Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series) The Cream of the Jest (1957) User Reviews

Do you feel sorry for either of these guys?

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 22 February 2021]

Charles Gresham (Claude Rains) is a struggling actor. His struggle is self-imposed, as his career on the stage is dead because he's an alcoholic. Plays just don't want him because they know he isn't reliable and might disappear into the bottle instead of showing up for a performance. At first, you feel a bit sorry for him as he begs Wayne Campbell (James Gregory) for a job. But when Campbell rightfully tells Gresham he cannot be trusted because he's a drunk, Gresham threatens him with blackmail! How will Campbell deal with this threat? By being nice and offering Grasham a job!! But of course, there's far more to this than some job!

This is a very good episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". The twist is improbable...but possible and I enjoyed where the show went with the story. In addition, both actors are a joy to watch...particularly Rains who always made the most of his parts.

Not quite creamy enough

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 22 June 2022]

Herschel Daugherty's 24 episodes of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' were quite mixed. He was responsible for one of my favourite episodes of the series "The Creeper" and his debut episode "The Belfry" is one of the better debut episodes of the regular directors, so at his best his output was excellent. Some of his episodes though were very flawed, perhaps the biggest example of his previous episodes being "My Brother Richard". "The Cream of the Jest" though contains one of the finest character actors of his generation Claude Rains, so already there was a lot of interest.

"The Cream of the Jest" is another episode of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' that is well worth seeing. It is not one of Daugherty's best episodes and had a number of problems with the story. It is also not one of his worst and is worth seeing for particularly the two leads chemistry and the acting, with Rains certainly not disappointing. Season 2 was an inconsistent one and took a while to find its groove, generally not as good as the first, but there is still a good deal to like about most of the episodes and "The Cream of the Jest" is no exception.

Am going to begin with what could have been done (much) better. It does suffer from a rather implausible final act, and much more could have been done with exploring Gregory's motivations.

The change of heart is introduced too suddenly without warning and the why is left vague at best, with his participation is not easy to swallow or explained that well.

On the other hand, there is a lot still to recommend. It is extremely well acted by the two leads, wirh Rains being absolutely excellent as a truly juicy character. The dynamic between the two is the heart of the episode (it and Rains' performance) and despite the story being very uneven it still had a lot of intrigue and tension on the whole thanks to the central dynamic between the two leads. Daugherty directs more than competently.

It is a slick and atmospheric looking episode, with the photography really adding a lot to the creepiness and making up for the simplicity of the sets. The audio is suitably ominous and the theme tune for the series continues to be one of the best uses of pre existing classic music in television, Bernard Hermann has a lot to thank for suggesting it. The script is intriguing and not too talky, while Hitchcock's bookending is suitably ironic and not over-explanatory.

Concluding, uneven but well worth the look for particularly Rains. 7/10.

"There's no real me, only the characters."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 22 August 2021]

One part of the script caused this story to be less than truly noteworthy. When Charles Hanover Gresham (Claude Rains) went into his memorized lines from the play to gangster Nick Roper (Paul Picerni), he should have left out the name of Walter Donovan. Not that he could have known that Donovan was a real person involved with Roper, but what are the odds that a character in a play would have the same name as a known associate of a mobster. So the fault really lies with the scriptwriter using the name Donovan in Gresham's speech. My question is why wouldn't anyone on the set catch an obvious error like that, much less Hitchcock himself. Otherwise, the twist ending would have been very memorable, with Gresham on the fatal end of a scheme that backfired.

Old Actors Just Fade Away

[dougdoepke · 22 June 2007]

Sub-standard Hitchcock. The only reason to comment is the presence of that fine, dominating actor of the 30's and 40's, Claude Rains. Here he plays a drunken, out-of-work actor, who's reduced to begging for parts from nemesis James Gregory. On this particular day, producer Gregory first refuses and then insults Rains, evicting him from the office. But then, inexplicably, he turns up the next day to congenially offer Rains a part. The only suspense or plot involvement revolves around why this sudden change of heart. Has Gregory sincerely decided to befriend the old actor, or has he an ulterior motive. The answer may keep you hanging around.

Anyway. Rains looks so much the part that I'm not sure he's acting. But the resonant voice, powerful build (of a much larger man), and dominant screen presence are still in evidence. In his prime, Rains could compete with the most dominating actors of the time, including the redoubtable Bette Davis. Too bad he never received the official recognition his talent merited. He may be only a shadow here, but the presence is still impressive.

Act the part of an Actor

[putahw-40997 · 9/10 · 26 November 2022]

I would suggest that you watch this episode if only to prove that Claude Rains was one of the all time Greatest Actors. Not only that but for the excellent storyline and the as always (Alfred Hitchcock presents) unpredictable endings. Sure the characters are for the most part unlikable as were most of the characters in the Alfred Hitchcock presents television series. Nonetheless the Acting (as with most of the Alfred Hitchcock presents television series) is superb. The original Alfred Hitchcock presents television series was one of the all time greatest television series ever Written, Produced, and Acted in the history of cinema.

i disagree with the other reviewers

[stluke1128 · 10/10 · 1 September 2013]

there is no reason why this shouldn't get 10. if one thinks about the links in it and the logicalness of it thoroughly, one can find that there are answers and that it is a good story. for the shortsighted, however, who cannot see these answers, that says nothing about the piece, but only about their lack of insight. I challenge the watchers of this to think deeply about how it all fits together. I will not go into detail, because it would be too long. suffice it to say that in my opinion the other people who reviewed it and said "contrived," and "sub-standard Hitchcock," did not really understand it in all its ability to be understood. bottom line, I guess those who will understand it, will, and those who won't, won't. sorry I am not going to explain it for you. think about it. try and put the pieces together. if you think about it well enough, you will put the pieces together, and end up appreciating it. that's where I ended up, and it was a pleasure to get there.

Contrived, but interesting

[Archbishop_Laud · 6/10 · 24 July 2013]

Yes, the story is contrived and unrealistic, but it isn't dull.

It's great to see Claude Rains, who plays an out of work,, drunken actor. He first begs and later blackmails a playwright friend from the olden days (who is younger and American...they cover that up in one line of dialog). We get to see a wide range from Rains in a short episode: drunk, desperate, ingratiating, menacing and pathetic.

The first twist isn't hard to predict, and I suppose we're expected to see it. There's a second twist that isn't much, but the whole setup is improbable. Still, I will grant the series a certain amount of license in that regard.

YOU HAVE TO SEE THE ENDING....

[tcchelsey · 10/10 · 16 March 2024]

Sarrett Rudley wrote this fine episode, a swipe at the theatrical world instead of Hollywood, for a change of pace. Rudley wrote 9 episodes for Hitch.

Unforgettable Claude Rains returns to the series, this time playing a down and out actor with a drinking problem. Actually a two man show with James Gregory playing the part of an arrogant theatrical producer who reluctantly gives Rains a break --or does he?

That you have to see for yourself, yet another dark comedy excursion. The dialogue between Rains and Gregory is outstanding, let alone the acting on both their parts. I think if any other actor, other than Claude Rains, had played the role, the effects would have been far less effective. Herschel Daugherty again in the directors seat, and making this a winner.

According to notes, Rains' daughter said her father, in later years, did in fact, have a problem with alcohol, which comes as a surprise. Old friends with Hitchcock, Rains co-starred in NOTORIOUS, one of, if not the greatest of spy adventures. Watch for it.

From SEASON 2 remastered Universal dvd box set.

2006 release 16 hrs.

Good Cast. Silly Contrived Story!

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 14 June 2013]

It was nice to see a couple heavyweights like James Gregory and Claude Rains on the screen. The problem is that they have nothing to work with. When chronic drunken actor Rains seeks out Gregory for an acting job, he is summarily dismissed and sent packing. Gregory sees him at the local watering hole and feels sorry for him. This is awfully sudden. He offers him a job in his play after sobering him up and providing him with a place to sleep. The part is that of a blackmailer. Rains had previously attempted to blackmail Gregory. Rains then makes a terribly mistake in his effort to get the part. All well and good, but we are left with many unanswered question, including Gregory's participation in the events that ultimately occurred. There's no way that he could have predicted what ultimately happened. Anyway, while the episode is pretty slick, it is really quite unsatisfying.