panguitch's Full Review: Best of Alfred Hitchcock Presents - V. 1
For a decade Hitchcock brought his personal grotesquerie to the small screen, delivering each half-hour installment with a slurry endorsement. The Best of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Vol. 1 is a collection of three such morsels, all directed by the master himself.
“Lamb to the Slaughter” episode #3.28, 13 April 1958 4 Stars
Mary Maloney (Barbara Bel Geddes, who appeared in a handful of other episodes) welcomes home her cop husband with an invitation to cancel their plans for the evening and stay home together. Ironically, he has a cancellation of his own to propose. He’s in love with another woman and wants a divorce. Mary’s stricken, and through her words, and especially her facial expressions, we see she’s in a psychotic denial. She insists on preparing dinner regardless, retrieving a leg of lamb from the freezer and preheating the oven.
Somewhat calm, unexpressive, she takes a detour, sneaking up behind him and clubbing him to death with the frozen leg. After some reflection she decides to fake a burglary and calls the police. The rest of the episode is spent in tension, Mary parrying the sometimes bungling sometimes probing questions of the investigators, all the while the evidence is cooking in the oven. Will she get away with it?
The macaberesque (word of the day) premise of this tale is decidedly Hitchcock. We’re rooting for Mary because she’s been spurned by her louse of a husband. But she’s such an amateur we’re sure she’ll be caught. The improbable building of the tension mounts without the audience being able to guess the outcome until it’s upon them. Hitchcock pushes it here, but it works. Geddes performs marvelously throughout. The final shot of her is insanely apropos.
However, this is a one-trick show, the drama of whether a murderer can hold up under non-accusatory interrogation (see Hitchcock’s Rope). While the episode is short enough that the suspense doesn’t wear thin, there’s little meat beyond the initial premise. This is the basic difference between Hitchcock’s films and the TV show.
“The Case of Mr. Pelham” episode #1.10, 4 December1955 3.5 stars
Albert Pelham (Tom Ewell) is a successful business man, though he lives a lonely life. Recently, however, loneliness hasn’t been his problem. It seems someone’s been impersonating him. Strangely, though, they haven’t done him any harm. When he finds they’ve been at his office, it turns out they’ve only conducted his business for him. When he finds they’ve been at his home, they’ve only been eating his dinner.
Nevertheless, Pelham is becoming quite disconcerted. His staff nor his housekeeper nor his friends seem able to differentiate between him and his double. He begins to doubt his sanity. Perhaps it really is him after all, he just doesn’t know it. But that ironically reassuring doubt is forfeit when he calls home and is confronted with the voice of “Mr. Pelham”. The only thing to do is to catch the imposter and prove it to one and all.
This is a classic doppelganger scenario. As such there’s a certain degree of predictability. However, the shortness of the television form allows Hitchcock to keep us in suspense, eagerly awaiting the necessary confrontation. And the mechanics of that confrontation and the element triggering the twist are well appreciable. Ewell turns in a respectable performance, but he sure isn’t fun to look at.
“Banquo’s Chair” episode #4.29, 3 May 1959 2.5 stars
Inspector Brent (John Williams, a regular) has one loose end to tie up before he can enjoy his retirement. It’s 1903 England, and his last case was never solved. The primary suspect in the murder, the heir, had an alibi—though Brent doubted it. Two years later Brent has a plan. He convinces the present owner of the victim’s house to throw a dinner party. Brent, himself, and a local actor of some fame are invited, as is the suspect. Brent has also secreted the police in a nearby closet to eavesdrop.
The conversation is light, helped along by the inane banter of the actor. But the lynchpin of Brent’s plan is the final guest to arrive: the victim’s ghost, or at least an actress who looks like her. Will the spooky apparition provoke a revelation from the heir?
There’s more to this story than the setup would have you think. However, it’s not hard to guess what the extra twist will be. Because of this, there’s little suspense. Moreover, while Williams is good, the rest of the acting is average or poor, the heir especially coming off ridiculous when under stress. Hitchcock also pulls an annoying trick here, having a character address the camera. Ultimately, it’s not an impressive episode.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents delivered some wonderful tales in its time. And through syndication even a Johnny-come-lately like me has fond memories of the opening sequence and Hitchcock’s slurry voice and profile. But it must be admitted that there is little lasting greatness to these episodes, and The Twilight Zone was often superior.
There’s a ready explanation in Hitchcock’s film career. If he had seen exceptional quality or potential depth in any of the stories he undoubtedly would have made them into a film instead. What we have here are premises that can’t be stretched over half and hour without losing their edge. Similarly, less time, money, and care was inevitably put into these television episodes than any film receives. The product is a far cry from even the lower tier of Hitchcock’s films.
However, these tales are entertaining for the most part. Not as good as the genuine article, they nevertheless furnish a taste of the Hitchcock genius, though I suspect only the diehard Hitchcockian will find them essential.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.