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”.



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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.

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.