I don't understand how the audience is supposed to side with and feel sympathetic towards Charlotte when she basically c
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Shadow of a Doubt
peterw5 — 13 years ago(January 31, 2013 02:36 PM)
I don't understand how the audience is supposed to side with and feel sympathetic towards Charlotte when she basically covers for a murderer that is living in her house. She knows that Uncle Charlie is the murderer and she doesn't go to the police about it. Sorry, but just because your mother is going to be disappointed about finding out that Uncle Charlie is a murderer is not a good enough reason to keep that information from the police. Charlotte was just going to let the police blame the guy on the East Coast for the murders and allow Uncle Charlie to leave town scot-free. Charlotte was covering for a murderer, yet the movie wants us to feel sympathetic for her anyway. Why should we?
-
bunnyfunbags — 13 years ago(February 12, 2013 06:59 PM)
I don't think the movie wants anything from you. But I do think it's much more complicated than not upsetting her mother. Revealing what Uncle Charlie is will be a huge disillusionment for the mother but also for the whole town. Charlie has to carry it with her for her whole life, does everyone else need to? Most of us would do a lot to protect our loved ones from harsh truths that they don't really need to know. In a way it's kind of ironic because Uncle Charlie is the one with such a negative view of the world, and exposing him would change the world forever for everyone else in a negative way.
-
Charlot47 — 11 years ago(May 21, 2014 02:54 PM)
True that Young Charlie withholds proof which should send her uncle to the electric chair. True also that she does so to protect herself, her parents and siblings and the people of her little town from the consequences of exposing her wicked uncle.
His crimes and their unravelling are not however the point of the film. Just as Crime and Punishment is not about a man killing an old moneylender and her half-sister. What Wilder and Hitchcock offer us is a study of people under intense stress as individuals, as members of a family and as members of a community. And the circles open out further still, with sleepy Santa Rosa standing not just for the nation but for all humanity.
At the global level, dont we all hide evidence that people or institutions we may love in fact have flaws, even deadly flaws? Arent our motives the same as Young Charlies, to avoid pain for ourselves, for those we love and for those whose respect we seek? -
amyghost — 11 years ago(May 21, 2014 07:10 PM)
Everything Charlot said; also, there are several quite pertinent reasons for why she fails to go immediately to the policethe foremost being the obviously fragile emotional state of her mother with regard to Charles. Charlie is very well aware that her mother could likely collapse under the strain of the revelation of her much-beloved brother's being revealed as a serial killer, and no matter what the cost, she's determined to protect her from this.
Secondly, this is small-town America, 1943. In that more strictly socially constrained time the fact of a close relative of the Newtons being arrested, tried and convicted as a murderer could very well destroy the family literally. Joe's position at the bank (which it seems probable he's held over a long number of years) could be terminated; and at his age it would be very hard to start all over again in another position. The family could be hounded by the scandal to the point they might actually have to leave and relocate elsewhere.
And even then, it could continue to dog them and hamper efforts to start another life any place else, even assuming Emma could stand the strain. Their home and lives could be permanently shattered by Charles' unmasking, Even if Jack and his partner could quietly arrest him and remove him without the knowledge of the community, once he came to trial, the family couldn't hide
that
. And Charlie is certainly aware of this.
(Hell, in that era, even the revelation that Charles is essentially a male prostitutebeing paid by older women for sexual favorscould create a sufficient scandal to make life very uncomfortable for the Newton family, much less his being a killer.)
And last, but not least, Charlie cannot bring herself to go that final step. No matter what he's done, no matter how repulsed she might be by him on one level, Charlie is still powerfully in thrall to her uncle. She wants him gone, but she wants him gone on her terms. She can't bring herself ultimately to consign him to the electric chair, although of course, in the end her inability to act decisively against Charles is what leads to his demise.
The film works precisely because it has the ring of psychological truth to it. Having Charlie run to the police immediately upon guessing at the reality about her uncle would have been false to what we know of her character to that pointnot to mention that it would have made for a pretty short and decidedly un-suspenseful movie! -
novastar_6 — 11 years ago(June 03, 2014 10:07 PM)
Agreed, amy, there's a reason why this was Hitchcock's favorite of his own movies. This was one that COULD happen anywhere in smalltown USA, it had merit, it had credibility, it was believable, it touched on something real, every serial killer has a family out there, who usually has no idea what he's doing.
-
amyghost — 11 years ago(June 04, 2014 03:48 AM)
Exactly. It's why the film remains as great as it is seventy years laterit's entirely believeable in its setup and, most importantly, in the psychological truth of its characters and their actions/reactions.
Most people don't behave in the way that a 'rational' plotline would dictate when faced with extraordinary situations; they dissemble, they hide the truth from themselves, they make excuses. And they look for a way to keep from having to face the ultimate grim reality.
Charlie doesn't want to believe, and even when she's forced to, she doesn't want to act to bring about the awful end she knows will come of it. She only finally does so when her own life is endangered and even then, it's partly through accident that she manages to act in a way to save herself and her family. -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 11 years ago(June 16, 2014 05:15 PM)
Family is family. I don't give a sh!t if they murder someone outside of the family or even inside the family. It's a tough decision to throw family members to the wolves especially if the wolves are fcking cops you don't know. Yes, Charles was a freak and an a$$, but honestly, people today have lost all sense of loyalty and respect toward their family member, especially male family members in favor of some fcking strangers. If I get murdered by someone, I do want them to have some loyalty and respect for themselves enough to have some principles and some brains.
-
disinterested_spectator — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 06:52 PM)
Young Charlie believes that she and her uncle are very much alike. But if she is right, then she has a dark side too. She is willing to let her uncle leave town, even though she can see who the next victim will be, thereby making her an accomplice. She tells her uncle at one point that she wants to kill him. And she does.
In other words, just as a nice town like the one Charlie lives in can have evil hidden within, so too can a nice girl like Charlie have evil hidden within. -
lubin-freddy — 11 years ago(February 01, 2015 05:49 AM)
Hitchcock, when asked "why didn't they just go to the police" (in general) would answer: "Because then the movie would be boring".
Case in point -
Psycho
. The moment "they" go to the police, the whole movie pretty much grinds to a halt, and barely recovers near the end.
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools. -
blanche-2 — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 01:28 AM)
I agree with what most of you have said - this is a character-driven psychological story. Charlie knows her mother wouldn't be just disappointed she'd be shattered! And you see how protective of her mother she is throughout the film.
You don't just find out or suspect your uncle, someone you love, is a killer, and just call the cops. First you don't want to believe it, then once you accept it, you have to have time to work it through, just as has been mentioned.
I don't believe Charlie really
wanted
someone else arrested, or for her uncle to kill again. I just think she wants her uncle gone. The detectives tell her to get him to leave town, so they can arrest him, and she says, "I'd hate for anything to happen
here
." He also threatens the family, asking her what would happen to her mother, and to her father's job if he were found out. She says, "I know I can't tell them," or words to that effect. -
ilovemyrv — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 07:05 AM)
While I agree with all of the reasons posted here as to why young Charlie did not go to the police, I do wish the movie would have explored the fact that she essentially would have the blood of Uncle Charlie's future victims on her hands by keeping her mouth shut.
Uncle Charlie was already eyeballing the next victim (the rich widow who was also going to San Francisco) and with Charlie refusing to tell the police everything she knew she was protecting her family but at the same time putting other women's lives at risk (not to mention her own).
How could Charlie have lived with herself after finding out her mother's friend (the rich widow) was murdered and knowing in her heart that her Uncle Charlie was responsible and she did nothing to prevent it?
Also, how could she live with the fact that, once he does leave, he could come back at any time and continue the attempts on her life?
She was sacrificing her own safety/possibly her life, her future peace of mind, and other women's lives in order to protect her family.