134 reviews
Rich cinematic flourishes and a realistic atmosphere on screen
Even though it is one of the weakest works of Hitchcock, the film surprisingly provides rich cinematic flourishes. For a 1939 film, it captures on screen the atmosphere and dark mood of the novel quite vividlythe stormy scene, the cave, and the inn (with the name board flapping in the wind). It is another matter that the albino parson of the book is transformed into a squire (with an unbelievable eyebrow make-up) in the film who commands his steed to be brought inside his dining hall. Daphne du Maurier's novel was adapted for cinema by the trio of Sidney Gilliat, Joan Harrison and J.B. Priestley, and reportedly the author did not approve of the end-product.
As in many Hitchcock films there is a recurring reference to marriage. Here a good woman remains faithful to her boorish and cruel husband through thick and thin.
As in most Hitchcock films there is a lot of sexual innuendo without any sex on screen, especially when Pengallen (Charles Laughton) makes the young girl (Maureen O'Hara) his prisoner. (The only film where Hitchcock showed sex on screen was "Frenzy.") And as in many a Hitchcock film, a bad guy turns out to be a good guy. This is one of the rare films of Hitchcock where the director does not make a cameo appearance.
The best cinematic flourishes were-the focus on the thin hands of the 17 year old who cannot be shackled by the soldiers as the handcuffs are too big, the opening "prayer" that serves as a grim introduction and finally the last scene of the film: Chadwick, the squire's butler, who thinks he can hear his dead master calling him for help in death.
As in many Hitchcock films there is a recurring reference to marriage. Here a good woman remains faithful to her boorish and cruel husband through thick and thin.
As in most Hitchcock films there is a lot of sexual innuendo without any sex on screen, especially when Pengallen (Charles Laughton) makes the young girl (Maureen O'Hara) his prisoner. (The only film where Hitchcock showed sex on screen was "Frenzy.") And as in many a Hitchcock film, a bad guy turns out to be a good guy. This is one of the rare films of Hitchcock where the director does not make a cameo appearance.
The best cinematic flourishes were-the focus on the thin hands of the 17 year old who cannot be shackled by the soldiers as the handcuffs are too big, the opening "prayer" that serves as a grim introduction and finally the last scene of the film: Chadwick, the squire's butler, who thinks he can hear his dead master calling him for help in death.
- JuguAbraham
- Apr 16, 2006
- Permalink
It May Not be Psycho, But ....
- richard-mason
- Jan 14, 2003
- Permalink
I disagree with Hitchcock
Some have ranked Jamaica Inn among the worst of Hitchcock's films, including Hitchcock himself, but I don't think it's that bad. The story is interesting, and I think Maureen O'Hara does a great job as the plucky protagonist, while Charles Laughton holds my attention whenever he's on the screen. I don't understand why this film is so disliked.
- cricketbat
- Dec 30, 2018
- Permalink
A classic for Laughton fans
While this picture is not one of Hitchcock's more memorable pieces, it is nevertheless well worth a look simply to view the acting genius of Charles Laughton. The man is larger than life as the revolting yet oddly fascinating Sir Humphrey and provides the audience with far more insight into the character than a lesser actor might have done. This is not simply a one-dimensional villain that we are so used to seeing in British movies of this period. In addition to a superb reading of the script, Laughton is clearly ad-libbing in various scenes, further breaking down hitherto scrupulously maintained boundaries between audience and actor. I urge anyone who is weary of today's usual line-up of blockbuster big names to observe a true master at work and wonder where it all went wrong!
- Bruno Morphet
- May 23, 2001
- Permalink
Connoisseurs of ripe acting may enjoy this one. Laughton outdoes Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan
Laughton and O'Hara give sensational acting in this costume/adventure film by the genius Hitchcock
At the beginning XIX century , Cornualles , where rules and inquisitive judge , Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton) . There is going a young orphan called Mary (a gorgeous Mauren O'Hara is eighteen years old) to live with her uncle (Leslie Banks) , owner of the Jamaica Inn . Soon afterwards , she is realized the inn is the base of a band of criminals who are planning shipwrecks on the rocky coast for rob it .
This nice picture is a costume drama with action , suspense , romance , adventures , tension and formidable interpretation . It's a romantic story with exciting images narrated in amazing agility and swiftly ; thus it happens : murders , storms , shipwrecks , escapes , pursuits... The film along with ¨Walzes from Vienna¨(1934) and ¨Under Capricorn¨(1949) is one from trio Hitchcock's epoch tales . And it is the first of Daphne of Maurier adaptations along with ¨Rebeca¨ and ¨The birds¨. Although Alfred Hitchcock was unhappy with the script and Charles Laughton's performance , still he experimented on this film just as he did on his previous film , The lady vanishes (1938) . Hitchcock had problems with Charles Laugthon (1899-1962), both of whom had a difficult and obstinate character and they bore remarkable physical resemblance . Besides , the sadomasochist relation between Laughton and Mauren O'Hara reflects the tempestuous relationship Hitchcock had with this actress .
Evocative photography in black and white . Hitchcock and cinematographer Harry Stradling Jr. gave the film a darker look in order to make it very atmospheric . Stradling later worked with Hitchcock in Mr and Mrs Smith (1941) and Suspicion (1941) . This movie has background music only at the beginning and the end This is the last film from Hitchcock's British career . Soon afterward this movie , Hitchcock was contracted by the great producer David O.Selznick (Gone with the wind) for the direction of the hit smash ¨Rebeca¨. He started the plenty successful American career and no returning to England until ¨Frenzy¨ (1972).
This nice picture is a costume drama with action , suspense , romance , adventures , tension and formidable interpretation . It's a romantic story with exciting images narrated in amazing agility and swiftly ; thus it happens : murders , storms , shipwrecks , escapes , pursuits... The film along with ¨Walzes from Vienna¨(1934) and ¨Under Capricorn¨(1949) is one from trio Hitchcock's epoch tales . And it is the first of Daphne of Maurier adaptations along with ¨Rebeca¨ and ¨The birds¨. Although Alfred Hitchcock was unhappy with the script and Charles Laughton's performance , still he experimented on this film just as he did on his previous film , The lady vanishes (1938) . Hitchcock had problems with Charles Laugthon (1899-1962), both of whom had a difficult and obstinate character and they bore remarkable physical resemblance . Besides , the sadomasochist relation between Laughton and Mauren O'Hara reflects the tempestuous relationship Hitchcock had with this actress .
Evocative photography in black and white . Hitchcock and cinematographer Harry Stradling Jr. gave the film a darker look in order to make it very atmospheric . Stradling later worked with Hitchcock in Mr and Mrs Smith (1941) and Suspicion (1941) . This movie has background music only at the beginning and the end This is the last film from Hitchcock's British career . Soon afterward this movie , Hitchcock was contracted by the great producer David O.Selznick (Gone with the wind) for the direction of the hit smash ¨Rebeca¨. He started the plenty successful American career and no returning to England until ¨Frenzy¨ (1972).
Not really "Jamaica Inn"... We're in The Charles Laughton Picture Show here!
(Spoilers possibly inherent)
I had no idea this film would prove such a curio and nigh-on almighty hoot to watch. I settled back on a familiar settee, late one night - after a meal at the finest Indian restaurant I know, Ocean Rd., South Shields, and after watching the heartening second "Office Christmas Special" - to play this film on DVD, a Christmas present from a good friend. Ironies are even in that; I bought him a DVD of the 1962 Robert Mulligan-directed "To Kill A Mockingbird": both that Harper Lee novel and Daphne Du Maurier's "Jamaica Inn" were texts we studied at school in our English lessons. They were by far the most enjoyable of the texts we studied in those five years - though I admit a partiality for "Cider With Rosie" and "Jane Eyre".
It was all for the better that I knew little of what this film was like; I knew only that it was directed by Mr Hitchcock, and differed quite a lot from the book. Oh, and how it does differ!
Quite frankly, Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn" is a different thing altogether to that utterly splendid, barnstorming tale of smuggling. This misses the uncanny, eerie quality of Du Maurier's plotting and characterisation. Here, Joss Merlyn is only a slight reprobate; he is softened and thoroughly reduced in size and dimensions compared to Du Maurier's conception of him in her novel. There Joss was a towering, bullish, walking-talking threat of a man. Leslie Banks sadly fails to capture any of the preposterous, swaggering bravado of the Joss Merlyn forever etched into my mind.
That is really the biggest failing in writing, casting or such like. The more general approach too fails to ignite; the conceptualisation of a desolate Cornish coast is reasonable but unspectacular. there's never quite enough misty, frightening (or frightened) atmosphere; one does not get enough sense of things being at stake as they were in the novel: life and death, hell for leather. A further bone to pick is certainly the strangely wimpy portrayals of the crew of cutthroats and local degenerates; another failure of conception.
Maureen O'Hara... well, the damsel is feisty to an effective degree and acquits herself well, though is oddly over-mannered at times. It is an odd performance, that is half very effective, and half ineffectual. Now, Robert Newton; that wonderfully hammy actor of renown is excellent here as the dashing Jem Merlyn figure. He is one of the few performers to seem as if he is on anything like the same wavelength as Charles Laughton.
Charles Laughton? Well, he absolutely strides away with this film, and that is no understatement. This is so, to such an extent that his own vision overwhelms whatever there may have been of Hitchcock's, or indeed Du Maurier's. He plays Sir Humphrey Penhalligon - standing in effectively for the novel's eerie albino vicar, Francis Davey - a thoroughly sneaky, grandiose aristocrat, who is quite wonderfully playing the people of his county for outright fools. He doesn't so much as administer justice as pick and choose allies and inevitably seek to further his own ends. Sir Humphrey's condescending, subtle contempt for those around him sublimely passes the other characters by, while the audience is in on it. One feels entirely complicit in the seemingly jovial fellow's gleeful tricks and crimes; Laughton almost tangibly winks at the audience with his every sideways glance and jocund intonation. What Victorian Melodrama villainy is in the man here; implicitly sending up the limitations of all that is around him by claiming the centre of attention and having so much comedic fun from his privileged position. It completely unbalances any chance of us finding the wrecking *that* serious, as he is an obvious villain from the start, and unlike the otherworldly Francis Davey, Penhalligon is someone we can relate to. His intentions are selfish, but born of a paternalistic High Toryism; the character is manifestly a cultural and social elitist. He does not want to destroy the existing world, but to be happy in it. Only of course, his methods and complete disregard for others are 'not the way to go about it', tut-tut!
The ending simply lives up to what has become a Laughton picture; the narrative of the novel has been almost wholly jettisoned by this juncture, and our - or mine, anyway - interest in solely in hoping that the wicked Sir Humphrey will get away with his arrant, errant audacity. Suffice to say, Mary Yellan is not in our minds in the final frames, which are beautifully melodramatic and distinctly odd.
I can only conclude by saying just how much I enjoyed watching this film, late that night, recently... It was glorious fun, entirely due to the magnificent Charles Laughton. It is awful overall, if one is looking for a "Jamaica Inn" close to Du Maurier's great original; but one actor manages to steal the fairly creaky show and catapult it off onto a higher stage. Oh, there's no internal consistency here, but that's part of the delight! A part-marvellous fudge of a film; at least never dull, due to Laughton.
I had no idea this film would prove such a curio and nigh-on almighty hoot to watch. I settled back on a familiar settee, late one night - after a meal at the finest Indian restaurant I know, Ocean Rd., South Shields, and after watching the heartening second "Office Christmas Special" - to play this film on DVD, a Christmas present from a good friend. Ironies are even in that; I bought him a DVD of the 1962 Robert Mulligan-directed "To Kill A Mockingbird": both that Harper Lee novel and Daphne Du Maurier's "Jamaica Inn" were texts we studied at school in our English lessons. They were by far the most enjoyable of the texts we studied in those five years - though I admit a partiality for "Cider With Rosie" and "Jane Eyre".
It was all for the better that I knew little of what this film was like; I knew only that it was directed by Mr Hitchcock, and differed quite a lot from the book. Oh, and how it does differ!
Quite frankly, Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn" is a different thing altogether to that utterly splendid, barnstorming tale of smuggling. This misses the uncanny, eerie quality of Du Maurier's plotting and characterisation. Here, Joss Merlyn is only a slight reprobate; he is softened and thoroughly reduced in size and dimensions compared to Du Maurier's conception of him in her novel. There Joss was a towering, bullish, walking-talking threat of a man. Leslie Banks sadly fails to capture any of the preposterous, swaggering bravado of the Joss Merlyn forever etched into my mind.
That is really the biggest failing in writing, casting or such like. The more general approach too fails to ignite; the conceptualisation of a desolate Cornish coast is reasonable but unspectacular. there's never quite enough misty, frightening (or frightened) atmosphere; one does not get enough sense of things being at stake as they were in the novel: life and death, hell for leather. A further bone to pick is certainly the strangely wimpy portrayals of the crew of cutthroats and local degenerates; another failure of conception.
Maureen O'Hara... well, the damsel is feisty to an effective degree and acquits herself well, though is oddly over-mannered at times. It is an odd performance, that is half very effective, and half ineffectual. Now, Robert Newton; that wonderfully hammy actor of renown is excellent here as the dashing Jem Merlyn figure. He is one of the few performers to seem as if he is on anything like the same wavelength as Charles Laughton.
Charles Laughton? Well, he absolutely strides away with this film, and that is no understatement. This is so, to such an extent that his own vision overwhelms whatever there may have been of Hitchcock's, or indeed Du Maurier's. He plays Sir Humphrey Penhalligon - standing in effectively for the novel's eerie albino vicar, Francis Davey - a thoroughly sneaky, grandiose aristocrat, who is quite wonderfully playing the people of his county for outright fools. He doesn't so much as administer justice as pick and choose allies and inevitably seek to further his own ends. Sir Humphrey's condescending, subtle contempt for those around him sublimely passes the other characters by, while the audience is in on it. One feels entirely complicit in the seemingly jovial fellow's gleeful tricks and crimes; Laughton almost tangibly winks at the audience with his every sideways glance and jocund intonation. What Victorian Melodrama villainy is in the man here; implicitly sending up the limitations of all that is around him by claiming the centre of attention and having so much comedic fun from his privileged position. It completely unbalances any chance of us finding the wrecking *that* serious, as he is an obvious villain from the start, and unlike the otherworldly Francis Davey, Penhalligon is someone we can relate to. His intentions are selfish, but born of a paternalistic High Toryism; the character is manifestly a cultural and social elitist. He does not want to destroy the existing world, but to be happy in it. Only of course, his methods and complete disregard for others are 'not the way to go about it', tut-tut!
The ending simply lives up to what has become a Laughton picture; the narrative of the novel has been almost wholly jettisoned by this juncture, and our - or mine, anyway - interest in solely in hoping that the wicked Sir Humphrey will get away with his arrant, errant audacity. Suffice to say, Mary Yellan is not in our minds in the final frames, which are beautifully melodramatic and distinctly odd.
I can only conclude by saying just how much I enjoyed watching this film, late that night, recently... It was glorious fun, entirely due to the magnificent Charles Laughton. It is awful overall, if one is looking for a "Jamaica Inn" close to Du Maurier's great original; but one actor manages to steal the fairly creaky show and catapult it off onto a higher stage. Oh, there's no internal consistency here, but that's part of the delight! A part-marvellous fudge of a film; at least never dull, due to Laughton.
- HenryHextonEsq
- Jan 17, 2004
- Permalink
Rousing
If it weren't for the cinematography we wouldn't recognize Hitchcock. He must have liked Daphne DuMaurier, using the Birds and Rebecca later. This is just a pretty confusing, pedestrian film, with some great actors. The story is, however, quite bland. It involves the arrival of a beautiful young woman at the evil Jamaica Inn. The inn is the hiding place for a band of pirates who lure ships unto the rocks,murder the crew, and pillage. The head of the organization is Charles Laughton at his pompous, window, Henry VIII best. He is in control of every scene, overacting and winking at the audience. The young woman is caught up in her trust for this man, and finds herself in his clutches by the end of the movie. The rest of the band, including Robert Newton (A-a-a-r) from Treasure Island are quite photogenic. It's an OK movie but just a little too much to swallow. I had always been curious with it and am investigating the Hitchcock films I had never seen.
Laughton, Not Hitchcock, and So What?(!!!)
I gave up reading the other reviews about halfway through as just about everybody thought that Laughton's performance was either absolutely glorious or hideously overdone, while those same reviewers seemed to think that this was either Hitchcock's worst film (or at least a contender for same) or a good effort ruined by Mr. Laughton's excesses. Maybe we should put ourselves back in 1939 and look at everything from that vantage point.
It's seems hard to remember now (and surely nobody ever mentions this, in or out of these reviews), but for the decade of approximately 1932 to 1944 Charles Laughton was arguably the most famous and respected British actor on the planet! Gielgud had some stage fame, and Olivier, Redgrave and Richardson were coming along, while the movies could celebrate Donat and Colman as British romantic idols (with Olivier on the horizon), but it was Laughton who took on the crown increasingly abdicated by George Arliss as Britain's leading actor - at least to the rest of the world. So, when we start to talk about Hitchcock and Laughton, and the latter's possible adverse effects on the former where JAMAICA INN is concerned, it should be remembered that while gaining some international recognition over that period, in 1939 Hitchcock was a virtual non-entity in the worldwide movie-going mind next to Laughton. Laughton didn't need Hitchcock, and Hitchcock may not have needed Laughton, but it was still a feather in any director's cap to snare Laughton for a movie role, and this man who had given astoundingly memorable performances on both sides of the Atlantic in HENRY VIII, RUGGLES OF RED GAP, LES MISERABLES, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, REMBRANDT and VESSEL OF WRATH could only do Hitchcock's career good (his prior stars like Novello, Banks, Donat, Redgrave, and even Gielgud were simply not the things that film legends were made of in 1939, whatever some of them would subsequently become), so that I'm sure that, Laughton being one of the film's producers (although unlisted as such), Hitchcock took on this project knowing full well that it would be a Laughton vehicle before it would be a Hitchcock movie. Oh, yes, in subsequent interviews Hitch might complain of Laughton's performance in the film, but I'd bet my left shoulder that he did no such complaining at any time during the film's making, and that he was simply overjoyed to be working with him.
Having said that, given the screenplay he worked with, Hitchcock did a very creditable job in directing. Yes, we might take note of the miniature ships seen in distance shots, but that was certainly not as bad as some of the cardboard audience members seen in 1934's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and both the opening and closing storm scenes are beautifully rendered (and the murders in the opening scene quite spectacularly staged). Otherwise, there simply wasn't very much to work with. The only scenes in the film that were really "Hitchcockian" were the heroine's view from above of the hanging of Trahearne and her subsequent cutting of the death rope through the ceiling, and much later, both the understated and unseen release of Trahearne by Joss's wife, and then Maureen O'Hara heroically struggling to raise the flaming warning flare in the midst of a raging gale. The latter could easily stand in for an early 19th century British visual equivalent to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, so stentorian is its presentation, and it is surely the visual highlight of the entire film! (And that Hitchcock should favor a mere female with such a physically courageous act!) Other than for those scenes, the success of the film falls not on the shoulders of Hitchcock, but on the uncannily mesmerizing visage of Charles Laughton in every scene he is in. The latter MAKES the film, so why blame Laughton for its relative failure in terms of Hitchcockian expectations? In 2016, you are simply not seeing (or even ready to expect) what the 1939 film was intended to convey before all else - Laughton's performance!
Warning: If you should be seeing this film on a Pop Flix set called "Deadly Mysteries Collection", be prepared to miss an entire reel between the time that the hero and heroine escape to Pengallon's castle and Trahearne and Pengallon's subsequent arrival at Jamaica Inn, with O'Hara already there, warning her aunt of their intentions. They have simply left it out!
It's seems hard to remember now (and surely nobody ever mentions this, in or out of these reviews), but for the decade of approximately 1932 to 1944 Charles Laughton was arguably the most famous and respected British actor on the planet! Gielgud had some stage fame, and Olivier, Redgrave and Richardson were coming along, while the movies could celebrate Donat and Colman as British romantic idols (with Olivier on the horizon), but it was Laughton who took on the crown increasingly abdicated by George Arliss as Britain's leading actor - at least to the rest of the world. So, when we start to talk about Hitchcock and Laughton, and the latter's possible adverse effects on the former where JAMAICA INN is concerned, it should be remembered that while gaining some international recognition over that period, in 1939 Hitchcock was a virtual non-entity in the worldwide movie-going mind next to Laughton. Laughton didn't need Hitchcock, and Hitchcock may not have needed Laughton, but it was still a feather in any director's cap to snare Laughton for a movie role, and this man who had given astoundingly memorable performances on both sides of the Atlantic in HENRY VIII, RUGGLES OF RED GAP, LES MISERABLES, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, REMBRANDT and VESSEL OF WRATH could only do Hitchcock's career good (his prior stars like Novello, Banks, Donat, Redgrave, and even Gielgud were simply not the things that film legends were made of in 1939, whatever some of them would subsequently become), so that I'm sure that, Laughton being one of the film's producers (although unlisted as such), Hitchcock took on this project knowing full well that it would be a Laughton vehicle before it would be a Hitchcock movie. Oh, yes, in subsequent interviews Hitch might complain of Laughton's performance in the film, but I'd bet my left shoulder that he did no such complaining at any time during the film's making, and that he was simply overjoyed to be working with him.
Having said that, given the screenplay he worked with, Hitchcock did a very creditable job in directing. Yes, we might take note of the miniature ships seen in distance shots, but that was certainly not as bad as some of the cardboard audience members seen in 1934's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and both the opening and closing storm scenes are beautifully rendered (and the murders in the opening scene quite spectacularly staged). Otherwise, there simply wasn't very much to work with. The only scenes in the film that were really "Hitchcockian" were the heroine's view from above of the hanging of Trahearne and her subsequent cutting of the death rope through the ceiling, and much later, both the understated and unseen release of Trahearne by Joss's wife, and then Maureen O'Hara heroically struggling to raise the flaming warning flare in the midst of a raging gale. The latter could easily stand in for an early 19th century British visual equivalent to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, so stentorian is its presentation, and it is surely the visual highlight of the entire film! (And that Hitchcock should favor a mere female with such a physically courageous act!) Other than for those scenes, the success of the film falls not on the shoulders of Hitchcock, but on the uncannily mesmerizing visage of Charles Laughton in every scene he is in. The latter MAKES the film, so why blame Laughton for its relative failure in terms of Hitchcockian expectations? In 2016, you are simply not seeing (or even ready to expect) what the 1939 film was intended to convey before all else - Laughton's performance!
Warning: If you should be seeing this film on a Pop Flix set called "Deadly Mysteries Collection", be prepared to miss an entire reel between the time that the hero and heroine escape to Pengallon's castle and Trahearne and Pengallon's subsequent arrival at Jamaica Inn, with O'Hara already there, warning her aunt of their intentions. They have simply left it out!
- joe-pearce-1
- Jun 29, 2016
- Permalink
Really? THIS is one of the worst movies ever?
All I can say is that the bar for bad movies must be pretty high.
JAMAICA INN is a weak Hitchcock movie even by the standards of his more primitive period of the 1920s and 1930s, but I don't think it's a bad movie. It lacks much suspense due to having more camp than needed, but the camp is at least fun to watch in the form of Charles Laughton as the greedy, lecherous villain (as he once said, the Code could never censor the gleam in his eye) and his colorful assortment of thugs. Maureen O'Hara has spunk as the heroine and Robert Newton is an interesting choice for a lawful good hero, but they share no chemistry and constantly get overshadowed by the bad guys.
However, even if the movie lacks menace and suspense, it did keep me entertained. I was never frustrated or bored.
JAMAICA INN is a weak Hitchcock movie even by the standards of his more primitive period of the 1920s and 1930s, but I don't think it's a bad movie. It lacks much suspense due to having more camp than needed, but the camp is at least fun to watch in the form of Charles Laughton as the greedy, lecherous villain (as he once said, the Code could never censor the gleam in his eye) and his colorful assortment of thugs. Maureen O'Hara has spunk as the heroine and Robert Newton is an interesting choice for a lawful good hero, but they share no chemistry and constantly get overshadowed by the bad guys.
However, even if the movie lacks menace and suspense, it did keep me entertained. I was never frustrated or bored.
- MissSimonetta
- May 4, 2019
- Permalink
No Bad Clergymen in America
According to Maureen O'Hara's memoirs, Alfred Hitchcock never liked to do period costume pieces, he felt those were not suitable to his particular talents. But he did this one for Daphne Du Maurier because he wanted to film Du Maurier's Rebecca later on. Which as we all know Hitchcock did and was very successful.
There are elements of Jamaica Inn that certainly might have appealed to Hitchcock. Maureen O'Hara arrives at the Jamaica Inn on Great Britain's Cornwall coast to stay with her aunt. The Inn however is the headquarters for a gang that wrecks ships on the coast, kills everyone on board and steals the cargo. Leslie Banks is the head of the group there. We also have a Georgian dandy in the person of Charles Laughton who has a lascivious eye for Maureen O'Hara. He's not what he appears to be. The whole idea of this innocent among the cutthroats not knowing who to trust would definitely have appealed to Hitchcock.
The original novel had Laughton's character as a hypocritical parson, but for American distribution his character was changed to a local nobleman. The Hays office forbade a man of the cloth be shown in such a light.
Parson or nobleman unfortunately Hitchcock did not rein in Laughton. In this particular film, he's just too hammy. Then again he was the co-producer of this so no one was in a position to tell him anything.
O'Hara credits Laughton for launching her career. He brought her to America right after this and had RKO sign her to play Esmerelda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A far better film than Jamaica Inn.
Robert Newton and Emlyn Williams have roles of substance here as well. Jamaica Inn might be worth a look.
There are elements of Jamaica Inn that certainly might have appealed to Hitchcock. Maureen O'Hara arrives at the Jamaica Inn on Great Britain's Cornwall coast to stay with her aunt. The Inn however is the headquarters for a gang that wrecks ships on the coast, kills everyone on board and steals the cargo. Leslie Banks is the head of the group there. We also have a Georgian dandy in the person of Charles Laughton who has a lascivious eye for Maureen O'Hara. He's not what he appears to be. The whole idea of this innocent among the cutthroats not knowing who to trust would definitely have appealed to Hitchcock.
The original novel had Laughton's character as a hypocritical parson, but for American distribution his character was changed to a local nobleman. The Hays office forbade a man of the cloth be shown in such a light.
Parson or nobleman unfortunately Hitchcock did not rein in Laughton. In this particular film, he's just too hammy. Then again he was the co-producer of this so no one was in a position to tell him anything.
O'Hara credits Laughton for launching her career. He brought her to America right after this and had RKO sign her to play Esmerelda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A far better film than Jamaica Inn.
Robert Newton and Emlyn Williams have roles of substance here as well. Jamaica Inn might be worth a look.
- bkoganbing
- Jan 8, 2006
- Permalink
Enjoyable Thriller from Two British Heavyweights!
- mikhail080
- Sep 13, 2010
- Permalink
"You'll find out Mr. Law Officer."
- classicsoncall
- Mar 30, 2008
- Permalink
Hitchock's weakest film but not without its good points
Three or so years ago, I was under the notion that Alfred Hitchcock had never made a bad film. Admittedly, that would be true if I had seen every film of his, truth is at the time I had not, and maybe I was rather biased as Hitchcock is my favourite director. While he still is, I do think he has done some bad and disappointing films, but none of them are completely and utterly terrible. Jamaica Inn is perhaps the weakest he did, but I still consider it a disappointing one, considering the talent, rather than terrible. Of course, there are good points, Robert Newton- in a role that couldn't be more different from his performances in Oliver Twist and Treasure Island- is an understated and likable hero, Emlyn Williams is sinister with some droll lines and delivery, there is some nice scenery and the opening shipwreck and ending are exciting.
Maureen O'Hara, in her debut(good historical point), is gorgeous to watch but rather shrill and wooden, and most of the supporting cast is stagy. People will remember the character of Pengallen and will love Charles Laughton as him, but I found him so over-the-top with little attempt to reign in that it harmed the film and seemed as though he was acting for a completely different film. I know Laughton can be hammy and subtle at the same time, he was brilliant in The Paradine Case(also directed by Hitchcock), where his role was much more interesting than here, and Mutiny on the Bounty and Witness for the Prosecution(non-Hitchcock films) were the same. Pengallen is a creepy character sure, but rather one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are also sketchily drawn.
And as much as I love and admire Hitchcock, it did seem as though his heart wasn't in it, it is an unusually pedestrian directing job and has little of his trademark/distinctive directing touches. I'd go as far to say that Jamaica Inn didn't seem like a Hitchcock film but more a Laughton one, that's how much he and his character dominated the film and doing it that way it came at the expense of everything else. The editing lacks finesse, in regard to editing Jamaica Inn is the least well-edited, while the dialogue is stilted and the story tediously paced and confused. The make-up especially for Laughton is garish. Overall, has its good points but for me Hitchcock's weakest. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Maureen O'Hara, in her debut(good historical point), is gorgeous to watch but rather shrill and wooden, and most of the supporting cast is stagy. People will remember the character of Pengallen and will love Charles Laughton as him, but I found him so over-the-top with little attempt to reign in that it harmed the film and seemed as though he was acting for a completely different film. I know Laughton can be hammy and subtle at the same time, he was brilliant in The Paradine Case(also directed by Hitchcock), where his role was much more interesting than here, and Mutiny on the Bounty and Witness for the Prosecution(non-Hitchcock films) were the same. Pengallen is a creepy character sure, but rather one-dimensional. The rest of the characters are also sketchily drawn.
And as much as I love and admire Hitchcock, it did seem as though his heart wasn't in it, it is an unusually pedestrian directing job and has little of his trademark/distinctive directing touches. I'd go as far to say that Jamaica Inn didn't seem like a Hitchcock film but more a Laughton one, that's how much he and his character dominated the film and doing it that way it came at the expense of everything else. The editing lacks finesse, in regard to editing Jamaica Inn is the least well-edited, while the dialogue is stilted and the story tediously paced and confused. The make-up especially for Laughton is garish. Overall, has its good points but for me Hitchcock's weakest. 4/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Apr 1, 2013
- Permalink
For once Robert Newton as a HERO!
- countryway_48864
- Aug 28, 2001
- Permalink
Its highlight is the large cast of British character actors of the time
Hitchcock's last British film before moving to America was this uncredited adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's novel. In 19th century Cornwall, refined young woman Mary Yellen (Maureen O'Hara) arrives to visit her aunt, only to find that she's married to the loutish Joss Merlyn (Leslie Banks), who runs a gang of cutthroats who cause shipwrecks on the nearby coast in order to loot their cargo. Joss is secretly in league with the vain, mentally-deranged local nobleman Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Charles Laughton), while an investigator (Robert Newton) has gone undercover into the gang in order to bring them all to justice.
Laughton was also the producer on this, and he and Hitchcock butted heads on everything, with Laughton switching roles (he was originally set to play the part Banks ended up with) and then demanding multiple re-writes to enlarge his new role as the mad Sir Humphrey. I'm a fan of Laughton's, but here he's rather awful. O'Hara, who gets an "introducing" credit although she'd had a few minor bit roles before this, looks nice but doesn't have a lot to do but act scared or horrified. Hitchcock reportedly thought she was a terrible actress, but Laughton insisted that she be cast, and he took to America to appear with him in The Hunchback of Notre Dame next. As for Jamaica Inn, it's only highlight for me is the large cast of British character actors of the time.
Side note: In a bonus feature interview of Hitchcock on one of the Criterion discs, the director is quoted as saying, "I tell filmmakers to try and avoid filming four things: dogs, babies, motorboats, and Charlie Laughton."
Laughton was also the producer on this, and he and Hitchcock butted heads on everything, with Laughton switching roles (he was originally set to play the part Banks ended up with) and then demanding multiple re-writes to enlarge his new role as the mad Sir Humphrey. I'm a fan of Laughton's, but here he's rather awful. O'Hara, who gets an "introducing" credit although she'd had a few minor bit roles before this, looks nice but doesn't have a lot to do but act scared or horrified. Hitchcock reportedly thought she was a terrible actress, but Laughton insisted that she be cast, and he took to America to appear with him in The Hunchback of Notre Dame next. As for Jamaica Inn, it's only highlight for me is the large cast of British character actors of the time.
Side note: In a bonus feature interview of Hitchcock on one of the Criterion discs, the director is quoted as saying, "I tell filmmakers to try and avoid filming four things: dogs, babies, motorboats, and Charlie Laughton."
Not a real Hitchcock, more like a real Laughton
JAMAICA INN is one of the Hitchcock films which might be said not to be a Hitchcock film. Its not that one or two 'Hitchcockian' elements are missing but almost all are missing. JAMAICA INN is adapted from a Daphne Du Maurier novel and was his last English film. Hitchcock's next film and his first American film would be REBECCA also from a Du Maurier novel. He would later go on to direct another film from a Du Maurier original, THE BIRDS, so there is no incompatibility there. The writers were the usual Hitchcock suspects from his English period. Frequent collaborator Sidney Gilliat and long serving Joan Harrison, later the producer of Hitch's TV show, as well as wife Alma Reville, were credited along with J.B. Priestly who gets an additional dialogue credit.
The villain of the piece, Charles Laughton, as the unlikely Sir Humphrey Pengallan, the local magistrate on the Cornish coast, is revealed almost immediately. The hero however is obscured for the first reel. The film is built around Laughton and he chews the scenery most wonderfully. It is essentially his picture, the producer, Erich Pommer, a German refugee and one of the founders of famous UFA studios, was Laughton's house producer. Priestly must have been brought in to goose up Laughton's dialogue. Another factor making this film sort of the anti-Hitchcock is the lack of humor whether provided by the situation or the mixing of classes. Laughton is funny, in a way, though he could have been funnier if he had gone completely over the top. As such there is a bit too much naturalism in Laughton's portrait of a Regency rake straight from the Hellfire Club, gone to seed and off his head with greed, rather like the last panel in a Hogarth series of etchings. While Hitchcock villains could be unspeakably cruel they always had a modicum of wit to go along with it.
Think of Otto Kruger in SABOTEUR and most especially James Mason in NORTH BY NORTHWEST issuing the foulest threats is the most cultured and dulcet tones. Laughton never gets this type of exchange going : (from NORTH BY NORTHWEST) Roger Thornhill: Apparently the only performance that will satisfy you is when I play dead. Phillip Vandamm: Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you.
For all his facial gymnastics Laughton is pretty straight forward a villain, with only his position to throw people off the scent, something else the real Hitchcock would have found very amusing.
Hitchcock even uses terrible screen clichés without even a special twist or variation on them. Usually Hitchcock will use the audiences expectations to his own advantage. There is the one where some one is about to mention the name of the murderer/villain-in-chief and just as they are about to speak the name a shot rings out and they fall over dead and mute forever. In this case it doesn't even make sense as everyone knows who the villain is but its used anyway because it is always used in this sort of picture. In Charlie Chan pictures it's usually preceded by Number one or number two son exclaiming "Look pop, the lights are flickering" and then blam! the stoolie doesn't get to spill the beans after all and we have another twenty minutes of film for sure. Its as if Hitchcock really just doesn't care.
There is one moment where the film is lifted into the territory rare and wild that bears the special attentions of Hitchcock. I'm sorry to say that it concerns bondage and sadism. The scene has Laughton first gaging Maureen O'Hara and then tying her hands behind her back. It is so effective not because of its graphic nature but because Laughton tells O'Hara what he is going to do before he does it. With the white silken gage pulled taught in her mouth he drapes a hood over her head so that she begins to look like the Virgin Mary bound and gaged. The photography is particularly Germanic here (Pommer and Hitchcock had made THE PLEASURE GARDEN, his first complete film, together in the silent days) and I was reminded not only of the Virgin, but as a Munch like Virgin with her face frozen in anxiety and also the Good Maria from Metropolis. It is a scene which pops out from the rest of the hectic goings on of the rest of the film.
Since its not very good Hitchcock it is rarely shown. Even in this sub genre it is outclassed by Fritz Lang's MOONFLEET or even De Mille's very silly REAP THE WILD WIND. JAMAICA INN was just, as John Ford used to put it, a job of work and Hitch was off to America. Seeing this film made me want to dig out one of my copies of Truffaut's extensive interview with Hitchcock to see what he had to say on the matter. He was usually brief when discussing terrible failures like JAMAICA INN. In sum, it is not a Hitchcock film but a Laughton one.
The villain of the piece, Charles Laughton, as the unlikely Sir Humphrey Pengallan, the local magistrate on the Cornish coast, is revealed almost immediately. The hero however is obscured for the first reel. The film is built around Laughton and he chews the scenery most wonderfully. It is essentially his picture, the producer, Erich Pommer, a German refugee and one of the founders of famous UFA studios, was Laughton's house producer. Priestly must have been brought in to goose up Laughton's dialogue. Another factor making this film sort of the anti-Hitchcock is the lack of humor whether provided by the situation or the mixing of classes. Laughton is funny, in a way, though he could have been funnier if he had gone completely over the top. As such there is a bit too much naturalism in Laughton's portrait of a Regency rake straight from the Hellfire Club, gone to seed and off his head with greed, rather like the last panel in a Hogarth series of etchings. While Hitchcock villains could be unspeakably cruel they always had a modicum of wit to go along with it.
Think of Otto Kruger in SABOTEUR and most especially James Mason in NORTH BY NORTHWEST issuing the foulest threats is the most cultured and dulcet tones. Laughton never gets this type of exchange going : (from NORTH BY NORTHWEST) Roger Thornhill: Apparently the only performance that will satisfy you is when I play dead. Phillip Vandamm: Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you.
For all his facial gymnastics Laughton is pretty straight forward a villain, with only his position to throw people off the scent, something else the real Hitchcock would have found very amusing.
Hitchcock even uses terrible screen clichés without even a special twist or variation on them. Usually Hitchcock will use the audiences expectations to his own advantage. There is the one where some one is about to mention the name of the murderer/villain-in-chief and just as they are about to speak the name a shot rings out and they fall over dead and mute forever. In this case it doesn't even make sense as everyone knows who the villain is but its used anyway because it is always used in this sort of picture. In Charlie Chan pictures it's usually preceded by Number one or number two son exclaiming "Look pop, the lights are flickering" and then blam! the stoolie doesn't get to spill the beans after all and we have another twenty minutes of film for sure. Its as if Hitchcock really just doesn't care.
There is one moment where the film is lifted into the territory rare and wild that bears the special attentions of Hitchcock. I'm sorry to say that it concerns bondage and sadism. The scene has Laughton first gaging Maureen O'Hara and then tying her hands behind her back. It is so effective not because of its graphic nature but because Laughton tells O'Hara what he is going to do before he does it. With the white silken gage pulled taught in her mouth he drapes a hood over her head so that she begins to look like the Virgin Mary bound and gaged. The photography is particularly Germanic here (Pommer and Hitchcock had made THE PLEASURE GARDEN, his first complete film, together in the silent days) and I was reminded not only of the Virgin, but as a Munch like Virgin with her face frozen in anxiety and also the Good Maria from Metropolis. It is a scene which pops out from the rest of the hectic goings on of the rest of the film.
Since its not very good Hitchcock it is rarely shown. Even in this sub genre it is outclassed by Fritz Lang's MOONFLEET or even De Mille's very silly REAP THE WILD WIND. JAMAICA INN was just, as John Ford used to put it, a job of work and Hitch was off to America. Seeing this film made me want to dig out one of my copies of Truffaut's extensive interview with Hitchcock to see what he had to say on the matter. He was usually brief when discussing terrible failures like JAMAICA INN. In sum, it is not a Hitchcock film but a Laughton one.
- max von meyerling
- Aug 21, 2005
- Permalink
"That place - Jamaica Inn. It's got a bad name. It's not healthy, that's why"
"Jamaica Inn" (1939) is remarkable in many ways as almost every movie directed by the great Alfred Hitchcock. It was the last movie he directed in England before he moved to Hollywood. It was his first screen adaptation of the book by Daphne Du Maurier - his next movie, the Oscar winning "Rebecca" is also based on Du Maurier's novel as well as the later "The Birds" (1963). "Jamaica Inn" introduced 18 years old Maureen O'Hara in her first starring role as Mary, a young orphan girl who arrives to stay with her aunt at the inn located at England's Cornish coast around 1820 to quickly find out that the inn is a headquarters of the of the pirate band. Finally, "Jamaica Inn" was the first collaboration of two cinema giants, Alfred Hitchcock and Charles Laughton. While "Jamaica Inn" may be not the best or most memorable Hitchcock's film, nobody would argue that Laughton, a performer of an incredible range stole the movie as Sir Humphrey Pengallon in the performance that mixes "elegant grossness, gallant and sardonic, pure madness, and certain grandeur to his defiance".
6.5/10
6.5/10
- Galina_movie_fan
- Apr 15, 2007
- Permalink
Robbers, smugglers in a Hitchcock gem.
- michaelRokeefe
- Dec 6, 2007
- Permalink
Antiquated drama.
"Jamaica Inn" is a rarity in Hitchcock's filmography: a film that was BEHIND its time (it could have been an early talkie). It is notable only for the hints of sexual perversion one can find in the performances of Charles Laughton and Leslie Banks; in fact, the villains of the piece are much more interesting than the bland heroes. No "Juno and the Paycock", but still one of Hitchcock's weakest. (**)
So much more potential....
I liked it.
- DanielWRichardson
- May 1, 2008
- Permalink
Um... I disagree with most of the comments here...
- seanahalpin
- Jan 29, 2005
- Permalink
where's Alfred
The one thing that ticked me off.. no Alfred Hitcock cameo, i always look forward to trying to spot him in the movie, anyway as for the movie here goes... Maureen o' Hara. she is very young , beautiful. sexy in this movie. she is taken prisoner in the film for a rich older English gentlemen. Her Aunt Patience who has invited her to stay with her is married to Joss. the leader of a crew of Pirates.. who wreck ships in the early 1800's off the coast of Cornwall, England. I thought at the beginning this movie did get off to a slow start, but began to pick up steam later in the movie as time went by. This is by no means one of Hitcock's great works, but it's not bad either, This is the type of movie in my book that grows on you, and requires,, excuse me if i say this a little Patience to watch. overall though not a bad movie.
- kairingler
- Oct 13, 2007
- Permalink
Dull,....unbelievably dull!!!
- planktonrules
- Jul 24, 2006
- Permalink