And so we bring to a close our file of cards on Hitchcock films seen by me between the years 1952 through 1970, with my comments of the time. A great many of these were initially seen in 1963 when I was preparing the first Hitchcock retrospective in the U.S. at New York’s Museum of Modern Art. For the record, my favorite pictures of his today are Notorious, Rear Window, and North by Northwest
, though I also have a soft spot for Shadow of A Doubt
(the Master’s own personal favorite), I Confess, Strangers on A Train,
. But so many of his movies are worth revisiting quite often, because there are usually new aspects that reveal themselves, like boxes within boxes. And recently I saw The Lady Vanishes
again, for the first time in years, and found it delightfully riveting, though I’m generally not as intrigued by his British period as by his American run. He was also a charming person to know, and was extremely kind to me over the nearly twenty years I was fortunate enough to be friendly with him. My extensive interviews with Sir Alfred (1961-1975) can be found in my book, Who the Devil Made It
(1997), now available
also as an e-book.
Long live Hitch!
(1929; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Good* (Very well done domestic melodrama --- a triangle about two close friends --- a lawyer and a fisherman --- both in love with the same girl. Effectively photographed and edited, very well acted, and generally evocative; not really Hitchcock’s meat, but interesting and completely compelling nonetheless.)
THE PLEASURE GARDEN
(1925; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Good* (Hitchcock’s first film as a director --- a slick, rather melodramatic story of love and retribution --- effectively photographed and directed; Hitchcock’s feeling for mood and atmosphere, character-development and pace was quite evident from the beginning, and although this is a minor effort on the whole, it clearly points the way to The Lodger
, made the following year, and to the greatness that was to follow.)
(1927; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Very good- (After The Lodger
, this is Hitchcock’s best silent film --- an excitingly visual and excellently directed boxing drama with a triangle love-story. It is interesting to note how much Hitchcock was anticipating sound and its strengthening of reality --- as much as he could in both this picture and The Lodger
, he was trying to give the feel and quality of sound; it’s an opposite intent from those silent directors who failed with sound --- like Griffith or Keaton --- who were trying to make the silence a virtue and an art in itself; but theirs was not a realistic-based cinema and Hitchcock’s is --- he was to flower with sound into one of the four greatest directors in cinema history.)
(1948; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Excellent- (A strikingly effective Hitchcock exercise: with a tracking camera, the director remains in one room, there are no time-lapses, all the action being continuous, and therefore a 10-minute take is employed eight times so that in a sense there is no break in the flow of the events. The story itself is a fascinatingly ambiguous one about two young men who murder a third simply to prove that they are superior beings; their teacher (expertly acted by Jimmy Stewart), who is really at fault for putting the philosophy of the superman in their minds, is shocked and repelled by what they have done when actually he is the guiltiest of them all. A puzzling and macabre morality tale that is brilliantly handled by a master of the screen.)
(1930; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Good* (Often rather crude technically, but nonetheless effective and sometimes strikingly directed early who-done-it talkie about the murder of an actress; amusing backstage sequences, typically Hitchcockian action work. On the whole, only intermittently excellent, but nonetheless personal and talented.)
(1936; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Very good* (An exciting and typically inventive, smoothly grim Hitchcock spy-melodrama --- personal and completely successful in its form and outline; excellently acted by John Gielgud, Madeleine Carroll, Peter Lorre, Robert Young. Brilliantly edited, photographed, with several striking sequences --- on the whole, a minor but always rewarding Hitchcock tour-de-force.)
THE SKIN GAME
(1931; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Good* (Occasionally stilted in its dialogue, but otherwise this is an excellent adaptation of [John] Galsworthy’s play, fascinatingly handled by Hitchcock, and generally well acted. A morality tale that refuses to judge, it is ideally suited to the director’s temperament as well as his credos on evil, developed to such a considerable degree in his American movies.)
RICH AND STRANGE (EAST OF SHANGHAI)
(1932; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Very good- (A particularly delightful Hitchcockian surprise: a wildly improbable comedy-adventure about a giddy British couple, their dreary life, their sudden trip around the world, their infidelities, their final reconciliation; erratic, raucous, brilliantly directed, experimental in technique, exciting, personal, and especially fascinating in its continuing theme of average people who yearn for excitement thrown into horrible circumstances and insane situations.)
YOUNG AND INNOCENT (THE GIRL WAS YOUNG)
(1937; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1963: Very good- (Fast, often very funny, exciting Hitchcock thriller of the English period, about a young man falsely accused of murder and the young daughter of a police commissioner who helps him; some brilliantly inventive sequences, cinematic effects. But Hitch was to develop a great deal further after reaching America and having access to all of Hollywood’s marvelous facilities for fantasy and mayhem.)
(1964; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1964: Exceptional (Another extraordinary Hitchcockian achievement, a striking, deeply penetrating psychological study of a woman who is a compulsive thief, a pathological liar and frigid, but knows not why; and the man who helps her to understand. In the title role, ‘Tippi’ Hedren gives a memorable performance, and Sean Connery is fine as the man. Hitchcock handles the story with consummate skill, giving it a beauty no one else could create. Moving and thoroughly fascinating, among the director’s most intriguing.)
Added 1966: (As good, if not better, this time; the adverse criticism it has received is more and more incomprehensible.)
Added 1967: (Several sequences continue to have the same impact time after time --- the killing of the horse, the honeymoon, and many others --- if the dialog is not always brilliant, it still does not ruin the picture; one Hitchcock scene is so immeasurably better than most other’s entire films, that it is a pleasure just to watch him work.)
(1949; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1964: Excellent (One of Hitchcock’s most fascinating films, an unusual period piece set in Australia in the early 1800’s about a romance between a stable-hand and an aristocrat’s daughter that transcends all boundaries. Highly romantic, strikingly photographed with an ever-tracking camera, excellently acted by Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, Micheal Wilding, the picture is one of the director’s few financial flops, but it is a truly intriguing work, deeply personal, and artistically most successful.)
(1966; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1966: Excellent* (As usual, brilliantly directed and conceived Hitchcock thriller about an American scientist who defects to East Berlin in order to uncover the solution to a top secret project: grim in its overtones, with a hero of almost anti-hero proportions --- only hinted at really --- and acted in a lackluster way by Paul Newman; Julie Andrews is fine as his assistant-mistress. There are countless memorable scenes and sequences and what it lacks, if anything, is the depth and the ambiguity of other Hitchcocks, the double-leveled action --- though it lurks there all the time. Nevertheless, a superb tour-de-force.)
Added 1966: (Unrealized intentions, but still expert, fascinating.)
MR. BLANCHARD’S SECRET
(1956; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1967: Fair- (Minor little 25-minute film made for the Hitchcock television series, about a lady crime novelist and the mystery she imagines about her new neighbors; workmanlike direction and playing, and mainly of historical interest.)
(1932; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1968: Good (Unfollowable plot --- everybody is after a necklace --- done with great good humor and marvelous direction: shadowy hands, sinister figures, expressive dolly shots and a slam-bang, brilliantly executed chase sequence between a bus and a train. Very brief, the first part sets everything up in a deserted house for let, and the second is given over almost entirely to the chase. Clearly, a not very serious project, directed with wit and imagination, therefore still fresh and quite entertaining.)
(1969; d: Alfred Hitchcock).
1969: Very good- (Disappointing, large-scale Hitchcock spy story centering around various machinations during the Cuban missile crisis. Impeccably directed and photographed, with several fine performances, the main problem of the picture is that the protagonist assigns all of his risks to other people and is therefore not in jeopardy until the closing moments, and by then it is too late to generate the kind of suspense one is used to. It is a bleak picture of spy tactics but certainly that comment has been made --- in an aborted but strangely more effective way even in Torn Curtain