Jamaica Inn Reviews

(YT) Nada hitchcockiana esta aventura algo noir, afín a esas melodramas/aventura británicos con Granger y Lockwood, pero Hitch mete lo suyo en la relación de O'Hara con Robert Newton, hombre y mujer equivocados y falsos culpables y en el final en le que el gran Laughton secuentra a O'Hara y la amordaza como si la quisiera someter...

For all the flourishes that demonstrate Alfred Hitchcock was at least somewhat engaged with material, Jamaica Inn still evinces the sight of the controlling director being overrun by his star with his mind largely elsewhere. Coming right before his transatlantic crossing to work with a minor American studio, David O. Selznick had yet to produce Gone with the Wind, Jamaica Inn has less to do with Hitchcock’s typical suspense and a lot more to do with melodrama. He had already managed to make The Lady Vanishes, The 39 Steps, and the Peter Lorre version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, each technically daring and filled with glorious bits of suspense, comedy, and adventure, so Jamaica Inn’s routine flatlining is something of a surprise.

 

Then again, this is really the Charles Laughton show. We learn early on that Laughton’s Sir Humphrey Pengallan is orchestrating the roving gangs sowing terror so there’s a noticeable lack of suspense or engagement with the proceedings from there. If you already know the twist is the buildup to the other characters finally catching up to the omniscient narrative worth the investment? I didn’t think so and found myself routinely bored waiting for Maureen O’Hara’s ever watchful Mary to figure out what I already knew an hour prior.

 

If we learned in the end, as was Hitchcock’s original intent, that Pengallan was the string puller behind these events, then his gentlemanly pretentions and nouveau riche trappings would take on grander textures of villainy. We are always aware that he is the deceitful kingpin so everything Laughton does becomes something of a camp artifice and there’s no surprise, suspense, or reason to invest in his scheming. We know that O’Hara will eventually pull back the curtain on his greed and ego from the beginning, so their battle of wills is lopsided throughout.

 

Yet not nearly as lopsided as Hitchcock and Laughton’s aims. Hitchcock is clearly striving for atmosphere while Laughton undoes that aim with his theatrical pompousness, including a strange gait that seems attuned to a music only he can hear. Author Daphne du Maurier nearly considered withholding the film rights to Rebecca as she was so disappointed with this adaptation of her material. Thank god she conceded as that film is one of Hitchcock’s great masterworks, the first of a string of them during his Hollywood years.  

Honestly, I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I'm a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check it out. After watching many (rather disappointing ) silent features directed by Hitchcock, it was quite nice to see a good old thriller directed by the great master of the genre. I have to admit it, it wasn’t one of his best work and even though it was a box-office success, Alfred Hitchcock himself didn’t like it much but I thought it was fairly enjoyable. Indeed, even though the story was rather flawed, it was still entertaining and it featured one of the best villains ever displayed in a Hitchcock thriller. Indeed, I kept hearing Charles Laughton was a great actor and, here, he really impressed me. The rest of the gang was not really interesting but Sir Humphrey Pengallan was a really intriguing and funny fellow and Laughton really stole the show every time he was on the screen. It was also quite nice to see a very young Maureen O’Hara in her very first part and even though her character could have been more developed, she still managed to give us a strong and high-spirited woman. Eventually, it would be the last British feature directed by Hitchcock and he will then take off for Hollywood reaching some even greater success. To conclude, even though it is actually nothing really amazing, I still liked the damned thing and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

Charles Laughton was a co-producer as well, and he interfered greatly with Hitchcock's direction.

Laughton was originally cast as the uncle, but he cast himself in the role of villain, which was originally to be a hypocritical preacher, but was rewritten as a squire because unsympathetic portrayals of the clergy were forbidden by the Production Code in Hollywood.[3]

Laughton then demanded that Hitchcock give his character, Squire Pengallon, greater screen time. This forced Hitchcock to reveal that Pengallon was a villain in league with the smugglers earlier in the film than Hitchcock had initially planned.[2]

Laughton's acting was a problem point as well for Hitchcock. Laughton portrayed the Squire as having a mincing walk, to the beat of a German waltz which he played in his head,[4] while Hitchcock thought it was out of character.

Some good did come out of Laughton's meddling, though. He demanded that Maureen O'Hara be given the lead after watching her screen test (her acting in the screen test was sub par, but Laughton could not forget her eyes). After filming finished, Charles Laughton brought her to Hollywood to play Esmeralda opposite his Quasimodo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where she became an international star. In March 1939, Hitchcock moved to Hollywood to begin his contract with David O. Selznick, so Jamaica Inn was his last British picture, as well as one of his most successful.[4]

Daphne du Maurier was not pleased with the finished production and for a while she considered withholding the film rights to Rebecca.