"I Saw the Whole Thing" was only the fourth episode of THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR, and, incredibly, the only one directed by Hitch himself. Then best known for BACHELOR FATHER, John Forsythe stars as crime author Michael Barnes, who turns himself in the morning after a hit-and-run accident at a busy intersection involving a motorcyclist who suffers a concussion and some broken bones. Deciding to represent himself, Barnes is greatly concerned about his pregnant wife, hospitalized for the duration of the trial and unaware of his plight, which grows even more perilous when it begins with the sad news that the victim has succumbed to his injuries. There are a multitude of eyewitnesses who all claim "I saw the whole thing," but under insightful questioning from Barnes prove to be not entirely reliable, except for one motorist (John Fiedler) whose insistent testimony cannot be shaken. Like the best episodes, there is a final twist that makes a great show truly unforgettable. Forsythe was a fine choice for the role, never losing audience sympathy no matter the difficulty he puts himself through. Willis Bouchey plays the presiding judge, John Zaremba is the prosecutor, and Kent Smith plays Barnes' friend and confidant.
9 Reviews
If You're Distracted, Don't Drive. Don't Even Putt.
rmax30482311 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Hitchcock didn't direct very many of his TV presentations. Usually his participation was limited to a few droll comments at the beginning and end of the episode, written for him by a guy named Alardyce or something like that. I'm too lazy to look it up.
However, he was behind the camera on this one, an efficiently told tale of a man defending himself in court against a manslaughter charge resulting from an auto accident for which he may or may not have been responsible.
The five eye witnesses think he was guilty of having run the stop sign, but one by one the defendant, John Forsythe, shows that at the time they were distracted by something else, except for the attractive and appealing Claire Griswold, whose career should have been better than it was.
Taking the stand as his own defense witness under oath, Forsythe carefully explains that, in fact, his sports car did stop as it should have at the stop sign and that the motorcyclist was unobservant and responsible for the accident. However, when the prosecutor asks Forsythe if he applied the brakes when approaching the stop sign, Forsythe clams up and tries to take the Fifth, which the judge advises him he can't do, since he voluntarily took the stand.
The ironic ending doesn't carry the twist of many of the other episodes in the series and lacks credibility. It worked better in "The Great Gatsby." You wouldn't know this was directed by Hitchcock, but what a cast they've assembled: Philip Ober, John Fiedler, Willis Bouchey, Kent Smith. You might not recognize the names but the actors are likely to be familiar.
However, he was behind the camera on this one, an efficiently told tale of a man defending himself in court against a manslaughter charge resulting from an auto accident for which he may or may not have been responsible.
The five eye witnesses think he was guilty of having run the stop sign, but one by one the defendant, John Forsythe, shows that at the time they were distracted by something else, except for the attractive and appealing Claire Griswold, whose career should have been better than it was.
Taking the stand as his own defense witness under oath, Forsythe carefully explains that, in fact, his sports car did stop as it should have at the stop sign and that the motorcyclist was unobservant and responsible for the accident. However, when the prosecutor asks Forsythe if he applied the brakes when approaching the stop sign, Forsythe clams up and tries to take the Fifth, which the judge advises him he can't do, since he voluntarily took the stand.
The ironic ending doesn't carry the twist of many of the other episodes in the series and lacks credibility. It worked better in "The Great Gatsby." You wouldn't know this was directed by Hitchcock, but what a cast they've assembled: Philip Ober, John Fiedler, Willis Bouchey, Kent Smith. You might not recognize the names but the actors are likely to be familiar.
I Saw the Whole Thing - Season 1 Episode 4
Episodes-at-a-Glance19 August 2020
Title: The Alfred Hitchcock Hour - I Saw the Whole Thing - Season 1 Episode 4
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Details: Suspense, Drama, Mystery; Release date (October 11, 1962 ); B&W
Starring: John Forsythe, Kent Smith, Kent Smith
Synopsis: Mystery writer Michael Barnes (John Forsythe) is accused of hit and run driving after five eye witnesses testify that Barnes ran a red light and struck a motorcyclist. Barnes decides to direct his own legal defense in an attempt to discredit the eyewitnesses testimony.
Quick Review: After stumbling out of the gate with a cheesy multiple freeze-frame opening sequence, which was a trendy film editing technique at the time, this episode settles into an engaging story line even if the details surrounding the legal process are a bit stretched. Well, stretched a lot. Instead of playing out as a straight up crime mystery this has the viewer trying to figure out the end game planned by the defendant Barnes. Solid entry into the series.
Rating: B
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Details: Suspense, Drama, Mystery; Release date (October 11, 1962 ); B&W
Starring: John Forsythe, Kent Smith, Kent Smith
Synopsis: Mystery writer Michael Barnes (John Forsythe) is accused of hit and run driving after five eye witnesses testify that Barnes ran a red light and struck a motorcyclist. Barnes decides to direct his own legal defense in an attempt to discredit the eyewitnesses testimony.
Quick Review: After stumbling out of the gate with a cheesy multiple freeze-frame opening sequence, which was a trendy film editing technique at the time, this episode settles into an engaging story line even if the details surrounding the legal process are a bit stretched. Well, stretched a lot. Instead of playing out as a straight up crime mystery this has the viewer trying to figure out the end game planned by the defendant Barnes. Solid entry into the series.
Rating: B
Static, but with an Important Subtext
dougdoepke13 June 2015
If you enjoy taking an hour to find out if a guy ran a stop sign, then you might enjoy this episode. Actually, things are more serious than this. Mystery writer Barnes (Forsythe) is involved in a traffic accident that caused a motorcyclist's death. Now he's up on charges that he caused the accident by not stopping at the stop sign soon enough and then driving off. A number of eye-witnesses claim he's at fault, while he denies it. So now we get an hour's courtroom procedure to determine who's right. At least with Perry Mason, there was the fun of a whodunit. Here, unfortunately, the courtroom generates little Hitchcock suspense.
The main interest lies in the eye-witnesses testifying, especially scatter-brained blonde, Penny (Evans), who seems more interested in boys and "creeps" than testimony. (With a name like Evans Evans the actress specialized in loopy roles. But then she couldn't have been too ditzy, being married to heavyweight director John Frankenheimer, e.g. Seconds {1966}.) The ending, unfortunately, comes out of left field and is not very believable. Good thing the cast is full of familiar faces making that part worthwhile.
Whatever the entry lacks, it does contain a serious subtext: namely, just how reliable is eye-witness testimony. The narrative shows how what we think we see is often colored by our state-of-mind at the time. That's an interesting and substantive topic to dramatize for an audience, though its treatment here is less dramatic than expected for a dark series. Nonetheless, the question is one to consider.
Anyway, I wish Hitch's last TV directing turn had featured a less static and more memorable 60-minutes than this episode turns out to be.
The main interest lies in the eye-witnesses testifying, especially scatter-brained blonde, Penny (Evans), who seems more interested in boys and "creeps" than testimony. (With a name like Evans Evans the actress specialized in loopy roles. But then she couldn't have been too ditzy, being married to heavyweight director John Frankenheimer, e.g. Seconds {1966}.) The ending, unfortunately, comes out of left field and is not very believable. Good thing the cast is full of familiar faces making that part worthwhile.
Whatever the entry lacks, it does contain a serious subtext: namely, just how reliable is eye-witness testimony. The narrative shows how what we think we see is often colored by our state-of-mind at the time. That's an interesting and substantive topic to dramatize for an audience, though its treatment here is less dramatic than expected for a dark series. Nonetheless, the question is one to consider.
Anyway, I wish Hitch's last TV directing turn had featured a less static and more memorable 60-minutes than this episode turns out to be.
The first really good episode of "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour"
planktonrules26 April 2021
While Alfred Hitchcock himself directed about a dozen and a half episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", he only directed one from the one hour series, "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour"...and this is it. In fact, according to IMDB, it's his last television directorial credit.
When the story begins, a person on a motorcycle is struck by Michael Barnes' (John Forsythe) car. Foolishly, he drives off...but turns himself in soon after. Unfortunately, the driver of the motorcycle died...and Michael does something which seems foolish....he represents himself in court! Amazingly, he is able to do a remarkable job defending himself.
This episode is interesting because it calls into question the notion of eyewitness testimony. Research has shown that such testimony is notoriously poor...and it makes you wonder how many have been convicted because of mistaken identifications or mistaken interpretations of what folks saw. My only complaint is from accident to the completion of the trial went WAY too fast...only a day or two...which really makes no sense. HOWEVER, the episode was so good, that I could easily overlook this. Very well written and a clever twist.
By the way, something VERY strange happened as I watched this episode on the Roku Channel...the closed captioning for "I Saw the Whole Thing" were those from a previous episode "Don't Look Behind You"!
When the story begins, a person on a motorcycle is struck by Michael Barnes' (John Forsythe) car. Foolishly, he drives off...but turns himself in soon after. Unfortunately, the driver of the motorcycle died...and Michael does something which seems foolish....he represents himself in court! Amazingly, he is able to do a remarkable job defending himself.
This episode is interesting because it calls into question the notion of eyewitness testimony. Research has shown that such testimony is notoriously poor...and it makes you wonder how many have been convicted because of mistaken identifications or mistaken interpretations of what folks saw. My only complaint is from accident to the completion of the trial went WAY too fast...only a day or two...which really makes no sense. HOWEVER, the episode was so good, that I could easily overlook this. Very well written and a clever twist.
By the way, something VERY strange happened as I watched this episode on the Roku Channel...the closed captioning for "I Saw the Whole Thing" were those from a previous episode "Don't Look Behind You"!
Rashomon meets Twelve Angry Men
searchanddestroy-131 December 2020
You have here a bit of RASHOMON, just a pinch of it, not the whole story of course. And you'll also admit that the remaining of this show, with the man accused defending himself trying to demolish each testimony one by one , reminds you Sid Lumet's first feature.
"Now how could they see something that never happened?"
classicsoncall5 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
What??!! That was the twist? Michael Barnes wasn't even driving the car!!?? No matter how faulty the recollections of the five witnesses, I don't find it credible that none of them would have missed it was a woman diver. Up to that point, the story did a good job of demonstrating that one person's eye-witness testimony could differ considerably from another's regarding the circumstances of the same event. And since Michael Barnes (John Forsythe) basically misrepresented his own role in the accident, I don't know why he couldn't have answered prosecuting attorney Anderson's (John Zaremba) final question about passing the stop sign. Since he wasn't driving, he could have answered truthfully that he didn't. But what I think might really have been going on with this episode was to test the viewer's own powers of observation. Because whether it was intentional or not, if you go back and rewatch the episode, you'll see that the nameplate situated in front of the judge at the start of the trial read Judge B. Martin, and later on in the story, the nameplate read Judge B. Nielson!
HE WOULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY!
skarylarry-9340014 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
He wouldn't answer the question if he went through the stop sign; he took the fifth! He could have said NO! He wasn't even in the car so the truthful answer was no; HE did not go through the stop sign. So simple! DUH!
It Was a Hit and Run--Pure and Simple
Hitchcoc4 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is about a car crash that causes the death of a man. The driver of the car didn't stop to see how the guy was. He just took off. There was never any doubt about the crime. John Forsyth is sickening in this one. He is smug and has no emotion about killing another human being. Even as it works out differently in the end, he should have seen that the car stopped. I see those nines and tens there. Sometimes an episode is so ridiculous that it doesn't bear any sort of credibility. This is certainly one. The courtroom stuff was also so poorly done, the questioning insipid,, and everything dull.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
