The Trouble with Harry (1955)

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

In the woods outside a small town in Vermont, several people, in turn, stumble across a dead body, that of Harry. Captain Wiles is convinced that he shot him accidentally while hunting, and tries to hide the body. Things quickly get rather complicated...Directed by Alfred Hitchcock but quite unlike any Hitchcock movie you'll see, in many ways. Even before the movie begins you can tell this does not fit in with his usual movies - the cast gives it away. No James Stewart, no Cary Grant, no big-name stars. Then the movie starts and instead of the usual Hitchcock thriller tone of dark, foreboding colours, even black and white, we have the beautiful scenery of Vermont, in glorious bright colours!Turns out this isn't a thriller, this is a comedy, though not a good one. More Carry On than Woody Allen, this is basically a farce: one event sets a series of reactions and related events in motion. Unforeseen events then occur and/or new information comes to light, and the participants then do something even more ludicrous to cover up their previous actions. Rinse and repeat for over 90 minutes. Very silly at times, and beneath Hitchcock's standards and dignity. One thing that prevents this from being a total waste of time is the dialogue, on occasion. Too wordy, generally, feeling like a play, but there are some very good passages of dialogue sprinkled through the movie.About the only other positive is Shirley MacLaine, in her cinematic debut. She lights up the screen and gives easily the most convincing performance of the movie.On that note, another Hitchcock signature trait that bit the dust in this movie - no blonde lead actress. He really was just phoning it in.

Like gold dust, THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY is Hitchcock's fickle dalliance with black comedy, which opens with its spectacular VistaVision variegation of autumn foliage in a Vermont countryside, where a young boy Arnie (Mathers) accidentally finds a man's corpse, later we know his name is Harry and he was not from the village, apparently several residents are involved in the death of Harry.There is Captain Wiles (Gwenn), who believes that he killed Harry with a stray shot from his rifle while he was hunting rabbits, but soon would find all three recipients of his bullets and Harry is not one of them; then the spinster Miss Gravely (Natwick), who claims to kill Harry with the heel of her boot when the latter surprisingly plunges on her from the wood, but why would Harry attack her in the first place? Now, drumroll please, a third key character is Jennifer Rogers (MacLaine), Arnie's mother, she confesses that Harry is her estranged husband, who arrived earlier that day and she hit him with a milk bottle over some divide (nudge nudge wink wink) between them before he headed out towards the wood. So, presumably, a woozy Harry must mistake Miss Gravely for his wife. But is that all the truth about Harry's death, please wait and see.A fourth main character is the local painter Sam Marlowe (Forsythe), when he stumbles upon Harry's body, he draws a portrait of the deceased out of the artistic stimuli, which in due course would trigger the suspicion of Calvin Wiggs (Dano), the Deputy Sheriff. But before that, during the unfolding of the trouble with Harry, Sam and Jennifer become an item, so are Captain Wiles and Miss Gravely, small-town bonhomie does engender romance in a rapid fashion! In fact, the whole film takes place with a full circle of 24-hours, and poor Harry, not only he is afflicted with a weak heart and drop dead in an unfamiliar soil, his body has also been buried and dug out several times and what are all the reasons behind the three-ring circus? As Jennifer blurts out near the end - "I can't remember why".In all fairness, one cannot acknowledge that Hitchcock is a protean filmmaker, certainly comedy doesn't go with his style, despite that the story revolves around a macabre mystery, some red herring is expectedly but uncannily thrown in the face (the closet door in Jennifer's house), however, when the tension and suspense take a back seat, the chummy and cheesy character building and illogical whimsies frustratingly miss the mark.Shirley MacLaine is extraordinarily photogenic in her film debut, but cast a barely 20-year-older as a single mother is something a travesty (she must be married at the age of 13) and John Forsythe is simply anaemic in attempting to heat up the chemistry with her. Yet, it is rather pleasing to see the plot-line around Mildred Natwick and Edmund Gwenn doesn't retreat to the second fiddler when the plot thickens, the quartet remains inseparable through the middle point until the finish line, and certainly the two veterans are more at ease with the tall tale setting and wearing their hearts on their sleeve, so is Mildred Dunnock, who plays Mrs. Wiggs, diligently and dutifully.The film might be simply labeled as a less crowd-pleaser in Hitchcock's oeuvre, but it is the auteur's own favourite, and it also marks the beginning of the renowned Hermann-Hitchcock collaboration, while THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY loses out on the usual Hitchcock-ian trappings, it actually pushes Herrmann's tremendously bewitching work to the foreground, it is lyrical, idyllic and plain optimum.

Hitchcock's only previous attempt at a Hollywood comedy was the unexceptional "Mr and Mrs Smith" in the early 40's and even that came from a studio assignment rather than an original motivation. Here, with the engagement of Hitchcock at the height of his powers, you might guess this one plays a bit differently. Chock-full of (no pun intended) earthy, sometimes racy humour, this is a black comedy set, paradoxically in the beautiful autumnal hues of New England, with a non-starring cast of noticeable variety, from fresh newcomer Shirley MacLaine to the avuncular veteran Edmund Gwenn, not the first names you'd think of to appear in an eccentric piece like this.Also on hand are a pre-"Dynasty" John Forsythe as the reasoning artist Sam and Mildred Natwick as the school-marmy spinster to complete the principal foursome who themselves get into an Abba-type arrangement as they pair off together, thwarted only it would appear by the inconsiderate corpse of MacLaine's unloved, estranged husband which keeps making unwanted appearances to spoil their mutual billing and cooing.I can see how the movie might split Hitchcock's fan-base as there's little of his trademark excitement or tension on show, but that's not to say other of his traits aren't present, from the stunning cinematography of Robert Burks, a playful soundtrack by Bernard Herrman in his first collaboration with The Master and some typically imaginative shots to admire, probably none more so than the first shot of Harry's prostrate body, from the shoes up.The ensemble acting is crisply played and I personally don't get the critics of Miss MacLaine harping on about her gaucheness, as she seems perfectly natural to me in what must have been a rather unusual introduction to movie-making in Hollywood. I admire Hitchcock for taking the risk he did with this off-beat feature and strongly consider he pulled it off with aplomb. A change, after all, is as good as a cardiac arrest as I always say.

The trouble with Harry is woven around a dead body( of harry) which is found in woods by a wandering kid,then by an old man who is shooting around rabbits,and consequently by few more people. They all have a different way of their own of responding, concluding and acting. They end up digging in and digging out the body thrice and at the end leave the body at the same spot, the very next day.and the caption comes "the trouble with harry is over".frankly i watched TTWH twice, first time i could bear it only for 5 minutes and deleted it. today I again downloaded it by accident after two years, the moment it started i got the flashbacks of this movie,but i decided to watch it ,thinking hitchcock would surprise me in the end like always. after watching rope,strangers on train,psycho,vertigo,dial m for murder etc etc i was a die hard fan of hitchcock, but this movie is a colossal waste of time,a torture, a blot on cinema ,a shameless ridiculing the feelings of us,a sheer trash. i beg you plz plz plz..do not watch it..!!!never..ever..ever..!!the worst creation of hitchcock..!!!