Hitchcock's Films example essay topic

ENG 229 Evan James Essay #3 Charlie-Horse In Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock utilizes and stretches the ambiguous line between comedy and suspense by utilizing smaller characters in the film to keep the story line moving, and to help break sequence or rhythm of what the audience had been perceiving at the time. Many of the minor characters were used as "fillers", such as the waitress in the bar when Uncle Charlie and Charlie are sitting in the bar, and makes the comment "I would die for a ring like this"; or the quiet, gentle neighbor Herb who is fascinated with the process of homicide and murder. It brings to the audience an immediate comic relief, but similar to all of Hitchcock, leaves an unsettling feeling of fear and suspense with the viewer. Shadow of a Doubt is a film that hits very close to home for me, primarily because of the small town feel very similar to Orono that I have grown to know so well.

There is a brutal irony that lurks through the film, especially during the time period that the film was made. The picturesque stereotype of small town life in the 40's is brutally torn apart by Hitchcock wit and creative ing " ensue, putting the viewer in an uncomfortable mind stretch of reality. The first instance of ambiguity between comedy / drama begins directly at the beginning credits of the film, with the brilliant shot of a uniform waltzing party, in carousel motion, or a perfect circle. From my perspective, I was unable to recognize what Hitchcock was trying to present, but I found it amusing that he would use waltzing in the beginning of the film, primarily for the reason that waltzing is a social function, used in celebration traditionally. But in keeping in theme with the waltz, it is also a dance that has strategically placed steps and movements that every good dancer knows, and cherishes. It sets up the mood immediately for the audience subconsciously that everything is in strict moral uniformity and cleanliness, what a small town should be: precise, well groomed, and normal, keeping in trend with the such prevalent Hitchcocki an irony.

One of the characters that stood out for me before even saying a word was the neighbor Herb. The moment he came on screen, you could tell that there was something different about him. The first thing you see when Herb enters on screen is an armful of crime magazines. It automatically sets the audience's focus on Herb, putting all other characters aside, and attend to mainly on his character at the present time. What makes him so fascinating?

Is it the rimmed glasses? The soft timid voice? His lack of physical presence? Personally, when I saw Herb enter, I thought immediately that he was going to hold some significant role later on in the film, But as the film progresses, you realize that Herb is just what he appears to be: a quiet good-natured man who is fascinated with murder, and holds little importance to the main story line.

Or does he? Hitchcock uses minor characters and applies them at certain points in the story to create a layered suspense lasagna. Pardon my food analogy, but I'm pretty sure that Hitchcock would not disapprove to anything food or drink related. Hitchcock uses minor characters to create an inter-correlation between what is good and what is evil. When both Charlies enter the bar the 'na " ive' and 'simple' waitress comes to serve the two. The audience immediately realizes that she does not know what the two are talking about, and that her role does not contribute to the development of the story.

But Hitchcock uses his brilliance to make the 'na " ive' character build tension between the two main characters by bringing small talk to the table, and acknowledging the fine stone ring that Charlie is wearing. It is interesting to think about, if these minor characters know something that the others, such as Uncle Charlie and Charlie do not. That is something that is left up to the audience to determine by themselves, thus bringing a new level of moral ambiguity that is so prevalent in all of Hitchcock's films. It leaves the audience to wonder: what and where is the thin line between good and evil?