The Ten Most Iconic Female Movie Characters Blogathon

My dear Miss Mutant of Cinema Parrot Disco passed the torch to me of the blogathon that was started by Dell On Movies, namely the Ten Most Iconic Female Movie Characters.

I must say that I think this is an awesome idea for a blogathon, and there are some great choices on here that I would most certainly have picked. Their inclusion, however, meant that I would have to sit and think a few moments longer on this before I could just magically produce a name. Following this blogathon I have loved seeing some characters getting the boot and then being brought back in later by someone else again. It really is a tough little list!

Here are Dell’s rules:

A list of 10 iconic female movie characters has been made. That list will be assigned to another blogger who can then change it by removing one character (describing why they think she should not be on the list) and replacing it with another one (also with motivation) and hand over the baton to another blogger. Once assigned, that blogger will have to put his/her post up within a week. If this is not the case the blogger who assigned it has to reassign it to another blogger.

The list as it stands now is as follows:

Alright, firstly I was horrified to see Lisbeth Salander taken off the list. I know a lot of people are not really big on her and all that, but I think Lisbeth is a fantastic character who stands her ground, doesn’t take crap, and is one strong woman. I know she is also an extremely damaged character, but she makes it work either way. Miss Mutant’s addition of The Bride was great, though, no denying that. Shocked as I was, I am not going to put Lisbeth back on the list, there are other ladies that need recognition, too, so here we go.

Who’s out?

I see that Nurse Ratched has caused quite the war here, being booted off and put back on over and over again. I am going to have to take her off again because as messed up as she was and all that in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, she just isn’t that iconic to me. If you have seen the movie (and I have), then yeah, sure she is iconic. If you haven’t, the chances of you knowing who she is is rather scarce. But aside from that, there is also not an awful lot that is known about her, which defeats the point of this for me a little. We know she doesn’t take crap from anyone, and I thought she was pretty darn cruel, but there isn’t really much else that I can tell you about her. In my eyes there are far worthier women that need to be included on this list (such as my pick, yes, yes :P)

Who’s in?

Shosanna Dreyfus is a strong one for me. Her character survived hell, and she somehow found a way to make her life work. However, the Jew Hunter was hot on her heels, her escape something that has lingered with him. When Shosanna comes into contact with Hans Landa again, she embarks on a revenge mission that just might not be something she will come back from, and she is totally alright with that. I like the way that she was smart, the way her anger smouldered beneath the surface, ever present, but the way she had still built a life, either way. Her deep desire to avenge her slaughtered family is also something that never goes away, and just the way she finally hatches her plan when given a fantastic opportunity is great. Shosanna handled the hand she was dealt in life pretty well, all things considered. Her love for Marcel also endeared her to me – she could hide her Jewish roots from the Nazis, but she could not hide the fact that she was in an intercultural relationship, and she didn’t mind that one bit, didn’t give a damn what anyone had to say about it. She was just always going to be different from the norms. Mélanie Laurent was just brilliant for the role, too, adding more depth to the character and making her real.

So now that all is said and done, I would like to nominate Natasha of Life of this City Girl to continue with this, I am sure the feminist in you is going to have grand fun my Chemistry Kidney!

---

Also, thank you so much for helping me out with my graphic Anna! Much appreciated!

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon Conclusion

Well, ladies and gentlemen, Rob and I would like to thank everybody that got involved with this blogathon, those who watched films, contributed reviews, to those who read the vast amount of reviews that came forth in this project, and to all those who took the time to share their two cents with us. Thank you all very much for making this blogathon a success!

Rob, this was  a huge project to undertake, but it really came together well, so congratulations! 🙂

Here are all the films that were reviewed for the blogathon, as well as links back to the respective reviews. Again, a massive thank you to everyone, you guys rock!

The Pleasure Garden (1925) – Film Grimoire

Downhill (1927) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

The Lodger (1927) – FilmNerdBlog

The Ring (1927) – Movie Rob

Champagne (1928) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Easy Virtue (1928) – Movie Rob

The Farmer’s Wife (1928) – Movie Rob

Blackmail (1929) – The Dirk Malcolm Alternative

The Manxman (1929) – Movie Rob

Juno and the Paycock (1930) – Movie Rob

Murder! (1930) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Rich and Strange-East of Shanghai (1931) – Movie Rob

The Skin Game (1931) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Number Seventeen (1932) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Waltzes from Vienna (1933) – Movie Rob

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) – Raging Fluff

The 39 Steps (1935) – Raging Fluff

Sabotage (1936) – Justine’s Movie Blog

Secret Agent (1936) – Movie Rob

Young and Innocent (1937) – Movie Rob

The Lady Vanishes (1938) – My Kind Of Movie

Jamaica Inn (1939) – Movie Rob

Foreign Correspondent (1940) – Movie Rob

Rebecca (1940) – Raging Fluff

Mr and Mrs Smith (1941) – Movie Rob

Suspicion (1941) – Life of this City Girl

Saboteur (1942) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) – Popcorn Nights

Bon Voyage and Madagascar Landing (1944) – Movie Rob

Lifeboat (1944) – Vic’s Movie Den

Spellbound (1945) – Beanmimo

Notorious (1946) – No Nonsense With Nuwan Sen

The Paradine Case (1947) – No Nonsense With Nuwan Sen

Rope (1948) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Under Capricorn (1949) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Stage Fright (1950) – Movie Rob

Strangers on a Train (1951) – Cindy Bruchman

I Confess (1953) – Life of this City Girl

Dial M For Murder (1954) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

Rear Window (1954) – My Mind Reels Through Film

The Trouble With Harry (1955) – The Sporadic Chronicles of a Beginner Blogger

To Catch A Thief (1955) – RobbinsRealm

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) – Digital Shortbread

The Wrong Man (1956) – Snap Crackle Watch!

Vertigo (1958) – Silver Screen Serenade

North By Northwest (1959) – Screenkicker!

Psycho (1960) – Alex Raphael

The Birds (1963) – Sidekick Reviews

Marnie (1964) – Cinema Parrot Disco

Torn Curtain (1966) – FlixChatter

Topaz (1969) – Movie Rob

Frenzy (1972) – The IPC

Family Plot (1976) – Tranquil Dreams

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: Topaz (1969) – Movie Rob

Today I welcome Rob, my collaborator in this Alfred Hitchcock blogathon, and his final review of the films he was entrusted to watch is Topaz. Read on to find out what Rob thought of his last film!

For my final review of a movie for our Alfred Hitchcock blogathon, I watched Topaz.

This thriller is based om a novel by Leon Uris who wrote some great books partially based on true events including Exodus, Mila 18, QB VII, Battle Cry, Trinity and The Haj.

I never read this novel, but the premise intrigued me quite a bit.

The story revolves around a French spy who tries to uncover what is going on in Cuba right before the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

As a spy thriller the plot moves along pretty slowly but if you wait it out, you will discover some very interesting twists and turns.

I liked the dual nature of the espionage portrayed and the fact that there were two stories taking place at once.

Hitchcock who was known for not always getting along so well with his writers clashed with Uris causing him to leave mid production leaving some scenes to be written right before being shot.

Hitchcock was criticized for not casting known stars on this film but I actually think that it works better this way.

I think this kind of spy thriller worked better in the 60’s, but is still enjoyable to watch now.

I think, that I’d actually be interested in now reading the novel this was based on.

Rating – Globe Worthy

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: Torn Curtain (1966) – Flixchatter

Ruth from Flixchatter is joining us today for our Alfred Hitchcock blogathon, having picked a movie she had never seen before. Ruth runs a fantastic blog filled with awesome content, interesting questions, movie reviews, and an array of other material. I am sure you all follow Ruth as is, but those who do not, hop on over there and get involved! Ruth, thank you very much for taking the time to venture into unknown territory for us!

This review is part of this Hitchcock Blogathon hosted by Rob & Zoë.

An American scientist who pretends to defect to East Germany as part of a clandestine mission to obtain the solution of a formula resin and escape back to the United States.

I’ve been planning on catching up on a bunch of Alfred Hitchcock films. Now this one is perhaps one of his lesser-known films, or perhaps it’s not as popular as frankly, it’s just not a good film. The premise is actually intriguing, as I’m a big fan of spy thrillers, plus it has two famous classic actors: Paul Newman + Julie Andrews.

Well, as it turns out, the film started out slow and it never really picked up. My first issue is the casting of Julie Andrews. For some reason she just isn’t convincing in this role and there’s no chemistry between her and Newman, despite the film opening of the two making out in bed. Andrews looks so much like Maria Von Trapp in The Sound of Music that it’s somewhat distracting to me, I kept expecting her to burst into song or something. Newman fares a bit better but he’s not entirely convincing as a scientist either.

But the bigger issue is the lack of suspense, which in a Hitchcock film is a major no-no. There’s one fight scene that appeared in a lot of the film’s promotion, that is between Newman’s character and an East Germany officer assigned to track him down. The scene happens at a farm and there’s even a knife scene reminiscent to Hitchcock’s most famous film Psycho (1960) but again, totally devoid of suspense to me. In fact, the whole fight scene seems to have been choreographed in such an awkward manner that it made me laugh.

To top it off, the two main characters aren’t that well-developed that it’s hard to feel anything for any of them. I was a bit intrigued by Tamara Toumanova’s casting as the ballerina. I knew that actress from seeing clips of her in Days of Glory (1944) which was Gregory Peck’s debut film. She looks pretty creepy in this one and that theater scene is perhaps one of the film’s most interesting but also weird scenes. Other than that, none of the cast really make an impression to me.

Interesting that this is Hitchcock’s 50th film, and audiences were highly anticipating this, especially since the spy genre was quite popular thanks to the release of James Bond’s Dr. No in 1962. I think the Cold War theme and story has a lot of potential but the execution is just meh. I wouldn’t call it horrible per se, but a huge disappointment considering the reputation of its filmmaker. Well reportedly the director himself didn’t enjoy making this, and clearly it showed. According to IMDb trivia, Alfred Hitchcock was so unhappy with this film that he decided to not to make a trailer with his appearance in it.

I suppose even one of the industry’s greatest auteur can’t hit it out of the park every time. I’m still looking forward to his other, hopefully better films I’ve missed out on.

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: North By Northwest (1959) – Screenkicker Movies

Michael of Screenkicker! joins us today in this huge Alfred Hitchcock Blogatathon. Michael managed to pull one of Hitch’s last few, probably a stronger pick seeing how the older films went. Irrespective of, Michael runs a pretty cool blog that you should get to checking, chock full of crazy Irish ramblings and reviews.

My favourite thing about Alfred Hitchcock is that he could make any genre of film you could think of and make it great. Suspense, horror, romance, silent film, comedy and in the movie i’m writing about – action. North By Northwest is Hitchcock directing a big ballsy action flick and it stands up against any of his other masterpieces.

North By Northwest is about a man who is mistakenly identified by proper bad dudes who then chase him to claim a microfilm they think he has. It might sound simple but lookout for twists and turns in classic Hitchcock style. The man is named Roger O. Thornhill and he’s played by Cary Grant. It’s telling how charming Grant is that he manages to make an advertising executive likeable. Cary Grant is the epitome of style as he portrays a man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“I’m not falling for that old ‘look behind you’ prank.”

You can tell North By Northwest is a Hitchcock film due to a number of stylistic choices that are familiar to fans of his films. We have Eva Saint-Marie as a super hot platinum blonde mystery woman, we have a suave hero, and we have the obligatory Alfred Hitchcock cameo near the start. But this is primarily an action movie. Even if you’ve never seen it you probably know a lot of scenes from it due to all the homages and parodies over the years. The exhilarating chase scene with Thornhill being attacked by a crop duster is an iconic showdown that never loses its thrill.

North By Northwest is an example of a director given free reign to make the film he wants. Budget isn’t a concern as he throws huge set-pieces into the mix climaxing with a thrilling showdown on Mount Rushmore. The film was once described as ‘the first James Bond film’ a claim which is obvious from the cool leading man to the exotic locations and chilling bad guy played by the legendary James Mason.

Don’t know why Roosevelt looks so miserable, I’d love to have Eva sit on my face.

If you haven’t seen North By Northwest then you need to remedy that quick-smart as this is Hitchcock at his most playful and populist. Watch as he lays down the template for Bond, Bourne, Reacher and any other action hero that has to look out for himself.

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: The Wrong Man (1956) – Snap Crackle Watch!

Joining us for the continuation of our Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon today is the massively talented and highly entertaining Melissa of Snap Crackle Watch! You should head over to her site if you don’t already follow her. She has freaking fantastic gifs in her articles (if ever you need a laugh), great movie reviews, and in depth series episode reviews, all well worth the read. I will stop rambling now and move over for Melissa’s review!

The Wrong Man
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Written by Maxwell Anderson & Angus MacPhail

To study and investigate Alfred Hitchcock’s movies, one has to imagine throwing a bunch of puzzle pieces on the table and pulling different pieces to create and shape a movie that is unmistakably a Hitchcock film. The usual elements are a story with some form of suspense weaved throughout the film, characters that are shown to be deeply and psychologically profound, a voyeuristic feel, a “MacGuffin” of some sort, the plot of murder or deceit, and actresses that were icy blonde and beautiful. Some of his most notable films that feature these elements are North by Northwest, Psycho, Vertigo and The Birds. In his most famous films, all of the puzzle pieces come together to create a beautiful piece of cinema. In Hitchcock’s 1956 film, The Wrong Man, he took some of his elements, but pared them down and gave the audience a much more subdued version of his usual type of film.

In the mid-fifties, he was in the thick of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and this movie feels like just a longer version of one of those episodes. At the time he owed Warner Bros studios one more film and this is the one he chose to make. It is notable to understand that after this film, he created one of his best films ever, Vertigo for Paramount Pictures, so perhaps he was saving something much better for his move to a new studio.

In the beginning of the movie, Hitchcock tells the audience what they are about to see is a factual story; he says “every word is true.” This beginning monologue is the only time we see him in the movie; he usually made an infamous appearance in his films, always in the background of some sort, as a train passenger, a person waiting for a bus or someone walking around a store. The fact that he chose not to make this move, only serves to reiterate the fact this film felt like a story out of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

The story is about Manny Balestrero (Henry Fonda), a musician who plays jazz in New York’s Stork Club and who works diligently to make ends meet. His wife Rose (Vera Miles) at the same time is sick at home and needs to have her wisdom teeth pulled, but they do not have enough money to pay for the procedure. He has already taken money out of life insurance policy to pay bills and they must now resort to taking money out of wife’s policy. When he goes to the bank to do the transaction, the tellers get really nervous and freak out and alert the police. They believe and are certain that he is the man who had recently held up their bank.

When the police apprehend him, they also are under the suspicion that he not only held up banks, but had help up a deli as well.  They put him through a string of reenactments; they make him walk in and out of the deli in question and subject him to handwriting analyses. Without a doubt everyone believes it was him who did it. During this tumultuous time, his wife has a mental breakdown as she believes she is the cause for all this that is happening to him.

To be succinct, Manny hires an attorney who helps him investigate and prove his innocence. When the robberies had occurred, he was actually out of town and he and his wife search for witnesses, but keep coming up short. It feels like the world is against them and with every wrong turn, Rose collapses deeper into despair. He is forced to put her in a mental hospital, so that she can get better. Eventually the real perpetrator is apprehended and it is obvious to everyone that he looks just like him and Manny is cleared of his charges.

Despite being cleared, the person left the most hurt and psychologically damaged is Rose. She is really the poignant part of the story and her collapse truly lends to the Hitchcock element of the film.

The shots of her in her deepest moments of despair, she appears almost catatonic, are close-ups in a room, with a single shot of light coming through the window and a mirror appropriately placed near her. This reminded me of the scene in Vertigo where Judy (Kim Novak) realizes that Scottie (James Stewart) is just trying to dress her up and make her look like his long lost love. The whole scene is just as creepy as that one and they both encapsulate the feeling of catatonia that is very much distinctly Hitchcock.

The movie ends on a somber note, Rose is still in the sanitarium, but then quickly as the film is about to end, we see the family walking off happily and we are presented with the fact that Rose later got out of the hospital and they lived happily ever after. I thought the presentation of that was pointless and it felt strange, after everything that happened to just throw a “happily ever after sticker” on it, seemed rushed and emotionless.

The film utilizes many POV shots to get the point across and to help the audience feel the anxiety and nervousness that many of the characters are constantly feeling. For example, when the teller looks at Manny and thinks he is the robber, the camera goes back and forth from her face to Manny’s perplexed feeling as to why he is being looked out so oddly.

The music also plays a big role in the film, many times it feels ominous and scary like when Manny is in jail and is confused as to why he is being singled out. Also, Manny’s jazz music is dispersed into the film and this adds to the heightened, frenzied emotions in the film.

Fonda and Miles did a great job with their roles and really seemed to have searched deep to portray such psychologically tormented people. I am surprised that Fonda never appeared in any more of his movies, considering what a tremendous job he did. Miles was slated to become a big start after this; she did go on to star in Psycho years later, but her run as the next Grace Kelly was over before it started. I could go on and on about this and give you guys even more info, but then this will get extremely long.

Overall, this was not one of my favorite Hitchcock films. I felt that the story was rushed and almost a copied version of the many thriller movies that evaded that time. Regardless, it is a Hitchcock film and if you haven’t seen this one already, it is worth giving it a watch and putting it under your belt. Personally, if you are new to Hitchcock I would not start off with this film. I would start off with Strangers on A Train (my fave), Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt or Rope as your introductory films into the Hitchcock repertoire. Happy Hitchcockian watching!

One of his best films to date.

}}Melissa

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: Dial M For Murder (1954)

SYNOPSIS: An ex-tennis pro carries out a plot to murder his wife. When things go wrong, he improvises a brilliant plan B. – via IMDB

Hello all! Thank you for returning, time and time again, for some more Hitchcock films and the reviews. Today I have another one that I have always heard about and have been meaning to check out: Dial M For Murder. This blogathon showed that it was time, so I finally got to cross another movie off of my list.

Dial M For Murder holds your attention for the duration of it. It starts off rather suddenly, but precisely where it needs to. Bear in mind, this was adapted from a play, so it means that the set is not huge, and it is something that Hitchcock pulls off exceptionally well. I was happy to see cutie Robert Cummings featuring again, and I must say that he impressed me again. Grace Kelly was such a stunner, and I thought that her and Cummings made a beautiful couple.

So when the movie kicks off, we learn that Margot Wendice (Grace Kelly) was cheating on her ex-tennis star husband Tony (Ray Milland) with mystery writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings), though the two had called it off a year ago. However, with his return, it seems that the feelings are not dead, and the two are in love, though she is unwilling to leave her husband. Tony seems much in love with his wife, who appreciates that he finally made her front and centre of his life, and Tony and Mark seem to get along relatively well too, all things considered.

Tony befriends Mark, and before one can get too indignant about a cheater befriending the husband of the woman he loves, Tony sends Mark and Margot off to the theatre, and then meets with a crook named Captain Lesgate (Anthony Dawson), a man he convinces to murder his wife for a thousand pounds so that he, Tony, can receive her sizable estate when all is said and done. He also thinks he has the perfect murder thought out, and ensures that he is at a stag party with Mark when it all goes down, giving him the perfect alibi. Naturally, things go wrong, and Margot survives, and Tony needs to change things around quickly, changing the nature of the evening, and Margot is painted a murderer and sentenced to death, though Mark refuses to accept that.

It was very interesting for me to see how Tony went about his planning, and how perfect it all was in his mind, but it honestly did not really account for anything changing. There were reasonable explanations for all the whys, but there was not contingency plan so much for any other wrinkle, and goodness, were there wrinkles when this plan got underway. Never mind the fact that Margot was unfaithful, it seemed evident that Tony had never put her first in his life until it was apparent to him that he very well may lose his meal ticket, and then he went for drastic measures.

The acting was pretty good for this, and everyone did their bit to convey their part. I liked Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams), he was sharp and certainly thought outside the box, even though he was doing everything by the book. I definitely thought this to be one of the  better Hitchcock films I have watched throughout the course of this blogathon, I certainly got a handful of less than stellar outings. Alfred Hitchcock certainly improved over time, and this was another film to showcase that.

The plot was pretty good, nothing revolutionary per se, but gripping enough to hold your attention, and the movie did not feel very long, though it comes in at 105 minutes. The plot is simple yet commanding, interesting without being too complex, and even though everything goes down in one room, that never becomes a drag or an issue, or something I really paid attention to at all. The cast carried this film incredibly well, and should be commended for that.

I could recommend Dial M For Murder as a pretty good mystery thriller, it came together well, was well constructed, and interesting at the very least, if not only to see how Tony’s perfect plan A suffered, and how he desperately needs plan B to work without a hitch.

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: I Confess (1953) – Life of this City Girl

Well howdy do, folks? I have great pleasure in welcoming Natasha back today for another review in this ongoing Alfred Hitchcock blogathon. She previously did Suspicion, and it was her first foray into Hitchcock. Let’s see if she liked I Confess as much as Suspicion!

I Confess (1953) – My second venture into the world of Hitchcock

Well, Hello! I am back with my second and last instalment the Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon. Thanks for letting me take part in this Bestie and Rob. I love trying new (or very old in this case) things. It is part of my whole 2014 plan to be open to things I wouldn’t have explored initially, and very old movies fit perfectly.

I have to say I didn’t have the reservations about watching I Confess that I had watching Suspicion. I now have a bit of understanding how such an old movie would look, and since I really enjoyed Suspicion, I was very keen to find time to watch this.

What happens?

Father Michael Logan receives the confession of Otto Keller (O. E. Hasse) where Otto admits to killing the shady lawyer Vilette. What Otto doesn’t know is that Father Logan is also relieved the man who had been blackmailing him and Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter).

Father Logan quickly becomes a suspect when he refuses to give Otto’s secret away, as a Father can’t disclose what he heard in confession. Subjected to interrogation, Ruth tells the sad story of how she and Logan had always loved each other, but after Logan left for the war she married another sweet man to stop her misery, and when Logan returned she was already a married woman. Vilette saw them hiding from a storm, and even though nothing happened, he threatened to tell the Ruth’s husband Pierre (Roger Dann) what he had seen. With a newfound motive, Father Logan looks extra guilty while Otto is helping the police convict Logan of the crime he himself committed.

Can Father Logan be freed? Will Otto ever fess up to his crime?

Fun Fact: I Confess was banned in Ireland for portraying a priest in a relationship with a woman.

My coveted opinion 😀

I Confess was really quite good, although I Confess (see what I did there?) to have enjoyed Suspicion more. I really do enjoy the black and white since it makes everything that much clearer and very dramatic. I enjoy the quick way the characters talk, it is so direct and it is clear that they want to get to the point without too much fuss. The movie wasn’t long, about an hour and a half, so it was easy enough to get through and not get bored.

The actors are so graceful. From man to woman they are all so classy and beautiful. Cinema has certainly lost some of its graces over the year, and I certainly think that these old movies show that so perfectly.

The Villain was so disgusting in the end – he was a complete coward and would let an innocent man take the hit. I really enjoyed Montgomery Clift as Father Logan – he was a good actor and really dashing.

I liked that Father Michael Logan wasn’t the bad guy. I guess back then priests weren’t as bullied as they are now (I do understand that this could lead to some bitching in the comments J) and that Logan was really quite innocent in it all, because he didn’t actually do something with Ruth after his priesthood initiated, and was caught in a completely innocent situation that was mutilated and thrown back in his face.

I really did enjoy this one, but if I have to choose which one I would re-watch between the two Hitchcock’s on my resume now, I will definitely choose Suspicion.

Thanks guys! This was loads of fun!

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: Rope (1948)

SYNOPSIS: Brandon and Philip are two young men who share a New York apartment. They consider themselves intellectually superior to their friend David Kentley and as a consequence decide to murder him. Together they strangle David with a rope and placing the body in an old chest, they proceed to hold a small party. The guests include David’s father, his fiancée Janet and their old schoolteacher Rupert from whom they mistakenly took their ideas. As Brandon becomes increasingly more daring, Rupert begins to suspect. – via IMDB

The premise is pretty interesting, and I think the movie does incredibly well seeing as it essentially takes place in three rooms, of which the main room is the study, where Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) murdered David Kentley (Dick Hogan). Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), their mentor, is definitely more suspicious of the strange dinner party as well as the inside jokes and insinuations made by Brandon to Phillip, as well as Brandon’s excitement over a seemingly dull party.

The views expressed by Brandon (more vocally than Phillip) seem to be ideas that were discussed in depth and detail with Rupert. Their perfect crime, having disposed of an inferior being, shows Brandon play many games, including bringing David’s girlfriend, Janet (Joan Chandler) to dinner to spend time with her ex, Kenneth (Douglas Dick), to attempt to bring them back together again. It would seem it would be for reconciliation, but soon it becomes evident that everything is just an elaborate game for Brandon. Phillip is having a meltdown about what they have done, displaying a conscious, whereas Brandon really is the psychopath.

The movie kept me engaged for the duration of it, no matter the fact that it was in an extremely closed environment. The grisly concept of a dinner served from a coffin was heavy, as well as the views which Brandon expressed, and the fear that seized Philip, and Rupert sniffing around, growing more and more suspicious of David’s absence from the dinner party, a point that is highlighted over and over again throughout the duration of the evening. The movie was shot well, and I enjoyed the colour used for the lighting outside, as well as the pulsing green and red of the neon signs when night officially falls. The conversations that were shared were also interesting, and I enjoyed the humour that arose from time to time, too.

An interesting film to check out no doubt, and very well done for its time. However, if you are not into very talkative movies or anything like that, I would recommend that you skip over this one (yes PSC, that was thinking of you)!

Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon: The Paradine Case (1947) – No Nonsense With Nuwan Sen

Newan Sen returns with his double bill for the day to chat with us about The Paradine Case. Read on to see what he had to say about it!

The Paradine Case (1947); starring Gregory Peck, Alida Valli, Louis Jourdan, Ann Todd, Charles Coburn, Charles Laughton and Ethel Barrymore; is about a psychological extra marital fling, without any physical contact, between a married lawyer, Anthony Keane (Peck) and his client, a convicted murderer, the widow Paradine (Valli). Keane cheats on his wife, Gay Keane (Todd), on a psychological level.

Character-Analysis

In The Paradine Case, we see a bewitchingly beautiful woman, Madame Paradine (Alida Valli), accused of being a man eater, more for her beauty, than actual proof (though she has lead a colourful past, before she was married), who is being prosecuted for killing her blind husband, by poisoning him. The widow Paradine, is an ambiguous character, for we find it difficult to evaluate her, until the end of the film, whether she is a femme fatale or a heroine. For we see her being honest, about her past, and she states she has nothing to do with her husband’s death, at the same time she doesn’t like any innocent party being accused of the crime; yet everything points accursedly towards her being the criminal, and everything suggests she’s a man eater even now. Meanwhile, we see Anthony Keane (Gregory Peck), the widow Paradine’s defence lawyer, being infatuated by her, and believing he’s in love with her, despite being happily married for eleven years to a beautiful classy lady, Gay Keane (Ann Todd). Thus we see Tony Keane suffering with a guilty conscience and the famed ‘Seven-year-itch’ syndrome, after eleven years of marriage. Gay Keane is an understanding wife, though jealous of Mrs. Paradine, she wants her husband to win the case, for she’s afraid if Mrs. Paradine gets the death sentence, she’d lose her husband for good, as he’d brood over Madame Paradine’s death, and his failure, for the rest of his life. Yet Gay Keane, doesn’t let her husband even kiss her, while that Paradine woman is in his mind. This movie, with a massive cast, has a load of interesting character sketches. But I shan’t continue to that extent. The court case is one of the most intriguing court cases ever seen on screen. The Paradine Case, is a must watch for any film buff, especially a Hitchcock buff.