A Mother's Day Tribute to Doris Day in Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much"

On this Mother's Day, I wanted to share some memories of the times I spent enjoying movies with my Mom.  My mother's favorite actress happens to be Doris Day.  When I was growing up, one particular film she and I enjoyed watching together was Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956), the remake of his 1934 British film of the same name.  I think it was the first movie where my mother became aware of Doris Day and, thereafter, she was always receptive to watching a film with her.  Mom always responded to the warmth and decency that Day's characters always represented.  I think Mom identified with Day's screen image in that respect.  Mom continues to respect Doris Day as an all-around talented powerhouse, someone who was skillful at comedy, drama, as well as musically, and probably her favorite of all of Day's films is the first one she saw, "The Man Who Knew Too Much."

Interestingly, Mom never refers to this movie by its proper name but as "Que, Sera, Sera," the Oscar-winning song that Day's character sings two separate times in the course of the film.  Perhaps Mom instinctively felt that the fateful meaning behind the song "Whatever will be, will be" was more descriptive and fitting for the film than its actual title.  Mom particularly admired the character that Day played in that film, a concerned mother who, along with husband James Stewart, takes a proactive role in order to rescue her son, who has been kidnapped by assassins whose insidious plot Stewart has unexpectedly uncovered while the family is on vacation in Marrakesh, Morocco.  Mom always felt that the actions and reactions that Day's character experiences throughout the course of the movie made sense to her from the perspective of being a mother who would also do everything she could for the welfare of her children.  Mom responded positively to the credibility of Day's character, which is appropriate given that it's probably one of the best roles that Doris Day played in her entire film career. 

Day played Jo McKenna, the wife of American physician Ben McKenna (James Stewart) and mother of Hank (Christopher Olsen), their young son.  Jo was once a popular singing star before she gave up her career to become a homemaker in Indianapolis.  They are on holiday in Morocco when they witness the murder of a French intelligence agent (Daniel Gelin) before their very eyes at an open marketplace.  The agent, who the day before had spent time with the McKennas asking them probing questions about their lives, tells Ben about an assassination plot that is afoot which will take place within days in London and to tell the authorities to look up "Ambrose Chappell."  Ben and Jo leave their son Hank in the care of a British woman Mrs. Drayton (Brenda de Banzie) who they met just the day before as her husband Mr. Drayton (Bernard Miles) accompanies Ben and Jo to the police station to give a statement of the events they just witnessed.  While there, Ben receives a phone call threatening the safety of their son if Ben ever reveals what the French agent told them.  Mr. Drayton offers to return to the hotel to locate his wife and Ben.  When Ben and Jo return to the hotel, Ben learns that Mrs. Drayton never returned from the marketplace with Hank and Mr. Drayton has checked out of his hotel.  Ben informs Jo about the threat made against Hank and that the Draytons have disappeared with their son.  Jo becomes hysterical as Ben attempts to comfort and calm her.

Ben and Jo head straight to London in pursuit of the Draytons and follow several leads in order to locate their son.  Their investigation leads to their discovery that "Ambrose Chappel" is not an individual, but is actually a church where Mr. Drayton poses as the minister.  Jo goes to call the police as Ben confronts the Draytons.  He is knocked unconscious and locked in the church, but makes his escape by climbing the church's bell rope.  Jo, unable to find Ben at the church after she returns with the police, heads to the Royal Albert Hall where the London police detective who offered to help them locate Hank is attending a performance.  While there, Jo instinctively realizes that the target of the assassination plot is a visiting foreign Prime Minister attending the performance, as well as recognizes who the assassin is from having briefly met him in Marrakesh, and screams in time to foil the attempt on the statesman's life as Ben arrives on the scene to wrestle with the assassin for his gun, who falls to his death.  Later, Ben and Jo rescue their son from the Draytons, who are hiding at the foreign Embassy of the dignitary who was the target of the assassination plot, as the physically and emotionally exhausted family is once again reunited.

Jo McKenna stands out among other depictions of mothers in the films of Alfred Hitchcock because she is one of the few who is portrayed sympathetically.  Edna Best, who played essentially the same character in Hitchcock's original 1934 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is another that comes to mind.  True, Jo McKenna has traits of being hysterical and emotional upon learning of her son's kidnapping, but that's understandable under the circumstances.  (I think my mother felt a lot of compassion for Jo during the heartbreaking scene when she learns that Hank has been kidnapped.  She felt that Doris Day accurately portrayed how any mother would feel under the circumstances.)  Day's performance in the scene where Jo reacts to learning of Hank's kidnapping, as well as the one where she is put on the phone with him while at the London airport, has rawness, as well as primal rage and intensity, that you don't normally associate from films of this period.  Jo grieves over the kidnapping of her son with the same level of hurt and pain as if he has died.  Jo is different from other Hitchcock mother's because she's not nearly as treacherous, or as grasping and controlling, as Leopoldine Konstantin in "Notorious" (1946), the unseen Mrs Bates in "Psycho" (1960), or Jessica Tandy in "The Birds" (1963).  Jo has many positive traits which end up helping to save her family's life throughout "The Man Who Knew Too Much."

Jo McKenna is a sincerely loving and well-meaning mother who has a strong bond with her son, as demonstrated by the charming scene in the Marrakesh hotel room where Jo and Hank sing "Que Sera Sera" with each other as she is helping him prepare for bed.  Despite Jo giving up her career to become a mother and homemaker, she is still able to constructively utilize her musical talents by imparting it to her son.  The mother/son duet scene in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" resonates because Hitchcock utilizes it to underscore the love and respect that Jo and Hank feel for one another as mother and child.  Later, this is put to good use when Jo comes to the Embassy, on the pretext of singing, so that her voice will trail off throughout the large structure of the Embassy and alert Hank that she is within the vicinity.  Hank, in turn, whistles the melody of "Que Sera Sera" from the room upstairs where he is held captive, alerting Jo and Hank to his whereabouts.  In essence, the love of music that Jo has shared with her son ends up playing a vital role in saving his life.

Hitchcock also underscores his respect for Jo by demonstrating her keen instincts and situational awareness that allows her to scope out a situation better than her husband Ben.  The movie might be called "The Man Who Knew Too Much," but it's the woman with him that takes that knowledge and does something proactive with it.  Well-meaning Ben is a patriarchal figure who clearly believes the man is the dominant figure in the family and Jo has gone along with it to the degree that she's given up her career and moved to Indianapolis in order to be with him.  (James Stewart should be admired for allowing himself to play more complex, less sympathetic characters in his films for Hitchcock.)  However, naive Ben never suspects anything is afoot when Frenchman Louis Bernard practically interrogates him and his family on the bus ride into Marrakesh.  Jo, on the other hand, instinctively senses that there is more to Louis Bernard's questioning of her and her family than meets the eye.  Moreover, Ben never feels any suspicion towards the Draytons, even admonishing Jo to stop being paranoid about them, while Jo intuitively feels something threatening about them the moment she first encounters them as they arrive at their hotel.  Jo is an individual who is protective of her family, particularly her son and, if she had her way, Jo would never have associated with Louis Bernard or the Draytons, or entrusted her son with Mrs. Drayton, if it were solely up to her.  Ben's trusting naivete ends up endangering the lives of his family and, in many ways, Jo ends up having to play a proactive role to restore the status quo.

Throughout the movie, Jo is continually one step ahead of Ben in their on-going quest and investigation to locate their son.  While Ben goes on a wild goose chase to find the gentleman named Ambrose Chappell that Louis Bernard told him about, Jo is the one who figures out that "Ambrose Chappell" is not an individual but an actual location--a church ("Ambrose Chapel")--that they should be directing their attention towards.  Rather than waiting for Ben to return to their hotel room to inform him of her realization, she heads straight to Ambrose Chapel to scope out the locale, leaving word with her friends (who were visiting with Jo at the hotel) to tell Ben her whereabouts.  Jo waits for Ben to arrive as she wisely realizes that she should not go into the church by herself to confront the Draytons.  However, at Ben's insistence, Jo reluctantly leaves him behind and calls the police for help as Ben foolishly confronts the Draytons inside the church without reinforcements.  Ben is knocked unconscious because he again underestimates the Draytons.  When Jo returns with the police and is unable to locate anyone at the church, she proactively heads straight to the Albert Hall, where Police Inspector Buchanan (Ralph Truman), who offered to help them earlier, but was rebuffed by Ben, is attending at diplomatic affair.

While at the Albert Hall, Jo recognizes who the assassin is, after having seen him earlier in Marrakesh, and instinctively realizes the target of the assassination plot is the visiting prime minister attending a musical performance at the venue.  In a scene that should have earned Doris Day an Oscar nomination, Jo watches in silent agony as she sees the assassin assume his position in order to take out his intended target.  The emotional turmoil that Jo experiences as she weighs her duties as a mother (who must remain silent in the hope that it will save her son) and her duty as a citizen of the world (who must speak up out of a moral duty to avert an act of terrorism) is absolutely gut-wrenching as Day skillfully demonstrates Jo's conflicted loyalties on her emotionally expressive face.  Eventually, Jo makes the right moral decision and lets out a scream that causes the prime minister to shift slightly in his seat and sustain a minor flesh wound instead of being killed.

Jo ultimately does more to avert this assassination attempt than Ben does, who simply wrestles with the assassin for the gun and watches as the assassin falls to his death while attempting to make a getaway.  As Jo explains to a bystander, "He was pointing at the prime minister and he was going to kill him and I realized that I had to scream."  Unlike Ben, who refused to cooperate with the police or try to inform any third parties that Hank had been kidnapped, Jo can no longer remain silent as to her knowledge of the events swirling around her.  She takes proactive measures not merely to save the Prime Minister's life, but also to not allow the kidnappers to intimidate her any longer by forcing her to remain silent.  In so doing, she defeats their plans and helps to set up their ultimate downfall in the last act of the film.  Her scream is both a cry for help but also a proper expression of her rage at what the Drayton's, and their associates, have put her and her family through.  Jo, and not Ben, is ultimately the true hero behind "The Man Who Knew Too Much."

Doris Day gave an excellent and sensitive performance as Jo, allowing one to see all of the character's weaknesses, vulnerabilities, paranoia, as well as courage, strength, and resolve.  She is a multi-dimensional, sympathetic human being whose sense of duty as a mother, and love for her son, helps inform and guide her decisions to try and bring about a positive resolution to this crisis that has been thrust upon her.  Rather than remaining weak and helpless, wringing her hands back at the hotel, Jo is emboldened throughout "The Man That Knew Too Much" to take proactive measures that not only help ensure the safety of her son, but also averts an assassination attempt and undermines the treachery of the Draytons.  My Mom really admired the Jo McKenna character because she felt that Jo is acting and reacting the way any mother would have done under the circumstances.  I think the truth, credibility and validity of Jo McKenna was what my mother responded to the most in that character, which is why we both continue to enjoy that movie immensely to this day.  On this Mother's Day, I want to pay tribute to my own mother and all the wonderful times we have spent together enjoying movies and each others' company, as well as honor and acknowledge one of the finest cinematic depictions of a mother's enduring love for her child: my mother's favorite actress Doris Day as Jo McKenna in Alfred Hitchcock's 1956 classic "The Man Who Knew Too Much."

The Cowardly Condescension of James Stewart in "Rear Window"

I've always been a big fan of James Stewart, particularly in his films by Alfred Hitchcock.  I think he was, next to Cary Grant, the cinema's most flawless actor.  Both men knew how to evoke nuance and feeling out of any scene or situation.  What I always respected about James Stewart was his ability and willingness to play unsympathetic roles that went against his admirable public image as a family man, World War II veteran and military officer, and consummate Hollywood professional.  It's a quality that most film critics and scholars, but not necessarily all movie goers, recognized because his own personal charm and real life strength-of-character often overcame and shielded the negative aspects of some of the characters he played.  It's not always obvious at first viewing how flawed and unsympathetic his characters can be, and there is no more flawed a character in Stewart's oeuvre than his incapacitated-in-a-wheel-chair-due-to-a-broken-leg news photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954).

It's only been in recent years that I've started to understand the extent of how cruel and condescending Stewart's Jeff is to Grace Kelly's socialite Lisa Fremont in the movie.  I used to believe that the character development scenes between Jeff and Lisa were just a distraction from the central plot of Jeff believing his neighbor Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) has murdered his wife.  But I now believe that it's the murder plot that is the true distraction in the film, and that Hitchcock is much more interested in the dynamics of the Jeff/Lisa relationship than he is with the Thorwald murder storyline.  This is because Hitchcock takes a very relaxed, measured approach throughout the whole movie regarding the murder plot.  He is willing to let it take its time to develop in the background while he spends more time developing the Jeff/Lisa scenes.  Another director would have dispensed with the relationship aspects of the movie entirely and simply focused on the storyline of Jeff spying on his neighbor in order to gather enough evidence that he has committed a homicide.

The Jeff/Lisa scenes are fascinating because of Jeff's resistance to making a sincere commitment to a woman he appears to love.  He is a globe-trotting news magazine photographer who takes a lot of false pride in telling Lisa how his existence is purportedly more realistic and substantial than hers because of the unglamorous and rugged locales and dangerous experiences he has had during his career.  He is condescending to Lisa and makes a mockery of her New York socialite background and fashion-industry career, alleging that her background makes her too frivolous to be prepared to accompany Jeff on his photojournalist assignments that he intends to resume once the cast is off his leg.  What's interesting about their characters is the contrasting degrees to which they are willing to make personal sacrifices in order to allow the relationship to flourish.  Even though Lisa hopes Jeff will take a comparatively cushy photography position that will allow him to stay in New York City, she is still willing to consider giving up her luxurious lifestyle and career and accompany Jeff to wherever his career takes him.  At one point Lisa says "It doesn't make sense.  What's so different about it here from over there, or any place you go, that one person couldn't live in both places just as easily?...It's ridiculous to say that it can only be done by a special private little group of annointed people...I can't fit in here, you can't fit in there.  According to you people should be born, live and die on the same spot!"  What's touching about Lisa is that she loves Jeff to such a degree she's willing to give up her creature comforts just to be with him.  If anything, Lisa might have made herself too available to Jeff for him to take seriously, as (unfortunately) no attractive man wants someone they can get easily, even if she is as beautiful and charming as Grace Kelly.  Men are usually interested in the pursuing the next challenge or mystery, rather than settling for what's safe and accessible.  I believe that Jeff thinks that a life with Lisa will be too predictable and mundane and will hold no challenges or surprises for him.  At the very least, Lisa's intentions in the relationship are much more honest and pure than Jeff's.  Grace Kelly does an exemplary job of portraying Lisa's sincere love for Jeff and commitment to their relationship.  She makes Lisa much more substantial, dynamic, and adventurous than Jeff gives her credit for. 

On the other hand, Jeff won't consider taking a cushy job locally, nor is he willing to entertain the notion of allowing Lisa to accompany him wherever his career takes him.  He makes every excuse in the world for why he won't stay in New York, and why she can't accompany him wherever he goes, that I start to wonder if his feelings for her as sincere as hers are for him.  He responds to Lisa's complaints by saying, "Did you ever eat fish heads and rice?...Well, you might have to if you went with me.  Did you ever try to keep warm in a C-54 at fifteen thousand feet twenty degrees below zero?...Did you ever get shot at, did you ever get run over, did you ever get sandbagged at night, because somebody got unfavorable publicity from your camera?...Those high heels, they'll be great in the jungle.  And the nylons and and those six-ounce lingerie...Well, they'll make a big hit in Finland--just before you freeze to death...Lisa, in this job you carry one suitcase, your home is the available transportation.  You don't sleep very much, you bathe less, and sometimes the food that you eat is made from things that you couldn't even look at when they're alive!...You just have to face it Lisa you're not meant for that kind of a life, few people are!"  Jeff makes every excuse in the world for why their relationship won't work, which leads me to suspect that he already rehearsed that speech in his mind countless times because he didn't have the guts to come clean and simply say that he doesn't love or want her as much as she loves and wants him.  I always found Jeff's speech rather pompous because he delivers it with a condescending air of superiority.  Jeff's existence is no more substantive or grounded in reality than Lisa's.  The irony to that is, even though it is rugged and less glamorous than Lisa's, Jeff still enjoys a privileged lifestyle and career that would be considered foreign to most of his neighbors.  Whether he realizes it or not, he propensity to look down on Lisa's elegant and glamorous lifestyle prevents him from realizing his own shortcomings as well as Lisa's virtues.

What's ironic about Jeff's speech is the fact that, in both the movie with regards to the murder plot, as well as in his photojournalist career, Jeff remains a passive voyeur at all times.  Jeff's speech makes his career sound impressive and exciting, but take a close look at what he says:  at no times does he ever indicate he takes a proactive, as opposed to reactive, role when he is taking pictures of scenes of turmoil.  Things might be in a state of flux around him, but he takes no active role in it, and one could argue that he is the classic example of a passive/aggressive personality.  He relies at all times on Lisa, his nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), and his police detective friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) in order to investigate his neighbor Thorwald, and ends up bickering with each of them at some point or another.  Jeff is actually a cowardly wimp and creep who is unable to find anything constructive to do during his convalescence than spy on his neighbors, ogle the shapely dancer Miss Torso from across the courtyard, and vicariously watch the young newlywed couple who moved in next door make love.  Rather than using his time to build his relationship with Lisa, which would require him to take a stand and make decisions about his life, he distracts himself by being far too concerned with what's going on with his neighbors.  His interest in the murder plot has nothing to do with having any sense of justice or concern for the alleged murder victim, but is merely a vehicle to enliven his empty existence.  Whichever way you look at it, Jeff is hardly an admirable individual.  James Stewart deserves his commendations for his willingness to play Jeff honestly, and with foibles, as most movie stars with a squeaky-clean image would probably be averse to allowing their personas to be tarnished in any way.

Later in the film, when Lisa climbs up the fire escape, sneaks into Thorwald's apartment to look for evidence, finds it, and is caught by Thorwald, all Jeff can do is sit helplessly and watch as Lisa is assaulted.  Rather than being assertive by going to his window and yelling out at Thorwald across the courtyard, which might be enough to startle and scare Thorwald so that Lisa can make a break for it, he just sits in his wheelchair and helplessly wimpers.  Broken leg or not, that is probably, at the very least, what any of us would do if we were watching someone we cared about being assaulted.  The only thing Jeff does to help Lisa is to call the police to rescue her where, again, he is leaving it up to another party to take care of things he should be doing himself.  In fact, Jeff gets the most upset during this sequence when Lisa calls out the window for Jeff to come help her.  From his almost-embarrassed reaction, Jeff seems more unnerved that his voyeuristic presence has been exposed to Thorwald than he is about watching his own girlfriend being assaulted.  If I were Lisa, I'd be upset that all my boyfriend did was sit quietly in the background and let the police get her out of that jam.

The sequence at the end not only proves what a sham Jeff is about being such a worldly adventurer, but also what an adventurous and daring individual Lisa truly is, when given the opportunity.  Lisa, along with Stella, is the one who courageously digs up the Thorwald's flower patch to see what he might have buried in it; who climbs up the fire escape into Thorwald's apartment (while wearing a gorgeous Edith Head gown!) to search for his wife's wedding ring; and who has the presence of mind to slip the wedding ring on her finger right before Thorwald assaults her so that she can bring it to the police station later, after she's been arrested for breaking and entering, and show it to the authorities to prove that Mrs. Thorwald was murdered.  One of my favorite moments in "Rear Window" occurs a bit earlier after Lisa excitedly returns to Jeff's apartment after she has sneaked across to Thorwald's apartment and slipped an accusatory note under his door to provoke a guilty reaction from him.  When Lisa runs in breathlessly exhilarated by what she has done ("Wasn't that close?!  Well, what was his reaction?!  I mean, when he looked at the note?!"), Hitchcock briefly cuts to a silent close-up of Jeff smiling because of Lisa's excitement.  Jeff looks admiringly at Lisa as if he has seen her for the first time in his life because he now realizes how truly special she is.  I've always loved that reaction because Stewart and Hitchcock perfectly capture the kind of moment when a man unexpectedly realizes how much he truly loves someone he has taken for granted.  I think, by that moment, Jeff is ready for a real commitment to Lisa because he knows she can handle any environment or challenges that awaits them.  She is not as predictable, safe, or mundane as he assumed, but someone who has the ability to challenge him and keep him on his toes because she's got an air of adventure and mystery he never realized before.  But I do not believe for a second that Jeff's epiphany is due to any inherent change in Lisa's personality.  Her sense of daring and adventure were always there.  Her choice of Jeff, someone not from her social strata, as her romantic partner shows her already-established willingness and ability to think outside of the box.  He was just too busy wrapped up in himself and spying on the neighbors to have noticed.

However, I'm still not sure that Jeff is worthy of Lisa because of the way he passively sat back and didn't do enough when Lisa was assaulted by Thorwald.  She might have daring and initiative, but he doesn't.  He is the sort of man who would not have enough backbone to take care of Lisa, or anyone else around him for that matter, when the going gets tough.  That's why I'm glad at the end of the film--after the murder has been solved, Jeff is sleeping contentedly with his two legs in a cast, and Lisa is sitting nearby wearing jeans and reading a book about foreign travel entitled "Beyond the High Himalayas"--she notices he is asleep, puts away the foreign travel book, and pulls out her Harper's Bazaar fashion magazine.  Even though she's modified her appearance and interests for the good of their relationship, she is still true to herself.  She would never completely lose her identity for Jeff.  At some point, if she ever decides that Jeff is not right for her, we know she has the will and strength to not be ruined by him and to still be ready for anyone worthy who comes along.