criterionforum.org

I was reading through this thread and I'm surprised there is not much love (or hate for that matter) for The Wrong Man. Is it the time period in which it was made and the documentary style that leaves this on outside, looking in for folks?

Made my list. I think it's a great film.

It strikes me as very un-Hitchcock, particularly of the late 50's-era; it's deathly serious with very little to laugh at, despite being very good.

Ribs wrote:It strikes me as very un-Hitchcock, particularly of the late 50's-era; it's deathly serious with very little to laugh at, despite being very good.

I really like it (and voted for it), and I think it's only superficially uncharacteristic. It's one of those oddball films like The Trouble with Harry or Rich and Strange which, despite being atypical on the surface, deal very directly with several of Hitchcock's key themes. In this case, we've got (obviously) the most direct statement of his pervasive "wrong man" theme, along with the tried and true "mistrust of the police" theme, and it might be his most bitter and realistic portrait of a troubled marriage. It's often overlooked that Hitchcock's married couples are generally exceedingly well-drawn, way beyond the requirements of whatever genre he's working in. On a more trivial note, it also contains probably the most sarcastically perfunctory of his many imposed happy endings, one which does nothing to alleviate the bleak and shattering impression left by the rest of the film.

Ribs wrote:It strikes me as very un-Hitchcock, particularly of the late 50's-era; it's deathly serious with very little to laugh at, despite being very good.

That's because The Wrong Man is based on a true story and Hitchcock didn't want to make light of the situation as a man actually went through what Henry Fonda's character went through. This is also why Hitchcock's cameo is at the beginning and consists of him talking to the audience, instead of it being like his normal cameos.

I decided to finally pick up the Warners titles on Blu and was surprised there doesn't seem to be a Region A boxed set. I seem to recall a DVD set being released. There is a UK set with three titles only--is that the only Warners Blu set available?

Yes. No BD set in the U.S. Since Warner Archive released some of the Warner titles and Foreign Correspondent is with Criterion, there likely won't be one.

Noiradelic wrote:Yes. No BD set in the U.S. Since Warner Archive released some of the Warner titles and Foreign Correspondent is with Criterion, there likely won't be one.

Got it, thanks!

Ribs wrote:It strikes me as very un-Hitchcock, particularly of the late 50's-era; it's deathly serious with very little to laugh at, despite being very good.

I just watched it--first time I've seen it. I agree that it is very un-Hitchcock. In fact, had it not been for the introduction by Hitchcock, I might not have remembered that it was a Hitchcock film.

Setting aside the almost complete absence of any humor that was already noted in the thread, I think what most distinguishes this film from what I usually think of as a Hitchcock film is that pretty much all of his most celebrated films were thrillers, with a particular kind of tension and pacing that this film completely lacked. There was no ticking time bomb of Sabotage. There was no chase scene. There were no murders and no murderer, and there were no spies.

There was also a very claustrophic feeling to the film. The world inhabited by the characters seemed suffocatingly small, very compressed (even moreso than in Rear Window, Lifeboat, or Rope), with what seemed like just a few locations being shown, fewer in fact than actually were included. The effect of that for me was that it exacerbated the feeling that the story didn't seem to be going anywhere fast. And it made The Wrong Man seem like a very-low-budget, New York-studio made-for-tv production rather than a major Hollywood studio release.

I also found the score very annoying--another surprise, since it was by the great Bernard Hermann.

Now, the fact that it was atypical for Hitchock's films wouldn't necessarily mean that it couldn't still be a great film, but I didn't like it. I think there was a lot of potential there that wasn't properly exploited.

I'm actually curious about what the production was like for Hitchcock, because it felt like someone else's picture. I also wonder how he and his wife, Alma, felt about this film as they looked back at their body of work in their later years.

Revisited Rear Window last night and enjoyed a new moment I don't remember noticing before: Thorwald's wife eating Chinese takeout in bed before he later brings in the dinner tray that she angrily rejects. Good touch, and nice suggestion of the wife's own possibly duplicity leading up to

Spoiler

her murder

(Probably didn't have to spoiler that, as I'm not sure it is possible to have not seen Rear Window, but if that describes you, go watch it)

ASMR for lonely Hitchcock fans (SFW, but you’re going to get weird looks regardless)

domino harvey wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:44 pm ASMR for lonely Hitchcock fans (SFW, but you’re going to get weird looks regardless)

Thanks, I hate it.

I'm going through Hitchcock's filmography backwards, watching many for the first time and rewatching the classics. And while I found Family Plot disappointing, Topaz a bid underwhelming but still solid, and Torn Curtain terrific and underrated, I'd love someone to defend Trouble With Harry. It's just bad, boring, barely coming alive in it's last part. It's sandwiched between terrific films, yet is the first Hitchcock film I've seen that fails badly on the visual/filmic level, made worse by it's silly screenplay. At least I have Rear Window to rewatch now

zedz is the film’s biggest fan on the forum, you might try searching by member to see if he ever offered a long defense (and I feel like he has)

For whatever it's worth, David Lynch liked it, and so did David Kerr.

It’s probably the one Hitchcock film I’ve seen the most, because my mom would always play it while I was growing up. For me though, the expansive New England setting may only exist in this movie, but I find it utterly charming, much like the idyllic Ireland of The Quiet Man. Also, I love Edmund Gwen. It probably has my favorite Hitchcock score.

At the very least, with those autumn colors in VistaVision, it's one of H's most gorgeous films. One I like more and more every time out.

I find The Trouble with Harry to be masterful due to its languid pace, black but good-natured humor, and generosity to its characters. I also concur with bearcuborg about the score and Rayon Vert about the stunning photography. But I’m long overdue to rewatch it and can’t go much deeper than that; also, it’s worth noting that the film’s never been one for all tastes, as I think was reflected by its box office performance at the time. In other words, like Under Capricorn, it has its champions but will never be among the luminary classics of his output.

It's a diversion, a jeu d'esprit, no more. I like Mildred Natwick very much in it though.

I have a nostalgic memory of being taken to see it when I was twelve or thirteen. Shirley MacLaine sitting in the windowsill in the moonlight in her negligee, "to show herself to best advantage," if I remember the line correctly.

~~~

domino harvey wrote: Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:44 pm ASMR for lonely Hitchcock fans (SFW, but you’re going to get weird looks regardless)

I almost fell off my chair laughing when she shushed me. And then she brings out... the popcorn. And we all know what she's going to do with it, don't we? That's right. Eat it. With her mouth open.

The script is unparalleled:

Oh you're so dreamy. So, so dreamy. I mean come on, straight from the fridge, all the girls love you. But you chose to go out on a date with me. Why?
That vibrates me. That vibrates me a lot.
.
.
.
I'm just glad this night didn't end with us screwed, blued, and tattooed.

I'm not a fan of Harry. Here's my brief reaction to it in the Hitchcock List thread.

I wrote:What a tedious movie. I suppose I can't blame Hitchcock as much as the script, tho' why he'd choose a script so hokey, unfunny, and full of hoary cliches (is there really a whole scene of people happening to wander by one random location in the woods all at the same time while an old man soliloquizes from behind a tree?) is beyond me. It's a narrative of endless scenes of uninteresting people talking archly at each other (sometimes in admittedly beautiful scenery). This vies with Topaz as my least favourite Hitchcock.