Skip to main content

You know, detectives in glass houses shouldn’t wave clues.

Blackmail
(1929)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first sound film (also shot as a silent), Blackmail finds him hitting his groove, a step on from The Lodger, where he first landed in his natural crime genre habitat. This is where his suspense muscle really begins firing on all cylinders, though – if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor – adapting Charles Bennett’s play (Bennett would go on to further cement the director’s milieu with The 39 Steps, Secret Agent and Sabotage) and using every opportunity to milk the tension from every situation for all its worth.

The plot finds Alice (Anny Ondra, working with the director again following The Manxman) fobbing off her Scotland Yard detective boyfriend Frank (John Longden, his first of three with the Hitch). The reason? To meet with artist Mr Crewe (Cyril Ritchard), who promptly attempts to rape her. Alice stabs him in self-defence and flees the scene, only for Frank to be assigned the case and find her glove. Before he can figure on a plan, they are approached by Tracy (Donald Calthrop, who’d appear in another three Hitchcocks), who has Alice’s other glove and is intent on a spot of the titular business.

Hitch gives us silence for the first seven minutes, before unveiling dialogue when Frank and Harvey Braban’s Chief Inspector have finished booking a subject. But he really comes into his own when Alice has been lured to Crewe’s flat, teasing out the predator’s sinister mind games as he first flirtatiously teaches her to paint before persuading her into a dress with the promise that he will sketch her (Ritchard could certainly draw on the basis of the scene). When he forces a kiss and she decides to leave, he takes her own dress; the whole scene plays out with a queasy rising tension, particularly due to Crewe’s casual confidence in what he’s doing. When it comes to the assault itself, Hitch plays it from behind a curtain, Alice’s hand fumbling into shot and seizing a bread knife.

It's an early classic sequence from the director, complete with punctuating cuts to an unnerving laughing jester portrait that initially elicits mirth from Alice; after the deed, she tears a hole in it. Ondra’s dialogue was performed off camera by Joan Barry due to the former’s Czech accent; I didn’t find this a distraction, though, and Ondra’s playing of Alice’s post-deed shock is particularly impressive. Hitch goes to town with the repercussions on her mental state, as a lit-up cocktail sign becomes a stabbing dagger, and the following morning’s breakfast table finds her quietly freaking out as a neighbourhood gossip (Phyllis Monkman) goes on and on about the murder; the word “knife” echoes around her head until dad (Charles Patton) asks her to cut him a slice of bread and she sends the bread knife flying across the room.

Calthrop is also highly effective as the weasely blackmailer, the sort of role you could see Fulton Mackay playing, as he cockily makes Frank pay for a cigar and then demands breakfast, even sitting in dad’s chair. It makes his comeuppance all the more satisfying when the tables are turned, with Tracy himself becoming a suspect. The subsequent chase through The British Museum (apparently suggested by Michael Powell) is also first rate, even more so considering it was mostly a cheat (Hitch used the Shufftan process in order to lend the scene appropriate lighting).

Like many a later Hitchcock, the picture revolves around the repercussions from unwise choices. We never learn why Alice wants to meet the artist (perhaps because, as an artist rather than a policeman, he is exotic and exciting), but Frank doesn’t think twice about covering up for her, so instantly digging a hole for himself.

Notably, the “happy ending” was at the behest of the producers; Hitch wanted Ondra arrested and Longden “would have to do the same things to her that we saw at the beginning: handcuffs, booking at the police station, and so on” before his partner (also per the opening) would ask “'Are you going out with you girl tonight?' and he would reply 'No, I’m going straight home'”. That’s very neat and symmetrical, but the moral chasm of the actual ending makes the picture more consistent with what has gone before and the quandaries in which the leads have found themselves.

One of the best Hitch cameos appears here too, with the director pestered by a small boy on a train; he shoos away the child, who then returns to pester him some more. For the most part, the director’s pictures up to this point are inessential (only the aforementioned The Lodger is really a must-see), and one gets the impression favourable verdicts tend to be from critics attempting to weave a coherent oeuvre for the auteur from the first. Something that doesn’t really reflect the haphazard and often ill-fitting material of his silent days. Blackmail changes all that with a considerable flourish.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

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.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism