Greetings, all and sundry!
Allow me a few moments of your time in indulge the nostalgia of my youth. And broach a topic very close to my some may say, misspent early years.
The Classic Double Feature.
Usually reserved for Saturday matinees in the more austere theaters of the day. More often than not, theme or actor based. And superior quality. Genres of films selected was seasonal. With westerns and action popular in the summer. While offerings in Film Noir, horror, mystery and science fiction slated for fall through spring.
There is a method to the madness in the films I’ve selected. Both are films worthy of note and curiosities to our hostess, Ruth. Who desires to learn more of the works of master craftsman, Alfred Hitchcock and perpetual actor, Dean Stockwell. While the choice of which film leads is one which has plagued theater managers since the invention of celluloid. To that end. Allow me to introduce an early work from the British master. With equal parts drama and suspense layered over idyllic, quaint, rural life in a small west coast town.
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
A film that begins in sunny, always fair weather Santa Rosa, California. Home to many families who keep the banks, shops and stores busy. One family in particular, the Newtons; father, Joseph (Henry Travers). Mother, Emma (Patricia Coolidge). Youngest son, Roger (Charles Bates). Middle daughter, Ann (Edna Mae Wonacott). And eldest, approaching awkward teen daughter, Charlotte (Teresa Wright) or “Charlie”. Go through their daily routine of work, school, keeping house, while Charlie eloquently wishes that something, anything would happen.
That occurs when a telegram arrives announcing that Mother’s younger brother, Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotten). All calm, placid charm and deeply buried malevolence. Will be arriving on the Thursday evening train. Uncle Charles arrives. Dinner is had. Gifts are given and the first inklings of psychological thriller starts making itself known. Where most of the family see Charles as a welcome guest. Young Charlie sees her uncle as something more. Someone worldly and romantic A man of mystery who says little about and is trying to stay ahead of his past. For good reason.
Life continues near serenely. Until two detectives drop by to talk to the family. One detective, Jack Graham, (Macdonald Carey) tells Charlie that her uncle may be one of two men known suspected of being “The Merry Widow Murderer”. Who court older women, marries them. Then collects their insurance money and any other expensive things after their untimely, often strange, questionable deaths.
Charlie doesn’t want to believe, at first. But Uncle Charles makes a few awkward, almost embarrassing mistakes that turn heads and focuses attention in public places. And Charlie, being female and just slightly less curious than a cat. Finds small clues and evidence that lends credence to Jack Graham’s cautionary words. Topped off when Uncle Charles, perhaps a bit drunk and full of himself goes on tear about the rich in general, Rich widows in particular. And his contempt for them.
The cat is let out of the bag later, when Charles confronts his niece. Accusations are tossed around and Charles admits that he is the man the police are after. And then begs Charlie for her help. She concedes, but only on the condition that Uncle Charles
leave as soon as possible. Ironically, Uncle Charles is cut a break and some breathing room to pursue his latest mark. When the other suspect is killed in a running gunfight in Portland, Maine.
Young Charlie becomes a loose end that needs attention. In the form of a few odd “accidents” involving stair cases and the faulty lock on a garage door. Keeping young Charlie inside while the sheltered car is left with its engine running. The laws of probability are catching up to Uncle Charles. Who announces that he is leaving by train to San Francisco. In the company of a young widow. Uncle Charles schemes to have a final showdown with young Charlie between cars. As the train starts to move and begin its journey.
I’ll leave it right here for Spoilers sakes….
Now. What Makes This Film Good?
Alfred Hitchcock just getting familiar with the idea of playing with new, near perfect settings. Then playfully tweaking and twisting the American small town ideas, dreams and families. By infusing an often charming dose of “Something wicked this way comes!” in the shape of Charles Oakley. A cypher upon which any story can be painted. Until he becomes too comfortable. And projects his disdain for others upon his brother in law, Joseph. Hinting that Joseph could not possibly be averse to embezzling funds from the bank where he works. Inside the bank and within earshot of others!
Just one of many soliloquies. Delivered with the same wide eyed, calm innocence Mr. Cotten tapped into earlier as best friend and conscience, Jedidiah Leland, in “Citizen Kane”. Only this time it works to his character’s benefit and is a little creepy to take in. Verbal wedged planted between friends that misdirect and distract and create slack for Uncle Charlie to play with.
While Teresa Wright is the personification of budding teenage womanhood. Too smart by half. Driven by emotions that run deep and wild beneath the surface. Who lets her words pull her into the intrigue. While not knowing what is on the other end. Her
younger siblings, Roger and Ann form a sort of Greek Chorus when the family is gathered together. Though Ann is also far too smart for her young age. Young Charlie’s mother and father are content to get by and preserve the American Dream. Even as Emma starts to see her beloved younger brother as someone she doesn’t really know.
What Makes This Film Great?
The town of Santa Rosa, California. That is just big enough and prosperous enough to illustrate small town America. With its tree-lined streets. large houses, well cared for lawns. Slightly out of era cars and tracks and smiling traffic cops. Which would be used again in “Pollyanna” and “Some Came Running”.
Here. it represents the perfect summer weather Petri Dish to reveal cracks in its characters and secrets revealed with the addition of Mr. Cotten’s often too arrogant Charles Oakley. Given more emphasis through Thornton Wilder’s written words and Joseph A. Valentine’s often shadowy indoor and tight, razor sharp B&W outdoor cinematography. Aided by Dimitri Tiomkin‘s suspenseful score and music direction by Charles Previn. Set and art direction by Russell Gausman and John B. Goodman. Plus gowns and ensembles that are neither too frumpy or too elegant by Vera West and Adrian add to both story telling and an almost time capsule feel and effect.
Then there is Hitchcock. Gently tugging at the edges. Keeping the canvas of the tale and town taut. While slyly nicking there and slicing there. Letting nature do its thing and follow the path of least resistance. As the myth of rural solitude and serenity bares its all too human weaknesses. Perhaps, not a date film. But certainly one to indulge in to see the first confident steps of a sly, masterful director hinting at greater things to come!
Notes: Nominated and accepted into the National Film Registry in 1991.
Available for viewing on You Tube
As is traditional with film distribution. The second film of a Double Bill or Feature should be of lesser stature and lower budget. Hence the phrase “B-Movie”. And this offering from 20th Century has that writ large. Though wisely and frugally spent in telling the tale of the infamous Loeb & Leopold “Perfect Crime’ kidnap and murder case of 1924. With the help of Meyer Levin, who had written the best selling novel of the same name the film is based on. And aided by Richard Murphy‘s faithful screenplay.
Centered around two Chicago law students with off the scale IQs and a completely less than healthy reverence for the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche and his “Man and Superman” hypothesis. The Alpha of the pair is Arthur Strauss. Played with snide, very spoiled, well connected arrogance by Bradford Dillman. Who doesn’t have any friends. And not much use for people in general as he constantly looks for ways to show his elite superiority to others. Their perceived inferiority and uselessness of their laws that are beneath his contempt.
Artie’s partner in crime is Judd Steiner. Masterfully under and occasionally overplayed by a young Dean Stockwell. A self-imposed outcast who enjoys Ornithology, Taxidermy and deep down inside wants badly to be part of something. Oddly gravitating towards Dillman’s Strauss with near gleeful, sometimes clumsy subservient abandon.
Their first “perfect crime” which begins the sharply rendered film sets the stage for future events. With the breaking into a campus Fraternity house and taking sixty seven dollars, odd jewelry and a second hand manual Underwood typewriter with a
broken letter key. Fleeing in Judd’s Stutz Bearcat convertible, Judd starts hitting his flask while Artie drives off and nearly sideswipes a drunken pedestrian on a lonely stretch of road. Artie chides Judd for drinking and continues to needle Judd. Very
much like a married couple with an abusive husband. Until Judd nearly breaks down into tears. Swearing that he would do any thing to make things right. Artie smiles and tells Judd to turn around, drive and hit the drunk. Artie tries, but swerves at the last
second. Giving Artie an ever bigger, subtle psychological weapon with which to bludgeon Judd. As the two continue into the night.
Comes the morning and Judd is in class arguing Nietzsche with his law professor as another player enters the fray, Sid Brooks. (Young, fresh faced and freckled, Martin Milner) A middle class student who pays his freight as a reporter on the Bulldog (late) edition of the local Chicago paper. Who stumbles across Artie and Judd as they set up an alibi with a group of other students and girlfriends to cover the next step in their “cold, dispassionate experiment”. The alibi is a get together at a speak easy that Artie found earlier. The time, nine o’clock.
Sid begs off, due to his job. And several unique and tragic events fall into place between that afternoon and night. Sid clocks in and finds that’s there is a drowned boy in the city morgue. And that a ransom note has arrives at the Kessler home. Demanding ten thousand dollars in old fifty and twenty dollar bills. Sid’s boss, Tom Daley (Edward Binns) sends Sid to the morgue. Where the child, later identified as Paul Kessler had been beaten and mutilated before being stuffed in a drainage culvert. Sid also finds a pair of round lenses reading glasses with the body. The glasses fit neither Sid or the boy. So Sid calls his boss and the wheels start coming off the “dispassionate experiment”.
The body is identified by the boy’s father. Sid’s boss, Mr. Daley shows up at the morgue and is brought up to speed by Sid. The glasses are put in safe keeping before being turned over to the police. All the makings of a wonderful night of celebration for Sid. Even if his girlfriend, Ruth Evan (Diane Varsi) is in Judd’s company. Sid mentions the glasses and Judd’s hand immediately goes to his suit coat’s empty breast pocket. Artie asks for more details and nearly explodes when Sid mentions the ransom note’s broken, offset letter.
Made even worse as Artie discovers that Judd still has the typewriter! After three days of trying to misdirect the Chicago cops assigned to the case. Which causes a cascade of accusations and weak counter arguments from Judd. Another experiment is agreed upon to prove Judd’s dispassion for others. And Sid in particular. Artie would get rid of the typewriter and clean up Judd’s mess. If Judd sets up a date with Ruth and sexually assaults her at a secluded aviary. Artie holds up his end of the bargain, but Judd doesn’t know what to do with Ruth. Or how. And falls miserably.
The local District Attorney, Harold Horn (E.G. Marshall in fine form!) under pressure from above tells the local cops to bring Judd in for some questioning the next afternoon. And the real came of Cat & Mouse begins. With many questions as to Judd’s whereabouts on April 17th, the day of young Kessler’s disappearance, kidnap and murder. Judd starts out arrogantly and obliquely. Believing he has the upper hand until Horn brings out the reading glasses. A style of which over four thousand were sold in Chicago alone. But only a few with a new type of hinge. And one of those was sold to Judd months ago.
Judd talks into the evening as Artie is brought in to corroborate Judd’s story. Artie is well prepared. A much better liar. And mentions a family dinner and a guest who is a Federal judge an hour hence. Yet, Horn is not impressed. Politely, sometimes slyly asking questions about a rented black sedan and more details about the two women he and Judd supposedly picked up the night in question. Artie counters well and Horn is about to let them go when Judd’s chauffeur shows up. With toiletries and a change of clothes for Judd. Offhandedly mentioning that Judd’s Stutz Bearcat never left the estate’s garage that day, April 17th. Since he has changed the car’s worn brake shoes.
Round Two arrives without preamble as Horn goes after Judd with a vengeance! Shredding Judd’s many innocuous points of interest (Hot dog stand, park, chance meetings) before going after Artie. Unaware that Judd’s father has called famed attorney, Jonathan Wilk (Orson Welles doing his best Clarence Darrow) in the interim. Horn and his assistant, Mr. Padua (Gavin McLeod) go over each detail as Artie rebuts. Then decides to roll over on Judd in a classic “He said… He said” conundrum. Which only makes Judd’s loud and sometimes pitiful meltdown all the sweeter when informed of Artie’s cowardly treachery.
Judd and Artie are charged, arraigned and kept separate in County Lock Up as family retained psychologists and psychiatrists are called in. As Wilks prepares to go up against a city who wants to see his clients swinging beneath a gallows…
Now. What Makes This Film Good?
Watching a fresh on again, off again young talent in Mr. Stockwell mix so well with solidly ensconced contemporaries, Dillman, Milner and Varsi. Being confident and comfortable enough in their own skins to portray two spoiled and coddled, seriously sick puppies (Regarding Dillman and Stockwell) who would be right at home commanding a company of Hitler Youth in 1939 Germany. Both are near childishly juvenile in their assured arrogance that they are above the law and are righteous in their beliefs. Until they realize that the law does not give Brownie Points for genius.
While Martin Milner stoically, reliably delivers the goods as Sid Brooks. With all the makings of a great reporter and newshound. Whose world is upended when someone he admires and envies a bit in Artie and his “odd duck” friend, Judd are revealed for
what they are. Offset by his girlfriend, Ruth’s perhaps tainted innocence. Ms. Varsi’s take on Ruth is odd to behold. In her moments with Judd, Sid. And later on the witness stand. Held far too tightly by her emotional naivete. In a very pivotal role for a
veteran of “Peyton Place” and “Ten North Frederick”.
High marks over all for director Richard Fleischer and his nearly standardized method of scenes averaging 11 to 14 seconds. Long enough to introduce a character, record an argument, move the plot along by planting a seed. Then watching it grow and expand to fruition later in the film.
What Makes This Film Great?
With just over an hour’s worth of build up through Judd’s sloppy performances in these “experiment”. Arguments and kind of creepy cat fights with his “superior”, Artie. The first glimmers of the paired serial killers of today (The Green River Killer(s), Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, Aileen Wuormos, etc) start making themselves known. With one Alpha (Artie) controlling the discussion and later situations. And a subservient (Judd) doing his best to please and be part of something bigger. A dynamic writ large while less than subtly hinting at a homosexual relationship. Heightened by Lionel Newman‘s horn heavy soundtrack.
The film’s remaining thirty plus minutes belong to Orson Welles and his soft spoken, mumbled take on Clarence Darrow. His size and near Waltz gait command every shot as he fights small skirmishes with D.A Horn. Resists or ignores intimidation and a random cross burning by the Klan. Never ceding an inch as the drab, oddly homogenous and uniform looking jury hold Artie and Judd’s fate in the balance. Thanks to Mark-Lee Kirk’s moody lighting and William C. Mellor’s superb B&W cinematography.
The usual loud chest thumping one would expect from a Lee J. Cobb is deftly, emotionally eschewed. For up close and personal words when needed to cajole the jury. Or whisper close, perhaps veiled threats are directed Horn’s way. Mr. Welles’ Wilk is perhaps the most un-Darrow like performance on film. But it works quite well in baring Darrow’s zeal in fighting the death penalty. Kudos for Mr. Welles’ bravery and for his offered and agreed upon, deft direction of the courtroom scenes.
Note: Available to view on You Tube.
Check out Jack’s other posts and reviews
Thoughts on either one of these films? Let it be known in the comments.
35 thoughts on “Classic Double Feature: Shadow of a Doubt (1943) & Compulsion (1959)”
LOVE “Shadow of a Doubt”, Jack. Its one of Hitchcock’s best. You’re right, there is that level of “darkness on the edge of town” to it. Cotten in great in that flick, too.
Sad to say I havent seen “Compulsion”, though. 😦
Great to have you drop by and get the discussion started!
‘Shadow of a Doubt’ is near perfect Hitchcock. Once you’ve seen it, parts stay and percolate to the point of having to run them through the keyboard. And ‘Shadow’ is huge in that regard.
With a perfect setting waiting vulnerably for the introduction something or someone wicked and evil. A theme Hitch would return to again and again in ‘Strangers on a Train’, ‘The Birds’ and to a lesser extent, ‘Psycho’.
Joseph Cotten is fabulous! Tailor made for “Uncle Charles”. A seemingly well to do cypher upon which any tale can be painted or told. While slowly revealing his deeply ingrained sociopath waiting to get out.
While ‘Compulsion’ is harder to find. Though worth the effort. I caught it by accident on NBC’s
Saturday Night at the Movies’ back in the 1960s. And parts of the film has stuck with me ever since.
Love this post! Shadow is one of my favorite Hitchcock films! Cotten is one of my favorite classic actors who never fully got the credit he deserved.
Thanks very much!
Joseph Cotten worked well with every director and always delivered more than asked for or required. With a quiet, slightly arrogant demeanor when having the upper hand in ‘Shadow’. To showing varying stages of disappointment when things start to fall apart. Remaining calm throughout and rarely raising his voice. Which added much to his less than sterling character and creepiness factor.
Shadow is great. Haven’t seen Compulson yet, but i did see Rope which from what i understand is about the same murder case.
‘Shadow’ is an excellent early effort from Mr. Hitchcock that starts to show his playfulness to toy with pristine settings. A nice, compact little gem that doesn’t get enough attention.
And you are right about ‘Rope’. Hitchcock uses the same basic theme, but puts all the players in more intimate surroundings. Creating a film that is an upgraded stage play. Mixed with the tensions and pressure of early live television. With the actors getting their scenes right. Without breaks, cuts or re-takes. Until all the film in the cameras’ magazines ran out.
“you stay Classy” Ruth!
Ahah, why thanks Kev. But this is Jack’s post, now HE is one classy guy 😀
Why, thank you, Ruth!
I had a blast putting this guest post together. Very pleased to see all the love heading Hitchcock’s way with ‘Shadow of a Doubt’. While Dean Stockwell and Bradford Dillman make a great team in ‘Compulsion’. A pretty decent Double Bill, all things considered.
I’ll take that as a win!
Classic films are bailiwick and worthy of notice, critique and discussion. I’ve also been toying with the idea of “Double Features” for months. It’s cool when events come together so effortlessly and two of my long time favorite films fit so well.
I’m glad you and so many others enjoy the effort.
Hope to see you drop by more often!
Shadow of a Doubt’s one of Hitchcock’s best. Nice review.
Thanks very much!
‘Shadow of a Doubt’ is one of those films many have seen, but isn’t much talked about. I figured it was about due. And I’m pleased at all the love and positive response headed its way.
Not exactly a ground breaking film, but more of a trend setter. Bringing up ideas and themes that would be explored and picked apart more deeply and playfully in later films.
I always loved Orson Welles; very interesting review….
Thanks for dropping by and commenting!
I caught the Welles bug very early on. Around nine years old, with ‘Citizen Kane’. Where Welles’ ego and arrogance set the tone and helped make a Classic. I’ve always been impressed with his range and ability to not disappoint. And in his brief time in ‘Compulsion’, it’s front and center. Disdaining the chewing of scenery and presenting a low key though effective defender of rights.
If I piqued your interest enough to take the time to opine. I’ve done my job well.
Hope to see your comments more often!
Good! Please visit my blog and we’ll share opinions.
I really enjoyed Shadow of a Doubt, but I’m not sure I’d call it one of Hitchcock’s best. Great film, though. I still need to see Compulsion.
‘Compulsion’ is definitely a harder find. Though it did get some recent air play as a premiere feature with Turner Classic Movies several weeks back. I saw it quite by accident as a kid.
And the film has managed to stand out all these years later.
The same holds true with ‘Shadow of a Doubt’. Though we may disagree. That’s what this site is all about.
Great post, Jack. I wish someone would bring back these themed double features. I’ve always felt SHADOW OF A DOUBT was Hitchcock’s commentary on “ordinary” Americans and how twisted they is under the surface, a theme that recurred throughout his work, particularly in REAR WINDOW. There’s no doubt Cotten, Wright, and the cinematography are standouts. Ashamed to say I haven’t seen COMPULSION.
I’d love to have double features come back in a big way. Since the last one I was was ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and ‘Bullitt’ back in the early 1970s!
Hitchcock was a master of presenting the illusion of benign, nostalgic “normalcy” and playfully peeling away its many disguising layers to reveal the ugliness beneath. Very much like Nicholas Ray in his ‘Bigger Than Life’. A method that worked well and paid off handsomely. And allowed him of opportunity and reputation of having the cream of the crop anxious to work with him.
‘Compulsion’, like ‘The Big Combo’ may have been shelved for awhile by unanimous consent. For its ahead of its time hinting at a gay relationship between between its two villains. Something its audience may not have been ready for in very early 1960s America. I’m just glad it’s starting to be noticed again.
Have to say SHADOW isn’t one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but its still very good, and I agree with you about the small town setting.
I’m glad that you dropped by,
The town of Santa Rosa works exceptionally well as a canvas for small town America. Near Norman Rockwell in its era. And as a slide of Petri dish for things unseen and beneath its Andy Hardy facade.
LOVE LOVE LOVE Shadow one of the all time greats – it is Hitch after all 🙂 The combination of Teresa Wright and
Also love the juxtaposition of the urban/suburban, darkness/light and their intersection in all-American Santa Rosa; the second major dinner scene always gets me when he turns to reply to Charlie’s question as to the widows’ being ‘human’. Are they? The look on his face gives me chills even now.
Compulsion is currently sitting in my DVR queue in my room at my mother’s house. When I get back there I will be sure to watch it! It is one of those films I am sure I have seen but will not know until I (re)watch it 😉
I’d a feeling you’d drop by and elucidate with your unique perspective(s).
Mr. Cotten had a way of freezing a close up that performed magic. Adding a layer of tension as his visage mesmerized. Offered a glimpse into the gears turning behind his eyes before offering a retort. A smiling response. Or silence. All made to induce a sense of creepiness.
‘Compulsion’ exceeds the marks on many levels. Well and sometimes chillingly cast and directed. Full of memorable moments. One where Bradford Dillman’s Artie lies in bed and plays with a small brown stuffed Teddy Bear while questioning Dean Stockwell’s Judd still chills.
Also looking forward to a debriefing on your TCM Film Festival, get together and junket!
Wow, you weren’t kidding about a *young* Dean Stockwell. I haven’t seen any of his early work, so that Compulsion photo was a nice surprise. I still need to see Shadow of a Doubt as well. Happy to see that both of them are on YouTube! Nice work, Jack!
Ahah, well if you want to see a REALLY young Dean Stockwell, you gotta rent Gentlemen’s Agreement as he played Gregory Peck’s young son. He’s sooo cute!! Well both him and the dad 😉
You know I don’t try to steer people wrong. And these two films are definitely worth the trip. Even more so when they are on YouTube. Dean Stockwell has been working forever. And Hitchcock is Hitchcock. Brought together in a notable double feature.
WOW!! Another in depth article Kevin…is it just me or were people a lot more handsome back in the day?
I think that it was part of their contracts with their studios. They also had to know how to walk, talk, hit their marks and chew with their mouths closed. As well as look good in tailored clothing while retaining posture that always made them appear taller in any camera angle.
“chew with their mouths closed”
Yes, why don’t actors do this anymore? It seems every scene where people are eating their smacking like crazy. Pretty gross! 🙂
I do so miss the old “stable” system of 1930s through 50s Hollywood.
When actors were hired not only for their looks and talent. They were packaged, groomed, polished. Taught manners and etiquette. And were presented as someone you would be glad to spend time with.
Into the 1960s and beyond. Not so much.
Wow, sir. some great picks here. and I’m sad to say I’ve not seen either one and both have elements I enjoy. including Alfred Hitchcock for one and Orson Welles for the other!
I always like how you, not only tell us what makes the film good, but what also makes it great. These two are now on my continually growing list of must-see movies. Great spotlight. wonderful.
Methinks I will try to watch Compulsion first. Seems like more my style!
I’m glad I’ve piqued your interest with two very good and memorable films. Hitchcock’s career is always worthy of closer examination. While ‘Compulsion’ is a swell example of a tale well told within a frugally spent budget.
My “Good” and “Great” idea came about because I couldn’t come up with a unique and viable rating system. I also think the “Good” and “Great” allow a nice recap to tidy up loose ends and point out kudos for exceptional work.
Pingback: » Movie Review – Shortbus Fernby Films
Pingback: » Movie Review – The Perks Of Being A Wallflower Fernby Films
Pingback: » Movie Review – Hitchcock Fernby Films