Then he’s told to dictate a copy of the robbery note in print, not cursive script, which most people would naturally write in. When he misspells the word drawer as draw, as did the real robber, the lazy cops feel they’ve all but solved the case. Manny is booked, and a series of humiliating scenes where he is systematically deindividuated, denigrated, and dehumanized begins. He is let out on $7500 bail, when family, friends, and co-workers rally about him, but does find a lawyer who will believe in him. Yet, two of the three people who could provide an alibi for his whereabouts the day of the first robbery, when he and Rose vacationed at a hotel, turn out to have died in the interim. A third, a boxer, cannot be located. There is also the toothache angle that is not followed up on.
There is then a rare Hitchcockian courtroom scene, but Hitchcock ends the scene with a mistrial, when one of the jurors acts out. Meanwhile, Rose inexplicably cracks. Has she always had problems? Does she feel that her inadequacies have driven Manny to crime? We do not know, and Hitchcock does not say — which is a wise choice. But Vera Miles is simply not a strong enough actress to convey the emotional complexities needed for the depressed and paranoid character.
It’s admirable for the film to not limit the family’s sufferings to Manny, but an actress with more psychological gravitas would have been better. As great a technical director as Hitchcock was, one can only imagine how much more interesting a film this would have been in the hands of an Orson Welles, for its manifest Kafka-esque qualities.
Despite his WASPish looks, Fonda pulls off his non-leading man role with aplomb and suitable bewilderment. The Roman Catholicism of Manny is also an odd addition to the film from the usually apolitical and areligious Hitchcock, so shots of Manny’s rosary beads when booked, and of his crucifix at his trial, stand out. So does a bravura sequence where, in despair, and after being told to pray by his mother, Manny looks at a painting of Jesus, we cut to his face, and then we dissolve to a shot of the real robber (Richard Robbins) walking down the street to rob another store. The robber’s face fills in the frame occupied by Manny’s.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Josh Lasser
I think your characterization of his films as having "tended to lack heart, or real human emotion" is completely off-base, the real stories aren't the capers and heists and twists, they're the characters and interactions between the characters. The rest is just his "maguffin."
2 - Dan Schneider
The stories are plot-driven. Hitchcock was not dep. You won't find the great characters of a Fellini nor Bergman in his films.
Even Kurosawa, who was more action-oriented, developed characters. Hitch was technically great, but skin-deep.
3 - Ray Ellis
Granted, The Wrong Man was one of Hitchcock's more forgettable films. But that doesn't negate the fact your review of it is way off base in a number of areas. The movie was made in 1956, yet you cite it as being unrealistic in that the police didn't advise the suspect of his rights. Miranda warnings weren't put in place until 1966, a full decade after the movie was released. Comparing The Wrong Man to Serpico is like comparing Charlie Chaplin to Woody Allen, with whom you're obviously enamored. Fellini and Hitchcock are likewise apples and oranges. If you don't know the fundamental difference between film noir and "neo-realism", you have no validity as a critic. Your Eurocentric bias merely betrays you as a person who has no working knowledge of what makes a film work or fail. Hitchcock understood that film is a visual medium, and utilized its visual nature to wordlessly leave it to the viewer to draw his own cathartic conclusions. Fellini, Bergman, Rosellini--all have acknowledged their debt to Hitchcock.
Please--if you're going to review film, get a basic knowledge of it as a storytelling medium.
4 - Dan Schneider
Ray: I state, 'which was so manifestly incompetent in this and so many other pre-Miranda Warning cases.'
I am aware of the Miranda warning's date, as stated above. Were you aware that, pre-Miranda, NY state required the reading of a state's rights for defendants? That was my reference, since it was set in NYC.
'Comparing The Wrong Man to Serpico is like comparing Charlie Chaplin to Woody Allen, with whom you're obviously enamored. Fellini and Hitchcock are likewise apples and oranges.'
Here is what I wrote, 'The film displays their bumbling idiocy in full, and while it is not the flat-out criminality that engulfs the officers of the later film Serpico.' I am comparing the officer's actions, not the film itself. It's a simple matter of reading what is written.
'If you don't know the fundamental difference between film noir and "neo-realism", you have no validity as a critic.' Film noir is not character- but plot-driven. This is clearly Neo-Realistic in intent. In the DVD, even, it is stated Hitchcock was deliberately aping the Italian Neo-Realists. But, one need only see the film to see that. It is not a film where the crime is first, but the social message. Have you even seen the film?
'film is a visual medium, and utilized its visual nature to wordlessly leave it to the viewer to draw his own cathartic conclusions'
Every tool of the visual art serves one purpose- the telling of the story- aka the plot and the characters. Without the story, all else is window dressing.
Keep reading, you may learn something yet of film.
5 - Dan Schneider
'Fellini, Bergman, Rosellini--all have acknowledged their debt to Hitchcock.'
And learnt from his flaws.
6 - Ray Ellis
The word you're looking for is "learned", not "learnt". There is no such word as "learnt" in modern English. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know that, wrapped as you are in lengthy dissertations that have nothing to do with the merits of film. I was hoping your review of "Colossus: The Forbin Project" was a misdirected view of what constitutes science fiction. It's become increasingly apparent, however, that you are so immersed in a stringently narrow view of what film is about that you like the sound of your voice. You're full of indignation, but you signify nothing.
7 - Dan Schneider
Actually, you are right that learnt is the older version, but you are wrong in knowing it's not acceptable.
Of course, from someone who reads, 'The film displays their bumbling idiocy in full, and while it is not the flat-out criminality that engulfs the officers of the later film Serpico,' then writes, 'Comparing The Wrong Man to Serpico is like comparing Charlie Chaplin to Woody Allen,' and cannot discern I am comparing the officer's actions, not the film itself, it's to be expected.
Leave wordplay to the pros.
Look, there's a bird. Ain't it pretty? Now, just wipe that drool off your cheek.
8 - Dan Schneider
It's a conspiracy against you, Ray.
Hitch is chuckling.
9 - JDCanada
"deus ex machina ending" . . . lol
10 - Dan Schneider
No laughs needed if you've watched the film and understand the term.