tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post3098146468857992040..comments2024-03-27T21:42:56.131-05:00Comments on 1001plus: Know Your SpouseSJHoneywellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-78777879773504363152016-06-17T19:15:15.244-05:002016-06-17T19:15:15.244-05:00I think you're probably right. Donat would hav...I think you're probably right. Donat would have been a great piece of casting, and he had a history of working with Hitchcock, since he'd done <i>The 39 Steps</i> years earlier--one of the first really notable Hitchcock films. John Garfield would have been interesting casting, not terribly unlike his role in <i>Four Daughters</i>, but even darker. I'm not sure he could have pulled off the British playboy like Donat or Colman could have, though. SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-80586552301372515722016-06-17T18:46:49.853-05:002016-06-17T18:46:49.853-05:00I never saw this as a major Hitchcock work, part o...I never saw this as a major Hitchcock work, part of that can be laid at the censors feet and part in the wrong-headedness of Grant's casting. <br /><br />I can certainly understand why Hitch would jump at having Grant in the film, he was a huge star even at this point, but even at his darkest he never had a really menacing edge like a Robert Ryan or John Garfield could produce while still being sexually enticing. That's what this story needed-Ryan would have been perfect but this was made before his rise to prominence so perhaps Ronald Colman or Robert Donat who had a darkness lurking behind the impeccable manners would have been a better fit. <br /><br />Fontaine is okay but nowhere near the level of Letter from an Unknown Woman or Ivy and her willing victim role does the picture no favors. If the participants had been a different trio this picture would have faded into the mists long ago, it's them and not the film itself which has kept it in the public eye. joel65913https://www.blogger.com/profile/14526657073681774683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-50319768019871354172016-06-17T00:19:45.902-05:002016-06-17T00:19:45.902-05:00I don't disagree, especially when this is appa...I don't disagree, especially when this is apparently considerably different from the book on which it was based.SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-27449216110972458222016-06-17T00:13:38.995-05:002016-06-17T00:13:38.995-05:00This film may have been the only time the studio o...This film may have been the only time the studio over-road Hitchcock in regards to the ending. They thought no one would pay to see the dapper Grant as a killer of young women and forced him to keep her alive which ruined the film in my eyes.John from Daejeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08431973044799010218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-64235252441817840702016-06-15T08:23:45.529-05:002016-06-15T08:23:45.529-05:00See, here it's not that Grant can't do it....See, here it's not that Grant can't do it. It's that his persona doesn't work with it. Grant was a good enough actor that he could be suspicious and creepy, but it's <i>Cary Grant</i>. <br /><br />In a way, it's like seeing Henry Fonda shoot a kid in <i>Once Upon a Time in the West</i>. We don't buy him as the villain until we see him do something so awful we have to accept it. Fonda does that in the first few minutes, so he's a villain. Grant is just suspicious in the first two acts, so we always want to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's Cary Grant, and we don't want him to be a creepy killer.SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-72627143634609177332016-06-15T00:34:18.331-05:002016-06-15T00:34:18.331-05:00"The problem is that the role also calls for ...<b>"The problem is that the role also calls for us to be consistently suspicious of his motives and actions, and it’s difficult to see Grant in that sort of light."</b><br /><br />Not sure why, but this put me in mind of Hayden Christensen, who justifiably had a lot of dung flung at him for his atrocious performance in the Star Wars prequels. If you were to judge Christensen only on his prequel work, you'd conclude he was a shit actor, as I did. But then I saw "Shattered Glass," and I thought Christensen was amazing in the eponymous role. Cary Grant might have been miscast, but Christensen had been perfectly cast as someone whose every move appears suspicious once you realize something is off. In "Shattered Glass," Christensen is likable and jokey at first, but the veneer slowly starts to wear away as those around him begin to realize he's actually a titanic fake. I can't say whether Christensen's success in this role is due to his acting ability, or whether it's due to his fitting the role so perfectly and naturally. Either way, I thought he did a fine job as the pathologically lying reporter Stephen Glass.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.com