Jamaica Inn (1939)

Strong and Moving!

Let's be realistic.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Even though it's based on Daphne Du Maurier's novel, and features a particularly evil character by Charles Laughton, this Alfred Hitchcock directed film is not a particularly engaging or satisfying drama. However, though it lacks much of the suspense and intrigue characteristics of most of the director's other films, I wouldn't label it a complete waste of time. Besides Laughton's performance, another plus for this picture is Maureen O'Hara, who plays the innocent, beautiful heroin. Most Hitchcock fans will find that, not only is the other "good guy" not up to the director's standards, its ending is rather convenient as well.With nowhere else to go upon her mother's death, Mary (O'Hara) must find her way to the titled Inn, which is owned by her aunt Patience (Marie Ney) and uncle Joss (Leslie Banks). What she doesn't know is the Inn's reputation, as a place for bandits, pirates, and other sorts of unsavory characters.On the road to finding the Inn, she gets some idea of it, and in fact will only be taken as far as Sir Humphrey's (Laughton), the elected official of the region and, in effect, its law officer. Sir Humphrey, who lives rather lavishly, is naturally impressed with her beauty and agrees to escort Mary to the Inn. It appears that Sir Humphrey is a perfect gentleman, but appearances can be deceiving.In fact, it is Sir Humphrey that gives the scallywags who reside at the Inn the information they need to cause ships to crash on the rocks below it, such that they can loot their treasures and kill all aboard. This bounty allows Sir Humphrey to live the way he does, but his greed causes him to take too much from those who perform the evil deeds on his behalf. The fact that they depend upon his position, which protects them as well as providing them the ship's cargo information, keeps the pirates at bay.Upset with these losses, an agent is sent to infiltrate the rogues to learn why they seem to know about the ships and when they are worth pirating. Naturally, there are conflicts between the evildoers themselves, and the agent, James Trehearne (Robert Newton), gets exposed. However, Mary is able to help him and, combined with help from Patience, who is finally overcome with guilt from her husband's complicity with Sir Humphrey, good eventually triumphs over evil, if unsatisfactorily.Screenplay co-written by Joan Harrison, who received Oscar nominations for both of Hitchcock's films released in 1940. Basil Radford appears in his last of three Hitchcock films.

If you read one of Hitchcock's biographies (or just the Truffaut interview in that book), the director didn't really care for or have a particularly great time making Jamaica Inn, an adaptation of Dapne Du Maurier's novel - albeit he might have made it in part to cozy up to Du Marier/her estate in order to make Rebecca, so in short it was worth it though - and it doesn't appear to be like that many other films he's made. It has some suspense but not in a way that seems as tightly calibrated in the mis-en-scene or in the pacing. And yet I probably enjoyed it more than many, in large part because it does become more interesting the more it goes on, and the identity of Charles Laughton's character to people around him (the Robert Newton character especially, an undercover officer basically) gets slippier.Supposedly the book was very different (Laughton's character was totally different), and of course this being Laughton he gets a full course of ham with his major-school villain. His whole thing is that he appears to be a sophisticated dandy, a high-society guy (or rather a wannabe deep down), and he gets his money by having a group of on-shore pirates arrange (somehow) to get ships ship-wrecked and then the gang goes to vandalize and take whatever loot is theirs. His usual plans get in some trouble when the niece of his main underling Joss (the late, achingly beautiful Maureen O'Hara in one of her first roles), and she starts to notice some funny things going on at this Inn she is told not to go to (initially, anyway).This is kind of a cat-and-mouse game and a story of an undercover cop (it's a period piece so he's not called that, but basically that's what he is), and the sort of damsel-in-distress caught in the middle. I'm glad O'Hara was cast in the film; I don't know if Hitchcock had the say or Laughton as producer, but she is really excellent at making Mary never seem like a victim, even when she gets tied up or bound/gagged. She looks like she can (and does) hold her own, and how she gets away from this gang at times, like on a rocky coast-line, is rather creative to see. She helps to make up the sort of serious, emotional backbone of the movie.Meanwhile, if you want a full load of Laughton, this is a good place to get it. I'm not even sure he's particularly *good* in the role, as far as selling me early on some of his line readings and such. But he really gets to have fun playing this duplicitous role of this uptight, foppish aristocrat (the kind that loves to get angry at his butler, see the scene at the top of the staircase where he knocks over a bunch of papers flying about), and then the brains of a criminal operation. As far as giving the audience a truly memorable, meaty, unapologetic and yet rather human villain, there's a lot to enjoy with him in the role, especially when he has to obfuscate who he is to the Robert Newton character (see his face when the man pulls out his badge/paper saying who he really is, it's a priceless piece of hammy acting).I can see why this is not looked at as one of the films people return to over and over again with Hitchcock, much less one of his better British films. It probably isn't - it's no 39 Steps or Sabotage or Lady Vanishes, and I might even like Man Who Knew Too Much a bit more - but for what it is, a thriller with lots of 'who IS this person' logic and the theme of trust being thrown about a lot, it succeeds. I liked that there was a relatively serious back-drop, with Mary's aunt being stead-fastly supportive of her husband Joss, even after she is told point blank that he is a criminal (she has to stay by her man and all, he's not all THAT bad, you know, despite how friggin dastardly and cunning Leslie Banks makes this character). And it all leads up to an actually intense climax on a ship that is about to pull away from port.So in short, its not something great overall, some of its predictable and the opening ship effects haven't dated well. But it is nothing short of fascinating to see Hitchcock work with a more conventional thriller that gets better the more the character dynamics get twisted with Laughton trying to hide who he is (sometimes in front of his own gang!)

Alfred Hitchcock's last film made in the UK before heading to the US is one of his worst. It's a period thriller (light on thrills) about a gang of criminals who cause shipwrecks on the coast in order to steal the cargo and kill the surviving crew. The gang uses a spooky inn as a headquarters to meet and discuss their shipwrecking schemes. The film opens strong but once Charles Laughton's character appears, things start to unravel. Laughton is usually cited as one of the main reasons why this movie is so flawed. Laughton was one of the producers on the film and evidently interfered with Hitchcock at every turn. Without even knowing the story behind the production, it's easy to lay primary blame at Laughton's doorstep while watching this. He's over the top and campy; often comical to the point that it's impossible for Hitchcock to effectively build any suspense. There are some nice atmospheric moments with howling winds and stormy nights and the like. But the atmosphere is undone by Laughton's ridiculousness. The unconvincing makeup and fake nose don't help. The rest of the cast isn't that much better, with master ham Leslie Banks overacting as much as possible and a stiff Maureen O'Hara as the heroine. Maureen's as lovely as ever but, this being one of her earliest roles, her acting is pretty limited. It's a flawed movie with many boring stretches, too much bad acting, and mysteries that are not very mysterious. Still, it's Hitchcock so there are enough interesting things going on to warrant a look. But you'll likely be satisfied with just one look.

Jamaica Inn begins with a gang of pirates wrecking a ship, killing the survivors, and looting the booty. We cut to Charles Laughton and a false nose and eyebrows, taking a lady in who is looking for her sister at the infamous Jamaica Inn.The picture is not really about the Jamaica Inn so much as about the pirates who operate out of there. There are a few cool twists, and some attractive leads, but the tone is Dickensian and theatrical, not what you might expect from a Hitchcock. Its a period piece, and some of the costuming and acting contributes to the hokey tone. That was initially what turned me off it, along with the VHS-like quality of that first public domain release I saw. Don't bother unless you're watching the high definition version. This is a public domain piece so is quite common in horrible versions with fuzzy picture and audio so bad you can hardly understand it. The 2015 Cohan Blu Ray is the only way to watch.Overall its a good news bad news situation. At times, the dialogue is wooden and the framing boring mid-shots like in the worst Hitchcock movies. At other times, it has a nice flair for a dramatic twist, like the best Hitchcock. I'd call it non-essential viewing.