HITCHCOCK: THE EARLY TALKIES

ANNY ONDRA Photo: the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Hitchcock_Gallery:_image_3160

BLACKMAIL (1929)

««««
British International Pictures

‘Blackmail’ is a bridge between the Silents and the Talkies. In making that bridge, Hitchcock creates something of a masterpiece. Also made as a Silent, this film is sometimes regarded as part of ‘The Hitchcock Nine’. It’s possible that the Silent version is just as great.

The visual symbolism is stronger than ever. There is something magical about the literal movement between the two genres... Is it the sparks that fly from the friction? Hitch embraces new possibilities: painting pictures with words as well as imagery. Most famously, the ‘Knife’ scene where the repeated syllable is accented to devastating effect. This is just as effective as the shadow of a window-frame noosing itself around the protagonist’s neck. 

All the hallmarks are in place, from the never-ending staircases to the looming shadows; the detectives in trilbies; the darkening corridors.... The murder scene is a round-sketch for Psycho. A strong cast, with two strong leads, again benefits from Anny Ondra’s spellbinding yet natural presence.

The moment you believe normality resumes, Hitch adds another twist. It is the style of film which would come to define him for a lifetime: the games humans play against each other. Wickedly clever but also stirring, like the ironic cackles which reverberate long after the closing shot. 

JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK (1930)
«««
British International Pictures

This ‘serious’ drama is based on a stage play which, indeed, seems stagey on film. Then again, there are moments of immense potency which cumulate to an affecting experience overall. The mother and son, played by Sara Allgood and John Laurie, define much of the emotive outcome which by close burns into the mind. 

It’s missing the familiarity of a ‘Hitchcock’. What is pleasing is that it demonstrates his overlooked range. On a personal level, as a film, it’s not quite my cup of tea. There is intrigue more than suspense; passion more than glamour. But having cleared my head of expectation, I realise it merits second viewing. A full restoration would also restore the positive reception it initially received. 

MURDER! (1930)
«««
British International Pictures

This is one film that has not dated well but which shouldn’t be judged by today’s standards. Its premise is that the protagonist is shielding his mixed-race heritage. Worse, that he uses cross-dressing as a psychological shield. What ‘saves’ the film is that the white female love-interest knew all along. She prefers a death-sentence to exposing her lover, albeit shell-shocked into memory-lapse by his brutal actions. 

Once more, the ingredients for what should be classic Hitchcock. But he runs into problems. Yes, it’s a murder-mystery. Yes, he’d filmed the same previously. And more successfully too. Here, he seems not to have consolidated his skills. The onset of sound must have proved an additional challenge. His first Talkie was a blend of sound-and-silent. His second, a filmed play… In his third, it’s as if he’s simultaneously side-stepping the issue whilst continuing to explore it. Which is, in fact, rather clever. 

Because... it is in this exploratory sense that much of the film-making astounds. Both in the way that sound and image are choreographed – if often for separate purposes. Such as the chorusing voices of the jury. Or the dancing silhouettes of trilbies on a Big Top canvas. The murder scene, filmed in stillness (and silence) is unforgettable. As is the Dreyer-esque symbolism and camerawork in the film's final third: from the stark prison visit to the mesmeric circus.

However, the first part of the film appears routine. The male lead, a do-it-yourself sleuth on whose charisma the story depends, is a perfunctory performance by Herbert Marshall. There’s a thin line between unravelling a mystery and dragging one’s heels. In early black-and-white, it is never thinner. If only someone had the courage or permission, this is one work of Hitch’s which would benefit from a thorough re-edit.

THE SKIN GAME Photo: talkfilmsociety.com/columns/beginners-guide-to-alfred-hitchcock-the-skin-game-1931

THE SKIN GAME (1931)

««««
British International Pictures

Following a slight dearth, this proves something of a head-fuck. Nasty, brutal, disarming, raw. A dark psychological drama witness to the most appalling side of human nature; intent on tearing its opponents to pieces. Hitch achieves this minus any of the art-house moments of ‘Murder!’.

What is it that he’s abandoned in order to re-discover? It’s the surety of directing a Talkie in perfect balance between action, drama and dialogue. Given time, the film plays-out perfectly. Just when it seems things may again drag, it starts dragging the viewer along instead. Hitchcock is no longer trying. Wide sweeping camera angles. Corridors overlaying corridors, of trees; lanes; driveways; houses... Hallways upon hallways. Doorways opening into new doorways. Each wincing strip of the onion painfully clawed apart. Painfully but effortlessly. 

The cast is terrific. None more so than Phyllis Konstam as the slaughtered lamb Chloe. A heart-breaking reminder of the horrendous way in which some men regard women. Hers is a dazzling and desperate portrayal. No veil for the human animal at its worst. This in parallel with the most beautiful cinematography is quite staggering. In my view, it is a misaligned and overlooked film, and one of Hitchcock’s best. Haunting to the last.

JOAN BARRY Photo: imdb.com/title/tt0023395/mediaviewer/rm1461986048

RICH AND STRANGE (1931)
««««

British International Pictures

Rich and strange… refers to the Shakespearean idiom of a sea-change, as quoted in the film. Likewise, a more antiquated definition of ‘rich’ underlines its double meaning as explored in this oddest of tales… A story which plays-out in a serio-comic manner, and very successfully too. Although the main characters experience seismic shifts in perspective, the narrative comes back where it started, in a precursory ‘Wizard of Oz’ fashion. All the while, Hitchcock plays the viewer against expectation.

There’s much to love about what is essentially a Talkie made by a silent movie-maker. Replete with title-cards and why not. It is Hitchcock pulling-out all the stops. He abandons the stifling claustrophobia of ‘The Skin Game’. Instead opting for a fast-paced, fast-cut, and essentially visual narrative. It is a splendid travelogue, rich indeed, and as painstakingly choreographed as ever. The blast of the opening sequence makes for a stand-alone Art House short, evoking instant recognition from any Londoner. Just one of many exquisitely-crafted filmic events. 

There are many enjoyable twists. Some baffling, some funny, some terrifying. Joan Barry is a pleasure to watch. Like Anny Ondra before her, she possesses a natural beauty and presence upon which the film comes to rely. A pity her husband (played by Henry Kendall) behaves like a pig. Despite which, as their trials deepen, we find ourselves rooting for the couple. The ending, a happy one, further atones; being far more hard-won than can be predicted.

“Doth suffer a sea-change / Into something rich and strange…” is what Hitchcock strives for with every new work. A highly memorable film, with a pleasingly poetic arc.

NUMBER SEVENTEEN (1932)
«««
Associated British Picture Corporation 

‘Number Seventeen’ also commences as a silent movie before broaching into an effective ‘picture of sound’. It further strays into Film Noir but with a healthy dash of the director’s dry wit. 

It’s a great ensemble cast if no one member – apart from Leon M. Lion as the roguish hobo – stands out. This may be a saving grace though, considering the interwoven story-lines. Indeed, the main character in the first half is the shadowy and rickety staircase. This is replaced when all action transfers onto the outside of a thundering train. Whilst the narrative steams along relentlessly…

Part Whodunnit, part before-its-time action movie, part spy thriller… Cinemagoers were perplexed. But witness Hitch’s delight in keeping them on the edge. By today’s standards it gains ground. I found it terrific fun. 

WALTZES FROM VIENNA (1934)
«««
Gaumont British

Can’t say I was looking forward to a period drama, least of all a light romantic comedy, even less one of the ‘Operetta’ films fashionable at that time. This is not truly a musical either, as nearly all performances from the popular stage-musical version (concerning ‘Waltz King’ Johann Strauss Jr) were dropped. This allows Hitchcock’s humour to be expressed on both visual and aural planes. Besides, there’s the brilliant score by Korngold which gradually consolidates aspects of the most famous of waltzes... Somewhat bizarre? It’s that which saves it. 

Unlike anything of Hitch’s before or again… An improbable scenario becomes, in Hitch’s lens, quite charming, due to his absence of over-sentimentality. He simply presents the characters and their lives as given. Dark undertones belie an otherwise pretty picture but prevent the plot from frothing away. Namely: the familiar shadows of sexual manipulation; self-conflict; parental interference. Once again, the ladies take the limelight in almost a two-hander. The personable Fay Compton, as the world-weary countess, pits her wits against the young and talented Jessie Matthews; the small-town girl convincingly lost in a classic love triangle.

Love, and music, thankfully, save the day. It is under Hitch’s direction that the disparate threads accord. He termed this film his “lowest ebb” on the excuse of keeping him in work. We’ve all been there. To far lesser degrees. This is nobody’s worst film.