Skip to main content

The high voice that you heard that night might not have been a woman.

Murder!
(1930)

(SPOILERS) To say the motivation for the titular (and exclamatory!) act in Hitchcock’s third film comes out of nowhere is an understatement. Or rather, the stated motivation. The subtext makes sense, but you have to be sufficiently informed to be able to read it as subtext. Without that, the explanation, which is transposed from the crime fiction Enter Sir John by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson, is so distracting that my first response to Murder! was to wonder if I had missed something.

The amateur detective protagonist Sir John (played by Herbert Marshall, who became a successful movie actor despite losing a leg in WWI) is an impossibly upper-crust, ever-so-correct and erudite fellow. After serving on a jury and failing to convince them of his misgivings over convicting Diana Baring (Norah Baring), he begins his own investigation. Happily, owing to all this taking place in the theatrical community and his being a theatrical type, they’re only too happy to help him out. Chief among these is Sir John’s Watson, stage manager Ted Markham (Edward “Mr Grimsdale!” Chapman, his second of three films with the director).

In his essay Identity and Representation in Murder! Richard Allen discusses the identification of Esme Percy’s Handel Fane (a precursor to Arthur Frayn?) with the term “half-caste” (he has “black blood”). It represents the ugly secret that pushes Fane to kill, “to silence the mouth of the woman who knew his secret and was going to reveal it to the woman he dared to love”. As Allen puts it, however “the identity of Fane is transposed in the adaptation… from a racial half-caste to an identity that is primarily defined through an ambiguous sexuality”. Indeed, Hitchcock by Truffaut fails even to mention the expository racial element, terming it “a thinly disguised story about homosexuality” (Hitchcock, ever flattered by Truffaut’s “Wasn’t that rather risqué for the period?” replies with a modest “Yes, in that sense it was daring”).

This means, though – at least, it did me – that the left-field association of a campy actor given to exulting in crossdressing with secrets about his racial origins is likely to throw the audience for a loop and leave them rather scratching their heads. Neither does it help the picture’s sleuthing element that Herbert Marshall’s lauded thespian turned investigator is essentially thrown the key to the case by Diana.

Allen comments that “While he may be accused of avoiding the question of racial difference and identity that lies at the heart of the novel, he also achieves, as a result, one of his most complex and humane portrayals of non-normative sexual identity in his work and his most articulate exploration of the oppressive nature of the gender system that labels deviation from the heterosexual norm degenerate”. Which is… Well, scholars are nothing if not prone to professing the bottomless brilliance of Hitch profusely. Someone somewhere will vouch for even his most maligned film. Murder! really does have a lot going for it, but great character depth, certainly on its “villain’s” part – aside from a highly-engaging performance from Percy – is not one of them.

But Allen isn’t wrong when he suggests “Hitchcock and Alma at once distance themselves from the racial ideology of the novel (even as they do not wholly overcome it) and display its concealed subtext… For Hitchcock, though not for Sir John and Baring, this “queerness” is what Handal Fane’s half-casteness seems to refer to”.

Certainly, it’s notable that the picture is “daringly” presenting several upfront clues to Fane besides his crossdressing and feminine voice (both of which derive from the Psycho school of sensitive movie sexual psychology). Besides being introduced as “one hundred percent he-woman”, there’s an early scene where Fane tells what he did after the performance, which was essentially inviting a young male actor up to his dressing room. But while it may be a blow to those intent on preserving a keen thematic range across the director’s entire career – particularly since this is an early genre effort and therefore formative – the most interesting part of the picture is neither his staunch protagonist nor the sexual peccadilloes of his antagonist. The director commented that this was one of his rare whodunits (“I generally avoid this genre because as a rule all of the interest is concentrated in the ending”), and I think that shows.

Everything about the investigation is rather weak, and Hitch, Alma and Walter Mycroft don’t seem to care much about bolstering it. There’s no great deductive skill on Sir John’s part, and his proof of mistaken assumptions in respect of a woman’s voice isn’t exactly a Holmesian level of inspiration. Added to which, his Hamlet-inspired plan to catch out Fane by rehearsing the script of the night of the murder is desperately weak. So not such a surprise that it fails; the best part of this sequence by far is Percy’s “dandyish” – to use Allen’s word– response “What a pity, Sir John, that the scene isn’t finished. I was getting quite worked up to it”.

The grand climax even takes victory out of Sir John’s hands as Percy turns his acrobat ropes into a noose and efficiently hangs himself, having obligingly provided Sir John with a confessional letter. And then, Hitch cuts to Diana starring in a new play with Sir John, which feels entirely facile and suggests the actor-sleuth’s obsession with the case isn’t so far from that of the derided juror Mr Daniels after all; Daniels initially considered her innocent on the grounds that she was “perfectly ripping” and the sort of girl one would “like for a daughter” (there’s also a more extended alternative ending that doesn’t add terribly much, except as a reminder Hitchcock wasn’t keen on wasting time with long goodbyes).

Everything about the first half hour of Murder! is fascinating, though. To such an extent, it’s something of a disappointment when the proceedings devolve into a standard whodunit. Indeed, at first glance the picture looks like it might be nursing aspirations to deliver a sort of procedural on the legal process, impersonally passing from the act to a trial to incarceration.

The drawback to this being that Diana is at her most interesting in her tableau first shot, immobile and stunned at the scene (close by are a bloody poker and the body of a fellow actress). Otherwise, she is largely without agency, dependent on a white knight (and reluctant to dob third party Fane in it; as a whodunit largely lacking multiple suspects, Murder! is entirely without red herrings). I suppose Diana does later ostensibly reveal herself to be entirely racist when she disdains the notion that she’s in love with Fane because he is “half-caste”, but if one reads that as meaning he’s gay, it isn’t quite such a horrendous position.

In terms of the initial setup, then, Hitch moves from the rumpus of neighbourhood reactions to the Old Bill arriving and establishing the crime scene. The director is in his element with every little vignette or diversion here. The opening with Diana is presented in the manner of the just-departed silent era, but it’s followed by an extended, almost giddy scene of teamaking gossip and exposition with Hitch indulging false-wall sleights, only to end on the punch line of Norah being carted off to the station (so no tea for her). The subsequent police inquiries at the theatre are also a delight, with every interview interrupted by the evening performance; the play itself looks like a knockabout riot, full of drunks, crossdressing and policemen popping in and out (so to speak). We move on from here to the trial, and from there to the deliberations of the jury, which offer some gems before Sir John’s concerns are voiced.

Juror Mr Shackleton has the best of the material, keen neither on a guilty nor an innocent verdict and diving into a rant about “Have you ever been inside a prison? It takes a civilised community to think out a punishment like that!” Then, when he is told “You can’t run the world on sentiment” he responds “The whole world’s a reeking pit of sentiment!” Hilariously, at the point he is pressed for a verdict, he indifferently adds “Guilty, I s’pose”.

Returning Hitchcock player Violet Farebrother, convinced the defendant isn’t guilty by virtue of diminished capacity, is persuaded from her stance with the warning “If we set this bad personality free, we must be prepared to shoulder the responsibility”. When Sir John chips in with his own disquiet, Hitch has the rest of the jurors reciting in choral unison “Any answer to that, Sir John?” to their every objection to her innocence, successfully wearing him down.

Murder! begins with Beethoven’s Fifth, and following the verdict, it’s the turn of Wagner’s Triston und Isolde to form the backdrop to Sir John’s striking internal monologue while shaving. It’s during this that his mind is made up to begin his own investigation (“Who drank that brandy?”) There are further notable bits and pieces of humour throughout: a piano lesson accompanying Ted and wife Doucie (Hitch veteran Phyllis Konstam) discussing Sir John summoning them; Ted offering his services, during which he recounts some performance trouble Doucie had during a quick change between a barmaid and a Sally Army (“After about a week, I said to her, ‘My dear, look here, this can’t go on. If you can’t pull yourself together, we shall have to go onto Shakespeare’”); and Doucie attempting Del Boy Trotter level heirs and graces. Then there’s Sir John having to sleep “rough” overnight, awakened by a throng of infants and kittens and cups of tea, which he takes all in his stride.

Pauline Kael commented “It’s a very class-conscious film, but in a somewhat snobbish way; we seem to be expected to identify with Marshall’s stylish courtliness and to see ‘lower orders’ through his eyes”. There’s something to that; Marshall’s performance is enjoyable, but there’s little to engage with in respect of Sir John himself, beyond his hallowed status. Hitchcock seemed to be acknowledging Murder!’s slight aloofness when he observed “it was an interesting film and was quite successful in London. But it was too sophisticated for the provinces”.



Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un