***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD***
Frankly, most of the critical raves blandished upon "Shadow of a Doubt" can be summed up in one word: drivel.
It is not a great film, it is certainly NOT a "classic," except only in the most negative sense; it barely qualifies as even a "good" film. In fact, the most accurate judgment might be one purportedly leveled by author Dashiell Hammett at a Lillian Hellman effort: "worse than bad, it's ALMOST good." Hitchcock's missteps in this film are legion, from an unnecessary opening sequence in a Philadelphia boarding-house to a silly, equally unnecessary romantic entanglement toward the movie's end. He lets the film's pace get away from him -- an achievement in itself, given its tendency to plod at awkward moments -- and seems to lose any sense of thematic continuity from scene to scene, sacrificing the occasional strong, telling moment to a mishmash of indifferent editing.
Contemporary critics, in extolling "Shadow," seem intent on projecting much of Hitchcock's later greatness onto this film, often seeing things that aren't there. It's become quite fashionable, for example, to speak of the voluminous dark smoke issuing from the locomotive as it powers the train bringing Uncle Charlie west, seeing this as a "harbinger" of evil descending. One critic has even termed the train as "phallic" in its invasion of bucolic Santa Rosa.
Nonsense.
Sometimes, as Freud once supposedly remarked, a cigar is simply a cigar. In this instance, the train is simply a train. Trains of that era happen to have belched dark smoke. Voluminously. And Hitchcock happened to like trains. Used them in a lot of his films. (And yes, the final train scene in "North By Northwest" IS phallic; this one, however, isn't.)
"Shadow of a Doubt" is, very simply, a film that got away from Hitchcock, one that very likely wouldn't have had he filmed it later in his career. The themes he attempts to explore are worth exploring; unfortunately, he doesn't come close to pulling it off here. It's really maddening to think just what he might have done, say, a dozen or so years later with this story.
But any "classic" encomiums attached to this film, sadly, are just so much wishful thinking.
Frankly, most of the critical raves blandished upon "Shadow of a Doubt" can be summed up in one word: drivel.
It is not a great film, it is certainly NOT a "classic," except only in the most negative sense; it barely qualifies as even a "good" film. In fact, the most accurate judgment might be one purportedly leveled by author Dashiell Hammett at a Lillian Hellman effort: "worse than bad, it's ALMOST good." Hitchcock's missteps in this film are legion, from an unnecessary opening sequence in a Philadelphia boarding-house to a silly, equally unnecessary romantic entanglement toward the movie's end. He lets the film's pace get away from him -- an achievement in itself, given its tendency to plod at awkward moments -- and seems to lose any sense of thematic continuity from scene to scene, sacrificing the occasional strong, telling moment to a mishmash of indifferent editing.
Contemporary critics, in extolling "Shadow," seem intent on projecting much of Hitchcock's later greatness onto this film, often seeing things that aren't there. It's become quite fashionable, for example, to speak of the voluminous dark smoke issuing from the locomotive as it powers the train bringing Uncle Charlie west, seeing this as a "harbinger" of evil descending. One critic has even termed the train as "phallic" in its invasion of bucolic Santa Rosa.
Nonsense.
Sometimes, as Freud once supposedly remarked, a cigar is simply a cigar. In this instance, the train is simply a train. Trains of that era happen to have belched dark smoke. Voluminously. And Hitchcock happened to like trains. Used them in a lot of his films. (And yes, the final train scene in "North By Northwest" IS phallic; this one, however, isn't.)
"Shadow of a Doubt" is, very simply, a film that got away from Hitchcock, one that very likely wouldn't have had he filmed it later in his career. The themes he attempts to explore are worth exploring; unfortunately, he doesn't come close to pulling it off here. It's really maddening to think just what he might have done, say, a dozen or so years later with this story.
But any "classic" encomiums attached to this film, sadly, are just so much wishful thinking.