Parallels within Hitchcock's A Shadow of a Doubt (1943, Universal)

Alfred Hitchcock’s A Shadow of a Doubt (1943, Universal) combines the obvious visual doubling of Young Charlie (Charlotte) and Uncle Charlie and the aligning of characters in the film with both audio and visuals in order to create a seamlessness with their personalities, stories, and the medium while also giving the viewers opportunities to view the film from the character’s perspectives. These techniques are the ultimate form of “drawing an audience in”, using the film’s connection to the characters and the audience’s connections to these characters as an interconnected event on the screen.

The first example of this alignment happens in the very beginning of Shadow of a Doubt, when we are first introduced to Uncle Charlie. The three shots of Uncle Charlie’s (UC from now on) ties this scene to those used by James Whale’s Frankenstein (Universal 1931). These three shots in many ways shows the recognition of the movie’s roots and ties to the horror film genre. The beginning connections of UC and Young Charlie are forming along with these elements of self-recognition. After the scene between UC and the housekeeper, the same three-shot of the window is used for approaching Young Charlie’s room, finding this Charlie stretched out in the same position UC was just a scene beforehand. This physical layout is only the beginning of the manipulated connection between UC and Young Charlie, including the obvious connection via namesake and the visual layout of the scenes. Later on, young Charlie mentions being so connected to her uncle, it is almost as though she can hear him via telecommunication, evidenced by young Charlie and UC contacting one another at the same time for UC’s visit. We are supposed to understand there is something connecting both of these characters beyond genetics--something within the realm of metaphysics making both of them dangerous peers to each other.

There are smaller moments aligning the screen’s characters to the screen: in the very first scene, the two detectives march to follow UC when he leaves the apartment, their steps are to the same beat as the big brass soundtrack. These detectives are part of the story, separate from us, the onlookers, an important relationship this movie plays with a great deal. In this space, we are reminded we are watching a film and what we are watching is not real. An important thing to consider is the placement of this kind of “reminder”. UC leaves his apartment at the very beginning of the film, so we are already in a mental space we are watching a movie. Thinking about this reminder and going to the scene where UC makes his speech about the “animals” or older women he detests so much. This scene transforms into something very personal, where UC looks directly at the us, the audience, as well as young Charlie. The impact of his words hit me like a train (no pun intended), and experiencing a sensation of both watching a movie as well as being part of it.

This break of the fourth wall is not the only time the audience’s perspective is aligned with the characters. As young Charlie maneuvers through the crowd as she tries to get away from UC, the camera’s position stays over her shoulder, as though we are UC following her. The perspective switches to moments when when young Charlie looks up the stairs at her uncle, the position of the camera following her line of sight and perspective. We are both young Charlie and Uncle Charlie, and they are looking and possibly attempting to understand one another.

This movie establishes a cat’s cradle of relationships: the viewers’ relationships to the screen and the screen’s characters, incredibly present though bringing tension, the parallels between young Charlie and Uncle Charlie, and the relationships the characters have to the film medium. I feel like this makes it easier to manipulate the emotions of the characters and the audience, establishing a precarious balance of perspective built on top of relationships.

Response #4: He will be back when it's Dark

The main reading of The Night of the Hunter that we discussed was very convincing. This reading focused on the idea of the Old Testament (Harry) vs the New Testament (Mrs.Copper). I can definitely agree with the reading in a way but I read this Old vs New more as a Devil vs God. There were more aspects of the film that made me come to this reading like the possession of female characters, the difference in lighting, the smooth manipulative materialistic attitude of Harry vs Mrs.Coppers calm tolerable demeanor..

From the beginning the audience can see that Harry is not a good guy. He is arrested for stealing car and then sets his sights on the money that’s his bunk mate in prison had. As soon as he enters the town, the women become obsessed, partly because he is handsome and a man of God (which was never proven). Willa becomes basically possessed by Harry after she marries him and does anything he tells her too. The is very apparent after their wedding night where Harry basically scolds Willa for wanting to consummate their marriage. He also possesses Ruth towards the end of the film. She gets out of bed, in a somewhat trance, and follows the sound of him singing. He possessed both of these women because he wanted to get something from them. He wanted the money from Willa’s children thinking if he married her the money would be his too. He used Ruth to get whereabouts on the children. I think that possession represents more devil than the Old Testament.

He also uses the ruse of a pastor to get people to trust him where ever he goes, because who wouldn’t trust a man of God. He convinces everyone that Willa ran away when actually he killed her and put her in the lake along with her car. He used his love and hate tattoos to (in some odd way) prove he was a man of God, however Mrs. Cooper was the first person not to believe it which is another clue of the devil lying and manipulating people, but God or faith does not fall for it.

The lighting is drastically different between Harry and Mrs.Cooper. Harry is always in the dark during the night time or in the shadows. The first time the children are introduced to him, it is his creepy shadow coming through their bedrooms window. The fabulous line “I’ll be back when its dark” further implies the sense of his need for darkness, which could also be a representation of hell. Mrs. Cooper is portrayed in better light especially when the children first meet her. It is sunny and daytime in a garden by the river.

Harry represents wrath, materialistic views (Especially the money in Pearl’s doll)  and possession as debt while Mrs.Cooper represents tolerance confession and giving. I feel this binary fits the usual comparison of the devil and God better than the Old vs New Testament. In the end, Mrs.Cooper saves the children and beats Harry. But you never know, Harry might come back when its dark.

Seeing Double; Shannon Balstad Reponse Paper #4

Alfred Hitchock is a director who is quite notorious for his use and fascination of “doubles” throughout several of his films.  Whether it is in the direct parallel of two characters with the shared name, or the notion that the image of “serial killer” may be one far more identifiable than we suspect, Hitchcock cleverly demonstrates the power that “doubles” hold in building suspense throughout a horror film.  Shadow of a Doubt demonstrates this not only through the characters of Charlie and Young Charlie, but also in the constant mystery of the movie as to whether or not Uncle Charlie is indeed the monster we most fear.  Hitchcock perfectly hangs his audience in perfect suspense by slowly dissecting and inspecting these two concepts in the film. 

            The relationship and identity of the two “Charlies” in the film comes full circle by the conclusion.  At the beginning, the relationship between the niece and uncle could not be anymore encouraged; both “Charlies” are a sort of misfit, Young Charlie voicing her disdain for the normal and contrived type of people (i.e. her family) she is surrounded by, and Uncle Charlie’s character is given complex context when his past is disclosed.  The evident bond between the two is further epitomized through Young Charlie’s curious line, “Do you believe in mental telepathy?” The movie almost begs its audience to recognize the stark connection between the two characters’ and their arches.  

Throughout the former half of the film, their similarities are laid out explicitly; their disinterest in money, the cynical personalities, and the obvious one, the shared name, draw a direct parallel for the audience demonstrating how the two characters are to be “studied”.  As the plot unravels and Uncle Charlie’s true colors begin to show, it is interesting to see how Young Charlie’s story in her shared connection to the plot unravels – still, in a direct parallel to her uncle’s story.  It is a repeated warning throughout the film that if Uncle Charlie were to ever leave the family’s lives again, it would “kill their mother”.  Almost unfortunately, Young Charlie’s story comes full circle to directly mirror her uncle’s as she is the one to ultimately dismiss Uncle Charlie from their lives.  Could it be that, like her Uncle who committed so many murders, she too ended up being guilty of “killing” of her mother by banishing her brother from their lives?

The normalcy of the murderous uncle is something to be inspected, as well.  Part of the suspense in A Shadow of a Doubt is built around the fact of identifying who the murderer truly is, and if it could really manifest itself in someone as commonplace as Uncle Charlie.  From the start of the film, Uncle Charlie is dressed strikingly similar to the two men investigating him, eliminating a boundary between identifying hero and villain.  In addition, the character is designed in part with charisma and the aforementioned striking similarities to his innocent niece, Young Charlie.  By portraying Uncle Charlie as a normal, family man plays to the suspense of the film and leaves the audience hanging in suspense as they work to figure out Uncle Charlie’s true identity.  Shrouding him in a town where “everyone knows everyone” and placing him in the middle of the poster family for traditional Americans, the movie perfectly nestles him in the illusion that the audience must break through.  

Alfred Hitchcock famously displays his unique talent of villainizing “doubles” in Shadow of a Doubt.  Through both remarkable character arches played out by the two “Charlies”, in addition to the suspense of not knowing who the true killer really is, Hitchcock manages to pull the audience every which way he so wishes in order to keep them in perfect suspense. 

Smooth Operator

We’ve seen the progression of monsters evolve from a moaning and guttural monster from Frankenstein to the smooth talking psychopaths Uncle Charlie and Reverent Harry Powell. The birth of monsters in the silent film era has a huge influence on the ways in which antagonists and monsters are portrayed. The face of fear has definitely changed from a contorted one to a familiar one, bringing fear into a new light. 

In the film Frankenstein, the monster was a towering immortal with doe eyes. His monstrosity was never really captured at eye level, but rather slightly tilted angles to show that there was a definite height difference. That can go further to be interpreted as two different beings existing on different levels, and movie as a story-line of the incompatibilities of monsters and men. 

In Shadow of a Doubt and Night of the Hunter, Uncle Charlie and Harry are both villainous characters that come off as suave men who manipulate and extort vulnerable people. These two talked a lot throughout the movie, at least a lot more than the occasional moan and groan.

Response #4

A Certain Kind of Guy

It’s undeniable that serial killers are interesting figures to learn more about, as they’re essentially the opposite of how non-killers turn out. Looking to remove life from the world rather than add or protect, they’re as terrifying as they are peculiar. The history of serial killers in the world highlights certain connecting factors about why and how they kill. In dissecting the serial killer characters of Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt (1943) and Harry in The Night of the Hunter (1955), one of the most prominent connecting factors is their harsh sexism.

            Though Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt has a seemingly cheery relationship with his niece counterpart, little Charlie, the targets of his murders are only women. And not only that, they’re rich widows, which indicates a strange fashion of thought within Charlie. The level of passion is revealed during a dinner scene, in which he describes them as “silly wives” and “useless women”. His fixation on these female widows seems to root from a classically sexist way of thinking, being that men are the breadwinners in every marriage, and women only spend their money. He seems to feel entitled to their late husbands’ money more than they are, which is highly ironic. This is extended by his (mostly) joyful relationship with little Charlie, who is an intelligent and independent young woman. Similarly, his relationship with his sister has the appearance of a healthy one, indicating a strange cut-off of targets, though perhaps this is simply limited by the fact that neither one is a widow. An interesting thing to have seen would have been if his own sister had been widowed, but unfortunately that dynamic was made impossible by his violent demise. This contrast between affection for women and disdain for them is an odd one, though serial killers are naturally odd.

            Harry in The Night of the Hunter is similarly sexist in his film, though his is far more “religiously” motivated. Thinking himself to be essentially an assassin for god, Harry’s murderous fixation is on “unclean” women. Toward the beginning of the film, watching a woman dance, Harry seems to get a murder-driven erection, indicated by the ejection of his switchblade that cuts through his clothing. As a charismatic traveler, he seduces the affection of Willa in his quest to steal her late husband’s stolen fortune. On the night of their wedding, Harry refuses to sleep with her, claiming a moral high ground with respect to sex’s function of bringing children into the world being left for only that. Willa’s reaction isn’t to question his character, but she instead slowly turns more and more into the woman he wants her to be. Though she is eventually the perfect image of what he wanted her to be, this ultimately doesn’t save her life, and in fact her willingness to serve him makes it easier for him to take her life. This strange blend of religion and sexism persists through Harry’s demise, though the film ends upon the heroic actions of a woman.

          Both of these films feature strange blends of murder and sexism, and both end on the side of women, who ultimately take down the serial killer figures in their respective films. Though these movies each perhaps are telling of society at the time, different attitudes and perspectives about women can still be seen even today. The patriarchal view of women as second to men is a murder motivation in these films, but the demise of both serial killers is perhaps indicative of the demise of that view. 

The Night of the Hunter

The Night of the Hunter

            Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter is one of those films that frightens the audience without anything too graphic or scary jumping out. This film displays more of a “this could really have happened” story, and aren’t those the scariest movies of all? In class we discussed Calder Williams thoughts about the genre of this movie. Williams claims that Night of the Hunter is a variety of genres all thrown together. I believe that this idea is potentially true, but I would like to reflect on the reasons why it is not a valid argument.

            Within the first few minutes of the movie, we see Harry driving down a long road speaking to God. All of this would be normal, as he is a pastor, however, the subject of the conversation is concerning. Harry openly admits to using widows’ money to get ahead in life and believing that God puts them in his way in order to survive. Strike one. This initial conversation with God makes the audience feel uneasy about his presence. Then to watch Ben Harper come home having stolen money, the tension begins to build and the audience knows that something is going to go wrong.    

            Of course, when Harry comes to town and immediately is introduced to Willa, the audience’s predictions have come true and they are getting married. The way Harry speaks to Willa on their wedding night is a clear indicator that this relationship is going to become abusive rather quickly, as it does. As their “marriage” develops, the relationship Harry has with the children becomes frightening as well. He tricks Willa into thinking John is lying multiple times. This becomes a very real scenario in which a new stepfather ruins the relationship a mother has with their children. Eventually leading to Willa’s death, Harry becomes more and more abusive, a fear that many people experience their entire lives. Strike two.

            When Harry becomes so out of control that he forces John and Pearl to get into a boat and float down the river, this is potentially the scariest part of the movie. I say this because two children floating down a river alone is dangerous, but being picked up by a strange woman who does not have a husband in this time period would have been terrifying as well. What is she was a witch that would feed the children candy to fatten them up and then cooked them? Oh wait, that’s Hansel and Gretel. Regardless, a woman without a husband was clearly something questionable to the people in this movie and I know I was expecting her to be someone dangerous as well.

            After they move in with Mrs. Cooper, Harry appears once again. He just seems more and more like a stalker going on throughout this movie. The entirety of the final scenes with Harry near John and Pearl again was simply eerie. The way he would sit in the front yard just waiting for them is one of my reoccurring nightmares, strange men waiting to kill unless they are given what they want. Strike three.  

            This film was a horror film to me because all of the things Laughton wants you to be afraid of, are things that very possibly happen to real people all the time. In my opinion, movies about zombies or ghosts are as scary as the simple evils that people experience in their lives.

A Conglomerate Night

            The film, as noted by Calver Williams, is a conglomerate of genres sewn together.  I do not believe that this film is loosely sewn together; I think it is quite effectively smashed together.  The film combines elements of children’s films, burlesque, noir, thriller, musical, avant-garde, slapstick comedy, and horror.  In combining these distinct categories of film there is an eeriness effect, it’s the combination of genres we know and understand to keep us on edge and unable to predict an ending. 

            The film begins with a Christmas carol type beginning that warns against false prophets which works as an eerie foreshadowing.  Then moves into a sort of crime noir when the Preacher  (Harry) is driving through the country talking to god about his various wrongdoings that are justified due to the killing in the bible.  This being directly after the forewarning is a clearly pointed way of showing the audience who the antagonist will be in the film.  The jarring switch from heavenly children to a sinister preacher puts the audience on edge from the start. 

            The burlesque scene works as an arousal of the sexual and frightening variety.  The girl is beautiful and glamorized in that classic Hollywood cinema glow.  As Harry watches he clearly becomes aroused as he pops the knife in his pocket open and this creates the fear aspect in this particular scene.  Then the arousal is disrupted by the arrest of the preacher.

            We move to a sound of music type setting with dreary aspects of the depression embedded in the dialogue.  The tail end of a chase scene interrupts the serenity of the scene causes another uncomfortable moment.  This scene moves so quickly that all we can pull from it is that the father robbed a bank and buried the money for his children before the police caught him.  Then the scene is in the jail cell where Harry is speaking with the father and Harry hears the father say in his sleep that he hid money for his family.

            The noir aspects come in whenever the crime or murder is brought in and then the more thriller aspect of horror comes in when the scenes change towards eerie and menacing as opposed to straightforward horror.  The most clearly representative scene of this particular aspect is when the Preacher and mother are in their bed on their wedding night.  There is a drop in dialogue speed and the menacing monster starts to show himself in the didactic language of Harry.  This scene holds some aspects of avant-garde in the architecture of the room that the thrilling scene is taking place.  The deep v shape of the ceiling is reminiscent of the architecture in The Cabinet of Dr. Calligari.

            Then the film takes a small, odd, turn into slapstick randomly throughout.  Specifically when the boy smashes the preacher’s hand in the door.  This is the only noticeably out of place genre that seems to distract from the purpose of the film.

            There is a monster chase scene, not unlike the one where the monster in Frankenstein chases Dr. Frankenstein, between the preacher and the children.  This is the clearest moment of comparison that shows that Harry is the monster.

            The film then slows dramatically into an eerie float down the river.  This float lasts until the end of the river and results with Ms. Cooper finding John and Pearl in a later referenced biblical manner.  This symbolizes the safety these poor children had been looking for the whole time.  This is where the film moves into a fairly idyllic setting which mirrors a feel good family film.

            This happiness is disrupted when the Gretta Garbo type character of the lot tries to be in her own classical cinema film with Harry and divulges the information of John and Pearl’s whereabouts.  This puts the momentum back in the film and drives the action where Harry attempts to schmooze the grand and fails.  This all culminates in the arrest of the preacher, which brings us back to the crime noir film aspects and ends with the safety of the children.

            While this isn’t a perfect example of blending between genres it is purposeful and effective in its attempts.