Noirvember: Stage Fright (1950)

Although I am far from an expert of Alfred Hitchcock, I always like to think that I have seen much of his filmography. I haven't. I think every film fan spends some time exploring his numerous classics, but it's easy to remember just how many films he made. Okay, the silents are easier to overlook, and perhaps less essential (although I have a nice boxset coming my way that will allow me to make up my own mind shortly), but there always seems to be one or two relatively big title that sits in a blind spot for some people. Stage Fright was one of those movies for me. I wonder if it was one I kept forgetting about because of the title being re-used a couple of times in the horror genre. 

Richard Todd plays Jonathan Cooper, a man who ends up on the run when some major evidence points to him having murdered the husband of stage performer Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich). Relying on the goodwill of a friend, Eve (Jane Wyman), Jonathan tries to stay hidden while police investigate the case and try to locate him. Eve also enlists the help of her father (played by Alastair Sim), ends up in an undercover role working for Charlotte, and starts to develop a bond with Detective Inspector Wilfred O. Smith (Michael Wilding) which could complicate things further.

Adapted from Selwyn Jepson's novel (Man Running AKA Outrun The Constable AKA Killer By Proxy) by the talented Alma Reville and Whitfield Cook, this is a typically dark and delightful feature from Hitchcock, one that has an abundance of dark comedy running in between the moments of tension. In fact, almost any scene with Sim front and centre is on par with anything from an outright comedy of this time (particularly his scene with Joyce Grenfell, who spends a lot of time shouting out "lovely ducks" to encourage people to try their hand at the fairground shooting gallery).

As good as the material is, in terms of the characters and the ongoing attempt to prove the innocence of a man who keeps looking increasingly guilty, Stage Fright is as wonderfully entertaining as it is thanks to the cast. Sim is undoubtedly a highlight, but scenes that show Dietrich performing the routines that make her character such a beloved success are so mesmerising that nobody should really mind the fact that the plot comes to a standstill while we get to enjoy a couple of good songs from the blonde bombshell. Wyman is an appealing lead, but she is overshadowed by the likes of Kay Walsh (playing a housekeeper who hopes to profit from the situation) and the aforementioned Grenfell. As for the other men onscreen, Todd and Wilding are disappointingly bland, but they're essentially pawns being moved around the board until things come to a crucial point when some kind of victory can be celebrated.

In hindsight, it's actually quite easy to see why I kept forgetting to check this out. It wasn't just to do with the title. There aren't any big set-pieces here, the real star turns are mostly tucked away in the supporting roles, and it just lacks that refined Hitchcock brilliance. It still deserves to be seen though, especially if you're a fan of Dietrich, Sim, Walsh, or Grenfell. I had a lot of fun with it, but I suspect I may struggle to remember much of it in a month or two. It has certainly reminded me that I want to watch even more Hitchcock films though, as well as more films featuring the brilliant Dietrich.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: The 39 Steps (1935)

While I am no major expert on the filmography of Alfred Hitchcock, I have seen most of the well-known titles that make up the latter half of his extensive filmography. I haven’t seen much of his earlier work though, despite owning a fair few of them in a dvd boxset I picked up from a charity shop years ago at a bargain price. The 39 Steps is a film I always forgot about, however, and I am pretty sure that I didn’t even think of it as a Hitchcock film. But it certainly is, and here we are.

Robert Donat plays Richard Hannay, a man who finds himself on the run after being suspiciously present at the scene of a murder. The murder victim was a spy, and she manages to tell Hannay about “the 39 steps” before breathing her last breath. Armed with this phrase, as well as a map featuring some extra information about a possible location of interest, Hannay sets out to solve a mystery that he hopes will save the lives of others and prove his own innocence.

Full of familiar Hitchcockian moments, The 39 Steps is a rip-roaring thriller that races through some great locations and set-pieces en route to a tense and hugely satisfying finale. The script, by Charles Bennett and Ian Hay (adapted from the John Buchan novel), is fun and nicely plotted, maintaining a great sense of momentum while allowing the lead character to interact with a delightful assortment of supporting players.

Donat is a smooth and charming lead, his charisma very necessary for his various encounters with others as he tries to maintain his freedom. He carries the film on his shoulders, and makes it all seem quite effortless. There is, of course, an innocent woman (Pamela) who gets dragged into the whole debacle, believing Hannay to be a guilty man, and she is played by Madeleine Carroll. While viewers know that Pamela isn’t right in her opinion of our hero, her strength and determination are admirable as she attempts to ensure his arrest, and Carroll plays the part with great grace and a little sly humour. Godfrey Tearle plays a key role, and there are enjoyable moments for the likes of Peggy Ashcroft, John Laurie, Helen Haye, and Wylie Watson, as well as one or two others.

Although I wouldn’t put this at the top of any list, whether you’re ranking spy movies, man on the run movies, or just Hitchcock movies, it certainly deserves to be jostling around in the upper levels. There’s a slight coziness to many scenes that undercut the tension, which is an unexpected surprise when you think of the usual Hitchcock style, but that somehow just adds to the appeal here. This isn’t a bleak and cynical cavalcade of peril. It’s a dangerous and thrilling adventure yarn that wants to keep you entertained without making you feel too distressed. I loved it.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Noir-vember: Rebecca (1940)

Although it doesn't really hold the notoriety nowadays that the other Alfred Hitchcock and Daphne Du Maurier "collaboration", The Birds, manages to retain, Rebecca is still a fantastic work, showing the director already comfortable in mixing dark subject matter with moments of levity and making the most of a talented cast.

Joan Fontaine plays a young woman who finds herself in the enviable position of becoming Mrs. de Winter, the wife of one 'Maxim' de Winter (Laurence Olivier). And that is when she starts to become more and more aware of Rebecca, the former Mrs. de Winter who passed away some time ago. Whether or not she can thrive under such a shadow becomes the focus of this movie for much of the middle act, with criticism coming from a houskeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), and Rebecca's cousin, Jack Favell (George Sanders). There's more to consider, however, including the exact circumstances of Rebecca's death.

Written for the screen by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, the former having a very varied filmography that includes both The Best Years Of Our Lives and The Bishop's Wife as highlights and the latter working with Hitchcock on about five of his features from this era, what you get here is something that often feels like a straightforward drama about a young woman trying to assert herself in a new world that her marriage has forced her to enter. Sure, you get the kind of temperamental husband and brooding nature that implies a trip into Jane Eyre territory, but the situations depicted remain much more grounded and identifiable for anyone who has found themselves the newcomer in any household/family situation. Things are turned around in the third act, and it's interesting to see that when the pressure really starts to mount is when Fontaine's character shows how strong she really is.

Both Fontaine and Olivier are very enjoyable in the lead roles, even if the latter speaks in that wonderfully crisp and clipped "proper English" that stops the dialogue feeling free-flowing and natural (a quality many British actors had during this time). The two feel like an unlikely, but strangely compatible, match. Anderson cuts an intimidating figure, although she always remains as civil as she needs to be when her employer is within earshot. Then you have Sanders. He doesn't appear until close to the halfway mark, but his presence is a breath of fresh air. I maintain that Sanders is arguably the greatest cinematic cad of all time and here's another performance that doesn't do a thing to dissuade me of that notion. 

While easy to see why this one remains a highly-regarded classic from yesteryear, it's also easy to see why it might fail to please some people. It squanders any potential to go full gothic, which is a great shame, it lacks any of the incredibly tense and macabre set-pieces that Hitchcock would become most famous for, and the resolution is just a bit too neat and easy, in a way that makes you forget the main characters were ever in any trouble.

Despite those aspects that could be viewed as failings, I still really enjoyed this. I'd even go so far as to say that is the best Hitchcock adaptation of a Du Maurier tale. It just holds up as a more completely satisfying feature film, and doesn't need the gimmick of feathered friends becoming feathered foes. Yep, I stand by what I just said. And one day I hope to visit Manderley again.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Vertigo (1958)

When I first saw it, many years ago, The Birds used to be my favourite Alfred Hitchcock movie. I have since changed my mind on that film. Despite the superb set-pieces, there are some other aspects to it that make it a surprisingly weak feature from the master of suspense. And so I moved my love to Psycho. And then Rear Window. Oh, and North By Northwest. The point I am trying to make is that ol' Hitch has a number of contenders that could easily be viewed as his very best. Vertigo should always be in the running.

James Stewart plays a detective, John Ferguson AKA Scottie, who is hired by an old acquaintance to follow his wife, Madeleine (Kim Novak). There's a building sense that Madeleine is going to do herself some harm, a notion that solidifies into a reality when Madeleine tries to jump into a bay and drown herself. This is only a temporary reprieve, and Vertigo really kicks into gear after the halfway point, which sees Scottie encountering a woman named Judy Barton (Novak), a woman who seems very much like Madeleine in many ways.

It's always easy to admire the works of Hitchcock while also unfairly dismissing them as nothing more than exercises in thrills and tension, yet so many of his movies have a lot more to them than that. It just so happens that it's usually easier to recommend his films without having to go into too much detail. The real exploration and discussion of his classics is left to people who want to write essays, or even whole books, on them. If you think I am going to try and change that with this brief review then you can think again.

What I will do, however, is try to emphasise just why this is one of the greatest films of all time. Because it most certainly is.

Things have a good grounding in the script, by Alec Coppel and Samuel A. Taylor. Although it's structured in a way that makes some of the 128-minute runtime feel like padding, very few scenes fail to provide food for thought, either in terms of the plotting, the characterisations, or the psychological turbulence of the leads.

Then you have a cast all doing excellent work. Stewart gives another wonderful performance for a director he worked well with, moving from his likeable everyman persona into something darker as the film whirls and dives into ever-darkening waters. Novak gives two performances that are almost flawless, particularly as things develop in the second half of the movie and viewers start to wonder if Judy IS Madeleine, or just someone who looks very much like her. The third main player here is Barbara Bel Geddes as Marjorie Wood AKA Midge, a close friend to Stewart's character, and someone who has similar difficulties to him in processing some complex feelings that she at least manages to manage in a slightly more healthy manner (at least outwardly anyway). There are others (Tom Helmore as the husband of Madeleine, a number of very small roles for characters populating the world that these characters move through, but the focus stays tight on the central pair, for the most part).

Add the masterful direction to this and you have quite the heady brew. Hitchcock isn't afraid to show the psychological cracks deepening and affecting the environments around his leads, and he also manages to show the effects of vertigo with a dolly zoom effect, still used best in both this film and Jaws. Love, obsession, control, regret, madness, all of these things and more are explored in Vertigo, in a flowing and beautiful series of scenes, accompanied by yet another one of the best music scores from Bernard Herrmann.

Watch it, take it all in, watch it again, take more in, and be sure to have it to hand whenever you want to enjoy an absolute classic.

10/10

This is the set to get. It is stunning.

Noir-vember: Strangers On A Train (1951)

It's a classic conceit, but only because this Alfred Hitchcock movie did it so well. Two strangers end up in conversation on a train (hence the title) and one puts forward his idea for a perfect murder: two people who aren't really connected commit a murder on behalf of the other party. So begins this enjoyable thriller, based on a tale by Patricia Highsmith and worked into screenplay by a few different people, including Raymond Chandler.

Farley Granger plays Guy Haines, a minor British celeb on the tennis circuit, and Robert Walker is Bruno Antony, the stranger who starts talking about a plan that he actually wants to put into action. Guy is having a hard time trying to arrange a divorce from his wife, Miriam, which would free him up to marry the lovely daughter of a US Senator, while Bruno seems to have spent many years carrying around a hatred of his father. Time passes, and it's not long until Bruno has done what he sees as his part in a confirmed deal. Guy is shocked, and also afraid. He doesn't know how to best explain the situation to the authorities, especially while Bruno has his personalised cigarette lighter in his possession, ready to plant at the murder site to incriminate him much more than the circumstantial evidence.

Although the central idea was very familiar to me, and will be very familiar to anyone who has even the most cursory knowledge of the film, or the many films/TV show episodes it has influenced, I had no idea that things would cut to the chase so quickly. Bruno is a psychopath, which becomes clear after those initial scenes, and that makes it very easy to believe that he starts off this chain of events after the most non-committal conversation with Guy.

As expertly constructed as you would expect from Hitchcock, this arguably sits alongside his lighter offerings. While there is danger for our guilty-looking hero, it always feels as if Guy will find some way out of his predicament. It helps that he eventually confides in his understanding partner, Anne (Ruth Roman), and that he has the truth on his side, even if it won't really seem like the truth when he tries to explain it to the authorities. His actions may seem a bit silly at times, but it's hard to think of other ways in which he could have sought to clear his name and get everything resolved satisfactorily.

Granger is decent in his role, required to look nervous and sweaty for most of his time onscreen, and Walker is very entertaining as someone who quickly casts off any semblance of normalcy once a sliver of his dangerous madness is shown. Roman is lovely, just the kind of person you would want on your side if trying to clear your name and maintain a smooth course on a journey of true love, Leo G. Carroll is as good as ever as her father, the Senator, and Patricia Hitchcock (daughter of the man in the director's chair) has fun in her role, the younger sister of Roman's character, prone to saying whatever she thinks, without considering whether or not it is something others may want to hear.

I can't say that this would rank up there with the very best of the Hitchcock movies I have seen, and I have seen a great many of his works, but it's absolutely worth seeing, and makes up for a lack of major set-pieces throughout with a finale that features the police firing a gun far too carelessly at a funfair, a carousel on superspeed, and a villain who remains unrepentant even as some major evidence comes into plain sight.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Psycho (1960)

What is the point in even attempting to write a review of Psycho nowadays? People have said everything there is to be said about it, right? It's had a remake that was almost shot for shot, it has featured in movies made about director Alfred Hitchcock, and that classic shower scene has even been dissected in a documentary all on its own (78/52, which refers to the number of shots and cuts, respectively).

And yet . . . it's that feeling that everyone has seen the film, that everything to be said about it HAS been said, that makes me feel it is still worth writing a whole review. Because most of us know Psycho, and know it well, but I would wager that few remember just how great a number of the elements are, especially when you are asked to pick favourites from the outstanding filmography of Hitchcock.

It seems pointless to summarise the plot, and pointless to try and avoid spoilers. So let me roll my sleeves up and attempt to do two pointless things at once. Janet Leigh is Marion Crane, a woman we first see making herself look respectable again after a tryst with her lover (John Gavin) in a hotel room. They are not married, he stays quite a distance away and has very little money, but they do seem to love one another. The whole situation, and an encounter with a customer at her work who seems intent on being as vulgar about his wealth as possible, leads Marion to seize an opportunity when her boss asks her to take a large sum of money to the bank. She leaves town, money in her possession, and sets out to join her lover. It's a long journey, however, and she decides to stop at the isolated Bates Motel, which seems suited to the low profile she is keeping on her travels. And the young man in charge of the place (Norman, played by Anthony Perkins) is very pleasant and accommodating. He seems to take a liking to Marion, but his mother most certainly doesn't.

Everybody remembers bits of Psycho. They remember the shower scene (it's unforgettable, a masterclass in editing and audio-visual synchronicity), they remember the Bernard Herrmann score, they remember the twists and jumps. They even remember how good Perkins is in his main role. They also often remember enjoying Martin Balsam (he plays a detective who ends up trying to track down Marion Crane). Some people also remember that Janet Leigh is quite good in her role, despite being overshadowed by Perkins.

Yet very few people remember everything all together. I rewatched Psycho with the intention of taking down some notes in preparation for this review, and I soon gave up on that idea. I was hooked from the beginning, and I knew there was better still to come. Leigh isn't just quite good. She's great in her role, perfectly portraying a woman who has one moment of madness and then spends the rest of her time onscreen weighed down by that decision. Perkins still manages to overshadow her, but not deliberately, simply due to him being so absolutely perfect as the nervy and pleasant young man with a dark secret. Balsam comes into the movie at just the right time, a shot of energy before the tension starts to ratchet up again in the finale, and Gavin does a good job in his smaller role, working well alongside Vera Miles (playing the sister to the character played by Leigh).

Hitchcock knows just how far to push things, and how to code the characters very effectively, in ways that work with, and subvert, expectations. There are other films from him that are more complex, that are more thematically interesting, that can be dissected even more than this one, but Psycho is arguably his most effective blend of the macabre and the entertaining. He's helped by the team around him. Hermann giving him that classic score, Joseph Stefano giving him a cracking script adapted from Robert Bloch's source novel, the supporting cast members, the titles from Saul Bass, and every key player who helped to bring his vision to life.

And what more is there to say? Nothing, and everything. There are new film fans created every day, of all ages, and some won't have seen Psycho yet. So I hope this may prompt one of them to do so. I also hope it maybe reminds more seasoned film fans to revisit it, to just remind themselves of how utterly fantastic it is, in every aspect of the craft it took to bring it all together. That is the point in deciding to write a review of the movie, after almost sixty years of it scarring the membrane of public consciousness and becoming a pop culture staple. Or maybe it was just another little moment of madness.

"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

10/10

This is the set to buy. And, ummmm, please click on links somewhere on this blog and help because I MAY have just ordered that set for myself. Seriously . . . help.

Mubi Monday: Rope (1948)

Alfred Hitchcock once said something about how an explosion will give audiences a fright but showing a ticking bomb under the chair of some unsuspecting potential victim would have them on edge right up until the explosion. I'm paraphrasing but I remember the essence of his message. He liked to scare people, but he equally enjoyed making them tense.

Rope starts with a murder, committed by Phillip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall). The body is hidden in a chest and, for the rest of the movie, there it stays while the two murderers host a small dinner party, all the while hoping that nobody suspects that they're sharing a room with a hidden corpse. The one person who may suspect is Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), an old schoolteacher they believe would actually enjoy their whole plan. Of course, they cannot tell him what they have done. The only thing they can do is enjoy watching Cadell mull over how strange the evening is.

As famous for the way it was shot as for the content, Rope is a film unfairly viewed by some (including Hitchcock himself, and I should mention that it was he who directed it) as nothing more than a gimmicky experiment. There's no denying that the lengthy takes, the logistics of how every shot was set out, and the manipulation of the main environment (including a wonderful display showing the city skyline turning from day to night), is technically impressive, but that's only part of the reason to enjoy the film. The script, by Arthur Laurents (from a play by Patrick Hamilton), is a lot of fun, allowing viewers to watch two nasty individuals grow increasingly edgy as their own arrogance starts to bite them on the backside.

Granger is the more agitated of the pair, tense from the very beginning and only getting worse when alcohol is added to the mix. Dall gets to have more fun, unflappable throughout, even as it looks more and more unlikely that their "perfect crime" will be discovered. Stewart, despite the fact that he didn't think himself suited to this role, is his usual good self, a smart and sophisticated man who is equally happy chatting to the other guests as he is joking with the maid (Edith Evanson). Joan Chandler and Douglas Dick are both enjoyable enough as the other, younger, guests,  and both Cedrick Hardwicke and Constance Collier are very good as the two older attendees, with Collier a particular delight.

Although it would be easy to confuse Rope with the attitudes of the two main characters - smug, self-absorbed, interested in creating something audacious and impressive just for the same of being able to say it was done - I think it holds up as a fine piece of thrilling cinema. Few other films spend the entire runtime showing you that ticking bomb under the chair. This one does, and to great effect. The ticking bomb just happens to be in the shape of a stashed corpse.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

High Anxiety (1977)

It's another top class spoof from Mel Brooks, this time taking aim at the movies of Alfred Hitchcock, and while I enjoyed many individual moments (the riff on The Birds is juvenile but also damn funny) I didn't feel that the whole thing worked as well as it could, or should, have.

The biggest plot developments, and indeed the title itself, are derived from Vertigo - the film that, despite stiff competition, just edges ahead of the pack to remain Hitchcock's finest hour. Mel Brooks plays Richard H. Thorndyke, a man who is appointed as the new administrator for the Psychoneurotic Institute For The Very Very Nervous. There's something not quite right at the institute, something that Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leachman) and Dr. Charles Montague (Harvey Korman) seem to be covering up. Maybe it's to do with a patient named Arthur Brisbane (Albert Whitlock), a man kept there despite him being in fine physical and mental health according to his daughter, Victoria (Madeline Kahn).

Written by Brooks, as well as Ron Clark, Barry Levinson and Rudy De Luca, the film lacks the gag quotient of, say, Blazing Saddles while the references to the original movies aren't always as immediately recognisable as they are in Young Frankenstein. Having said that, there are plenty of details and little touches that will please fans of Hitchcock even if they aren't always played for laughs.

The performances are all pretty good, in line with the material, but the best moments come from the fantastic Cloris Leachman and the equally fantastic Harvey Korman. In fact, the very best moments feature both stars bouncing off one another and wringing the maximum amount of laughs from each line.

Okay, so comparing this movie to Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein is probably quite unfair because they are two of the best spoofs ever made so I should make it clear that High Anxiety certainly rewards attentive viewers and will undoubtedly be a film that I return to now and again for some guaranteed chuckles.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mel-Brooks-Collection-DVD/dp/B000AM6NCM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1348995965&sr=8-2