Talk:Shadow of a Doubt

Untitled

Was there a cameo by Hitchcock in this film? Winick88 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See List_of_Hitchcock_cameo_appearances Maguirer 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on adding them to the films now Philbertgray 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Original movie poster for the film Shadow of a Doubt.jpg

Image:Original movie poster for the film Shadow of a Doubt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In "The Birds" (1963), which takes place in the Northern California town of Bodega Bay, reference is made to nearby Santa Rosa, locale of "Shadow of a Doubt" 20 years earlier. Maccb (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you've ever been to Santa Rosa, at Railroad Square as it's now called..it gives one goosebumps to know they stood and acted, right there. Also across the street is Hotel La Rose, built w/ the same type of grey stone as the rail station. the little(Depot)park has trees planted by Luther Burbank, the famous botanist. His home there is now a museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.248.127 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitchcock's favorite?

The cite given for the statement in the opening paragraph of this article that 'Hitchcock often said it was his personal favorite' in fact only states that the film was "purported to be his personal favorite." The cited article offers no evidence even for that statement. In Hitchcock's famous interviews with Francois Truffaut, Truffaut mentions that it's Hitchcock's favorite, and Hitchcock replies, "I wouldn't say it's my favorite." If there is a legitimate cite for the claim that Hitchcock (frequently, no less) named it as his favorite, fine, but the one given only makes an uncited claim about what's 'purported'. 70.137.171.200 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is too vague to be cited, and is indeed contradicted in the Truffaut book. Removing... Mdiamante (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Shadow of a Doubt at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I find it to be the most error-prone of the big three (IMDb, TCM). IMDb is not considered to be a WP:Reliable source, so I doubt that Allmovie is either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Telepathy

I think that the subject of telepathy is dealt with in this film: there seems to be some sort of telepathic communication between the uncle and his neice. Am I wrong? 151.46.172.38 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some synchronicity involved, but not telepathy. Yworo (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The film script contains the idea that the two Charlies are very similar indeed in a lot of ways, so similar perhaps that the script makes it look as if young Charlie can sometimes read Uncle Charlie's mind. At the same time though, the two Charlies are mirror images, opposites, the good and evil versions of one character type. I think the idea of telepathy is played with in the script, but not shown to be definite. The idea of a doppelganger is also referenced I think. I also believe the movie talks about the delusions inherent in romantic love or crushes, when you imagine you know the other person so intimately, whereas in fact there is so much you don't know and can't imagine about the other person. Invertzoo (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The wordplay on "telepathy" and "telegraph" in the telegraph office seems important enough that I put it in the plot synopsis. It's a recurring motif in the film.Trumpetrep (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Maine?

Why is this in the category of films set in Maine, when it is set only in Philadelphia and Santa Rosa? Have state lines been redrawn since 1943? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this detailed synopsis, the man mistakenly suspected of being the Merry Widow Murderer died in Maine, hardly enough to merit a category. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

breaking your own rules

No one seems ever to have remarked on the fact that Hitchcock broke his own rule about "surprise versus suspense": If two people are sitting at a table and a bomb suddenly goes off, you scare the audience for 15 seconds. But if the audience knows there's a bomb, you can keep it on the edge of its collective seat for five minutes. Hitchcock does this perfectly in Sabotage.

By revealing who Uncle Charlie is right at the beginning, Hitchcock destroys the film's suspense. The audience should be just as much in the dark about Uncle Charlie as his niece is, its discomfort building with hers. But there's no "shadow of a doubt" in the audience's mind.

This could be fixed by a simple edit that removes (or repositions) the opening scene. It would be interesting to see how modern viewers unfamiliar with the film react to this. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The plot synopsis here starts in Santa Rosa, omitting the opening scene entirely. I just rectified that. It's integral to the film's structure, as you say. Hitchcock is not playing by his usual rules here.Trumpetrep (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hitchcock's cameo

I have twice tagged this section for being original research as no sources are provided, and CapnZapp (talk · contribs) has twice reverted my tagging without clearly explaining why no sources should be required. I checked the linked article and confirmed that there's also no sources provided there.

I believe it's entirely appropriate (and should be a relatively easy task) to provide a source for this, and why CapnZapp is so resistant to my asking for one is beyond me. I would welcome the opinions of other editors on this matter. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I should mention that if the argument against requiring a source is that Hitch can clearly be seen in the film, then that's at odds with our previous rationales for Cast sections, which go by the film's credits and require sources for uncredited roles...in other words, we don't go by whether we think we see them in the film, but whether the credits (or a source) support their presence in the film. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a source for the claim that Alfred Hitchcock is playing an uncredited role (as "Man playing cards on train") already back in January. CapnZapp (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Hitchcock's cameo section of the article and I'm not seeing a source. Am I missing something? DonIago (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Hitchcock's cameo" is a subsection of the "Uncredited cast" section, which uses the catalog.afi.com reference. Among other things it establishes the basic fact that Alfred Hitchcock appears as "Man playing cards on train". In my assessment we only add detail that is "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and does not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source." (Quotes from WP:PRIMARY). If you feel some of the detail transgresses PRIMARY you are welcome to duplicate the reference (if you simply didn't see it), edit the section or find a secondary source, but please don't just tag the section with {{Citation needed}} if for no other reason than a citation *is* provided. However, consider that by this time you would have spent less energy on simply finding a source yourself than you have spent on trying to tag the article; I'm sure academic coverage on Hitchcock's cameos isn't hard to find. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

All you needed to say was that the citation used at the top of the "Uncredited cast" section backs up Hitchcock's cameo, but thanks for the lecture. I've duplicated the ref since, as you noted, the Cameo part is a subsection and I don't think it is intuitive that the same ref is intended to apply there. DonIago (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate citation in the subheader. It's ungainly to have it showing up in the article's table of contents. It's sufficient to have the citation appear once.Trumpetrep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)