The Case of Mr. Pelham

Hitch took some time out of his busy schedule to direct this intriguing episode, and yes, I agree with the last reviewer --this could be confused as a TWILIGHT ZONE story. More over, Hitchcock received an Emmy nomination for Best TV Director, but lost! How can that be? A super trivia question.

Tom Ewell (THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH) is the perfect choice to play everyday guy Mr. Pelham who has a problem. Hitch always had a preoccupation with gentlemen with baggage, only this time it's not murder. It's all about somebody slowly taking over Pelham's life, an exact double, and having a very good time of it.

One of Hitchcock's favorite actors, Raymond Bailey, looking like Mr. Drysdale on the BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, plays the poor man's psychiatrist who has his doubts about the bizarre story. Perhaps the best thing about this tale is Ewell narrating what happens next and next .... and how long before he loses his mind!

By the way, the TWILIGHT ZONE did, in fact, come out with a very similar type story, called "Mirror Image" (1960), starring Vera Miles who is waiting in a lonely bus station and spots her mischievous double. Don't miss it. It would be cool if METV ran that episode back to back with this one on their late night schedule.

Wait for the closing with Mr. H and his own double! SEASON 1 EPISODE 10 remastered CBS dvd box set.

Al Pelham is a mild-mannered, average-looking New Yorker with a small brokerage business. Then, strange things start happening. Someone is impersonating him for no apparent reason, a look-alike down to the smallest detail of appearance and memory bank. Whoever it is, he's taking over Pelham's life, easing him slowly out of existence. But why? Who could envy such a routine existence.

The premise seems more appropriate for the Twilight Zone since there appears to be no natural explanation. Even more relevant is the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), which was probably in development about the time this episode aired. Nonetheless, it's an intriguing 30 minutes, low-keyed, without hysteria or adornment as Pelham's predicament becomes ever more precarious. Lending a nice sinister touch is the predatory-lion painting that overhangs the last scene. It's thoughtful touches like this that can make the difference between a good episode and a memorable one. Those looking for a more natural explanation of Pelham's predicament might consider the emergence of a second, more assertive and success-oriented personality. But, however you take it, the premise was challengingly novel for the depths of 1950's TV, and is still one of the more memorable episodes.

I have been feeding on these small adventures. Even though i had obviously heard about this show, i had never tried it. Right now i have seen a handful of episodes, and incidentally i've been hitting many directed by Hitchcock. This is such one. After having seen these episodes, i consider that they deserve individual commentary, even though it sounds reasonable to consider this a "show". I mean, quite beyond the immortal generic, the Hitchcock sketch that Alfred himself drew, and the by now inseparable soundtrack, we have a feel to every episode (at least those i've seen so far) that binds them together. I'm still not able to properly define what that is, but apparently, and generally speaking, every episode tries to play with the basic notions of the mystery genre (Hitch's cinematic home), mixed with nonsense and the bizarre. It doesn't press so hard on these two aspects as Twilight Zone, but it so far i reckon in it higher visual interest, or wasn't the patron of this show AH. In any case, the episodes are uneven among them, and quite different in their conception, different writers, different directors, different actors. So i look at them as short films, part of a larger universe where they exist together.

This Mr Pelham is a very good and balanced example of the different genres they use. Maybe that's why i'm starting my comments here. Hitch's direction is quite low-key. It's competent, of course, fully detached from any ordinary television values - which 50 years ago probably didn't exist so rooted on people's minds as they do today - but apart from some dolly shots, exquisitely executed, the camera work is normal. Those dolly shots are actually remarkable, so check them, they usually start a scene, with a certain framing, that indicates a certain environment, and that framing is corrected through camera movement to make us find something that matters, like when Ewell gets the first time in the club, the camera adjusts our focus to Ewell, and puts us in the action. This subtlety is remarkable.

But the interest is in the narrative, the story itself. I have the feeling the idea here was deceiving us into believing we were watching a criminal identity swap case, only to make us fall into the awkwardness of the inexplicable. In the end, we really don't know what that was all about, and may be led to mistrust what we see. Who was the real Pelham? Who was the real Hitchcock, in the end? Like this is a kind of short "being malkovich".

It works, it's not fascinating beyond the taste of the mood, but it's good. Ewell... i don't know how could he be the man peaking under Monroe's skirt. His acting is so noisy and denounced it aches. Hitch's interventions are priceless.

My opinion: 3/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

The ending is in particular pretty humorous once you figure out what exactly is going on in the last scenes.

That said, the episode could have benefitted from one of Hitchcock's usual clever commentary at the end of the episode about the main character's solution to his own problem or how it came about in the first place.

Brilliant story, new to me. I love this episode. Its one of alfreds best directions.