ALFRED HITCHCOCK was an English film director and producer of over 50 movies. He was born on the 13th of August 1899-indeed, 124 years ago. He is known as the 'master of suspense'... but who am I to tell you who Hitchcock was? You already know it! Yesterday, on the 13th of August 2023, I compiled the 18 movies of Hitchcock I've reviewed over the years on this Writing Blog. 1. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Pleasure Garden’ (1925) Film’s Title: The Pleasure Garden Lead Actors: Virginia Valli (Patsy), Carmelita Geraghty (Jill), Miles Mander (Levet), John Stewart (Hugh) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Based on the novel The Pleasure Garden by Oliver Sandys The Pleasure Garden is the first movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is a silent and black-and-white movie. It tells the story of a woman and a man searching for and finding each other. Hugh (John Stewart) was initially the fiancé of Jill (Carmelita Geraghty)—a popular cabaret dancer. Jill’s friend, Patsy (Virginia Valli), rushed into marriage to Levet (Miles Mander) a colleague of Hugh who she met through Jill and Hugh. Both men were detached by the company to an overseas plantation for a period of two years. During this time, Hugh read in the newspaper that Jill would marry somebody else and Patsy—making all the effort to come to this plantation—discovered that Levet was not the man she thought she married. From an artistic point of view, Hitchcock chose to unfold the plot with both indoor and outdoor scenes—he found great spots to film both the plantation and the honeymoon of Patsy and Levet to Italy, without actually having traveled there. Furthermore, he made an interesting choice of characters when deciding on Virginia Valli and Carmelita Geraghty (Patsy and Jill) because these two friends look alike, but they have opposite behaviors, mentalities, and, consequently, opposite choices they made for life. From a technical point of view, despite being a silent movie, appropriate music (composed and performed by Lee Erwin) accompanied the viewers all along the movie. Hitchcock succeeded in his first movie to catch on camera both man's hypocrisy and men's arrogance toward women: ‘Folks, I have a great artist here, who has never been on stage in her life but is sure she can show us how to dance’--a humiliating line addressed to Patsy who was looking for a job at the cabaret where Jill was working. And speaking of lines, there is an original point to be stressed here. The slides with the characters’ lines (typical for a silent movie) were added an originality note by Alfred Hitchcock. The slides at the beginning of the movie that introduces the characters, they also introduce the actor performing that role. My favorite scene is when Hugh is ‘brought in’ to save Patsy from the madness of her husband—an original way to bring in an ill man! In terms of characters, my favorite is Cuddle, the dog living with Patsy—the most intelligent of all characters. For this role, Hitchcock chose a lovely and a playful stray dog that also chewed cables in the last scene. Enjoy the movie! 2. Old Film (and Book) Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Lodger’ (1927) Film’s Title: The Lodger Lead Actors: June (Daisy), Ivor Novello (the lodger), Malcolm Keen (Joe), Marie Ault (the landlady), and Arthur Chesney (the landlady’s husband) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Based on the novel The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes (1911) The Lodger is a silent thriller movie that starts with a murder and keeps the audience in suspense with great turns and twists, as created by the master of suspense, A. Hitchcock. A serial killer was at large after having committed the seventh victim—all of them blonde women, which, from a scientific viewpoint, was the work of a psychopath that developed a fixation. The murderer was having his face half-covered and was ‘signing’ his murderous acts with the name of ‘The Avenger’ and an upward triangle. According to police calculations, the following victim would be from a certain area of lodging houses in London. In one of these houses, a young blonde girl named Daisy (June) was living. One evening, a tall man, with his face half-covered asked to be lodged at Daisy’s house. The lodger (Ivor Novello) was carrying a leather bag, he was wealthy enough to pay the rent in advance, and he was having a map on which it was marked all the places where the murderer made his victims. Following a series of coincidental events, the masses almost wrongly annihilated this lodger. There are particularly three scenes on which I would like to pause, because they made quite an impression on me, from either an artistic or a technical point of view—both stressing Hitchcock’s film genius. First, from an artistic point of view, to have a lamp as a leitmotif of a movie whose subtitle is A story of London Fog is an absolutely brilliant idea! Brilliant! Second, from a technical point of view, I want to point to the scene when the camera shots the back of a police car with two windows through which one could see the driver in one window and the agent sitting next to the driver in the other window—the way the car swings creates the artistic impression of two eyes searching for somebody by looking left and right. Fantastic! The third scene is the mob scene wanting to annihilate the lodger, who was stuck in a fence because of his handcuffs—the moment he was brought down from the fence, with Daisy crying over his wounded and bleeding body was, from my point of view, an allusion to the biblical story of Jesus' crucifixion. After having read the book The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes I am persuaded by the biblical allusion in this scene because in the book, the lodger is described as a gentleman who the moment he arrived in this house seeking accommodation, he also asked for a Bible. And he was also quoting from it. But the way Hitchcock transposed on screen this information from the book is fabulous! It is said that the devil also can quote from the Bible and this did not say anything about his innocence, but it makes the viewer constantly wonder. The book that inspired Hitchcock for the screen is structured into twenty-seven chapters. The landlady and her husband are, actually, the Buntings and Daisy is Mr. Bunting’s daughter from a first marriage. Daisy is described as having ‘always lived a simple, quiet life in the little country town…’ while in Hitchcock’s movie, she’s a mannequin having periodically a show—an idea that is more attractive for cinema. However, in adapting the book for the screen, Hitchcock kept many elements from the book, including the description of the lodger (Sleuth, in the book) who was ‘dark, sensitive, hatchet-shaped face’ wearing a black leather bag that was kept closed in a ‘chiffonnier’. The word ‘chiffonnier’ is a French word that was used in English at the beginning of the 20th century. In French, it means a piece of furniture that is relatively high, not too large, and that usually has drawers. It is in this kind of piece of furniture that the lodger had his bag closed both in the book and in the movie. Furthermore, Hitchcock used the idea of a serial killer, ‘the avenger’ signature with the triangle sign as in the book, and the Evening Standard. But contrary to the book, he built a love story between the lodger and Daisy—a love story that only Hitchcock could envision taking shape during a chess game. An original idea within this movie context! Maybe the most original and the most intriguing was the back story Hitchcock created for the lodger’s character: ‘the avenger’ as being ‘the revenger.’ I will let you discover why I believe so. Enjoy the movie! 3. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Downhill’ (1927) Film’s Title: The Downhill Lead Actors: Ivor Novello (Roddy Berwick), Robin Irvine (Tim Wakeley), Isabel Jeans (Julia Fotheringale), Norman McKinnel (Sir Thomas Berwick) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The Downhill is a black-and-white silent drama about honor and dignity. It is the story of two friends and schoolmates: Roddy (from a wealthy family) and Tim (a student with a scholarship). Following an incident involving a woman, Roddy was expelled from school one week before the end of the term. Although the incident was Tim’s fault, the woman intentionally accused the innocent Roddy, who preferred to keep silent, so that his friend not to lose his scholarship. Roddy had to leave home, and all experiences he lived were from bad to worse. He was determined to keep his promise to his friend to death—his own death. This movie is divided into several chapters: Old Boys’ Team, The World of Make-Believe, The World of Lost Illusions, and Searching, Restless, Sun-light. There are two advantages to having organized the movie structure this way. First, the screenwriter (Eliot Stannard) succeeded in providing a cyclical structure to the movie. Second, this particular unfolding of the story put the viewer in a good mood after such a long series of misfortunes happening to Roddy in an almost 2-hour movie. From an artistic point of view, I liked many things but I will stick to two main ones. First, I loved the way the director artistically reflected the ‘downhill’ that was happening to a young man in real life. When Roddy was expelled, he took the stairs down; when he had to leave home, he took the subway rolling downstairs; when he got divorced, he took the elevator down; even when he returned home, there were two-three steps he took down. Is there anything left for the 1927 époque that a character could take to go down and Hitchcock forgot? I don’t think so! :-) Second, I loved the use of light as a symbol. At the end of the chapter, The World of the Lost Illusions, the windows of a dancing saloon open. It was then that Roddy realized the degrading place he was frequenting. And, in a brilliant way, the next chapter is called Searching, Restless, Sun-light. My favorite scene is a technical one: the shop scene in which the characters played behind a curtain of stripes, and light came from behind. In general, Hitchcock played with the camera and took shots from all angles to display the emotions of the characters—a fabulous way to communicate and convey emotions although the movie is silent! Enjoy the movie! 4. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Ring’ (1927) Film’s Title: The Ring Lead Actors: Lillian Hall-Davis (The Girl), Carl Brisson (‘One-Round’ Jack), Bob Corby (Ian Hunter), Gordon Harker (Jack’s Trainer) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Romance The Ring is a silent and black-and-white romance on the love-triangle trope, in which the husband, ‘One-Round’ Jack (Carl Brisson) must fight for his wife (Lillian Hall-Davis) who got enchanted by the charm of the boxing champion Bob Corby (Jan Hunter). From an artistic point of view, Hitchcock played marvelously with the word ‘ring.’ At the beginning of the movie, the Girl received from the champion a bracelet—a leitmotif that accompanied the viewers to the very end of the movie. Then, there was a wedding—and a ring. But the word ‘ring’ from the title referred to the ‘boxing ring.’ And knowing Hitchcock as being subtle in choosing words and motifs, I think that the entire movie is meant as a metaphor for marriage—the marriage whose symbol is a ring, it starts with a ring, but it may turn into a love triangle and a boxing ring. Furthermore, the movie also encompassed some lovely cultural elements: a horseshoe on the house façade that is a cultural element in many countries at the beginning of the 20th century; the two people breaking a chicken bond—a cultural practice with different meanings in different countries; and the fortune teller who misled the protagonist (The Girl). From a technical point of view, there was a beautiful view of the world through the drunken man’s eyes (min. 38) and I wished we had music for two scenes (min. 44 and 1h05). However, in order to watch those silent movies that have no music at all as in this case, I put some jazz relaxing music to accompany me to the end of the movie. Hitchcock made use of mirrors to show viewers the love triangle from the outside; and he made use of the bracelet leitmotif to show viewers the love she had for the champion from the inside—terrific! And I particularly loved the way Hitchcock chose to suggest that the ‘ring was full’—that I think it has a double meaning. The last scene—despite being the last—is a powerful scene in terms of the message. Enjoy the movie! 5. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Easy Virtue’ (1928) Film’s Title: Easy Virtue Lead Actors: Isabel Jeans (Larita Filton), Franklin Dyall (Aubrey Filton), Eric Bransby Williams (Claude Robson), Robin Irvine (John Whittaker), Violet Farebrother (Mrs. Whittaker, John’s mother) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Drama Based on the play Easy Virtue by Noël Coward (1924) The movie Easy Virtue is a silent and black-and-white romance drama. It tells the story of a young woman, Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans), who was married to a bad husband and who was posing for a young painter Claude Robson (Eric Bransby Williams). The painter died and left her all his fortune. She divorced her husband, but the divorce kept the first pages of all newspapers. Later, she married John Whittaker (Robin Irvine)—a young man who did not want to know anything about her past, but his mother did, and she discovered it all. The movie started wisely, with the proverb ‘Virtue is its own reward.’ And it defined what easy virtue meant: ‘Easy virtue is society’s reward for a slandered reputation.’ It referred to Larita being trialed and found guilty of misconduct with the painter, although her misconduct was nothing in comparison to her husband’s being an alcoholic and an abusive man. From an artistic point of view, a remarkable scene was the dinner by the Whittekers (min. 40). It was Larita’s first dinner with John’s family. It took place in a room where big saints were drawn on the room’s walls which made the people participating in the dinner look small. It goes perfectly well with the ‘virtue’ and the ‘easy virtue.’ On the one hand, the viewers had the Virtue painted on the wall. On the other hand, the ‘easy virtue’ was having dinner. Brilliant! Technically, the passage of time conveyed through the clock pendulum was a great image, as well as the view through the judge’s glasses from the beginning of the movie. Furthermore, Hitchcock succeeded in giving the movie a cyclical structure and in making it end in a powerful way. In the last scene, the viewers had the main protagonist saying: ‘Shot! There is nothing left to kill’—a few words that convey the entire internal drama. However, although from her point of view, there was ‘nothing left to kill,’ the society’s viewpoint—whose behavior is embodied by Mrs. Whitteker—might be different. Society might keep on searching for the (private) straw (that does not concern it) in one person’s eye to destroy its future (symbolized here by Larita and John’s future) forgetting about the lack of virtues as big as a log in its own eyes. Enjoy the movie! 6. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Champagne’ (1928) Film’s Title: Champagne Lead Actors: Betty Balfour (the Girl, Betty), Jean Bradin (John), Gordon Harker (Mark), Ferdinand von Alten (the Man), Clifford Heatherley (the Manager) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Romantic Comedy Based on a story written by Walter C. Mycroft--a British journalist, screenwriter and film producer; the founder of the London Film Society. Champagne is a silent and black-and-white movie that tells the story of a rich daughter, Betty (Betty Balfour) who eloped with her boyfriend, John (Jean Bradin). In order to catch the boat to Paris, Betty took her father’s airplane and crashed it into the ocean. Consequently, her father (Gordon Harker) orchestrated a farce that is revealed at the end of the movie. In his made-up farce scenario, he was broke, and she needed to get a job. The characters in this scenario were the boyfriend John and another man (Ferdinand von Alten) whose true role was also revealed at the end. This movie is about Betty’s journey story from richness to poverty: she was stolen, she applied for jobs like regular people, and she even learned to bake—well, at least, she tried. The entire experience was summarized as follows: ‘I used to pay to go to clubs, now the clubs pay me.’ Besides this play word, this movie has other elements that complete its artistic value. For example, the observation that simplicity is usually the keynote to good taste—when referring to Betty’s extravagant clothes. Here, Hitchcock showed that he was also a great observer of people’s behavior and used the weakness of some children of rich families: the extravagance or the opulence—and, from this point of view, nothing changed since 1928. Another noteworthy element in this movie is the wise statement: ‘Nobody can live from pride.’ And great acting that suggested marvelously the boat swinging completed the series of artistic valuable elements in this movie. But I let you identify others and let me know about them. Enjoy the movie! 7. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Farmer’s Wife’ (1928) Film’s Title: The Farmer’s Wife Lead Actors: Lillian Hall-Davis (Minta), Jameson Thomas (Samuel Sweetland), Gordon Harker (Ash), Maud Harker (Thirza Tapper), Louie Pounds (Widow Windeatt), Ruth Maitland (Mercy Basset) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Romantic Comedy Based on the play The Farmer’s Wife by Eden Phillpotts that was, initially, the scenario for his novel Widecombe Fair (1913). The Farmer’s Wife is a silent and black-and-white movie that tells the story of a wealthy farmer, Samuel Sweetland (Jameson Thomas), whose wife died, who married his daughters, and who decided to marry again. Samuel Sweetland made a list of four neighboring widows and went to each of them to propose. But each of them rejected him—none of the rich widows wanted to wash Sweetland’s white pants. This was subtly implied by Hitchcock through a scene at the beginning of the movie with lots of washed white pants that belonged to Sweetland. Hitchcock proved again to be a great observer of human behavior—particularly the behavior of the rejected man by a woman. For example, although initially, he expressed a preference for women with shape, he insulted them for being overweight when he was rejected. Furthermore, when one young widow said that she was interested in younger men than Sweetland was, he insulted her picking on her face: ‘You don’t have the face of a girl!’ And to another one, he was even threatening: ‘You brought your doom to yourself.’ Hitchcock, who was an animal lover and he found ways to tell it to us through his movies, used this movie’s farm setting opportunity to bring in horses and dogs (min. 77)—lots of dogs! Furthermore, he succeeded again (and again!) in giving the movie a certain cyclic structure. The movie started with a funeral and ended with a marriage. Whose marriage? Sweetland’s marriage, of course. Yes, he got married to somebody to give him the love and trust he wanted. But I let you discover the farmer’s wife. Enjoy the movie! 8. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Manxman’ (1929) Film’s Title: The Manxman Lead Actors: Carl Brisson (Pete), Anny Ondra (Kate), Malcom Keen (Philip), Randle Ayrton (Caesar) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Romantic Drama Based on the novel Manxman (1894) by Hall Caine The Manxman is a silent and back-and-white movie that starts with a motto: ‘What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?’ The movie story starts with a biblical allusion (Mark 8: 34-38) and it tells the story of two friends, Pete and Philip—one was a fisherman, the other one was a judge. Pete (Carl Brisson) wanted to marry Kate (Anny Ondra), but her father, Caesar (Randle Ayrton) opposed it because of his financial situation as a fisherman. Therefore, Pete went to South Africa to make more money and then to marry Kate. But during the time Pete was gone, Kate and Philip (Malcom Keen) had an affair. In this affair, though, Kate loved Philip, but Philip loved his career more. After Pete’s return, both Kate and Philip were devastated because they could not tell their friend the truth about what happened. One day, Kate left a note telling Pete she had an affair and that she still loved the man she had an affair with and she left home. Indeed, the story is a kind of invitation to reflect upon the biblical question: What shall it profit a man if he gains the entire world but loses his soul? But the story of this movie made me also reflect upon the status of women at the beginning of the 20th century: in Court, Kate could not speak for herself. It was her husband, Pete, who came—despite them being separated—to speak for her, to ask for Kate to be forgiven because he wanted to take her back home. But Kate did not want to go home to Pete because she did not love him. Despite Pete being a wonderful husband, she loved Philip, who did not deserve her love. The entire movie can be summed up wisely as follows: ‘You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.’ What happened to Pete? Don’t worry! Hitchcock would not punish such a nice character like Pete. I let you watch the movie and see what happened to Pete and to the other characters. Enjoy the movie! 9. Old Film (and Book) Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The 39 Steps’ (1935)
Film’s Title: The 39 Steps (1935)[1] Lead Actors: Robert Donat (Richard Hannay) and Madeleine Carroll (Pamela), Lucie Mannheim (Annabella Smith), Mr. Memory (Wylie Watson) and Godfred Tearle (Prof. Jordan) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Thriller Based on the novel The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915) by John Buchan The 39 Steps is a fascinating black-and-white spy thriller directed by the film master of suspense and of psychoanalysis Alfred Hitchcock. The movie starts showing the main protagonist, Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), participating in an interactive musical where a certain Mr. Memory (Wylie Watson) was entertaining the audience by answering questions from memory. At this event, Hannay met Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) that accompanied him to his apartment and told him that she was a spy who worked to save a state secret; she also mentioned that she was followed by other two agents who wanted her dead. Hannay did not believe a word, but the same night she died stabbed in his apartment—a map in her hand—and Hannay was dragged into this spy story. He succeeded in leaving his apartment disguised as a milkman, leaving for Scotland following the map Annabella Smith had in her hand the moment she died, with the police after him for murder. Here starts the amateur spy adventure of a regular citizen engaged in discovering the state secret and in saving it from being discovered by foreign governments—an adventure that keeps the audience in suspense to the very last scene. From an artistic viewpoint, this plot is fascinating. It keeps the audience hooked, it engages the audience in Hannay’s adventure, and it takes the audience to different places: in a train, in an inn, among sheep, behind a waterfall, then back to the musical where Hannay met Mr. Memory again and where, this time, he asked him what the thirty-nine steps meant. The dialogue is short, dynamic, and funny at times. The characters are greatly introduced. The music accompanies marvelously Hannay’s spy adventure. From a technical viewpoint, I want to stress the film genius of Alfred Hitchcock (1899- 1980) that always fascinated me. First, it is Hitchcock’s original idea to present Hannay’s spy adventures—as inspired by John Buchan’s novel—by focusing on the human senses. It is a brilliant idea that converges with the topic of this film, in which Hannay is an amateur relying mainly on his feelings and on luck. For example, at the beginning of the movie, the camera stops on the hand of Annabella Smith holding a map (touch sense). On the train, Hannay read in the newspaper that the police were after him, and the camera stops on his eyes (sight). When he reached the inn, the innkeeper tried to hear what his wife was whispering to Hannay, and the camera stops on the innkeeper listening (hearing). Finally, when Hannay reached the house of Prof. Jordan (Godfrey Tearle)—the murderer of Annabella Smith—there was a party, and Hannay tasted the wine (taste sense), but the camera stops on the right hand of Prof. Jordan where a finger was missing, as described by Smith. And the entire movie 'smells' of an international conspiracy (smell sense). Second, the scene of the meeting between the protagonist (Hannay) and the antagonist (Prof. Jordan) is a scene of fine psychoanalysis. Such one scene is often met in Hitchcock’s movies. For example, the ‘room scene’ starts with Prof. Jordan closing the door twice with a key. Hannay sits, he is trapped. At the line ‘she’s been murdered by a foreign agent’ they both stand—which makes Hannay as an amateur spy equal to the professional spy, Prof. Jordan. When Hannay saw Prof. Jordan missing a finger, he understood that he was the murderer and he stood thinking to escape. Hitchcock used a third character, to suddenly open the door from the outside calling Prof. Jordan—which stresses Hannay’s adventure relying particularly on his luck. Hannay moves slowly to the door, and makes small steps; he is followed by the murderer. They both pause: they sit. Hannay resumes his plan to get closer to the door. The ‘room scene’ ends in suspense. In conclusion, the film The 39 Steps is a great spy thriller that engages the audience with suspense and fascinates with the psychoanalysis of the characters’ behavior. Its plot is about the involvement of a regular citizen in a dangerous series of adventures. This film succeeds in conveying the message that all regular citizens should put their country’s interests above their own life through an artistically crafted plot and through a brilliant technique that reconfirms Alfred Hitchcock’s film genius. This movie was considered by film critics as the best adaptation of the novel The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan (1915). It is the first of a series of five books in which the main protagonist’s adventures entertained the British soldiers fighting in World War I. Hitchcock’s movie kept lots of elements from the book (plot, setting, the milkman, the candidate speech, etc.), and he also used in the movie the black notebook that appears in the book—a codified conspiracy dairy—that proved to be a lifesaver for Richard Hannay. But he left aside conspiracy details (countries, names, assassination dates, etc.). Additionally, he gave a more artistic and musical nuance to the state secret to be saved. This is a great movie that I recommend to all ages, at any time during the day or the night! Enjoy it! 10. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Sabotage’ (1936) Film’s Title: Sabotage Lead Actors: Sylvia Sydney (Mrs. Verloc), Oscar Homolka (Mr. Verloc), John Loder (Ted), Desmond Tester (Sylvia’s young brother) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad (or as an ebook available for free reading) Sabotage is a black-and-white drama (with sound) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is the story of a detective, Ted (John Loder) working undercover as a groceries seller to investigate Mr. Verloc (Oscar Homolka)—a cinema owner—on suspicion of involvement in the city black-out and bus bombing. In order to screen the novel The Secret Agent written in 1907 by J. Conrad, Hitchcock chose to start the movie in the most original way: with a word definition. Therefore, the very first scene of the movie is a dictionary page, which was defining the word ‘sabotage’ as a ‘Willful destruction of buildings or machinery with the object of alarming a group of persons or inspiring public uneasiness.’ This idea of Hitchcock is both original—as I have never seen any other movie opening directly with a dictionary page to emphasize a definition—and cultural. Ted’s undercover mission was discovered during a meeting with a group of social agitators. From this moment, the suspense of the movie starts growing. And although one might believe that with the bus bombing the bombing series was over, it was actually followed by a second one. Mr. Verloc sent the brother (Desmond Tester) of his wife (Sylvia Sydney) with a movie tape, Bartholomew the Strangler, which exploded in a bus full of people. Besides the tragedy of human loss, this particular scene reminds us that at the beginning of the cinema, the movies were taped on an inflammable tape. And for this reason, many movies from the beginning of the cinema are lost—specialists speak of a 90 percent loss from the total of all movies made in that period. It means that great stories are gone, great interpretations, and movies that pictured the life, the habits, and the techniques of those times cinema are all gone. People, stories, and movies are gone forever. There are two particular scenes that I would like to point out: the first, for its artistic relevance, and the second, for its cultural information. The first is the scene at the beginning of the movie when Mr. Verloc came home while the cinema had a blackout and people were asking for their money back. In a complete black-out, Mr. Verloc could not fully rest because he was disturbed by the street light and he covered his face with a newspaper. I found this scene brilliant because, on the one side, people were restless and wanted their money back, while on the other side, Mr. Verloc could not rest in a black-out because of the … street light. Furthermore, the covering of his face with the newspaper is also brilliantly related to the dictionary scene—Mr. Verloc is covering his eyes with the written words of a newspaper. The second scene, I would like to point out, happened ten minutes later and showed a meeting in what we would call nowadays an ‘aquarium’. It was an Aquarium back then, too. It was open to the public, and it was impressive for those times. It helps to realize the development gap between London and the rest of the country, and the rest of the world at that time. In conclusion, the movie Sabotage is a great drama concentrating on lots of suspense, particularly after the ‘blowing up’ of Ted’s undercover mission, which continues with the blowing-up of the bus and culminates with the blowing-up of the cinema. Enjoy the movie! 11. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Young and Innocent’ (1937) Film’s Title: Young and Innocent Cast: Nova Pilbeam (Erica Burgoyne), Derrick de Marney (Robert Tisdall), Percy Marmont (Col. Burgoyne, Erica’s father), Edward Rigby (Old Will) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Genre: Crime/Mystery/Thriller Based on the novel A Shilling for Candles by Josephine Tey. Following a couple’s fight based on an alleged infidelity of the wife, the film star, Christine Clay, is found dead on the beach. A young writer, Robert Tisdall (Derrick de Marney), who had financial difficulties and previously benefitted from her generosity discovered her body while he was walking on the beach. Instead of finding inspiration, he found the dead body of a woman he knew and he was accused of her murder. He escaped during the trial and was helped to prove his innocence by Erica Burgoyne (Nova Pilbeam) the daughter of Colonel Burgoyne (Percy Marmont). She liked this young man, and she wanted to believe in his innocence, then she got convinced of his innocence and they searched together for the crucial evidence against his murder charge. In order to screen the movie story, Hitchcock used outdoor scenes from the beautiful landscape of Cornwall in the UK. And he stayed committed to including elements of nature in his movies. The book opened with a description of the beach scenery which included seagulls, which Hitchcock did not miss to include in the movie, too. But Hitchcock is also an animal lover. And in this movie, Erica had a dog that accompanied her everywhere. The way Hitchcock envisioned screening Josephine Tey’s story allowed for this pet to be in many scenes. Erica is a character that grew during this movie although her humanism stayed constant. This is shown at the beginning of the movie when she helped Robert to recover his conscience. And at the end, when unconsciously, she helped the murderer to recover his conscience—amazing symmetry! Probably, the best line is the one at the end, when Erica insisted on helping the man on the floor: ‘Can’t you just be human once?’ Enjoy the movie! 12. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Lady Vanishes’ (1938) Film’s Title: The Lady Vanishes Lead Actors: Margaret Lockwood (Iris Hendersen), Michael Redgrave (Gilbert), Dame May Whitty (Miss Froy), Paul Lukas (Dr. Hartz) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel The Wheel Spins (1936) [2] The Lady Vanishes is a black-and-white thriller and one of the very last movies made by Alfred Hitchcock before moving to Hollywood. The action of the movie takes place mainly on the train to London, but the action starts in the hotel next to the station—that was a great opportunity for the characters to get acquainted. The hotel was crowded and the manager was a polyglot, speaking English, Italian, French, and German. At this hotel, a guitar singer got killed. Then, on the railway platform, a flower pot accidentally hit Ms. Hendersen (Margaret Lockwood), a young woman going to London to get married. A chatty old British lady, Ms. Froy (Dame May Whitty), accompanied her to the train and shared the same compartment, but after Ms. Hendersen woke up from her nap, she realized that Ms. Froy disappeared—actually, vanished. A conspiracy involving the people in the compartment, two stewards, and a dr. Hartz (Paul Lukas) tried to convince Ms. Hendersen that she was imagining things, that there was no Ms. Froy. They even developped a plausible theory that this might have been caused by the flower pot that fell on her head in the railway station. The only person who believed her was Gilbert (Michael Redgrave), a man she previously met at the hotel. Together they started looking for Ms. Froy on the whole train. From a technical point of view, I loved the camera shots, particularly the beginning one, when the camera gets from the outside (a mountain landscape), gets down to a hotel, then to the window of the hotel, and then inside it. This suggests the idea of a story that is going to be told. In this story, my favorite scene is the one in the luggage room, which shows a fight between some characters, with rabbits, pigeons, illusionist chamber that made the scene hilarious. From an artistic viewpoint, I loved the idea of an illusionist in the train that creates a diversion. But the fact that Ms. Froy vanished had nothing to do with the illusionist. Second, I loved the idea that the train turned when the story itself was turning—a brilliant idea! Third, I loved the fact that Ms. Froy wrote her name on the dusted window of the train—an original idea! Fourth, I loved the wise statement ‘You shouldn’t judge a country by its politics.’ This quote is just perfect in the current context to remind us that a country like Russia, for example, is more than President Putin. Russia is about the many great writers, A. Pushkin, N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoyevsky, A. Chekov, M. Gorki, who entered world literature and whose works are world patrimony; it is about beautiful architecture (St. Petersburg, for example), and a beautiful language—as there is no such thing as an ugly foreign language. Fifth, I loved the beautiful happy end. I left as last and least an element that stroke me in this 1938 movie. In the train compartment, Ms. Hendersen wanted ‘to ring for an attendant’ for Ms. Froy. Nothing special, right? Well, think again! ‘Ring for an attendant’ from a button applied to the compartment door in a train in 1938? I have not seen it on the trains in 2021! Enjoy the movie! 13. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Jamaica Inn’ (1939) Film’s Title: Jamaica Inn Lead Actors: Charles Laughton (Sir Humphrey Pengallan), Maureen O’Hara (Mary), Robert Newton (James Trehearne), Laslie Banks (Joss), Mary Ney (Patience). Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel Jamaica Inn by Daphne Du Maurier. Jamaica Inn is the story of the Pengallan…legend. The action is placed on the cost of Cornwell, at the beginning of the 19th century. A group of wreckers, thieves, and murderers was luring ships to the rocks of the coast stealing all the goods on the ship. The constant repetition of the wrecks grew suspicion among officials who sent an officer to work undercover—James Trehearne (Robert Newton). He mixed with the gang at Jamaica Inn, led by Joss (Laslie Banks) and his wife, Patience (Mary Ney). At the inn, the niece of Patience arrived. She was a beautiful young woman, with principles and lots of character. Officer Trehearne was convinced that this gang had an informer that provided precise information on the ships to be lured to their doom on the rocks of the Cornish Coast. And the entire movie is a great story involving Mary’s character, James' undercover operation, and Sir Humphrey's (Charles Laughton) duplicity. Laughton made a fabulous role—absolutely magnificent! From a technical point of view, the wrecking scenes are impressive with the 1939 technique movie. Both the images and the sound are clear—and this fascinates me to dig more and find out the way the director did it. In the scene of the dialogue between Sir Humphrey and Joss (min. 38-39), the camera shots are suggestive in determining the hierarchy of the characters. It is usually said that each person has his own shadow. Well, Sir Humphrey was such an important person, that he was depicted with two shadows. By Hitchcock, all details matter. From a cultural point of view, or better said from a linguistic point of view, officer Trehearne’s short speech while he was tied up is memorable. It is a one-two-minute scene in which he made an appeal to the consciousness of Patience to release him. His words are well-chosen and they made her consciousness clash with her devotion to her husband. This scene from a 1939 movie reminded me of more recent movies. I mean, for example, Al Pacino, ‘Inch by Inch’ speech’ (Any Given Sunday), or Al Pacino, ‘I’ll Show You Out of Order!’ speech (Scent of a Woman), and Leonardo di Caprio The Wolf of Wall Street speech. Enjoy the movie! 14. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Rebecca’ (1940) Film’s Title: Rebecca Lead Actors: Laurence Olivier (Maxim de Winter), Joan Fontaine (Mrs. de Winter), Leonard Carey (Ben) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. Rebecca is a romantic suspense movie inspired by the novel of the same name written by D. Du Maurier and published in 1938. It is the story of a newlywed couple, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) and his wife (Joan Fontaine), fighting with the ghost of Maxim’s first wife, Rebecca. The couple met in the lobby of the Hotel ‘Princess’ in Monte Carlo. They got married and decided to live at Mr. de Winter’s residence at Manderley. The residence was a big stone house, taken care of by several servants, and it kept inside its walls lots of souvenirs difficult to live with. The entire movie spins around the mystery of Rebecca’s death and the investigation of her death once a boat was found with her body inside. Suspicions of murder and claims of suicide make this 2-hour movie captivating. This movie is a black-and-white movie. The love story is about who, meaning Maxim, his second wife—known as Mrs. de Winter in the movie—and the ghost of the first wife, Rebecca. The story is about what, is about when, and how long. When it is about how intense their love is, the movie impresses with its acting and with lines. Joan Fontaine did a marvelous role by playing the second wife of Maxim de Winter. She naturally entered the role of the young, inexperienced, and devoted wife—fantastic! Similar to most of Hitchcock’s movies, in Rebecca, the viewers came across a dog, Jasper, and some great shots and scenes. I particularly want to stress the dinner scene (min. 34) that starts from the plate and the napkin (with the initials of the first wife as an element between the newlyweds), then the attention is directed toward the second wife, then the entire room, including Mr. de Winter and the servants—these are all the current and past characters in Manderley. The next sequence starts with Manderley and it is a scene with no lines but backed by a piece of beautiful music—brilliant! A hilarious scene is the one in which the two got married and forgot the certificate that was thrown at them from the window upstairs. From an artistic point of view, this is a brilliant idea to show how much in love the two were. Last but not least, I want to stress the fantastic secondary role played by Leonard Carey interpreting Ben's character, living in the cottage next to the sea. He does not have many lines in the movie, but his acting was great and his entries wonderful. Enjoy the movie! 15. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Suspicion’ (1941) Film’s Title: Suspicion Lead Actors: Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth), Cary Grant (John Aysgarth, called Johnnie), Nigel Bruce (Beaky), Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Gen. McLaidlow), Auriol Lee (Isabel Sedbusk). Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel Before the Fact (1932) by Francis Iles. The movie Suspicion is a psychological movie. It is the story of Lina (Joan Fontaine), the daughter of Gen. McLaidlow (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) who accidentally met (and liked) John Aysgarth (Cary Grant), called Johnnie. They soon got married and had a long honeymoon trip. Then, Lina discovered Johnnie’s betting addiction, his debts, and the stealing and selling of things from the house. He lost his job and he was not interested in another one, but he tried to establish a real estate company with his friend Becky (Nigel Bruce), who died in Paris in a suspicious way. Lina’s suspicions got higher when Johnnie got interested in crime novels written by the successful writer Isabel Sedbusk (Auriol Lee). She suspected that he wanted to kill her. From an artistic point of view, Hitchcock used the idea of books and words to present this psychological game. He used the Scrabble words game to suggest that Lina’s suspicions were about murder—an original and brilliant idea to use books, words, and a word game in a movie as a psychological game! Lina is an intelligent woman and a literate in psychology. Still, Johnnie succeeded in playing with her mind. Fed up with Johnnie's lies adapted for each circumstance, she even tried to leave him, not face to face, but through a note (which may suggest that she was still loving him): ‘I’m leaving you. It is very important that we never see each other again. I am sure that you will be able to explain everything very smoothly to yourself as well as to the others. Lina.’ Then, she tore up the note and she stayed. The character Lina has a remarkable arch: from the woman who could not wait to be with him, looking for him, calling him, to suspect him of having murdered Becky, to seek distance of fear not to be murdered by him—but always in love with him. My guess is that the reasons why Johnnie could so easily play with her mind were: his ‘smooth way’ of finding a plausible explanation on the spot and her love for him. From a technical point of view, every scene took place in beautiful sceneries that are splendid even in black and white. There are some single shots that are memorable. For example, the scene from the very beginning of the movie that shows Johnnie playing with Lina’s hair and that ends shortly with Lina’s purse. The scene is suggestive and as strong as the sound of the closing clip of the purse. As usual, a lovely doggy is present in most of the scenes, as in all Hitchcock’s movies. It is also said that Hitchcock appeared in all his movies, but in some—as in this movie—I had difficulties in identifying him. I guess the credit for it goes to those who were in charge of the make-up and the costumes. The movie Suspicion is a fascinating movie with psychological twists and a great cast. It was a pleasure to watch Cary Grant playing so naturally the role of Johnnie. And Joan Fontaine made such a remarkable role: her thoughts and feelings transcended the screen—fabulous! No wonder she was awarded an Oscar for this role. Enjoy the movie! 16. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Lifeboat’ (1944) Film’s Title: Lifeboat Lead Actors: Tallulah Bankhead (Connie Porter), William Bendix (Gus Smith), Walter Slezak (Cpt. Willi), Hume Cronyn (Sparks Garrett), Heather Angel (Mrs. Higley) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novella written by John Steinbeck. Lifeboat is a psychological movie that presents people’s behavior and thinking in a life-threatening circumstance and in a limited space, such as a lifeboat. The movie presents the story of a group of people who survived their ship being torpedoed by the nazis during WWII. And for the pressure on both the mind and the body to be higher—because of the limited space and resources—one of those rescued from the ocean was one of the German crew members who torpedoed the ship. In the lifeboat, there are just a few characters, of different genders, colors, and professional backgrounds. One of the characters is Connie (Tallulah Bankhead) a journalist who first lost her camera, then the tipper, then the suitcase, and in the end, she lost even a golden bracelet with which they tried and even caught a fish. And she laughed about all this. It was like Hitchcock would say that laughter is the best medicine, particularly under such circumstances. Another character is ‘captain’ Willi (Walter Slezak), who initially pretended that he did not understand any English, while Connie was translating from German. He was just checking whether the rest of the crew could be trusted. He was a lifesaver when amputating Gus’ leg (William Bendix), but also his executioner when throwing him in the ocean for discovering that he had water to drink, while the others were thirsty. Willi played with Gus’ hallucinating mind, actually encouraging him to go overboard. But captain Willi had a similar end. And it was like Hitchcock would say that what goes around comes around. Following an exchange fire between two ships, another German was saved by the survivors on the lifeboat. And it was like Hitchcock would tell us that history repeats itself. Lifeboat is a great movie for both its psychological dimension and for the way Hitchcock decided to screen it. First, he chose very close camera shots—so close shots that the viewer can smell the actors’ breath! Second, he chose a dynamic dialogue, with rare moments of silence, and only one healthy laughter—that of Connie, when she lost her bracelet. One such close camera shot is in minute 50, and it focuses on Connie’s face. Basically, the entire screen is her face exposing a natural beauty. Here, Connie used lipstick to keep the focus on her lips, mouth, words, and the entire discussion under the framework of a dynamic dialogue—an original and brilliant idea! Enjoy the movie! 17. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Spellbound’ (1945) Film’s Title: Spellbound Lead Actors: Ingrid Bergman (Dr. Constance Petersen), Gregory Peck (Dr. Edwardes/John Brown), Michael Chekhov (Dr. Alexander Brulov, ‘Alex’) Director: Alfred Hitchcock The movie is based on the novel The House of Dr. Edwardes (1927) by Francis Beeding. The movie Spellbound deals with psychoanalysis as its director, Alfred Hitchcock, warned us from the beginning: ‘The story deals with psychoanalysis, the method by which modern science treats the emotional problems of the sane.’ In comparison to other movies of Hitchcock, Spellbound has also a motto from Shakespeare: ‘The fault…is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ The movie presents the story of a young psychiatrist, Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) working at the Green Manor's hospice in Vermont, who met and fell in love with John Brown (Gregory Peck) who pretended to be Dr. Anthony Edwardes. She discovered that John Brown was an impostor comparing his signature to the autograph of the real Dr. Edwardes that she had previously received on a limited edition of his psychoanalysis book. Accused of having murdered the real Dr. Edwardes, Constance continued to believe in Brown’s innocence. She helped him recover his memory from deep amnesia and overcome his guilt complex. They run away from the police to Dr. Alex Brulov—Constance’s former professor, who had only words of appreciation for her as a professional. Constance introduced John as her husband, but Alex realized that he was just a patient suffering from amnesia that she was trying to help, and he agreed to help shortly before turning him in to the police. Spellbound is another remarkable movie made by A. Hitchcock. It was nominated by the American Film Academy in several categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects. In the supporting role, Michael Chekhov made a fantastic role as Dr. Brulov! Besides the way he played Dr. Brulov, he also had a few memorable lines: ‘The brain of a woman in love operates at the lowest level of its intellect,' or ‘Her husband is my husband.' In the process of recuperating from amnesia, a highly important role was played by dreams—the night dreams of the patients. And in order to successfully reflect this on the screen, Alfred Hitchcock used drawings of Salvador Dali—how original is that? From an artistic point of view, I find it both a brilliant and an original idea! Furthermore, it is remarkable the way Hitchcock thought to show the memory recovery process: he used a series of doors getting opened and lights—which from a technical point of view, it was a terrific idea! Enjoy the movie! 18. Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Notorious’ (1946) Film’s Title: Notorious Lead Actors: Ingrid Bergman (Alicia Huberman), Cary Grant (T.R. Devlin), Claude Rains (Alexander Sebastian), Leopoldine Konstantine (Mrs. Sebastian, Alex’s mother) Director: Alfred Hitchcock Writer: Ben Hecht Notorious is a black-and-white movie whose production started on October 22nd, 1945, and finished in February 1946. In 1947, this movie was nominated for two awards by the American Film Academy: for Best Supporting Actor (Claude Rains) and for Writing (Ben Hecht, original screenplay). The movie begins with a court sentence of twenty years in prison for a German war criminal. And the entire movie is about American governmental agents working to find and bring to justice former members of the German nazi party. Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) is the daughter of the convicted war criminal. She was known by the American agents as being on the United States side. She was recruited by the American government, through the secret agent T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant) to infiltrate a nazi group who escaped justice leaving and living in Brazil. In Brazil, she became the wife of the group leader, Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains)—a former close friend of her father and once very much in love with her. At a reception given by Alex, Alicia and Devlin enter the wine cellar where they discover that in the 1934 bottles, there was no wine, but something else. Alex Sebastian understood that he married an American agent and was truly scared of what his friends or business partners would do to him. He discussed this issue with his mother (Leopoldine Konstantine) and they both decided to pretend that nothing happened and to poison Alicia condemning her to a slow and certain death. Alicia learned that the source of her sudden illness was poisoning and I let you discover the way the movie ended. From an artistic point of view, I think this is the first movie of Hitchcock in which the actors are … more affectionate with each other—as a general observation. From an artistic point of view, I would like to point to the door leitmotif. In the first scene—that of the court sentence—the camera framed a door. Then during the movie, people knocked at doors, doors opened, people entered—I think I counted at least five scenes with a door getting opened or closed. But one was always closed—the wine cellar one. In the meantime, Hitchcock pointed several times at a bottle. It was a hint. He was suggesting that whatever the reason why the wine cellar is closed is in the bottle, but what?! From a technical point of view, it looks like most of the shots were done indoors, which gave the filming crew more freedom to changing weather conditions. There are two scenes I would like to point out. First, I loved the sequence of scenes from stealing the key to the passing of it from Alicia to Devlin and then back to Alex’s key chain—superb! Second, in the scene when Alex told his mother that Alicia was an American governmental agent, the camera went from top to down and it felt that the situation was serious, that the sky is falling on his shoulders. Second, I want to point out the simple but meaningful shot of two shadows (Alex and his mother’s) projected on a … door (1h27)! They metaphorically suggested how bad Alicia was feeling from poisoning; the shadows were suggesting death—brilliant! Last, but not least, I also loved a scene with Alicia, the visiting doctor, and her cup of coffee (1h:25)—great photography shot! Notorious is a mystery movie, whose suspense climax is counted in… bottles—a constantly diminishing number of bottles. It is also a beautiful love story. It is a great movie—a movie made by Hitchcock with love for the cinema art! Enjoy the movie! [1] This film review was my final assignment for the course Academic and Business Writing (University of California, BerkeleyX) on www.edx.org. It was required to deliver a piece of original academic or business writing. The 39 Steps was the first movie I reviewed from the Hitchcock movie series. [2] To read my book review, please click here.
0 Comments
|
AUTHOR
|