I suppose it could have been revolutionary at the time but what's keeping it on the top 250? Yes I agree that there is nothing wrong with treasuring a classic but to me, this movie had average writing, average suspense, and a sudden convoluted ending. A fair escapist thriller but not much more.
shareI ask myself the same, and by the looks of it, no one came up with a good answer yet. Its just overrated, like many other old films that appear in top 250. I dont even trust it anymore. :)
shareyou are entitled to your opinion. I think Shadow of A Doubt is a great movie. Ryno 2, what do you mean by average suspense?
shareI absolutely love this movie and it is one of my top Hitchcock favorites. A great thriller.
shareWell for one thing there could have been more drama between the two Charlies. Perhaps young Charlie could have come up with a plot to try to kill the older one. That would have been more exciting. Plus older Charlie died sort of by accident at the end which I thought was kinda cheesy.
share
We do see enough drama between Young Charlie and Uncle Charlie. Young Charlie didn't wanted her Uncle to get killed. She just wanted him to leave Santa Rosa. One reason is she loves her uncle a lot. Second, She was highly worried about her mother.
Alright you got a point, but for some reason it didn't really hit me. Maybe because nothing happened that truly shocked you and made you really think about the plot.
share
What about vampire references in the movie?
I guess if you can stand the corn ball acting it's a passable thriller. Certainly nothing we haven't seen millions of times before. And of course the running theme of two Charlie's is as heavyhanded as oats. IMHO the script is far better than the direction which is odd, since at least Sir Alfie usually makes somthing visually interesting out of his moronic scripts.
Last film seen: Robert Bresson's Pickpocket - Brilliant!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/
"I guess if you can stand the corn ball acting it's a passable thriller. Certainly nothing we haven't seen millions of times before. And of course the running theme of two Charlie's is as heavyhanded as oats. IMHO the script is far better than the direction which is odd, since at least Sir Alfie usually makes somthing visually interesting out of his moronic scripts."
By visually interesting, do you mean special effects? If so, you have completely undermined everything Hitchcock is renowned for, and that is suspense and psychological drama. As for the "moronic scripts," go watch Star Wars Episode I and tell me that's not a moronic script. Thorton Wilder must be turning in his grave right now after you wrote that. At least he and Hitchcock attempted to make a film that scratches away at the facade of the "average family" instead of giving us torture porn that Eli Roth is so "good" at. I'd rather watch a film by someone who attempts to understand the human mind than someone who has a depraved mind who can't help but imagine horrific violence the entire time he breaths. Put him in a mental ward, please.
I'd challenge you to even start that list of 'a million times before' this film was made.
What you're calling cornball is maybe just that, because Hitchcock liked to include odd, quirky characters to off-set the suspense. Psycho is hilarious. So is Frenzy, and just about every other movie he made. Also, realize that some of the minor characters were actually played by locals in Santa Rosa - they weren't actors.
But I defy anyone to point out flaws in Cotton's performance, or Wrights (save the ending monologue maybe, but that too is a common Hitchcock device).
Certainly nothing we haven't seen millions of times before.
---
Before 1943?
If you've seen the same thing millions of times before you've seen Shadow of a Doubt...maybe it started it all.
Well for one thing there could have been more drama between the two Charlies. Perhaps young Charlie could have come up with a plot to try to kill the older one. That would have been more exciting. Plus older Charlie died sort of by accident at the end which I thought was kinda cheesy.
By accident? Were you watching the movie?
SPOILER:
He very clearly said to young Charlie he knew his sister couldn't bear to know that he was the murderer. If you aren't going to pay attention to dialog and plot details, don't detract the film.
What makes this movie so special ? As sonysunu has said elsewhere in this string, we are all entitled to our own opinions. At the same time, I have certainly loathed some movies that others love.
But there are a number of reasons I enjoy "Shadow of a Doubt." Perhaps some other people feel the same way.
I enjoy the comfortable, secure small-town feeling that the film creates, something which seems harder to find some 60-odd years later.
I love the old houses and buildings, whether they were on-location or sets.
I find the precocious chatter of the 2 younger siblings hilarious.
The parents are doddering but lovable, as is Hume Cronyn's character.
Young Charlie, as portrayed by Teresa Wright, is fresh and intelligent and full of life and enthusiasm, and one feels energized thinking about what she may accomplish later on in her life.
And then, there is Joseph Cotten. Hard for me to think of any other character or actor who can portray someone who is so charming and pleasant and lovable, while at the same time concealing such a deeply malicious and malevolent hatred of humankind (esp. women). Truly chilling !
"A bride without a head !"
"A wolf without a foot !"
It you are fed on the kind of blockbuster nowadays, you will not find SOAD exciting. SOAD is a suspense movie, not the kind of quick cutting thriller movies you find nowadays in like Scream. It's slow suspense, and great acting. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I think Teresa Wright is outstanding in her role, as is Cotton.
shareLook up any classic movie on imdb and you'll find somebody wondering why it's a classic, they don't think it's so hot. Well. I'm guilty about the same thing with the newer movies. I thought Knocked Up was a total snooze. Oh well, to each his own.
shareThey should have blown something up. Maybe that would have made it more exciting.
shareThat's always the go-to line whenever someone wonders why an old movie is so highly rated. I didn't understand why this was so acclaimed either, and I've seen a dozen Hitchcock movies and loved all but a couple of them. My favorite is Rear Window, which may have as little action as is possible in a thriller.
So just because we may feel like a classic is overrated, it doesn't mean it's because we'd rather watch mindless crap like the live-action Transformers (shudder).
But I think I was particularly disappointed with this because it's been said to be Hitchcock's personal favorite. Like others have said, the whole duality thing seemed a bit heavy-handed, and the death did feel kind of cheap.
"It you are fed on the kind of blockbuster nowadays, you will not find SOAD exciting. SOAD is a suspense movie, not the kind of quick cutting thriller movies you find nowadays in like Scream. It's slow suspense, and great acting. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I think Teresa Wright is outstanding in her role, as is Cotton."
Thank you. It really is a matter of standards of film presentation. Hitchcock is a much more classically-trained director. I'm not saying classical as in "oh, that's a classic!" but in terms of narrative presentation (i.e. dialog and camerawork). What makes it classical is its use of framing and dichotomies for storytelling. Think of the "twin" relationship that develops between the two Charlies and how that helps the progression of the story. Think of the themes of decorum and facades in relation to socializing in the "average town" of Santa Rosa. "Own the house? It owns us!" the mother says. If that line left you with nothing to think about, just go watch a bad horror film remake. Or maybe they remade this film to present more simply the elements which Hitchcock plays with in the original, or they totally stripped it of any significance. Who knows. To me, this is like all the kids in high school I knew who read a book and said "I don't get it," then forgot about it. Art isn't supposed to reveal itself to you, or at least that's what I've come to learn.
I love the way people spoke to each other then,such class and respect.No slang and people were so much more thoughtful towards each other.The cozy homes,neighborhoods,classy cars,all make me long to have lived then.
shareI agree that Thornton Wilder's dialogue was evocative of an era that may or may not have ever existed. His portrayal of small-town America is charming without ever being quaint. The scene in the bank is especially good, as it points out that certain manners of decorum are expected in different situations. I can remember going into the bank with my mother as a boy, and noticing how everyone spoke softly and behaved in a dignified manner.
The dialogue is realistic and clever, and Hitchcock's direction of the ensemble is wonderful. I especially enjoyed the juvinilles.
"I love corn!"
"I agree that Thornton Wilder's dialogue was evocative of an era that may or may not have ever existed. His portrayal of small-town America is charming without ever being quaint. The scene in the bank is especially good, as it points out that certain manners of decorum are expected in different situations. I can remember going into the bank with my mother as a boy, and noticing how everyone spoke softly and behaved in a dignified manner.
The dialogue is realistic and clever, and Hitchcock's direction of the ensemble is wonderful. I especially enjoyed the juvinilles."
Charming? On a surface level, I would agree with you there. I think every character is selfish on some level though. The father's under the table business at the bank, and his arbitrary rules (think of the newspaper, I'd tell him to get over himself and buy a new one). The mother is absolutely obsessed with having her brother stay at their house. Yes, it can be seen as sentimental but she wants him there for her own personal satisfaction without considering how beneficial his presence there is for himself or anyone else in the family. I call that the Norwegian mother guilt trip when she tells him how hard it will be to see him leave. The two Charlies are the only people who seem to see through the facade of everyone's "niceness." Young Charlie says to her father "We don't even have any real conversations. We just talk." Does that put a different spin on how you see the charming nature of their interactions? There's hidden agendas behind much of the dialog, most obviously is Uncle Charlie's speech at the dinner table about greedy widows. The family doesn't think much of it in the sinister way that Young Charlie sees it.
I like Charlie's character and the dynamic between her and her sister Anne as well as the budding relationship between her and Jack.
share"I love the way people spoke to each other then,such class and respect.No slang and people were so much more thoughtful towards each other.The cozy homes,neighborhoods,classy cars,all make me long to have lived then."
More thoughtful? Are you sure? Did you understand the film is trying to say that the materiality and superficiality of that society isn't healthy?
I agree. This is the 12th Hitchcock I've seen, and it's the maybe the only one I'd consider overrated. It just seemed average all around.
shareQuite simply, it is the psychological aspect of the movie. Hitchcock loved doppelgangers, and this is the ultimate example. The connection between the two Charlies is something unspoken in the film, only something you feel. It lends an air of tension and dread, while being set against the "perfect small town."
My advice when watching this: don't think so much, feel it. Then you will get why this film is stil so special 60-plus years later.
I really don't understand why this is in the top 250. The ending ruined the entire film's build-up. Its almost as if Hitchcock just gets bored with his films and tries to wrap them up in the quickest and most illogical way possible. North by Northwest is also similar in this regard. It just seems like a lot of time wasted for a stupid ending. Hitchcock's best films are the ones where he is able to tie in the ending to the rest of the film eg. in Strangers on a Train and Rear Window (Personally my favourite Hitchcock films. Even though he is held in high regard today as one of the "greatest" directors of all time, he definitely had his fair share of *beep* films.
shareI also don't understand why it is top 250. Other than, obviously, I have a minority opinion about it.
My opinion is that it is a good movie, with excellent direction & acting by all members. It portrays a town as idyllic, but with the rugged broken parts visible beneath the civilized veneer. The entendre and creepiness is cool, but, for me, ultimately not enough to sustain the level of excitment that I feel is achieved in my mind with an excellent or better movie.
Damion Crowley
Furor Scribendi
I often find Hitchcock not to be as wonderful as everyone says he is. Some of his early pictures are very good. And this one is. TCM just aired it. Some of the reasons: It's got that Cotten guy in it. He was in AMBERSONS and 3rd MAN and all that. He's good. Also, the print I saw was cinematically very well done. And in great condition (I'm sure that's due to the Hitchcock name on it). I noticed the film from one of the sarcastic, great lines Cotten had and began watching it from there. A nice period piece of Americana circa 1942.
Noirish. Added all up, these individual things give it more than most Hitchcock films for me. This one's really good.
As I mentioned, others with COTTEN that are great are MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and 3rd MAN.
The two Oedipal triangles in this film were shown very well. (Got all this by inputting Shadow of a Doubt into Google.) That is enough to set this film apart.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
Beats me. I think it's Hitchcock's worst.
shareWhy is this movie good? Because it has this scene in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEoTXa_52A0
We plow deep while others sleep
Yes, this clip perfectly demonstrates what SOAD would have badly needed in order to succeed - more of Joseph Cotten and less of the other hokey, annoying caricatures populating the movie. Such a waste, his great performance here.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Yes, this clip perfectly demonstrates what SOAD would have badly needed in order to succeed - more of Joseph Cotten and less of the other hokey, annoying caricatures populating the movie. Such a waste, his great performance here.