Sun 5 Jan 2020
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: JAMAICA INN
Posted by Steve under Action Adventure movies , Reviews[9] Comments
JAMAICA INN. Mayflower Pictures, UK, 1939. Paramount, US, 1939. Charles Laughton (also co-prodcuer), Leslie Banks, Maureen O’Hara, Robert Newton, Marie Ney, Horace Hodge. Based on the novel by Daphne du Maurier. Director: Alfred Hitchcock.
I recently had the chance to watch the 75th Anniversary 4K restoration of Alfred Hitchcock’s Jamaica Inn on the Cohen Media Channel. And you know what? I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a lovingly crafted, atmospheric thriller that moves along at a steady clip, immerses you in a cinematic landscape of danger, and propels you into a seedy, sweaty, windswept world filled with thieves and cutthroats.
Adapted to the big screen from Daphne du Maurier’s eponymous 1936 novel, Jamaica Inn hinges on Charles Laughton’s lead performance as Sir Humphrey Pengallan, a dissolute local official who moonlights as the ringleader of a group of marauders.
Upon his orders, innkeeper Joss Merlyn (Leslie Banks) and his gang of lowlifes deliberately wreck ships off the Cornish coast, then looting the goods aboard and murdering any survivors. It’s apparently a lucrative operation for Pengallan, a bloviating drunkard who has built quite a life for himself in the far southwestern corner of England.
All that changes when Joss’s niece, Mary Yellen (Maureen O’Hara in her first major screen role), shows up at the Jamaica Inn. She has come from Ireland and has no place to stay apart from with her aunt. It doesn’t take long for the seemingly innocent Mary to realize that something sinister is afoot.
After accidentally witnessing Joss and his men’s attempt to hang Jem Trehearne (Robert Newton) for betraying their gang, she becomes caught up in a whirlwind of deceit and mortal danger. By her side is Treherane, who turns out to be something more than a mere criminal.
What makes Jamaica Inn so enjoyable to watch is not merely the exceptional performances from the cast – notably Laughton’s scenery chewing villainy – but also the ways in which Hitchcock utilizes the still nascent medium of film to portray a tense, claustrophobic atmosphere. Throughout the movie, one gets the sense of how entrapped all of the characters – heroes and villains – alike feel.
The heroes know that danger is all around them. The criminals know they know they can only outrun the law for so long. Much as in in Notorious (1946), which I reviewed here, Hitchcock places great emphasis on how various objects – a rope designed for hanging, a knife uses to set someone free from captivity, a musket, a lantern – are integral to the plot.
It is my understanding – and correct me that I am wrong – that Hitchcock himself later on did not think highly of his film and that the critics at the time were not especially keen on it. But no matter. It remains an elegantly crafted film, subdued in tone, without a lot of fanfare. Kudos to the Cohen Film Collection for restoring this classic. I plan to rewatch it again sometime in the years ahead.
January 5th, 2020 at 10:53 pm
I have not seen Jamaica Inn for years, perhaps decades, but recently put up the bluray of Moonfleet, Fritz Lang’s variation with Stewart Granger in Laughton’s part and John Whitely, an adorable clever child actor, replacing Maureen O’Hara. Moonfleet is a novel by J. Meade Falkner that has very little to do with the filmization. And it is just the set up in which I have found similarity. Well worth a look.
January 6th, 2020 at 10:08 am
The critics’ main objection to this film was Laughton’s over-the-top performance. And Hitchcock’s objection was Laughton’s refusal to take direction. But I agree that it’s a highly enjoyable movie. I wouldn’t rank it with ’Notorious.’ But it’s way better than ’Under Capricorn.’
January 6th, 2020 at 10:56 am
I’ve spoken to some die-hard fans of this movie in various past discussions. Some even go so far as to name it their favorite from this director. They all praise plot, atmosphere, and acting similarly as I see done in this swell review. Super!
January 6th, 2020 at 4:55 pm
I enjoyed this one too. One thing they could have done to improve it, though, it that it should have been in color. Maureen O’Hara in black and white? Boo, hiss!
January 6th, 2020 at 5:05 pm
O’Hara was Laughton’s discovery who he took to Hollywood to play Esmerelda to his Hunchback. She remained grateful to him the rest of her considerable career, often referring to him as her first and best leading man.
This one is ideal for what it is, a splendid melodrama filled with ripe performances and atmospherics, but it must have been a shock for audiences expecting 39 STEPS, SECRET AGENT, YOUNG AND INNOCENT, or THE LADY VANISHES.
Hitchcock, of course returned to du Maurier with THE BIRDS.
Robert Newton is an interesting choice for leading man, and it’s too bad he never worked with Hitchcock in a more challenging role. Though he is subdued here it really is a shame that he and Laughton, two of the greatest scene chewers in film history, didn’t get to indulge here on screen, Captain Kidd vrs Long John Silver.
January 6th, 2020 at 5:50 pm
Good point, David.
I’ve only seen it once, under less than ideal conditions, but it’s definitely better than Hitch said it was.
January 6th, 2020 at 6:29 pm
David
Don’t forget REBECCA, also by du Maurier, the very next film he made, after he’d come to the US.
January 6th, 2020 at 6:57 pm
Steve,
Oooops!
I think a few of her shorts may have been adapted on AH PRESENTS too.
January 6th, 2020 at 9:41 pm
It was Hitchcock’s intention to cast Robert Newton as the lover in The Paradine Case, but he was overruled by David Selznick. Nothing at all wrong with Louis Jourdan, but Newton would have been far more interesting.