The Paradine Case

The Paradine Case marks the 47th movie from Alfred Hitchcock's canon. As of now, I have only 5 left: The Pleasure Garden, Juno & The Paycock, Topaz, Torn Curtain, and Family Plot. So I can't speak to those, but I can speak to what I've seen before. To that end, I say this: The Paradine Case is not the worst Hitchcock movie, not by a fair bit, but it is the one with the most broken, mismatched, or malfunctioning parts. There is no doubt that this is due to heavy interference from studio head David O. Selznick. Star Gregory Peck would later say Hitchcock looked "really bored with the whole thing", and other accounts say Hitchcock was disgusted with the changes that Selznick was inflicting upon the film on literally a daily basis (like, literally, re-writing scenes after seeing dailies). It shows in the final product. The script's lack of organic flow almost feels like it's mocking the concept. Gregory Peck's character Tony Keane is recommended to Maddalena Paradine (accused of murdering her blind husband) via Paradine's solicitor, who is one of Keane's best friends, and the mutual acquaintance has a daughter who is Keane's wife's best friend. The spends several scenes with JUST THESE TWO, mulling over the case and the personal situation developing between Keane, his wife, and Paradine. Nothing is advanced. It's literally two people hypothesizing over the plot as someone in the audience might in their own head. There's also no need for scenes at home with the judge and his weird wife. Even the main characters seem to change moods from scene to scene with no regard for continuity, or otherwise defined so poorly or off-kilter to the point of not even seeming human. It's clear there was an attempt to marry a bunch of different styles and themes -- epic doomed romance, courtroom drama, mystery thriller, and noir -- and they are not so much combined as forcibly shoved together and little of it feels well done. The movie's "mystery" of whether or not she actually did it barely qualifies as background noise. The courtroom drama is too wordy by half, and consists of the questioning of two witnesses, and yet lasts half an hour. It also doesn't help that the casting of this movie is a fundamental failure, and I do not use either of those words as hyperbole. There isn't a single one of the main cast or important supporting cast who feels like they're the right person for the job, and it's no slight to the actors themselves. Every one of them is a mismatch to the role. Gregory Peck's character is supposed to develop feelings for his client and be torn between his wife and this suspected murderess, to the point that he refuses to listen to anything that might cast doubt on her innocence. But Peck is stoic to the point of resembling an inanimate object. He doesn't show a shred of the vulnerability necessary to sell it, and he doesn't even come close to appearing to be in love or obsessed with his client. And Peck doesn't even attempt an English accent, which is never addressed. Alida Valli plays the accused widow Paradine, and she's supposed to be a mysterious, alluring femme fatale, all while radiating qualities that could understandably lead this otherwise dedicated husband's heart astray. Instead, she's aloof, antagonistic, and unsympathetic. Ann Todd, who plays Gay Keane, is supposed to be this dutiful, dedicated wife that resents Paradine for coming between them, but her hatred comes off as lip service, and her dedication comes off as spineless excuse-making for a terrible husband. And then there's Charles Laughton, the era's eminent character actor for playing slimy, amoral monsters. His character, the judge of the trial, is supposed to come off as maliciously biased against the defendant, licking his lips at the idea of sending her to the gallows. Instead, his bias comes off as having to corral a defense attorney so clouded by emotions that he's committing legal malfeasance. It feels like they cast the primary players not based on their strengths, but on the inverse of them. So not only do you have a script that feels utterly confused about its tone or its characters or the story it wants to tell, it's being brought to life by a cast assembled to accentuate the negatives and hide the potential positives. And what positives does it have? Well, when it's allowed to, The Paradine Case does have a lovely noir tone to it, which is helped by the movie being in black and white. It is visually trying to cover the gaps everywhere else, especially in the first half. I do like how the movie refuses to say she's innocent or guilty, letting us not only decide for ourselves, but see that Keane may be intentionally turning away from his own doom. And, uh ... that's about it. I'd say the conclusion to the trial might be a positive, as it is entirely untrustworthy and I like a good ambiguous ending, but I know some people will walk away unsatisfied, and I wouldn't argue with those who don't like it. There is a good idea for a movie here, a movie about a kind, vulnerable lawyer who becomes enchanted with his client who may or may not be guilty. But a script that shows evidence of being tinkered to death, and nobody being right for the roles they're cast in, leave The Paradine Case as an unfortunate misfire in Hitchcock's filmography.