Sexual tension between young Charlie and old Charlie?
-
FrameXFrame — 18 years ago(September 03, 2007 07:18 AM)
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 — 18 years ago(September 13, 2007 07:57 AM)
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 -
MrBlondNYC — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 12:38 AM)
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 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 03:42 AM)
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.~ -
jt-hix2112 — 17 years ago(January 12, 2009 11:53 PM)
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 -
amyghost — 11 years ago(April 29, 2014 03:42 AM)
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 thinghe'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 defloweringhe'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 — 10 years ago(August 04, 2015 09:35 PM)
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!
-
gatheringrosebuds — 18 years ago(November 17, 2007 11:32 AM)
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 — 12 years ago(April 16, 2013 10:32 PM)
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 — 12 years ago(April 17, 2013 12:29 PM)
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 — 12 years ago(November 02, 2013 11:24 PM)
Hitchcock has stated that he wanted the character of Uncle Charlie to be somewhat ambiguousnot black and whitebut rather like most killersto 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, etcall of which perhaps a result of several 'writer' cooks in the kitchen. -
Forlorn_Rage — 10 years ago(August 04, 2015 09:39 PM)
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 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 03:58 AM)
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 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 04:14 AM)
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 natureif 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 ringin 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 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 02:19 PM)
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 — 18 years ago(November 23, 2007 03:16 AM)
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 — 18 years ago(March 25, 2008 08:13 PM)
"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.