Skip to main content

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.

Title: A single crash of cymbals and how it rocked the lives of an American family.

Like many, I saw this version first, as a kid, and my recollection is of finding it perfectly enjoyable, while regarding Doris Day singing Whatever Will Be unnecessarily intrusive and slowing things down (which it is, and it does). With hindsight, the picture is revealed as one of the – if not the – most middling of his 1940s-50s zenith as a director in demand. It’s understandable that Hitch saw the potential in revisiting the material (first considering it in the 1940s) as it has an easily malleable template of the type that also explains the various iterations of The 39 Steps, or his later cut-and-paste, built from the set pieces up approach to North by Northwest.

However, the 1934 picture was tightly written and expertly paced. Hitch takes advantage of the melodramatic opportunities in husband James Stewart’s everyman Dr Ben Mckenna and wife Day’s professional singer Jo Conway and sketches out a lightly believable and playful relationship between them, but one entirely lacking the wit and get-up-and-go of Leslie Banks and Edna Best. Worse, it’s a malaise that extends to the supporting cast, who are at best serviceable. Essentially Hitch is trying to lay a “real” couple over an outlandish template, and the fit isn’t entirely seamless.

Jo: Ben, are we about to have our monthly fight?

Indeed, aside from the easy chemistry between Steward and Day, there’s little beyond the stars’ consummate professionalism to sell us on the pair. Day is actually very impressive outside of the usual romantic comedy pigeonhole, and Stewart is at his most laconic, even when he’s driven. They’re trying to get their son Hank back (a precious lad prone to inviting Daniel Gelin’s Louis Bernard over to tuck in on the family’s rampant snail population: “We tried everything to get rid of them. We never thought of a Frenchman”). This necessitates the curtailing of their Moroccan holiday in order to track him down in England. Indeed, the film’s most notable scene finds Doctor Jimmy drugging his wife before telling her the bad news about Hank. It’s a mesmerisingly shocking scene, as Jo rightly denounces him for denying her the opportunity to respond with her full faculties

Ben: I’ve got nothing to hide.
Jo: I’ve a feeling Mr Bernard does.

The Morocco set scenes have a certain flavour, and Louis’ death is suitably dramatic. Even if, as with all his colour films to a greater or lesser extent, the joins between studio and location are never less than jarring. It’s thirty minutes before Louis is stabbed, though (early scenes evidence their lack of cultural sophistication at a restaurant). And it’s an hour before Stewart locates Ambrose Chappell.

Louis: A man… a statesman… is going to be killed… assassinated, in London. Soon… very soon. Tell them in London… Ambrose Chappell. Chappell.

Well, the first Ambrose Chappell. Remember the marvellous sequence infiltrating the sun-worshippers coven in the first? Here, Stewart gets it wrong first time out, accusing a taxidermist of stealing his son (a nice slice of misdirection on Hitch and John Michael Hayes’ part; Hayes wasn’t allowed sight or script of the original, drawing solely on the director recounting the plot as a guide). When he arrives at an actual church, the results are disappointingly austere and flavourless, with only the leads “singing” their discussion of what to do next to enliven matters.

Ben: You not only ask the questions, you answer them too. Don’t you?

They have tracked down child snatchers Lucy (Brenda de Banzie) and Edward (Bernard Miles) Drayton, however. Both performers are expectedly solid, and de Banzie conveys Lucy’s reluctance for harm to come to young Hank (Christopher Olsen) convincingly, but they nevertheless come across as a couple who shouldn’t have tried to compete in the big leagues, meaning there’s a severe lack of dramatic heft regarding the overall threat.

Ambassador: In a few moments I have to welcome our prime minister as my guest of honour, when I had hoped and expected that he would be totally unable to attend.

Truffaut seemed to fixate on the Albert Hall climax – well, first climax, since the action then moves to the embassy – as proof of the remake’s superiority over the original. Seemingly on the thin basis that Stewart gets in on the action here too. Yes, he does, but all this really entails is frightening the shooter into toppling over a balcony. The set piece is undoubtedly more polished, with the extended staging of the cantata – conducted by Hermann no less, and advertised as such outside – but I actually prefer Best’s lone gun improvisation (before saving the day with her lone gunmanship). It certainly beats Doris sobbing to herself until Stewart rocks up.

Hayes came up trumps for Hitch with Rear Window, but I’m less convinced of the subsequent To Catch a Thief and The Trouble with Harry. With The Man Who Knew Too Much, there’s some nice, low-key observation in the couple’s relationship, but the plot mechanics are insufficiently oiled and there’s only the sparse memorable line (“Don’t you realise that Americans dislike having their children stolen?” chides Mogens Wieth’s ambassador).

Ben: Will it chew any better than it tears?

Pauline Kael didn’t pen a full review for the remake, but referred to it as a “stodgier version” of the original. She wasn’t wrong. The Man Who Knew Too Much manages to be both rather bland and also overwrought. Whatever Will Be was a no-brainer as a hit tie-in single – shrewd fellow, that Hitchcock – but it underlines the kind of manufactured studio product this was, thirty years before such an approach had become the norm. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

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.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

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.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.