Post 114

Ladies and gentlemen, the unthinkable has occurred: Alfred Hitchcock has disappointed me (which means this post will inevitably have some Thmazing rebuke to me, so be sure to check that out [it's only fair that I provoke him since he recently did the same to me).

I haven't seen as much Hitch as I wish I had. I've seen The Birds, Frenzy, Vertigo, Rear Window, and--um--I think that's it. Or at least, that was it until a few nights ago when I watched To Catch a Thief.

Of course I was attracted to To Catch a Thief: it's a Hitchcock flick that puts Cary Grant and Grace Kelly together on the French Riviera--what's not to love?

What's not to love--what's not to love! Well, I'll tell you what's not to love! But first, a few good points (because the film wasn't totally bereft of value):

1) The acting: The acting in To Catch a Thief is spot on. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly naturally do fine jobs in their roles (who knew that Grace Kelly, who generally plays such refined women, could portray such a reckless youth?), but the minor characters all do very well also. Jessie Royce Landis is marvelous in her role as a simple woman who has fallen into substantial wealth; Brigitte Auber makes Danielle’s passionate anger seem just as authentic as her playful advances; John Williams lands a delicate balance between stuffy insurer and reluctant accomplice. Overall, every actor, regardless of the size of their role, found their characters and established them well. It gives credence to Stanislavsky’s statement that “There are no small parts, only small actors.”

2) The photography: The photography in To Catch a Thief is rather fine; it certainly deserved its nomination for an award in cinematography. Hitchcock was very good throughout the movie at capturing the action—much of which takes place in the dark. In the final, climactic scene, when Robie is chasing Danielle on the rooftop, the sky is dark, the roof is dark, and the characters are bother wearing black, yet the action is easily followed. A fine balance was found somewhere between “looks like midnight” and “can’t see a thing.” The same is true of the firework scene: the room appears unlit, the only possible light source being the fireworks outside, yet subtle lighting does the trick and makes the scene both perfectly visible and plenty dusky.

Okay, enough pleasantries; on with the attack!

Despite the actors’ fine work in portraying the various characters, the story is not very solid. To Catch a Thief presents itself as a whodunit sort of mystery, but to consider it such is not very accurate because it doesn’t present enough clues for the viewer to pose confident guesses as to who the actual burglar is. Even at the conclusion of the film, when we learn that Danielle has been performing the burglaries, looking at the story retrospectively doesn’t present any “ah-hah!” sorts of moments. Subsequent viewings show very subtle hints—Danielle’s father was at the scene of the crime, but he couldn’t have been the actually thief because of his wooden leg, so associative guilt implicates Danielle—but the film presents no substantial reason to suspect her.

The editing, too, failed in many of its purposes and, in several cases, actually got in the way of the film itself. For example, the movie begins with a montage of several jewel burglaries interspersed with shots of a black cat walking on an expensive roof. The cat, we later learn, belongs to Robie and lives with him in his villa. During one scene wherein Robie and Hughson share a meal at the villa, there are several shots of the cat sleeping on a chair. Hughson actually asks Robie about the animal, making reference to Robie’s crime alias “The Cat.” Throughout the conversation, Robie makes it very clear that he does not feel any remorse for any of his thefts and that he believes that all people are essentially dishonest. Toward the end of the scene, when Robie has resolved to try to catch the new burglar, the cat arouses itself and leaves the chair.

In the scene between Robie and Hughson, it seems that Hitchcock was trying to symbolize Robie in the cat—especially when the cat roused itself while Robie was talking about trying to beat the new burglar at his own game. However, if the cat does represent Robie, then the opening scenes that juxtapose the cat with the new burglar imply that Robie is the new burglar. There is nothing in the movie to raise concern over whether Robie really is innocent; the mystery of the movie isn’t whether he’s the new burglar but rather who the new burglar is. Had Hitchcock been attempting to make Robie seem guilty in the eyes of the viewers, the use of the cat would have been very effective, but because the viewer never has any reason to suspect that Robie is lying, the cat is a sort of red herring that really distracts from the plot.

Another instance of unwise editing occurs during a romantic scene between Robie and Francie the night before Jessie’s jewels are stolen. The two are in a dark room together. Outside, fireworks are bursting over the Riviera. The two lovers are not concerned with the pyrotechnic display, however, because they are entirely caught up in their moment. The scene climaxes with the two going into a passionate kiss. While the kiss goes on, Hitchcock cuts back and forth between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly snogging and the fireworks outside. This is obviously a play on the expression that describes love being like fireworks between two people, but it doesn’t accentuate the passion of the moment at all; in fact, it comes off as comical, and the audience finds itself laughing during what is actually a pretty important scene. To be entirely fair, the relationship between Robie and Francie is sprinkled with absurdity—it all starts with Francie kissing Robie quite unexpectedly—but the comedic juxtaposition is still malapropos because any humor in their relationship up to that point has been precipitated by Francie’s impulsive behaviors, not by environmental elements. Either way, Hitchcock missed his mark because, if he was aiming for humor, he was shooting for it in a way that was inconsistent with the rest of the story, but if he wasn’t trying to be funny, then he really failed because the scene elicits chuckles.

So there you have it: a miserable failure from some of Hollywood's finest. Tragic....