MovieChat Forums > The Trouble with Harry (1955) Discussion > Hitchcock's Personal Favorite?

Hitchcock's Personal Favorite?

posted 18 years ago by ecarle
59 replies | jump to latest

In a 1974 interview with Andy Warhol for "People" magazine, Hitchcock said that these were the movies of his that he liked the most and wanted to last:

The 39 Steps
Shadow of a Doubt
The Trouble With Harry
North by Northwest

An interestingly upbeat group of movies for Hitchcock to choose from his collection. One could only suppose that at that late age, Hitchcock didn't want to be remembered for the shocks of "Psycho" or the tragedy of "Vertigo."

Of that group, Hitchcock in other interviews named "The Trouble With Harry" his personal favorite, and invariably seemed to frame that statement as meaning: the movie of his that reflected HIM the most in its humor and mood.

"The Trouble With Harry" said Hitchcock, reflected the kind of deadpan British humor that he loved, epitomized when Mildred Natwick looks at Edmund Gwenn dragging Harry's dead body across the meadow and asks nicely: "What seems to be the trouble, Captain?"

Not a terribly funny line given that the years since have seen Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Animal House, "Caddyshack", "Airplane" and the Farrelly brothers doling out the big laughs, but certainly a line reflecting 1955 Alfred Hitchcock and his mordant sense of humor.

Evidently, US audiences didn't find "The Trouble With Harry" particulary funny back in 1955, either. Hitchcock said it was the only of his pictures to lose money -- a whopping $500,000 in loss. Ha. So what we've got here is a personal movie, a non-commercial movie.

Or as Shirley MacLaine called it: "A bomb. A very arty bomb, but a bomb nonetheless."

A very arty bomb. Draw closer: an art film. That's what it is. Hitchcock's art film. Hitchcock's PERSONAL art film.

Maybe that's why Hitchcock loved it so. He knew he was an artist, but he didn't particularly want his studio bosses to know. It was his little secret.

"The Trouble With Harry" has one of the greatest Hitchcock titles. It's been used for decades ever since to discuss OTHER topics: "The Trouble with Harry Potter" for instance, led a review of that film. "The Trouble With Harry Truman," a political piece. Etc.

But just on its own, its a jaunty little title, that creates its own kind of suspense:

Just what IS the trouble with Harry?

The trouble with Harry is that he is dead. And most publically so, lying in a nicely-tailored suit-and-tie (Hitchcock's decorum at work) in the middle of a beautiful meadow amidst the beautiful fall foliage of Vermont. An absent-minded professor trips over him while reading a book, and walks on; a bum steals his shoes (leaving Harry's corpse wearing bright red socks); and a series of individual people maintain a running gag: each one thinks he or she killed Harry, each one buries Harry (with a little help from their friends), each one determines that they DIDN'T kill Harry, and each one digs Harry up and returns him to the meadow.

"The Trouble With Harry" is a mild, mellow film, but one critic felt it was Hitchcock's most distasteful movie other than "Psycho." Why? Well, because a dead body becomes a joke prop, buried and dug up and buried again. Not particularly respectful towards the dead.

Ah, but Hitchcock understood: death is the great unknown, the great mystery, the great fear. Why not make some fun of it? Or at least of the remains.

And why not make death pretty?

"The Trouble With Harry" is considered a black comedy, but I think if you take in its first pleasant beautiful minutes (with Bernard Herrmann's atypically lyric and beautiful score, his first for Hitchcock), you'll see that it is also a very whimsical tale of paradise and love. Dead Harry will end up being the "matchmaker" to two couples who need love: a sexy young couple (John Forsythe and Shirley MacLaine) and a lonely older couple (Edmund Gwenn and Mildred Natwick.)

In a wonderful "Hitchcock rhyme," Hitchcock matches the opening shots of two sequences. In the first, John Forsythe walks across a gorgeous Vermont lane to the home of Shirley MacLaine, and woos her. In the second, Edmund Gwenn walks across a gorgeous Vermont lane to the home of Mildred Natwick, and woos her. By matching these two sequences exactly, Hitchcock makes his point: be you 25 or 55, love is a wonderful thing, and perhaps the greatest antidote to the death that will come for all of us.

There's a lot in "The Trouble With Harry" that is pretty boring, today, I suppose. Edmund Gwenn's long speech to himself about a day's hunting gone bad (but listen: he sounds just like Hitchcock speaking.) All that pitching of woo. And then the "magical" but fey scene in which Forsythe has a millionaire pay for his paintings by granting Forsythe and the denizens of the Vermont village a wish each.

But one suspects that all of that reveals the true heart of Alfred Hitchcock, by all accounts a shy homebody of a man who stayed married to the same woman for over 50 years. Here is a movie filled with British humor (albeit moved to Vermont) and whimiscal romance, and saet in a beautiful world tucked so far away from the Big City (which, as Forsythe ruefully notes, "is filled with people in hats") as to suggest the magical Brigadoon of that 50's musical.

Hitchcock was a master of atmosphere, and "The Trouble With Harry" has great atmosphere: the whole thing unfolds in the the red-gold-browns of autumn, in scenes so quiet you could hear a pin drop (as when Forsythe strolls into town booming out that "Tuscaloosa" song).

As Hitchcock noted, the dead Harry isn't in "counterpoint" to beautiful nature. If so, Harry's body would be surrounded by the new life of spring flowers. No, Harry's death comes in full accord with the "death" of nature, in autumn. Nature dies gorgeously, and Harry dies funnily.

Apart from the golden hues of a fall day, some of the blue-night images in "The Trouble With Harry" are like mood paintings by Hitchcock: the shadows of the five gravediggers on a hilltop; the Deputy Sheriff's old jalopy putting down a hilly road to the town below. Cool pictures with soothing clarity, yet just a bit macabre.

About that Deputy Sheriff. He's played by rangy, hillbilly-ish Royal Dano, and he proves just dangerous enough a policeman to add a modicum of suspense to "The Trouble With Harry." Will he find the body? Will he arrest one of these nice people -- or all of them -- for murder? Hitchcock milks this little bit of suspense nicely, and then turns it to comedy when the deputy comes over as Harry's getting a bath.

Hitchcock contemplated Cary Grant for "Harry," and then William Holden, but ended up going cheap with young John Forsythe. After considering Grace Kelly for the female lead, and losing her to other projects and princesshood, he cast newcomer Shirley MacLaine, thus launching the first major "Hitchcock redhead" (he cast MacLaine because she looked like pert Brigitte Auber from his previous film, "To Catch a Thief," and he thought of Auber for this part.)
Together, Forsythe and MacLaine made an offbeat, arty little couple, different from Hitchcock's usual starry couples. She's a kooky single mother; he's a Bohemian artist who tells her at first meeting: "I'd like to paint you in the nude." You could picture these two becoming middle-aged hippies in the sixties ahead.

Edmund Gwenn is Hitchcock's stand-in here, an elfin little Englishman who had played Santa Claus and just recently battled giant ants in the Warner Brothers hit "Them." Gwenn's courtship of Mildred Natwick is charming. As Forsythe remarks, she's well preserved, and "someone has to open the preserves sometime."

"The Trouble With Harry" has another Mildred -- Dunnock -- and her presence adds a little melancholy to the otherwise romantically cheerful proceedings. "Wiggy" is widowed and runs the general store and has that ornery Deputy Sheriff for a son. She looks to be the one character in the movie who won't find love, won't get happiness. But she does gets her wish from the millionaire: a new cash register for her store. Still, she's a sad reminder: not everybody finds love for their whole life.

And hey, who's this other famous Hitchcock "find": The Beaver! Jerry Mathers, quite nicely ready with his cute little line-readings. (Years later, Hitchcock was housed on the Universal lot and he'd see Jerry on the lot making "Leave it to Beaver" and he would say, "Good morning, Master Mathers," each and every day. Hitch may have been proud of this discovery.)

In the age when thrillers have to be shocking to be thrillers ("Psycho" started all that), "The Trouble With Harry" isn't much of a thriller. It's not particularly funny, either -- "Weekend at Bernies'" went a lot farther with its dead-body-as-fall-guy humor.

But "The Trouble With Harry" stands as something much more special perhaps. The personal testament of a very famous but very private man, Alfred Hitchcock. The movie is pretty, relaxed, funny, sad, very romantic (and very sexually so for censored 1955), and ultimately takes as much of the sting out of death as can possibly be taken. It's a very special movie.

And as they say at the end of the movie,

The trouble with harry is over.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Says you!

No, I think Hitchcock and I are almost alone on this one. (Ha, like its him and me.)

I'd like to say its because the movie was from the "slower duller fifties", but it wasn't a hit back then, either.

I think the film has to be appreciated almost solely on these terms:

1. Hitchcock's personal expression. I think that's his REAL personality expressed in the gentleness and deadpan humor of the film.

2. The beauty of the film. The fall foliage and Herrmann's restful themes are of a land long ago and far away.

3. The teasing sexuality of its two love stories. Racy for 1955, and extremely hopeful in showing that sexual love could come to two old people (with Natwick "old' in her forties! We've come a long way.)

What "The Trouble With Harry" is absolutely NOT, is: a thriller.

[–] riverside_01 18 years ago

oh well. this is in my top 3 of Hitchcock movies as well. it's a gem.

-i am redemption-

[–] GoodEvening 17 years ago

No, that's one of his other favorites: A Shadow of A Doubt.

[–] artihcus022 18 years ago

I personally loved the film and it's definitely a great film. That being said I can understand why people hate this film. You either love it or hate it. It's not his most accessible work(hardly any surprise why it flopped) but it's a very rewarding one. It's a movie I think he made for Hitchcock fans and I mean people who understand there's more to the man than thrillers and set pieces.

And then there's the jaw dropping cinematography and the entire tone of the film the way the characters interact with each other is just fun to watch. In fact you can see this film as a precursor to the style that the Coens mastered.

How much is a good nights sleep worth?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Death_to_Pan_and_Scan 17 years ago

I enjoyed the movie and loved its cinematography, but having watched the extras on the 2 major R1 box sets of 9 and 14 films, Hitch's daughter and others have said that "Shadow of a Doubt" was his personal favorite, bringing that big city darkness in the form of Uncle Charlie to a small happy town (I can't remember the exact wording Pat Hitchcock used).

[–] tuffguy98 17 years ago

"Hitch's daughter and others have said that "Shadow of a Doubt" was his personal favorite"

Shadow of a Doubt is the only personal favorite of Hitchcock's that I've heard of, also.

[–] marriedminnie 17 years ago

The sexual factor of this movie, are they getting around the production code by saying they will marry instead of saying they will have sexual intercourse?

There was no talk of the war in this film so I didn't see the reason for the rush in marriage. I think Hitchcock sneaks in a lot of sexual innuendos in his movies and years later people catch onto it. Maybe people weren't so naive in the 50's and knew exactly what Hitchcock was eluding to. Who knows?

Life is like a dance,
You learn as you go,
Sometimes you lead,
Sometimes you follow.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

"Shadow of a Doubt" was often cited by Hitchcock as his personal favorite, which is why I headed this thread with a question mark.

However, in the Truffaut book, Hitchcock tells Truffaut about "Shadow of a Doubt" being his favorite, saying something like: "If I have given that impression, it is likely because here is a film with character development and one that the plausibilists won't give me so much trouble with" which didn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.

Whereas with "The Trouble With Harry," Hitchcock indicated -- somewhere, I just can't tell you where -- that this story personally appealed to him in its dry British humor (even though he moved the story to America.)

One thing seems to be for sure: Hitchcock's personal favorite of his films was "Shadow of a Doubt" OR "The Trouble With Harry."

Which puts him at odds with the world's millions of fans of "Vertigo." Or "Psycho." Or "North by Northwest." Or "The 39 Steps"....

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Hitchcock's personal favourite was always "Shadow of A Doubt". Alfred Hitchcock did enjoyed making The Trouble with Harry. But he often said "Shadow of A Doubt" was his favourite.

Alfred Hitchcock said to Dick Cavett in "The Dick Cavett Show" (aired 08/June/1972) that Shadow of A Doubt was his favourite film out of all he directed.

Here is an audio version of Dick Cavett Interview with Alfred Hitchcock.

http://161.112.232.203/hitch/dickcavett.mp3

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I've seen the Cavett interview, and I'm thinking:

Maybe that Hitchcock quote should be enough.

I read Hitchcock saying "The Trouble With Harry" in a place or two, but I can't cite them to you. And here he is with Cavett saying "Shadow of a Doubt."

I'll leave my thread-starting post in place -- I wanted to discuss the film in general -- but I'll now say:

"Hitchcock's Personal Favorite?"

No. That was "Shadow of a Doubt."

And I'll add:

Hitchcock was crazy. Those are good movies, but he made a substantial group that were a lot BETTER.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Bump.

Cuz too many people are dumping here on this ONE of Hitchcock's favorite films, recently.

[–] slokes 17 years ago

ecarle makes some very good points about "The Trouble With Harry" and its place in Hitchcock's larger body of work, as an off-kilter piece with some clever moments. To me, it's about as dead as Harry. The acting is stuff, the jokes are clunkers, the comedy over the dead body is stretched thin, and the whole thing feels like three hours. Gorgeous scenery, the most sumptuosly shot Hitch film except "Vertigo", but it doesn't feel like it ever goes anywhere.

I suspect like many artists who dote on their progeny like parents, Hitchcock took a special interest and fondness on one that the rest of the world treated with indifference.

I like the idea of Hitchcock doing a comedy-thriller, rather than a thriller with laughs. But there were other films he did that with better than this.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Yes, I have to say that while I will defend "The Trouble With Harry," its all a bit too "twee" for me.

But I think the viewer has to appreciate the fact that Hitchcock felt he OWED himself the luxury of this movie. He had just delivered huge box office hits to Paramount: "Rear Window" (a classic as well as a hit); "To Catch A Thief" (a hit, and a bit of a 'glamour classic" on its own specific, small terms.)

As he did from time to time, Hitchcock "gifted" himself a "personal" film --but made sure it had SOME box office elements (the body, principally, the sex-talk twixt Forsythe and MacLaine.)

Keep in mind something else: this business of a dead body laying around and being buried and dug up and buried again and put in the bathtub was considered rather creepy in 1955.

Los Angeles Times film critic Philip K. Scheuer called "Psycho" when it came out in 1960, "the most disagreeable Hitchcock film since 'The Trouble With Harry."

Hitchcock WAS taunting a pretty substantial taboo with "The Trouble With Harry," one that remains today.

Imagine if Harry was a loved one of YOURS.....

[–] slokes 17 years ago

No question "Harry" is another example of Hitchcock's interest in transgressive cinema. It's just tonally all over the map (as you put it, ecarle, "twee") and for a so-called comedy, lacking in laughs. It sticks out in his corpus only for its scenery, IMO.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Yes, the Vermont setting -- coupled with Bernard Herrmann's truly beautiful, often heartbreaking music (ironic, given this was his first score for Hitch, how little thriller music he needed to write) -- are perhaps the major draws of the film.

I honestly can't defend it, though I like the things I covered in my initial post here (like the "Hitchcock rhyme" of separate scenes of Forsythe and Gwenn walking to the homes of their beloveds, and the very humane idea of a love affair between two older lonely people.)

I would say this: I've read a lot of Hitchcock interviews, and short stories he wrote as a young man, and I daresay they all sound a lot like "The Trouble With Harry" and its chit-chat. Edmund Gwenn's entire opening speech "to himself" is not only twee, its British-flibbergibbet twee...and, I suspect, very much the true "inner Alfred Hitchcock."

Good thing Hitch hid that guy to make his other movies.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I liked The Trouble with Harry. But I thought Edmund Gwenn wasn't the right person for the role Captain. I think Alastair Sim is a great choice. Alastair Sim did a great job playing Commodore Gill in Alfred Hitchcock's Stage Fright.

Forsythe's performance was good.

Alfred Hitchcock said like this.

"I think The Trouble With Harry needed special handling. It wouldn't have failed commercially if the people in the distribution organization had known what to do with the picture; but it got into the assembly line and that was that. It was shot in autumn for the contrapunctal use of beauty against the sordidness and muddiness of death."

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Alastair Sim would have been a great choice, indeed, but I sense a bit of a "self-homage" of Hitchcock by casting the more elfin and roly-poly Gwenn in the part. Gwenn was more of a stand-in for Hitchcock.

Forsythe WAS good, but there is always that issue of "major stardom." William Holden or Cary Grant or James Stewart earned top stardom, and would have elevated "The Trouble With Harry" accordingly. Maybe even made it a hit.

Still, Hitchcock made quite a few movies WITHOUT big male leads: Foreign Correspodent, Saboteur, Lifeboat, Strangers on a Train, The Trouble With Harry, The Birds, and his last three come to mind.

Hitchcock was spot-on about the autumnal quality of "Harry." It's not "spring counterpoint," and it gives the movie its meaning: New England truly "comes to life" in the season of death (fall).

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Well, The Trouble with Harry is special in its own way and its first Hitchcock film with Bernard Herrmann.

Bernard Herrmann was considered to do the music score for The Paradine Case. But David O. Selznick refused.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I didn't know that about The Paradine Case.

Ironic that Bernard Herrmann landed "The Trouble With Harry" first for Hitch. So much of the score has to be sweet, pretty, beautiful. Only a few macabre touches.

One film later -- "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956), Herrmann made up for it with a thrilling, thunderous overture of excitement, his second most exciting overture behind "North by Northwest."

And then Herrmann got better (The Wrong Man) and better (Vertigo) and better (North by Northwest) and better (Psycho -- arguably the greatest "functional score" of all time).

I always wondered if Hitchcock got a little jealous of Herrmann after "Psycho." "The Birds" has no score (though Herrman supervised the sound); Hitchocck complained about the "Marnie" score, and then fired Herrman off of "Torn Curtain."

That was, I believe, Hitchcock's worst career decision.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

The biggest problem was David O. Selznick's constant interference. As you know, Selznick wanted full control over the films he produced. David O. Selznick also wanted the music score his way. That is why Selznick decided to not to hire Bernard Herrmann. Only Franz Waxman had that patience. That's one of the reasons why Hitchcock liked Franz Waxman.

In Hitchcock and Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O Selznick By Leonard J. Leff, it shows that Herrmann was considered for doing music score for The Paradine Case. Here is the google book link that shows this information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BqfKN15yPNMC&pg=PA259&dq=Bernard+Herrmann+The+Paradine+Case&sig=UcuHZ_YAKgESYnZfVtn22RROawg

Many people who worked with Hitchcock believes that it was Universal Executives who had poisoned Hitchcock's mind against Bernard Herrmann. This is mentioned in Book "Backstory 4: Interviews with Screenwriters of the 1970s and 1980s" By Patrick McGilligan. Its in Page 77.

Alfred Hitchcock had no problem with Bernard Herrmann, while Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann were working together at Warner Bros, MGM and Paramount.

They enjoyed working together.

But after when they came to Universal, we see conflicts like forcing 2 projects (Torn Curtain and Topaz) on Hitchcock, End of Collaboration, and many other problems. We didn't see any of those problems at Warner Bros, MGM, or Paramount.

Although Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann never worked again after Torn Curtain, still their friendship continued.

After Torn Curtain, Bernard Herrmann decided to work with Hitchcock's friend and fan Francois Truffaut.

Bernard Herrmann did music score for 2 films of Francois Truffaut. Fahrenheit 451 (1966) and The Bride wore Black (1968). The Bride Wore Black Music Score is similar to the score of Marnie.

The Bride wore Black (1968) is very similar to Kill Bill.

According to Hitchcock's assistant Joan Harrison, Hitchcock hated directing Torn Curtain and Topaz.

But there are 2 important scenes in Torn Curtain - Death of Gromek and a Museum Scene. This Museum Scene was borrowed from a scene in The Paradine Case.

This Scene is not in the current version, because it doesn't have a soundtrack. The biggest problem with The Paradine Case was Selznick's editing. Sadly, Hitchcock didn't do the editing. He put all of the unnecessary things in the film. And he removed many of the important scenes Hitchcock directed.

So we will never know what Hitchcock exactly wanted with The Paradine Case.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Good points, all.

I believe that "Kill Bill Part One" uses an extended piece of Herrmann music from a movie called "Twisted Nerve" (1968): the whistling as "nurse" Darryl Hannah tries to kill Uma Thurman in the hospital.

Hitchcock's Universal years (from "The Birds" on) are their own sad story. Lew Wasserman protected Hitchcock and gave him work when other directors of Hitchcock's age were being cut off quickly -- "youth" was taking over. So at least Hitchcock got to make movies til he couldn't.

But Universal kept MAKING Hitchcock do things, and he seems to have kept giving in, and giving in, and giving in. Hitchcock reportedly "angrily" fired Herrmann off of "Torn Curtain," but it may have been the anger of a scared man: he felt Universal was getting ready to stop him from making movies.

That said, and even taking note of Hitchcock's decling health and age, I think three of those last flims are fine -- "The Birds," "Marnie," "Frenzy" -- and the rest, various versions of flaw-but-underrated. Hitchcock's innate artistry never died, til he did.

P.S. I wish Herrmann had scored all of the rest of Hitchcock's films after "Marnie." He COULD HAVE, just barely. Herrmann died of a heart attack in December of '75, when the "Family Plot" score was being put to bed by John Williams.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Ecarle, I have a question. What do you think of the character "Andre Latour" from The Paradine Case? I found him very mysterious. Like Cary Grant's character in Bringing up Baby, I found Andre Latour as a victim of women and society.

By the way, Here is aan interesting information about The Trouble with Harry.

Like Under Capricorn, The Trouble with Harry is underrated. Both films have something in common. Ken Mogg in his Hitchcock book related THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY to Lewis Carroll (via Jackie Wullschlager's 1995 book 'Inventing Wonderland').

In Under Capricorn, Lady Henrietta is also called Hattie. Everyone thinks she is mad. This leads to "Mad Hattie", which is related to Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland.

Alfred Hitchcock used lots of Alice in Wonderland references in Under Capricorn and The Trouble with Harry.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I'm weaker on "The Paradine Case" and "Under Capricorn" than on later Hitchcock. I'll offer this:

1. Alice in Wonderland and Hitchcock seem made for each other. Alice through the looking glass or down the rabbit hole can be seen as the plot structure for many Hitchcock films. I've often felt that in the scene where Cary Grant is hustled into James Mason's Glen Cove mansion and accused with all sort of things, its rather like the Mad Tea Party, with Mason as the Mad Hatter and Martin Landau as the March Hare. Hell, its like the Queen of Hearts: they're practically yelling "Off with his head!" at Grant the entire time.

And so on.

2. Andre Latour. I know this: Hitchcock was very against the casting of suave and handsome Louis Jourdan in that part. He wanted a rather rough and ugly Brit named Robert Newton, with, Hitchcock said, "horny hands like the devil." Reason: Mrs Paradine would then be seen debasing herself with this stablehand, an ugly man, not a sexy swain. I guess Selznick demanded him.

Still, your point's well taken. Even if the character is handsome Louis Jordan, he is still a victim of class and fickle romance.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Actually, this was the problem with The Paradine Case. The casting wasn't David O. Selznick's fault.

Robert Newton is an expert in playing rough characters. Bill Sikes in David Lean's version Oliver Twist (1948) is a great example.

Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick wanted Robert Newton, because the servant's name was William Marsh and the character was very rough. And William Marsh was from England. But I think Robert Newton was unavailable.

So they went to look for someone who could play rough characters. But they couldn't find one. While casting Alida Valli for Mrs. Paradine, David O. Selznick found Louis Jourdan. So David O. Selznick decided to hire Louis Jourdan, because he looked handsome and rough enough to play the character. They decided to change the name to Andre Latour, because Louis Jourdan was from France.

There was one good thing about The Paradine Case. David O. Selznick gave Alfred Hitchcock complete freedom for casting. But the problem was finding actors and actresses for the role.

Mrs. Paradine's background was also changed, because of casting problems.

Mrs. Paradine's original name was Ingrid Paradine. And she was from Sweden. That is why Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick went to Greta Garbo. But she denied to play Mrs. Paradine. After that, Hitchcock went to Ingrid Bergman to play Mrs. Ingrid Paradine. But Ingrid Bergman wasn't interested in working with David O. Selznick. Although David O. Selznick requested Ingrid Bergman to play Mrs. Paradine, still she refused.

Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick went to look for other Swedish actresses to play Mrs. Paradine. But they couldn't find one. So David O. Selznick finally decided to cast young Italian actress Alida Valli for Mrs. Paradine.

And the name was changed from "Ingrid Paradine" to "Maddalena Anna Paradine". Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick wanted Sir Laurence Olivier for the role "Malcolm Keane."

But Sir Laurence Olivier was unavailable. So the role "finally" went to Gregory Peck. And the name was changed from "Malcolm Keane" to "Anthony Keane."

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Thanks. Necessary to my education!

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

The Paradine Case, Under Capricorn, and The Trouble with Harry are ignored, because they have more drama in it.

I think all of those three Hitchcock films are great films.

By the way, The Paradine Case may release come back on a new set of DVD in a year or two, because few of the missing scenes are now available.

The Paradine Case Original Cut was 3 hours. But it was destroyed in a flood in 1980. The current version only has 114 minutes. But recently, 125 minutes version was founded.

Its also possible that they may find the 132 minutes version soon too.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

My favorite of those three is easily "The Trouble With Harry." I find the first three minutes of New England views and gentle Herrmann music to be like a gentle "mantra" of calm. Everything after, simply charming and nostalgic. Thrills have nothing to do with it; comedy comparatively little. It's love story. Three love stories: two couples; us with LIFE.

"Under Capricorn" is quite an intense, almost hallucinatory experience; Hitch was "weird" way back when.

"The Paradine Case" has brilliant Hitchcockian camerawork, but I have issues with the presentation of the story. Perhaps the longer version makes it better.

[–] capricious_nature 17 years ago

I've come to appreciate Under Capricorn more than the first time I saw it. It isn't his best, but it's an interesting experiment. Still...I never could understand why Bergman would go for Joseph Cotten rather than Michael Wilding...must have been something in the water...

The Paradine Case falls flat. It's a good idea, but something is missing. Perhaps it's my strange bias against Gregory Peck. Maybe those missing scenes you're talking about will help to fill it out.

And The Trouble with Harry continues to be one of my favorites. Weirdness abounds in all corners, but some it's OK, as only Hitchcock can make it.

~I cannot fiddle, but I can make a great state of a small city.~

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

The Paradine Case makes the audience feel flat because it is missing more than an hour footage directed by Hitchcock.

By the way, I have a question. What do you think about Torn Curtain with Bernard herrmann score in it? Not Hitchcock/Jon Addison version.

I love Torn Curtain with Bernard Herrmann's score.

[–] tdl797 17 years ago

i enjoyed reading the original post.

this film is hilarious.

this AMC Hitchcock week is great. maybe they'll make it an annual thing (maybe they already do?).

i do know this:

catching a late night double showing of Vertigo and Frenzy (amazingly unsensored!) on AMC prob 7 or 8 years ago - when it actually showed more American classics than it does now - is what opened my eyes to film in an artistic sense. Vertigo remains my favorite film to this day.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Vertigo is a great film. But I didn't like Frenzy.

[–] ecarle 15 years ago

Bump.

We cannot live by Psycho and North by Northwest alone.

[–] OpaqueOne 14 years ago

ecarle,

I read in a Hitch thread somewhere that you don't answer personal e-mails, so I'll ask you here: I've read a large volume of your posts on Hitchcock films, and you always seem to offer your personal tastes peppered with details of the films themselves, various production and cast anecdotes, and such.

I've seen most of Hitch's films, but not the following: To Catch a Thief and The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). In your opinion, which is better? Both seem to be 'Hitchcock Lite', maybe not quite to the extent of The Trouble With Harry, but less dark than many of his thrillers. If you had to choose one, which would it be?

Thanks!

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

To Catch a Thief and The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). In your opinion, which is better? Both seem to be 'Hitchcock Lite', maybe not quite to the extent of The Trouble With Harry, but less dark than many of his thrillers. If you had to choose one, which would it be?

---

I'm afraid I don't answer private messages. I really wish I could, but I can't. On the other hand, I'm not averse to discussions on the public threads about Hitchcock matters and my "personal movie history" in general.

---

Hitchcock's movies tend to "group up," it seems, and these four in a row are linked by screenwriter John Michael Hayes:

Rear Window
To Catch a Thief
The Trouble With Harry
The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 (Known as "Man 2" in some Hitchcock circles; the 1934 original is "Man 1.")

The take on the Hayes scripts is that they had a certain comic wit and warmth, with less of the sturm-und-drang of the various Hitchcock movies to follow: The Wrong Man, Vertigo, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, Torn Curtain. (I purposely left out "North by Northwest," which is really the only "light and funny" Hitchcock of that group.)

Of the "John Michael Hayes Four," Rear Window is the head-and-shoulders-above masterpiece.

I like "Man 2" better than "Man 1," though "Man 2" is a much longer film. I like "Man 2" for the depth of the Stewart/Day marital relationship, and several great set-pieces(which I guess I can't reveal if you haven't seen the film.)

"On paper," "Man 2" is a much bigger, much more gripping thriller than the lightweight "romantic comedy" "To Catch a Thief."

And yet: I like "To Catch A Thief" better than "Man 2." I write why over at the "To Catch A Thief" board(although some people disagree with me violently), but it boils down to:

"To Catch a Thief" is some sort of Elegance Perfected, a look at a world we'll never see again, where sophisticated Alfred Hitchcock could direct Cary Grant and Grace Kelly at their most gorgeous, with their great voices on the soundtrack and the French Riviera all around them(Oscar-winning cinematography by Hitchcock's guy, Robert Burks.)

"Man 2" is the more gripping thriller, but "To Catch a Thief" is just magic to me.

However, the "best was yet to come," for Hitchcock AFTER the Hayes-Hitchcock movies, from "The Wrong Man" to "The Birds." And definitely everything in between. Only "Rear Window" of the Hitchcock-Hayes pictures is at their level(or higher, in some cases).

(The Trouble with Harry is 4th out of the 4 Hitchcock-Hayes pictures for me, though I find the first five minutes of Hitchcock images and Herrmann music...lulling and mesmerizing.)

[–] OpaqueOne 14 years ago

ecarle,

Thanks for your detailed and well-reasoned insights, as always. We know taste in art is subjective, of course, but I enjoy the feedback of those who offer more than simple likes and dislikes without much else. I've now seen both To Catch a Thief and Man 2; your analysis was spot-on for me. Man 2 was the more gripping thriller, and Thief was the lighter romantic comedy. I enjoyed Man 2 more than Thief because of my tendency to crave darker, edgier films. It's no knock on Thief, mind you. No one can deny Grant and Kelly's chemistry and how stunning Grace is in that film.

I agree with you. Without question, Rear Window is the cream of the crop as far as John Michael Hayes' scripts. No argument there. It's easily in my top 10 Hitch films. See, I am working my way through all his movies and I've gravitated most to his 25 year period between Rebecca and Marnie (1940-1964). Your analysis has been a great help.

I've noticed your tendcy to group together Hitch's films in various ways. Do you have a personal favorite top 15 or 20 of his films, by chance? I'm not asking for a numbered list. Perhaps a list in no particular order, or a pack of his films you consider above the rest? Let me know if this is too much trouble.

Many thanks,

Jason

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

A personal favorite top 15 or 20?

Gee, its hard to narrow it down to that... :)

Generally, I'm with those who see Hitchcock's "Golden Age" as starting with "Strangers on a Train" in 1951 and ending with "The Birds" in 1963. Some take it an extra step to "Marnie" in 1964, but I think that Hitchcock's "late period" begins there, in which all the movies except one were flawed in some way, and that one("Frenzy") wasn't so much flawed as "small," not quite up there with the Big Ones from Hitchcock.

The "Golden Age" climaxes, I think with what I call "The Big Three" in a row:

Vertigo 1958: Climaxes Hitchcock's films of obsessive, twisted romance(Rebecca, Suspicion, Spellbound, Notorious, Under Capricorn)

North by Northwest 1959: Climaxes both Hitchcocks spy chase thrillers of the 30's (The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes) and his WWII anti-Nazi thrillers like "Saboteur" and "Foreign Correspondent, not to mention the "near-climax" of his wrong man thrillers. (He would make one more wrong man movie after NXNW: Frenzy.)

Psycho, 1960: The biggest hit of all is a Hitchcock Horror Movie, but its antecedents are macabre psychothrillers like The Lodger and Rope but mainly Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train, which feature psychos Uncle Charlie and Bruno Anthony as forerunners of Norman Bates (He would make one more psychothriller after Psycho: Frenzy.)

Moreover, Psycho is the climax of Hitchcock's TV show...except on the big screen.

"Rear Window" and "The Birds" are on either side of the Big Three. "Rear Window" is in their class as a masterpiece(but lacking a Bernard Herrmann score and a Saul Bass credit sequence.) "The Birds" is flawed in script and execution, but stands with "Psycho" as the most famous movie Hitchcock ever made, and stands above them all as a technical achievement.

---

Around those groupings I think only "Shadow of a Doubt" and "Notorious" from the 40's are true classics, and those films lack the action of Hitchcock's later films. "Saboteur" and "Foreign Correspondent" sure are fun, and great, brave propaganda, and I have real affection for the stunts of "Lifeboat" and "Rope."

The British films I leave to the British fans(they are all dark and cinematic and clever...but dry runs for the American period and the big stars and Herrmann and Bass.)

The Golden Era films that "aren't so famous" are all part of a perfect run: I Confess, Dial M, To Catch a Thief, The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much '56, The Wrong Man. Add in "Rear Window, "Vertigo," "NBNW," and "Psycho" and you've got about a decade of classics, hits, cult films and combinations of the above.

---

My two favorite Hitchcock films apart and away from "The Big Ones" are:

The Wrong Man and Frenzy. These are easily among my favorite films of all time, film history be damned. They reach out and grab you -- you can't just watch them as "just a movie" -- and you never forget them once you see them.

[–] OpaqueOne 14 years ago

ecarle,

Yes, a tall task indeed to narrow Hitch's films down to a top 15 or 20, but thanks to your observations and groupings and some viewing in the past couple days, I'm just about there :-). Once again, I appreciate the time and effort you took to go in depth with all these films. Thanks!

What jumps out at me immediately is your line of "The British films I leave to the British fans." I agree with this. In compiling my Hitch collection--picky as I am--I haven't found a British film I'm quite fond of enough to put into my top 15. Warmup for what was to come.

My three favorite Hitch films are the biggest serial killer films: Psycho, Shadow, and Strangers. I'm a bit too macabre to be 100% impartial regarding subgenres, so these are my big 3. I also love Vertigo, RW, and N by NW and consider all three masterpieces. No brainers there. Where I may differ from you is preferring Marnie over Frenzy. A contradiction because I relish serial killer films, I confess, but Frenzy was missing something to me. The score? The eye candy of a Hitch leading lady? The touch of America? I suppose, but still a good film.

Here is my list of Hitchcock's top 12, in alphabetical order. To rank all by number would be almost impossible:

1. The Birds
2. Dial M
3. The Man 2 ('56)
4. Notorious
5. Psycho
6. Rear Window
7. Rebecca
8. Rope
9. Shadow of a Doubt
10.Strangers on a Train
11.Vertigo
12.The Wrong Man

The Birds makes my list, but it's toward the bottom. I see it as more a technical achievement also, though Hitch is so good with atmosphere it still succeeds.A few people have commented that Rebecca isn't truly a Hitch film since it lacks his trademark humor and the ending was drastically changed from Hitch's wishes. I can't argue with that, but it still captivates me. Such great casting. He didn't really hit his stride until 1951, I agree, but Shadow of a Doubt is one of my all time favorites. Every single word, movement, glance, and scene counts. Low on action but it oozes atmosphere. Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright were fantastic.

You'll notice I'm omitting Harry, Thief, and Frenzy. Three of your favorites, I know, but the two former were a little too light for me. In the near future I'll get around to the rest of Hitch's British films and his late films (Torn, Topaz, FP), but something tells me the only change to this list just *might* be his final serial killer film added later, in a moment of weakness :-)

It's always a pleasure discussing Hitch films with you.

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

Well, you certainly seem to have seen quite a few films.

As with all long bodies of work(and Hitchcock certainly has that), there will be different favorites for different people's tastes. The idea that we should match up completely is, well...practically impossible.

You mention the "Golden Seven" and I've lost track of where I(for one) have mentioned them. Here they are in chronological order:

Shadow of a Doubt
Notorious
Strangers on a Train
Rear Window
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Psycho

You'll find in the critical literature that those seven are the truly "four star" films of Hitchcock's American period, at least. The American Film Institute has twice in a decade declared four Hitchcocks to be among the greatest 100 movies ever made: Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest. Psycho and Vertigo switched the first and second positions from 1997 to 2007 on the list.

Some critics choose "Notorious" as the great Hitchcock (perfect, intelligent and ahead of its time it is -- but no action, no Herrmann, no setpieces, no shocks!)

And whole bunches of people want to advance "Rear Window" -- "The Compleat Hitchcock"(camera moves, montage, POV shots, romance, wit, macabre psychopathy, THE WORKS!) as his masterpiece.

---

Of the rest, its hard to say.

Speaking of "groups," I will say this right now: I have much greater personal affection for Hitchcock's last five movies:

Marnie
Torn Curtain
Topaz
Frenzy
Family Plot

than I do for his forties films, however "greater" many of them may have been.

Reason: I LIVED through those final five, worked hard to see Topaz, lined up for "Frenzy," saw "Family Plot" at its premiere.

Moreover, those final five have interesting stars like Sean Connery and Paul Newman(whatever their performances, they were THE top male stars outside of Steve McQueen at the time, and Hitch got 'em both), Julie Andrews(hey, she was BIG when Hitch had her)...and interesting ACTORS like Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Roscoe Lee Browne, John Vernon, Phillipe Noiret, Jon Finch, Alec McCowen, Anna Massey, Barbara Harris, and Bruce Dern. And two of Hitchcock's all-time greatest villains right there in his final two films: cheery sexual psychopath Bob Rusk(Barry Foster) and smooth-voiced master kidnapper Arthur Adamson(William Devane.) Foster and Devane weren't big stars, but that had looks and voices and charisma to spare as villains.

The final five movies also have some great set-pieces: Marnie's runaway horse ride, the kiling of Gromek, "Hitchcock in Harlem" at the Hotel Theresa, the murder of Juanita De Cordoba, the rape-murder of Brenda Blaney(in her own office! In broad daylight! At noon! With people downstairs on the street!), "Farewell to Babs" on the stairs, the potato truck, the runaway car, the cemetary pursuit, the deadly garage door....

[–] OpaqueOne 14 years ago

Yes, I've been busy feasting my eyes on Mr. Hitchcock's work. :-) Whover first coined or mentioned the "Golden Seven" has quite a group of films to call his best or four star efforts. I have seen fewer films than many, but I consider all seven top notch.

Of course it's inmpossible to match up with you on a favorites list. Maybe I could have done a better job of saying that you've helped make it easier for me to hone in on what it is I truly admire about Alfred's films, so thank you. That list was no easy feat, believe me!

I understand your greater affection for his last five films: anyone who lived through those cinematic experiences will have them forever, and no home-viewing or catching up can compete with that. No way. It must have been a treat to see those in their initial glory. I'm in my mid thirties, and have had to catch Alfred's work as technology's made it available.

The final five set pieces were special, for sure. I especially like Marnie's runaway horse ride and how her "There, there" after shooting her suffering horse echoes that line at another point in the film.

How many Hitch films do you personally own? Or, if it's easier, which don't you own?

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

It must have been a treat to see those in their initial glory. I'm in my mid thirties, and have had to catch Alfred's work as technology's made it available.

---

Yes, it was. One benefit of older age. Though I don't feel that old. I'm younger than Sarris and Ebert and Schickel, that's for sure!

The "technology" thing is something on which I definitely play my "old guy" chips:

I wish I could communicate exactly how easy you(WE) have it nowadays where we can just pull a Hitchcock DVD off the shelf or order it from Netflix. In the "old days," some of the greatest Hitchcock movies were very, very hard to see.

Five of them just up and disappeared for about ten years -- Rope, Rear Window, The Trouble With Harry, Man 2, Vertigo. I saw the four movies other than Rope first in the 60's, but one by one they dropped out: Harry wasn't shown in the 70's on TV at all in the US; Rear Window only once in 1971. Vertigo and Man 2 had showings on ABC AND CBS until 1973...and then they all disappeared until 1983 and (for some of them) 1984. That's a long time. You could go to high school, go to college, go to grad school, and STILL not get to see those movies!
(Rope was a special deal; I recall no showings of that gay-themed single-take film on TV in the 60's or 70's(how could its "stunt" work with commercials?); I finally saw it in 1984 when Universal re-released it.)

Now, they are all together in a box and you can watch 'em anytime, til you get bored.

"Psycho" debuted on local TV in 1967 and 1968...but "went away" for a couple of years, evidently while ownership shifted from Paramount(original studio of the film) to Universal(who bought it from Hitchcock). Came late 1970, "Psycho" was a "staple" on local TV...but only once a year. If you missed the once-a-year showing, tough luck til next year. Now...just pull it out from next to "Vertigo" and slap it in the DVD player.

Its too easy, I tell you! We used to have to IMAGINE our favorite Hitchcocks for years between viewings.

---

As for me now, I own most of them. Some are still on VHS though. Many British ones and some of the forties stuff. From 1951 on...I've got them all, and multiple copies in some cases. But I rarely watch them all, especially all the way through. I often watch Hitchcock movies(on cable TV or my DVDs) like Martin Scorsese says he does: in parts and pieces and scenes, enjoying them like music.

Hey, that's another thing: who needs DVDs? You ever notice how many different cable networks run "Hitchcock film festival weekends" and such, ALL THE TIME? Turner Classic Movies especially in the U.S. You can't get away from the guy.

[–] GoodEvening 17 years ago

I think The Trouble With Harry and A Shadow of A Doubt elicit the same reactions from people: they either love them or hate them. I love Harry, but not so much Shadow. But, it's because they're two totally different films. For me, one is so downright silly you almost expect the Love American Style theme to start playing, and the other is slow and tedious. One is entertaining and "I can't believe they just did that!" and the other is "When is something going to *yawn* happen?" That's Hitch for you -- keeps the audience guessing.

[–] nluter-1 17 years ago

I very much appreciate your (ecarle's) long, detailed, and heartfelt posting about The Trouble About Harry. I just saw it tonight for the first time ever. I was surprised I'd never seen it before.

I thought it was definitely chuckle-worthy. I giggled at times -- especially when I realized how clever or cute or silly some of the lines or situations would have truly been at the time when this film was released.

But guess what? My DVR cut off the very very (I hope it was the very very) end of the film. The 4 of them are talking about what Sam asked the millionaire for. Do they ever reveal that? What are the last lines of the film?

I'm dying to know!

[–] tdl797 17 years ago

******spoiler********

he asked for a double bed!

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I like both Shadow of A Doubt and The Trouble with Harry.

[–] stevem-26 17 years ago

Ecarle's first posting here on this thread was wonderful. Thank you for such inspired praise of a charming film.

I guess it was when encountering The Maggie and Whiskey Galore, two Ealing comedies, that I came to feel the "backlife" or "underlife" of a film, and that is often as important to me as the plot and characters. Those films transport me so well to a simpler and more charming time, and that is no small ecstasy! Now, nostalgia for the good ole days can be delusional, but there really was a simpler and more charming time. I'm just old enough to remember something of this, and I don't think I'm subject to just whimsy here.

To look at those landscapes and village scenes, and the houses, and to realize that machines and bigness hadn't yet destroyed small farming brought back a flood of memories. That is the way those lands looked in those days. No plastic hay bale wrappers, and real paint on real wood shutters, and real muntins in real windows. God, what have we gotten to? Compare that to a sterile dead McMansion, where the whole house is made of plastic.

The nice cozy way that all these characters related to each other was the way things were then. I remember that from growing up in New Castle NH.

Sure, there was misery too, but when things were good, they were good.

So, maybe I have a one-sided view of the film, but I did like the characters and the plot, and the backlife made me very happy indeed.

[–] romeorammohan 15 years ago

very informative post op

its the very British film by Hitchcock i would say...pure British wit

click this
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048473/

[–] ecarle 15 years ago

Clicked.

And,thank you.

op

[–] chester-copperpot-1 13 years ago

I hope you save your stuff elsewhere, and just not let it get erased by IMDb:s annual sweeps. About halway down the first post, I said, "Wait a minute, this just have to be ecarle". And sure enough, it was. The thought that those beautiful insights will be lost forever fills me with sadness. This is pearls for swines, ecarle. Write a book, gooddammit.

[–] ecarle 12 years ago

Belatedly, chester-copperpot:

Thank you.

Perhaps I'll write one, but the right people are reading me here. (You for instance.)

Truth be told, this stuff gets erased and I usually remember enough of it to write it again later.

[–] Bergman_Fellini87 12 years ago

Interesting post, ecarle. I'm in the extreme minority, but The Trouble With Harry is one of my all time favourite Hitchcock films. I re-watched it recently, & I enjoyed it so much that it might even be my favourite.

I'm not sure though, as my two other favourites are Psycho & Rear Window, but Harry would definitely have to be #3 at the very least. I picked up on more of Hitchcock's humour & chuckled more. It takes me a lot to make me laugh, but I've always enjoyed the humour in this film, & I don't know why I reacted to some parts I haven't before.

What I love most about this film though are the characters & their interactions with each other. Just so much fun in my opinion. Then you've got the beautiful photography & score too. I think its a great example of a high quality made, but simple enjoyable film if you're not in the mood for something more complex & serious (e.g Bergman or Kubrick films).

I think this a lovely & charming film that is very underrated.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

This is a fantastic film. It is wonderfully funny in all sorts of ways including understated moments such as the line you quote from Miss Graveley to the captain! The humour builds throughout and by the end, when Harry is in the bathtub, it has become a farce in the best Feydeau terms. It's also beautifully shot and has the odd moment that is macabre such as Arnie with the dead rabbit and the closet door that won't close.

I love this as I do Frenzy because it tackles a difficult subject in a humorously macabre way and with much gusto and colour.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] Bree_33 12 years ago

I really enjoyed TTWH. If you like black comedy with a light twist, you must see this movie.

------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»

[–] elisedfr 11 years ago

Very good critic. Now I've watched many Hitchock movies, I think he favoured more the quirky, humourous and original ones. The Shadow of A Dobt, for instance, is more "serious" and threatening a story, but it shows the same kind of black comedy, and colourful characters than The Trouble With Harry. I always get a bit bored when I watch The Man Who Knew Too Much: Hitch himself thought it was "too polished". I guess he was happier doing freewheeling Harry.

" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

Thank you. It seems he got Paramount to let him make the decidedly quirkly "Trouble With Harry" as a reward for box office winters Rear Window and To Catch a Thief -- and after "Harry," he delivered another "big one" -- albeit polished in "The Man Who Knew Too Much."

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

Bump.