• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

My Year with Hitch

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 10: 'Juno and the Paycock' [1929]
Source: DVD

Before I started this project, someone suggested that trying to watch a film a week might begin to feel like homework. I felt that yesterday as I sat through 'Juno and the Paycock'.

In fairness, even Hitchcock has gone on record stating that he had trouble figuring out how to make this dialogue-heavy stage play cinematic. There is no action to speak of and nothing that lends itself to clever camera trickery. Coupled with the fact that the early sound recording makes it difficult to hear anyway, the actors have such rich brogues that it's a strain to understand what is going on.

The story revolves around the rise and fall of an Irish family. There are some broad stereotypes here - the shiftless father and his scheming friend, the bold matriarch who holds the family together - as well as a rather offensively portrayed Jewish tailor. John Laurie, whom I remember from the UK sitcom 'Dad's Army', plays the brooding son. The acting is a little over-the-top, but at least Hitchcock has something to play with regarding him. The son holds a terrible secret, and Hitchcock hones in on him to register his reactions as the family talk about his friend's death.

The film spends around 80% of the time in the same room, which is I suppose necessary for a stage adaptation, but unfortunate as arguably the best scenes occur outside. The first scene of the rebel-rouser, with close-ups of his audience, could have come from a Soviet-era propaganda film - stirring and effective. Otherwise, this was a chore to watch.

Another from Mil Creek's 'Legacy' collection, this was difficult to watch and even more difficult to hear. Unless, like me, you are determined to see everything that Hitchcock directed, I would skip it.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 11: 'Murder!' [1930]
Source: DVD

Hitchcock must have jumped at the chance to direct this whodunnit, featuring a lot of themes he loved - the theatre, court rooms and, of course, murder. The plot is quite simple - an actress is killed (in the living room, with the poker) and her rival is found sitting dumb and dazed by her body. She is swiftly found guilty and sentenced to hang but one juror suspects it is all too neat and decides to investigate on his own. The game's afoot!

It is a film of very distinct parts. The murder and arrest are dealt with at speed (although there is a wonderful scene in which the woman of the house where the murder occurs makes tea for everyone. Not only does Hitchcock get the exposition completed quickly, he also has fun following the characters between rooms, back and forth, as the tea is made.). Hitchcock also has fun at the police's expense. Detectives are trying to question the rest of the cast about the murdered victim and the circumstances of her death while backstage of a play (another of Hitch's favourite places to film) with the actors stopping to go on stage for their cue. As a blind in the small window in the door of the suspected murderer's cell is drawn down, so the curtain falls on stage.

Next up is an early microcosm of 'Twelve Angry Men'. (Historical note: I was surprised that there were female barristers in 1930.) Hitch's filming of the court is not dissimilar to that of 'Easy Virtue', and indeed the older actress from both 'Downfall' and 'Easy Virtue' reappears here as a juror. There are some solid British stereotypes on show, but overall this section is well-done and doesn't drag too much. The delivery of the verdict is a masterpiece of understatement - we watch a man clean up the jury room (sneaking a half-smoked cigar as he does) while hearing the verdict offstage.

We are then led through the suspicions of Sir. John, another actor on the jury, played by a Lawrence Olivier type. Hitchcock plays up the social divide between the very proper Sir. John and the lower class actors he has to deal with in order to crack this case. I couldn't tell who he was mocking more, and I assume that was deliberate. The investigation dragged a little for me, but the climax is worth waiting for, not only when Sir. John confronts whom he believes to be the actual killer, but also the later consequences at a circus. Hitchcock borrows a trick from 'Downfall' for the final scene, slowly drawing back the camera to reveal we are watching a play.

Definitely one of my favourites so far. Well worth your time.

The version I saw is from the Studio Canal/Lionsgate boxset. The picture was very good in places, but had intermittent fading in and out to black and occasional softness. The sound was fine.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Not that you're there yet, but my brother watched Sabotage the other night and gave it very high praise. Might try and snag his copy when the time comes.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 12: 'The Skin Game' [1931]
Source: DVD

The opening credits boast that this film is a "Talking Picture". No one could accuse them of false advertising. Hitchcock directs another dialogue-heavy stage play, but manages a few cinematic flourishes along the way.

The plot revolves around two feuding families, the Hillcrests and the Hornblowers: Old Money vs New Money. Like his preceding film, Hitchcock delves into class differences, but without the humour. Although for most of the film it appears his sympathies lie with Old Money, the climax pulls the rug out and frankly neither end up looking rosy.

There are a couple of nice touches early on, showing the differences between the families (horses vs cars, elegant woods vs a McMansion, etc). Hitchcock tries to stray from the repetitive talking heads by filming some conversations off-screen. The best example is the first, with the head of the Hornblower household (Edmund Gwenn, later of 'Miracle on 34th St') arguing with his tenants. We hear the discussion but witness his chauffeur pacing outside their modest house. There's also a nice dissolve, when Mr. Hillcrest gazes from his window and imagines the pastoral view becoming factories.

The highlight of the film, however, is the auction scene. (Note: it will be interesting to revisit this after 'North by Northwest'.) Most of the bidding is from the auctioneer's POV, necessitating quick pans. The effect works perfectly and is quite suspenseful. 

Perhaps not an essential Hitchcock film, 'The Skin Game' still offers some entertainment. This was another from the Studio Canal/Lionsgate boxset, with no complaints with either the visuals or the sound.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 13: 'Rich and Strange' [1932]
Source: DVD

Rich - maybe. Strange - definitely. Here we have a... what, exactly? Romantic Comedy? Melodrama? Travelogue? Any of these descriptions could work, but it's probably best to see it as a mix of all three. Bored with their humdrum life, a suburban couple inherit some money and decide to see the world. Unfortunately, both succumb to the Seven Year Itch (actually 8 years, in this case) during their various sea voyages, as well as other complications.

It's all a bit of a mess, frankly. The comedy is amusing at best and the melodrama of the love entanglements slow the story down considerably. Pace is a big problem in this film. Hitchcock is experimenting with rapid edits (there are even reaction shots of the couple with their heads jerking back and forth as they quickly take in the sights of Paris) and the travel elements of the film are frenetic.

This is an early talkie with it's feet firmly planted in the silent era. The first five minutes or so of the film (the best part, I'd argue) are completely silent, as we see the husband leave his dreary accountancy job and make his way home through a rainy London and the always packed and uncomfortable Tube ride. There are also title cards strewn throughout the film, introducing characters or telling us what they are up to. It's disconcerting and largely unnecessary.

In terms of direction, it feels like a step backwards for Hitchcock. There is no flow to the film, and the quick cuts are gimmicky and distracting. The travel elements appear to be taken from stock footage and maybe even from an earlier era. Nothing really looks right in this film. If it was purely an experiment in style and composition, I don't think it works. Coupled with the dated racism towards other cultures, this is a film you could easily skip.

This was the last film in the StudioCanal/Lionsgate boxset. Apart from the location shots, the film looked good and the sound was clean.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 14: 'Number 17' [1932]
Source: DVD
 
The one thing I've noticed recently with Hitchcock's films - he really knows how to open a movie. This is one of those occasions where he draws you in - here, with a long shot of a windy, deserted street, a hat blown into the front yard of an old house to rent, and the owner of the hat stooping to pick it up, then wandering inside. Like 'Rich & Strange', there is no dialogue for the first 5 minutes, in which the man discovers a dead body and possibly the victim's murderer. From then on, what happens is anyone's guess.
 
This is an aggravating film. The elements are there to make it suspenseful and interesting, but the plot is so confusing and characters randomly introduced that I honestly had no idea what was going on. Various people are after a valuable necklace, and other people are out to stop them. And some of those people are not whom they may appear. That’s about all I gathered.
 
That’s not to say that it’s unworthy of your time. Hitchcock throws some interesting things at the screen (the use of shadows and stairwells in particular) and everything moves at a cracking pace. Perhaps a little too quick at times (the film is a tad over an hour long), hence the confusion it invokes. After spending 40 minutes inside the house, Hitchcock takes us outside finally for a rousing chase involving a train and a bus. He uses miniatures in places, which are alternately effective and quaint, but he gets the job done. He ends with another couple of twists, which almost convinced me to give this film another go and watch it again in a new light with this revelatory information. Almost.
 
This was the last film in the Mill Creek Legacy collection, and it was bad. It looked like it had been downloaded from YouTube, and the sound was muffled in places. Hopefully there’s a better version out there somewhere, as there’s enough here to warrant a look.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 15: 'Waltzes from Vienna' [1933]
Source: Amazon Video

Did you hear about the time Hitchcock made a period drama-slash-musical-slash-slapstick comedy? No, probably not.

This fictional biopic concerning Strauss' creation of his famous waltz 'The Blue Danube' is not a bad film as such, it's just that anyone could have directed it. Later on in his career, Hitchcock was known to fall asleep during filming (or appear to) and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he had several good naps during this production too. With material that he probably wasn't at all interested in, Hitchcock bangs out a workmanlike film with virtually no flourishes to keep the viewer interested.

But, as I say, it's not a bad film. The music is wonderful and the scene in the bakery where Strauss Jr finds inspiration is fun. Edmund Gwenn (late of 'The Skin Game') plays Strauss Sr, and revered wartime singer/actress Jessie Matthews is fine in an early role. A love triangle is shoved into the plot, plus a strained father-son relationship, as well as broad comedy bordering on farce. But it moves along at a swift pace. Nothing lingers too long, but nothing is very memorable either.

Two cinematic highlights include a very brief shot filmed through a music stand, and a faux long take of an outdoor concert, panning left to right and cut with close-ups of clothing, trees, etc to simulate a continuous shot. And that's it.

This might pass as entertaining on a wet Sunday afternoon when you have a cold. But it would have to be very wet and a very bad cold.

I watched the version available on Amazon Video. It looked soft and had a slight sepia tint, but was acceptable. There was a background hiss throughout most of the film, but wasn't noticeable during the musical numbers.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
You seem to be ahead of schedule, Garp. Is this desirable? 

 I'll be joining you for The Man Who Knew Too Much. I've never seen it, but I have a copy lying around that came free with a newspaper, so may as well give it a whirl. 
I've heard that it's a bit "weird", whatever that means in the context of Hitchcock. Regardless, I'm sure watching it will reveal his reasoning for remaking it years later.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
No, I'm right on schedule, according to my first post: 4.9 - 4.15. - 'Waltzes from Vienna'.

Good to hear I have a comrade for 'TMWKTM'. I'm looking forward to this one, as it sounds much more 'classic' Hitchcockian, and I too want to compare the later remake.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Ah! Quite right. I've been reading it wrong (as the date below instead of above).
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
You're right - it's not clear. I've edited the first post to help rectify that. Cheers.
 

Neglify

Well-known member
Messages
13,968
Reaction score
31
Trophy Points
133
The Scribbling Man said:
I'm sure watching [the original The Man Who Knew Too Much] will reveal his reasoning for remaking it years later.

The reason is simple. The first version sucks hard, but it was a great concept. Second attempt was thumbs up.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 16: 'The Man who knew too much' [1934]
Source: Amazon Video, Criterion edition [streaming]

After a string of disappointing Hitchcock films, I was looking forward to this one. Finally, a proper Hitchcockian chase film, with intrigue and dastardly plots. A film that, at least on some level, Hitchcock must have had some interest in, having decided to go back and remake it years later. Unfortunately, I was disappointed once again.

Hitchcock himself famously said that this original version was the work of a "talented amateur", and it would be difficult to disagree. The story is fun but preposterous - a couple on holiday in Switzerland are not just witnesses to a murder, but are the sole recipients of his cryptic final words. In an effort to get them to reveal what they know, their daughter is kidnapped, and the couple must try to thwart the bad guys, prevent another murder and rescue their child without involving the police. 

The set-up is great, and I can understand why Hitch would want to use it again. However, it doesn't quite work here. The pace is off-kilter - languid in too many places, and seeming rushed the next. The acting is unbelievable and occasionally unintentionally funny, especially during the 'fight' scene in the chapel. The only actor who stands out is Peter Lorre, who plays the villain (naturally) with an air of condescension and glee. 

There wasn't much in the way of cinematic flourishes that caught my eye, though the climax in the Albert Hall as the heroine tries to figure out the killer and potential victim is as suspenseful as you would expect from the later Master. There are also some nice set-ups early on that pay off later - the brooch the daughter is given as a gift, the mother's proficiency at clay-pigeon shooting and, most notable of all, the pocket watch Lorre keeps with him. 

I have yet to see the remake, but having now seen the original. my interest in the later film is increased. I streamed this film on Amazon and it was the Criterion restoration. As expected, it looked great, although there was some background hiss in quiet scenes (of which there were many - I didn't notice any musical score, which this film could well have used.)
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Nice review, Garp. Interestingly, although neither of us were a fan, we seem to differ on a few things. Here's my review:

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

"I haven't actually come across anyone with anything positive to say about this, but that's just the sort of thing that normally provokes me to check something out, especially when it's a film that the director himself has chosen to remake. 

It's very clear why this early incarnation doesn't get a whole lot of attention, and also why Hitchcock chose to remake it - it's not very good. 
Sure, there is visual flair that shows the makings of a great director in the works, but visual flair can't make up for incompetent storytelling, which is exactly what The Man Who Knew Too Much suffers from.
Despite it's potential, the set up is rushed, with characters and plot introduced in a sloppy, disorientating manner. It doesn't really feel like we are given any reason to care about anything going on, especially in regards to the man who is in danger of being assassinated - the whole narrative is just generally very muddy.

Visually, it almost felt as if Hitchcock was trying too hard to be iconic. The bizarre fight involving people chucking chairs at each other in the middle of the Church of Sun worshipers, being a key example, along with the encounter at the dentist, in which we have a striking shot that to me felt reminiscent of Vertigo:

7d383d3e165ace3644460318d28c4403.jpg


The film is littered with interesting transitions and visual elements (such as the sudden cutaway to the model rail track), but they don't really serve the narrative in any useful way. Hitchcock must have recognised his errors though, since he quickly moved on the following year to create the much more cohesive, though far from perfect, 39 Steps. A film that succeeds in balancing humour and tension, and makes very good use of visual cues. 

Looking at Hitchcock's filmography, it's clear that he went from strength to strength, eventually deciding to remake The Man Who Knew Too Much with James Stewart in the lead role, of which I very much look forward to seeing."

On the performances, Garp, I didn't think they were too bad, although I agree there were some bizarrely comic moments (such as when the actor being hypnotised decides to lay his hat upon the "bible"). Peter Lorre was definitely the standout though, and generally made the scenes he occupied relatively engaging. 

Since I seem to have misplaced my copy of the film, I too ended up streaming the Criterion version. There was definitely some scoring during the film, though it was minimal. This didn't feel to me to be an area that was noticeably lacking though.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
The Scribbling Man said:
There was definitely some scoring during the film, though it was minimal. This didn't feel to me to be an area that was noticeably lacking though.

I feel I should add a disclaimer that I rarely notice the soundtrack when watching a film. It seems to be a blindspot for me, or whatever the aural equivalent would be. When reading reviews on films, I'm often amazed at the level of detail some people can pick out from a score, when I've seen the exact same film and have no knowledge or memory of what music was playing during a particular scene. Unless it's iconic (James Bond, or most of John Williams' oeuvre) the chances are it'll pass me by.

That said, there were some scenes during 'TMWKTM' that seemed silent - or, at least, without music - when I would have expected some to be there. Now I'm almost tempted to rewatch it and pay special attention to the score...
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
There wasn't much. Obviously there is the scene where the orchestra is playing, which I don't count, but there is also an organ playing during the church fight, which I would count as part of the score because there's no one there to play the organ - or at least if there was, why would they be playing the organ while everyone is throwing chairs at each other? 

I do remember there being a scene towards the end where I noticed the score though, chiefly because it was oddly mixed. The music was dramatic, but very quiet compared to the rest of the audio.

Edit: I can't find the scene I'm looking for, but here is an example of scoring:


There is the opening theme, obviously, but then also a piece starts playing in the background around 1:50, just as we have the incident with the skiers.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 17: 'The 39 Steps' [1935]
Source: Amazon Video, Criterion edition [streaming]

From 'A Year of Hitchcock: 52 weeks with the Master of Suspense' by Jim McDevitt & Eric San Juan: "For both Alfred Hitchcock and a journey through his career, arriving at this point is a landmark moment... It is fair to argue that 'The 39 Steps' represents the first true Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece, a masterpiece created with skills honed over the course of more than a dozen previous motion pictures. They were all worthy in their own right, but here everything comes together as never before."

This is a great film. Great acting, great story, great entertainment. Like its predecessor, 'The Man who knew too much', the plot is ridiculous if you stare at it too hard, but why would you want to? Hitchcock ensures that you will be too busy just having fun.

Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), a Canadian in London (or a Londoner who has recently returned from Canada - I'm not sure which), becomes embroiled in a spy caper when a woman he meets at  a music hall is killed in his flat. In 1930s derring-do fashion, he decides to evade the police and travel to Scotland to somehow prevent state secrets from leaving the country. Will he succeed? Was Hitchcock fat?

The mix of thrills, comedy, action and even pathos is perfect here. There are a number of scenes that stand out. Hannay is mistaken for the scheduled speaker at a political rally and riles up the crowd in an attempt to try and evade his captors. (Hitchcock uses a similar ruse later in 'North by Northwest'.) In Scotland, he spends the night at a lonely farmhouse, in which the farmer's wife is as alone as her surroundings. This scene could have been heavy-handed and out of place, but instead is perfectly handled, giving the audience a place to breathe. And, as Hannay is later handcuffed to the unwitting Pamela, Hitchcock again slackens off the pace to show the couple drying off in a B&B, played for both comedy and romance.

There are some great flourishes here too - the maid's scream on discovering the dead body that cuts to a train whistle is the most effective, and the final hand-holding is a perfect ending. Overall, a great way to spend an hour and a half.

I watched the Criterion version on Amazon, and was impressed. There was still the issue of some background hiss during quieter moments, but nothing overly distracting. The visuals, as expected from Criterion, were excellent.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Bonus: ' The Thirty-nine Steps' [1959]
Source: DVD

Nearly two and a half decades later, Hitchcock's masterpiece was updated with every British grandmother's favourite, Kenneth More, in the lead. This colour version follows the original fairly closely, even with some of the same lines, but changes a few key sequences and not always successfully.

The main change comes right at the beginning, with Hannay first meeting 'The Nanny' via a non-fatal hit-and-run. This scene establishes her life-in-jeopardy status more effectively and was the only addition I liked. Following that, the other changes were missteps. Gone is the poignant scene in the farmhouse, to be replaced with a flirty and fraudulent clairvoyant, for no good reason. The political rally is substituted with a speech to a girl's school about spleenwort (local flora). And, in an unnecessary coda, the new couple are seen together in the same park that the action first began. It's a nice bookend, I suppose, but I preferred the original's simplicity.

Kenneth More plays Hannay as an over-excited schoolboy, with a wink to the audience not to take anything they see too seriously. It works - just - depending perhaps on whether, like me, you were brought up on the likes of 'Reach for the Sky' and notably 'Genevieve' on British TV on Sunday afternoons. Taina Elg is beautiful in this, and her strange accent (she's Finnish) is never commented upon. The film also boasts a number of well-known British character actors, Sid James and Joan Hickson probably being the most famous.

This version rarely does anything better than the original, but is just as entertaining in its own right. I watched a UK DVD and it was fine - the colours popped pretty well and it looked as good as you would expect.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Do you intend on reviewing the 70's film and the 90's TV adaptation?

Worth bearing in mind that Hitchcocks "The 39 Steps" was based on a book by John Buchan, and so later renditions may have been based on that and not necessarily on Hitchcocks take, which I believe differs from the book a fair amount.
 
Top Bottom