HITCHCOCK: THE BRITISH CLASSICS

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934)

««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

It’s difficult to write an honest review in retrospect of the outstanding Stewart/Day remake some two decades later. But these are uniquely different films. Each stand, likewise, for different reasons: both as great as the other. I cannot choose and why would I want to. In this version, for one monochrome reason, there seems greater reliance on the artistry of the lens and its varied effects. 

And so, this remains dark, creepy, intense… and quite horrifying in places. Yet daubed with the director’s rich sense of irony. As if applying pan-stick to the grin of a clown which in turn becomes something macabre. Edna Best is superb as the distraught mother. Hitchcock allows her full-rein and she takes hold skilfully. If (again, in retrospect) this disallows her quite the same level of emotional intensity as her successor.

There is terrific acting all round. No one overdoes it under the master’s guiding hand. The unforgettable Peter Lorre remains eerily sadistic; he can still sneak under your skin; as if not acting at all but holding a mirror to the psyche. This seems to further reflect in the pewter-grey of London: every building, every space, every grimy cobblestone street and dusky streetlamp appear packed with character. Thus, the viewer is submersed into intrigue via this interplay between a carefully visualised story and the puppets it populates.

THE 39 STEPS Photo: mubi.com/lists/mubi-s-top-50-films-of-1935

THE 39 STEPS (1935) 

«««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

What to write about perfection? Or that hasn’t been written before? Other than to attempt to convey its often quite literal filmic brilliance: an unmissable item on every movie fan’s Must-See List.

There is something very special conveyed at this level of film-making. Self-assured and confident, and always in control, the visual dialogue and its often-majestic beauty is again played against the twists and turns of every other form of dialogue and filmic choreography. This film would have secured Hitchcock’s reputation if he had never made another. 

An espionage thriller with Bond-esque moments including a moving-train chase, elements of mistaken identity (as later explored in ‘North by North West’) and windswept Scottish moors... it would make an excellent double-bill with ‘Skyfall’. 

SECRET AGENT (1936) 

««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

How to follow ‘The 39 Steps’? You can’t. And you don’t. This is a different beast which has seemed to have become somewhat overlooked. Again, focused on a central quartet of actors – all of whom give magnificent performances. However, it is, unsurprisingly Gielgud, Carroll and Lorre who dominate the screen. Lorre is an exceptionally versatile actor. Carroll gives a highly affecting performance, particularly when her ship is set adrift.

Likewise, the filmography astounds. Particularly the sharp-cuts between the central murder scene and the wailing of the victim’s dog. Other interplays of sound and vision extend the director’s craft. Simple touches, such as the heroine packing her bag whilst sobbing off-screen are most effective.

The film is a slow-burner which ultimately ignites, and is well-worth the journey. A beautiful movie rendered with pathos and humour which belie the literalness of its title. A match for its predecessor, if underrated, and very cleverly nuanced. Hitchcock at his best.

SABOTAGE Photo: criterion.com/current/posts/4347-graham-greene-on-sabotage

SABOTAGE (1936) 
«««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

One of Hitchcock’s darkest films. Never more sinister than its great close-up moment of almost impossible tension. Hitch’s compositional eye, and flair for sharp-cuts, create an indelible visual narrative. Within which, once again, the nastiest side of human nature is laid bare.

It’s difficult to believe that Sylvia Sidney did not win an award for her role. Her screen husband, a Picture-House proprietor, is portrayed by the superb Oskar Homolka. He expertly negotiates a paralleled false respectability, integral as a construct of his twisted psychosis. 

Child star Desmond Tester is perfect as the ill-fated little brother. Both he and the director diminish any over-sentimentality which the appearance of youth may bring. It is achieved with brutality as well as restraint. The same method heightens the conflicted emotions running crossing Sidney’s brow – as her story transmutes to a Disney cartoon. The cruellest of jokes is the laughter of the inner audience of the cinema-inside-a-cinema.

Thus, skewering his deeply-felt irony, Hitchcock unhooks the macabre from the comic, the mind reeling like the film reel… By close, Hitch has taken the entirety of Sidney’s world apart. Only to loosely stitch it back together on whatever hope remains. It is simply another means of undermining the viewer’s wavering sense of stability. Arguably his greatest work thus far. 

YOUNG AND INNOCENT (1937) 
««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

I had a problem with blackface since childhood, exposed to endless repeats of ‘The Black and White Minstrel Show’ on TV. Here, it mars an otherwise wonderful film. Even though so-called ‘minstrel’ acts were part of a long-ago musical landscape. It’s key because it transposes the final scene where a mask is stripped away.

What remains, however, is a great film that demonstrates Hitchcock’s confidence anew. A top-drawer murder-mystery, well-paced and entertaining, in which an albeit gentler aspect of suspense is maintained. The story runs as smoothly as the wide-angled shots from one scene to the next. Hitchcock again goes for a pivotal close-up in which the viewer’s breath is held. Plus, a final sweeping crane-shot; also breath-taking.

It must have been challenging to keep the momentum going; following the incredible ‘Sabotage’. It could seem that having the action transferred to the countryside (i.e. away from the ‘Noir’ aspects of the city) somewhat lessens the tension. Then again, neon is no match for former child star Nova Pilbeam's radiance. She carries the narrative superbly, almost as if alone. Leading man Derrick De Marney is a great match: their slow burn endearing, heart-wrenching and ultimately life-affirming. 

It’s impossible to mentally place oneself some 80 years back to a society with hardly any racial integration. Blackface represents racism. Does that make Hitchcock a racist? No. It is a narrative device. An offensive one. 

THE LADY VANISHES Photo: talkfilmsociety.com/columns/beginners-guide-to-alfred-hitchcock-the-lady-vanishes

THE LADY VANISHES (1938) 

«««««
Gaumont British Picture Corporation

“This is a long preamble of a tale!” but thoroughly enjoyable – and necessary – both setting-up and deflecting every preposition of what follows… which is, once more, something of a masterpiece. So good you’d give it 6 stars out of 5 if you could. Further ‘proof’ of the genius of Hitchcock. Especially considering the transfer from humorous debacles in a Swiss hotel to the tense psychological conflicts within the confinement of a moving train.

A very strong cast is headed by the formidable Margaret Lockwood coupled with the personable Michael Redgrave. Alongside the redoubtable Dame May Whitty, you can’t go wrong. An interplay of smoke-and-mirrors is referenced via a literal circus carriage upon which the story takes another twist. To keep us guessing until the end... As worth the watch now as on initial release, it’s easy to see how the pull of Hollywood was imminent. 

JAMAICA INN (1939) 
««
Mayflower Pictures Corporation

Consider this a B-movie pantomime and you’ll be fine. But as a progressive part of Hitchcock’s oeuvre? With hardly a trace of his genius evident, fans scratch their heads in befuddlement. Excepting the brief heart-stopping flourish of the final scene, the only comfort is the knowledge that even a master can produce a dud. 

The overall problem is its routine-ness. Laughton is great, yes, but not at his greatest – and dominates proceedings a little too much. Maureen O’Hara is wonderful on screen too – but surprisingly unconvincing as the desperate Irish orphan. Just as Laughton is a little too much, she comes across as a little too nice. The two aspects counterbalance but thus there is no fissure. It is as unconvincing as each plot ‘twist’ rolled-out with turgid doggedness. Likewise, there is no sexual fissure between O’Hara and her leading man. Again: Robert Newton is just too damn ‘nice’.

It’s a jolt, with expectations so high. Not even a score by Eric Fenby or dialogue by JB Priestley can save it. One of the problems being that it’s, like everything else, a little too overstuffed with dialogue. A little too this, a little too that... never straight down the line. There seems no room to manoeuvre Hitch’s visual craft. Gone: silent shots, fast-cuts, suggestion, montage, camera effects. As if he wiped the palette clean. Perhaps it was necessary.

Possibly, the pressure was too much; the artistic freedom overpowered. Perhaps Hitch was constrained by production demands or by the reach of Laughton’s star – instead of the more pliable ‘cattle’ whom he could mould to his needs. A stuffy historic drama, it would appear, was the last thing he needed. Although ‘Waltzes from Vienna’ sparkles in comparison. 

No surprise that Du Maurier hesitated before conferring the film rights to ‘Rebecca’. A pity that ‘Jamaica Inn’ makes a sorry end to a run of classics. And yet… in retrospect, even with some quarters considering it one of the worst of British films, its camp atmospherics render it still in the ‘classic’ mould. Which finally allows it some trace of lingering mystery... if only, as first stated, it is best regarded (though far from low budget) as a B-movie panto.

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.

THE HITCHCOCK NINE

THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925) 

«««
Gainsborough Pictures

An emergent visual style recognisable, its initially dreary narrative strengthens and darkens in the second half, with touches of terror near the end. At times feels like a long hour’s worth of nevertheless very good silent film-making. A cinema organ score by Lee Erwin on the Rohauer restoration is horrible – un-listenable – choose your own music instead. 

THE LODGER (1927) 
«««««
Gainsborough Pictures

Hitch’s third film (his second ‘The Mountain Eagle’ is lost) ...is classic Hitchcock already. As if he knew he had to up-his-gain. A career-defining moment at this early stage. And a defining film of the silent era. Mesmeric, suspenseful, atmospheric – an affirmation of great things to come. Ashley Irwin’s 1999 Herrmann-esque, narrative score completes the magic (I’m disinclined to sit through Nitin Sawhney...). 

THE RING (1927) 
««««

British International Pictures

Great film. If not as great as ‘The Lodger’, I enjoyed it as much if not more. ‘The Ring’ itself a double-symbol of the conflicts within a marriage. Lillian Hall-Davis is quite the star, and perfectly matched opposite Carl Brisson. Beautiful cinematography follows a clearer visual narrative than its predecessor. Hitchcock begins to more blatantly exploit social-sexual tensions to play characters off against each another – as the suspense heightens.

A couple of fleeting though now unfortunate racial references are uncomfortable through today’s lens, if redolent of the era. Not knowingly malicious, these could be edited-out without impacting the film. Also due the positive portrayal throughout by a black actor (uncredited from an ‘all British cast’) as central in the protagonist’s circle.

Would love to see the restored version. This is highly watchable and gripping stuff – and that is despite the bad and poorly cropped print currently available.

DOWNHILL Photo: suddenlyashotrangout.com

DOWNHILL (1927) 

««««
Gainsborough Pictures

Once again mesmeric, and beautiful, and masterfully shot; the cinematography is stunning. Strikingly evident: Hitch’s use of architecture as an emotive metaphor via both physical build (particularly staircases) and the physical features of actors. Likewise, Novello is better photographed than in ‘The Lodger’ – and shines as a true star. More a redemptive tragedy than a suspense, but an easy favourite and a masterpiece of silent film. A startlingly clear print is well-worth the watch.

THE FARMER’S WIFE (1928) 
«««««

Associated Picture Corporation

I love this film. A true gem. It has everything. In spadefuls. Humour, poetry, beauty. Handled with the knowledge and integrity of a master. Hitch opted for a change of style and setting to further extend his craft. Very successfully too. Funny yet poignant, flippant yet emotive. Not to be missed. 

A welcome return by Hall-Davis – a part played-out to perfection – five years prior her tragic demise.

EASY VIRTUE Photo: brentonfilm.com

EASY VIRTUE (1928) 

«««

Gainsborough Pictures

I enjoyed this film, if it appears lacklustre compared with previous efforts. What’s missing from this loose adaptation of Coward’s play is the witty dialogue. The remaining skeletal plot cannot sustain the visual demands of a Silent. Despite which, some of the cinematography, as to be expected, is just wonderful. Isobel Jeans also holds our attention. 

Overall, though, the outcome, more than engaging the viewer, seems an exercise in style. The familiar Hitchcockian darkness kicks-in by the last third but is only passingly suspenseful. That written, is it to judge by long-established expectations? A poor-quality print doesn’t help. The now-familiar theme of maternal intrusion unsettles from the start. The unavoidable interest, from today’s perspective, is what comes next…

CHAMPAGNE (1928)
«««
Associated Picture Corporation

Overall, this film is witty, fast-paced, and visually stunning. Hitchcock consolidates his visual language which, as we now recognise, will hold him in very good stead. This is achieved by innovative camera shots, precise sequential editing, and the way in which the actors move and gesture. Evidently, the director is by now acutely aware of such intricacies of pictorial storytelling. The effect is engaging and entertaining, and elevates the melodrama above its origin. Like its predecessor, its plot meanders along of its own accord, although Hitchcock conjures a subtle element of intrigue during its final quarter.

Betty Balfour is a talented actor, hugely charismatic, with adept comic timing. She is part of a terrific ensemble-cast of four. It’s great to see Gordon Harker playing the straight guy so masterfully. Hitchcock’s second comedy may not be as great as ‘The Farmer’s Wife’ but remains a pleasure to watch. A crystalline print benefits from an excellent narrative piano accompaniment. 

ANNY ONDRA Photo: Wikipedia

THE MANXMAN (1929) 

«««««

Associated Picture Corporation

Beautiful, poetic, tragic, haunting, unforgettable. Hitch’s last Silent is probably one of the best Silents. Wonderful: to see Carl Brisson return in a more nuanced and emotive performance than ‘The Ring’. Once again, a strong central quartet of actors carry the narrative – and do so admirably. Each portrays their role convincingly. Czech actress Anny Ondra appears luminous yet natural on screen. The director veers away from melodrama to the darker edges of pyscho-drama. This is ever more effective alongside the gorgeous cinematography. Thus the film remains sublimely potent, from first to final and heart-breaking shot. Ahead of its years, it leaves the soul quietened. The best things, like fine wines, age well.

Of ‘The Hitchcock Nine’, ‘The Lodger’ is unmissable and ‘The Farmer’s Wife’ a must-see. However, ‘The Manxman’ makes a spellbinding conclusion to this circumstantial series. It is in these Silents – within the purest form of cinema – that we witness the budding of a genius. This film is an essential footnote to the blossoming of Hitch’s craft.

JACKIE

«««
Fox Searchlight

Was expecting a tense psychological character-study but got reportage instead. You can’t replace the former with swoopy camera-angles and slidey violins. And you can’t empathise with a person about whom by the closing credits you know nothing. Portman’s emaciated face jars with the moon-like visage of her subject. One wonders if starvation has stilted her performance. Overlong, overdrawn and teeth-grindingly repetitious; why do modern directors weaken a story by eking it out for as long as possible! I’ve often considered the genius of Hitchcock is that he knows how to let the audience do the work. The greatest image here is the infamously bloodied dress, slowly revealed, a carefully constructed picture destroyed by its literal explanation. But even watching this, I couldn’t escape the knowledge of the ever more terrible events that have happened since and that continue to happen today. Constantly reminded of Jackie’s creed and detachment, and little else, this film doesn’t allow it.