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

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.