Classic Cinema: Hitchcock's "Young and Innocent"

This 1937 film by Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorites from the great director.

"Young and Innocent" is one of Hitchcock's many "wrongfully accused man on the run to prove his innocence" tales, but it's one I never get tired of watching. Nova Pilbeam and Derrick de Marney are perhaps as good as they ever were in this quick-moving film that dances deftly from drama to comedy to nail-biting thriller mode and back again over and over. And the climax at the restaurant is something filmmakers should look at and try to emulate even today.

Check out this week's "Classic Cinema" entry. If you've never watched early Hitchcock, "Young and Innocent" is a great place to start. (It's actually a better film than some of his more famous 1930s efforts.) Click here to read my review, or feel free to go straight to the movie below. And have a great weekend!.

Hitchcock silent movie is light and bubbly, like name-sake

Champagne (1928)
Starring: Betty Balfour, Gordon Harker, Jean Bradin, and Ferdinand von Alten
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A headstrong, spoiled heiress (Balfour) violates the wishes of her Wall Street-tycoon father (Harker) and runs off to Paris to be with the man she wishes to marry (Bradin). When her father later tracks her down, he brings the bad news that the market crash had cost them both their fortunes. When her paramour appears to turn his back on her once she is poor, the girl decides that she will earn money to support both her and her father. But will her dangerous combination of over-exuberance and naivete lead her to disgrace--or possibly worse at the hands of a vaguely sinister mustachioed man who keeps entering her life (Von Alten)?

"Champagne" is a fun little comedy with a central character that is either too unfamiliar with how miserable life can get, or too full of energy, to let down-turns deter her from being happy and trying to make a go at whatever she sets her mind to. Watching Betty Balfour's Poor Little Rich Girl earnestly bumbling her way through an attempt at making a living is both funny and charming, and this character makes an otherwise fairly uneventful story and film lots of fun to watch.

Another very entertaining aspect of the film are simply the performances of some of the actors. Ferdinand von Alten as the mysterious stranger who may or may not be a danger to our heroine is particularly fascinating, because while he does all the scowling and gesturing of your standard melodramatic silent movie villain, there's something about the way he carries himself and some of his actions that makes the viewer wonder exactly what he is about as the film unfolds. (And this "who is that guy, and what is he after?" is set up very nicely with a bit of business near the beginning where both he and the girl receive telegrams while on-board a trans-Atlantic liner. He is visibly annoyed by whatever his telegram says, but we don't learn what the message was until much later. But we can see that his interest in the girl seemed to increase after they both got their telegrams. It's a nice mystery that remains in play until nearly the very end of the film.)

It is easy to observe that Alfred Hitchcock went on to make many movies far better than this one, but not many comedies as fun as this. Fans of Hitchcock should check it out--especially if you see it in some of those low-cost DVD budget packs along with some of his other early films--as contains a number of interesting visual flourishes. I hope the version you end up watching has a better music track than the one I viewed... my copy has randomly selected classical marches and waltzes that are very inappropriate and mood-destroying on more than one occasion. However, once I muted the TV and put on Mike Oldfield's "Ommadawn" and "Five Miles Out," I had a soundtrack that worked much better.

Another reason to watch the film, particularly for those of you who may be politically minded and prone to buy into some of the oh-so-clever and edgy caricatures that left-leaning politicians and pundits are drawing of certain American politicians and business people, is for a look into exactly how old and tired that caricature is. Hitchcock uses the Shifty, Manipulative Wall Street Tycoon stereotype in this nearly 85 year old film... and it had been around for a few decades even then. And if you still don't recognize how lame it is to be trotting out that old horse at this late date, maybe you can at least learn from a guy who used it in a creative and intelligent fashion and one-up the cleverness of the not-so-terribly-clever who keep reposting the same captioned photos to Facebook over and over with something that's truly witty. (Seriously. I wouldn't mind the hoary old class-warfare tropes of the 1920s and 1930s if someone would be clever about it. Please... someone save my Facebook account from drowning in banal and rehashed cliches.)

No doubt that 'Shadow of a Doubt' is great

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Starring: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotton, Macdonald Carey, Henry Travers, and Patricia Collinge
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Stars: Ten of Ten Stars

Ennui-ridden teenager Charlie (Wright) finds her drab world filled with life and hope of excitement when her legendary, globe-trotting Uncle Charlie, the man she is named for, pays a surprise visit to her and family. But Charlie's delight soon gives way to suspicion, then fear, then terror as she gradually comes to realize that he is hiding a dark secret -- that he is a serial killer on the run.

This is said to be Hitchcock's personal favorite among all the movies he made, and he was well within his rights to be very, very proud of it. With a script that is absolutely perfect in every way, a setting that captures the essence of the idyllic small American town so perfectly that Ray Bradbury would be moved to tears, and a cast that all deliver great performances in parts it seems they were born to play, there simply is not a single sour note in this movie.

It starts with a script that deftly sets up all its characters and manages to draw them as fully realized, three-dimension people within minutes of their first appearances on screen... usually through subtle character actions or exchanges. The most impressive of these is the film's lead character, a typical whiny restless teenager who in a script from lesser writers and interpreted by a lesser director would have been extremely annoying and someone you might wish ill upon. However, the character is so deftly written here and her reactions so believable--a mixture of childishness and adult and perception of what it means to be an adult--that you are rooting for her almost from the moment she is introduced into the story.

The same is true of the opposite side of the coin, the film's other Charlie... a man on the run with a secret, who may or may not be a serial killer. Like Young Charlie, he is deftly established a few touches that are followed up with further development that lends texture and deep character to him.

These two characters, and the oft-referenced "special bond" that exists between them, are the solid center around which story and other characters rotate, each developed as they relate to the two Charlies and each eventually emerging as fully realized as they are. Even the "special bond" ends up taking on personality, evolving from childish imaginings born of coincidences to something more real and that gives sinister weight to either Charlie when the younger of the two promises she will kill the older one if he hurts her mother.

Heck, this script is so perfect that the insta-romance the develops between Young Charlie and one of the detectives who come into town on Uncle Charlie's tail doesn't bother me one bit. Where this has nearly ruined a couple other Hitchcock films for me, here it

Of course, as well-written as these characters are, they would have withered in the hands of the wrong actor. Here, the casting is so absolutely perfect that the actors have an exponential impact when it comes to breathing life into the characters. Casting Joseph Cotton as a serial killer, who up to this point in his career had played nothing but lovable good guys, was a stroke of genius, and petite Teresa Wright nails her teenaged character perfectly despite being 25 at the time this film was made. Even the bit-players--like the small town's librarian and traffic cop--fit their roles perfect and instantly make the audience feel they know the person in question.

The great script and the perfectly cast actors are further supported by a great location and even better sets. A problem I sometimes have with Hitchcock's American films is sometimes jarring and obvious difference between footage made on sets or the studio back lot versus footage made on location. The quality of the environments change so drastically that I am sometimes pushed out of being absorbed in the movie. Not so here. Location and sound stage merge seamlessly and undetectably to form a perfect whole.

If you only watch one Hitchcock film, this is the one to choose.

Hitchcock revisits early style in 'Stage Fright'

Stage Fright (1950)
Starring: Jane Wyman, Richard Todd, Michael Wilding, Marlene Dietrich, and Alastair Sim
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A flighty acting student (Wyman) tries to help a friend she thinks she's in love with (Todd) when it looks like he is being drawn into a murder cover-up by a manipulative diva (Dietrich). Things get even more complicated when she realizes she is actually in love with the police detective working to solve the murder (Wilding) and when she comes to fear that her friend was more than just an innocent bystander in the murder plot.

Although made in 1950, "Stage Fright" feels more like the movies Hitchcock made in the 1930s like "Young and Innocent" rather than his other films from around this same time, such as "Strangers on a Train". Maybe it's because of the English setting and characters, but for some reason, the mix of humor-to-suspense, the pacing of the story, and even the outcome, gives the film a tone that Hitchcock will never again use. Perhaps, as is suggested on the DVD commentary track, this film was Hitchcock's "goodbye" to England and that early part of his career, even if it came roughly a decade after his relocation to Hollywood. Everything I found so pleasant, charming, and oh-so-early-20th-century British about Hitchcock's early films are present in this

Some viewers may not like the quaintness of the film's characters, most of whom feel like they belong in an Agatha Christie novel, or perhaps even a detective novel directed at teenaged girls what with the central character been an independent-minded, if a naive and prone to over-romanticising everything, girl who is out to do the right thing, her way. (Although as far as that goes, this may well be one of the more "girl-friendly" mystery movies I've come across.)

However, it is that very quaint, old-fashioned nature of so many of the movies characters that make the villains seem all that more evil and twisted when their natures and motives come to light. The character played by Richard Todd--our young heroine's original love interest--seems all the more terrifying and threatening when his full psychopathic nature comes to light because he is surrounded by such otherwise gentle and fundementally well-mannered people. It is one of the most intense scenes in any Hitchcock film.

Another thing that works far better than it has a right to is the insta-romance featured in this picture. I've complained about this plot device in many films before--the one where characters meet and instantly fall in love because supposedly their Fated to be True Loves but in reality it's Dictated By Plot Needs--but here it actually works. Maybe I can buy into the sudden and complete romance between our heroine and the police detective because of the old-fashioned atmosphere that permeates the film, or maybe it's because of the clumsy and realistic way their relationship gets its start, but it was for once one I could buy into, and one that I found myself caring about when it looked like it was going to fall apart.

It could also be that I buy into the insta-romance because Jane Wyman's Eve and MIchael Wilding's "Ordinary" Smith are so likable both in the way they are acted and the way they are written that even my cynic's heart gave way to well-wishes and romantic impulses. The characters are charming and the actors have great on-screen charisma. Wyman and Wilding make perhaps one of the best couples to ever grace a Hitchcock film.

There is really only one downside to "Stage Fright", and it's one that critics and Hitchcock himself has slammed it for. The film opens with a "flashback" that we later learn isn't entirely true. Hithcock reportedly stated that he later regretted starting the movie that way, and critics have commented that a film should never include a flashback that's a lie. Personally, it didn't bother me that much, although I would have liked there to have been a clue or two that demonstrated the lie before it is explained to us so that I might have figured it out on my own, but perhaps my perspective is informed by the fact that I've sat through entire movies that turned out to be lies, such as "The Usual Suspects."

If you love the early Hitchcock movies, you need to check out "Stage Fright". Like so many of his British pictures, this is a sorely under-appreciated effort.

'Number 17' is weak early Hitchcock

Number 17 (1932)
Starring: Leon Lion, John Stuart, Donald Calthrop, Ann Casson, and Anne Grey
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A vagrant (Lion) becomes involved with a diverse group of suspicious characters who are drawn to an empty house because of their ties to a jewel robbery.


"Number 17" is an early Hitchcock film, and as far as I know, it's the only time he ventured into the very popular "dark old house" thriller subgenre. It deploys all the standard elements for that genre--the aforementioned old house, plenty of shadows, vanishing corpses, and lots of mysterious characters with devious agendas. However, it's the weakest of his films I've seen so far. It's got those fabulous, graceful, frequent moves from comedy to suspense that mark his early pictures, but it also has a very chaotic story that takes too long to bring to light who the various characters are and what they're up to. (And the confusion isn't helped any by some characters not being who they first appear to be.)

This film is of interest to those who are students of the 1930s "dark old house" genre, and those who feel they want to see every movie Hitchcock made. Everyone else can probably pass on this one. It really has little value beyond being a historical artifact.

Maybe this is why your mom told you,'Never talk to strangers'?

Strangers on a Train (1951)
Starring: Farley Granger, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman, Laura Elliot (aka Casey Rogers) and Patricia Hitchcock
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

A professional tennis player (Granger) has what he believes is an idle conversation with a very strange fan (Walker) while traveling by train. The fan proposes that he kill the athlete's slutty, unfaithful wife (Elliot), who is denying him a divorce, white the tennis player kills his domineering father. It's the perfect murder, as neither of them have a motive to kill their victim and no one knows they know each other. Although the athlete refuses to take part in the scheme, his wife turns up murdered, and the man from the train appears on his doorstep and demands that he follow through with his part of the arrangement.



"Strangers on a Train" is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. The performances from all the actors are top-notch, with Farley Granger playing his part so effectively that even when it's obvious that he repulsed at the idea of committing murder when it his proposed to him--escially the murder of someone he doesn't even know--there is still just intrigued enough that he might give into the temptation to be rid of his nasty wife.

Co-star Robert Walker is equally excellent as the psychopath who is intent on forcing Granger to be his partner in murder. From his first appearance, the audience can tell that there's something queer about Walker's character--and I'm using that word in any sense you choose to apply it--even if he he initially seems nice enough, if just a bit socially awkward. As the film unfolds, and we become fully aware of just how deranged and evil this man is, Walker becomes the main source of tension in the film... a threat greater to Granger and those he cares about than even the possibility of being arrested for a murder he didn't commit.

Aside from the great acting "Strangers on a Train" is also a showcase for perfection in film editing; if it's not being used in film studies classes, it should be. There is not a wasted second anywhere in its running-time, and the third act is nail-biter it thanks primarily to the editing. The sequence where Granger has to finish and WIN a tennis competition in record time so he can stop Walker from planting incriminating evidence framing Granger once and for all at the murder scene is absolutely spectacular. The same is true of the way we follow Walker on his trip back to the scene of the crime with the damning evidence in hand. Finally, there is the rightfully celebrated climactic and deadly confrontation between Granger and Walker on a out-of-control carousel, a symbolic fight pushed to the height of suspense by artful use of cinematic tricks.

If you have watched and liked any Hitchcock films, I believe you absolutely must see this movie. That goes double if you are an aspiring writer or filmmaker yourself. Few movies are a better one-stop showcase for how to do this right than "Strangers on a Train."

Wrongfully accused man vs the 5th Column

Saboteur (1942)
Starring: Robert Cummings, Priscilla Lane, Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter and Normal Lloyd
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A factory worker (Cummings) is wrongfully accused of an act of sabotage at an aircraft assembly plant that claimed the life of his best friend. When no one believes that he saw the real saboteur (Lloyd), he sets out to follow the only lead he has to clear his name before the police can catch him. His investigation and deseperate flight takes him clear across the United States and brings him face-to-face with Nazi agents at the very top of American society.


"Saboteur" was Alfred Hitchcock's first all-American production, and for anyone who has watched his British pictures from the 1930s there are a number of elements that will seem awfully familiar.

Like in "Young and Innocent," the hero in this picture must locate a man that only he knows to exist in order to clear his name. Like in "The 39 Steps," the destructive agents of a foreign, fascist power are hiding behind the veneer of wealth and respectability. And like in both movies, the hero has to rely on the assistance of a young lady (here played by Priscilla Lane) who believes him guilty and is initially trying to see that he gets captured by the authories.

While the three films share similar elements, they are utilized more effectively here, almost as if Hitchcock recognized what was best about those two previous movies and refined those aspects for use here. The pace is brisker and the tension is far higher throughout, until the end where the final few minutes are slightly mishandled.

Basically, our hero is cleared of all suspicion well before the film's famous show piece encounter high atop the Statue of Liberty. I suspect the logic Hitchcock and his screenwriters were using when they decided to put the hero in a position where he would have to save the life of the man who ruined his (and who wanted to ruin the whole country) was that they would underscore his basic decency, However, that climax would have been far more suspenseful if he had to save him or never see his name cleared.


But, letting the factory worker be heroic for the sake of being heroic and for plain respect for another human being's life fits with a theme that runs through the whole movie.

The most fascinating aspect of the film is the portrayal of the common American versus our country's elite. Throughout the film, the fugitive meets and is helped by everyday Americans who are more than willing to lend a hand to someone in trouble., even if it means risk to themselves. But whenever he encounters the rich, powerful or famous, they are either traitors who want to destroy the country they should be thanking for their good fortune, or they are dupes of those who want to destroy the country. Even the film's heroine falls into this category, as she starts the movie out as a typical celebretard who believes herself to be patriotic but who doesn't realize that "her people" are harboring enemies of America.

It seems either very little has changed since 1942, as America's elite still seems to be the place where those with the strongest hate for America and deepest love for its enemies can be found. How many rich and powerful and famous Americans are merely too stupid to see they are pawns of those who want to see America torn down once and for all instead of being actual evil and ungrateful traitors? Are Sean Penn and Danny Glover merely stupid, or are they Fifth Columnists on the magnitude of the villains at the top of the organizations in this film, just lacking in the logistical support from their buddies in Venezuela and Iran to fully bring their dreams to fruition? I hope we'll never know, but I would still wish fewer of American's elite would devote so much time and energy to tearing the country down.

This aspect of "Saboteur" makes it a film that still has something to offer modern audiences even beyond its expert pacing and well-orchestrated final confrontation on the Statue of Liberty (even if it could have been better with a slightly different structure to the overall ending).

Hitchcock is at his finest with'The Lady Vanishes'

The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, and May Witty
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Returning by train to England from a vacation in a small European country, Iris (Lockwood) befriends the elderly Ms. Froy (Witty). When Ms. Froy disappears from the moving train, Iris suspects foul play, but no one other than Iris seems to have ever noticed the woman. Is Iris losing her mind, or is something sinister unfolding, something sinister that perhaps even her charming would-be suitor Gilbert (Redgrave) is part of?


"The Lady Vanishes" is one of Hitchcock's best movies. It features stars that generate fabulous chemistry on screen, an excellent supporting cast (the two cricket-loving Englishmen provide some of the funniest moments in any Hitchcock movie, including those that were promoted as pure comedies).

The movie is remarkable, because it's got a romantic comedy air about it, and it's an atmosphere that never quite dissipates even as the tension and mystery about the fate (or even the very existence) of Ms. Froy grows. The story moves from the sinister environment of a suspense thriller back to a more lighthearted, comedic sensibility with such effortless grace that whether your in the mood for a comedy, a mystery, or a thriller, "The Lady Vanishes" will leave you satisfied.

This film should be on any True Movie Geek's "Must See"/"Have Seen" list.

Man on the run searches for 'The 39 Steps'

The 39 Steps (1935)
Starring: Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Richard Hannay (Donat) becomes drawn into a spy ring and is innocently accused of murder after a British counterspy is killed in his apartment. He is now on the run, and he must make it to an isolated part of Scotland so he can discover the secret of the 39 Steps, blow open the spy ring, and prove his innocence. There's just one drawback: He's handcuffed to Pamela (Carroll) who wants to see him captured by the police.


"The 39 Steps" is one of Hitchcock's earliest spy thrillers, and it is very, very good. It's got some expertly staged scenes where great tension arises either from the main character knowing he's about to be discovered any moment, if just the other people in the scene notice what he's seen, or from the viewer being in on secrets that none of the characters know. There are also some great moments of expectation reversals and unexpected plot-twists.

This is one of Hitchcock's best movies, and I highly recommend it to any lover of classic films. (I continue to be amazed at how many film buffs haven't actually seen this one!)

'The Man Who Knew Too Much'is worth knowing

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Starring: Leslie Banks, Peter Lorre, Edna Best, and Nova Pilbeam
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

When Bob and Jill Lawrence (Banks and Best) become aware of an impending political assassination, the leader of the terror ring, Abbott (Lorre), has their daughter(Pilbeam) kidnapped. Abbott hoped the threat to the daughter would keep the couple frightened and silent until the deed was done, but he underestimates the courage and tenacity of these parents who will go to any length not only to rescue their child, but to see the terror ring destroyed.


"The Man Who Knew Too Much" may not be Hitchcock's greatest film, but it is still an exciting piece of work, and the family dynamics presented are very nice, particularly between the characters of Bob and Jill Lawrence. Lorre also portrays a villain who manages to come across as charming and supremely creepy at the same time.

One thing that I noticed about this film is that the characters seemed different than what seem to be the mainstays of Hitchcock's movies... they seemed to be more apt to openly accept and embrace adventure; most of the central characters in his movies seem to be unwilling heroes at best. However, I recently learned that the script was originally supposed to be a Bulldog Drummond film, set years after he and Phillys Clavering were married. Hitchcock was unable to get the rights to those characters, so the script was redrafted to remove all references to Hugh Drummond and friends.

Faster paced than just about any other Hitchcock movie, and with more witty banter that even in "The Lady Vanishes", "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a fine way to spend an hour and a half.

'Notorious' is a great spy thrillerthat includes feeble romantic elements

Notorious (1947)
Starring: Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Raines
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

After tough American Intelligence agent Devlin (Grant) forces Alicia Huberman (Bergman), a young woman whose father was a notorious Nazi sympathizer to use the fact one of her father's former associates, Alexander Sebastian (Rains), loves her deeply to infiltrate a suspected group of post-WW2 Nazis in South America. Unfortunately for himself and the mission, Devlin finds himself falling in love with her.


"Notorious" is part romantic melodrama and part spy-thriller. The romance part I never did buy--the love between Grant and Bergman's characters seems forced--but the thriller side works beautifully.

Hitchcock uses camera angles, lightings, and even extreme close-up shots to heighten tension masterfully. (Alicia's confrontations with Alexander's posessive, shrewish, and master-Nazi mother are most masterfully done, as well as the climactic scene, and the final shot in particular.)

With the exception of the weakly done romance between Devlin and Alciia, the characters are all excellently drawn and brilliantly portrayed by the actors. One can actually feel Alexander's heart breaking when he discovers the truth about Alicia.

"Notorious" is another Hitchcock masterpiece. It has some flaws, but those are outweighed the overwhelming number of good parts.

Bates Motel is a little like Hotel California

Psycho (1960)
Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin and Vera Miles
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

Marion Crane (Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer and heads off to start a new life with her lover, Sam Loomis (Gavin). Before she can meet up with him, however, she vanishes without a trace. Sam and her worried sister, Lila (Miles) track her to the isolated Bates Motel, where a soft-spoken young man named Norman (Perkins) struggles under the heavy hand of his shrewish, possessive mother. But Norman is a man who has many dark secrets....


I think everyone reading this knows what Norman is hiding, as well as where Marion and the $40,000 vanished to... but in case someone hasn't seen one of the greatest horror films ever made, I'll keep to my policy of not offering any spoilers.

Suffice it to say that I think this movie must have been absolutely, jaw-dropping in its audacity with the plot-twist that happens about 15-20 minutes in. I doubt anyone could have been prepared for it, and "Psycho" is still remarkable for flawless way it pulls it off... few films can take such a shocking left turn and not spill the audience on the curve. Instead, after the shock wears off--and it IS shocking if you aren't expecting it, even in this day and age when movies go back for reshoots to add violence and nudity--the audience is even more captivating. Where can the movie go from there, they're asking themselves.

"Psycho" is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. The cast is perfect; the script is perfect; the sets are amazing; the camerawork and creative use of lighting is astonishingly creative and effective; and the Bernard Hermann score is absolutely mindblowing (even if I'm not as fond of the "Murder Theme" as so many others are... there are far better bits of music in the film).

If you haven't see it, or if you've seen the pale imitation that was released in 1998 under the guise of a "remake" (and it was an imitation... to call that travesty a "remake" is an insult to genuine remakes, no matter how bad they might be), you need to see "Psycho". It's a film every movie lover should experience.

Scum and villainy flourish at the Jamaica Inn

Jamaica Inn (1939)
Starring: Maureen O'Hara, Charles Laughton, Leslie Banks, and Robert Newton
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When young Mary (O'Hara) comes to live with her relatives on the Cornwall coast, she soon discovers that not only is her uncle Joss (Banks) something of a dirty old man, but he's also the head of a gang of murderous cutthroats who are causing ships to run aground during storms, looting the wrecks, and murdering surviving crewmembers. After Mary saves one of the gang (Newton) from being hanged by the rest, the pair flee to the safety of the local Magistrate, Sir Humphrey Pengallan (Laughton). Unfortuantely, Pengallan is a madman who is secretly behind the cutthroats!


"Jamaica Inn" is an excellent thriller set during the late 1700s. It features a great cast, with Maureen O'Hara as the feisty Mary and Leslie Banks as the menacing Joss Merlyn deserving particularly high praise.

The film is tense and moody throughout, and there are some excellent plot and character twists as the film unfolds, but there are couple of elements that keep it from being a truly great movie.

First, there's the bland hero, Trehearn. He's a nice enough fellow, but between the characters of Mary, Joss, and Sir Humphrey, he pretty much fades into nothing.

Second, there's the fact that Sir Humphrey's involvement with the bandits is revealed entirely too early in the film. It may add a bit of tension when Mary convinces Trehearn that they need to go to Sir James for help, but I think revealing the involvement after the pair escape would have been better for the story. (Reportedly, Hitchcock felt this way too; the story only unfolds as it does because Charles Laughton, a big star at the time, wanted his character to be more centrally involved from the outset.) There are still some interesting twists that come out later in the film about Sir Humphrey, but I think they too would have been stronger if not for Laughton's reported ego-trip.

I still think this is an excellent adventure flick, with great camera work, lighting, and sets--the Jamaica Inn set both inside and out is spectacular--and I think it's well-worth seeing if you are a fan of Hitchcock's work.

'Sabotage' is a fine adaptation of Conrad novel

Sabotage (1936)
Starring: Oskar Homolka, Sylvia Sidney, John Loder, and Desmond Tester
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Verloc (Homolka) is a secret agent of a foriegn power who plans devestating acts of terrorism and sabotage In London from behind a facade as a harmless operator of a small movie theater. Verloc is devoted to his cause, but how firm will his wife (Sidney) stand?


"Sabotage" is one of Hitchcock's early films, and it is one of his best. The sequence where Verloc sends his wife's young brother, Stevie (Tester), to deliever a package that, unbeknownst to the brother, contains a time bomb, remains one of the tensest sequences ever put on film: Stevie, a mere child, takes every detour, is distracted by every interesting scene and event, and is slowed down in a hundred different ways during his trek across London... all while the bomb is ticking toward its detonation. Will the boy survive, or will Hitchcock violate what has been a standard from the earliest days of cinema... the cute young child is NEVER killed! (If you've read the Joseph Conrad novel "The Secret Agent", you know the fate of Stevie even before Verloc decides to use him as a courier, but the sequence is so fabulously put together that you will be on the edge of your seat.)

With great pacing, perfect casting (the actors seem as though they've lept from the pages of Conrad's book) and some playful crossovers between the events of the story and the movies showing at Verloc's theater, "Sabotatge" ranks among one of Hitchcock's most thrilling films.

First British talkie was Hitchcock movie ahead of its time

Blackmail (1929)
Starring: Anny Ondra, Sara Allgood, Charles Paton, and John Longden
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

In "Blackmail", Alice (Ondra) kills a man as he attempts to rape her. A unscrupulous witness (Paton) tries to blackmail her, as she wants to keep the incident secret for the obvious reasons. Matters are complicated even further by the fact that she is in a relationship with a police detective (Longden).

"Blackmail" is recognized as Britain's first "talkie." It started as a silent flick, but director Alfred Hitchcock reworked it in midshoot to take advantage of the new technological advancements. What's truly remarkable about "Blackmail" is that it seems more modern in nature that some films that started as talkies yet still seemed stuck in the silent movie era (such as the Lugosi-starring "Murders in the Rue Morgue" from Universal, which I review here).

The acting in the film is excellent, and actually rather unusual for the time. Further, the use of sound is fantastic. Hitchcock does far more than simply add voices to his actors... he uses sound to advance the story and the mood of the film. (There's a particularly impressive breakfast scene where the traumatized Anna hears only incoherent babble--except the words that remind her of the murder she committed standing out with crystal clarity).

Visually, the film is also worth seeing for its climax. There's a chase scene in a library that is so stylistically impressive that I'm surprised it hasn't been mimicked more. It's on par with the famous "steps scene" from "Battleship Potemkin".

"Blackmail" is a thrilling movie that was well ahead of its time. I think it's worth seeing for any movie buff.

'Young and Innocent' is classic, if overlooked, Hitchcock

Young and Innocent (aka "The Girl Was Young")
Starring: Nova Pilbeam and Derrick DeMarney
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

"Young and Innocent" is not one of Hitchcock's best-known films, and this is a shame. It is one of his most entertaining films from the 30s, featuring suspenseful situations, charming characters portrayed by excellent actors, snappy, witty dialogue, and fabulous camera work. This under-appreciated film deserves more viewers!

The story revolves around a destitute writer who is accused of murdering a truly bitchy movie star. Locating his missing raincoat seems to be the key to proving his innocence and finding the real killer, but between an incompetant attorney and policemen wanting a quick end to the case, he seems destined to hang. But that is until he slips from the courthouse during a moment of confusion. He is joined in his mad dash for evidence by the domestic, yet-tomboyish and strong-willed daughter of the local chief of police. Will the unlikely pair manage to clear our hero's name before he is recaptured by the police?


This film shares a number of similar elements with the better-known "The 39 Steps." However, unlike that film, in which the modern viewer is able to see the end coming about twenty minutes before it arrives, "Young and Innocent" keeps the viewer on the edge of his seat up to the very end. The climactic nightclub sequence is particularly well-done, thrilling, and one of the most Hitchcockian Hitchcock scenes of them all.

Additionally, Nova Pilbeam gives a stellar performance in this film. She was a successful child star whose career faded as she grew older, with work pretty much having dried up completely for her by the end of the 1940s.

Three Tales of 'The Lodger'

We film fans love to complain about about all the remakes plaguing us these days. I'm no different. The simple fact is that filmmakers covering the same ground more than once is nothing new--the film industry had barely been around for two decades before the first remakes started appearing.

One oft-retold tale is the Jack the Ripper-inspired thriller "The Lodger." Based on a popular British novel published at the beginning of the 20th century, the first film version was a silent movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1927, followed by a talkie remake in 1932, an American remake in 1944, another American remake in 1953... and so on, with another remake appearing as recently as 2009.

The most famous of these is the 1944 version from 20th Century-Fox. I'm not going to cover that here, but will instead focus on the three slightly lesser known version that fall within the parameters of this blog.


The Lodger (aka "The Case of Jonathan Drew") (1927)
Starring: Ivor Novello, June Tripp, Marie Ault, Arthur Chesney and Malcolm Keen
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

When fashion model Daisy (Tripp) strikes up a relationship with the quirky lodger on the top floor of her home (Novello), her jealous former suitor (Keen), a police detective becomes convinced that he is the killer who has been murdering blonde women in the area on consequetive Tuesdays. Is he accusing a strange but innocent man out of pure jealousy, or is Daisy putting herself in the arms of serial killer?


"The Lodger" was Alfred Hitchcock's first full-length film, and the great talent that he would evolve into is plainly evident here. However, despite some spectacular moments, this is not a great movie; it's better than other silent-era thrillers or dramas I've seen, but for truly great early Hitchcock, you want to check out "Blackmail".

The biggest problem with "The Lodger" is that Hitchcock either can't make up his mind what the main theme of his movie is, or he spends too much running time futzing around with irrelevant trivialities. The film starts with an extensive sequence showing how mass-media (radio and newspapers in those days) is stoking the flames of panic throughout London, but this angle is quickly dropped once the actual movie really gets going--which it does with a great introduction of Ivor Novello arriving to rent rooms at Daisy's place and matching the eyewitness descriptions of the serial killer.

While characters are shown reading newspapers throughout the movie, it's not until the film's final minutes that Hitchcock returns to the theme of media-stirred mass-hysteria when the jealous cop stalking the Lodger accidentially stirs an entire neighborhood into a lynch mob. In between these sequences, we have a story of an elderly couple that come to fear their lodger may be a serial killer because of his odd behavoir and their (implied) promiscuous daughter who sets up a rivalry between the lodger and her other suitor, a boorish, dimwitted cop with a tendency to abuse his authority. (Like other Hitchcock movies, circumstance is the main villain in the film, but the idiot cop comes in a close second.)

"The Lodger" is still worth seeing for those who are huge Hitchcock fans, those who are interested in film as an art form as opposed to mere entertainment, or those who love silent movies. Scenes bound to impress include the "glass celing" shot where Ault, Keen, and Chesney look up in response to the sound of the Lodger pacing in the sitting room overhead; the chessmatch between the Lodger and Daisy, where the audience first gets a full sense of how weird this man is (in addition to a litle bit of well-staged false suspense); the Lodger attending one of Daisy's fashion shows; the scene where the lazy cop searches the Lodger's room and finds damning evidence; and the mob scene by the iron-rod fence.

(By the way, there are several different versions of this film out there, but if watch the one distributed by St. Clair Vision, I recommend you mute the sound and put on Mike Oldfield's "Ommadawn." That music works far better than the jaunty orchestral soundtrack that runs under the film.)



The Phantom Fiend (aka "The Lodger") (1932)
Starring: Ivor Novello, Elizabeth Allan, Jack Hawkin, A.W. Baskcomb and Barbara Everest
Director: Maurice Elvey
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Young switchboard operator Daisy (Allan) strikes up a relationship with Michel (Novello), the retiring young foreigner who rents rooms on the upper floor of her parents' house. When evidence starts to mount that Michel is the murderer that's been stalking and killing young women, Daisy refuses to believe it. Will listening to her heart instead of reason lead to her heart being cut out?


"The Phantom Fiend" is the second film version of turn-of-the-century novel "The Lodger," and Ivor Novello returns to play the same role he had in the Hitchcock version. The name has changed, as have some of the details surrounding the character, but it's essentially the same part.

"The Phantom Fiend" is an excellent thriller with an attractive cast that all give performances that are better than was average for these early talkies where actors and directors were still getting use to the idea of sound in movies. Some of the performances--like that of the very attractive Elizabeth Allan--are far more naturalistic than was typical in films of this day, and there isn't a single actor who seems stiff, with the exception of high-ranking Scotland Yard officials who are supposed to come across that way.

The film runs barely over an hour, but during that brief running time, the viewer comes to like just about every character in the film, except possibly for Daisy's inattentive yet jealous reporter boyfriend (Hawkin) who fingers Michel as the possible killer as much out of jealousy than genuine suspicion that he's the murderer. Novello was so charming as Michel that I found myself hoping the film would offer up an unexpected twist to clear him as the killer.

"The Phantom Fiend" is one of those overlooked classics that has been saved from oblivion by the advent of the DVD. The only surviving copies available to be digitized were in a ragged, decayed state. It's clear from the way certain scenes jump about that there are seconds, if not entire minutes, missing from the version included in this set, and there are points where the sound is so muddled that even cranking up the volume makes it hard to hear what is being said. Still, it's good that at least some version of this nicely staged and surprisingly well-acted early talkie will survive into the future.

The 1932 version of "The Lodger" is one of several classic movies inclued in the "Dark Crimes" boxed set, and its presense lends heavily to making the set a fantastic buy.



Man in the Attic (1953)
Starring: Jack Palance, Frances Bavier, Constance Smith, Byron Palmer, and Rhys Williams
Director: Hugo Fregonese
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A soft-spoken, socially akward patheologist (Palance) rents some upper-floor rooms from the Harleys (Bavier and Williams). His comings and goings coincide with the murders committed by Jack the Ripper, and Mrs. Harley starts to suspect Slade might be the notorious killer.

"Man in the Attic" is a well-acted, well-filmed drama that suffers only from its story being a little too simplistic and straight-foward; it's basically a mystery with only one real suspect, as far as the viewer is concerned.)


Jack Palance in particular in excellent as the suspicious patheologist Mr. Slade, giving a performance wher he is both sympathetic and sinister at the same time. In fact, he is so good at presenting this character that although there really isn't any other option within the story for him to be Jack the Ripper, you'll find yourself hoping until the Big Revelation occurs that you're wrong.

(If you're like me, you'll find yourself wishing that he knocks off the Harleys before the movie's over, because they get really annoying.)

Early spy thriller from Alfred Hitchcock disappoints

Secret Agent (1936)
Starring: John Gielgud, Peter Lorre, Madeleine Carroll and Robert Young
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

British Intelligence fakes the death of author Edgar Brodie (Gielgud) so he can be sent to Switzerland on a mission to find and assassinate a German spy at the height of World War I. He is assisted by the coldhearted General (Lorre) and the gung-ho newbie spy Elsa (Carroll), and together they find the rewards of being spies are hardly ever worth the dangers and damage to conscience and morals the work demands.


"Secret Agent" is a mess of a movie. It's got some fine actors performing great characters; it's captures the moral ambiguity of patriotism and duty to country when it is performed in the shadowy world of secret intelligence work; and it has several thrilling and/or incredibly well-staged sequences--with the meeting at the church, the mountain hike, and the chocolate factory chase being foremost among these. What the film doesn't have is a coherent script. Its many great elements never quite come together, we never quite get a sense that anything in the film really matters, much of it doesn't make any sense--starting with Brodie's recruitment by British Intelligence, which means the entire movie is standing on a trembling foundation--and to say the ending feels rushed is a massive understatement.

This is the first Hitchcock film I've seen that actually disappointed me. I'm sure there will be others, but I was surprised at how weak this one is overall, given the relative high regard others seem to hold it in. Out of the Hitchcock films I've seen, this is the first one I feel I should recommend viewers to stay away from.