note: every month at absolutepunk.net, i run/participate in the “movie dictator club.” people are both assigned a movie to review in a particular subject/genre and assign a movie (not necessarily with the same person). this month’s subject was “movies nominated for the academy award for best cinematography,” and i was assigned the 1955 hitchcock film to catch a thief.
To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955)
plot synopsis: when a reformed jewel thief is suspected of returning to his former occupation, he must ferret out the real thief in order to prove his innocence.
to catch a thief is what would be called “minor” hitchcock. while it never comes close to reaching the brilliance of films like vertigo, psycho, strangers on a train, etc., it’s also not a misfire (marnie, family plot, torn curtain). it’s a film you could watch and (if not for his trademark cameo) not realize it was an alfred hitchcock film. still, it is a more than pleasant way to pass two hours. cary grant stars as a reformed jewel thief who, when someone starts robbing women in the same fashion as he used to, must prove his innocence. he and kelly (as the daughter of a woman grant’s character suspects will be a victim of the thief) play off each other fantastically, and it’s a shame they didn’t do more films together. the script isn’t great (it’s not bad by any means, just nothing special), but the amount of chemistry between the two leads more than makes up for it. the film basically plays like what it probably was; hitch wanted to spend some time in france, so he figured he might as well make a movie while he was there.
on to the cinematography. the film did indeed win, and it is absolutely deserving. the pure beauty of france is captured in nearly every shot, but never better than an absolutely brilliant (and the film’s centerpiece) car chase scene near the beginning of the film. shot entirely from a helicopter, it manages to be both exciting and beautiful at the same time. it is one of hitch’s greatest (and most underrated) moments.
overall, what you have here is a great lark from the master of suspense. it’s not one of his best films, there’s nothing incredibly complex or deep going on here, and you’ll almost certainly figure out the twists and turns before the film tells you them. but the film is fun and intoxicating; it feels a lot like what tony gilroy was trying to do with duplicity. two actors at the top of their game engaging in a film that is less about the story and more about chemistry and beauty. and while gilroy may have failed (rather miserably) with that film, hitch doesn’t here.
Film Fidelity 