why is this seemingly average thriller so special?
-
lukechong — 17 years ago(April 01, 2009 10:14 PM)
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.
-
lastmidnite2 — 16 years ago(April 11, 2009 07:38 PM)
Look 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.
-
km9000 — 16 years ago(September 23, 2009 01:13 AM)
That'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. -
samusaran88 — 16 years ago(October 21, 2009 12:42 PM)
"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. -
kerrydragon — 16 years ago(April 11, 2009 08:51 PM)
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.
-
shandy8 — 16 years ago(April 17, 2009 01:45 PM)
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.
"I love corn!" -
samusaran88 — 16 years ago(October 21, 2009 01:02 PM)
"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. -
samusaran88 — 16 years ago(October 21, 2009 12:44 PM)
"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? -
lcrews — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 10:29 PM)
Quite 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. -
Marcile — 16 years ago(September 11, 2009 05:05 AM)
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.
-
Frequency270 — 16 years ago(October 05, 2009 07:49 AM)
I 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 -
oldmotem — 16 years ago(December 31, 2009 11:03 AM)
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. -
Noir-It-All — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 08:15 PM)
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 -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(March 08, 2012 03:20 AM)
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 -
pantsofdoom — 13 years ago(June 01, 2012 08:57 AM)
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.
This. I just watched SOAD for the first time last night and this was the main problem I had with the movie. Hitchcock's movies (for me at least) have some really great characters, which I didn't find to be the case for SOAD, with the exception of Uncle Charlie. It wasn't awful, but it's Hitchcock's worst for me.