Skip to main content

Well, I can’t ask ‘em all if they twitches, can I?

Young and Innocent
aka The Girl Was Young
(1937)

(SPOILERS) An enjoyable enough Hitchcock innocent-man-on-the-run escapade in the vein of his earlier The 39 Steps, but Young and Innocent isn't nearly as notable or consummately engaging. Part of that is down to the ho-hum leads. Partly, it’s down to a less spirited screenplay from Edwin Greenwood (The Man Who Knew Too Much), Charles Bennett (several Hitchs of the period, including The 39 Steps) and Anthony Armstrong, liberally adapting Josephine Brat Farrar Tey’s novel.

Of the leads, one could actually quite easily imagine innocent Derrick De Marney playing a psychopath. And it doesn’t help that his Robert Tisdall appears positively cheerful about being accused during the first half of the movie (even when this is addressed – told his situation isn’t funny, he replies “No, but I can laugh because I am innocent” – it doesn’t really pass muster).

Nova Pilbeam (great name) is better as Erica Burgoyne, at least during the first half, coming on so uber-confident, you might be mistaken into thinking she will be the protagonist. Erica, daughter of the Chief Constable, brings Tisdall round after he has passed out on being told he is to inherit £1,200 (from a strangled woman about whom he is being questioned – about £82,000 in today’s money, just before it all becomes officially meaningless). “You learn that slapping trick in the guides too?” she is asked by an officer of the law who just wants a confession; “No, I learned that from riding in cars with detectives” she replies smartly. Later, Erica shows zero intimidation went trying to track down the whereabouts of Tisdall’s raincoat in a café. A fight ensues, with Tisdall wading into rescue her, only for Erica to appear outside unscathed and beckon to the beaten fugitive.

When Tisdall escapes custody, she decides to aid him, and from there his can-do insouciance holds sway, such that she is repeatedly reduced to floods of tears when things go wrong. Particularly so when her father – Percy Marmont – feels impelled to resign over her involvement with aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice. De Marney gets quite a few decent lines and moments (‘It always pays to be frank with the police’ his solicitor JH Roberts tells him, after letting him know his prospects look bleak, to which he responds “Are you representing the police, by any chance?”). However, these mostly serve to underline that someone else might have really set the role alight.

Plotwise, it doesn’t help that much of the proceedings focus on Robert’s rather mundane raincoat as a MacGuffin (which has no belt on it, the belt having been used to strangle the victim). If the leads were doing some detective work to track down the perp, that might have been more engaging. Instead, they follow a somewhat slipshod trail, eventually locating Edward Rigby’s tramp Old Will (in possession of the garment). They then hit a brick wall until, helpfully, the coat provides a box of matches from a hotel that Rigby, being a tramp, has never visited. It’s only then, in the closing stages that they think they may have a chance of finding whodunnit.

Whom we saw in the opening scene. George Curzon – best known at that time for the starring role in a series of Sexton Blake films – is very good if entirely bookended as Guy the villain. Per Hitch’s way with suspense, the approach is both methodical and economical. We aren’t required to doubt Tisdall’s innocence, and although we haven’t seen the act, the director has pretty much established Guy did it in the first two scenes. We rejoin the murderer for the finale, having been apprised that he is suffering from a nervous twitch due to the stress of having just offed an unfaithful wife. Hitch shows early on that Guy is at the scene, in blackface as drummer for a dance band, but that our heroes don’t know.

Old Will: I better order, since I’m the man, eh? Two cups of tea.
Waiter: India or China?
Old Will: No, tea.

This is a masterfully executed sequence – that and one other sequence are all he and Truffaut talk about in respect of Young and Innocent – and it’s one revolving around when Guy will be recognised, rather than whether or not he is there. The best part of it, however, is that Tisdall has stepped out by this point and it’s Erica and Old Will, the heroine and the tramp, the latter now dressed up, who are doing the investigating (he knows the man who gave him the coat had a twitch). There’s much gentle class comedy here, and Rigby is very funny, offering Erica a dance so they can have a better look round; she asks if he can (dance), and Will replies “No, course I can’t ducky, but I don’t mind having a go. It’s only half walking anyway”.

Curzon also makes the most of the final confession, a very Hitchcock example of wrapping things up concisely. Not only is Guy strung out, he’s also taking too many pills, getting himself into a state whereby his drumming causes a scene, followed by his collapse. Roused by Nova, neatly repeating the same act as when we first met her, she asks what he did with the belt, to which he replies, laughing, “What did I do with the belt? I twisted it round her neck and choked the life out of her!

Hitchcock also draws attention to the earlier blindman’s bluff game as a suspense highlight, although I don’t think it’s in quite the same class. Instead, it’s mild and amusingly engaging, as Erica’s aunt Margaret (Mary Clare), increasingly suspicious of her relationship with Tisdall (he claims his surname is Beachtree-Manningcroft, and they offer differing versions of his job), is interrupted for a game of blindman’s bluff. Meanwhile, Margaret’s husband Basil (Basil “Charters” Radford) encourages them to escape what he sees as her over-intrusiveness. It’s fun though, and I can understand Hitch’s indignance that the scene was cut in the US, even if he rather overstates his case (“that was the essence of the film!”)

There are other amusing incidents, such as Erica’s family dinners, beset by siblings discussing Tisdall’s likely fate or bringing dead rats to the dinner table. She also has a star dog (Towser) whom she makes Tisdall slow down for so he can get in the car, and whose disappearance in a mine working (the big set piece, and rather clumsily integrated) leads to her being apprehended. In Towser’s considerable favour, he is able to spot that Old Will is wearing the raincoat they are after beneath many other layers.

If there are no real twists and turns to keep this moving, that isn’t why Young and Innocent is ultimately slightly disappointing. It’s that the leads fail to generate the level of energy and rapport needed from a lead couple you really want to spend time with. Hitch’s work is top notch, offering some textbook suspense, but the picture lacks the oomph that comes from picking the best cattle to prod.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.