In the film, they have also cut out the character of Paul completely, as well as that of Oriol, the police officer who John knows personally. In addition, the movie eliminates all feelings of loyalty between Robie and his former Maquis comrades, who, in this version, are intent on deceiving and betraying him. All of this is, in my opinion, a mistake, as it leaves John without motivation... if not for his compulsion to aid his fellow Maquisards, what reason does he have for not escaping to the States? And without Paul- and to a lesser extent, Oriol- there are no conflicting feelings or divided loyalties. This eliminates a lot of the dramatic elements. What is left is a movie with a good central idea, but a generic plot with one-note characters and an obvious outcome. It's not that the film is bad- it's Hitchcock, after all- it's just that it dispensed with most of what made the book so great, resulting in a pale and inferior imitation. I'll stick with the novel.
I first read "To Catch A Thief" when I was in high school. A family for whom I frequently babysat owned a number of those old Readers Digest Condensed Books which I would often peruse once the kids were in bed. One of these contained T.C.A.F., which I thoroughly enjoyed. Later I tried to purchase the novel, but it was out of print. Whenever I was in a used book store, I would keep my eyes open for a copy, but never found one. It had rather slipped my mind for a few years until recently when I was reading an article about Alfred Hitchcock which mentioned his film version of the novel... I checked online, and to my delight found that it was available as an e book, which I lost no time in purchasing. It was just as enjoyable to re-read as it had been the first time around. "To Catch A Thief" was written by David Dodge in 1952. Dodge came to writing a bit late... he went through a number of jobs, eventually becoming an accountant. He wrote his first novel when he bet his wife that he could write a better mystery than the one they were reading at that time. He continued writing novels over the next few years, even during W.W.II while he was in the navy. After the war, he and his wife and young daughter embarked upon world travel, and he began writing travel books in between novels. One thing which is remarkable in T.C.A.T. is the rich and realistic detail. It's not just the scenery of 1950's France: it's also the atmosphere, the people... they are written by someone who was there at that time, and who is writing what he knows. The character of John Robie is a very interesting one. He is the hero of the novel, but a flawed one. Most obviously, he was a thief who was eventually jailed for his crimes. Released during the war, he and other criminals who fought in the Maquis (the French Resistance) are considered- unofficially- to have paid their debt to society. Grateful to be free and determined to stay that way, Robie now lives a crime-free life until a copy-cat thief threatens that existence. John Robie's first inclination is to cut his losses and run. He changes his mind after talking with Bellini... his loyalty to his former Maquis comrades makes him act against his own interests. They, too, are threatened by this new thief, and while it would be personally safer for Robie- an American citizen- to escape back to the States, he stays and risks being sent back to prison to try to expose the thief. The title of the novel "To Catch A Thief" is taken from the expression "set a thief to catch a thief" which means that, in order to catch a thief, you have to think like one. John Robie must do this- reach back into his past and take on the thought patterns of Le Chat, his former self. In doing so, he realizes something about himself: although he has eschewed a life of crime, he is still in his heart of hearts a thief. He has retired, not reformed. This is why he trusts Bellini and his other former comrades to help him, while he rejects aid from his newer friends like Paul or Francie. It's also why John can tell Bellini straight out that he is not responsible for the new thefts, while he can't bring himself to say that to Oriol, who is a social acquaintance and teammate as well as a police officer. In his mind, John has constructed a wall between his old life and his new... Bellini and the others will understand and accept him because they, like him, are dishonest. Paul, Oriol, and the others are honest citizens and therefore- he thinks- unable to trust or accept him as he truly is. The suspense in "To Catch A Thief" is not merely found in the search for the thief, but in wondering if John will be able to adjust his thinking enough to accept help from his new friends as well as his old, and succeed in unmasking the copycat and saving himself. "To Catch A Thief" is an extremely well written novel. As I mentioned, David Dodge does atmosphere and location really well. He also skillfully writes dialogue- it's crisp, realistic, and to the point. The same could be said for the plot... it moves along briskly and always holds your interest. His characters are also interesting, and complicated. Each of them-John, Francie, Paul, Bellini, Danielle, and the rest- all have multiple facets to their personalities. Even Mr. Paige the insurance agent has a fully developed character. This is important, because it makes us care not only about Robie, but about the others as well. It makes us sympathize with his torn feelings and loyalties as he tries to do what is in his own best interests, while aiding his new friends without betraying his old comrades. It's also suspenseful- as well as a bit amusing- to see the motley crew of ex-cons surreptitiously working on the side of the law, if only to avoid legal scrutiny themselves. All in all, a good novel which lingers in the memory. It's hard to talk about "To Catch A Thief" without mentioning Alfred Hitchcock's 1955 adaptation of the novel. It starred Cary Grant as John Robie and Grace Kelly as Francie Stevens. I watched it not long after reading the book for the first time, and I remember being really disappointed, for a variety of reasons. I hadn't watched it since then, until this week when I decided to give it another chance. I appreciated it a bit more this time around, but it still suffered from the same problems that I remembered from my first viewing. I'm not a purist... I expect movies to be different from the books they're based on, and generally judge them on their own merits. But with T.C.A.T., the changes pretty much sucked all the suspense and interest out of the plot, and out of the characters as well. To start with, their ages were all wrong. Now, I'm second to none in my admiration for Cary Grant... he stars in some of my favourite movies- "His Girl Friday" and "Arsenic and Old Lace" for example. But the fact is, he was too old for this role. John Robie was supposed to be 32, making it believable that he was still able to scale walls and leap with agility between roofs. Grant was over 50 when they made this movie, and while he cuts a debonair figure at the roulette tables, he's less convincing as a cat burglar, which is no doubt why the tense and suspenseful game of cat and mouse Robie and the thief play over the rooftops in the book is reduced to a short, awkward- and noisy- scramble in the movie. There's also the point that Robie is supposed to be in disguise as a pudgy, balding middle aged man, but no one was going to do that to Cary Grant, so he- the ex con hiding from the police- just swanks around looking like his normal suave self. Also, in the movie, the character Danielle is said to be in her late teens, but the actress playing her is 27 and looks it. This makes the scene where she's snarkily teasing Grace Kelly's character, Francie, about being old singularly unconvincing, because she is actually a year older than Kelly. Speaking of these two characters, their personalities are completely changed, and not for the better. Danielle is catty and obnoxious, and Francie is just as annoying in a different way. They seem to be in a competition to see who can be more unlikable. In the film, they have also cut out the character of Paul completely, as well as that of Oriol, the police officer who John knows personally. In addition, the movie eliminates all feelings of loyalty between Robie and his former Maquis comrades, who, in this version, are intent on deceiving and betraying him. All of this is, in my opinion, a mistake, as it leaves John without motivation... if not for his compulsion to aid his fellow Maquisards, what reason does he have for not escaping to the States? And without Paul- and to a lesser extent, Oriol- there are no conflicting feelings or divided loyalties. This eliminates a lot of the dramatic elements. What is left is a movie with a good central idea, but a generic plot with one-note characters and an obvious outcome. It's not that the film is bad- it's Hitchcock, after all- it's just that it dispensed with most of what made the book so great, resulting in a pale and inferior imitation. I'll stick with the novel.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |