More Than One Lesson

Hitchcock called this the low point of his career. He later called Champagne his least favorite of his films, but maintained that this movie represented an odd sort of crossroads and not an entirely pleasant one. Rich and Strange had been a good film but a commercial failure. Number Seventeen had represented a sloppiness in both style and substance, as if crafted by a hopelessly amateur filmmaker. Then, came Waltzes from Vienna, a film so utterly removed both by narrative and genre from the remainder of Hitchcock’s work as to seem ridiculously anomalous.

[…]

Hitchcock tackles another play, but this time, it’s a full-blown noir mystery thriller. Behind the scenes, the financial failure of Rich and Strange (aka East of Shanghai) had caused the production company to remove him from the project he really wanted to do and forced him to take on this one. As a result, his heart wasn’t in its creation and he later heavily derided it as one of his least favorable films (he called it a “disaster”).

[…]

Hitchcock lightens things up this time with an entry that drifts away from the smaller, domestic dramas and from his adaptations of plays to present a far more comical story about the allure of wealth and opulence. The result is a rather pleasant farcical adventure that Hitchcock himself liked quite a bit, and which you are likely to enjoy as well.

[…]

For a director known for thrillers and suspense, I had no idea how many straight-forward domestic dramas were among his early films. Not to mention plays.

The Skin Game is yet another stage adaptation to screen, and it still mostly feels that way. However, this one benefits from impressive performances (particularly from Edmund Gwenn of Miracle on 34th Street fame) and from a tighter, more compelling script. Hitchcock also takes steps to make the film seem more cinematic than his previous outings (particularly Juno and the Paycock), utilizing the camera as more than a theatrical audience viewpoint and playing with alternate points of view (take note of the pivotal auction scene and how Hitchcock toys with expectation and information for a fun example of how the master tries to develop audience engagement).

[…]

In many ways, Murder! is Hitchcock’s first example of falling just shy of expectations and potential. That’s not to say that this is a bad film. In fact, it’s often quite good. But given the potential in the premise, and the promise of Hitchcock tackling a classic whodunit formula, this could have been much more thrilling, suspenseful, and intriguing.

[…]

Whew. After two very strong entries (Hitchcock’s final silent film and his first talkie), this return to domestic drama is a sharp left turn off a steep cliff. It received overwhelmingly positive reviews in its initial run, but even Hitchcock himself regards it as something of a let-down.

Based on the play by Sean O’Casey (and also sometimes known as “The Shame of Mary Boyle”), this understated drama focuses on the fortunes and misfortunes of an Irish family amidst the turmoil of the Irish Civil War. Unfortunately that sentence I wrote is about as interesting as anything in the film.

[…]

Hitchcock’s first “talkie” (and largely regarded as the first British “talkie” at all) is also his first straight-forward suspense film since The Lodger seven films earlier. It required a bit of intuitive insight on Hitchcock’s part into the contemporary cinematic trends to fully create it and it remains one of the strongest entries in Hitchcock’s first decade of films.

[…]

The last of Alfred Hitchcock’s silent films is also arguably the best (although The Lodger remains the most significant). With strong, well-defined characters, a poignant and emotional narrative, and sturdy, focused direction, The Manxman is a solid entry in the filmmaker’s early catalogue.

[…]

Sometimes films aren’t trying to be anything complex or deep or rich or thought-provoking. But they at least need to not be boring. Champagne isn’t trying to be anything but a silly farce. But when the director of said farce is Alfred Hitchcock (albeit while his legacy was still in its infancy) it’s nearly impossible to divorce the expectations from the end result.

Ultimately, Champagne doesn’t amount to much of anything. It’s silly. At times, it’s even chuckle-worthy. But mostly, from both a narrative and thematic standpoint, it’s little more than a hollow waste of time.

[…]

There is a discrepancy with when Easy Virtue was made in Hitchcock’s filmography. Truffaut’s definitive study of Alfred Hitchcock places this film as directly preceding The Ring, while most other records has it two films later. Regardless of when it was made, this one is quite fascinating, even if it isn’t very good. It contains very few of Hitchcock’s reputational trademarks, and yet somehow still makes sense when considered among his other early films.

[…]