Skip to main content

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock
(1930)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Well, aside from a scene at the pub, in order to get out of the Boyle household. Hitch professed to being “ashamed” of the picture, even though it “got very good notices”. His distaste was on the basis that “it had nothing to do with cinema… I had the feeling I was dishonest, that I had stolen something”. The director was of the view that, while an excellent play, “I could see no way of narrating it in cinematic form”. His conversation with Truffaut extended to a discussion of the folly of adapting Crime and Punishment and a view more movie makers should probably be given pause by (“There has been a lot of talk about the way in which Hollywood directors distort literary masterpieces. I’ll have no part of that!”). Although, by implication, he’s suggesting Du Maurier wasn’t in a class where he had to pay due diligence to the text.

More than Hitch’s involvement in a production that has little of his stamp on it, the aspect of Juno and the Paycock that struck me most was the presence of Edward “Mr Grimsdsale!” Chapman in the lead role of Captain Boyle, also his feature debut. More especially, that I completely failed to recognise him; he’s playing much older, and gruffer here (he’s five years younger than John “Frazer” Laurie, playing his son!), and it’s quite the impressive transformation. Either that, or Mr Grimsdale is (Chapman would appear in two subsequent Hitchcock pictures). Boyle’s indolent waster is the “Paycock” of the title (a play on peacock bestowed upon him by wife Juno, played by Sarah Allgood, of Blackmail and later Oscar nominated for How Green Was My Valley).

Boyle’s partial to the pub, with pal Joxer Daly (Sidney Morgan), and even keener on getting free drinks from Maisie (Maire O’Neill). He’s fond of bemoaning “Better for me to be dead” while Juno observes “It’s a miracle. Whenever he senses a job in front of him, his legs begin to fail”. There’s much comedy of this type during the first half, with only the unease of Laurie’s Johnny to temper the mood; indeed, the announcement that the Captain is set for an inheritance goes to further underline the peacock element, as he (and Juno) begins putting on airs and graces, along with down payments on various items (a suit, a gramophone).

The seeds for ruin are all there at the outset, though. Johnny has informed on a fellow IRA member to the Irish Free State police, who then killed him, and the IRA want Johnny for questioning. Meanwhile, Daughter Mary (Kathleen O’Regan) is being courted by Charles Bentham (John Longden, who would continue to work with Hitchcock for the rest of the decade as well as for the Archers). Bentham made up the will, but his error means the Captain’s inheritance is lost. He also made Mary pregnant and subsequently absconds; the picture finishes with Johnny machine gunned by the IRA, Mary faced with the prospect of going away to have the child, and Juno grieving aloud to the Virgin Mary and God at her lot. The Captain, of course, is down the pub.

There’s some wry, very Oirish humour at play in Juno and the Paycock, such as the Captain’s joyous mourning for his deceased relative (“I’ll never doubt the goodness of God again”). Chapman is very amusing at playing his ignorance and self-righteousness (pretending to know what a theosophist is when Bentham pronounces himself one), but also the occasional insight (how Chaplin has taken on the status of one of the saints). The surrounding performances are all notable (Allgood reprises her stage role). I can’t say I picked up on the Jewish stereotyping of Fred Schwartz’s tailor, possibly because there were so many big performances in there.

Juno and the Paycock is engaging, but it isn’t hugely satisfying overall. Perhaps its tonal segues work better on the stage, but also, I don’t think the overt politics here were ever its director’s thing; he’s much more at home with the marital strife.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.