Skip to main content

Every other night it’s steak and kidney pudding.

Rich and Strange 
aka East of Shanghai
(1931)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock experimented with a number of ill-fitting genres during his early sound period. As with the melodrama of The Skin Game, one senses that broad, or even “straight”, comedy was never quite his wheelhouse (The Trouble with Harry is a later example, and remains a very minor work, even as it has more traditional “thriller” elements around the fringes). Alma adapted Rich and Strange, based on Dale Collins’ novel, in which a married couple, stuck in a middle-class routine, seize the opportunity to cut loose on an expenses-paid cruise. These freedoms don’t turn out to be necessarily for the best.

So yes, there’s more of The Skin Game’s morality play aspect here (“I suppose we were happy enough in our own quiet little way until we came on this trip”). The picture, rather than focussing on the hijinks such adventuring might bring, concentrates on the romantic diversions encountered by Fred (Henry Kendall) and Emily (Joan Barry) as each is distracted by a much more exotic partner and each eventually has their illusions shattered.

Fred, holed up with seasickness, is out of the picture, leaving the dashing and charming Commander Gordon (Percy Marmont, later to appear in Secret Agent and Young and Innocent) to impress himself upon Emily. When Fred is back on his feet, he in turn falls for an alluring (fake) princess (Betty Amann). There is much canoodling and temptation before the benefits of each other’s comforting arms win out. Still, this feels like a quite daringly “explicit” experiment on their part and for the film, since both couples are evidently embarking upon much more than innocent flirtation.

Kendall and Barry are likeable leads, one unabashedly playing up “a great big coward” and the other flourishing a sweetly pretty act (Barry can be counted as an early Hitchcock blonde, but without any accompanying guile). They’re not really much more than that, though, contributing to the feeling that the picture itself is very slight, despite the rather self-important The Tempest quote that furnishes its title.

Hitchcock vouched for Rich and Strange in his discussions with Truffaut, perhaps surprisingly so, given how dismissive he could be of his work during this period. He said “I liked the picture; it should have been more successful” and felt “it had lots of ideas”. He’s sporadically quite sharp in his approach and has some interesting ideas, treating much of the proceedings as if this is a relic of the silent era. There’s much use of title cards, usually to ironic rather than explanatory effect (“Fred had met his princess”). Montage is also abundant, as one might expect of a travelogue.

And he clearly relishes the mordant, monotonous routine that opens the picture: Fred amid a sea of umbrellas, unable to open his; stifled on the Tube, which is stuffed full of people eating disgusting sandwiches in a disgusting fashion and offers no room to read a newspaper without lamping someone; coming home to yet another serving of steak and kidney pudding. “I want some life! Life, I tell you!” he tells Emily, before opining “The best place for us is the gas oven”.

The subsequent flirtations really aren’t very engaging, however. Although I suggested it wasn’t his forte, Hitch probably does better with the broad comedy, whether it’s Fred drunkenly attempting to adjust the time on his watch to the elevator dial, or the eleventh hour sinking of the ship that turns out to be a derelict rather than doomed. His cruel streak is also abundantly clear, with a running gag of animal-based humour that won’t sit well with any cat lovers (myself included). Early on, Fred is mean to the family feline; come the climax, the couple discover that the crew of the Chinese junk who saved them also fed them the ship’s cat (again, he waxed warmly over the scene when talking to Truffaut).

Notably, the couple must have burnt through quite a lot of money (a benign uncle advances Fred the cash against his future inheritance). The princess is said to have made off with a thousand pounds (equivalent of about £68,000), which Fred says he can claim went down with the ship. Thus, having boasted “And having developed the taste for champagne, what’s the use of trying to stick to water?” it seems likely that they will have to stick to just that. And steak and kidney pudding.

While earned, the restoration of tepid-but-happy domesticity at Rich and Strange's conclusion would likely have been more effective if the prior proceedings had a pacier, more screwball approach. Also notable for thirty-year-old Elsie Randolph as “the Old Maid”; forty years later she’d reunite with Hitch for Frenzy.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .