It seems to me that the movie portays the maids as being in on the whole thing... did anyone else get that impression?
shareThe maids weren't in on it. In fact, in the end, you can tell the partially deaf nurse realizes exactly what's going on and is far from pleased about it.
Anonymity on the Net allows people to be their true, evil selves.
I really thought so at first, especially when Elizabeth told Paula she didn't hear any noises upstairs. Then I remembered she was going deaf, so that was probably why. Then I thought she might be conspiring with the husband again when she pretended that there was no visitor in the house, but I really think that she was just trying to keep her job. If she'd let an unwanted visitor in, she'd be gone for sure.
I need to get my drink on- Pearl http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247
it had nothing to do with losing her job. it was because joseph cotten told her that everything she did from that point onward should have her mistress' interest in mind. and that means not allowing elizabeth to self-incriminate before charles boyer.
shareI always thought Barbara Everest as Elizabeth, did a great job on this, because when she 'changes sides' you can't tell for sure if the movie is going to go in a different direction or not....(at least I didn't, the first time I watched it)
Urania to Terpsichore: "You're so quiet. Musing????"
i agree. and until someone told me, i hadn't picked up on the fact that she was deaf (and which the Ingrid Bergman character also hadn't picked up on). going back and watching it, there are a number of indications of this which are quite subtle.
one of my alltime favorite movies!
:)
[deleted]
Well all right then.
shareTo me that was poorly established.
Yes, the woman was going deaf but SPOILERS AHEAD when the police finally gets it she quickly gets it all. How come she didn't tell her she was able to see the changes in the light?
I just re-watched this and it feels like Angela Lansbury has to be in on it. Especially in some of her scenes with Charles Boyer, you can tell she's totally corruptible- although, it's true noting is overtly stated about her complicity.
shareI don't think Nancy (Lansbury) is in on it. it seems to me that she's a young and impressionable woman of low intelligence who is suckered by the dashing Gregory, and falls under his spell, just as paula did.
___________________
...I was cured, all right.
[deleted]
I thought Cotten told Elizabeth to listen to him and follow his instructions to ensure the saftey of the mistress b/c by the looks of Elizabeth in some scenes, she seemed quite suspicious.
Cartoonists have the best casting system. If they don't like an actor, they just tear him up.
it feels like Angela Lansbury has to be in on it
I thought Nancy was in on it at first, but as the movie progressed I realized she wasn't. She just didn't like Paula. She obviously found Gregory very charming and had a bit of a thing for him, and saw Paula as an obstacle between her and Gregory. Also, we can probably assume that Gregory has very subtly been turning Nancy against Paula, so that Nancy will be hostile to Paula--which he, of course, chalks up to Paula's paranoia. Consider, for example, the scene where Paula is trying to stoke the fire (or whatever she's doing). Gregory won't let her do it herself and insists that she call a servant to do it for her. Then, when Nancy shows up, instead of asking her to do the job, Gregory passes the buck to Paula, so that to Nancy, it seems like she was called away from her duties just to do a menial task that Paula was too lazy to do. Lots of great little instances like that, of Gregory manipulating everyone around him almost invisibly.
----
Finally I can stop suffering and write that symphony!
I actually thought that Nancy was in on it at first. I thought maybe she was an accomplice and he had hired her to help him. Guess, she was just a red herring or maybe I just misunderstood.
Nancy is no red herring. Her role in the movie is very important.
No, she's not in on Gregory's plan but he does use her to accomplish it. When he hires her, he specifically tells her she's not to take orders from Paula. It's done to undermine Paula but also to gain Nancy's loyalty. Gregory is devious. He knows he's often out of the house; he's not going to risk any closeness between them and he needs Nancy to keep other people from seeing Paula.
To reinforce the distrust and distance; he also simultaneously flirts with and compliments Nancy in Paula's presence then degrades her as the menial help when she's not around. Thanks to Gregory, Paula feels threatened and would never seek assistance from or attempt to get Nancy to be her ally.
Gregory sees Nancy for exactly who she is: an opportunist who's not above doing whatever it takes to get what she wants. Nancy is young but she's hardly naive. She lets Gregory know she's a good time girl who can take care of herself with the men who might try to take advantage of her ('when she wants'). She doesn't deny being the wrong kind of girl (of questionable morals) to work for Paula but she flirts with Gregory letting him know Paula's not the only one there.
As a result, Gregory lets her in on the fact Paula will soon be 'going away' for a very long time. She tells the constable, not to alert or warn him, but because she's prone to gossiping including about what goes on in the Anton household. This is precisely the reason Brian posts constable Williams in that area. He'd get close to Nancy and find out what she knows.
It's not clear if Gregory had planned to stay in London after finding the jewels. It's unlikely since he's a murderous fugitive but he's also arrogant enough to assume he would never be caught for any of his crimes. Perhaps he only planned to 'take up' with Nancy until he found the jewels then return home to his other wife in Prague. Either way, he'd be rid of Paula and have full control of her assets; which he could easily sell.
I doubt he would have ever run off with Nancy. He doesn't seem the kind who'd want to share; which she would demand. He also knows that he and Nancy are cut from the same cloth. She'd probably have no problem getting rid of him, the old guy, steal his ill-gotten loot and live the life she wants.
[deleted]