I had never heard of this movie before and had low expectations. However, I was amazed at what a wonderful movie it is. Not only is it "Hitchcocky" and suspenseful, it is also humorous and touching. Jane Wyman and Richard Todd did particularly well in this film. I do not usually like Marlene Dietrich, but I have to admit that she did a splendid job as the flamboyant theater star. This movie is set in London, and Hitchcock did a wonderful job of picking out the crew's British actors and actresses such as Alistair Sim and Michael Wilding. Surprisingly he even gave his own daughter, Patricia Hitchcock, a bit part towards the end. It is too bad "Stage Fright" is not more well known, and I highly recommend it.
142 Reviews
Remember! The Curtain is there for your safety.
humbert-616 October 1999
What a great flick. At times ill-paced, but the performances more than make up for it. What's not to love? Doe-eyed Jane Wyman shifts effortlessly between the roles of aspiring dramatist to lovestruck protectress of Richard Todd to infiltrating false maid of Marlene Dietrich. Managing also to string along Michael Wilding, as the ubercool Inspector "Ordinary" Smith, she might sound like some cold calculating wench who uses up people like Marlene goes through hats. But that wouldn't be strictly accurate. Her Eve Gill is sweet and naive, but her gentler qualities are tempered with a genuine acting talent that allows her to juggle identities with the slyness of a fox-chameleon hybrid. The scene at the garden party when she switches from Dietrich's cockney maid to Smith's innocent date with every turn is delightful.
It is the masterful presence of the great Alastair Sim, however, that makes Stage Fright one of Hitchock's most enjoyable to watch. Few actors have his ability of making the most average of dialouges sound like a powerful oration, and as Eve's doting father, he makes the movie. His Commodore Gill is always at the ready to harbor a fugitive, clip off a snappy witicism, or scrounge blackmail money for his beloved daughter. He is equally at home playing comic relief as he is to serving as the plot glue that makes Eve's capers possible. But live with his wife? Thank you, no! He is content to live on his boat. Whether he is staging an amusing diversion to aid Eve, dispensing sage bits of fatherly advice, or merely strolling out in public, the man bleeds coolness with every move.
Some can argue that Stage Fright gives but an average treatment to the usual whodunnit murder-suspense formula that Hitchcock (and countless others) have used. This is perhaps true. But compared to the whole lot of crappy facsimile suspense films made since 1950, Stage Fright is quicker to entertain than most.
Be sure to check it out if you want to see Hitch cast his own daughter Patricia in the supporting role of "Chubby Banister." Is that some kind of sick joke or was that name flattering in the fifties?
P.S.-- I can't watch Marlene Dietrich anymore and not be reminded of Madeline Kahn's Teutonic Titwillow. Is there some free therapy I can get for this?
It is the masterful presence of the great Alastair Sim, however, that makes Stage Fright one of Hitchock's most enjoyable to watch. Few actors have his ability of making the most average of dialouges sound like a powerful oration, and as Eve's doting father, he makes the movie. His Commodore Gill is always at the ready to harbor a fugitive, clip off a snappy witicism, or scrounge blackmail money for his beloved daughter. He is equally at home playing comic relief as he is to serving as the plot glue that makes Eve's capers possible. But live with his wife? Thank you, no! He is content to live on his boat. Whether he is staging an amusing diversion to aid Eve, dispensing sage bits of fatherly advice, or merely strolling out in public, the man bleeds coolness with every move.
Some can argue that Stage Fright gives but an average treatment to the usual whodunnit murder-suspense formula that Hitchcock (and countless others) have used. This is perhaps true. But compared to the whole lot of crappy facsimile suspense films made since 1950, Stage Fright is quicker to entertain than most.
Be sure to check it out if you want to see Hitch cast his own daughter Patricia in the supporting role of "Chubby Banister." Is that some kind of sick joke or was that name flattering in the fifties?
P.S.-- I can't watch Marlene Dietrich anymore and not be reminded of Madeline Kahn's Teutonic Titwillow. Is there some free therapy I can get for this?
So Who Cares About Conventions?
theowinthrop11 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I like this film. It has gotten a bad reputation due to Hitchcock's daring to break another film convention about the truth of a flashback. Hitchcock had already broken other conventions over the years, some being of a technical variety (the nine minute uncut takes on ROPE for instance). Here the film begins with Richard Todd describing what he claims happened to the murdered man to ex-girl friend Jane Wyman. Subsequently we learn that the explanation is not totally true.
What I find interesting about this particular issue is that the same people who denounce Hitchcock for cheating on this probably have found other films acceptable despite similar "cheating". Take Billy Wilder's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. We hear Tyrone Power give Leonard Vole's version of what happened to the rich elderly woman (Norma Varden), about how they met, about what he was doing on the night she was murdered. We do not SEE the actual view of his activities for the night of the murder, but we accept his comments - until the end of the film shows what happened. Also check out Kurasawa's film classic RASHOMON, where we see flashbacks of five people who show "what happened" and at the conclusion we really don't know if we heard the truth or if everyone has lied. The same can be said of the American remake of RASHOMON, THE OUTRAGE. Even a musical comedy, LES GIRLS, leaves us all guessing at the end.
Yet Hitchcock was condemned for his cheating. I think he should be praised for his daring, for this film (of all Hitchcock's movies) develops in a unique way. Wyman is determined to prove the truth of Richard Todd's story, and keeps meeting criticism and common sense from her father, Alistair Sim, and from the police led by Michael Wilding, who don't believe him. And as a matter of fact, at the conclusion, it turns out that some, if not all of Todd's flashback has elements of truth in it.
Hitchcock told Francois Truffaud that he saw STAGE FRIGHT as an opportunity to work with some great British character actors (Sim, Joyce Grenville, Sybil Thorndyke, Kay Walsh). The film was definitely lower budgeted than other films (SPELLBOUND, even THE PARADINE CASE) that he had recently made. The most expensive aspect was working with Dietrich which was costly for her salary and her designer clothing. But Hitchcock wanted a chance to work with Dietrich here (just like he had made MR. AND MRS. SMITH to work with Carole Lombard in 1939). The results were quite good. The British character actors did the most with their parts (including Todd, who shows a nervousness and uncertainty in most of the film that is suggestive of possible insanity at the end). Dietrich also, in her closing moments on the screen, shows a bitterness and hatred that I don't think she ever showed in any other film role. Jane Wyman was criticized by Hitchcock for insisting on dressing up as the film progressed. However she does show a resourcefulness and pluck not usually seen in most of her movies. On the whole the film works pretty well to me.
What I find interesting about this particular issue is that the same people who denounce Hitchcock for cheating on this probably have found other films acceptable despite similar "cheating". Take Billy Wilder's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. We hear Tyrone Power give Leonard Vole's version of what happened to the rich elderly woman (Norma Varden), about how they met, about what he was doing on the night she was murdered. We do not SEE the actual view of his activities for the night of the murder, but we accept his comments - until the end of the film shows what happened. Also check out Kurasawa's film classic RASHOMON, where we see flashbacks of five people who show "what happened" and at the conclusion we really don't know if we heard the truth or if everyone has lied. The same can be said of the American remake of RASHOMON, THE OUTRAGE. Even a musical comedy, LES GIRLS, leaves us all guessing at the end.
Yet Hitchcock was condemned for his cheating. I think he should be praised for his daring, for this film (of all Hitchcock's movies) develops in a unique way. Wyman is determined to prove the truth of Richard Todd's story, and keeps meeting criticism and common sense from her father, Alistair Sim, and from the police led by Michael Wilding, who don't believe him. And as a matter of fact, at the conclusion, it turns out that some, if not all of Todd's flashback has elements of truth in it.
Hitchcock told Francois Truffaud that he saw STAGE FRIGHT as an opportunity to work with some great British character actors (Sim, Joyce Grenville, Sybil Thorndyke, Kay Walsh). The film was definitely lower budgeted than other films (SPELLBOUND, even THE PARADINE CASE) that he had recently made. The most expensive aspect was working with Dietrich which was costly for her salary and her designer clothing. But Hitchcock wanted a chance to work with Dietrich here (just like he had made MR. AND MRS. SMITH to work with Carole Lombard in 1939). The results were quite good. The British character actors did the most with their parts (including Todd, who shows a nervousness and uncertainty in most of the film that is suggestive of possible insanity at the end). Dietrich also, in her closing moments on the screen, shows a bitterness and hatred that I don't think she ever showed in any other film role. Jane Wyman was criticized by Hitchcock for insisting on dressing up as the film progressed. However she does show a resourcefulness and pluck not usually seen in most of her movies. On the whole the film works pretty well to me.
Superb..... Hitchcock's most underrated talkie
drednm23 June 2004
black comedy that boasts great performances from Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Michael Wilding, Alistair Sim, Sybil Thorndike, Joyce Grenfell, Kay Walsh & Richard Todd. Great use of silent sequences, close ups, slow motion, black humor, and mood lighting, Hitch's most underrated talkie (Easy Virtue is is most underrated silent film), this murder mystery offers all kinds of plot twists and sly humor even though you know the outcome long before it unspools. It's irrelevent. Fun all the way, including the opening theatre curtain and the closing one (thump). Dietrich is a splendid bitch, and this may be the best performance Wyman ever gave. Also look for Everley Gregg, Patricia Hitchcock, Miles Malleson and Ballard Berkeley. Dietrich's final close up and the coach scene with Wyman and Todd are gems. Sim and Thorndike are hilarious, as is the always wonderful Grenfell as "Lovely Ducks." A Must See.
A solid, entertaining Hitch flick
boy-1317 October 1999
Often considered to be one of Alfred Hitchcock's lesser known films, "Stage Fright" has unfortunately gotten a bad wrap. Even mediocre Hitchcock is better than most movies ever get, though. And this one is a solid, entertaining picture. With an eclectic cast one doesn't expect to see together, each diverse actor provides a little something for everyone. And with Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Richard Todd and Michael Wilding how can you go wrong?
Wyman convincingly plays a drama student who gets involved over her head in a purely Hitchcockian case of murder. When her ex-lover Todd is suspected of killing Dietrich's husband, Wyman hides him and helps him allude the police. Meanwhile, Wyman disguises herself as Dietrich's maid to help find evidence to save Todd's freedom. Wyman falls into a dangerous trap, and danger surrounds her.
Disappointingly underdeveloped as it starts, "Stage Fright" eventually turns into a first-rate thriller. While Wyman has been better, Dietrich is hilariously catty and Todd is wickedly suspicious. This is undoubtedly a Hitchcock film all the way around, but adding a nice twist to the formula is a soaring, romantic soundtrack. A seriously satisfying film, "Stage Fright" hits most of the right notes.
Wyman convincingly plays a drama student who gets involved over her head in a purely Hitchcockian case of murder. When her ex-lover Todd is suspected of killing Dietrich's husband, Wyman hides him and helps him allude the police. Meanwhile, Wyman disguises herself as Dietrich's maid to help find evidence to save Todd's freedom. Wyman falls into a dangerous trap, and danger surrounds her.
Disappointingly underdeveloped as it starts, "Stage Fright" eventually turns into a first-rate thriller. While Wyman has been better, Dietrich is hilariously catty and Todd is wickedly suspicious. This is undoubtedly a Hitchcock film all the way around, but adding a nice twist to the formula is a soaring, romantic soundtrack. A seriously satisfying film, "Stage Fright" hits most of the right notes.
Performance Anxiety
laika-lives17 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Deep down, this is a film about the way people use each other. Whereas many films present us with love triangles, 'Stage Fright' explores the sharp edges of a love pentagon, in which all five characters are engaged in subterfuge and manipulation. At the heart of it lies Richard Todd's Jonathon Cooper, ruthlessly playing on Eve's affection for him in order to protect both himself and the woman he really loves, Charlotte. However, actress Charlotte is using him just as he uses Eve, whilst behind his back she's involved with her manager Freddy. And sweet little Eve, actress in training, is far from innocent - she lies to the charming 'Ordinary' Smith whilst concealing the man she thinks she loves - Jonathon.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about 'Stage Fright' is that this daisy chain of betrayal is dismantled with barely a broken heart in sight. Unflinching insights into emotional cruelty and power imbalances in relationships are one of the most under-appreciated aspects of Hitchcock's films ('Rebecca', 'Notorious', 'Vertigo' and 'Marnie' in particular, although even the minor barbs James Stewart throws at Grace Kelly in 'Rear Window' hit the mark squarely), but here one of the most calculated betrayals in all of his work has absolutely no emotional resonance. Eve has already conveniently fallen into the arms of Smith, so there's no sting when she learns of Jonathon's deceit. Charlotte's betrayal of Jonathon carries no greater weight, because by this point the viewer has no empathy left for him. Only 'Ordinary' Smith's rather hurt reaction to learning the truth about Eve means anything, but it feels like a betrayal of a much slighter nature - she's a well-intentioned deceiver. Compare with the treachery of another Eve, in the similarly comic and 'lightweight' 'North by Northwest', and the sheer toothlessness of this film's emotional unravelling becomes apparent.
In fact, the only emotional impact made in the film's finale is by Marlene Dietrich's Charlotte Inwood, mulling over her actions in a beautifully shot scene. Dietrich's sheer luminosity can't help but draw the viewer in, and the direction certainly favours her here. The perversity of empathising with this great manipulator probably appealed to Hitchcock, who would later do the same with Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony and Anthony Perkins's Norman Bates, and I think it's possibly the one great scene in the film (if there's another, it would be Dietrich's self-choreographed rendition of 'The Laziest Gal in Town').
Mention of Walker and Perkins draws attention to the great failing of this film, which is the character of Jonathon Cooper. Richard Todd has been much criticised for his stiff portrayal, and I think it's fair to say he's rather a plodding performer, even if he's never truly bad - although his psychosis under the stage is tremendously effective. The real problem is the script, which denies the character a sense of humour. Almost all of Hitchcock's villains are witty and charming (certainly all his best ones are), but Jonathon is charmless. This is a real problem in a comedy thriller where almost every character has a comic appeal - even Kay Walsh's character has her own sour humour. By contrast, Jonathon seems repellent - he isn't entertaining in the way everyone else is, so we don't root for him. We should surely empathise with Eve's desperation to clear his name, but he doesn't seem worth the effort. Whilst Dietrich is appealing even at her most cruel (a true Hitchcockian villain), Todd is unappealing even in innocence.
The other performances range from the adequate (Wilding, just a little too lightweight as Smith) to the wonderful (Alistair Sim, it scarcely needs to be pointed out, shares the comic spoils with Dietrich, and both Sybil Thorndike and Kay Walsh do great things with limited roles. Joyce Grenfell, meanwhile, somehow turns an irrelevant bit of comic business into a transcendent piece of physical comedy). Jane Wyman seems a little uncertain in places, but funnily enough I think she's most effective in her 'Doris' guise, able to show off her comic skills, and sparking nicely with Dietrich.
The false flashback is a neat gambit, but unfortunately it unbalances the beginning of the film - Eve is sidelined for too long - and forces the script into some rather ugly expositional dialogue. However, the rising curtain is a lovely conceit.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about 'Stage Fright' is that this daisy chain of betrayal is dismantled with barely a broken heart in sight. Unflinching insights into emotional cruelty and power imbalances in relationships are one of the most under-appreciated aspects of Hitchcock's films ('Rebecca', 'Notorious', 'Vertigo' and 'Marnie' in particular, although even the minor barbs James Stewart throws at Grace Kelly in 'Rear Window' hit the mark squarely), but here one of the most calculated betrayals in all of his work has absolutely no emotional resonance. Eve has already conveniently fallen into the arms of Smith, so there's no sting when she learns of Jonathon's deceit. Charlotte's betrayal of Jonathon carries no greater weight, because by this point the viewer has no empathy left for him. Only 'Ordinary' Smith's rather hurt reaction to learning the truth about Eve means anything, but it feels like a betrayal of a much slighter nature - she's a well-intentioned deceiver. Compare with the treachery of another Eve, in the similarly comic and 'lightweight' 'North by Northwest', and the sheer toothlessness of this film's emotional unravelling becomes apparent.
In fact, the only emotional impact made in the film's finale is by Marlene Dietrich's Charlotte Inwood, mulling over her actions in a beautifully shot scene. Dietrich's sheer luminosity can't help but draw the viewer in, and the direction certainly favours her here. The perversity of empathising with this great manipulator probably appealed to Hitchcock, who would later do the same with Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony and Anthony Perkins's Norman Bates, and I think it's possibly the one great scene in the film (if there's another, it would be Dietrich's self-choreographed rendition of 'The Laziest Gal in Town').
Mention of Walker and Perkins draws attention to the great failing of this film, which is the character of Jonathon Cooper. Richard Todd has been much criticised for his stiff portrayal, and I think it's fair to say he's rather a plodding performer, even if he's never truly bad - although his psychosis under the stage is tremendously effective. The real problem is the script, which denies the character a sense of humour. Almost all of Hitchcock's villains are witty and charming (certainly all his best ones are), but Jonathon is charmless. This is a real problem in a comedy thriller where almost every character has a comic appeal - even Kay Walsh's character has her own sour humour. By contrast, Jonathon seems repellent - he isn't entertaining in the way everyone else is, so we don't root for him. We should surely empathise with Eve's desperation to clear his name, but he doesn't seem worth the effort. Whilst Dietrich is appealing even at her most cruel (a true Hitchcockian villain), Todd is unappealing even in innocence.
The other performances range from the adequate (Wilding, just a little too lightweight as Smith) to the wonderful (Alistair Sim, it scarcely needs to be pointed out, shares the comic spoils with Dietrich, and both Sybil Thorndike and Kay Walsh do great things with limited roles. Joyce Grenfell, meanwhile, somehow turns an irrelevant bit of comic business into a transcendent piece of physical comedy). Jane Wyman seems a little uncertain in places, but funnily enough I think she's most effective in her 'Doris' guise, able to show off her comic skills, and sparking nicely with Dietrich.
The false flashback is a neat gambit, but unfortunately it unbalances the beginning of the film - Eve is sidelined for too long - and forces the script into some rather ugly expositional dialogue. However, the rising curtain is a lovely conceit.
Forgotten Hitchcock Movie
barryrd31 August 2011
This is a fine movie by Director Hitchcock in which Jane Wyman shines as the aspiring stage actor trying to get to the truth of a murder. It is usually overlooked or forgotten in evaluations of Hitchcock's overall work. Wyman's friend Richard Todd is on the run from the police. In an effort to out the guilty party, she enlists the help of her father, played by the great Alastair Sim. She worms her way into the household of a far more accomplished actor, Marlene Dietrich, impersonating a servant. She also wins the heart of a police inspector, Michael Wilding. She is at the forefront of this entertaining little film as she changes wardrobes and accents, going back and forth from London to her country home. The cast is strong all-round and, in addition to the above, are the talented Dame Sybil Thorndike, Joyce Grenfell and Kay Walsh, not to mention Patricia Hitchcock, the director's daughter, who often performed very capably in his movies. The movie is a black comedy that moves along at a great pace, with interesting vignettes and the long takes that Hitchcoock used so effectively. The on-location shooting in London gives the movie a reality missing in Hitchcock's earlier films. I liked this movie very much and with Wyman's acting and Hitchcock's direction, it works well.
Mavis or is it Phyllis?
BumpyRide19 April 2005
This movie gets a very much undeserved amount of flack for being a lessor work of Hitchcock. I can see why it might not appeal to some people, being character driven rather than having children being chased by rampant birds or someone being attacked by a serial killer in an old lady's wig. The performances here are all excellent especially Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich as Charlotte Inwood, perhaps the laziest girl in town but also the most flamboyant. The secondary characters are also in fine form and make memorable impressions that adds to the enjoyment factor of this film. I don't know why some people feel tricked after watching the movie, seeing and believing are two different things, especially in an Alfred Hitchcock movie!
"Shoot Lovely Ducks!"
rmax30482326 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Well, it's identifiably a Hitchcock movie, but you have to watch it a little carefully to be sure. There are no dramatic set pieces, no mind-boggling crane shots, no screaming violins in the score, and the touches of humor are sparse and more understated than usual.
The story is basically a murder mystery generated by a false flashback, for which Hitchcock evidently received some critical heat. It's hard to understand exactly why. The flashback is told by an unreliable and half-hysterical narrator (Richard Todd) to the decent girl (Jane Wyman) who loves him, although he is obsessed with a glamorous woman of the theater (Marlene Dietrich). The lie is satisfactorily cleared up at the end. And the device of the lying flashback is common enough now. But in 1950, "Rashomon" hadn't swum into public view yet.
The performances are up to par. The film makes good use of established English character actors like Alistair Sim as Wyman's father, who is given the most amusing lines. At one point, Wilding the detective is chewing out Sim:
Wilding: "How could you let your daughter get mixed up in a thing like this? What kind of father do you think you are?"
Sim: "Unique."
Marlene Dietrich gets the award for second-best lines. "Don't confide in me, dear, just pour me some tea." And then there is Joyce Grenfell, a toothy spinsterish lady running a shooting gallery at the garden party -- "Come and shoot lovely ducks!" Michael Wilding is pretty handsome, isn't he? Or is he. From some angles and at certain times, he looks and sounds like Danny Kaye.
The tenor of the film is relaxed and casual. A bit unfocused at times. Joyce Grenfell is very funny but what is she doing in this scene? And what do we think is going to happen when Sims gets the little Cub Scout to climb on stage and present the blood-stained doll to Dietrich? Maybe it's supposed to catch her conscience, like Hamlet's play within a play, but it leads nowhere. The movie overall seems to lack tension, but it's still enjoyable to sit back and watch the characters go through their paces. All of the performances are good and the movie isn't a flop. It's just not one of Hitchcock's most memorable pieces, the kind only he was capable of.
The story is basically a murder mystery generated by a false flashback, for which Hitchcock evidently received some critical heat. It's hard to understand exactly why. The flashback is told by an unreliable and half-hysterical narrator (Richard Todd) to the decent girl (Jane Wyman) who loves him, although he is obsessed with a glamorous woman of the theater (Marlene Dietrich). The lie is satisfactorily cleared up at the end. And the device of the lying flashback is common enough now. But in 1950, "Rashomon" hadn't swum into public view yet.
The performances are up to par. The film makes good use of established English character actors like Alistair Sim as Wyman's father, who is given the most amusing lines. At one point, Wilding the detective is chewing out Sim:
Wilding: "How could you let your daughter get mixed up in a thing like this? What kind of father do you think you are?"
Sim: "Unique."
Marlene Dietrich gets the award for second-best lines. "Don't confide in me, dear, just pour me some tea." And then there is Joyce Grenfell, a toothy spinsterish lady running a shooting gallery at the garden party -- "Come and shoot lovely ducks!" Michael Wilding is pretty handsome, isn't he? Or is he. From some angles and at certain times, he looks and sounds like Danny Kaye.
The tenor of the film is relaxed and casual. A bit unfocused at times. Joyce Grenfell is very funny but what is she doing in this scene? And what do we think is going to happen when Sims gets the little Cub Scout to climb on stage and present the blood-stained doll to Dietrich? Maybe it's supposed to catch her conscience, like Hamlet's play within a play, but it leads nowhere. The movie overall seems to lack tension, but it's still enjoyable to sit back and watch the characters go through their paces. All of the performances are good and the movie isn't a flop. It's just not one of Hitchcock's most memorable pieces, the kind only he was capable of.
The Master of Suspense's most overlooked film, and a great one it is too.
TheLittleSongbird7 September 2009
I don't think it is as good as North By Northwest and Rebecca, but Stage Fright was a great film, and this is coming from a Hitchcock fan. The photography is beautiful, and so is the music, making some scenes like the one in the taxi very touching. The script is well crafted, and while you think you know what's happening, the final solution is very unpredictable. My only complaint for the film was the last couple of minutes, the film just ended abruptly without a rounded finish or even a monologue. I liked the story, about a man who is accused of murder and a friend of his sets out to clear his name, it is well told, and doesn't have a sense of contrivance, and I did fear it would do. As for the acting, I had very little problem with it, Jane Wyman was perfectly alluring as Eve. Michael Wilding delights as "Ordinary Smith", and while he started off a tad wooden, Richard Todd was fine too. Two of the film's stars impressed me the most though. One was Marlene Dietrich, who was deliciously frosty as the stage actress and singer Mrs Winstead. I find Dietrich quite captivating, with her lovingly designed clothes, beautiful face and distinctive voice, I thought she was a great actress. The other was Alistair Sim, who I consider the best Scrooge ever, with George C. Scott close behind- he had some very funny moments, the most notable one being at the garden party and the doll stall. Even Hitchcock himself has a cameo 30 minutes into the film, as does his daughter Patricia. I didn't know until the end credits, that Kay Walsh, Nancy in Oliver Twist, played the maid. All in all, a very overlooked film, that is actually very clever. It isn't Hitchcock's best, but it is a very good film. 9/10 Bethany Cox
Curtain Call
wes-connors18 July 2008
Without going into details, director Alfred Hitchcock's "Stage Fright" does something with a character's "point-of-view" that fatally flaws the film. By the last act, it will be obvious. It's surprising that so adept a director would "cheat" so ineffectively; especially, when the technique can (and has) be done so well elsewhere. Possibly, Mr. Hitchcock is deliberately misleading the viewer, when he should be ambiguous. The picture is, otherwise, enjoyable. Wilkie Cooper's camera performs expertly.
The cast, individually wonderful, never convincingly comes together. For example, it's difficult to believe Jane Wyman (as Eve Gill) is the daughter of Alistair Sim (as Commodore Gill) and Sybil Thorndike (as Mrs. Gill). Still, Mr. Sim and Ms. Thorndike provide for a wealth of dry Hitchcock humor. Ms. Wyman and Marlene Dietrich (as Charlotte Inwood) are, of course, a treat; and, they make the romantic entanglements as believable as possible. Leading men Richard Todd (as Jonathan "Johnny" Cooper) and Michael Wilding (as Wilfred "Ordinary" Smith) do their best opposite strong women and, especially in Mr. Todd's case, an unsure storyline. Kay Walsh (as Nellie Goode) leads the pack of smaller, delightful Hitchcock characters.
****** Stage Fright (2/23/50) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Richard Todd, Michael Wilding
The cast, individually wonderful, never convincingly comes together. For example, it's difficult to believe Jane Wyman (as Eve Gill) is the daughter of Alistair Sim (as Commodore Gill) and Sybil Thorndike (as Mrs. Gill). Still, Mr. Sim and Ms. Thorndike provide for a wealth of dry Hitchcock humor. Ms. Wyman and Marlene Dietrich (as Charlotte Inwood) are, of course, a treat; and, they make the romantic entanglements as believable as possible. Leading men Richard Todd (as Jonathan "Johnny" Cooper) and Michael Wilding (as Wilfred "Ordinary" Smith) do their best opposite strong women and, especially in Mr. Todd's case, an unsure storyline. Kay Walsh (as Nellie Goode) leads the pack of smaller, delightful Hitchcock characters.
****** Stage Fright (2/23/50) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Jane Wyman, Marlene Dietrich, Richard Todd, Michael Wilding
Criminally undervalued
fletch525 December 2004
"Stage Fright" has become one of my favourite Hitchcock movies. Even though it's not in the same league as "Psycho" or "Rear Window", it's still an extremely delightful piece of film making.
What makes it so enjoyable is the wonderful cast, which was mostly unknown to me before. Jane Wyman makes a lovely heroine for the audience to care about, and Marlene Dietrich is a riot as the stage diva, although I was a bit skeptical toward her at first. The scenes between Alastair Sim and Sybil Thorndike as Wyman's eccentric parents are hilarious. Richard Todd is perhaps a bit weak as the suspected murderer, but not distractingly so.
All in all, I find this a far more preferable watching experience than some of his more acclaimed films like "Notorious" or "The Birds" which are kind of cold and sterile. See it if you have the chance.
What makes it so enjoyable is the wonderful cast, which was mostly unknown to me before. Jane Wyman makes a lovely heroine for the audience to care about, and Marlene Dietrich is a riot as the stage diva, although I was a bit skeptical toward her at first. The scenes between Alastair Sim and Sybil Thorndike as Wyman's eccentric parents are hilarious. Richard Todd is perhaps a bit weak as the suspected murderer, but not distractingly so.
All in all, I find this a far more preferable watching experience than some of his more acclaimed films like "Notorious" or "The Birds" which are kind of cold and sterile. See it if you have the chance.
Delightfully Naive
claudio_carvalho24 November 2009
In London, the aspirant actress Eve Gill (Jane Wyman) and her friend Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd) are fleeing from the police in her car to her father's boat two hours far from the city. Eve has a crush on Jonathan that tells her that a couple of hours later, his mistress and actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich) had come to his apartment with her dress covered of gore and telling that she had killed her husband. Jonathan decided to go to her apartment to bring a new dress for Charlotte, but her maid saw him in the crime scene and called the police that are chasing him as prime suspect. Eve's father Commodore Gill (Alistair Sim) lodges Jonathan at his house and the man destroys the dress that is the evidence of the murder. Eve decides to investigate by herself to prove Jonathan's innocence and gets closer to Charlotte, working as temporary maid. Meanwhile Detective Wilfred Smith (Michael Wilding) that is in charge of the case befriends Eve and they fall in love for each.
"Stage Fright" is a delightfully naive film of Alfred Hitchcock and the last in his British phase. Jane Wyman performs a naive wannabe actress that decides to investigate a murder with her eccentric father and unravels the truth. Marlene Dietrich is the manipulative actress and singer for whom men fall and are capable of anything to be with her. Romance and humor are present along this suspenseful story in this minor movie of Hitchcock. This time, the cameo of Alfred Hitchcock is on the street, the pedestrian in London that crosses Eve. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Pavor nos Bastidores" ("Funk in the Backstage")
"Stage Fright" is a delightfully naive film of Alfred Hitchcock and the last in his British phase. Jane Wyman performs a naive wannabe actress that decides to investigate a murder with her eccentric father and unravels the truth. Marlene Dietrich is the manipulative actress and singer for whom men fall and are capable of anything to be with her. Romance and humor are present along this suspenseful story in this minor movie of Hitchcock. This time, the cameo of Alfred Hitchcock is on the street, the pedestrian in London that crosses Eve. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Pavor nos Bastidores" ("Funk in the Backstage")
Nancy Drew Meets Bijou Blanche
bkoganbing10 January 2007
Before sitting down to write this review I took a look at the Films of Alfred Hitchcock Citadel book. One of the reviewers was quoted as saying that the frumpy character that Jane Wyman played when she was pretending to be Marlene Dietrich's maid came off like an adult's version of Nancy Drew. I remember Ms. Drew whether played by Bonita Granville or Pamela Sue Martin had a better sense of style than Wyman's character. But I really thought it said everything about the film.
I'm still trying to figure out why she is going to all that trouble to help two timing Richard Todd. That's how the film opens, a fleeing Todd comes to girl friend Wyman and says he's about to be implicated in the murder of Dietrich's husband. And of course he confesses to Wyman that he's been unfaithful.
Well instead of giving Todd the heave ho, she agrees to help and gets herself involved in the Scotland Yard investigation. Good thing that police inspector Michael Wilding falls for Wyman otherwise he'd be arresting her for tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. Presumably those are criminal offenses in the United Kingdom as well as America.
What saves Stage Fright from being a total disaster is Marlene Dietrich. She essentially plays herself as musical comedy star Charlotte Inwood and gets to sing La Vie En Rose and Cole Porter's The Laziest Gal in Town.
According to a recent biography of Dietrich she and Alfred Hitchcock had an unbelievable time trying to agree on what she should sing. She rejected The Laziest Gal In Town among dozens of others and she finally agreed at the last minute to sing that song. Of course it became a big hit and a staple in her nightclub act for decades.
Another thing I can't understand is why Wyman was identified in the script as having been born in South Africa. She certainly doesn't sound like any South African I've met. Why they couldn't use the old standby of Canadian origin for American players in British based films is beyond me.
Alfred Hitchcock definitely hit a creative snag in Stage Fright. I'm not sure devotees of the master of suspense will like this one.
But Dietrich fans will love it.
I'm still trying to figure out why she is going to all that trouble to help two timing Richard Todd. That's how the film opens, a fleeing Todd comes to girl friend Wyman and says he's about to be implicated in the murder of Dietrich's husband. And of course he confesses to Wyman that he's been unfaithful.
Well instead of giving Todd the heave ho, she agrees to help and gets herself involved in the Scotland Yard investigation. Good thing that police inspector Michael Wilding falls for Wyman otherwise he'd be arresting her for tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice. Presumably those are criminal offenses in the United Kingdom as well as America.
What saves Stage Fright from being a total disaster is Marlene Dietrich. She essentially plays herself as musical comedy star Charlotte Inwood and gets to sing La Vie En Rose and Cole Porter's The Laziest Gal in Town.
According to a recent biography of Dietrich she and Alfred Hitchcock had an unbelievable time trying to agree on what she should sing. She rejected The Laziest Gal In Town among dozens of others and she finally agreed at the last minute to sing that song. Of course it became a big hit and a staple in her nightclub act for decades.
Another thing I can't understand is why Wyman was identified in the script as having been born in South Africa. She certainly doesn't sound like any South African I've met. Why they couldn't use the old standby of Canadian origin for American players in British based films is beyond me.
Alfred Hitchcock definitely hit a creative snag in Stage Fright. I'm not sure devotees of the master of suspense will like this one.
But Dietrich fans will love it.
A Somewhat Odd Combination That Works Most of the Time
Snow Leopard26 October 2004
With such an unusual set of components, it was probably inevitable that "Stage Fright" would be a little uneven, but most of it works well enough. By Hitchcock's standards, it's average at best, but it is still an entertaining movie with an interesting story and a number of good sequences.
Simply seeing the distinctive persona of Marlene Dietrich and the enjoyably unique style of Alastair Sim in an Alfred Hitchcock film would make for an interesting combination in itself. They are joined by a generally solid group of performers, with their own individual styles, and there are several characters who all get fairly sizable roles.
Hitchcock's own approach here is a somewhat surprising contrast from his usual style of story-telling, and some of the developments must have seemed even more unexpected to the movie's original viewers. Another aspect of this is that for much of the movie none of the characters really takes and holds the focus, and as a result there are times when it seems to lack some flow.
Yet there are a number of good points to it as well. There are plenty of the usual Hitchcock details that make things more interesting, and most of the cast members give good performances in themselves. Most of Hitchcock's movies are rather better than this one, but watching "Stage Fright" is still a better use of one's time than watching the weak present-day efforts in the genre.
Simply seeing the distinctive persona of Marlene Dietrich and the enjoyably unique style of Alastair Sim in an Alfred Hitchcock film would make for an interesting combination in itself. They are joined by a generally solid group of performers, with their own individual styles, and there are several characters who all get fairly sizable roles.
Hitchcock's own approach here is a somewhat surprising contrast from his usual style of story-telling, and some of the developments must have seemed even more unexpected to the movie's original viewers. Another aspect of this is that for much of the movie none of the characters really takes and holds the focus, and as a result there are times when it seems to lack some flow.
Yet there are a number of good points to it as well. There are plenty of the usual Hitchcock details that make things more interesting, and most of the cast members give good performances in themselves. Most of Hitchcock's movies are rather better than this one, but watching "Stage Fright" is still a better use of one's time than watching the weak present-day efforts in the genre.
Surprisingly weak and easy to forget...
planktonrules24 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I think this film has a lot against it that you can't necessarily blame entirely on the production--though it has problems. With such amazing films from the 1950s as "Vertigo", "Dial M For Murder", "Strangers on a Train", "North By Northwest", "The Rear Window" and "To Catch a Thief" (among others) all coming from Alfred Hitchcock during this decade, it makes "Stage Fright" seem poor by comparison. Had it not been natural to compare these films, it sure would have made "Stage Fright" look a lot stronger.
Unfortunately, this is not the only problem the film has against it. The plot is very slow and complicated, there is a very atypical sort of appearance by Marlene Dietrich (you don't expect song and dance numbers in a Hitchcock film) and the film used a FALSE flashback scene--something that infuriated a lot of patrons at the time. I knew it was coming and still thought it harmed the film. In addition, the story seemed to drag and just never seemed all that interesting. Now it's not a bad film--just not one that is much more than a time-passer. Perhaps you'll like it more than I did...and I hope you do.
Unfortunately, this is not the only problem the film has against it. The plot is very slow and complicated, there is a very atypical sort of appearance by Marlene Dietrich (you don't expect song and dance numbers in a Hitchcock film) and the film used a FALSE flashback scene--something that infuriated a lot of patrons at the time. I knew it was coming and still thought it harmed the film. In addition, the story seemed to drag and just never seemed all that interesting. Now it's not a bad film--just not one that is much more than a time-passer. Perhaps you'll like it more than I did...and I hope you do.
Stage Fright- Was Jane Intimidated by Marlene Here? **1/2
edwagreen12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
After viewing this film, I was wondering if Jane Wyman was intimidated by the fact that she co-starred with Marlene Dietrich in this 1950 Hitcock film. It sure appeared that way to me in the scenes with these two ladies, despite the fact that Wyman had already copped an Oscar 2 years before for "Johnny Belinda."
The interesting performance in this film is that of Richard Todd. It's interesting to view his innocence at the beginning literally turn into a maniacal performance of being first rate.
How convenient that the woman he loved, Wyman, would instead turn her attention to Michael Wilding, the investigator of the murder case. You know there is more to it than Dietrich turning the tables on Todd. In a way, it reminded me of the complicity of Dietrich with Tyrone Power, 8 years later in "Witness for the Prosecution."
Nonetheless, the film is an interesting one. We can say by film's end that the curtain literally comes down on Todd.
The interesting performance in this film is that of Richard Todd. It's interesting to view his innocence at the beginning literally turn into a maniacal performance of being first rate.
How convenient that the woman he loved, Wyman, would instead turn her attention to Michael Wilding, the investigator of the murder case. You know there is more to it than Dietrich turning the tables on Todd. In a way, it reminded me of the complicity of Dietrich with Tyrone Power, 8 years later in "Witness for the Prosecution."
Nonetheless, the film is an interesting one. We can say by film's end that the curtain literally comes down on Todd.
Hitchcock's Most Disappointing Film?
jzappa29 October 2010
The world of the London theatre is the charming background in which Hitchcock and his writers have engineered to give an adequate cast some glossy and amusing things to do in this jerry-built disappointment. But these things, while witty independently, add up to very little continuous stimulation or tension in spite of the master's trademark fluid camera. They are merely an arbitrary deposit of dexterous or quaint sections, devoid of any real angst. And, consequently, that which one most customarily expects in a Hitchcock film---that is, amassed suspense---should not be expected here.
Rather we get a tedious yarn about the ways in which a student actress attempts to protect her unrequited sweetie from a murder charge. We get a lengthy and elaborate staging of what might in principle be characterized as a counter-chase, with the young lady trying simultaneously to get proof and smear the trail. And we also get a blasé look-see at a budding romance, when the young lady replaces her fondness onto the pleasant young detective on the case.
In the sequence of these speckled events, we watch Marlene Dietrich give a show of glossy and sad theatrics in the role of a wicked musical star. We watch her callously and neatly dupe the accused man, Richard Todd, and we see the latter's breathless pains, in wide-eyed tumult, to forestall being caught. Wyman's dual-identity mischief gives Stage Fright more kick than its core mystery, as the central absurdity comes off as hokum at best, impertinent at worst. Wyman is the star of the show, upstaging Dietrich handily as well as a gathering of unexceptional men acting opposite her.
We are also allowed to observe Jane Wyman's various ploys to save Todd from exposure. We watch her use her dramatics to insinuate herself as Dietrich's maid, with a number of close calls at being caught herself. We see her charm Michael Wilding, who plays the detective lightheartedly, and we ultimately have the honor of watching her make some pleasant love.
But most outstandingly, in the itinerary of this picture, we are brought into dealings with Alistair Sim, the long-faced and sad-eyed English comic, who plays Miss Wyman's dad. And the pleasure of watching him marshal his intellect and wherewithal to help his daughter in her activities is one of the real joys of the film. He and Dame Sybil Thorndike, who plays his caustic wife, and a toothy lady named Joyce Grenfell, who does a hilarious bit as an attendant of a shooting-gallery at a theatrical fair, are the standouts in the show, and that should give you some suggestion of how the prominence has been placed.
Without a doubt, one is keenly wary, after watching this haphazard film, that Hitchcock was much less concerned with his overall narrative than in separate scenes. One has the unnerving feeling that he so much enjoyed the parts that he lost, or didn't even bother about, compelling and coherent development. Certainly his audience follows in their gratification of the parts, but whether they will be quite as indifferent to the lack of shape or substance is something else.
Rather we get a tedious yarn about the ways in which a student actress attempts to protect her unrequited sweetie from a murder charge. We get a lengthy and elaborate staging of what might in principle be characterized as a counter-chase, with the young lady trying simultaneously to get proof and smear the trail. And we also get a blasé look-see at a budding romance, when the young lady replaces her fondness onto the pleasant young detective on the case.
In the sequence of these speckled events, we watch Marlene Dietrich give a show of glossy and sad theatrics in the role of a wicked musical star. We watch her callously and neatly dupe the accused man, Richard Todd, and we see the latter's breathless pains, in wide-eyed tumult, to forestall being caught. Wyman's dual-identity mischief gives Stage Fright more kick than its core mystery, as the central absurdity comes off as hokum at best, impertinent at worst. Wyman is the star of the show, upstaging Dietrich handily as well as a gathering of unexceptional men acting opposite her.
We are also allowed to observe Jane Wyman's various ploys to save Todd from exposure. We watch her use her dramatics to insinuate herself as Dietrich's maid, with a number of close calls at being caught herself. We see her charm Michael Wilding, who plays the detective lightheartedly, and we ultimately have the honor of watching her make some pleasant love.
But most outstandingly, in the itinerary of this picture, we are brought into dealings with Alistair Sim, the long-faced and sad-eyed English comic, who plays Miss Wyman's dad. And the pleasure of watching him marshal his intellect and wherewithal to help his daughter in her activities is one of the real joys of the film. He and Dame Sybil Thorndike, who plays his caustic wife, and a toothy lady named Joyce Grenfell, who does a hilarious bit as an attendant of a shooting-gallery at a theatrical fair, are the standouts in the show, and that should give you some suggestion of how the prominence has been placed.
Without a doubt, one is keenly wary, after watching this haphazard film, that Hitchcock was much less concerned with his overall narrative than in separate scenes. One has the unnerving feeling that he so much enjoyed the parts that he lost, or didn't even bother about, compelling and coherent development. Certainly his audience follows in their gratification of the parts, but whether they will be quite as indifferent to the lack of shape or substance is something else.
Excellent! One of Hitchcock's most underrated. 9/10
zetes16 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS: Like any good film enthusiast, I consider Hitchcock one of the best directors who ever lived, right along with the likes of Fellini, Bergman, and Welles. Hitch consistently made films that were not only as entertaining as a film can possibly get, but also films that were extraordinarily intellectual and human. Films such as Lifeboat, Rear Window, and Vertigo work as art as much as any other films ever made, studying the human condition and utilizing the tools of cinema to the utmost.
Hitch was also the most prolific film artist of all time. He made over 50 films. He made more masterpieces than any other filmmaker, too. Several, such as Vertigo, Psycho, and Rear Window, are bona fide masterpieces. No one in their right mind would disagree with their status as some of the best films ever made. But everyone has that one Hitchcock film that they feel that they understand better than anyone else, and always claim that it deserves to belong in the same status as the more accepted masterpieces. I seem to have discovered several. In fact, every time I see one of his less popular films, I think that it has gotten a bum rap. Rope is my favorite underrated Hitchcock film, but I think that it is starting to be accepted by the masses more. Two other great ones that are less popular are Lifeboat and I Confess; Lifeboat is well respected by Hitchcock fanatics, but I Confess is usually dismissed. This sort of dismissal happens because of financial failure upon first release. Hitch certainly was an artist, but, if you've read the Truffaut interview book, you realize that he took a film's financial success or failure very personally.
Now we come to Stage Fright. I don't think that it was an enormous failure, but it was also not an enormous success. Truffaut says something like: "this film neither added to nor took away from your reputation." The main complaint is that the opening flashback is a lie, and that audiences could never accept that. I think that that technique works better now than it may have in 1950. It was sort of daring, but it failed at the time. Although most people still don't want to ever think that the characters in a film are lying, you still see it, especially in neo-noir (think Chinatown, Body Heat, etc, although those aren't flashbacks, per se). Truffaut also derides it for being a whodunit, which Hitch did not like. I don't think that Stage Fright is at all a whodunit. We assume through the entire film that Marlene Dietrich is unquestionably guilty in the crime.
There are just a few very minor problems in the film, most of them stemming from the trick ending: trick endings are in style right now, but they hardly ever work. This one does, mostly, but as soon as we realize we've been tricked, just as happens at the end of The Sixth Sense, a very good film otherwise, we begin to go over the earlier events to see if there was any cheating. There is in Stage Fright, and it loses a tiny bit of credibility from this. The other main problem is just how the police deal with the criminals at the end. It's hardly believable, and they kill the main criminal in a very gruesome way that I would think would get them reprimanded by their superiors (although it was cool). Anyway, it's nowhere near as bad as the way the police act at the end of Hitch's next film, Strangers on a Train, where a cop shoots randomly at a crowd (with the criminal in it) and accidentally kills an innocent man!
The gold of this film comes in the complex situations and characters. One reason why Hitch's films stand so far beyond the run-of-the-mill thriller is that his characters are so well developed. The actors in Stage Fright are also superb. Jane Wyman, the main character, has an extraordinarily complicated role, where she has to act at several different levels (she plays an actress who believes that her skills can help her learn more about a murder); she pretends that she's someone else, and as she meets more people, the more difficult it becomes to handle the situation. She also "switches horses in midstream," where she begins to doubt her relationship with the man whom she is helping and to fall for a detective on the murder case simultaneously. Richard Todd plays a man framed for murder. One excellent twist in the script is that his character is not intelligent. We're so used to characters being as astute as Sherlock Holmes in mystery films, but he's an illogical hothead who takes very stupid risks. Marlene Dietrich has a lot of fun here playing a demon-goddess. She's just hilarious, trying really hard to act depressed over her husband's death (and she's one of the most terrible singers you'll ever hear!). I love how she controls everyone in the film, even those who are trying to be her enemies. You just can't refuse Marlene! Possibly the most memorable and amusing performance in the film is that of Alastair Sim, most famous for playing Ebenezer Scrooge a year later. He's hilarious as Wyman's father. Micheal Wilding, playing the detective who is falling for Wyman, is also great, especially when he finds that she is betraying him and may have only been using him. There are a few very memorable cameos, too, including the "bibulous gent," a turtle-like man who offers Wyman comfort, and the shooting gallery matron (the whole shooting gallery scene is great).
Stage Fright has been trampled by the more outstanding Hitchcock pictures. It is a small gem, not boring in any way. It deserves to be rediscovered by more people.
Hitch was also the most prolific film artist of all time. He made over 50 films. He made more masterpieces than any other filmmaker, too. Several, such as Vertigo, Psycho, and Rear Window, are bona fide masterpieces. No one in their right mind would disagree with their status as some of the best films ever made. But everyone has that one Hitchcock film that they feel that they understand better than anyone else, and always claim that it deserves to belong in the same status as the more accepted masterpieces. I seem to have discovered several. In fact, every time I see one of his less popular films, I think that it has gotten a bum rap. Rope is my favorite underrated Hitchcock film, but I think that it is starting to be accepted by the masses more. Two other great ones that are less popular are Lifeboat and I Confess; Lifeboat is well respected by Hitchcock fanatics, but I Confess is usually dismissed. This sort of dismissal happens because of financial failure upon first release. Hitch certainly was an artist, but, if you've read the Truffaut interview book, you realize that he took a film's financial success or failure very personally.
Now we come to Stage Fright. I don't think that it was an enormous failure, but it was also not an enormous success. Truffaut says something like: "this film neither added to nor took away from your reputation." The main complaint is that the opening flashback is a lie, and that audiences could never accept that. I think that that technique works better now than it may have in 1950. It was sort of daring, but it failed at the time. Although most people still don't want to ever think that the characters in a film are lying, you still see it, especially in neo-noir (think Chinatown, Body Heat, etc, although those aren't flashbacks, per se). Truffaut also derides it for being a whodunit, which Hitch did not like. I don't think that Stage Fright is at all a whodunit. We assume through the entire film that Marlene Dietrich is unquestionably guilty in the crime.
There are just a few very minor problems in the film, most of them stemming from the trick ending: trick endings are in style right now, but they hardly ever work. This one does, mostly, but as soon as we realize we've been tricked, just as happens at the end of The Sixth Sense, a very good film otherwise, we begin to go over the earlier events to see if there was any cheating. There is in Stage Fright, and it loses a tiny bit of credibility from this. The other main problem is just how the police deal with the criminals at the end. It's hardly believable, and they kill the main criminal in a very gruesome way that I would think would get them reprimanded by their superiors (although it was cool). Anyway, it's nowhere near as bad as the way the police act at the end of Hitch's next film, Strangers on a Train, where a cop shoots randomly at a crowd (with the criminal in it) and accidentally kills an innocent man!
The gold of this film comes in the complex situations and characters. One reason why Hitch's films stand so far beyond the run-of-the-mill thriller is that his characters are so well developed. The actors in Stage Fright are also superb. Jane Wyman, the main character, has an extraordinarily complicated role, where she has to act at several different levels (she plays an actress who believes that her skills can help her learn more about a murder); she pretends that she's someone else, and as she meets more people, the more difficult it becomes to handle the situation. She also "switches horses in midstream," where she begins to doubt her relationship with the man whom she is helping and to fall for a detective on the murder case simultaneously. Richard Todd plays a man framed for murder. One excellent twist in the script is that his character is not intelligent. We're so used to characters being as astute as Sherlock Holmes in mystery films, but he's an illogical hothead who takes very stupid risks. Marlene Dietrich has a lot of fun here playing a demon-goddess. She's just hilarious, trying really hard to act depressed over her husband's death (and she's one of the most terrible singers you'll ever hear!). I love how she controls everyone in the film, even those who are trying to be her enemies. You just can't refuse Marlene! Possibly the most memorable and amusing performance in the film is that of Alastair Sim, most famous for playing Ebenezer Scrooge a year later. He's hilarious as Wyman's father. Micheal Wilding, playing the detective who is falling for Wyman, is also great, especially when he finds that she is betraying him and may have only been using him. There are a few very memorable cameos, too, including the "bibulous gent," a turtle-like man who offers Wyman comfort, and the shooting gallery matron (the whole shooting gallery scene is great).
Stage Fright has been trampled by the more outstanding Hitchcock pictures. It is a small gem, not boring in any way. It deserves to be rediscovered by more people.
Second-rate Hitchcock, but that's not such a bad thing
gridoon31 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The most famous thing about "Stage Fright" is without a doubt its final plot twist; having seen the film twice now, I can say that the twist almost holds up, but there is one scene, or more accurately one line, that cheats (Todd and Dietrich meet in her dressing room, alone, and she says the word "accident"). Two other characteristics of this movie are its brilliant camera work (especially at the start, when Todd goes into the house where the dead body is), and its well-written dialogue. Unfortunately, there is less of the former and more of the latter - the movie is overly talky. Jane Wyman appears to be bland at the start, but as the film goes on and she has to assume all these different identities, she gets better. Richard Todd is effective in his key scenes (the close-ups of his eyes at the finale). Michael Wilding is likable as the detective and Alastair Sim is delightfully dry as Wyman's father (at one point she says "I'll make her talk. It will be one woman to another". Sim's response: "Yes. An impressive situation at any time"). The one performance I didn't like was Marlene Dietrich's - it was old-fashioned even by 1950 standards. But maybe that's what Hitchcock had in mind. (**1/2)
How DID He Do That?
Holdjerhorses5 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Forget the shot in "Notorious" where the camera slowly descends from the second floor to Ingrid Bergman standing in the foyer and a tight closeup of the key in her hand.
Feast your eyes, instead (and try to figure out how cinematographer Wilkie Cooper shot it) on the sequence that begins outside Charlotte Inwood's residence, as Richard Todd gets out of his car, goes up the steps, opens the door, steps inside and . . . as the camera stays on his back, now inside the home . . . shuts the door behind him, starts up the stairs, reaches the second landing, crosses to Charlotte's bedroom door and enters. One continuous shot from exterior to interior and up the stairs. No cutaways. Amazing.
The shot was echoed years later in reverse, in "Frenzy," where the camera pulls back from a murder, goes down the stairs and out the door onto the street.
So why, one wonders, does Hitchcock settle for a cheap double-exposure shot of Dietrich in closeup in the foreground while Richard Todd is at the window in the background, when Gregg Toland had already achieved such "deep focus" shots without "trick photography" nine years earlier in "Citizen Kane?"
Yes, Jane Wyman's American accent is problematic. A glancing reference to her having been "educated" in America doesn't solve the fact that she's supposed to be British.
Marlene Dietrich is 50 and looks it. She actually looks younger seven years later in "Witness for the Prosecution." No matter.
The acting is superb all around.
The infamous "lying flashback" at the beginning seems far less troublesome to today's audiences than it did when the film was released, perhaps because we're more accustomed to films playing tricks with time, now.
The character development is exceptional -- particularly the relationship between Jane Wyman and Michael Wilding. (Quick: name another film starring Michael Wilding. You can't.) Hitchcock takes his time with the characters. Wyman and Wilding in the taxi on the way to the garden party are wonderful.
Is it necessary for Hitchcock to insist on superimposing a bloodstain on the doll's dress to let us know what Alastair Sim is thinking? No.
But then, when you've delivered a shot as spectacular as that long dolly of Richard Todd from exterior to interior and up the stairs, you can do anything you darn well please.
Feast your eyes, instead (and try to figure out how cinematographer Wilkie Cooper shot it) on the sequence that begins outside Charlotte Inwood's residence, as Richard Todd gets out of his car, goes up the steps, opens the door, steps inside and . . . as the camera stays on his back, now inside the home . . . shuts the door behind him, starts up the stairs, reaches the second landing, crosses to Charlotte's bedroom door and enters. One continuous shot from exterior to interior and up the stairs. No cutaways. Amazing.
The shot was echoed years later in reverse, in "Frenzy," where the camera pulls back from a murder, goes down the stairs and out the door onto the street.
So why, one wonders, does Hitchcock settle for a cheap double-exposure shot of Dietrich in closeup in the foreground while Richard Todd is at the window in the background, when Gregg Toland had already achieved such "deep focus" shots without "trick photography" nine years earlier in "Citizen Kane?"
Yes, Jane Wyman's American accent is problematic. A glancing reference to her having been "educated" in America doesn't solve the fact that she's supposed to be British.
Marlene Dietrich is 50 and looks it. She actually looks younger seven years later in "Witness for the Prosecution." No matter.
The acting is superb all around.
The infamous "lying flashback" at the beginning seems far less troublesome to today's audiences than it did when the film was released, perhaps because we're more accustomed to films playing tricks with time, now.
The character development is exceptional -- particularly the relationship between Jane Wyman and Michael Wilding. (Quick: name another film starring Michael Wilding. You can't.) Hitchcock takes his time with the characters. Wyman and Wilding in the taxi on the way to the garden party are wonderful.
Is it necessary for Hitchcock to insist on superimposing a bloodstain on the doll's dress to let us know what Alastair Sim is thinking? No.
But then, when you've delivered a shot as spectacular as that long dolly of Richard Todd from exterior to interior and up the stairs, you can do anything you darn well please.
Entertaining Hitchcock mystery, but not one of his very best
Leofwine_draca30 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
STAGE FRIGHT is a good, if not great, middle era mystery from director Alfred Hitchcock. The somewhat slight storyline is well suited to his methods, because it gives him the opportunity for plenty of suspenseful situations. In essence, a young, somewhat naïve actress is called in to help investigate a murder. She's forced to adopt two different identities depending on whom she interacts with during the case – for instance, when she's with the suspected murderess she pretends to be a servant, and when she's with the investigating detective she has to be herself. The story has the expected twists and turns along the way, along with some of Hitchcock's trademark directorial flourishes (clever editing, a cameo appearance, strong lighting, extreme close-ups).
The film has dated slightly, with some of the dialogue not really ringing true, but that matters little when the cast is of this calibre. A team of luminaries has been assembled for the production, and all of them are very good. Jane Wyman is a lovely heroine, warm and full of integrity, and she makes a perfect foil for Marlene Dietrich's sinister, suspicion-inducing ice queen. Michael Wilding is excellent as a romantic lead, and Richard Todd is also good value for money in one of his early performances as the 'wronged man'. My favourite cast member by far is Alastair Sim, who has an openly comic role as an eccentric caught up in the proceedings. There's quite a lot of humour in this film and most of it comes from Sim, whose timing and delivery of his lines are both perfect.
STAGE FRIGHT is more of a simmering than a burning thriller; there are no 'big' suspense sequences like in later Hitchcock films, but it does end on a high with a twist and a flourish that don't disappoint. My favourite moments include an interlude at a fairground and the moment when Wyman is literally 'caught between doors' at her employer's house. This makes for solid viewing and is a must for Hitchcock fans.
The film has dated slightly, with some of the dialogue not really ringing true, but that matters little when the cast is of this calibre. A team of luminaries has been assembled for the production, and all of them are very good. Jane Wyman is a lovely heroine, warm and full of integrity, and she makes a perfect foil for Marlene Dietrich's sinister, suspicion-inducing ice queen. Michael Wilding is excellent as a romantic lead, and Richard Todd is also good value for money in one of his early performances as the 'wronged man'. My favourite cast member by far is Alastair Sim, who has an openly comic role as an eccentric caught up in the proceedings. There's quite a lot of humour in this film and most of it comes from Sim, whose timing and delivery of his lines are both perfect.
STAGE FRIGHT is more of a simmering than a burning thriller; there are no 'big' suspense sequences like in later Hitchcock films, but it does end on a high with a twist and a flourish that don't disappoint. My favourite moments include an interlude at a fairground and the moment when Wyman is literally 'caught between doors' at her employer's house. This makes for solid viewing and is a must for Hitchcock fans.
Frightfully good!
A_Kind_Of_CineMagic17 May 2009
This superb film incredibly contains Marlene Dietrich and Alistair Sim among its great cast, in a blend of Hitchcock thrills and chills, humour and even musical interludes. It is mostly overlooked due to it's original 'failure' with fans and critics caused mainly by misguided hatred of a plot device used in the film. Also people fail to cope with the very different moods the film moves between. From whimsical British comedy to chilling psychological drama. It may not be one of Hitchcock's perfect 10/10 best but is easily 9 1/2 out of 10.
Hitchcock did something in the film, as he did in his classic Sabotage, which upset filmgoers and critics because it was 'not the done thing'. I wouldn't wish to spoil the film for a 1st time viewer by saying what this was but it is mentioned in the spoilers section of trivia on this films IMDb homepage. It is a mistake, I feel to overlook this film, especially due to this 'unconventional plot device'.
I find the 'unconventional plot device' in Sabotage one of a great many highlights of the film and it lifts it beyond what it would have been with the predictable/conventional resolution of that scene. The same is true in Stage Fright. Filmgoers who cannot cope with being confused by clever directorial choices are people I pity. The surprising, unusual aspects of this plot are terrific and Hitchcock was entirely correct in his choices which hugely add to the impact of the film.
Apart from all that Stage Fright is simply thoroughly entertaining. It is very very funny with Alistair Sim as brilliant and hilarious as ever in a great role for him as well as an entirely satisfying cast. Marlene Dietrich is superbly cold in a wonderful, striking addition to her acting career and sings a classic Dietrich style song. The twists from humour to chilling suspense make terrific enthralling moments.
A highly unusual and near perfectly executed film.
Hitchcock did something in the film, as he did in his classic Sabotage, which upset filmgoers and critics because it was 'not the done thing'. I wouldn't wish to spoil the film for a 1st time viewer by saying what this was but it is mentioned in the spoilers section of trivia on this films IMDb homepage. It is a mistake, I feel to overlook this film, especially due to this 'unconventional plot device'.
I find the 'unconventional plot device' in Sabotage one of a great many highlights of the film and it lifts it beyond what it would have been with the predictable/conventional resolution of that scene. The same is true in Stage Fright. Filmgoers who cannot cope with being confused by clever directorial choices are people I pity. The surprising, unusual aspects of this plot are terrific and Hitchcock was entirely correct in his choices which hugely add to the impact of the film.
Apart from all that Stage Fright is simply thoroughly entertaining. It is very very funny with Alistair Sim as brilliant and hilarious as ever in a great role for him as well as an entirely satisfying cast. Marlene Dietrich is superbly cold in a wonderful, striking addition to her acting career and sings a classic Dietrich style song. The twists from humour to chilling suspense make terrific enthralling moments.
A highly unusual and near perfectly executed film.
Entertaining, Gripping, Slightly Off-The-Wall, Mid-Period Hitchcock Thriller
ShootingShark14 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Eve is in love with Jonathan. When he tells her that the famous actress Charlotte Inwood has killed her husband and he has covered up the crime, Eve helps him hide and poses as Charlotte's dresser to try and prove his innocence. Things get complicated however when Eve falls for the detective investigating, and Jonathan's story starts to unravel
Between his workman forties period and his fifties American masterpieces, Hitch briefly returned to Britain to make two good-but-not-great flicks, Under Capricorn and this film. Written by Whitfield Cook and Alma Reville, based on a book by Selwyn Jepson, it's a slightly over-involved tale with a large weak spot; Eve is hopelessly enough in love with Jonathan to be an accomplice to murder, but then suddenly drops him halfway through the plot in favour of Inspector Smith after knowing him for about ten minutes. However, it more than makes up for this with plenty of funny/sinister supporting characters, a great MacGuffin in the form of a bloody dress and a creepily psychotic twist in the tail. Most of all though what appeals about the film is the extremely strange cast; American Wyman somehow keeps a straight face, Sim and Thorndike are both hilarious as her loony-toon parents, Wilding and Todd are typical saps, and Walsh - one of the best British actresses of her day (This Happy Breed, Oliver Twist) - is fabulous as the chiselling Nellie Goode. Add to this strange brew the still fabulously smoking Dietrich doing her classic Lili Von Shtupp conniving femme fatale act and you have a truly unique mix. Even the bit parts are full of up-and-coming great players, notably iconic revue artist Grenfell as the lady running the duck-shooting sideshow. If one criticism can be levelled at the film, it's that the tone is a little uneven. The scenes with Todd are taut and gripping whilst the ones with Sim are quaint and ridiculous; Hitchcock often brings off this horror/humour combo well, but it drifts a little here. Nonetheless it's quality entertainment throughout, and if nothing else, watch this to see Dietrich singing I'm The Laziest Gal In Town, the closest thing to a musical number as Sir Alfred ever got in his illustrious career.
Between his workman forties period and his fifties American masterpieces, Hitch briefly returned to Britain to make two good-but-not-great flicks, Under Capricorn and this film. Written by Whitfield Cook and Alma Reville, based on a book by Selwyn Jepson, it's a slightly over-involved tale with a large weak spot; Eve is hopelessly enough in love with Jonathan to be an accomplice to murder, but then suddenly drops him halfway through the plot in favour of Inspector Smith after knowing him for about ten minutes. However, it more than makes up for this with plenty of funny/sinister supporting characters, a great MacGuffin in the form of a bloody dress and a creepily psychotic twist in the tail. Most of all though what appeals about the film is the extremely strange cast; American Wyman somehow keeps a straight face, Sim and Thorndike are both hilarious as her loony-toon parents, Wilding and Todd are typical saps, and Walsh - one of the best British actresses of her day (This Happy Breed, Oliver Twist) - is fabulous as the chiselling Nellie Goode. Add to this strange brew the still fabulously smoking Dietrich doing her classic Lili Von Shtupp conniving femme fatale act and you have a truly unique mix. Even the bit parts are full of up-and-coming great players, notably iconic revue artist Grenfell as the lady running the duck-shooting sideshow. If one criticism can be levelled at the film, it's that the tone is a little uneven. The scenes with Todd are taut and gripping whilst the ones with Sim are quaint and ridiculous; Hitchcock often brings off this horror/humour combo well, but it drifts a little here. Nonetheless it's quality entertainment throughout, and if nothing else, watch this to see Dietrich singing I'm The Laziest Gal In Town, the closest thing to a musical number as Sir Alfred ever got in his illustrious career.
One of the Great Man's Weaker Efforts
JamesHitchcock22 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Although Alfred Hitchcock left Britain for Hollywood in 1940, he occasionally returned to make films in his native country, the best-known probably being his penultimate film "Frenzy". "Stage Fright" was one of two films he made in Britain in 1949/50, the other being "Under Capricorn". As a number of other reviewers have pointed out, it is one of Hitchcock's least-know films; indeed, until recently it was the only one of his films, other than some of his early British pictures, that I had never seen.
Although the film was made in Britain, Hitchcock clearly felt he needed some international stars to give it greater box-office appeal abroad, hence the presence of Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich. Wyman is today perhaps best known as the first Mrs Ronald Reagan, and hence the only woman in American history to lose through divorce the chance to become First Lady, but in the fifties she was regarded as a major star. Although Eve is supposed to be British, a story is invented to explain her American accent, but no similar explanation is given for Dietrich's German one.
The film starts with a striking beginning in medias res. A young man and young woman are in a car, and it is clear from the dialogue that they are on the run from the police, having (or so we are led to presume) committed a crime. The earlier story is then told in flashback. The man is Jonathan Cooper, an actor and the lover of the famous stage actress Charlotte Inwood. (The film's title is a reference to its setting in the world of the theatre). He claims that Charlotte killed her husband in an argument and that he tried to assist her in covering up the deed, only to bring suspicion upon himself. He is now on the run, wanted by the police. The woman in the car is Jonathan's former girlfriend Eve Gill, who has agreed to help him escape. Eve suspects that Jonathan might have been framed by Charlotte and, disguised as a maid, infiltrates Charlotte's household to investigate.
By 1950 it was already an established convention in Alfred Hitchcock films that whenever a young man is suspected of a crime he is in reality innocent. (Examples include the characters played by Robert Donat in "The 39 Steps", Robert Cummings in "Saboteur" and Gregory Peck in "Spellbound"). In "Stage Fright", however, Hitchcock reverses this convention; at the end of the film it turns out that Jonathan is indeed guilty of the murder. Today a revelation that a character believed to be innocent is in fact as guilty as hell is a banal commonplace in "twist" thrillers, but in the early fifties there was a convention that flashbacks should always reflect the true situation, and Hitchcock was criticised in some quarters for a "lying flashback" which misleads the audience by presenting them not with the truth but with Jonathan's false story.
There are, in fact, a few hints that Hitchcock was preparing a surprise for his audience. If this were a standard Hitchcock movie, Jonathan would take the lead in proving his innocence, with Eve as his loyal helpmate, and by the end of the film their romance would have been rekindled. Here, however, Jonathan fades out of the action in the central part of the film, and it is Eve who takes the leading role. (This is one of the minority of Hitchcock films- "Shadow of a Doubt" is another- with a woman at its centre). Moreover, a romance develops between Eve and Inspector Wilfred Smith, the detective in charge of the murder investigation. (Another unusual feature- although most of Hitchcock's films deal with crime, individual police officers rarely play a leading role).
With a number of original features, this could have been one of the director's best films, but it misses out on that distinction. The acting is generally competently done, but there are no really outstanding contributions apart from Dietrich (who probably didn't need to try very hard in order to portray a sexually predatory actress). The main reason why the film is a relative failure is that it lacks both the great directorial set-pieces which we have come to think of as a Hitchcock hallmark and the sense of tension which pervades his greatest films. Eve's attempts to trap Charlotte into a confession are grotesque and unbelievable. Even the final scene, in which Eve is threatened by Jonathan, is rather perfunctorily done. In his lighter films Hitchcock could make very effective use of humour (such as the political meeting in "The 39 Steps" or the auction scene in "North by North West"), but here his attempts to be humorous, such as the scene between Alastair Sim and Joyce Grenfell in the shooting alley, slow down and detract from the film rather than adding to it.
There is also an untidy loose end relating to Charlotte, who is one Hitchcock character who actually gets away with murder. We learn that she incited Jonathan to kill her husband, which in the Britain of 1950 could have earned her a death sentence, but any evidence against her vanishes with Jonathan's death at the end of the film. (She has, at most, confessed to assisting Jonathan after the murder, which would not have been a capital offence). Overall, "Stage Fright" is one of the great man's weaker efforts. Fortunately, he returned to form back in Hollywood with "Strangers on a Train". 5/10
Although the film was made in Britain, Hitchcock clearly felt he needed some international stars to give it greater box-office appeal abroad, hence the presence of Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich. Wyman is today perhaps best known as the first Mrs Ronald Reagan, and hence the only woman in American history to lose through divorce the chance to become First Lady, but in the fifties she was regarded as a major star. Although Eve is supposed to be British, a story is invented to explain her American accent, but no similar explanation is given for Dietrich's German one.
The film starts with a striking beginning in medias res. A young man and young woman are in a car, and it is clear from the dialogue that they are on the run from the police, having (or so we are led to presume) committed a crime. The earlier story is then told in flashback. The man is Jonathan Cooper, an actor and the lover of the famous stage actress Charlotte Inwood. (The film's title is a reference to its setting in the world of the theatre). He claims that Charlotte killed her husband in an argument and that he tried to assist her in covering up the deed, only to bring suspicion upon himself. He is now on the run, wanted by the police. The woman in the car is Jonathan's former girlfriend Eve Gill, who has agreed to help him escape. Eve suspects that Jonathan might have been framed by Charlotte and, disguised as a maid, infiltrates Charlotte's household to investigate.
By 1950 it was already an established convention in Alfred Hitchcock films that whenever a young man is suspected of a crime he is in reality innocent. (Examples include the characters played by Robert Donat in "The 39 Steps", Robert Cummings in "Saboteur" and Gregory Peck in "Spellbound"). In "Stage Fright", however, Hitchcock reverses this convention; at the end of the film it turns out that Jonathan is indeed guilty of the murder. Today a revelation that a character believed to be innocent is in fact as guilty as hell is a banal commonplace in "twist" thrillers, but in the early fifties there was a convention that flashbacks should always reflect the true situation, and Hitchcock was criticised in some quarters for a "lying flashback" which misleads the audience by presenting them not with the truth but with Jonathan's false story.
There are, in fact, a few hints that Hitchcock was preparing a surprise for his audience. If this were a standard Hitchcock movie, Jonathan would take the lead in proving his innocence, with Eve as his loyal helpmate, and by the end of the film their romance would have been rekindled. Here, however, Jonathan fades out of the action in the central part of the film, and it is Eve who takes the leading role. (This is one of the minority of Hitchcock films- "Shadow of a Doubt" is another- with a woman at its centre). Moreover, a romance develops between Eve and Inspector Wilfred Smith, the detective in charge of the murder investigation. (Another unusual feature- although most of Hitchcock's films deal with crime, individual police officers rarely play a leading role).
With a number of original features, this could have been one of the director's best films, but it misses out on that distinction. The acting is generally competently done, but there are no really outstanding contributions apart from Dietrich (who probably didn't need to try very hard in order to portray a sexually predatory actress). The main reason why the film is a relative failure is that it lacks both the great directorial set-pieces which we have come to think of as a Hitchcock hallmark and the sense of tension which pervades his greatest films. Eve's attempts to trap Charlotte into a confession are grotesque and unbelievable. Even the final scene, in which Eve is threatened by Jonathan, is rather perfunctorily done. In his lighter films Hitchcock could make very effective use of humour (such as the political meeting in "The 39 Steps" or the auction scene in "North by North West"), but here his attempts to be humorous, such as the scene between Alastair Sim and Joyce Grenfell in the shooting alley, slow down and detract from the film rather than adding to it.
There is also an untidy loose end relating to Charlotte, who is one Hitchcock character who actually gets away with murder. We learn that she incited Jonathan to kill her husband, which in the Britain of 1950 could have earned her a death sentence, but any evidence against her vanishes with Jonathan's death at the end of the film. (She has, at most, confessed to assisting Jonathan after the murder, which would not have been a capital offence). Overall, "Stage Fright" is one of the great man's weaker efforts. Fortunately, he returned to form back in Hollywood with "Strangers on a Train". 5/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
