Osmosis Iron This lesser known gem by Hitchcock is so simple but so brilliant! Most of the movie takes place, you guessed it - in a lifeboat so it is in a way similar to another classic from him "Rope"

robert-temple-1 This is one of the disappointing Hitchcock films. It is not that it is bad, it is just that it is not particularly good. It proudly proclaims that it was written by the then famous American author John Steinbeck. However, several other fingers were in that pie, and not all of them were called Steinbeck. (Never believe what you see on credits.) The story is simple, and there was only one set. Of course, all the cast got repeatedly drenched, because they were in a lifeboat and passed through storms, pulled themselves out of the water, etc. It was no fun for the actors to make. This film is the only Hitchcock film of which I knew the star very well personally. Of course I did not know her at the time, because this film was made before I was born. I am referring to Tallulah Bankhead, whom I knew well in the 1960s when I was in my teens and she took me under her wing for a while. This is the only film Tallulah made in her 'middle period' between being a glamorous Paramount starlet in several thirties films and making some when she was older. Tallulah dominates this film, just as she dominates the lifeboat. That was what she was like. It is important to know that she did not dominate situations for egotistical or narcissistic reasons at all. To assume that would be to misunderstand her. She did so simply from the overwhelming force and energy of her personality. She was like a human hurricane, and she could not be turned off like a fan or an air conditioner, she was simply on all the time. But she had that droll manner where she could deliver a one-liner put-down spontaneously upon any occasion, and she needed no script for her raucous life. Her close friendships with such writers as Noel Coward and Tennessee Williams were based not just upon her liveliness but upon her scintillating intelligence, razor sharp wit, gift for repartee, wide-ranging knowledge of people and events, and superb dry humour. I cannot imagine her and Hitchcock becoming friends under any circumstances. To describe them as chalk and cheese or oil and water is to underestimate the difference between them. He was essentially a neurotic, closed personality, whereas Tallulah was as open as a shattered French window. If he had let her get close to him, she would have let him know in no time that she thought he was a cowering wimp. She could be withering, but she was never cruel, and often kept her devastating appraisals of other people to herself so as not to hurt their feelings. She was really the perfect choice to dominate a lifeboat on the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of World War Two. Any German encountering her had better be worried. There is a patriotic tinge to this film, with disparaging remarks of the Nazis emphasized in a proud and flag-flying manner. In wartime it is hard to resist beating a few drums, which can throw subtlety overboard sometimes, and not just from lifeboats. The story cannot avoid being rather corny, nor is it realistic. I hesitate to call attention to what are tactfully called natural functions, but when and how did they take place over the many days in that lifeboat? What did they do with William Bendix's leg which had to be amputated? And how did they mop up all the blood? Things like that. Also, why are they all so unconcerned about getting seriously sunburned? But the film was never intended to be realistic, because Alfred Hitchcock was not Roberto Rossellini, and you went to a Hitchcock film knowing that you would get a Hitchcock film, and you always did. And this is one of them that has some holes in the curtain and is not as good as many of the others which sweep you away with his vision-of-the-day. Some of the cast are better than others. Tallulah is the best, of course. Walter Slezak is superb as the German U-boat captain whom they pick up. Henry Hull is excellent as H. J. Rittenhouse (as in the Philadelphia square), a charming multi-millionaire who has thousands of employees but cannot command a lifeboat. John Hodiak as 'the hunk' overacts and clearly suffered from Hitchcock's usual lack of directions to his actors. Canada Lee as the black man has a thankless task, since his role is to stand off to the side and take no part in decisions or events. In the script this was doubtless meant to highlight his oppressed social status, but in the film it merely comes across as his being feeble. No acting challenge there, as all he had to do was stand in the background looking powerless. Two unconvincing romances blossom during the time the cast are stuck on the lifeboat, but it is impossible to believe in either of them. Why Hume Cronyn should suddenly fall in love at the most unlikely time could not possibly be contrived, could it? This film is essentially a 'concept film' which fails its 'proof of concept' test. However, it has its moments.

zkonedog Though many of Alfred Hitchcock's films are extraordinary at developing characters, that development often plays second-fiddle to suspense, drama, & even subtle comedy. In "Lifeboat", however, the characters are on center stage throughout the entire experience, with Hitchcock masterful crafting them one by one...until the ending, of course.For a basic plot summary, "Lifeboat" tells the story of a group of Americans trapped on a lifeboat after the Nazi bombing of a freighter. When a German U-boat captain is pulled aboard and portends to know the direction they should be sailing, the characters must decide whether or not to trust the enemy captain. Along the way, all the personality types and individual prejudices are the survivors are explored.In terms of a character treatise, this is an excellent film...one of Hitch's very best. I am a big fan of "bunch of people trapped in a situation" movies, so I was instantly drawn to this type of movie and was not let down. Though Hitch usually deals with personal/political topics in a very off- hand, tongue-in-cheek sort of way, he really seems to delve into them with much more gusto in "Lifeboat". Upon reaching the end, you'll feel as if you truly care about the characters and their motives/personalities.The acting is also top-notch, with a case of seasoned veterans like Tallulah Bankhead, William Bendix, Walter Slezak, John Hodiak, and Henry Hull, among others. In films of this nature (think: 12 Angry Men, for instance) the acting must be spot-in in order to generate emotion, as very few outside factors can be utilized.Minor Spoiler: Sadly, the glaring weakness of this movie (and what keeps it from being a true classic) is its horrible ending. Hitchcock has a long history of sub-par endings, but this one might be the "cream of the crop" in terms of ridiculousness. For a film screaming for character resolution, this one gives you NOTHING. It literally just ends. Perhaps that was acceptable back in the 1940s, but today it is unforgivable.Overall, though, "Lifeboat" is a very interesting character study that is easily worthy of four- stars. Had it offered a bit of resolution, this could have rocketed to the top of Hitchcock's filmography. As it is, it's just a solid effort that fails in one key area.

sharky_55 Alfred Hitchock's Lifeboat will almost immediately draw comparisons with Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men. Both almost exclusively take place in a singular location. Both focus on a group of characters confronted with moral dilemma and how their biases, experiences and emotions bubble under and take control of them. It is unusual then, for Hitchock's film to be the lesser one in the art of suspense. 12 Angry Men had a remarkable ability of building up tension within the space and through Lumet's manipulation of focal length, and then finally washing away the heat and stress with rain. Lifeboat floats more breezily along, because inherently there are large gaps that the plot demands to have, being lost at sea. The setting holds it back; it is not nearly an incisive a demonstration of space and composition as something like Rear Window, and because filming at sea was not viable, the characters seem to be half-removed from the background of the endless oceans. Sure, the frame and the boat is continually rocking, and they are pelted with water and wind during the storms, but because Hitchock lacks the ability to pull out (or even swivel around), the master shot is always locked in, and the boat seems to be rooted to the small spot of water, hardly moving at all.Still, the absence of the traditional score is a nice touch, in that the characters are left with only the soft, incessant lapping of the waves throughout to haunt them. So they can see as far as the eye can see, but it is only water, water and more water, so like the juror's room, the setting closes in claustrophobically, and gives rise to all sorts of conflict. The problem is simple: the American and British are asked to share a lifeboat with a German sailor, only moments are both vessels have been sunk. Opinions immediately start flying about; once a German always a German, the Nuremberg defense, the American vs the Christian way of thinking. Radioman Sparks thinks he should be subject to the proper authoritative procedures, whereas the Army nurse Alice can't understand why there must be so much killing in the world (baffling then, to end up in this line of work). The older, venerable characters are set up as the moral compasses; the good Christian Rittenhouse, and the worldly columnist Connie Porter. And so Hitchcock must inevitably engineer the downfall of their grace and goodwill.The characterisations are muddled because apart from the clear path set for these two, the other inhabitants of the boat mill about in the background and don't change much (including the literal milling about of the steward Joe, pushed to the metaphorical back of the boat and only called upon to utilise his 'natural' light fingers). The crewman Kovac is initially the most volatile of them all, even more villainous than the Nazi they have just pulled aboard, and takes charge of the boat's direction only because of his own ignorance and spite (even if he is right). Later, out of his compassion for his friend, he finally relents, but after that is content to simply sit back and watch the proceedings play out. There are little bursts of littler consequences; the anger of card cheating fizzles out almost immediately, and Connie loses her mind for a split second...only to be lying in the lap of Kovac the next. There is some drunken attempt at philosophising from Gus, but the most intriguing character must be the German, Willi. Walter Slezak has the sort of face you might trust, if it were not for the circumstances, and his jovial, ever-smiling outlook while rowing against the current almost allows the others to let their guard down. Willi has mastered the knack for pretending he isn't listening in on the English quarrels, so as Hitchock layers the profiles of his cast so that they are all facing the camera, there he is in the background, with a determined absent-mindedness about his expression, constantly swiveling and marvelling at the empty sky. It is a triumph in blocking for such a limited space, and Slezak dominates it. He sings merrily all day, not even a slight sign of tiring, and in the night cruelly goads a man to seek the depths of the ocean for relief ("Remember your name is Schidmt"). Critics were not happy about this, especially in the midst of the war. How could a Nazi be so resourceful, so sneaky, so clever? But Hitchock respects his villain, building him up as someone who could be an ally in a desperate time, and also making him despicable enough to warrant the fury that sends him overboard with a few solid whacks of the boot from the gentle industrialist Ritt. An inhuman act surely, but is it justified? Very tricky indeed. One last question: does the directorial tag of Hitchock ultimately hurt or better it?