Skip to main content

He's got too many teeth – and too much Brilliantine.

The Man Who Knew Too Much 
(1934)

(SPOILERS) The 39 Steps gets all the credit, but this year-prior Hitchcock is probably the true forbear of the action movie, delivering set piece after set piece while barely pausing for breath. If it isn’t quite as assured or satisfying in construction as the film that followed, it’s nevertheless the first of the director’s pictures that feels like a Hitchcock “production”, hatched with the assuredness of a master talent delivering precision-timed thrills and mischief to an expectant audience.

The story was based on a Bulldog Drummond (Sapper) by Charles Bennett, who previously provided the source material for Blackmail and would be involved in five further Hitch pictures over the next few years. Following the slump of Waltzes from Vienna, it was “the picture that re-established my creative prestige” and it feels from the off as if the director is emboldened, energised and inspired by the material. Pauline Kael rated the “ingenuity and flair and sneaky wit” on display but suggested “Hitchcock seems sloppily unconcerned about the unconvincing material in between the tricks and jokes”. I’d disagree with the assessment. There’s very little here that doesn’t count, and Hitch wastes no time between the tricks and jokes.

The introductory scenes are perfectly pitched, notably in a manner that is both playful and laying the groundwork for the climax. Ironically, given the way modern remakes tend to swap out genders, here we have proactive, can-do wife Jill (Edna Best) – she’s competing in a clay pigeon shooting contest – and a bit of dilettante of a husband Bob (Leslie Banks). Oh, and daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam, who’d graduate to lead duties in Young and Innocent a few years later).

The couple’s relationship has a playful, Thin Man vibe, as bob expresses mock jealousy at Jill’s “I’m just going off with another man” flirtation with dashing Frenchman Louis (Pierre Fresnay), pointedly so when conversing with eventually-revealed villain Ramon (Frank Vospeer): “Sir, you have beaten my wife and she has gone off with another man. You are a dirty dog”. When Louis is shot while dancing with Jill – a fine sequence in which he doesn’t immediately realise his fate – he tells her of the location of a vital note before dying. A superbly-but-casually tense scene follows, in which Bob retrieves the note from a hairbrush as villains and authorities descend on Louis’ hotel room.

Banks displays a marvellously stiff-upper off-handedness, even as his daughter is kidnapped and we never really buy him as a thoroughbred hero. As such, while he has a quip for any occasion, it’s entirely in keeping that the not-quite hero should be held captive during the climax. This was “corrected” for the remake, but leads to the sequence in which Betty has escaped onto the roof of a besieged house while pursued by Ramon; Jill takes a rifle from the reluctant police marksman, promptly dispatching the villain herself. It lends the picture a neat symmetry, since earlier Ramon had bested her at shooting – only thanks to her daughter causing a distraction – and now she bests him at shooting.

This comes after Bob assumes the traditional proactive male role at the outset and Jill faints on hearing of her daughter’s abduction; it’s to the picture’s credit that there’s never a sense of succumbing to expectations of who should being do what. Bob is equal parts capable and inept, particularly when accompanied by Hugh Wakefield’s “Uncle” Clive as he follows the trail of clues back in London. Clive his Watson to Bob’s Holmes. A trip to Henry Oscar’s dentist – a precursor to both Marathon Man and 12 Monkeys – results in Clive coming out wailing, clutching his cheek. Mission incomplete, Bob then suggests “Better look at mine while you’re about it. I’ve had terrible toothache today”. The examination that follows leads to a battle with a nitrous oxide mask.

Later, there’s a trip to a bizarre cover-coven of sun-worshippers (The Tabernacle of the One Sun, who stage their activities per a traditional church service) in which Clive once again draws the short straw and is hypnotised by formidable head frau Nurse Agnes (Cicely Oates). Initiation into the circle of the mysteries of the first circle of the seventh old ray – making the group sound like some sort of sub-theosophical set up – is required, which involves Clive being instructed “Your mind is becoming quite blank. You feel that, don’t you? Quite, quite blank”. In the original script, the plan was to hypnotise the marksman mother in order to make her shoot the ambassador – very Manchurian Candidate – but Hitch ditched it because “I felt that even a crack shot might not aim accurately while in a hypnotic trance” (instead, Jill saves the ambassador with a scream and saves her daughter with a sharp shot).

I also liked the gun-wielding old gal who stops Bob making a run for it (“You’re not going to leave your friend sir, are you?” rather recalling the machine gun wielding biddy in From Russia with Love). Indeed, the whole church sequence is a delight, with Bob throwing chairs at his would-be captors (reluctant to shoot him and so bring the authorities), Clive’s attempts to alert the authorities falling foul of accusations of drunkenness (“disorderly behaviour in a sacred edifice”), and the subsequent exchanges between Bob (“Hello!”) and an all-smiles – except when irked – Peter Lorre as chief plotter Abbott.

Ah yes, baby-faced Lorre. Hitched insisted on having him, impressed by M (“He had a very sharp sense of humour”). With his facial scar and blonde stripe, he brings an arresting air of sweaty queasiness along with meticulous politeness and a distinctive laugh. “Sorry, please forgive me” he apologises after hitting Bob. Villains are always more fun when they have time for the hero (see also James Mason in North by Northwest), and Abbott’s affability is a key part of the picture’s appeal.

While it’s easy to rag on a plot that is nothing if not expedient, the way elements that might bog The Man Who Knew Too Much down are turned to its advantage is also in its favour; while Betty’s kidnapping means her parents are forced to turn amateur sleuths, the extent to which she is used as a handicap to their prevailing is strictly limited. Indeed, the gambit of a call to prevent Jill going to the Albert Hall falls through thanks to a tensely-constructed sequence in which Clive phones her first and she has already left by the time Nurse Agnes gets through.

Truffaut, being a terrible old buffo, was either fawning or had smoked a few too many Galouises when he professed to prefer the remake: “In the construction as well as in the rigorous attention to detail, the remake is by far superior to the original”. He said of the ending “the second version was better because the husband’s arrival on the scene during the playing of the cantata made it possible to extend the suspense”. I suspect few would agree with that statement today, and even Hitch gave a very coded response (“Let’s say that the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional”). As Tom Milne said in Time Out, “At two-thirds the length of the remake, it’s twice the fun”.



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.

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.

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 .

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 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 ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.