• 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
Yes, to both. The plan is to see the 1979 version tonight; the '90s version is on request at the library, but hopefully I can get it for tomorrow. I may even see an episode or two of the TV series 'Hannay', if I get a chance.

I've never read any Buchan, so I can't vouch for how faithful any of these films are against the source, although at the moment I'm more interested in how well they stack up against Hitchcock.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
Neglify said:
All this talk about Hitch's "Man Who Knew Too Much" made me remember I made a list about Directors Who Remade Their Own Films. It was fascinating to research, check it out.

Interesting list. I got the J'Accuse' (1938) blu-ray a while back but haven't watched it yet. I'm going to watch 'Destry Rides Again' soon and have it on a James Stewart Western boxset.

Arguably Hitchcock loosely remade his "wrong man on the run" type thriller many, many times.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Thirty Nine Steps' [1978]
Source: DVD

I'm going to assume that this version is possibly the most faithful to its source novel so far, on account of the fact that it bears no resemblance to the two earlier adaptations. Assume, as I have never read Buchan's work. Unfortunately, in this case, most faithful also equates to least interesting.

So, no Mr. Memory and no handcuffing to beautiful yet reluctant women in this rather sombre affair. The only similarities, baring obvious ones like the main character's name and his being chased through Scotland, are the train sequence and the political rally. Even then, Hitchcock's original surpasses them. Here, Hannay leaves the train when it is stopped abruptly on a bridge (no escaping through the door of a speeding carriage), and the political rally is played straight-faced all the way. You could argue that there are a couple of nods to Hitchcock hidden in this version (Hannay's cursing is drowned out and cut to a train whistle, and he is later buzzed by a small plane as he runs across the moors, a la 'North by Northwest'), but otherwise it is very much its own version.

That's not a reason to dismiss it, of course, for it can also be dismissed on its own merits too, or lack of them. Robert Powell may be an adequate actor, but I never believed in him in this role. He looked too much like an accountant rather than a man who had spent years roughing it in South Africa and so more than up for the challenges he faces here. Would he be so comfortable donning disguises, dodging the police and known killers, putting his life in jeopardy more than once? I didn't buy it.

That said, there are two things in its favour. One is that the 39 steps actually mean something, rather than the name of a shadowy organization, and form a clue that must be deduced. And, more famously, the climax on the face of Big Ben is well-done, or at least close-up; long shots are much less effective. It takes a long time to get to these thrills, and I wonder how many people would consider it worth the effort. 

I watched a UK DVD and it looked fine for the most part, although early darker shots were muddy.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Received this in the the post today:

IMG_20180426_220500.jpg


A lovely surprise present from my brother. Looks like I'm destined to join you on your trip, Garp!
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
Garp said:
I'm going to assume that this version is possibly the most faithful to its source novel so far, on account of the fact that it bears no resemblance to the two earlier adaptations.... 

...no Mr. Memory...

Its been years since I've read it, but I know that Mr. Memory was an invention for the Hitchcock version and has nothing to do with the book.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The 39 Steps' [2008]
Source: DVD

This BBC adaptation is much closer in plot to the 1978 version but feels closer in tone to Hitchcock all the same. Rupert Penry-Jones plays a much more convincing Hannay in a style that suggests a long audition for the next James Bond. He is paired with Lydia Leonard playing a feisty Suffragette, resulting in some lively banter which is either fun or cliched, depending on your level of charity.

The political rally is back (better than the 1978 version, but only marginally), as is the biplane, as well as Hitchcock's drying off scene in the inn. The 39 steps themselves get another meaning imposed on them (the least interesting interpretation, but it's an inconsequential plot point), but there are added twists and turns of which Hitch himself may well have approved (plus a reinterpretation of one he incorporated). Hannay even gets to show off some of his South African mining expertise, along with his chiseled chest and back.

It's not a definitive version for me, but it has enough of a best-of-both-worlds type compromise to suggest a viewing, if you're curious.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 18: 'Secret Agent' [1936]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

With 'The 39 Steps', Hitchcock took two steps forward. With 'Secret Agent', I feel he took one step back.

'Secret Agent' is set during the Great War (although the tone of foreign spies and plots makes it feel much closer aligned to the war that was brewing at the time). John Gielgud plays a British Captain who is persuaded to take on another man's identity and track down and eliminate a German spy.  He is aided in his efforts by Peter Lorre and Madeleine Carroll, both former Hitchcock players.

If you liked 'The Man who knew too much', then you may find 'Secret Agent' to be just your cup of tea. It is more dialogue-driven than action-driven in the most part, and would probably have been much better with Robert Donat in the lead, as Hitchcock originally wanted. John Gielgud, fine actor though he was, is too stiff in this role which needed more of the impishness that Donat brought to 'The 39 Steps'. Comic relief is provided by Lorre, who seems to be having a great deal of fun in his role, but skirts hamminess on more than one occasion.

That's not to say that it's a complete waste of your time. There are enough twists and turns to keep you guessing, and a couple of set pieces are well-done. The scene in the church, with the ominous drone of the organ, is excellent, especially a POV shot from above the organ, and a murder is staged perfectly; we see the act through a telescope, cut with a scene of a formal drawing room. One of the murderer's accomplices, knowing what is taking place miles away, tries to act normally in front of the victim's wife. Meanwhile, the family dog is whining and scratching at the door to be set free, somehow intuiting his master's fate. The acting, editing and element of suspense is worth the price of admission alone.

There is also good use of sound effects in this film, notably ones that drown out the actors dialogue. Hitchcock's experience of silent films comes into play here, as in the aforementioned church scene, when the bell starts tolling, and more so in the chocolate factory, in which the deafening noise of the machinery turns the film dialogue-free for several minutes.

Ultimately, though, coming straight after the excellent '39 Steps', I found it slightly disappointing. I watched the 'Synergy Entertainment' version currently available on Amazon Video. I can confidently state that, as the company helpfully printed their watermark in the bottom right-hand corner for several seconds throughout the film. However, this wasn't the worst distraction, considering that the print itself was terrible. Some of the early Mill Creek releases looked and sounded better than this.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Garp said:
BONUS: 'Easy Virtue' [2008]
[...] Entertaining overall, but non-essential.

Just popping in a bit late to note that I'm a fan of the '08 Easy Virtue. One of the best-ever closing credit songs, surely!

Also, I had the pleasure of seeing the 2005 comic adaptation/spoof of Hitchcok's The 39 Steps twice in London. A total of four actors played over a hundred parts in under two hours, to hilarious and thrilling result. Got me a souvenir poster:

39_steps.jpg

:D
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Gaith said:
I had the pleasure of seeing the 2005 comic adaptation/spoof of Hitchcok's The 39 Steps twice in London. A total of four actors played over a hundred parts in under two hours, to hilarious and thrilling result.

I saw that too when I lived in London! Excellent stuff.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 19: 'Sabotage' [1936]
Source: Amazon Video, Criterion edition [streaming]

The lights go out in London. Sand is discovered in some vital part of the main generator. Sabotage!

This is a lesser Hitchcock thriller, but even his lesser films offer entertainment. Several threads from earlier films come together here in a film in which the parts are better than the whole. A suspicious foreigner, owner of a local cinema, has shady dealings with Higher-Ups intent on causing mayhem in the capital city - possibly to divert attention from an inevitable war or, in the words of Alfred Pennyworth, because "some men just want to watch the world burn." The aforementioned deliberate blackout that starts the film isn't enough, however, to dampen Londoners pre-Blitz spirit, and so the ante is raised. A bomb is procured. But can the erstwhile cinema owner go through with the deed?

When this film works, it works very well. The delivery of the bomb, via an unsuspecting carrier, is appropriately suspenseful, even if Hitchcock later believed he bungled the payoff (he felt the necessary death it inflicts lost him his audience at this point). There are a couple of flourishes - the bomber envisions a melting facade of Piccadilly Circus within the frame of an aquarium; the face of one of the dead bomb victims pops up randomly in a crowd scene; and there is a particularly effective shot near the end from floor level. But what I mostly saw in the direction was how precise and effortless it seemed. It may be a minor work, but Hitchcock tells it concisely and with confidence.

The acting is disappointing; this is a grittier tale, but the leads are uninspiring, especially Sylvia Sidney who appears to be half-asleep. (There was no mutual love between the leading actress and her director, apparently.) The ending harkens a little to that of 'Blackmail', in which the police detective wants to shield his love interest from any criminal proceedings, and there is a nice throwaway line by his superior at the very end. Hitchcock also takes us backstage again, as he did in earlier films, though this time it's his own medium of the cinema rather than the theatre. (The reason for the shout-out to Walt Disney in the opening credits is a short scene that must have tickled Hitchcock no end when he saw how well it fit.) On the whole, I can't say I felt I wasted my 76 minutes, however damning by faint praise that may seem.

I watched the Criterion edition on Amazon Video, and I was a little disappointed in it. Certainly not their best work but, as I have no comparison to go from, no doubt still better than any other. The picture flared and faded in parts and generally showed its age. Background hiss was minimal and non-distracting.
 

The Scribbling Man

Tenant of the Tower of Flints
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
4,644
Reaction score
2,416
Trophy Points
148
A little late to the party, but I watched The Secret Agent the other day. 

I actually really enjoyed it. Certainly not one of the stronger Hitchcock movies, but pretty solid. Simple story, engaging characters, satisfying (if predictable) twist.
Peter Lorre certainly overdoes his role, but I loved it none the less and he often had me laughing.

I didn't find anything massively striking in the film in terms of Hitchcockian visuals, but the scene in the church was eery and well staged. The mountaintop murder was also a well shot scene that I appreciated, even though I didn't find it drawing me in on an emotional level. 

I watched a DVD copy from the "Hitchcock: The British Years" collection. Terrible video and audio, and no subtitles.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Secret Agent' [1996]
Source: DVD

After taking a series of stories called 'Ashenden' by Somerset Maugham and turning them into the film 'Secret Agent', Hitchcock took the book 'The Secret Agent' by Joseph Conrad and turned it into the film 'Sabotage' (not to be confused with 'Saboteur', which I haven't got to yet.). Got that? Here, then, is a (seemingly) faithful 1990s adaptation of the original book, starring and produced by Bob Hoskins.

If it is as faithful to its source material as other reviews would have me believe, then it is interesting to note what Hitchcock retained, what he discarded and what he added. The most obvious is the setting, which is 1880s London as opposed to the contemporary 1930s that Hitchcock chose. The main characters retain their names, but here Mr. Verloc is a purveyor of smutty pictures in Soho, rather than a slightly more respectable cinema owner. (As I recall, in Hitchcock's version one reason for Mr. Verloc to be investigated by the police is that he may be showing adult material.) The bomb stays but a love triangle that includes the police officer is a Hitchcock invention. 

Taken on its own, the film has a lot going for it. The cast is fantastic. Bob Hoskins doesn't really extend his usual range but is still very good. Christian Bale is the young brother-in-law - mentally-challenged rather than annoyingly chipper, as Hitchcock would have him - and just about holds his own in a role that could have been overwrought. Robin Williams shows how good he could be given the right dramatic roles. He is taut ball of anger - sadistic and cynical - but is unfortunately only given what amounts to a couple of extended cameos. Patricia Arquette wields an unplaceable accent but is otherwise fine. Only Eddie Izzard is miscast as a Russian Ambassador, who seems to think he is in a different film altogether and plays it as parody. Other excellent actors that shine here include Gerard Depardieu, Jim Broadbent, Elizabeth Spriggs and Peter Vaughn.

Whereas Hitchcock played the planting of the bomb as suspense, here the consequences of the attack are given more time (the run-up is shown instead in a series of flashbacks). The endings are similar in one major way, but this version stretches it further than it needs to, with more flashbacks, although the final scene is perfect, giving us more Williams.

This is not an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Perhaps 'ponderous' is a more charitable adjective than 'slow', as I did enjoy this. The production of the setting is wonderful, and the ensemble acting is, overall, excellent. The version I saw was one of those old flipper DVDs, with widescreen and full-screen versions on either side. I chose the former and was not disappointed.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
I can recommend the 2016 BBC adaptation of 'The Secret Agent' with Toby Jones. It's on Netflix and physical formats. Set in Victorian London but very much plays up the parallels to modern "Terror Cells".  There is also a 1992 one from the BBC with Peter Capaldi and David Suchet but I've not seen it.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 20: 'Young and Innocent' [1937]
Source: Amazon Video, Criterion edition [streaming]

I had never heard of this film before starting this project, so why did I get a feeling of deja vu when watching it? Probably because it is eerily similar to Hitchcock's superior earlier film 'The 39 Steps'.

A woman washes up dead on a beach; the belt of a raincoat, used to strangle her, floats nearby. A man (later discovered to be an acquaintance and a beneficiary in her will) is witnessed leaving the scene, on the pretext of summoning help. When questioned, he claims to have had his raincoat recently stolen - a likely story! He goes on the run to clear his name, reluctantly partnered with the Chief of Police's daughter, in order to track down... his raincoat.

Yes, the story is another preposterous one, but of course none of that matters. Can Hitchcock pull off another man-on-the-run caper? Yes, just. The leads are engaging and the banter witty enough to keep you rooting for them. The use of miniature sets is worth noting - very effective when used for quick cuts, less so when the camera lingers too long. But the highlight is the long take in a crowded ballroom, as the camera pans to the real killer. The wide shot to extreme close-up is excellent and hardy loses focus.

The film drags a little when the pursued pair are waylaid at a little girl's birthday party - the film doesn't so much take a breather as take a nap - but there is still enough good humour in these scenes to forgive Hitch his indulgence. Worth a look.

I saw the Criterion version currently on Amazon Video. Like 'Sabotage', I didn't think it was as good as other Criterion Blu-rays I've seen, and I don't know whether this was due to the streaming or that these restorations are inferior. Nevertheless, both picture and sound are good to great in the most part.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Week 21: 'The Lady Vanishes' [1938]
Source: Criterion blu-ray

By now, it seems that Hitchcock had found his niche and was content to have fun with it. A lot of familiar elements are in place - a mismatched couple caught up in a caper, with witty repartee and foreigners and spies to boot. Add a train and some comic relief characters and you have a quintessential late 1930s Hitchcock film. That's not to downplay it in any way - 'The Lady Vanishes' is great fun - but it still doesn't do very much that's new by this stage.

Iris, a young Englishwoman on her way home from Europe to get married, is knocked on the head by a flowerpot prior to boarding a train. She is nursed by the elderly Mrs. Froy - a governess, she tells her. After a brief nap, Iris awakes to discover not only is Mrs. Froy missing, but that no one claims to have ever seen the elusive governess. Is Iris mad? Is she still suffering from the bonk on the noggin? Or is something more sinister afoot?

Unusually for Hitchcock at this time, a great deal of time is spent building up the characters before we get anywhere near figuring out the plot. It's a good half-hour before anyone boards the mystery train, although, like a good Agatha Christie novel, we have more than a carriageful of suspicious and not-so suspicious personalities to try and figure out. The most fun is had, of course, when Charters and Caldicott, the stereotypical cricket-mad proper British gentlemen, are on-screen. (I look forward to more of their antics when I watch 'Night train to Munich' tonight.) Hitchcock juggles a number of different sub-plots - such as the couple trying to keep an affair secret - which expertly ties into the main storyline, explaining why so many people claim not to know Mrs. Froy. 

There are two examples of suspense which I enjoyed. Iris and Gilbert (the only one to believe her story) sit at a table in the dining car - the same table where Mrs. Froy wrote her name on the window. Despite how obvious it is to us, the audience, Hitchcock takes his sweet time before any character is drawn to it. A similar technique is shown later, when drinks are drugged. Here we see a shot from the tabletop, taking in both the glasses and the supplier of the drug - one of the few Hitchcock flourishes to be seen. Others include the very effective use of miniatures again and back projection.

The climax is a tad heavy-handed with some typical Hitchcock nonsense involving an important tune that must be remembered verbatim, but it works because we allow it to. Like 'The 39 Steps', there is too much goodwill already accumulated and so much fun already spent to bother with picking holes in the plot.

I watched the Criterion blu-ray and it looked very good. Only a couple of early scenes seemed a little washed-out, but that's splitting hairs, probably.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Night Train to Munich' [1940]
Source: Criterion DVD

With the same scriptwriters, same leading lady, the same actors playing the same characters in a film set partly on a train featuring foreign agents, it's no wonder that 'Night Train to Munich' is regarded as a pseudo-sequel to 'The Lady Vanishes'. Like most sequels, however, it recalls a lot of the original but doesn't best it.

The film begins strangely similar to 'The Lady Vanishes'. The camera pans across a miniature landscape towards a house and into the window. (The miniatures aren't always as effective in this film, either.) Slowly we are introduced to the main players and the plot - a scientist working for the Allies is being hunted by the Nazis. Once captured, it is up to Rex Harrison to go behind enemy lines and bring him back.

The film takes even longer to board the eponymous train - nearly an hour - but with Charters and Caldicott back as passengers, it was worth the wait for me. The characters play more of a significant role in the plot, as well as providing necessary comic relief to a film that is otherwise quite stiff. Rex Harrison is fine as leading man, although I would have preferred someone a little more dynamic rather than proper. There is one element of suspense that harkens to Hitchcock, when a note is left under a doughnut (!). As the teatime snacks are passed around, we are left to wonder who will discover it first - the intended recipient or his enemy?

This is an entertaining companion piece to 'The Lady Vanishes', but definitely the lesser film. Being too cheap to buy the blu-ray, I opted to borrow the Criterion DVD from my local library. There was some background hiss in places, but the picture looked good, on the whole. I doubt seeing it in HD would have made a great deal of difference to me, considering only the mild enjoyment I got from it.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'Crook's Tour' [1941]
Source: Criterion blu-ray

The characters Charters & Caldicott star in their own film involving spies, secret plans and the desire to get home to watch cricket. Unfortunately, what works in small doses in other films doesn't translate so well over 80 minutes. There are a couple of good lines, but otherwise it's a disappointing use of their characters. The production is cheap, and though they traverse many exotic locales (Baghdad & Budapest, for example), there's little difference in the sets. Greta Gynt plays La Palermo, who gets to sing and dance a lot (her looks and voice reminded my wife of Garbo & Dietrich, in passing), and Caldicott's inability to remember her name throughout the film was an amusing running joke. There's a Hitchcockian MacGuffin in that the bumbling pair are mistakenly handed a gramophone record with secret plans to destroy a pipeline, or something - I admit I was nodding off before the end.

This film is included in the Criterion blu-ray of 'The Lady vanishes'. There was no discernible restoration done, but it was adequately watchable. Unless you happen to own the same blu-ray, I can't think of a good reason to hunt this one down.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Lady Vanishes' [1979]
Source: Amazon Video [streaming]

Based on the same screenplay as the 1938 original, this version is a beat-by-beat copy, even down to the same dialogue on occasions. The main characters get the most changes - Cybil Shepherd plays a gold-digging American heiress who hits her head after a drunken impersonation of Hitler, and Elliot Gould is an American photo-journalist. Everything else plays out as expected, with mixed results. Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael are adequate stand-ins as Charters and Caldicott, and Angela Lansbury was made for the role of Miss Froy. The (admittedly bizarre) Italian magician character is excised, and the enemy are most certainly Nazis, as opposed to generic foreign ne'er-do-wells in the pre-war original. Gould plays his role with his tongue firmly in his cheek throughout, but Shepherd is full-blown annoying. The quickfire back-and-forth with Gould foreshadows her 'Moonlighting' role, but otherwise there is nothing here to suggest that anyone would bother to help this selfish, entitled brat. (Gould does mention the fact that she isn't wearing a bra throughout the film - maybe the reason..?)

The important Tune-Which-Must-Be-Remembered-Verbatim MacGuffin is still there and even more ridiculous, as there is no attempt (that I recall) to explain why. The fact that little of substance is changed here makes me wonder why it exists at all. It's not bad, I suppose, but I can't imagine why you would want to watch this over the superior original.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BONUS: 'The Lady Vanishes' [2013]
Source: DVD

This BBC TV adaptation is supposedly more faithful to the source novel, 'The Wheel Spins'. Perhaps so, but it is certainly less fun.

Here, Iris is an independently wealthy orphan, first encountered somewhere in Europe in the 30s with her rowdy friends. (Her family, it is hinted at, may have perished in the 1918 influenza outbreak.) After her friends leave, following some tiff, she decides to travel home alone. Alas, the train is fully booked, but she bribes her way to a seat in a carriage where she is obviously not expected and certainly unwelcome. At the station, she is rendered unconscious by sunstroke (or is it something more sinister..?)

This Iris is a combination of the two we have previously seen. She is aloof and self-centered in the most part (she is not really 'befriended' by Miss Froy, and is evidently aggravated by the chatterbox), yet doggedly determined. However, it seems she is more concerned to find the elusive Miss Froy to prove her sanity rather than any genuine concern for the poor woman. Indeed, the possibility of her being 'deranged', as another passenger puts it, is forefront in this version, and no one really believes her story until the very end.

There are a few holdovers from Hitchcock's version (possibly from the source novel, too). The couple having an affair are back, and the Charters & Caldicott roles get a makeover, being played by two (unnamed) women, more concerned with their roses back in England rather than the Test Match this time. The leading man is split in two, as Iris has two accomplices in her quest - a professor and his student. Other elements are completely missing - no special Mexican tea, no writing her name on the window, no spies - Nazi or otherwise. The reason for the governess' disappearance is much more down to earth.

This version is much darker, literally - most of the story unfolds at night - and humorless. None of the acting stands out (the younger leading man is a cross between Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne, I thought) and the production is fine but nothing special. In fact, 'nothing special' sort of sums this film up.
 
Top Bottom