Alfred Hitchcock is a Cinema God, that is a fact that cannot (or, at least, should not) be disputed. And even though he made about 15-17 masterpieces, he also made some films that were inherently flawed. But, curiously enough, his flawed films are very fascinating to watch and are often cited by little pockets of the film community to be "unsung classics." None of the films featured here could be considered his worst. In my opinion, however, there are several issues which stop each of these 5 films from becoming true cinematic classics.
Under Capricorn (1949)*Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten and Michael Wilding
Under Capricorn is one of Hitchcock's most unknown films. The Master of Suspense making a costume drama? Capricorn is very Hitchcockian, however; it features a psychologically torturous housekeeper, a murder of passion, the unfulfilled desire to confess and an innocent individual entering a large house full of wild secrets. The film is shot beautifully, with several long takes that go from outside to inside, downstairs to upstairs. But it doesn't seem to have any focus; it switches from one plot to the next. Nor does it explore either of them enough to satisfy. And Ingrid Bergman seems to be the only one in the cast who is able to rise above such problems.
Marnie (1964)
*'Tippi' Hedren, Sean Connery and Diane Baker
If there is a film more polarizing than Marnie, I don't know what it is. Some people call it Hitchcock's worst film ever, some his very best. While it has moments of brilliance, I cannot bring myself to love it. Part of the fault lies with 'Tippi' Hedren who just isn't experienced enough to perform the melodramatic part with the nuance it requires. (To be fair, she gives it her all but it just doesn't pay off). Sean Connery too struggles with finding the right tone for his performance. Other than that, the production design is amateurish, the background music is intrusive and the movie feels about three hours long. The story, however, is interesting and Diane Baker's character (about whom I wrote my final paper in my Hitchcock class) is quite fascinating.
The Wrong Man (1956)
*Henry Ford and Vera Miles
One of Hitchcock's favorite themes is the innocent man accused of a crime. That is basically the entire story of The Wrong Man. Based on a true story, Fonda plays a man who gets picked up by the police for a crime we know he didn't commit (well, the film asks you to just accept his innocence). Because all the evidence and witnesses inexplicably point to him, he is convicted and the rest of the film focuses on the effects of that conviction. The movie is too rushed for its own good; there are some fascinating ideas that I wish had been explored further. On the bright side, Henry Fonda's everyman appeal makes this film quite frightening and Vera Miles gives an astounding performance as an underwritten character.
I Confess (1953)
*Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter and Karl Malden
When Anne Baxter descends the staircase and falls into a kiss with Montgomery Clift, it is truly a beautiful cinematic moment. The film is full of such sequences, like when the detective (played by Malden) tells the killer (wonderfully named Keller) not to be afraid while he suspiciously looks at Father Logan (Clift). But Anne Baxter is made to look like a foolish idiot and the climax seems rushed and dragged out at the same time. I Confess is a very enjoyable religious drama nonetheless.
Spellbound (1945)
*Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck
Ingrid Bergman as a brainy and love-starved psychiatrist? I am so there, it's insane. Watching her romance Gregory Peck (who, I'm not ashamed to say, is a very handsome man) is our reward for all the psychological nonsense the screenplay puts us through during various parts of the film. All the psychiatric blah-blah-blah really distracts from the tender romance between these two gorgeous and talented individuals as well as from Hitchcock's visual style which leaves us, well, spellbound. Despite this flaw, Spellbound is an ultimately compelling film, one that I will probably grow to love the more I see it.
This is my opinion on some of Hitchcock's flawed but still watchable films. All of his movies are worth seeing, despite their flaws. And that is because his directorial expertise is always present even when the other components fail him.
