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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

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.