La taverna della Giamaica

Charles Laughton was brilliant as Sir Humphrey Pengallon, a local Cornish squire and Lord of the manor. He led a double life where he is respectable and admired while he is the local mob leader for a gang of local pirates led by Joss who lives with his wife Patience at the Jamaica Inn with a notorious reputation. When Mary, Patience's Irish niece, comes to live with them in Maureen O'Hara's film debut. She is brilliant as Mary. Actually the entire cast is first rate especially Charles Laughton in a masterful performance of such a diabolical character. Marie Ney is perfect as Joss's loving wife. You can see how Alfred Hitchcock's film career evolved from the silents and over the decades. His Jamaica Inn is an absolute classic!

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, 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.

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.

I was pleasantly surprised when I first saw Hitchcock's 'Jamaica Inn'. I had heard so many bad things about the movie and the fact that it seemed to have been made on the cheap and in a hurry so Hitch could do a runner to Hollywood. I really liked this movie - I thought the lovely Maureen O'Hara made a very spirited Mary Yellan and Leslie Banks was great as her hulking bully of an Uncle, Joss. While not as technically inventive as some of Hitchcock's other work before or since, I felt it was made with care and presented a realistic, gloomy atmosphere of doom with its endless night time scenes and constant soundtrack of howling winds and crashing waves.

And then I read the book...

Du Maurier's novel was so different as to bear no relation whatever to Hitchcock's film. The book was intense, gritty, dark and very moody. Mary Yellan was written almost as she is presented on screen with her sharp, Irish wits but Joss is a much more tortured, boorish animal than he is in the film. Also, the character played by Charles Laughton is absent in the book - or at least Laughton's incarnation is. The squire in the book is one of the good guys and features very little. The film of 'Jamaica Inn' may as well be called the Charles Laughton Show so as to give the actor every chance to overact.

See the film if you are a Hitchcock fan and enjoy it for what it is but if you've read and enjoyed the book, my advice would be to steer clear!

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!