Take 3: To Catch a Thief Review

For The Master Of Suspense Blogathon, I was originally going to review the 1958 classic, Vertigo. I selected this film because it had been recommended by one of my readers. Unfortunately, my plans fell through at the last minute. So, I had to quickly choose an alternative. As I looked back at the blogathon’s participant list, I discovered the 1955 film, To Catch a Thief, hadn’t been selected. That is the film I am now reviewing for The Master of Suspense Blogathon. I have seen some of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies before this event. From what I know of To Catch a Thief, the 1955 production is different from other titles such as Psycho and Rear Window. But will this difference impact the quality of the film? Keep reading my review in order to solve this mystery!

To Catch a Thief poster created by Paramount Pictures

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: In To Catch a Thief, Cary Grant portrayed John Robie, a former jewel thief looking to clear his name. A man of suave charisma, John was afraid of being accused of something he didn’t do. But he never lets this fear get to him. Instead, with the talents of Cary Grant, John was confident and intelligent. Grace Kelly was also cast in To Catch a Thief, portraying Frances Stevens. Frances carried herself with dignified confidence. However, this confidence did not come across as snobbish or arrogant. It added to Frances’ likability, along with her gentle demeanor and respectful elegance. Danielle Foussard is a friend of John’s. Portrayed by Brigitte Auber, Danielle had a spunky streak in her, adding liveliness to her and John’s interactions. A scene I really liked was when John, Frances, and Danielle are swimming in the ocean together. This scene perfectly showcased their personalities, as their banter bounced among each other like a soaring beach ball. What made that scene great to watch was the joining of the acting talents of Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, and Brigitte Auber!

The scenery: Most of the car chases in To Catch a Thief are captured in long, establishing shots. This is very different from car chases in other films, where the chases are shown in medium or close up shots. To Catch a Thief’s approach to car chases emphasizes the scenery surrounding these chases. Looking back on this film’s scenery, I can understand why To Catch a Thief’s creative team would make that decision. With the majority of the production filmed in France, the story shows pieces of the French countryside and seaside. Giant green mountains and deep blue waters present an isolated oasis. A smattering of orange roofed houses perched on these mountains add to the movie’s vibrant color palette. On the French seaside, bright yellow sands welcome the deep blue waters of the ocean. Most of the story’s exterior shots feature a blue sky with a handful of clouds. Even the flowers are appealing bursts of color, boasting shades of red, pink, and even purple. To Catch a Thief is a pretty looking movie and it knows it!

The dialogue: During discussions of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies, use of music, cinematography, and lighting are typically talked about by fans and film enthusiasts. But one area of film-making I feel is overlooked, specifically when it comes to Alfred’s work, is the dialogue. This element of story-telling was a pleasant surprise in To Catch a Thief! It not only suited the characters respectively, it also sounded like the screenwriters put a lot of thought into what the characters told each other. While driving through the French countryside, John and Frances are discussing Frances’ past. As the discussion carries on, John accuses Frances of looking for a husband on her trip. But Frances responds by saying, “The man I want doesn’t have a price”. This statement represented the respectful elegance Grace consistently carried throughout the film. It also hinted at foreshadowing.

The Master Of Suspense Blogathon banner Maddy from Classic Film And TV Corner

What I didn’t like about the film:

Limited amount of urgency: At the beginning of To Catch a Thief, John learns he is accused of stealing valuable jewelry. He evens claims to have ten days in order to clear his name. You’d think with this tight timeline, there would be a strong sense of urgency in the story. But this urgency to find the truth is, unfortunately, inconsistent. Instead, more emphasis is placed on the scenery, the romance, and the “finer things in life”. While the mystery was resolved, the limited amount of urgency held the story’s suspense and intrigue back.

A small amount of suspense and intrigue: Alfred Hitchcock’s productions are known for incorporating suspense and intrigue. This reputation has earned Alfred the title of “Master of Suspense”. In To Catch a Thief, however, suspense and intrigue were only served in small amounts. Part of this problem results from the limited amount of urgency I previously talked about. Another reason for this problem is how suspense and intrigue were used sparingly instead of evenly spread out throughout the story. It got to the point where I almost forgot this story had a mystery.

Lack of suspects: A typical mystery will include a collection of suspects, individuals who may or may not have a reason to be the guilty party. These characters are presented as uniquely as possible, in order to help the audience remember them and their reasoning. To Catch a Thief lacked this ingredient. Because the mystery was not as prioritized as in other works from Alfred Hitchcock, no room was made to include suspects. There was a red herring in To Catch a Thief, but this reveal felt random. Even the reveal of the mystery’s guilty party wasn’t completely surprising.

Illustration of Paris, France created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/travel”>Travel vector created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

As I said in this review, To Catch a Thief is a pretty looking movie and it knows it. While the scenery was the film’s crown jewel, there were other aesthetically pleasing components of this production, like the costume design and the set design. When it comes to the story, though, it wasn’t as suspenseful and intriguing as other Alfred Hitchcock movies. The visuals ended up overshadowing the script. I will give Alfred Hitchcock credit where it’s due, as it seems like he tried to take a different approach to cinematic story-telling. But out of his films I have seen, I prefer titles like Strangers on a Train.

Overall score: 6.3-6.4 out of 10

Have you seen To Catch a Thief? Which titles of Alfred Hitchcock’s do you prefer? Please tell me in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: In Name Only Review

One of the reasons why I love participating in blogathons is because it gives me the opportunity to watch films I might have never seen otherwise. In Name Only is a fantastic example! Before signing up for The Carole Lombard Memorial Blogathon, I had no idea that this film existed. After searching Carole’s filmography on IMDB and discovering the ability to rent the movie, I felt that In Name Only was a good choice for this review. Even though I had heard of Carole Lombard before, I had never seen any of her films. My participation in this particular blogathon gave me the opportunity to finally check out her acting work! Another surprise I discovered was that the film is based on a book! The source material for the project is Memory of Love by Bessie Breuer. Similar to my discovery of the film, I was not aware of this book’s existence before I watched the movie. Maybe in the future, I’ll check this story out! But, for now, let’s check out this review of In Name Only!

In Name Only poster
In Name Only poster created by RKO Radio Pictures. Image found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In_Name_Only.jpg

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: Like I said in the introduction, this is the first film from Carole’s filmography I’ve ever seen. Despite this, I was impressed with her performance in this film! Her portrayal of Julie Eden showcased an on-screen personality that appeared down-to-earth. Whenever her character was frustrated by the divorce process, her performance became heart-breaking. Carole’s sad demeanor created the opportunity for audience members to sympathize with Julie. Prior to watching In Name Only, the only film from Cary Grant’s filmography I’d seen was The Philadelphia Story. Because that movie was a romantic-comedy, it gave me the chance to see Cary take on a more dramatic role in this picture. Throughout the story, Cary’s character, Alec Walker, embodied the serious and charming nature of a gentlemen. For more sad and heart-breaking moments, his performance was very captivating to watch. A great example is when Alec is staying at the hospital. Since his health is deteriorating, his mental health is also affected. This is portrayed very well by Cary, as he adopts a distant stare and disjointed speech pattern that reflect his character’s state.

 

The on-screen chemistry: I enjoyed watching the on-screen performances of Carole Lombard and Cary Grant! One reason is their on-screen chemistry. Every time they appeared in a scene together, there was always a sense of genuine sweetness between them. This allowed their characters to appear like they truly loved one another. It also makes viewers want to see this on-screen couple resolve their issues. For me, the quality of Carole and Cary’s on-screen chemistry helped me stay invested in their characters and their relationship!

 

How the topic of divorce was handled: In my review of Marriage on the Rocks, I talked about how the movie’s view on divorce made me feel uncomfortable. This was because of the one-sided perspective the movie presented. When it comes to In Name Only, the topic of divorce was handled with maturity and reverence to all the parties involved in the film’s story. While there was an antagonist, this creative choice was meant to show the audience that divorce can sometimes become messy and complicated. Unlike Marriage on the Rocks, In Name Only treats divorce as a realistic yet difficult situation. I’ve never read the book this movie is based on. However, I’m hoping the book handled the subject of divorce as well as the film did.

20191230_135329[1]
When I saw this postcard, I knew it had to make an appearance in this review! Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
What I didn’t like about the film:

A drawn-out conflict: I understand the divorce process can be very time-consuming. But within the context of the film’s story, this conflict was drawn-out for the majority of the run-time. It got to the point where I could see audience members becoming just as frustrated as the protagonists were. Now, I’m not sure if this shared frustration was intentional on the screenwriter’s or author’s part. However, I do know that because of this creative choice, it didn’t leave a lot of room for a pay-off.

 

Under-utilized characters: As I was watching this film, I came across some under-utilized characters. Maida’s friend, Suzanne, is just one example. The actress who portrayed this character, Helen Vinson, did a really good job with the role she was given. But her character wasn’t able to do much in the story. This caused Helen to have very little material to work with.

 

Run-time that was a little too long: IMDB says that In Name Only is an hour and thirty-four minutes. However, I feel some minutes could have been shaved off. Had this movie’s run-time been an hour and fifteen or twenty minutes, certain events in the movie could have happened sooner. It also could have gotten rid of scenes that felt like time-wasters. One of these scenes, to give you an example, was when Maida was talking to her in-laws during a car-ride.

Carole Lombard Blogathon banner
The Carole Lombard Memorial Blogathon banner created by Crystal from In The Good Old Days Of Classic Hollywood and Vincent from Carole & Co. Image found at https://crystalkalyana.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/announcing-the-carole-lombard-memorial-blogathon/

My overall impression:

Even though In Name Only is the first film of Carole Lombard’s I have seen, it is a film that I did like! There are aspects of the movie that could have made the overall project stronger. However, its merits overshadow them. The biggest highlight is how the story handles the subject of divorce. Throughout the story, I could sense the creative team knew exactly what they were doing. The screenwriting provided a sense of realism to the narrative, giving the characters thoughts and feelings that might emerge from a situation like this. The divorce itself was also taken very seriously. If you’re interested in watching a film about this topic, please pick In Name Only over something like Marriage on the Rocks. As I’ve said before, I feel that starting or ending a romantic relationship is not something that should be taken lightly. In Name Only not only recognizes that, but highlights that through the interactions of the characters.

 

Overall score: 7.4 out of 10

 

Have you ever seen Carole Lombard’s movies? If so, which one is your favorite? Share your thoughts in the comment section!

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen