After some experiences as assistant or auxiliary in certain silent films, would come the debut as filmmaker, the first film as director by Alfred Hitchcock, a film in which naturally we still observe the absence of his biggest guidelines, his main cornerstones artistically speaking, but that never cease to be his first film as director. Hitchcock from his initial works makes what would be a constant throughout his cinematic life, adapting literary novels to the big screen, being the movie now commented a work by Oliver Sandys, in which the story of two dancers is portrayed. Two attractive young friends see their friendship crumble as one progresses and rises in the entertainment world, becoming frivolous and ungrateful, while the other follows a path of greater sacrifices, austerity, but remaining virtuous; the picture will show their disparate ways and their relations with their partners, being one path more fatal than the other one. Yet we find the master looking for the edges that would lead his work at the top of world cinema, we will see how it begins Hitch to take his first steps in the seventh art, showing already his preferences for topics, but still in his search for a style.
In a center of night entertainment, called The Pleasure Garden, a show takes place, a group of chorus girls perform a dance number, to the delight of the spectators, one of them is Oscar Hamilton (Georg H. Schnell), who admires particularly the beautiful Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli). Finished the artistic number, Patsy knows Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty), a young dancer, newcomer who wants to connect in the world of showgirls, to work, but being alone, and having been stolen all his money, he is helpless. The Brand girl hosts the young lady at her home and introduces her some theater people where the showgirls perform, leaving Jill a good impression for his skills in dancing, getting a good working agreement. Patsy is committed to Levett (Miles Mander) and Jill in turn with Hugh Fielding (John Stuart), but both men must leave to fight in the tropics. Patsy tries to take care of her friend, who has promised to wait for Hugh, however she meets Prince Ivan (Karl Falkenberg), and the life of luxury in her new job soon gets her besotted. Before leaving, Levett marries Patsy, but barely reaches the tropics, he gets a native lover, sends news to his wife of being very ill, and she, already estranged from Jill, manages to go there, where also Hugh is. After discovering some truths and untie certain torments, Patsy will find happiness.
This is a film that, within the passions and strong human feelings that recreates, it is everything framed in the history of the two girls, the dancers and their world is showed to us immediately, the chorus girls going to perform, and the very pleased parishioners watch the show. In this historical sequence, in which Hitchcock was making his debut as cinema director, we see one of those assistants watching with binoculars Patsy's legs, lust is manifested in the picture right away. The printed lust continues after the approach to the legs of the dancers, we see them undressing, partly of course, but when seeing an image of the clothes being thrown, then seeing the naked torso of the girls, the suggestive power of the film gets already declared. It is a power that will no longer be reflected in the film, but it remains that impression, which at least is mildly retaken when appears Jill provocatively dressed for her new job as a showgirl, again revealing her well shaped legs. Her character is outlined soon, the first fearful and abandoned girl, alone and without money nor home, receives willingly Patsy's help, but as soon as she has a chance, she will show her real face, Machiavellian and light woman, proves to be more adequated to that world that her own protective. It is a film that portrays intense passions, and this is taking shape soon, when we see the flirtatious and outgoing Jill, whose personality, uninhibited, suggestive and manipulative, is the opposite of Patsy's, believer and religious, loyal, even in their clothing is reflected that opposition. Levett plays the most perturbing, most disturbing character, alienated character who proposes marriage and marries a good girl, to immediately get a mistress, to whom also liquidates, and pretends to return to his initial partner, his still wife.
Finally, with the torment of the spirit of her murdered lover ahead, tries to kill Patsy as well, he will be the prey for the metaphysical tortures; meanness and abjection have in him their greatest exponent. An unusual but nice element is the detail of the puppy, canid pet that gives a little more variety to the story, and providing the final nuance that Levett was indeed a jerk, an unbalanced and alienated lout whose tragic end is justified, and the dog was the only one to notice that since the first meeting; the animal appears in much of the picture, a detail that would not be seen in other works of Hitch. As mentioned, Hitchcock, from the start made it clear what would be a constant throughout his film career, the fact of adapting literary works, literary works that later some writer would translate into screenwriting. It seems evident that, among all the talents that had the gigantic Hitch, screenwriter certainly was not the most brilliant of all, or at least the filmmaker exercised it rarely. The film, without being banal, feels still relatively innocuous, not so much for its content as for its treatment, but was normal, being the first experience as a director for Hitch, coming from previous years as an assistant on the set. British master not yet had discovered his sap, the suspense, the source from which he would drink his entire cinema lifetime, he was still in search of his edges, his main guidelines, but certainly he would not delay so much in achieving this, because two years later, with
The Lodger (1927), his third film, found them. Given the age of the film, and because of some normal wear of the film by ambient temperatures and the natural pass of time, the film was deteriorating, then it was restored, and there is more than one version in circulation. This current article is based on the viewing of a version of exactly one hour, sixty minutes, which differs in fifteen minutes from another version, in which probably not so many gaps will be notticed.
And thus, certainly in the one-hour-length cut, some gaps are detected, rather abruptly in the story, some details or flaws that probably are not due to the inexperience of the filmmaker, but to the effect that any reduction always has on the original assembly that a filmmaker wants in his film. For instance, it feels a bit too much frantic the way how in a few minutes the narrative informs us about the wedding of Patsy with Levett, then see the immediate disappointment of him, and then also see him already with his native lover, a certain dissonance that is likely to decrease in the full 75 minutes version. Hitch, yet finding
his suspense, sets however in a story full of very intense feelings and passions, of ingratitude, love, hate, jealousy, betrayal, lies, lust and madness, and there lays the strength of the film, which feels plausible, human, real. Still of course lacks the mastery of this great filmmaker, still could not find his great style, can not be considered the film as one of his greatest creations, but the then fledgling director gives us the first sign of independence behind the camera. For example, precisely that camera, which is one of the hallmarks of the Hitchcockian cinema, is observed even static, still lacks all the dynamism and precise movements that later would know the filmmaker imprint, since in this film, his first experience, the director still lacks from a developed and identifiable language; perhaps some difference may be missing in those fifteen minutes cut, but the overall impression given to me by the film is what I just stated. What we can highlight are certain resources used by the filmmaker, certain tricks for staging as the moment of Levett being haunted by the ghost of her murdered indigenous lover, with classical overlayed shots getting that spooky, other dimensional, surreal effect; good resource, although appearing briefly, is the only time it feels the visual narrative linearity breaking, a resource that Hitchcock would use quite often in future films. It is a feature which, without being extraordinary, without being a masterpiece, will seduce the appropriate viewer, because you do not think twice about visioning it, because it is the debut as filmmaker of Alfred Hitchcock.
After some experiences as assistant or auxiliary in certain silent films, would come the debut as filmmaker, the first film as director by Alfred Hitchcock, a film in which naturally we still observe the absence of his biggest guidelines, his main cornerstones artistically speaking, but that never cease to be his first film as director. Hitchcock from his initial works makes what would be a constant throughout his cinematic life, adapting literary novels to the big screen, being the movie now commented a work by Oliver Sandys, in which the story of two dancers is portrayed. Two attractive young friends see their friendship crumble as one progresses and rises in the entertainment world, becoming frivolous and ungrateful, while the other follows a path of greater sacrifices, austerity, but remaining virtuous; the picture will show their disparate ways and their relations with their partners, being one path more fatal than the other one. Yet we find the master looking for the edges that would lead his work at the top of world cinema, we will see how it begins Hitch to take his first steps in the seventh art, showing already his preferences for topics, but still in his search for a style.
This is a film that, within the passions and strong human feelings that recreates, it is everything framed in the history of the two girls, the dancers and their world is showed to us immediately, the chorus girls going to perform, and the very pleased parishioners watch the show. In this historical sequence, in which Hitchcock was making his debut as cinema director, we see one of those assistants watching with binoculars Patsy's legs, lust is manifested in the picture right away. The printed lust continues after the approach to the legs of the dancers, we see them undressing, partly of course, but when seeing an image of the clothes being thrown, then seeing the naked torso of the girls, the suggestive power of the film gets already declared. It is a power that will no longer be reflected in the film, but it remains that impression, which at least is mildly retaken when appears Jill provocatively dressed for her new job as a showgirl, again revealing her well shaped legs. Her character is outlined soon, the first fearful and abandoned girl, alone and without money nor home, receives willingly Patsy's help, but as soon as she has a chance, she will show her real face, Machiavellian and light woman, proves to be more adequated to that world that her own protective. It is a film that portrays intense passions, and this is taking shape soon, when we see the flirtatious and outgoing Jill, whose personality, uninhibited, suggestive and manipulative, is the opposite of Patsy's, believer and religious, loyal, even in their clothing is reflected that opposition. Levett plays the most perturbing, most disturbing character, alienated character who proposes marriage and marries a good girl, to immediately get a mistress, to whom also liquidates, and pretends to return to his initial partner, his still wife.
Finally, with the torment of the spirit of her murdered lover ahead, tries to kill Patsy as well, he will be the prey for the metaphysical tortures; meanness and abjection have in him their greatest exponent. An unusual but nice element is the detail of the puppy, canid pet that gives a little more variety to the story, and providing the final nuance that Levett was indeed a jerk, an unbalanced and alienated lout whose tragic end is justified, and the dog was the only one to notice that since the first meeting; the animal appears in much of the picture, a detail that would not be seen in other works of Hitch. As mentioned, Hitchcock, from the start made it clear what would be a constant throughout his film career, the fact of adapting literary works, literary works that later some writer would translate into screenwriting. It seems evident that, among all the talents that had the gigantic Hitch, screenwriter certainly was not the most brilliant of all, or at least the filmmaker exercised it rarely. The film, without being banal, feels still relatively innocuous, not so much for its content as for its treatment, but was normal, being the first experience as a director for Hitch, coming from previous years as an assistant on the set. British master not yet had discovered his sap, the suspense, the source from which he would drink his entire cinema lifetime, he was still in search of his edges, his main guidelines, but certainly he would not delay so much in achieving this, because two years later, with The Lodger (1927), his third film, found them. Given the age of the film, and because of some normal wear of the film by ambient temperatures and the natural pass of time, the film was deteriorating, then it was restored, and there is more than one version in circulation. This current article is based on the viewing of a version of exactly one hour, sixty minutes, which differs in fifteen minutes from another version, in which probably not so many gaps will be notticed.
And thus, certainly in the one-hour-length cut, some gaps are detected, rather abruptly in the story, some details or flaws that probably are not due to the inexperience of the filmmaker, but to the effect that any reduction always has on the original assembly that a filmmaker wants in his film. For instance, it feels a bit too much frantic the way how in a few minutes the narrative informs us about the wedding of Patsy with Levett, then see the immediate disappointment of him, and then also see him already with his native lover, a certain dissonance that is likely to decrease in the full 75 minutes version. Hitch, yet finding his suspense, sets however in a story full of very intense feelings and passions, of ingratitude, love, hate, jealousy, betrayal, lies, lust and madness, and there lays the strength of the film, which feels plausible, human, real. Still of course lacks the mastery of this great filmmaker, still could not find his great style, can not be considered the film as one of his greatest creations, but the then fledgling director gives us the first sign of independence behind the camera. For example, precisely that camera, which is one of the hallmarks of the Hitchcockian cinema, is observed even static, still lacks all the dynamism and precise movements that later would know the filmmaker imprint, since in this film, his first experience, the director still lacks from a developed and identifiable language; perhaps some difference may be missing in those fifteen minutes cut, but the overall impression given to me by the film is what I just stated. What we can highlight are certain resources used by the filmmaker, certain tricks for staging as the moment of Levett being haunted by the ghost of her murdered indigenous lover, with classical overlayed shots getting that spooky, other dimensional, surreal effect; good resource, although appearing briefly, is the only time it feels the visual narrative linearity breaking, a resource that Hitchcock would use quite often in future films. It is a feature which, without being extraordinary, without being a masterpiece, will seduce the appropriate viewer, because you do not think twice about visioning it, because it is the debut as filmmaker of Alfred Hitchcock.
Hi - could you tell us where you found the image of the Atlee Pictures Corporation poster for The Pleasure Garden? Is it a rights free image? We would like to use it in a book. Many thanks
ResponderEliminarCaroline Oakley, Honno Press editor@honno.co.uk - please respond by email www.honno.co.uk