Shadow of a Doubt

B-

Shadow of a Doubt shows that Alfred Hitchcock is an auteur capable of genius and lacklustre works. This movie is predominantly in the latter category; a slow-burn - terribly slow-burn - thriller that talks too much that the miniscule amount of combustion and adrenaline which lurks beneath its skin never surfaces. It is fortunate that this bland piece of cinema is just fast-paced enough to keep it from becoming a true lull.

Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton) is coming to town, much to the excitement of his niece, Charlie (Theresa Wright), and her entire family. However, whatever charms Uncle Charlie exuberates along come a series of suspicious quirks - his insistence on not being photographed, his occasional episodes into monologues against "swine" widows, and the way he keeps cutting out articles from the papers. Young Charlie, who claimed to have a special connection to her namesake, sees it all. And when a pair of detectives comes to town, she-Charlie realizes that her uncle might be the notorious Widow Strangler.

Maybe I should give Mr Hitchcock a break. The film was made in 1943! Maybe back then people wasn't ready for seriously daring stuff. There were instances when the cards could have been pushed, to bring Charlie against Charlie, right out. But no, they talked. Uncle Charlie is supposed to be ruthless, but his attempts to put off his niece failed miserably due to lack of creativity.

Shadow of a Doubt reminds me of Orson Welles' Touch Of Evil; two movies by very respected directors which share a distinct common trait. Both show a great potential to be remarkable, but they miss the mark because the talk the talk but don't walk the walk. In both movies, we are told of how bad the antagonists can get, we are told why they became bad, but somehow it doesn't show. Again, both movies are made more than 50 years ago, and I am inclined to believe that just perhaps people back then weren't ready for something that would really get the pulse raising, like Rear Window which came just 3 short years after this blah of a movie.
~

Shadows And Fog

B+

I love Woody Allen. Ever since Manhattan, my taste of the auteur's works has grown from skeptical indifference (not unlike one that I still hold for Monty Python) to idolatry fondness. The man is a genius. His writing is impeccable, his direction one-of-a-kind, his acting sidesplitting. He shows great depth and range in style both cinematically and thematiccaly.

Shadows And Fog is a worthy venture into the technicalities of filmmaking, and while it has a story to tell, the plot is thin and overshadowed by atmosphere. It resembles Crimes And Misdemeanors in that it is study about life through story-telling. While Crimes collectively examines the morality of offenses by the choices that we make, Shadows looks at mortality and providence.

Allen plays Kleinman, a clerk woken up one night to help the manhunt patrol to apprehend a strangler on the loose. While wandering aimlessly around the city streets on the very foggy night, the stuttering clerk, scared of his own shadow, met a sword-swallower (Irmy) who is running away from the circus. Together, they braved the dark alleys, charming brothels with friendly whores, and the killer that could lurk around any corner.

Shadow And Fog is filled with names. In addition to Allen and Farrow, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates, John Malkovich, John Cusack, Julie Kavner and Madonna provide support in various roles, big and small. The movie is lean at below one and a half hours, so no one except Allen, Farrow and Malkovich had any more than ample screen time.

Thematically speaking, Shadows And Fog approached the subject with delightful originality and sharp sensibilities. It is not as on-the-spot as Crimes And Misdemeanors, but this is not the same film and does not intend to be. Meticulous care was given to creating the cobble-stone streets, dreary atmosphere and all that fog.
~