MovieChat Forums > Shadow of a Doubt (1943) Discussion > Sexual tension between young Charlie and...

Sexual tension between young Charlie and old Charlie?

posted 17 years ago by danskelle
139 replies | jump to latest

It just seemed to me that there was a little more going on between the two of them than what should be. Why does, in the beginning of the film, young Charlie feel that her uncle is going to save her from inevitable boredom or mediocrity, when he doesn't even live there - what has gone on in the past between them? Then, when he arrives, she gushes and fawns all over him, and he does the same to her by commenting on her dress (her appearance) and then saving HER gift to give to her in private and it is an emerald ring, which is normally something a suitor would give a girl? Plus, she tells him they are more than uncle and niece, they are like twins, but you get the feeling that this isn't exactly what she meant to say, she is feeling more for him than she should be. I almost felt like her trepidation in not turning him in was a choice between her uncle that she was in love with, and her new boyfriend, the detective. When she "spurns" him to go along with the detectives, and starts avoiding him, like you would a jilted lover, then he gets back at her by attempting to hurt/kill her, but he grabs her and when he pulls her close, you feel that instead of trying to twist her wrist or arm, or strangle her, he might kiss her instead. The embracing/grabbing and the physical contact and proximity between the two of them is almost palpable. Their scene in the bar seemed more like a date, and also her pride in being seen with her "Uncle Charlie" and other girls' envy, when they were walking around town, also confirms this.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GarryJohal 17 years ago

oh there was definitely a lot of sexual tension between them. you could cut through it with a knife. it's definitely intentional as hitchcock was quite a perfectionist. he controlls every element in his films. why the tension? probably some kind of subtext of incest or a suggestions that there may be more to the relationship than meets the eye. also hitchcock was a very well learned man and he often deliberately incorporated symbols and motifs relating to freud's concepts of oedipal psychosexual tension, the idea of the virgin/femme fatale character, succubus and so on.

[–] zarguio 17 years ago

I thought exactly the same thing when I watched the filum this morning...

....one thing springs to mind, the old 'times and families were different then' thing.

Anyone wish to comment?

[–] TheDuchessofM 17 years ago

I picked up on it my first time watching it and I think it could go both ways: Hitchcock's intentional allowance of it and the fact that families may have been different, closer back then.

[–] smitty1941 16 years ago

I think you're right about families being closer. Nowadays, that kind of conduct might spell bad things, but back in the 40s, they didn't even think that way. So I really don't think any such relationship was intended by Hitchcock or anyone else. They didn't think along that line. I think Charlie and Uncle Charlie were just extremely close.

[–] cestsibon 16 years ago

I completely agree with you. I find it disgusting that someone would think that someone would think there was anything going on between the Charlies. After all, Young Charlie looked up to Old Charlie.

[–] Suchaprettybird 9 years ago

You are kidding, right?

[–] ichimaru 17 years ago

I disagree about that being able to be attributed to families being different in the 1940s. Certainly, there were differences, but their body language is anything but familial to me. Their body language and expressions and even their dialog said their feelings were not simply familial, different times and attitudes don't come into it at all.

It's obvious it was purposefully done and skillfully too. It would have been noticed just as much back then as it is now because it's so blatantly obvious. Trying to attribute it to misunderstanding and changing times is pretty much an insult to the movie itself. It's a complete underestimation of the script and everything in it.

[–] lily_slade 16 years ago

OHHHH I totally think there was stronge sexual tention between them you could just feel it while you watched it. Many times I thought that Uncle Charlie was going to kiss young Charlie. In a way you could tell they both wished in way that they could be together. And share their lips on one another. Until the whole murder thing came out then it all went down hill. Just like a relationship would if something were to come inbetween it. I think its was done tastefully in the relationship between Uncle Charlie and Young Charlie. It was directed perfectily and beautifully throughout the whole movie. Good stuff. You don't get movies like this anymore. What am I saying I'm 18 we've never had movies like this. Thats why I watch Turner Classic Movies all the time.

[–] crachelm 15 years ago

I certainly noticed the tension. I didn't know if it was intentional by Hitchcock or if they were dating in real life and couldn't hide it or what, but I think it's undeniable that it's there.

"She plays like a Stradivarius, man," said Mr. Dobkin of Rachel McAdams.
R.I.P. Heath Ledger

[–] chlo0912 12 years ago

Completely agreed. It's insulting to Hitchcock to disregard a part of the movie that required such skillful and subtle implication as just "times were different back then."

[–] skylands 13 years ago

"filum"... lol

[–] joekiddlouischama 16 years ago

oh there was definitely a lot of sexual tension between them. you could cut through it with a knife.

... the latent threat of incest is certainly in the air.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FrameXFrame 17 years ago

Yes, I picked up on that sexual tension the first time I ever saw the movie. I think of it as Uncle Charlie representing the dangerous but seductive side of life. Yes, indeed, sexual tension that "could be cut with a knife." Plus, Hitchcock has Uncle Charlie toss his hat on young Charlie's bed, which could be seen as a "claiming territory" move.

[–] jigsawsXapprentice 17 years ago

Yeah, I'm watching it now in class and it does seem that Hitchcock made their relationship more sexual then an uncle and a neice usually are. I'm not really sure why I think he did that, but I'm only halfway through the movie.

*In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti*

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBlondNYC 17 years ago

Not in a lustful sense but young Charlie was clearly attracted to Uncle Charlie. For example, when young Charlie is lying in bed playing with her hair while she's thinking about Uncle Charlie. And young Charlie loved what people may have thought as they walked down the street holding hands.

Tony Soprano: Everything turns to sh-t.

[–] capricious_nature 17 years ago

This has probably been mentioned, but also note that the first time the garage door is closed on Young Charlie, it is just after a declaration of love from the detective. Part of Uncle Charlie's attempted murder of her is implicitly inspired by sexual jealousy, not just fear of discovery. He sees his power over her slipping as she moves towards a more natural sexual/romantic relationship and away from their "connection." Incest, murder and insanity in small town America...

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

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jt-hix2112 15 years ago

I think capricious nature makes an interesting point.

I really don't think that there is anything really going on between them, but there is definatly a sexual tension that makes the viewer a little uneasy. For me, the biggest evidence of this is the scene where they're walking through the town and her friend looks jealously at her.

But, yeah, very interesting about how Charlie lost perhaps his object of lust. We know he thinks strangley of women already, whose to say he doesn't lust after his neice, the exact opposite of the women he loathes.

CGI SUCKS

[–] mowgli_07 15 years ago

i cannot understand how someone couldn't notice the sexual tension in their scenes together, especially after two viewings (!!!)
really good film

[–] amyghost 10 years ago

whose to say he doesn't lust after his neice, the exact opposite of the women he loathes.

Good point; I've thought something of the same thing--he's drawn to Charlie because she is the exact opposite of the rich, greedy older women he does away with. At the same time, he's also motivated by a cynical desire to strip her of her innocence, a desire that probably does have a sexual aspect.

I don't know if anyone's ever noticed this, but I think the scene where he steers her into the seedy bar could also be taken as a sort of symbolic deflowering--he's propelling her into an utterly adult environment, a place that symbolizes adult misconduct and 'sin'. And it's there that he really introduces her to his ideas about life. And afterwards, that great line he has, where he chides Charlie about her living her peaceful life and dreaming her silly dreams--"and I gave you nightmares"--wonderful line, because it can be taken so many different ways as to just what those 'nightmares' are he's referring to. Talk about Freudian!

[–] Forlorn_Rage 9 years ago

Excellent analysis! I think you nailed it! Funny, filmmakers wouldn't get away with this today and yet Hitchcock's perverse sense of humour and romance is one of the major reasons modern audiences continue to adore him today!

[–] liscarkat (16530) 6 years ago

"filmmakers wouldn't get away with this today"

They'd try, but instead of the artistic skill of Hitchcock we'd watch them shagging for five minutes, with spit strings and slurping sounds.

[–] gatheringrosebuds 16 years ago

I completely agree that this did not seem like the normal uncle-niece relationship. What was really amazing to me is how oblivious the rest of the family was to Uncle Charlie's interest in young Charlie and the other way around. Somehow though, the chemistry between Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright was more like that of a younger woman with an older lover rather than an uncle and a niece. Perhaps Hitchcock purposefully casted the movie in this way. After all, if Hitchcock had cast a younger girl as young Charlie, I'm not sure the sexual tension would have been present. Both actors were superb though.

[–] eastcoastguyz 11 years ago

And then the scene that she is looking at a photo of her Uncle and touching herself before he arrives.

Come on folks, you people are trying your best, but there is nothing there to indicate what you are talking about.

[–] MrBlondNYC 11 years ago

When you were a teenager, did you ever walk down the street holding hands with an adult relative? And if so, were you excited at the prospect of people thinking you were a couple?

George Carlin: It's all bullsh-t and it's bad for ya.

[–] geoffzman04 10 years ago

Hitchcock has stated that he wanted the character of Uncle Charlie to be somewhat ambiguous...not black and white...but rather like most killers...to possess shades of grey.

Uncle Charlie treated his niece, in what appeared to be a sexual manner but in fact was using charm and flirtatious behavior to influence a naive immature and bored young girl. He had a huge effect on everyone in the family as well as friends, showing all with gifts, financial endowments, kind thoughts and gestures. You can bet he used these tactics successfully prior to murdering the 'Merry Widows'.

Life is full of irony and contradiction and in this film it delightfully bubbles to the surface. It's full of subtle innuendo. For instance, the seemingly bumbling crime aficionado played by Hume Cronyn ostensibly stumbling on the scene on a 'real' crime scene is priceless.

Even to the end, Uncle Charlie has endeared himself to the entire community who eulogize him in the church and line the community streets to watch the hearse pass by. Hitchcock seems to be making a statement about the small town naivety in america and elsewhere. Even today you can read interviews with friends, neighbors, acquaintances of notorious mass murders who state, " he/she was such a sweet person"!

Why the niece and detective want to keep the secret of Uncle Charlie is not really clear.

On another note, Hitchcock has stated that this particular film was his favorite, yet I've read him mysteriously state the opposite elsewhere. I can only guess that although a very talented filmmaker, he is only human, intensely flawed and most certainly rather a vain individual when it came to embellishing his work.

Lastly, for me, I find this film interesting but weighed down with extraneous dialogue, plot meanderings, etc...all of which perhaps a result of several 'writer' cooks in the kitchen.

[–] Forlorn_Rage 9 years ago

A great point that Charles charmed his niece in the same way that he treated those widows. He liked her fine, while she was nice and useful to soothe his vanity. But, once she became a threat to him, she became nothing more than what those widows were to him and started scheming to kill her.

I enjoyed reading your post. You brought up excellent points!

[–] IrishLass240 17 years ago

I think it is revolting that anyone would imply sexual tension between the uncle and niece. The uncle is far too smart to allow anything of that sort to detract from his desire to find a quiet place to disappear. It's the most natural thing in the world for a young girl "with stars in her eyes" to be excited to see her uncle from the "big city". I would bet that if this forum was started when the film first came out, no one at that time would have ever thought such a thing. I think you are all trying to interpret the film and Hitchcock's intentions from a vantage point too far removed from the reality of that time.

IrishLass

"He was a bad man. a very bad man, so I put his head on the Jack-in-the-box so everyone could see".

(Billy Mumy/Anthony)"Please son, send him to the cornfield, please." (Twilight Zone, "It's a Good Life")

^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

[–] capricious_nature 17 years ago

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the implicit sexual nature of the two Charlies relationship is difficult to ignore. Hitchcock consistently explored the dark sides of human nature--if he can explore sexual jealousy between sons and mothers (Psycho, The Birds, Notorious, etc.) why not between uncles and nieces? Uncle Charlie gives Young Charlie a ring he took from the hand of one of his female victims, placing it on her finger like a wedding ring--in fact, it was the dead woman's wedding ring. He exercises his power over her, even to the point of attempting to murder her when a rival appears on the scene. Young Charlie in turn speaks of her uncle almost in terms of a lover ("We're more than an uncle and niece"). She's proud that her friends see her with her handsome uncle. But she ultimately rejects the perverted relationship for that of a normal, if more boring, one.

As for the interpretations to be put on it in the time it was made, I think you underestimate the time period. Ten years later we have "Suddenly Last Summer," "Baby Doll," "The Three Faces of Eve", etc. Five years later, Hitchcock treats of a sadistic, implicitly homosexual relationship in "Rope." Pre-code films also explored dark sexuality, sadism and incest. I think the people of the time would have looked on Shadow of a Doubt as disturbing, and I'm equally certain that they would have known precisely what the relationship between the Charlies implies.

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

[–] laurapamer 17 years ago

It might be revolting, but it seems nonetheless quite accurate to me. I watched this movie for the very first time last night, and the "more than just uncle/niece" dynamic was very uncomfortable to watch but very hard to ignore.

If anything, the reality of the 1940s ADDS to the dynamic. Young Charlie does things like walking into her uncles bedroom and closing the door behind her. She is only going into the room to talk with him, but in 1943 the idea of a young woman entering an adult male's bedroom and closing the door behind her - leaving just the two of them alone, in private - would be very taboo, even if he is a relative.

And if this thread were started back when the movie was made, most people probably would not have *TALKED* about such a thing, but I'd be willing to bet that on some level they would be *THINKING* about it.

[–] jumbo-gumbo 16 years ago

Uncle - niece is one of the most common forms of reported incest. In Tamil Nadu state in Southern India it is customary for maternal uncles to marry their nieces. In the state of Kerala also in Southern India people marry their maternal cousins. This however is practiced in many western countries as well, Ashley Wilkes was Melanie Hamilton's first cousin in Gone With The Wind ? Wasn't he.

I think as society evolves the definition of Incest is changing a lot. And yes theres definitely signs of a close relationship between Charlie and Young Charlie in this movie. May be he abused her as a teenager thats how many of this relationships start..

[–] maraudertheslashnymph 16 years ago

"This however is practiced in many western countries as well, Ashley Wilkes was Melanie Hamilton's first cousin in Gone With The Wind ? Wasn't he."

Both the book and the movie say that they're cousins, but neither specifies which kind. They could be first cousins or they could be more distantly related.

Holding out hope for The Front Runner.

[–] Noir-It-All 16 years ago

/"This however is practiced in many western countries as well, Ashley Wilkes was Melanie Hamilton's first cousin in Gone With The Wind ? Wasn't he."

Both the book and the movie say that they're cousins, but neither specifies which kind. They could be first cousins or they could be more distantly related./

Another character in Gone With the Wind, Mrs. Tarleton, did not like the Wilkes' inbreeding at all. A avid breeder of horses, she saw that it weakened the descendants of the clan. She said quite a lot to Mr. O'Hara when they ran into each other on the way to the barbecue at the Wilkes house.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] Trippetta10 15 years ago

I don't think there was anything sexual between them at all. The problem is that, thanks to the time we live in, an adult male can't talk to a young girl for more than a few minutes without someone suspecting he wants to get (or has already gotten) into her pants.

[–] BitterBlue911 13 years ago

Have you seen the movie at all??

[–] Scott-101 13 years ago

It's precisely because it's such a taboo territory and that it can't really happen on any textual level, that it's fascinating how Hitchcock plays with the subtext.

In other words, on any textual or realistic level, there's no way this is romantic.

But it's fun to misread it, I suppose, and Hitchcock likes playing around with the symbolism and subtext, so he's inviting us to misread it too and at that point, if Hitch and us are reading it the same way, who's to say that's not really the implication.
It still never makes sense on any realistic level, that the two are really attracted to each other.

www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner

[–] thematrixhasyou1 12 years ago

It's shocking to me that someone could NOT notice the sexual tension.

What are the people who don't see it looking at?

[–] chlo0912 12 years ago

Just because we're saying there's sexual tension doesn't mean Uncle Charlie would be stupid enough to act on it. But there is sexual tension, Hitchcock was a meticulous director and certainly intended it. You can cut through it with a knife in many scenes. Anyone who's attributing it to the closeness of families back then is foolish. I'll bet you anything that audiences back then had the same uncomfortable reaction to Uncle Charlie and his niece---they were simply too close for comfort.

[–] cold_sky 10 years ago

I think it is revolting that anyone would imply sexual tension between the uncle and niece

Funny, coming from a girl whose last post [edit:actually a bunch of them] appears to be copyright infringement. In other words, you're not so innocent yourself.

[–] thebigmouth 7 years ago

I think it is revolting that anyone would imply sexual tension between the uncle and niece.

Then you don't know Hitchcock lol.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

[–] atlantean54 16 years ago

From watching the film again this morning, I couldn't help but feel a slightly "Poe-esque" tension between the two characters...That kind of tension which was felt strongly between the two twins Roderick and Madeline Usher in Edgar Allan Poe's famous short story, The Fall of the House of Usher...Remember the conversation between Uncle Charlie and the young Charlie in the kitchen about being "like twins." Having said this, the themes of inscest, murder and insanity fall clearly under the ruberick of Poe's ouevre and it couldn't simply be thought of as coincidental on Hitch's part. After all, in several interviews Hitch claims to have been quite taken with Poe's work and it seems only natural for such themes to filter their way into his craft.

[–] mrplankton 16 years ago

my word! i didnt think of it as sexual tension. i thought she rather worshipped her uncle at first, tho i admit there did seem to be something going on. i merely thought the tension was due to her believing her uncle was a killer! i had better have another viewing and pay closer attention.

cheers.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]