I think the film leaves it ambiguous at the very end if Cary Grant's character is the man the film leaves him. For the story arc and poetic justice he must be the good guy, but if only because we so want him to be. Thoughts?
shareCharade's director (Stanley Donen) and screenwriter (Peter Stone) provide commentary for the film's Criterion Collection DVD, and there is no talk of ambiguity concerning Grant's character. There's certainly nothing ambiguous about one of his final lines of dialogue, in which he tells Regina: "I should think you'd be glad to find out I'm not crooked!"
If you watch the scene right before it (in which Hepburn and Grant approach the American Embassy), you'll notice that Grant's character averts his face when Regina is talking to the Marine - it's a subtle touch, but an unmistakable one. He doesn't want the Marine to reveal his true identity to Regina; he wants to do that himself.
If you watch the scene right before it (in which Hepburn and Grant approach the American Embassy), you'll notice that Grant's character averts his face when Regina is talking to the Marine - it's a subtle touch, but an unmistakable one. He doesn't want the Marine to reveal his true identity to Regina; he wants to do that himself.
I love catching little bits like this in movies .... too bad I missed this one.
SEVEN years later, you're probably gone but nice find anyway!
There's nothing ambiguous about Grant's identity. He speaks directly to his secretary twice. If he were a fraud she would've identified him.
What is it you think is ambiguous? And what would be Stone's point in writing such a contrivance, especially for a script in which everything else comes together so well?
What seems strange is that Brian Cruikshank, a Treasury Dept. administrator with a secretary, would go out into the field with a gun, leap from balcony to balcony, have fights with the suspects, etc. Seems like that work would be relegated to a trained operative- an 'agent.'
shareI found it hard to believe that he wouldn't have thought to check those stamps.
~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇
I agree with you: why is an executive running around in the field? But, as many times as I’ve watched it, I do not understand how Grant is known to the guys but they don’t use his real name. How is that able to play both sides? Once he met with them in the hotel room, why didn’t they tip off Hepburn to his identity? Maybe I’m dumb, I’ve seen this movie more than two dozen times and keep looking for clues but miss any answers to satisfy my confusion. Any help here is appreciated.
shareHe's the good guy... he's Cary Grant.
shareWhat more need be said? :)
shareHe's the good guy... he's Cary Grant.
---
What's funny is how, due to the way the story is constructed, as each "other suspect" dies -- it becomes almost "inevitable" that Grant IS the bad guy.
But that also helps clue us in to the REAL bad guy because...Cary Grant is a good guy.
For the record, Cary Grant contemplated playing three bad guys:
In Suspicion -- which he appeared in -- he was willing to BE a killer, but evidently the studio wouldn't let him. The ending was cut to remove suspicion.
For another Hitchcock movie -- Dial M for Murder -- Grant saw the play and evidently began negotiations to play the truly evil husband who blackmails an man into strangling his wife. Jack Warner didn't see Grant as a villain..and didn't want to meet his price.
Grant and his "Charade" director Stanley Donen did other films together -- but Grant almost played "Mr. Applegate" (The Devil) in the film of Damn Yankees. Its a funny version of the Devil -- he's well-dressed - -and he gets to sing a song about "The Good Old Days" of the Black Plague, Jack the Ripper, and the Stock Market Crash. It was a light villain role..but Grant decided against it.
I didn't know any of that, so thank you! Cary Grant was an underestimated actor, because he made it look so easy. I've no doubt he could have played a superb villain, and I could see him in Dial M For Murder.
shareThank you for reading.
Yes, I stumbled onto those stories about Grant and possible villains over the years.
The "Dial M" story gets "murky." Hitchcock recommended that Grant see the play and consider playing the villain. Grant did so...and DID want to play the villain.
But the film was being made for Warner Brothers and evidently Jack Warner said "no." EITHER Warner felt that Grant should NOT play a villain(and the one in Dial M was very cruel and uncaring) OR Warner didn't want to meet Grant's high price(which would have required a bigger payout on percentage from what was intended to be a 3D film.) There's also the issue that Grant himself may have not fought too hard for the role. Ray Milland ended up with it -- at about 1/4 of Grant's fee.
The Devil in Damn Yankees is a bad guy, but its really a comedy part and you can't take him seriously as evil. When Grant passed, it ended up being played by the guy who played it on Broadway -- Ray Walston.
Of course, Cary Grant -- like a lot of complex leading men -- brought some darkness, and meanness , to roles like Suspicion, Notorious, and even To Catch a Thief. It was always there.
Its hard for "hero" actors to switch to bad guys. But not always. Modernly, Tom Cruise was a GREAT bad guy as a hit man in "Collateral." His intensity as a hero switched easily to intensity as a possibly psycho hit man.
John Travolta kept his paydays high for years by agreeing to play villains(Broken Arrow, Face Off partially, Swordfish, Taking of Pelham 123.) Harrison Ford did it once -- maybe twice.
John Wayne never played a flat-out villain, but his driven, mean characters in Red River and The Searchers have a touch of evil...or at least of anger and domination.
Anyway, there's Cary Grant in Charade doing enough to SUGGEST he might be the bad guy.
Its as close as we got.