Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series) Father and Son (1957) User Reviews

A life lesson, rather than suspense.

[CindyH · 7/10 · 21 July 2015]

The reviews here speak of this episode as sub-par. Well, perhaps. Ed Gwynn is always fun to watch and his versatility always amazes me. From hit man to Santa, he can do it all.

I think what everyone is forgetting is the social aspect of the day in America, where the series was being originally aired. This was mid-1957. Children during WWII were becoming adults. They were not aware of the hardships their parents went through here (and England for that matter). First was the crash of 1929, unemployment soared then add to that the midwestern Dust Bowl which reduced farmland to wasteland. Not only did they become unemployed but now fresh food was no longer affordable. To add insult to injury, they next had to deal with an atrocious war and raise kids to boot.

These kids were raised outside of hardship, or had very little of it. A 2-year-old in 1941 would be 18. These kids needed to learn to be responsible for themselves and not rely on others. It's a lesson this generation needs too, for that matter.

The end shows us that he really does love his son, even after what the young man had done. I think for this reason it's a very good episode. It's just surprising because when we hear Hitchcock, we expect suspense. As long as you go into this knowing this episode hasn't any suspense, then you'll be good to go.

So painful to watch

[searchanddestroy-1 · 7/10 · 20 July 2019]

Especially the end, the way the story drives at. A true disgusting behaviour from this son; but is he really a son to. This episode is surprising for the series. It could have fit for any other anthology show. But I am very satisfied with it. Acting and directing are at best.

Story Doesn't Go Very Far

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 17 June 2013]

I must agree with the previous reviewer that other than a couple pretty good actors (Edmund Gwynn, "Miracle on 34th Street" for one) and an interesting setup, it really goes nowhere. There is no suspense. It is about tough love and not-so-tough love. It's about respect and no respect. The son is a bum. He lives off other people and exploits some little success has father has. The father is apparently an alcoholic and the son blames him for his own failings, telling him to his face that he has wasted his life. The son is also delusional. He has fallen for a woman of questionable character who simply follows the money. When the father harbors a known felon (an old friend) out of kindness and there is a reward, it doesn't take long for the son to turn on his own family. Even the police find the younger man disgusting and conniving. The problem is that at no time is there an element of real suspense typical of the series. Still, Gwynn is quite good with what he has. A pretty mediocre endeavor.

Sub-par

[dougdoepke · 12 February 2010]

Slender, character-driven episode. Elderly Edmund Gwenn has a shiftless middle-aged son Charles Davis who mooches money to support himself. Gwenn finally runs out of patience and refuses any more money. Desperate to hook up with gold-digger Pamela Light, Davis faces a moral dilemma involving his father.

The entry headlines Gwenn, but it's really Davis getting the screen time and he performs well in what's really a thankless role. The material seems lacking in typical series suspense, with a rather weak payoff, and erratic story-line. I get the feeling it served mainly as a payday for the 80-year old Gwenn and the 70-year old Worlock, two veterans of the British cinema. In my book, it's a sub- par entry in a generally superior series.

THE FATHER AND SON DILEMMA.

[tcchelsey · 10/10 · 25 March 2024]

Interesting story written by James Cavanagh, who wrote 15 episodes for Hitch, this possibly the most offbeat of them all. It's also the final screen appearance of Edmund Gwenn, one of the most beloved character actors of all time. A must see for all us fans.

Gwenn plays an elderly man who has apparently indulged his son (Charles Davis) one too many times. When his thoughtless son asks for more money (and for a woman!) Gwenn outright refuses him. Next, a friend pays a visit to Gwenn who may prove profitable to his son --without giving too much away.

Another ending that will stick with you for awhile, and a fine performance by Gwenn, who was suffering from advanced arthritis at the time. Charles Davis is also quite good in his role, later to become a writer and director. Gwenn retired to the Motion Picture Home in Woodland Hills and died a few years later at the age of 81.

To note, in 2023 his ashes were discovered (in storage) at the Chapel of the Pines Crematory in Los Angeles and he was finally properly buried. A fitting ending to a distinguished screen career, as this episode is also.

10 Stars.

SEASON 2 EPISODE 36 remastered.

"No more money, Sam."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 29 August 2021]

'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' was too well established by this time in it's second season to present an episode like this with no payoff. At least a payoff that offered a sense of mystery or suspense. It tells the story of a no account, thirty five year old son (Charles Davis) who regularly sponges off his father (Edmund Gwenn) for handouts to get by on from day to day. When Joe Saunders finally puts his foot down, Sam resorts to turning in a petty criminal (Frederick Worlock) that his father is hiding from the police for an unspecified crime. That leads to a couple of anomalies that puzzled this viewer. For one, the fifty pound reward would not have been all that much money, today it would only amount to about seventy dollars. How Sam expected to make a getaway with saloon gal Mae (Pamela Light), even if he had the two hundred pounds the story mentioned, didn't seem like a very reasonable plan. But then, the police sergeant wound up giving the reward money to Sam even though the suspect couldn't be found to be arrested! I guess what one is expected to get out of the story's resolution was the depth of old Joe's compassion for his shiftless son, a man with no prospects and even less scruples. That's what I got out of it anyway, in the absence of the usual Hitchcock twist.

Sam...a weak, stupid and awful man....and those are only his better qualities!

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 5 March 2021]

Joe Saunders (Edmund Gwenn) is an old man who is cursed with having a spineless, parasitical son. Despite Sam being 35, he's never really worked nor does he have any ambition to work. But he wants a woman with expensive tastes and spends much of his time scheming to get money to win her....though you know that once the money is gone, so will she be. He even contemplates murder....but is too cowardly to act. But when his father agrees to hide a friend in the basement, Sam overhears and decides to turn the man in for the reward...even though in this same conversation he hears that the man in hiding is innocent.

So why did I give this one a 4? Well, there simply was no ironic twist at the end...nothing apart from Gwen's fine performance to make it worth seeing. Disappointing that the show would have presented a script with no zing at the end....as if the real ending was somehow missing.

Bland respect

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 3 August 2022]

Herschel Daugherty's 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' output was uneven, though it was not hard to see why he was one of the series' most regular directors as most of his previous episodes ranged between decent and outstanding. He directed some great episodes, "The Creeper" being one of the series' best in my view and "The Belfry" being one of the better first episodes of all the directors that directed more than one episode. He did have disappointments though, the most disappointing of his previous episodes being "My Brother Richard."

"Father and Son" is another disappointment. Actually consider it worse than "My Brother Richard" and a strong contender for Daugherty's worst 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' episode. It does have one great performance that makes it semi-watchable, but "Father and Son's" story execution (meaning primarily the lack of suspense, a good ending and poor pacing) is nowhere near good enough to overlook how much the excessive unlikeability of one character unbalances things. There are a few episodes where a character is really unlikeable but the story and character writing make that not matter, like with the previous two episodes but it's difficult in this case.

Edmund Gwenn is the best thing about "Father and Son". It is a very sincere performance and it was easy to feel for him and understand his point of view. He does have believable chemistry with Charles Davis, who does work hard with what he is given and has real moments of intensity but the bad writing for Sam works against him.

It looks slick and atmospheric, Hitchcock's bookending is amusingly droll and the theme music continues to be an inspired use of pre existing classical music.

The story however is very weak, which brings the episode down significantly because it affects more than one component. It is a very flimsy plot that feels over-stretched and goes nowhere too much of the time. The pace is very dull throughout, and "Father and Son" is undone by the complete lack of suspense (the very little that happens being predictable) and the "that's it?" ending which is a major anti-climax.

Also thought that there is too much talk and too much of it not interesting and at times not necessary. Daugherty's direction is competent visually but completely uninspired dramatically, with only the father son dynamic done right. For all Davis' best efforts, "Father and Son" goes way too far in making Sam as difficult to feel anything for as possible, the character flaws being so overblown that it feels like he has no redeeming qualities. The only emotion felt is the desire for Joe not having anything to do with him. Character motivations tend to be underdeveloped.

Concluding, pretty lacklustre. Do like 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' and there are many episodes that are recommended without any hesitation, but it wasn't exempt from misfires in pretty much all its season and this happens to be one of them. 4/10.

Rare failure of story

[drystyx · 2/10 · 24 October 2023]

An old man has a son who appears to have no ability to do anything of value.

How did it come to this? Some people have no gifts.

For this, the son, who is now pretty old himself, is demonized by every other character in the story. He becomes a sort of "Frank Burns", but we never really know why.

The son has expensive tastes, so he is roguish, and the father forces him into a corner. The father tells the son he will not get one penny from him, even in inheritance.

The father tells the son to make it on his own. The son has no abilities and no capabilities to get an ability. He is in love with a cheap showgirl for some reason, and this showgirl is hateful to him.

I don't know if the son is masochistic, or if he really feels he is in a corner. This is not a well written piece.

The father tells the son that he doesn't care how the son makes money, so long as he becomes a success. Gee, real morality there, Dad. Lol. So, the son turns in a man accused of a crime for the reward.

The man accused of a crime is his dad's friend, and hiding in his dad's house. When the son turns the man in, even the policeman is hostile to the son, and that's unprovoked, even after the son's information does lead to the fugitive's capture. Bear in mind that the policeman doesn't know the fugitive is innocent, but the policeman also demonizes the son.

Whatever the writer wanted to convey here, the writer truly failed. We have a pitiful character thrown to the wolves and pushed into a corner, and not one character has any credible motivation.