Wait Until Dark

1967's WAIT UNTIL DARK has apparently inspired many to call it "one of the best Hitchcockian films Alfred Hitchcock never made." I suppose it is because of the great trouble it goes through to try to intrigue, thrill, and scare us. It placing an innocent, vulnerable protagonist amidst some peril and all. I can see it, and having done so, let me spout another oft used phrase: "What Hitchcock could've done with this!"

An attractive young woman hurries an elderly man as he meticulously sews packets of heroin into an innocent looking doll. She convinces a stranger at the airport to hide the doll in his apartment for later retrieval. The man complies, unaware of its contents. The woman then meets up with a shady looking guy who is not pleased with her. Later, the woman calls for her doll but the first man cannot locate it. The man also has a wife who is blind. Two hoods, who were working with the woman, attempt to meet her at said apartment. Instead, they find the shady looking guy who will blackmail them into helping him find the doll. The woman is found dead in the bedroom closet. The 3 criminals will go to incredible lengths to get the doll back from Susy, the blind woman.

And there, invisible audience, is your cold plot recount, a starting point to discussing WAIT UNTIL DARK. Sounds like good raw materials for a Hitchcock movie, yes? Possibly. The difference is that director Terence Young's (known for helming James Bond pictures) film embraces gimmickry a bit too willingly. I spoke of the three men's elaborate plot. Mike (Richard Crenna) and Carlino (Jack Weston) are the two small time criminals who have the misfortune of meeting Roat (Alan Arkin), a truly evil dude. The lengths to which they go to infiltrate Susy's (Audrey Hepburn) apartment may tax your suspension of disbelief a bit more than you're willing. You could always examine a piece of fiction and say, "If they only did A, B-Z would've been unnecessary!" But often, the movie would be over in 5 minutes.

WAIT UNTIL DARK, designed as a film to make you jump out of your skin, will quite willingly have its characters pretend to be police officers, old men, old men's offspring, etc. to tell its tale. It certainly gives the trio of men (mainly Arkin, in a "Look at me" performance) ample opportunity to exploit different personas. They really want that damned doll. Rather, Roat, all cool and dark and full of menace, will do anything for its retrieval.

Ms. Hepburn does some nice work as the delicate, trusting, but also strong and clever heroine (hee hee) whose performance is careful not to lapse into contrivance or cliche. She never milks Susy's handicap for sympathy or bids for awards (though she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar). I believed her, even in the midst of some unlikely scenes, such as those with a bratty child neighbor (Julie Herrod), and an edge-of-your-seat but a bit overdone climax. I think Hitchcock might've cresecendoed the intensity with the bashed lightbulbs. WAIT UNTIL DARK, however, takes it much further.

The film is an adaptation of a 1966 stage play (later revived in the 90s with Quentin Tarantino), and the theatrical origins are always evident in Young's film. This is mainly because almost all of the action occurs on one set. WAIT UNTIL DARK is brisk and enjoyable, with at least one "gotcha" moment that would become a staple in suspense films. It succeeds primarily in its charcterizations: rooting for Susy, disdain and then maybe more conflicting views for Mike, and hissibility for Roat.

The character I most wanted to deck, however, was Susy's husband, Sam (Efrem Zimbalist). He's a one-dimensional ass. You well could make the argument that his lack of empathy and assistance to his wife is his method of making her stronger (and ready for the 3 intruders), but still. I wanted to deck him.