tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post6448492095010212110..comments2024-03-27T05:54:38.797-07:00Comments on <i>bare</i>•bones e-zine: The Hitchcock Project-Henry Slesar Part Twenty-Three: "Servant Problem" [6.34]John Scolerihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14082147756474762000noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post-48174213556730728912020-01-03T12:16:56.523-08:002020-01-03T12:16:56.523-08:00I agree with john kendrick about the incompatibili...I agree with john kendrick about the incompatibility of Molly and Merwin. It makes me wonder what he ever saw in her that would have drawn him into a relationship with her in the first place. Merwin is obviously her social and intellectual superior, with more polished manners. I cringed every time I heard her say his name! They are truly an odd couple.Dixie Burgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04166129030174880729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post-8437106576543128392017-10-28T10:55:03.484-07:002017-10-28T10:55:03.484-07:00Some interesting insights here, Jack. Miss Van Fle...Some interesting insights here, Jack. Miss Van Fleet's star quality brought the only touch of real acting energy in the episode. She was like a character out of Guys & Dolls. It was difficult to picture her and John Emery's character having ever being married to one another. <br /><br />Joan Hackett seemed out of her element in this. An attractive woman but not a knockout, she had a sedate, mature quality to her that were at odds with her "trophy" character. There was always something complex about her, a somewhat depressive quality that made her seem wrong for the chi-chi.john kenrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00710666533854296630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post-42864300713439598502017-10-28T06:04:52.989-07:002017-10-28T06:04:52.989-07:00Thank you both for commenting. I thought much of t...Thank you both for commenting. I thought much of the episode was dull and that Jo Van Fleet was too young and played the part too broadly. I didn't care for Joan Hackett in her role in the Hitchcock Hour, either.Jack Seabrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216640325305820140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post-82925131851684495982017-10-28T02:24:27.118-07:002017-10-28T02:24:27.118-07:00I disagree about the problem with Jo Van Fleet (if...I disagree about the problem with Jo Van Fleet (if in fact there even was one): She wasn't miscast in the role, but misdirected. We're talking, after all, about a distinguished actress with an Oscar and Tony to her credit. She knew what she was doing in front of a camera.<br /><br />It's pretty evident that Crosland wanted her to play the role of Molly very broadly to show how her character was out of her element with the estranged husband and his upper class associates. And it works in the context of the change Slesar made from his original conception to have Kerwin leaving her, instead of vice versa, as it's clear he realized he'd made a colossal mistake in marrying a social inferior with whom he lacked any compatibility whatsoever. <br /><br />So, there was a certain comedic element set for much of the episode, one which would darken sharply at the conclusion. The shift of tone was pretty abrupt, but perhaps Crosland was only following the humor he found in Slesar's teleplay.<br /><br />However, there are sloppy plot devicesy, such as Mrs. Standish explaining in the end that while at Drake's apartment she had gone in the kitchen to get Molly's address, so she could drop by to hire her as a cook. First, based on what we have learned about Molly, it doesn't seem plausible that she would want to get hired as a cook, not after she found out that Kerwin is well off and she could be living a life of luxury. On the other hand, it makes little sense that Mrs. Standish would risk ruining the successful business relationship her husband had with a best-selling author by stealing Kerwin's cook, which--pardon the pun--would be in really bad taste.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672923492889685727.post-79439743536858930052017-10-27T23:34:10.959-07:002017-10-27T23:34:10.959-07:00We're on the same page re The Servant Problem....We're on the same page re The Servant Problem. The story, or maybe it was the Manhattan setting, reminded me of John Cheever. As to its characters, I mean. John Emery st struck me as a slightly odd choice for the lead. He was a competent actor but fairly obscure; and he looked his age. I can see his part working better with a more prominent player. <br /><br />Emery's (relative to Jo Van Fleet) no-name status in films and television put him at a disadvantage in his playing opposite Miss Van Fleet, whose presence literally overwhelmed him. It was almost like a serious variation on Born Yesterday, with the Judy Holliday character in control, thus Van Fleet was playing Broderick Crawford character!<br /><br />It didn't work. Worse, I too thought of Claire Trevor in the earlier episode, and Van Fleet seemed to be wearing the same loud clothing. The Hitchcock show, half-hour version, was winding down even as there were still some excellent episodes in the sixth season. Definitely a Mad Men vibe in this one, the time frame of which offers the viewer a New York and an America that had switched gears since the earlier Hitchcock seasons, into the swingin' cocktail ring-a-ding mode of Frank Sinatra and his Rat Pack.john kenrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00710666533854296630noreply@blogger.com