Wilding) and he’s such a nice kind man and so charming and rather good-looking and she thinks he’s a bit of a dreamboat.
Eve however still has to help Jonathan prove his innocence and she persuades her father Commodore Gill (Alastair Sim) to help. The Commodore thinks it’s all foolishness but it could be fun and he’ll do anything for his daughter.
A lot depends on that blood-stained dress. Maybe it could be used to break down Charlotte’s resistance and persuade her to confess.
This is a movie that feels very very English. It’s very similar in feel to Hitch’s great 1930s British movies. There’s also plenty of very English humour.
It benefits from a great cast. Michael Wilding is very solid and Richard Todd manages to be rather jumpy, as you would expect from a man with the police after him. Sybil Thorndyke is fun as Eve’s dotty mother. I have never liked Jane Wyman but I must admit that she’s excellent here. She somehow manages to be both mousy and feisty.
But the standout performers are of course Alastair Sim and Marlene Dietrich. Sim is in fine form playing the eccentric irascible loveable rogue Commodore Gill.
Dietrich gives one of her best performances. She’s delightfully seductive and wicked and scheming and manipulative but oddly enough she’s rather kind to Eve when Eve goes undercover as her dresser. Charlotte is incredibly self-centred but not gratuitously cruel. Marlene singing I’m the Laziest Girl in Town is definitely a highlight.
The final scenes are very well shot and very Hitchcockian, and very tense with the highlighting of the eyes.
How well the plot works depends entirely on how you feel about that notorious plot device, and whether or not you think it makes the ending difficult to accept. Either way Stage Fright is rather enjoyable and it’s recommended.
Dee, I like it when you have a Friday Hitchcock write-up, because it's fun.
ReplyDeleteI first recall viewing this Alfred Hitchcock comedy/mystery on Memphis, Tennessee's Channel 3 LATE MOVIE in 1971. By that time, I'd viewed several Hitchcock movies and TV shows, and I had become a lifelong fan.
STAGE FRIGHT(filmed 1949, released 1950) is, as you write, "very very English." That's fine with me, because I really like his 1930's English movies. The YOUNG AND INNOCENT(1937) is a delight.
I really can't say a lot about this movie without giving away too much plot wise, but I like the movie and the "notorious plot device" doesn't bother me in the least, because I view it as Hitchcock being Hitchcock, regardless of whether he later said it was a "serious mistake."
The "notorious plot device" may have been too unsettling for audiences and critics at the time. And for me, when I first saw the movie at a fairly young age. But for me now, having watched plenty of movies by guys like David Lynch and Kubrick and having watched lots of 1960s/70s European movies, it's no longer so shocking.
DeleteDee, good point and it brings to mind Hitchcock's whimsical dark comedy THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY(filmed 1954, released 1955), which apparently did better at the movie box office in its re-release during 1963-66. I think it was because audiences got the dark humor more after viewing 8 years of the ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS and ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR on TV.
DeleteA lot of Hitch's movies were ahead of their times. Vertigo bewildered people in 1958 but viewers today who've seen Last Year at Marienbad, Belle de Jour, Mulholland Dr, Don't Look Now, Body Double and Eyes Wide Shut are accustomed to narratives that are not straightforward.
DeleteMarnie was too much fo audiences in 1964.
The surprising thing is that some of Hitch's other movies that were ahead of their times, such as The Birds, did well at the box office.
Dee, audiences did go see MARNIE(filmed 1963-64, released 1964) and it did well at the box office, although it wasn't in the top 10(22nd), which was a drop off from Hitchcock's 3 previous top 10 hits.
DeleteWhen the movie had its TV premiere on the NBC SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE MOVIES in November 1967 its ratings were very high, the highest rated movie of the year until his THE BIRDS(filmed 1962, released 1963) premiered 2 months later in January 1968, and its Nielsen ratings went into the stratosphere. Also, the rerun of MARNIE in June 1968 did well in the ratings. So, millions more viewed MARNIE on TV than in theaters. This is just conjecture on my part, but if MARNIE had been released in theaters in 1967 it might not have been too much for audiences.
When I first viewed MARNIE, I was a youngster and a lot of the psychological sexual mystery of it went over my head, but it stuck in my head because of the visuals and acting performances. Also, Bernard Herrmann's musical score, which too me was part of telling the story.
I've always felt Marnie should have been made a few years later. And yes, 1967 would have been the ideal time. In 1967 it would have been right in tune with the zeitgeist. But it did need Sean Connery.
DeleteOn the subject of Sean Connery I have heard that Hitch had him in mind for Topaz although I'm not sure for which role. Connery as a French spy would have been a bit too wild.
I have a suspicion that the Hollywood studios turned against Hitch for other reasons besides what they saw as Marnie's disappointing box office. That maybe they saw him as part of the Old Guard.
I agree about Sim. For that reason I was surprised to see in the Truffaut/Hitchcock book Truffaut take a swipe at Sim: "I objected to the actor as well as to the character". Hitchcock seemed to agree. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the movie, and Sim's performance, were just too English for Truffaut?
DeleteYou're probably correct, but then Hitchcock concurred!: "Here again is the trouble with shooting a film in England. They all tell you, “He’s one of our best actors; you’ve got to have him in your picture.” It’s that old local and national feeling, that insular mentality again".
ReplyDelete