Skip to main content

There’s a female or two be floating around my mind like the smell of a Sunday dinner.

The Farmer’s Wife
(1928)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock adapts a romantic comedy from Eden Philpotts’ stage play, which starred Laurence Olivier in the lead at one point. The Farmer’s Wife would later be remade in 1941, and while I haven’t seen that version, I suspect it lands better; it would, after all, be able to rely on the verbiage that comes with a courtship farce. Hitch’s version quickly becomes laborious, despite the best efforts of a bald-capped Gordon Harker in a supporting role.

Harker’s the amusingly named Churdles Ash, handyman and idler to Jameson Thomas’ farmer Samuel Sweetland. Both actors are playing older, but Thomas rather manages to overdo his randy widower. Sweetland attempts to get back in the saddle after his daughter marries but finds himself serially turned down by the various less-than-prized types he blindly proposes to. There needs to be some degree of sympathy for Sweetland in order for us to invest in his eventual realisation of the fool he’s been, and that his most suitable mate has been under his nose all along in the form of doting housekeeper Minta (Lillian Hall-Davis, who previously appeared in Hitch’s The Ring). Instead, we rather wonder at her willingness to accept his “couldn’t find anyone else” proposal (as she says, “Tis fearful sudden”).

I’m not quite sure what age Sweetland is supposed to be – “To see an old man in love be worse than seeing him with the whooping cough” comments Churdles at one point – but given Thomas’ makeup, I’d guess anything from twenty years older to twice Minta’s age. When he proposes to silly postmistress Mary Hearn (Olga Slade), she spurns him with “You… at your age!

He’s not helping his cause any by his vocally Neanderthal attitude to relationships between the sexes, although the adaptation (By Eliot Stannard and an uncredited Leslie Arliss) generally makes a thing of unembroidered remarks. Of a prospective partner, Sweetland comments that her back view’s “Not a day over thirty” to which Minta replies “But you’ll have to live with her front view” (later another character observes of the turnip crop that they’re “proper masterpieces, round and ripe as a woman’s bosom”; these rural types, eh?) His idea of wooing hunt enthusiast Louisa Windeatt (Louie Pounds) is to call round with “I came over like the foxes you find so fond of… to pick up a fat hen”. When says that she’s too independent minded for him, he replies “You’ll only feel the velvet glove and never know I was breaking you in”. To skinny spinster Thirza Tapper (Maud Gill) he observes, “Now, some men look for a bit of fat on a female…” He’s a real charmer, basically.

Consequently, one rather sympathises with Churdles’ verdict that “I’m ashamed at Sam Sweetland offering himself at sale prices all around”. Churdles has all the best lines, including “Holy Matrimony be a proper steam roller for flattening the hope out of a man and the joy out of a woman” and when Minta announces her engagement, “They do say the next best thing to no wife be a good one”. Harker’s a natural with the comedy, of course, so even when Hitch lets his routines go on too long – which is most of the time here – he’s very easy to watch.

Hitch had little to say to Truffaut about the picture, apart from noting “There was too much dialogue”. The problem is, in contrast to the latter Juno and the Paycock, where it can be recognised as a serviceable adaptation of the play, turning The Farmer’s Wife into a silent film leaves it struggling and mugging frantically. Truffaut’s right though; the rural photography is very nice.

On the DVD introduction, Noel Simsolo puts the choice of material down to Alma’s then pregnancy and Hitch’s fascination with and reticence towards her state. Whatever his reasoning, this kind of fare isn’t his best foot forward. It needed to be lighter, swifter and more frivolous. The execution of The Farmer's Wife is closer to a grinding of gears. Notable that both leads met with early deaths (Hall-Davis in 1933, Thomas in 1939), while Philpotts’ daughter later alleged he conducted an incestuous relationship with her from her childhood until her thirties.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).