MovieChat Forums > Stage Fright (1950) Discussion > Why would any modern day viewers feel ch...

Why would any modern day viewers feel cheated? (spoilers)

posted 19 years ago by AnthonyAmmo
27 replies | jump to latest

To an extent I can understand audience in 1950 feeling cheated because the concept of a "false flashback" was totally foreign.

But how can anyone feel cheated at this point in time? The flashback is not a cheat! When we are seeing the flashback Jonathan is clearly *telling* Eve what happened. This is the story he is telling and we are seeing the story on screen instead of just hearing him say it.

Now, this flashback would be cheat if this was the sort of flashback where Jonathon was simply remembering the events to himself. In that case, it would be the type of flashback where we should clearly be seeing what actually happened. But this was not an "Oh, I remember" type of flashback.

This was a "story" being presented so that we see the everything he is saying.

I can't see how people see this as a major flaw... there are other, more serious flaws and if anything, the realization that the flashback was not true was the one thing that won me back.

[–] tim.bo 18 years ago

I totally agree with you

I had not seen this movie yet had seen virtually all the others until its release on DVD
The build up of the "flaw" was such that I was not looking forward to it.

I really enjoyed the film and think its up there with some of his best.
The work of Alastair Sim and Joyce Grenfell is wonderful, believable but warm and funny at the same time,
The shots of St Pauls with the bomb debris surrounding it always suprises me.
Jane Wyman has some great moments and the glasses reference harks to Strangers on A Train
Marlene Dietrich gives a great performance

I really can't understand why it is seen as such a third rate film.
if You have not seen it and you're into Hitchcock give it a try at least once.

[–] mac_alain 17 years ago

The shots of St Pauls with the bomb debris surrounding it always surprises me.

A bit like historical footage that. I used to work near by a few years ago.

I did in no way feel cheated. On the contrary, I *very* much enjoyed the film: 9/10.

BTW the car at the beginning of the film speeding towards the camera was being driven by Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia Hitchcock, who loved doing "dangerous" things.

[–] Emmjewels 18 years ago

Excellent movie (so glad it's now available on DVD) in my opinion, and I did not feel cheated.

Will be purchasing it to make it a part of my 'classics' collection.

[–] teenagewildlife 18 years ago

I completely agree.

Plus isn't the false flashback (well, more like a story within the story told by an unreliable character) the main gimmick of one of the 90s most popular and critically acclaimed films: The Usual Suspects?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSilhouette 17 years ago

I just watched it last night for the first time and loved it.

I did not feel cheated at all, actually. I don't understand how anyone can when you've got films like "The Usual Suspects" out there that are comprised entirely of "fake scenes".

This is a MUCH better, clever film, IMO.

Join the Blood and Sleaze online message board community:
www.bloodandsleaze.com

[–] fdc-2 17 years ago

I totally agree! I think those who complain about the "false flashback" were probably fooled by it ( I know people who think they can figure out every single movie they watch). But, that is what makes it a great movie, you are being fooled by Mr Coopers' story of events, which of course is untrue.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I think Stage Fright Flashback Scene was great, because for a moment Jonathan succeeds in convincing the audience that he isn't guilty.

[–] Yojimbo28 17 years ago

It's possible that some viewers forgot that the flashback scene was a story being told by Jonathan to Eve, and not an actual scene that happened. Personally, I loved it, and I think it's another example of how far ahead of his time Alfred Hitchcock was as a director. I believe the movie was based on a novel, so the book may have also framed Jonathan's story like that. Regardless, not many other directors were doing the kinds of things Hitchcock was in the 1940s.

[–] Wolmas 17 years ago

I sure forgot about it being that Cooper was telling the story later on in the movie when he said his story was false. This was definitely a highlight in the movie, because idiots like me think he's innocent until he mentions that his story was false and then one remembers that he WAS telling a story, not going through a narrative flashback. Another favorite part for me was the ''Laziest girl in town'' scene.

We're barely out of the jungle

[–] vhstapes 17 years ago

I first saw the movie when it was shown on TV 20 or 30 years ago. I have always loved it, and have never understood or agreed with the criticism about the flashback. It's a wonderfully plotted story with some great acting and characterizations. I personally consider one of my five favorite Hitchcock movies.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] loneandersen 17 years ago

Watched it last week and was delighted by the false flashback. Pure genious.

WARNING - BIG SPOILERS AHEAD -

I remember when I first watched The Usual Suspects and how I felt when realisation dawned that here was an unreliable narrator. I love when a movie can surprise me like that.

I did NOT expect a movie from 1950 to do the same - although with Hitchcock, you never know what's going to happen. Here was this young love-struck actor, and he turns out to be a psycho killer. The moment in the cellar of the theatre - that mad look... very scary.

A very underrated movie, definitely.

[–] aether_1138 17 years ago

I agree with londeanderson. This movie is vastly underrated. People herald The Usual Suspects as being ground breaking, but Hitch was doing the same thing in 1950. I don't understand why todays audience would feel cheated. The false flashback has become more prevalent in movies recently. It just shows how far ahead Hitch was, and why he was the greatest director ever. This movie has some great cinematography and acting too. I loved it.

"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."
-Roy Batty

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Agreed. Alfred Hitchcock was greatest director ever.

Alistair Sim was great in it. I am glad Hitchcock casted Alastair Sim in this film. That makes this film more special.

[–] csu16387 17 years ago

Agree with the other comments here. The false flashback works very well and is the sort of thing Hitchcock could pull off. It's hardly a flaw.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I think Hitchcock used to flashback to show reality in the cinema. And Critics call "Flashback" a big flaw. I don't understand it.

This was the whole point with false falshback - Jonathan Cooper tells his close friend Eve Gill a story to make her believe that he is innocent.

And Eve Gill uses the same method to Charlotte Inwood. She tells Charlotte Inwood that she is Nelly's cousin Doris Tinsdale.

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

This was the whole point with false falshback - Jonathan Cooper tells his close friend Eve Gill a story to make her believe that he is innocent.

And Eve Gill uses the same method to Charlotte Inwood. She tells Charlotte Inwood that she is Nelly's cousin Doris Tinsdale.
________________________________________

Not the same ting - We as viewers know that she's not Doris T.

[–] rexshard93 15 years ago

I was talking about structural point of the story. Not general point. If Eve can trick Charlotte so easily, then Jonathan can do it much better.

[–] Locomotiva1 15 years ago

I'm delighted by the "cheat" flashback.

The film is so good: from the start you are sure the good gal will help the good boy to frame the dark lady, with the help of the ordinary policemen.

With all the masquerade as the maid, the "unique" daddy, all the stuff.

But from the start everything points to the dark lady as the murderer.
You have just to wonder HOW she will be framed.

And, when you are sure that the policemen will save the good guy -surprise- the good guy is not the good guy, and the dark lady is not guilty.
Ok, not -so- guilty.

Yes, it's a cheat. We and the good gal both get this story as "true", untill the very end.