![]() ![]() He’s distilled down to his role as master entertainer. ![]() The story is extremely well-written, perfectly cast (particularly regarding Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright), full of some fantastic set pieces and demonstrates Hitch’s understanding and mastery of suspense as well as any film he ever made. All right, maybe it’s just good moviemaking. It’s fun, entertaining from beginning to end, creepy and darkly humorous, but it never really forces me to question anything above and beyond the story. Shadow of a Doubt is a perfect example of the above for me. But whatever it was, at times Hitchcock could entertain in a way that would completely satisfy me, without ever seeming to directly address my more intellectual side. What was it? Was it Hitchcock’s sense of humor? Was it the way he would keep us guessing, depriving us of knowing for sure how the story would turn out? Or was it simply the pure visceral thrills that he seemed to so easily provide? Really, I’m not sure of the exact answer. I’m not sure they always did but for some reason, in Hitchcock’s case, I have no problem with it. He was the “Master of Suspense” and a wonderful entertainer, but it wasn’t clear that his movies aimed for anything higher or more profound than that. For a while, it was hard for critics to think of Hitchcock as an artist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |