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 Young and Innocent 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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?