The Paradine Case (1947)

'The Paradine Case' is lesser known and unpopular Hitchcock's film, and although it is better than one can assume based on reviews, but it definitely can't hold the candle compares with better movies from the 'Master of Suspense'. Alfred Hitchcock wrote the screenplay together with his wife Alma Reville before bringing playwright James Bridieto do polishing. Producer David O. Selznick wasn't satisfied and did lot of rewrites, usually rushing the new material on the set before shooting. That caused many clashes between Hitchcock and Selznick, and 'The Paradine Case' remained the last movie these two ever worked together. Hitchcock wasn't very passionate about the film anyway, so now we have this film that somehow is but it isn't. The skillful directing is there, but the story, although occasionally engaging, seems all over the place. Some scenes at the trial are outrageously ludicrous, like the breakdowns Louis Jourdan's and Gregory Peck's characters. Gregory Peck himself, who clearly tried his best, still felt out of place, and there was no real chemistry between him and Alida Valli to turn their relationship into fiery romance, but it was rather hissing balloon. Absolutely fantastic performances came from supporting cast, especially Charles Laughton, Ann Todd and Louis Jourdan to name a few.It is not bad movie, as the premise is interesting, the cast is great (although Gregory Peck and Alida Valli are clearly miscast, their performances alone aren't bad), the screenplay is too meandering, but besides those couple of really ridiculous moments it offers magnificent scenes (acting/writing/directing all perfect). 'The Paradine Case' is definitely worth to watch, even if it is one of the most 'hit and miss' movie of great Alfred Hitchcock.

Astonishing to read the criticisms this spellbinding narrative has attracted on this website. Selznick and Hitchcock couldn't get along ? Gregory Peck wanted to destroy this film ? It's talky ? These opinions, even if halfway true, are completely irrelevant, because of the film's compelling excellence I found it to be enthralling, fascinating and riveting from beginning to end. Gregory Peck is indeed often wooden in his other films. Not here. I consider this to be one of his very best performances: sensitive, engaging and totally convincing. All the performances are outstanding. The entire drama is superbly written and crafted. I was mesmerized, and followed the entire proceedings with rapt attention.Although most of this movie takes place in a courtroom exactly duplicating, at enormous expense, a courtroom in the Old Bailey, and purports to be a courtroom scenario, it is really an extremely complex three-cornered analysis of monogamous marriage, an ancient institution now in its early stages of disintegration. This analysis is of a geometric character, and it's small wonder that a chess set is featured, in an abandoned game between the two main observers of the unravelling drama. Three marriages are being dissected: firstly the miserable union between the sadistic, bullying judge played by Charles Laughton, and his put- upon, long-suffering wife, Ethel Barrymore; secondly the totally amoral wife, Baroness Alida Valli, more Austrian than Italian, with a murky past, and her murdered husband Colonel Paradine; and thirdly the susceptible barrister Gregory Peck and his faithful and adoring wife, Ann Todd. That's just the beginning. Several cast members have roaming eyes, and the judge also has wandering hands, setting up hostility between him and the barrister, who is infatuated by his patently guilty client, causing him to lose judgement and objectivity. The client herself evidently pants recklessly for her husband's valet, and it is suggested that the valet has a suppressed passion for his murdered master. I had to revisit the film in order to check up on this. It seems as though the valet was possibly bi-sexual, almost Wildean therefore, but had succumbed to the seductive mistress of the house. Since the book was penned by the scandalously successful, and prolific, turn of the 19th century author, Robert Hichens, any interpretation is possible.Watching this film a second time I was even more transfixed than before. It was supremely skilfully directed. Valli's self-inspection, both before and during her arrest, has been mentioned. Equally revealing is the manner of her entry into the courtroom at her trial. The verbal exchanges between Peck, Laughton, Leo Carroll, Jourdan and herself, during the trial, are intensely and continually absorbing. Anyone who has the slightest interest in the nature of passion, integrity, motivation and truth, can surely not fail to find the screenplay remarkably intriguing and perceptive. As mentioned, this must be Peck's most moving role, as he realizes the nature of his self-deception. Apparently, the singular merits of this production have yet to be generally discovered. Most people have no opinion at all, but simply adopt the opinions of others.

A minor work from Hitchcock would be a major work for just about any other director of the era. Perhaps it's unfair to Hitch to rate a film like 'The Paradine Case' a 6 or lower, but the bar he set during the 1940's with films like 'Rebecca', 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'Spellbound', and 'Notorious' is so high that one cannot help but be disappointed by this film. Hitchcock reportedly had seriously clashes with producer David O. Selznick during the making of 'Paradine', which may account for its surprisingly banal story and characterizations. Yet there are moments and scenes to admire in 'Paradine':The introduction of Valli's character sums up her tastes, mood, and intelligence all with the visuals and a few, quick lines by her.The first meeting between Peck and Louis Jordan. It provides the first real sense of danger and creepiness to the film. Sadly, the film doesn't continue on this path as it delves into courtroom drama shortly afterwards.Valli's performance is nothing short of marvelous. She doesn't ham it up nor look stilted, she perfectly convenes the sinister and obsessive qualities of her character. She is, without a doubt, the best part of the film.The shot when Jordan first enters the courtroom as the camera slides around Valli's head as it follows Jordan to the witness stand.The high-angle shot of Peck after realizing the case is lost. One of the most jarring cuts in a Hitchcock film that firmly conveys Peck's sense of defeat.So, while 'Paradine' has moments, scenes, and acting to admire and reflect upon, the story itself is rather dull and dragging, negative characteristics that were quite rare in Hitchcock's films of the 1940's.

most of all, a very unnatural and again, very pretentious movie. the whole film just looked so badly scripted. watching it was like watching those characters on a staged theater. the poor dialog had forced every one in this film to act awkwardly and again, very pretentiously. peck's performance was one of the worst in his career. the young wife of the attorney already slept in a separate room. why all the couples in most of the films came out of that era were without any kids? why this specific director always wanted to show himself in all the films he directed as a passersby, a non-described person? and he walked out of the Cumberland train station this time. this film storyline was so flat and boring with a terrible scenario and plot, and the courtroom part was extremely boring too. there's nothing to be praised, no wonder it's been overlooked so far.