Murder! (1930) - Alfred Hitchcock

Third sound film by remarkable Hitchcock, the master of suspense already entered more and more decidedly in the talkies, assimilating the novelties of the great technical advance, and developing increasingly his style. As usual, he adapts a literary work, a play by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson, which tells a story rather simple, when in a company of actors, suddenly a woman, one of the actresses, appears murdered, being the main suspect another one of the actresses of the group. At the beginning of the trial, the members of the company themselves declare her guilty, being the girl's only hope, a fellow actor, who investigates in parallel with the police, struggling to prove the innocence of the girl. Maintaining some of the main Hitchcockian guidelines, the film does not reach the level or category of other major films of the director, but it shows how quickly the English filmmaker adapted to the great change that the sound revolution meant, and it serves as a platform for continuing some of his experiments with sound. Hitch continues with his stage of English cinema, at a sure pace, growing his genius, his film career in the following years would deliver some of the most memorable exercises of cinema, real jewels of suspense.

 

The action begins in a neighborhood, it is a silent and dark night, a tranquility that is broken by the noises of a hurried steps, as well as struggles noises and screams. It all happens at Diana Baring's (Norah Baring) residence, an actress, in a neighborhood where she lives with her fellow actors. When the police arrive, they find a female corpse, and Diana simply does not remember anything. The jury is formed by Diana's own colleagues, including Doucie Markham (Phyllis Konstam), Ted Markham (Edward Chapman), Sir John Menier (Herbert Marshall), and Handel Fane (Esme Percy), and although at the beginning there is some doubt, they all give guilty verdict to Diana, all but Sir John; nevertheeless, by pressure from the group, even he votes guilty. The judge gives sentence to the girl, but Sir John is not at all convinced of her guilt, so he begins to investigate the facts himself, meeting with some of the relatives and involved in the murder. The task is not simple, but helped by the Markham couple, gets closer to who seems to have been the real killer. After some research, Sir John finally manages to unravel the mystery, some secrets come to light, and even gets to materialize an idyll with his beloved Diana.

We observe an interesting beginning of the film, with a dark traveling, in which a warm halo of a certain expressionism perhaps somebody may nottice, in which also the use of the sound already begins to manifest, with that incessant patter that fuses with the shade, already mystery and uncertainty are getting engendered. Then it will be contrasted with the silence of the next scene, with a dead silence that dominates everything, while the camera explores through the details of the scene of the crime. It is part of the narrative language of the filmmaker, since his beginnings in silent cinema was always brilliant the Briton to narrate without words, and in that regard during the picture we will appreciate details that demonstrate one of the many virtues of Hitchcock, a remarkable technical domain, great management of the camera for his visual narration. For the connoisseur of the first Hitchcockian works, from the silent features, the way in which the images are used by the director to narrate will be perfectly recognizable and identifiable, handwritten sheets displayed on the screen, the cards on which the members of the jury vote on Diana, premonitory images of the shadow of a gallows, clocks, a weather vane, people confined in rooms, among others; certainly one of the director's specialties. Hitchcock also continued his sound experiments in the cinema, began to diversify the possibilities of its use, being a very pleasant example of this the part in which Sir John is shaving, and begins to think about the situation of Diana, and the great Hitch chooses like musical accompaniment a titan in the matter. We will listen to the prelude of the gigantic composition Tristan and Isolda, exquisite melody that collaborates in a peculiar way to create restlessness, concern, as the sublime Wagnerian notes flow, while in turn we hear the thoughts of Sir John, the element of the interior monologue, a rather novel element, as well as effective.

As it was almost a tradition in the Hitchcockian creation, the filmmaker adapts a literary work again, and being in its development this film so testimonial, the theatrical halo that impregnates the work is quite notorious, observing the frames, the compositions of the same ones, and even the declamations of some personages, with a scenic treatment strongly theatrical. The second part of the film is the most exemplary in that sense, because it focuses on the researches of Sir John, and is where the treatment mentioned is more notticeable. It is also in that second part where the picture becomes more linear than ever, a linearity that almost will not be broken, the director is not much encouraged to visual experiments, except in the final sequence. This characteristic feature of the film makes it become slow, makes it at times not finished curdling, but it is just the third talkie by Hitch, the best was yet to come, since he had practically defined all his guidelines. Hitchcock was already taking the final steps to find his subject, the suspense, was already defining the final edges of what would be his style, his final seal; many of its cornerstones are already here, murder, police investigation, intrigue and uncertainty, the filmmaker has already found his topic, would simply define the ways to raise it. Another element is present, his well-known voyeurism, partially showing a female changing clothes under her nightgown. Also the director presents a striking approach to the homosexual world, in the figure of the transvestite Fane, detail that is treated with striking naturalness, especially for the time, moreover considering the capital importance of this character in the development of the picture. Certainly Hitch carried to the limit some of guidelines of his film, and there is room for the comedy, lukewarm comedy, as the man who can not speak until he puts his false teeth.

An element in which the staging highlights clearly becomes the work of montage, frenetic and intense at times, and always with a definite objective, for example in the great sequence of deliberations, that frenetism serves to generate tension, this in addition to an efficient managing of close-ups. In those moments, of multiple close-ups of the members of the jury, plus the accelerated pace of the assembly, they end up configuring a tense and pressing atmosphere, in which everyone practically devours Sir John for thinking that Diana is innocent, is well reflected that pressure to which they submit him so that he votes guilty. Hitch continues to recruit many of the actors we have met in his silent film stage, and it is certainly attractive and curious to hear them finally speaking, recognizing more than one character that we have appreciated in famous works like The Ring, Easy Virtue, among others. Hitchcock was never very supporter of the traditional way of making police and mystery films in his country, in which spectator and protagonist are in the same point with respect to what is known of the mystery, both are discovering the events and clues at the same time; Hitchcock preferred to usually give us more information, the viewer knows something that the protagonist does not, goes a step forward. But in the present film there is an exception, because the intrigue is maintained until the end, which is when the real assassin is discovered. For the final sequence Hitrchcock keeps all the force and the visual climax, all the frantic presentation in images of the sequence denouement, recovers Hitch many of his visual contraptions, a camera that deliriously is placed in the perspective of the trapeze artist, his classic overlayed shots, the overlayed images to give it a nightmarish and surreal tone at the end of the film. The great Hitchcock continues to evolve and refine his style, and although this feature is not the best of his oeuvre, it serves much to continue studying and analyzing the work of this great filmmaker.

Juno and the Paycock (1929) - Alfred Hitchcock

Second sound film by immortal British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, with which he would definitely enter in the then new stage of the cinema, the stage that included the sound, the silent cnema had already passed into history. Unlike many other giant directors, the master of suspense did not put up much resistance to such a dramatic and significant change, such incontestable and decisive evolution, although it is true that in this film we will find what is most likely his most atypical work, which brings the least amount of his most representative artistic vertices. As was almost a tradition in the Hitchcockian films, the director adapts a literary work, a play again, this time work of Sean O'Casey, a referential a work by Irish theater, which presents the story of a family of that country, during the war of Irish revolution, they live in severe austerity; but after thoughtlessly receiving a large inheritance, their lifestyle changes radically, without suspecting anyone in the family that actually this will be the beginning of a nightmare. A very peculiar film, which as well contains other features in its realization, as some of the theatrical actors involved in filmmaking, among other facts that make this film a true and valuable rarity in the Hitch cinema.

                     

Is Ireland, are the years of the Revolution, the Irish are facing each other, a man (Barry Fitzgerald) touts on the need to unite, the division will lose them; he is interrupted by gunshots. In a bar, we see the "captain" Boyle (Edward Chapman), drinking with his friend "Joxer" Daly (Sidney Morgan), in the bar property of Mrs. Maisie Madigan (Maire O'Neill). After that, Boyle goes home, where his wife, Juno (Sara Allgood), scolds him for his lack of work, for his fondness for drink, for being a total maintained man. At home, also he lives with his eldest son, Johnny (John Laurie), who has an injury, has lost an arm for political activity, linked to the IRA. Amid discussions of Boyles and the occurrences of "Joxer", one day receive the visit of Charles Bentham (John Longden), who informs them that, because of the death of a sick relative, the family has inherited a fortune. They do not waste time to change their lives, buy expensive new furniture, a colorful musical apparatus, while Bentham woos Mary (Kathleen O'Regan), the daughter of the spouses. They hold meetings with neighbors, continue to spend money in those meetings where talks and songs by the guests happen, but then the problems begin. Bentham fails, the heritage is lost, debtors pressure Boyle and confiscate things, but that's just the beginning of their nightmare.

Among the interesting stuff in film, it is appreciating the pulse of the filmmaker to translate such a theatrical work to movies, as this is one of Ireland's most emblematic plays, capturing its humor, its reality, its context then, the harsh reality of civil war by the revolution, graphed in dialogues and actions by Boyles. Interestingly, it is said that Hitch accepted very reluctantly to make this film, and seeing the nature of this creation, is understandable, and becomes very interesting to know the ultimate cause of genuine realization of this project by Hitch. The marked theatrical guideline that permeates the entire film unfolds from the beginning, with scenic design, composition of the frames, the distribution of the characters within those frames, transmitting that conception proper of theater, happening almost everything in a single environment, the Boyle family room. It is clear the idea of ​​the filmmaker, the idea that governed the picture, is a work with more theatrical that filmic overtones, a very unusual feature in the Hitchcockian oeuvre, even though Hitch has adapted numerous times successful plays to the big screen. Thus, after more than twenty minutes at the opening of the film, the camera is virtually static most of the time, something unheard of in the most of Hitch's movies, even from his beginnings in silent film. Is an unprecedentedly static camera for a Hitchcock feature, rarely gets broken the linear narrative of that camera, in dribs and drabs, as in the case of Johnny, to whom approaches the camera performing zooms in, breaking that perennially flat behavior. We appreciate a minimalist film, and to this film with minimal resources, the closest reference by director himself is found in the much later Rope (1948), where a bedroom is the scenario of virtually all the action. As the film progresses, we see that it is indeed a Hitchcockian rarity, but not any rarity, as several of his silent works, but the greatest oddity of all, because even in his silent films one of his greatest artistic traits is always embodied. Whether the murder, whether the false culprit, either the love triangle, or the mystery and intrigue that spreads through an investigation of a crime; always one of the seals was present, to a greater or lesser extent. But this time none of these big issues is manifested, all conspicuous by their absence.

Thus, there are not only missing the main topics of his career, but also his traditional visual experiments, technical resources where his dominance in that area was evident. These two vital characteristics of the hitchcockian work are absent, to set what is certainly, at least for the writer, the less hitchcockian picture of all that produced the master of suspense. More than one unwary will be greatly surprised when addressing this picture without knowing what will be presented, an almost unrecognizable work as a creation of its author, something that, more than corroborate the old virtues and strengths of the British's filmmaking, is a film for completists of the oeuvre of the director, one of those examples where the irregular work of an artist can teach as much as his masterpieces, we speak of true followers of the filmmaker. The master chooses another key to narrate his film, which for the time -being the second talkie of the english genius-, turns the feature even most unusual, that because the narrative vehicle are the dialogues of the protagonists, almost recited at times, extensive dialogues which largely summarize the picture, and the Irish reality of those days. Among the dialogues, Juno compares Boyle with a peacock, a bird that looks a lot but does not produce anything, and in that sense the lawyer is one of the most interesting fellows, the one who speaks differently within the characters. We heard him talking about various topics as a well educated man, telling the story of Juno, setting a parallel between the protagonist wife and Greek mythology, Juno, wife of Zeus, which is anything but a devoted and submissive wife, but rather willing to scold and yell the adulterer Zeus. The dialogues are therefore vital part of the film, as well as the songs, at the meeting of the Boyles, where much of the Irish culture is captured. It is noteworthy that the original theater actor for Captain Boyle, Fitzgerald, appears with ephemeral prominence, ephemeral but significant, as the fervid initial crier, which seeks to arouse the feeling of togetherness and fellowship, in the midst of the division of the Irish civil war, division that ensures always led to be defeated; also closes the first and only participation of this character the later recurrent resource of the shooting, the shots that will be heard more than once. The actor who plays Boyle in the film, Edward Chapman, also made his debut in the seventh art, and makes it in a compelling and decent way.

The roles are promptly and clearly defined, Boyle and "Joxer" are freeloaders, they only know how to drink, with Captain Boyle as the main character, is an almost appendix at home, a parasite in a household whose real sustenance is Juno, the wife, she is who wears the pants at home -even the title of the film and play appoint her first, giving her a higher profile-, shouting and bossing her lazy husband. The film was charged a little for supposedly creating stereotypes in excess, being of course Captain Boyle's the major one, always ready for boose, ready to enjoy an ever better drink if it is not at his expense; always alien to work, even pretending to limp to run away from his responsibilities as head of the family, being dominated by his wife. In the picture we appreciate drama but also humor, the warm mood spread through the picture, as when in the beginning we see the bar owner, Ms. Madigan inviting a few drinks to good for nothing Boyle and "Joxer", drinks that they accept willingly, but they withdraw as it's their turn to invite alcohol, leaving the woman. We also have the captain, with a regret as artificial as comic, his false sympathy to the demise of a relative he never liked, whose death rather means such a welcome economic heritage. Technically, is corrected completely any flaw that had his first sound film, Blackmail, of the same year, and now we appreciate a perfect synchronization of sound and actors, the audio, the sound of voices walk alongside the movement from the lips of the protagonists. An imperfection that it is striking is certain "misframing" seen in more than one sequence, with the faces of the actors that sometimes remain "outside" the framings, a visual flaw actually improper of Hitchcock. We found other interesting elements, some sorts of leitmotif, like the sound of the bullets that flows mostly in moments starring Johnny, denoting haste, anguish; also the Virgin Mary, at peak moments, and always involving Johnny, finally converging both resources in the fatal outcome, with that good final shot, in which Juno speaks to the virgin in a pathetic moment. A feature as attractive as strange for the connoisseur of Hitch, degradation is printed, the decline faced by a family when the money comes, how they forget the most important things, losing dignity, and in some cases life. An unusual film, but for those completing the filmography of Hitch, is a real gem.

Blackmail (1929) - Alfred Hitchcock

Historic picture, memorable film work, the first spoken movie by giant filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, and according to a statement not entirely clarified, the first talkie of British scenario. One of the greatest revolutions in the history of cinema had arrived just a year earlier with The Jazz Singer, many master filmmakers were in uncertainty about it, but this was not the case for Hitch. Studios had entrusted him the task of finally introducing the sound on a feature, and the master of suspense did much more than a mere experiment. As usual, Hitch adapts a literary work, in this case the play by Charles Bennett, with which continues the filmmaker finding the suspense as his major hallmark as an audiovisual artist. The story itself is simple, a woman, when almost being violated by an artist, in self-defense kills her attacker, and scared and fearful of what she has done, moves away from the atmosphere of what happened; but she does not suspect her boyfriend, a police officer, has been assgned with investigating the case, while a witness of the events begins to blackmail them. Still with the obvious insecurities and proper experiments of such a significant moment in the history of cinema, Hitchcock sets up an attractive film, not extraordinary, but essential for the lover of his films, is his first sounded movie.

               

The film begins with some individuals, policemen who burst into a house and capture a subject, resting in bed, without much resistance despite having a gun, he is arrested. Then we see Alice White (Anny Ondra), she walks with her boyfriend, Detective Frank Webber (John Longden), they are going to eat, but in the place they go, another character appears, a man (Cyril Ritchard), to whom she immediately makes a signal, she gets rid of her boyfriend, and meets with the second subject outside. She agrees to go to the house of the man, who is an artist, and in the midst of his paintings and piano music, he kisses her, tries to get intimate with her by strength, and Alice, to avoid it, kills him with a knife. Then, she leaves the house of the artist, terrified of what she has done, and the next day, during police proficiencies, Frank, in charge of the case, finds one of her gloves at the scene of the crime. When Frank tells Alice that he knows what happened, and thinking to cover her up, appears Tracy (Donald Calthrop), is the subject initially arrested, who witnessed what happened, and that immediately makes clear his intentions to blackmail them. Tracy, controlling the situation, achieves Alice even to take him to her home, to eat with his family, blackmails her with what he knows, but Frank, learning the rap sheet Tracy has, does not give in to blackmail, and finally gives solution to the exigent circumstance.

In the beginning we appreciate a camera denoting a little frenzy pace, not excessive, but some bold camera movements give the moderate haste to opening sequence, in which the assembly work also does the same to create that environment. To this, it adds some other camera movement and zoom, in which is evidenced again the mastery and ease on the technical level that always had the British, showing it agile, fast, accurate, exploring minute details like a mirror hanging in a wall, its accuracy is remarkable. It is curious that the first sequence has been completely silent, we see the actors moving their lips, but there is no audio of their voices. The personal print of Hitchcock is recognized almost immediately from these early sequences, his language, his narrative resources, when we see an ashtray, first with a single cigarette burning, then packed with several cigarettes, exposing the time spent in that tense situation, the arrested man is being registered in police files. As always, since his inception in silent films, Hitch was enthusiast and talented to tell without words, to narrate with images, not only for the detail of the ashtray and subsequent visual displays, but by the behavior of the camera. It is noted, as was obvious and natural, that these were the first sound exercises by Hitch, and in that sense are evident the insertions of sound, the director to some extent was experimenting, the British International Pictures studios entrusted his whiz kid, Hitch, who was then 30 years old, to take the English cinema to the new world of sound. The master of suspense does it, and is notticeable, as was natural at such a crucial moment, certain lack of coordination, as the sound, the audio of the actors's voices sometimes not being synchronized with the movement of their lips, the insertion feels a little forced. Diegetic sounds also denote certain artificiality in some scenes, some untidiness in editing, but, again, we must consider that Hitchcock is the master who makes what is probably the first British sound film experiment.

Among the sequences that depict the sound leap, we have prolonged birdsong background while she changes her clothes, the day after the murder. All deficiency -lower, by the way- gets relegated, because these are mythical moments, the master Hitchcock first conducting a talkie, and English cinema itself was entering another stage, with the beautiful Anny Ondra as one of those first voices to be heard, with her notorious Eastern European accent. The Austro-Hungarian actress exceeded certain insecurities due to that accent of her, to finally overcome the audition Hitch did, and get this role. Looks beautiful the Ondra in simile character to the immediately previous film by director, The Manxman, released the same year, 1929, with similar behavior, cheerful, coquette, with an innocence which in turn is combined with certain malice to manipulate men (she gets rid of her boyfriend to finish in the artist's home), a feminine duality feature of many Hitchcockian females, and collaborating with many who accuse him of misogynist. She becomes undisputed center of events, engine generating everything, there are plenty of close-ups exploring her beautiful face, her gestures, her innocence and banality at the beginning, her fragility and terror over the blackmail later, and Ondra gets more than just a passing grade in the difficult exam. It is understandable that she became the first blond muse of Hitch, and has the great privilege of having closed the silent phase of the filmmaker, with slightly above-mentioned film, The Manxman, then opened the sound stage of English giant; certainly meritorious, privileged place of the Austro-Hungarian actress. Known is the matter of this film having two versions, one still silent version, and the other sounded -in which this article is based on-, a widespread custom in cinema for those years when the filmmakers, and especially producers, were skeptical about the arrival of sound, and produced two versions of each feature, to foresee or counter any eventual failure of the audio version of any film made. This detail skews to some extent a comprehensive appreciation of this film, and not having yet viewed the silent version, I am constrained to comment on the talkie.

In this, the first sound film by Alfred Hitchcock, still the successes and mastery of silent cinematic techniques outweigh the benefits of his talkies, it is completely normal, natural, and among these successes we have the sequence of her, after murder, mechanically walking the streets. There we appreciate the darkness, the shadows, the assembly again, people passing rushed to her side, visual tricks show us her inner torment, all urban details remind her crime, always without words; certainly the silent filmmaker still expressed more, the sound filmmaker was just being incubated. Notable film in which Hitchcock still continues to discover his great topic, suspense, which is cleverly spread from murder, a film in which, by the way, other vital issues in British genius's cinema are absent. Thus, although it lacks the love triangle, or the issue of false guilty, we do have the topic of murder, almost indivisible from whole Hitch's oeuvre. Hitch also enfolds us in a halo of voyeurism, when we appreciate only partially crucial facts, first only see the shadows of them on the wall struggling, then the curtain that separates us from the action, he trying to outrage her, we wonder exactly what is happening. Then the camera shows the detail of the knife, making easier enough to imagine what happens, and most obvious being the result of the action when we see the hand of the aggressor out of that curtain, hanging lifeless. Some sort of technical divertissement Hitchcock allows, as the upward traveling at the time Alice and the artist go upstairs, recognizable details in the artistic personality of the director, as well as the warm eroticism that more than once exhibited, this time with the beautiful Ondra changing her clothes at the artist's home. Naturally, we also appreciate other never absent visual resources by filmmaker, as his traditional image overlays at different times of the picture, and with different intentions. But the fact is that these elements are rare in the film, of course, the supreme novelty of the sound seems to have captured the attention of the master, and probably of his entire production team. Also we found some unusual and attractive element as a theatrical halo, detected in the important sequence in which Alice, Frank and Tracy speak directly of the situation, blackmail and the possibilities of who would believe the police. At such times, the composition of these scenes conveys that warm theatrical treatment, distribution of the characters in the frame transmit that feeling, certainly positive. Essential film for lovers of Hitchcock's movies, and cinema lovers in general, his first sound work, a new era was starting, Hitch had already matured at some extent, already dominating resources, and now, with the domain of sound, would reach highest levels of cinema, the genius had a clear track.