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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.