MovieChat Forums > The Paradine Case (1948) Discussion > Why like or dislike The Paradine Case?

Why like or dislike The Paradine Case?

posted 17 years ago by rexshard93
16 replies | jump to latest

Hi,
Why do you like or dislike The Paradine Case?

I like Paradine Case, because of stunning camera movements by Hitchcock. For Example, When Andre Latour (Louis Jourdan) is introduced, he is introduced without the least shred of light falling upon his face. Great Performances from Ann Todd and Joan Tetzel.

Louis Jourdan's performance was great. At first, I thought he was ok. But now I like his performance a lot. I have to thank hisgrandmogulhighness.

One of the Hitchcock fans said like this "I loved the film not because it of its courtroom drama but because of Hitchcock's ability to deal with the drama outside the courtroom." I totally agree with that.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vidpro813 16 years ago

As a fan and "student" of Hitchcock films, the biggest struggle I had with "Paradine" was that it felt tedious to me. It's probably been close to 10 years since I've viewed it, but then again, I haven't had much desire to do so. I felt that "Under Capricorn" and "Topaz" also suffer from the same over-dialogue-ing.

I'm not one who simply watches the well-known, or "famous" Hitchcocks; I truly enjoy many of them. Some of my favorites include "Lifeboat", "The 39 Steps", "The Lady Vanishes", "Rear Window", and "Family Plot". "Paradine" just doesn't make it for me. Though I do enjoy reading about his work process, and have enjoyed reading the numerous posts about this film. Perhaps the longer versions will help it make more sense to me. Only time will tell.

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

The Paradine Case is missing more than an hour of the footage. Under Capricorn in my opinion is one of Hitchcock's best films ever made.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

Sony----

I dissent on the point you raised concerning Jourdan---he's one of the best things in the film! He really delivers a first class performance---and his performance helps lift the film, and gives it drive---Jourdan handled the role wonderfully, and gives the movie dramatic power . . . I was impressed by his delivery . . .

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I think Louis Jourdan did a great job. But I just wrote what Hitchcock said in the interview.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

Sony---

yes, I read something about that also, that they considered Robert Newton for the part---but I have to say that I feel as an actor Jourdan earned his salary, he did keep the dramatic elements moving along, especially in the second half of the movie---he read the part correctly, and did his job, giving a lift to the action . . . in fact, while on the stand, these are some of the best moments in the movie . . .

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I agree. Louis Jourdan was great. Thanks to you, I am changing some of the informations in my first post.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . Jourdan provides the story with much needed energy . . . that whole second half comes alive when he takes the stand . . . even adding a sinister element, which, again, adds to the tale being told. . .

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnrupertg 14 years ago

Louis Jourdan was great in the part, and probably delivered the best performance of all. He was the anchor. The others in the cast do a terrific job as well; expect for one actor who is entirely miscast and delivers poorly. This was NOT a good performance for or by Gregory Peck.

[–] onepotato2 16 years ago

I like Paradine Case, because of stunning camera movements by Hitchcock.

by - sonysunu on Sat Jul 7 2007 15:58:19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a great many things I found lacking in the movie (which add up to a negative review for me) but you're right. The camera work is unusually nice, even in Hitchcock's impressive career. I was very aware of the work being done to get footage into the camera. Even in the opening camera movement; across a room introducing the class, a character and the past (via a painting) of Valli.

There are very nice moments where the camera is moving through obstacles to make interesting compositions.

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

David O. Selznick removed many of Hitchcockian scenes from the film.

[–] UCHoodman 16 years ago

The film doesn't have that usual Hitchcock suspense and it maybe because of what an earlier poster said about Selznick removing some Hitchcockian elements, though I won't lie his camera movement is very good here. It's just not engaging and you're not that concerned whether the truth is confessed(as always occurs with Hitchcock) or not.

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Yes, Selznick removed many of "Hitchcockian" scenes from the film. I wish they were restored to the finished version.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 15 years ago

Jo---

yes, I too loved the music, and it is beautifully filmed, especially so when one considers it's mostly interiors---Peck was supposed to be a sort of wunderkind, a whiz kid, young, smart, up-and-coming---who just happens to fall in love with his new client . . . I thought Peck was just fine, he did the job that had to be done, and carried the film . . . one also must remember that back in the mid-forties Peck was super-hot, a major screen attraction . . . one reason Selznick put him in this film . . .