clanciai This is actually one of Hitchcock's psychologically most interesting films, since there is so much going on that we know nothing about and only can guess at, as it is merely hinted at and given glimpses of, like shreds of the top of an iceberg, while the real drama goes on within the characters invisibly and out of stage. The actual drama has occurred before the film starts, and we are tossed immediately into the arrest of the mysterious lady, who carries around more knowledge and experience than what is good for anyone, least of all for her lawyer Gregory Peck, who immediately falls under her spell. We are not even informed on what grounds she is arrested, and it seems she is locked up only on suspicion - no fingerprints, no evidence, no eye-witness, nothing at all'but circumstantial fishiness.It all circles around her, her fascinating character who leaves no one unaffected, even Gregory Peck's wife (Ann Todd) is fixed on her and wants her to get away whether guilty or not. She has a burden of experience as brought out from the slums of Naples and has had an uncounted number of lovers before she finds herself the task of becoming a blind old man's eyes. What she didn't bargain for was his valet.It was Louis Jourdan's first film, and his character is almost as fascinating as Alida Valli's. At first you never even see his face, as he stays in the shadow when answering the door. He adds some extra tons of intrigue to the story, and the scenes where Gregory Peck investigates the scene of the crime with him hovering about and absconding him is central to the post mortem drama.The main question which appears as the drama is brought to an end and all the facts have become known is, can we really blame her? She had no calculating motives in marrying the old blind colonel, she really wanted to serve as his eyes and get a good life of comfort and luxury into the bargain, but then he happened to have such a young and beautiful valet. Of course such a woman must fall in love with him and start seeing the discrepancy between him and her old blind husband. Of course she would start dreaming about possibilities. Or else she would not have been a real woman.The only one in the end who sympathizes with her is Charles Laughton's besotted wife Ethel Barrymore, who makes a pathetic character, but she is actually the only good one. Gregory Peck has torn Louis Jourdan to shreds and destroyed his life, in the bargain he has ruined the case for Alida Valli, and Charles Laughton as the judge sees it all and laughs at it with gleeful cynicism, as if he found it the merrier the lousier characters he got to expose themselves. Charles Coburn observes the alarming peril of Gregory Peck's course of an aggressive defense but doesn't reach him to warn him.In the end the real tragedy is that Alida Valli has killed for love and is punished for it, but she doesn't care and almost gladly accepts her punishment, since her real punishment was to lose her love as her lawyer in his love for her tore her love to pieces in defending her - and ruined himself into the bargain.It's actually a passion play of high emotions towering above and beyond the grasp of the actors, who are all defeated victims in the end, as the one innocent and honest participant rather killed himself than accepted being accused of dishonesty. This is a mess of passion and intrigue that never really can be fully fathomed.

herrick416 Equally unlike a 'Rebecca' as it is to Hitchcock's later movies like 'Psycho' and 'The Birds' yet The Paradine Case remains one of my favorite little gems, but to put into words why this is true won't be easy. Nothing about this haunting tale is easy to describe with the standard adjectives of film critique. That's precisely why it stands out, in my mind anyway, as unique. Pure and simply unique. It's an intense crime drama, with some mystery and some romance and not a dull moment or a lull in a compulsion to see it through til the end. I love it for its ambiguity and darkness and haunting plot. There is no forced twist or anything that doesn't ring true while the characters who remain mysterious do not need to be made crystal clear in order for the story to end with satisfactory resolution. The strangest one is the man-servant and Louis Jordan':S debut film. Excruciatingly handsome, we never really get to know what makes Andre Latour tick. But we know he's a dark and fiercely loyal man. And then there's Valli. If you love courtrooms and Gregory Peck and honor and honesty, you'll appreciate what this movie is about. Otherwise you might enjoy it still for its originality and beauty.

Get_your_azz_to_Mars A minor work from Hitchcock would be a major work for just about any other director of the era. Perhaps it's unfair to Hitch to rate a film like 'The Paradine Case' a 6 or lower, but the bar he set during the 1940's with films like 'Rebecca', 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'Spellbound', and 'Notorious' is so high that one cannot help but be disappointed by this film. Hitchcock reportedly had seriously clashes with producer David O. Selznick during the making of 'Paradine', which may account for its surprisingly banal story and characterizations. Yet there are moments and scenes to admire in 'Paradine':The introduction of Valli's character sums up her tastes, mood, and intelligence all with the visuals and a few, quick lines by her.The first meeting between Peck and Louis Jordan. It provides the first real sense of danger and creepiness to the film. Sadly, the film doesn't continue on this path as it delves into courtroom drama shortly afterwards.Valli's performance is nothing short of marvelous. She doesn't ham it up nor look stilted, she perfectly convenes the sinister and obsessive qualities of her character. She is, without a doubt, the best part of the film.The shot when Jordan first enters the courtroom as the camera slides around Valli's head as it follows Jordan to the witness stand.The high-angle shot of Peck after realizing the case is lost. One of the most jarring cuts in a Hitchcock film that firmly conveys Peck's sense of defeat.So, while 'Paradine' has moments, scenes, and acting to admire and reflect upon, the story itself is rather dull and dragging, negative characteristics that were quite rare in Hitchcock's films of the 1940's.

nomoons11 There are quite a few things wrong with this minor Hitchcock work. First off, casting Gregory Peck was a huge misfire. Seeing him try to pull off being an English barrister is kinda painful. It just doesn't work. This was a role before Peck became a superstar so maybe he was just getting his bearings as an actor.It doesn't help that the major issue with this film is o'Selznicks script. He is most certainly not a screenwriter. Some of the dialog and scene changes are so bad it's sad.Towards the end there's a scene where the old judge is sitting with his wife and she tries to talk him out of sentencing the defendant to death and she says something like.."don't find her guilty or sentence her to death, she's had a hard enough life." Are you kidding me? How stupid is that. Girl kills her husband, who did nothing to her, and we should just let it pass? Gimme a break. This is that o'Selznick script writing again. The whole premise of the film is centered around how a high end barrister takes the case of a supposed husband killer and how everyone around him sees him falling in love with her. Within 20 minutes of the film there's already talk about it but there's one problem, there are no lead-ins letting you know its happened. I mean he meets with her twice in prison to talk about the case and there's no chemistry at all.Figuring out why this film was made is pretty simple. Read around online and you'll see the history behind this and right off you know that o'Selznick totally took over this film and therein lies the problem. He totally takes control of the film and just ruins it with bad casting and even worse screen writing. It's like taking a lawn mower mechanic and telling him to go work on a Ferrari. He had no business writing for this work. You can bet Hitchcock was glad to finish out his contract with this minimal work. Seemed like he just phoned this one in to be done with it. Being that this was his last film with this studio and knowing the Hitchcock time-line, you'll notice how after this film is when his best films were made. Hmmmm, I wonder why?Skip this one and save your brain power for a better film...cause this ain't a very good one.