The Paradine Case

source: The Paradine Case

Oh, Franz Waxman gets on my nerves. He just doesn't know when to quit! He wrote the start of a nice theme for The Paradine Case, but then his composition went crazy. Wall-to-wall music in every scene, notes constantly zigzagging up and down scales for no reason, and orchestrations that seem to want to drive the listener insane—Unfortunately, Franz Waxman's score was only the first of many problems with this movie. Fresh off his success in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, Gregory Peck reunited with his director to play a British barrister hired to defend an accused murderess, but finds himself falling in love with her. Well, Greg was only 31 years old in 1947, so in order to convince the audience that he had decades of fantastic Atticus-Finch-esque experience in the courtroom, he was given extremely fake looking and distracting white shocks of hair near his temples. It was just as effective convincing the audience he was old as his unreliable accent convinced people he was British. I love Greg, but he just can't do accents very well. Despite all-star supporting cast of Charles Coburn, Charles Laughton, Ann Todd, Ethel Barrymore, Leo G. Carroll, and Louis Jourdan in his first American film, the movie was incredibly boring and redundant. I can't count how many times a character had reached his or her point in a monologue but kept talking for another three minutes anyway. It was obvious that either producer David O'Selznick or Alfred Hitchcock wanted Ingrid Bergman to play the accused murderess, but she must have been busy. They cast Valli, also in her first American film. She tried to come across as alluring and seductive, but really, the one expression she wore during the entire film was one of a model's pose. The entire time, she seemed to be silently asking, "Have you drawn my eyebrows on yet? Can I move?" The story is flat, the characters are annoying, the direction is slow, the music is infuriating, and the acting leaves much to be desired. Unless you love Louis Jourdan and want to see him with curly hair, save yourself two hours. Watch Spellbound and To Kill a Mockingbird for your Hitchcock and Gregory Peck lawyer fixes.

The above expression is a literal quote from the standard-work of film theory "Theorie Des Films" by Siegfried Kracauer (Frankfurt Am Main 1973, p. 12). In order to reveal its application to "The Paradine Case" (1947), I have to disclose some key points of the story. Roughly speaking, it goes like that: Mrs. Paradine is arrested for the suspect of having poisoned her husband. Soon, it becomes clear that only two persons could have done the crime: she and the valet of the killed man. Hitchcock should never have accepted this lethal restriction given by the novel on which the movie is based, because from now on the movie spins around in trivialities. For example: When the police comes to arrest her, Mrs. Paradine calls her family-attorney. When he arrives, he tells her not to loose words but to come to the core of the defense immediately, since it is clear to him that she did not kill her husband. For the audience, this means: The valet did it. When the old attorney gives the case to a young specialist, this one follows of course the line of the other, but simply because he earns his money by being a defense attorney and not a state prosecutor. For him as well as for the audience it is clear again: Since he must defend Mrs. Paradine, he must try to prove that the valet is the murderer. However, the audience asks itself: Would this not be clear to Mrs. Paradine as well? She, most of all, knows that at the time of the killing only her and the valet have been in the house and are thus suspects for the crime. So, the audience does not understand that Mrs. Paradine, after having attended the first trial day, is shocked that her attorney tried to put the whole guilt on the valet. She makes him a gigantic scene, telling him, that his business is to defend herself, but not at the cost of accusing the valet. What a nonsense! Did Hitchcock really not see that there is not even a chance for a Deus Ex Machina in the form of a third, hitherto unknown person in the story? The deplorable rest of the story goes as follows: When Mrs. Paradine sees that the valet gets more and more under suspect of being the killer, she starts slowly to make confessions, first in the form of suggestive remarks. Meanwhile, the court is informed that the valet, desperate under the burden of accusations, has committed suicide. When Mrs. Paradine hears that, she turns from hints to a full confession of having killed her husband because she was in love with the valet and wanted to start a new life with him. Unfortunately, the incredible nonsense of the plot line is not at the end, at that point. From a discussion in the private house between the judge and his wife we hear that he plans to hang Mrs. Paradine as soon as possible. But from a plea by the wife of her attorney we hear that he should do everything in order to safe her life. Well understood: the life of the same Mrs. Paradine who has by herself ruined her case, delivered false information to her attorney and, most of all, told him in the court house that he is responsible for the suicide of the valet. I cannot even imagine that there is any movie on this world whose story is more inconsistent, paradoxical and unprofessional. Why Hitchcock filmed it unchanged, this must be considered a true mystery of film history. Besides that, "The Paradine Case" is a masterpiece in order to show what Kracauer called "the illiterate effects of a Hitchcock-thriller".

The story of this film is nonsensical. It completely lacks interest or suspense. Instead of plot points or developments that subtly and rewardingly build into each other, periods of waffle are suspended between quite bizarre and highly over-emotionalised changes in circumstance. This is the method of character development as well. For no particular reason, as in set up by events or character changes, the main character suddenly develops the most highly-charged emotions. Considering that the story is a murder case, the audience is denied any plot points to be intrigued by. There is little or no story to follow. We simply await the next overly-dramatic happenstance. The worst cases of this happen in the courtroom. Armed with no information at all, the attorneys ask random questions until the witnesses crack and reveal a crucial plot point at a random juncture. The story and characters are so unconvincingly melodramatic that a bit of context would have at least held the movie together. As it is, there is nothing that maintains any kind of dramatic momentum, whether that be plot or characters. The viewer cannot become caught up in the melodrama because he has no coat tails to hang on to.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution contends the film before you is an indisputable dud, the weakest film ever made by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. It would be a career low in many lesser careers, so it's more startling the career in question is that of filmdom's greatest director. A blind war veteran, a pillar of society named Paradine, is found poisoned in his bed. The suspected murderer, his beautiful wife Maddalena (Alida Valli), faces the Crown defended by a smitten barrister named Anthony Keane, played by Gregory Peck, who feels his best chance of winning the case is to let the jury see his client's true character and expose the victim's valet as the real killer. That whirring sound you hear is Johnnie Cochran spinning in his grave. Your head may be doing much the same before you see this turkey come home to roost. Hitchcock did make some less-then-successful films; "Jamaica Inn," was named one of the 50 worst films of all time by Michael and Harry Medved. But "Jamaica Inn" at least has some fun performances and colorful settings to make up for an undernourished plot. The turgid, static proceedings of "The Paradine Case" require patience and a willingness to overlook plot holes wider than Charles Laughton. The acting is wooden almost across the board, with only Laughton as an ill-tempered judge scoring occasionally. That's only because he limits himself to raising an eyebrow or suppressing a grin while Peck, Valli, and the rest of the cast alternate between performing their one-dimensional roles in leaden fashion, or else overemoting whenever producer David O. Selznick's script takes one of its hairpin turns. The script is the worst thing here, with lines that undercut the supposed intelligence of the characters. Peck is given some choice howlers, like when someone raises the likelihood the Crown might try to prove Maddalena killed her husband, having put her in jail for it and all that. "She's not a murderess," Keane explodes. "She's too fine a woman...I only hope the Crown does try to foul her name once, just once." There's also nonsensical exchanges like this, between Keane and another attorney played by Charles Coburn, who rivals Peck, Valli, and a young Louis Jourdan for giving the worst performance. "Have you ever thought about what you can learn from photographs?" "Ah, yes, the social footsteps of time." Huh? The film often seems focused on selling the beauty of Valli, an actress better known for her central role in "The Third Man" but hardly a stunner on the order of Garbo despite her thick accent. When Keane first meets her, the learned counsel is moved to utter: "Mr. Paradine could never have understood the sacrifice you were making (by marrying him.) He had never seen you." Yeah, apart from the money, she was Mother Teresa. The first half of the film is slow going, helped only by the English upper-class interiors Hitchcock always photographed well. There's some decent early scenes in the trial, but then the proceedings erupt into anarchy and more hammy acting. Revelations fly one after another, while tears and sweat pour down grimacing faces. None of it makes much sense. You really don't care how it ends, just so that it ends. They say courtroom scenes are surefire drama highpoints in any film, but "The Paradine Case" is a clear exception. You would never think the lead actor in this film would go on to glory in the cinematic courtroom of "To Kill A Mockingbird," or that the director was in the midst of a remarkable 30-plus-year run of making some of the greatest films ever known. Hitchcock obviously made this under contractual obligation to Selznick, and it shows. You, however, are under no such obligation to view it. The prosecution rests.

I wish some other star rather than Gregory Peck had played the lead role. Someone like a Ronald Coleman (whom Hitchcock wanted) or Laurence Olivier (whom Selznick wanted). I personally would have loved Robert Donat, but any of the above would have served better. I like Peck normally, but in this film, he's too young and never convincingly English, despite his accent. Even without the accent, he doesn't suggest someone who is passionately and irrationally swept away, as the role calls for. That said, I still love the film. Some Hitchcock films I love more--as I guess we all do--but I prefer this one over others. View THE PARADINE CASE and then compare it with the master's three movies that followed, those he directed without Selznick (ROPE, UNDER CAPRICORN, STAGE FRIGHT), and you'll see the touch that pervades those he made with Selznick. All the Selznick/Hitchcock flicks are wonderful; they are the director's most glamorous and romantic movies.

In London, the upper-class Mrs. Maddalena Anna Paradine (Alida Valli) is arrested accused of poisoning her blind wealthy husband Colonel Paradine. Her friend Sir Simon Flaquer (Charles Coburn) recommends the experienced lawyer Anthny Keane (Gregory Peck) to defend her in the court. Along the hearings in prison, Keane falls in love for the beautiful Mrs. Paradine, affecting his marriage and his strategy of defense against the will of his client. "The Paradine Case" is an irregular work of Alfred Hitchcock. The plot is intriguing and dramatic, supported by magnificent cinematography and dialogs. Allida Valli is extremely beautiful and elegant in her debut in Hollywood. Unfortunately, the romance between Keane and Mrs. Paradine never works, since there is a total lack of chemistry between Gregory Peck and Allida Valli. It is impossible to note that he has a crush on her, only when he declares his love for her that the viewer will understand the situation. Charles Laughton has a magnificent performance in the role of the unpleasant and arrogant Judge Lord Thomas Horfield. Most of the characters are unlikable and their relationship and behavior are at least unpleasant. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Agonia de Amor" ("Agony of Love")

This is a disappointing effort from the team of Hitchcock and Selznick. Probably its greatest shortcoming was its inability to ingeniously circumvent the Production Code (as accomplished in "Notorious") to present its adult themes. As a result, even though it is obvious that the case itself is not the subject of the film so much as a backdrop for an awkward arrangement of love triangles and its effect on one "involved" attorney, the courtroom scenes are the most compellingly watchable of the film. In contrast, the final scene of the film does not carry the weight that it should and feels like a cheat rather than the resolution it pretends to be. Some fault may be given to the just-OK performances from usually dependable actors such as Peck and Ann Todd. The stand-out performances here are from supporting characters such as Charles Coburn, Louis Jordan, Joan Tetzel, Charles Laughton and Ethel Barrymore, but they are either given very little to do or, in Barrymore's case, feel like they were interesting characters in sub-plots that were incompletely edited out of the film (usually a sign of a poor adaptation). In the final analysis, this is a film that will probably only appeal to devotees of Hitchcock and/or Laughton.

I first saw this film at the cinema in the 1960's. This was the time I first began to take an interest in vintage Hollywood and has served as a standard by which I have judged other films since. First, one must mention the brilliant and haunting score by Franz Waxman. In many scenes in the film it heightens the drama marvellously. I have watched the film periodically over the years - this afternoon on British TV being the latest - and it loses none of its appeal. In fact I think I enjoy it more than ever each time. Many criticise Gregory Peck's performance but after so many years I could not imagine anybody else playing it. A supremely beautiful performance by Ann Todd and an almost perfect one by Alida Valli - why did Hollywood not use these actresses more? Reliable performances from the supporting players as well - the scene at the end between Charles Laughton and Ethel Barrymore is absolutely chilling - CINEMA PERFECTION. The atmosphere of immediate post-war London is captured perfectly despite being a "studio bound" production. The depictions of British life at the time - the rigid class system, the prison scenes, the still bomb damaged Old Bailey and life in the country - are wholly believable. Yes, one of my personal favourites. A great and under-rated film!

I'm crazy about Alida Valli. I'd seen every film she's ever done except "The Paradine Case" until today that is. Today I met Mrs Paradine for the first time. Strangely enough it doesn't feel like Hitchcock it feels more like Carol Reed the director who gave her a major International hit with "The Third Man" a couple of years later. I fell in love with Alida Valli in the 1954 Luchino Visconti's tragic romantic epic "Senso". Now having seen "The Paradine Case" I see a glimpse of the woman in "Senso" where her actions, are also atrocious but govern by love. A love who will only lead to tragedy. Visconti showed us an Alida Valli that other than a great beauty was also a great actress. Hitchcock introduced her as VALLI in this film, a gimmick with very short legs. Here she plays the widow of a blind man that "allegedly" she killed. The casting of Gregory Peck is a major problem, maybe not for the box office in 1947, but it certainly detrimental to the suspension of disbelief, so needed in a thriller. Charles Laughton is superb in his few, short scenes. I wonder if Hitchcock himself was the inspiration for his role. A judge, a lascivious man with an roving eye for young pretty women. Ethel Barrymore plays his wife, to absolute perfection. Then, Louis Jourdan, beautiful of course, Charles Coburn, Ann Todd but, it is Alida Valli who gives this film that extra something. Considered a "minor" Hitchcock by most but not by me. 9/10