I had seen this film in a theatre a long time ago, during a Hichcock/Stewart retrospective in Philadelphia. I did not particularly like the film then but decided to watch it again at home and see why I did not like it. As many commentators have said, Hitchcock went through several periods, and I thought maybe this could be my problem - that I did not like his "1948" period. After all, there were not very many good movies made in 1948, by anybody. Perhaps they were all worried about what television would do to them. I don't think the "period" theory works here. Hitchcock made several movies where he seemed to be on a very tight budget, where he apparently tried to get away with producing it if it was a play and not a movie. I think this is one of them. The background sky scene out the window showed the progression of time all right, by the way the sun changed, but otherwise it looked too fake for me. I got the same impression with "The Trouble with Harry", "The Lady Vanishes", and a few others, more recent, so this issue seems not to be related to when in Hitchcock's career the films were made.
I can say I did not like some of the characters and actors, but not the same ones other people disliked. I thought Sir Cedric Hardwicke played his part excellently - a father confused about why his usually reliable son has not showed up for this party. If I had been stupid enough to do what Farley Granger's character did, I probably would have acted just as irrationally as that character did - so Granger did fine, in my opinion. Brandon, however, was a piece of work. I found him revolting, even without his murder plot. He is one of those people who think they are so superior, but aren't, but want to keep proving to people how superior they (think they) are. This was played to perfection by John Dall - too perfectly. Brandon's stuttering was a dead giveaway that he was guilty of something, and anyone casually acquainted with him should have figured it out - not just super sleuth as played by James Stewart. Another character who did not fit was the aunt - did not seem like she was her brother's sister at all. Constance Collier (I think that is her name) is so irritating she should only play villains - she was miscast here and just took away from the story by being irritating.
Finally, big disappointment - not a McGuffin Movie. There was a love interest, but the plot drove it rather than the other way around. Joan Chandler's character could have skipped the party and it would not have made much difference. Brandon could have found something else to be obnoxious about. What her presence does do, in my opinion, is prove one thing - this is not a film about homosexuals. All the boys seemed to be interested in her, including Brandon (at least he apparently was once, judging by one or two lines). Although the reasons for her breakups with both Brandon and David (both mentioned very briefly in on-screen conversations) could have been because she found out they were gay, it seems to me not to be the case, but I am only going by her behavior. I don't think all the surface evidence of homosexuality is valid, because things were different in those days. Two guys living together, even with one dominating the other, and all the other clues, could be more or less innocent. But my friends say I can be terribly naive!
I can say I did not like some of the characters and actors, but not the same ones other people disliked. I thought Sir Cedric Hardwicke played his part excellently - a father confused about why his usually reliable son has not showed up for this party. If I had been stupid enough to do what Farley Granger's character did, I probably would have acted just as irrationally as that character did - so Granger did fine, in my opinion. Brandon, however, was a piece of work. I found him revolting, even without his murder plot. He is one of those people who think they are so superior, but aren't, but want to keep proving to people how superior they (think they) are. This was played to perfection by John Dall - too perfectly. Brandon's stuttering was a dead giveaway that he was guilty of something, and anyone casually acquainted with him should have figured it out - not just super sleuth as played by James Stewart. Another character who did not fit was the aunt - did not seem like she was her brother's sister at all. Constance Collier (I think that is her name) is so irritating she should only play villains - she was miscast here and just took away from the story by being irritating.
Finally, big disappointment - not a McGuffin Movie. There was a love interest, but the plot drove it rather than the other way around. Joan Chandler's character could have skipped the party and it would not have made much difference. Brandon could have found something else to be obnoxious about. What her presence does do, in my opinion, is prove one thing - this is not a film about homosexuals. All the boys seemed to be interested in her, including Brandon (at least he apparently was once, judging by one or two lines). Although the reasons for her breakups with both Brandon and David (both mentioned very briefly in on-screen conversations) could have been because she found out they were gay, it seems to me not to be the case, but I am only going by her behavior. I don't think all the surface evidence of homosexuality is valid, because things were different in those days. Two guys living together, even with one dominating the other, and all the other clues, could be more or less innocent. But my friends say I can be terribly naive!