Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 7, 2017 4:07:12 GMT
In To Catch a Thief, rather than
disclosing the actual identity of the burglar (the "thief" of the title) earlier in the narrative and thus building suspense as to when and how that specific person will be unmasked, Hitchcock saves the revelation until virtually the very end—the climactic point. The ultimate disclosure is something of a "surprise," as opposed to the "suspense" that Hitchcock usually fostered by revealing such matters much earlier. (For instance, in his next and last movie with Cary Grant, North by Northwest, Hitchcock reveals the actual identity of "George Kaplan" very early in the film.) Instead of the audience anticipating what the other characters will make of the thief's identity, viewers learn about the matter at the same time as all of the characters, with virtually nothing in the way of hints or foreshadowing along the way.
Doubtlessly, Hitchcock made this decision in To Catch a Thief because he did not conceive of the film as a dark suspense piece. Instead, in his public comments, he basically dismissed the movie as an entertainment vehicle with no intellectual interest whatsoever. And perhaps the lack of "suspense" renders the film questionable among some viewers as well.
But Hitchcock's decision makes sense: while To Catch a Thief is ostensibly a thriller, thrills—at least as conventionally defined—are never the point. The point is the stars and their personal chemistry or coy sexual chemistry, the sun-splashed French Riviera locations, and the utter command of style both within and outside of the diegesis (basically a cinematic term for narrative, for those unfamiliar with the label). So Hitchcock's decision surely makes sense, yet it is still surprising given his avowed preference for "suspense" over "surprise."
By the way, there is another, less significant, instance in the film where the director opts for "surprise" over "suspense"—at the costume ball.