Skip to main content

We aren’t hunting a fox. We’re hunting a man. He’s an oldish man with a wife. Oh, I know it’s war. It’s our job to do it. But that doesn’t prevent it being murder, does it? It’s simple murder.

Secret Agent
(1936)

(SPOILERS) John Gielgud, dashing (romantic) leading man? I’m unclear how many times Gielgud took the main protagonist role in earlier pictures – four, maybe – but from the 1950s onwards, he’s chiefly known for his supporting turns. Which makes Secret Agent represents something of a rarity. As for Hitchcock, this finds him settling into the standard thriller format and is, relatively speaking, a lesser picture.

Hitchcock pointed to a series of what he saw as failings in Secret Agent, although at least some of those make it a more interesting picture than it otherwise would have been: “in an adventure drama your central figure must have a purpose. That’s vital for the progression of the film. It’s also a key factor in audience participation… the hero of The Secret Agent, has an assignment, but the job is distasteful and he is reluctant to do it”. Hitch considered that because of this “negative purpose, the film is static – it doesn’t move forward”. He also regarded the botched killing – Gielgud’s Ashenden and accomplice Peter Lorre’s General mistake Caypor (Percy Marmont, also of Young and Innocent) for their German agent target – a mistake in terms of audience sympathy.

Certainly, if your objective is to make a crowd pleaser, as his generally was, Hitch’s comments are entirely cogent. But Secret Agent marks itself out as something slightly different, both in plotting and the casting of Gielgud. The actor lends a more cerebral air to his stiff-upper-lip Brit, even when he’s coolly courting Madeleine Carroll’s fellow agent (posing as Mrs Ashenden).

Pauline Kael considered the film not altogether successful but “fixating, partly because the two male leads… are so ill-used”. She added that Gielgud “looks like a tailor’s dummy for Leslie Howard”. That’s a little unfair, although it’s true that you can see little of the later Gielgud in this performance (for me, that makes it the more fascinating). Apparently, Hitch persuaded the actor that Ashenden was a Hamlet type, but Gielgud could see only that the director had made the villain more appealing (again, an aspect that adds contours the picture would otherwise lack; Robert Young’s Robert Marvin, coming across like an early Vince Vaughn, effortlessly schmoozes everyone,).

Secret Agent is set in 1916, albeit it’s in the nature of such things – being made twenty years later – that it feels closer to WWII. Based on a W Somerset Maugham novel and Campbell Dixon play (screenplay credited to Charles Bennett, who penned five other Hitch movies), it very much wears its distaste for making light the paraphernalia of war on its sleeve. As such, the very areas Hitch criticises as making it a bitter pill are, in fact, essential to its construction.

There are trappings of traditional fare with spymaster R (Charles Carson) sending Ashenden on his mission and Lorre as the latter’s comedy sex pest sidekick. There are quips (“Do you love your country?” asks R; “Well I just died for it” replies Ahsenden, his death having been faked for the mission). Hitchcock delights in the suspense effects, from loud noises drowning out conversation (the death of a church organist, his foot stuck to the pedal; in a bell tower; in a – it is Switzerland – a chocolate factory), to the incriminating button thrown on the gambling table, to the marvellous premonitory scene in which Lorre does the deed as Caypor’s dog and then his wife (Florence Kahn) realise something terrible has befallen him.

Young’s agent is very much the charmer – asked by Kahn if he understands German, he replies “Not a word, but I speak it fluently” – but he’s also quite unflinching, pulling a gun on Carroll and then shooting Lorre when he charitably goes to give the dying man a cigarette (not British!) Lorre’s interesting too, acting the light relief most of the time, but also given revealing touches such as his laughter – the laughter of someone left with no other response – on realising their murderous mistake: “Seems very much like these buttons are more common here than we thought”.

Carroll, reteaming with Hitch following a superb part in The 39 Steps, is expectedly very good but sadly underserved by a character who starts off looking immature, seeing war as a game in contrast to the po-faced Ashenden. Later, she just seems just stupid when she threatens to expose them if they don’t call off killing Marvin. There’s some sparky dialogue with Gielgud (“Bit fond of yourself, aren’t you?”) but he’s too stern for it ever to become zesty.

The train-set climax is suitably tense, with hanged bodies visible as evidence of the fate befalling spies in Turkey (the plot revolves around an attempt to stop the Germans securing allies the British want). Naturally, our pretend couple wind up married but swear off spying (“Home safely but never again”).

The most interesting aspect of Secret Agent is that it has no thrall to patriotic fervour. Perhaps because there’s sufficient distance from the conflict it depicts. While it is not quite close enough to the one brewing. At one point, Ashenden comments “Fighting in the front lines is a damn sight cleaner job than this”, and the message is clear enough that, whatever the service given to the war effort, it isn’t worth the sacrifice to the soul (although, he doesn’t personally get his hands dirty). This is not the kind of substance Hitchcock would often embrace, at least not so overtly. Not a forgotten gem, perhaps, but Secret Agent is rewarding as a more contemplative spy picture.



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.

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.

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.

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…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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.

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.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.