We are faced with a very unusual Hitchcockian film exercise on this occasion, something that is to a large extent a rarity among the extended filmography of this huge British director. This is stated since is well known the fact that this film, simply titled
Mary, is literally a copy -a
remake, if you want-, of his own film a year before directed,
Murder! (1930), because, incredibly, twelve months after that british film, this second feature of the same story produces the great Hitch, but now with the french german production. So, as he had never done, and would not do the director again, uses the same scenarios from the first time, uses the same dialogues, the same characters and history, and even repeat in many cases shot by shot the initial shooting, only replacing, as is logical by language, the actors. On this cinema website, I have a review on
Murder!, so in that article it can be found an excellent complement for this text. As it was said, the story is the same, an actress accused of murdering a colleague of hers, all her comrades believe she is guilty, except one, he will investigate, unravel mysteries and solve the situation. In a case as particular as the present, the analysis will not, of course, be a conventional analysis either.
On a dark and quiet night, suddenly in a neighborhood can be heard many noises, hurried footsteps, screams, struggles, and finally a woman shouts heartily. Everything takes place in the residence of Mary Baring (Olga Tschechowa), actress, and when her neighbors, fellow actors, approache, they find the corpse of a female, another one of the actresses of the company; Mary claims to remember nothing. The next day, the trial begins for the murder, Mary is found guilty by the jury, made up of her own comrades, among whom is Handel Fane (Ekkehard Arendt); by everyone but Sir John Menier (Alfred Abel), but the man is pressed and almost forced by the others to vote her also guilty. While not even denying anything Mary, the judge dictates sentence, but Menier is convinced that Mary is innocent, that the killer is another person. Hence, he decides to investigate himself, outside the police, Bobby Brown (Paul Graetz), and his wife Bebe Brown (Lotte Stein) help him, they have important information. Although the task is not simple, he unravels the lies, Mary herself is silent for fear of discovering secrets of a friend of her involved in everything. But finally, the tenacity of Sir John prevails, manages to discover the real assassin, the mysteries are revealed, and he stays happily matched with Mary.
As said, we actually witness a re-version of his own film, from the initial moment we nottice this, when we see, shot by shot the sequence of the shadowy street in the neighborhood, when we hear the sounds, screams and struggles, when we see the people peeking out of their windows, it's almost a
Murder! wedge. But equally, for the keen observer, an early difference with the original is there, when we see the neighbor man, instead of suffering his speech by not having his false teeth -as it was in
Murder!-, simply gargling with his wife. That detail will serve in a good extent as a thermometer, because it is simply inevitable, for those who have seen the first film, to compare and notice differences and similarities between the two, turning it the experience into something new. Then, when reading the subtitles (of course speaking in my case, I dominate English, of the first film, but not at all German) we will discover that it is a copy of the first film in almost all its senses, because with the obvious language difference, we are seeing practically everything else again. Hitchcock, more than eight decades ago, redefined, paradoxically, the term
remake in the cinematographic field, because the filmmaker actually re-makes, almost re-does his shooting, almost doing everything again, shot by shot, frame by frame, dialogue to dialogue. Even many names are repeated, such as the case of the transvestite Fane, in wich case are repeated name and lastname, and is the biggest difference the name of the protagonist, as the lastname Baring remains, varies only her first name, which in turn will also serve as title for the picture. But everything is there, or rather, everything is still there, the transvestite of great importance in the development of the facts, the rivalry between murdered and suspicious, everything is there, only change some ways of presenting the same.
At an initial glance, one might think that Hitch simply limits himself to repeating the first feature, frame by frame, dialogue by dialogue, simply reducing the footage in twenty minutes, and that initial impression is not surprising, for that is what it looks like after a shallow glance. Nevertheless, Hitch does more than that, because the twenty minutes reduced in this film, for a picture that supposedly is a mere copy or repetition, for two features so twinned, are too many, it is an amount of time considerable. It can be thought that those twenty minutes are minor, dispensable ones, and the fact that it is inevitable to compare them, does not make it an easy task, but I can provide a couple of details: the cited one of the false teeth thing, or the sequence of Mr. Brown (Chapman In
Murder!), entering in the police station to give testimony, and the way in the first movie he treads a too fluffy carpet, detail that highlights the discomfort and nervousness of the character, while in the present,
Mary, that detail is omitted. Those details can make a small or a big difference, and the interested viewers will discover more differences or similarities apart of those mentioned. Among these many differences, can be notticed the absence of some images in crucial times, we no longer see the premonitory image of the gallows, some animal shots, clocks, a weather vane; again, small details that can make big differences, depending on the connoisseur. The most pleasant, to a certain extent, is that not only the scenes are repeated, but also the way many frames also doubled, the brotherhood between one feature and another is undeniable, it is obvious, they are twinned and joined as a indivisible braid. Such a singular experience made me inevitably think of Gus Van Sant, and if perhaps him, when experiencing the same of what I speak, had been badly inspired to realize one of the greatest basenesses in the history of cinema. This, because in his particular remake of the classic
Psycho -as unnecessary as unpalatable, even despicable-, we appreciate the same, the duplication of practically everything, characters, dialogues, framing, shot by shot; but the rest, his filmic failures, are so well known and as unnecessary to narrate as his own remake. Anyway...
But the master Hitcchcock had the pulse and the sufficient nose for, removed sequences apart, respect and maintain the main segments of his first work, and in this way we see the sequence of deliberation in which Mary is unanimously declared guilty, forcing Sir John, though, and precisely in that activity is repeated the oppressive atmosphere generated. The behavior of the camera is similar, identical to
Murder!, the severe pressure exerted by the group, almost devouring the individual who thinks Mary is innocent, forcing him to change his initial verdict, and the fast pace, frantic montage of the jury members close-ups, repeat intentionality, and each palate will judge if the effect achieved is greater or less than in the predecessor film. Hitch actually respects the best achieved sequences, the most effective and important expressive and visually, which best work transmisting feelings, repeating some obscure and memorable frames of the protagonist, especially when shown in the cloister, almost iconic image of the picture, or when she has the definitive dialogue with Sir John; these are two good examples of the camera work and realization in which Hitch knew what to respect and what to dispense off in this particular remake. Another of the most important sequences could not be missing either, this is the sequence, after the forced verdict, of Sir John meditating, thinking inside while shaving, and flows the exquisite melody of the prelude to the Wagnerian composition,
Tristan and Isolde. The merits of this sequence are maintained and are not few, highlighting the growing tension that is imprinted, in addition to the element of inner monologue, voice-over resource, so newfangled and effective then, the British wields two proper and obvious resources of a talkies filmmaker. It will remain in question what was the real reason for the realization of this "second" work, sometimes it seems as if the master had tried to "improve" himself, perhaps filing some sequence that he considered "over" in the work a year ago produced, is like if Hitchcock did a review of his own work, underpinning some details, eliminating others that were considered to be left over. It may be that, as is often the case, the motive is simple, but in any case it is more likely that to this particular regard the as famous as extended interview that the illustrious disciple Truffaut made to Hitch would bring new lights. Hitchcock does not cease surprising, so many decades later, with this peculiar exercise of remake, with which so many contemporary so called filmmakers could learn, and much.
We are faced with a very unusual Hitchcockian film exercise on this occasion, something that is to a large extent a rarity among the extended filmography of this huge British director. This is stated since is well known the fact that this film, simply titled Mary, is literally a copy -a remake, if you want-, of his own film a year before directed, Murder! (1930), because, incredibly, twelve months after that british film, this second feature of the same story produces the great Hitch, but now with the french german production. So, as he had never done, and would not do the director again, uses the same scenarios from the first time, uses the same dialogues, the same characters and history, and even repeat in many cases shot by shot the initial shooting, only replacing, as is logical by language, the actors. On this cinema website, I have a review on Murder!, so in that article it can be found an excellent complement for this text. As it was said, the story is the same, an actress accused of murdering a colleague of hers, all her comrades believe she is guilty, except one, he will investigate, unravel mysteries and solve the situation. In a case as particular as the present, the analysis will not, of course, be a conventional analysis either.
On a dark and quiet night, suddenly in a neighborhood can be heard many noises, hurried footsteps, screams, struggles, and finally a woman shouts heartily. Everything takes place in the residence of Mary Baring (Olga Tschechowa), actress, and when her neighbors, fellow actors, approache, they find the corpse of a female, another one of the actresses of the company; Mary claims to remember nothing. The next day, the trial begins for the murder, Mary is found guilty by the jury, made up of her own comrades, among whom is Handel Fane (Ekkehard Arendt); by everyone but Sir John Menier (Alfred Abel), but the man is pressed and almost forced by the others to vote her also guilty. While not even denying anything Mary, the judge dictates sentence, but Menier is convinced that Mary is innocent, that the killer is another person. Hence, he decides to investigate himself, outside the police, Bobby Brown (Paul Graetz), and his wife Bebe Brown (Lotte Stein) help him, they have important information. Although the task is not simple, he unravels the lies, Mary herself is silent for fear of discovering secrets of a friend of her involved in everything. But finally, the tenacity of Sir John prevails, manages to discover the real assassin, the mysteries are revealed, and he stays happily matched with Mary.
As said, we actually witness a re-version of his own film, from the initial moment we nottice this, when we see, shot by shot the sequence of the shadowy street in the neighborhood, when we hear the sounds, screams and struggles, when we see the people peeking out of their windows, it's almost a Murder! wedge. But equally, for the keen observer, an early difference with the original is there, when we see the neighbor man, instead of suffering his speech by not having his false teeth -as it was in Murder!-, simply gargling with his wife. That detail will serve in a good extent as a thermometer, because it is simply inevitable, for those who have seen the first film, to compare and notice differences and similarities between the two, turning it the experience into something new. Then, when reading the subtitles (of course speaking in my case, I dominate English, of the first film, but not at all German) we will discover that it is a copy of the first film in almost all its senses, because with the obvious language difference, we are seeing practically everything else again. Hitchcock, more than eight decades ago, redefined, paradoxically, the term remake in the cinematographic field, because the filmmaker actually re-makes, almost re-does his shooting, almost doing everything again, shot by shot, frame by frame, dialogue to dialogue. Even many names are repeated, such as the case of the transvestite Fane, in wich case are repeated name and lastname, and is the biggest difference the name of the protagonist, as the lastname Baring remains, varies only her first name, which in turn will also serve as title for the picture. But everything is there, or rather, everything is still there, the transvestite of great importance in the development of the facts, the rivalry between murdered and suspicious, everything is there, only change some ways of presenting the same.
At an initial glance, one might think that Hitch simply limits himself to repeating the first feature, frame by frame, dialogue by dialogue, simply reducing the footage in twenty minutes, and that initial impression is not surprising, for that is what it looks like after a shallow glance. Nevertheless, Hitch does more than that, because the twenty minutes reduced in this film, for a picture that supposedly is a mere copy or repetition, for two features so twinned, are too many, it is an amount of time considerable. It can be thought that those twenty minutes are minor, dispensable ones, and the fact that it is inevitable to compare them, does not make it an easy task, but I can provide a couple of details: the cited one of the false teeth thing, or the sequence of Mr. Brown (Chapman In Murder!), entering in the police station to give testimony, and the way in the first movie he treads a too fluffy carpet, detail that highlights the discomfort and nervousness of the character, while in the present, Mary, that detail is omitted. Those details can make a small or a big difference, and the interested viewers will discover more differences or similarities apart of those mentioned. Among these many differences, can be notticed the absence of some images in crucial times, we no longer see the premonitory image of the gallows, some animal shots, clocks, a weather vane; again, small details that can make big differences, depending on the connoisseur. The most pleasant, to a certain extent, is that not only the scenes are repeated, but also the way many frames also doubled, the brotherhood between one feature and another is undeniable, it is obvious, they are twinned and joined as a indivisible braid. Such a singular experience made me inevitably think of Gus Van Sant, and if perhaps him, when experiencing the same of what I speak, had been badly inspired to realize one of the greatest basenesses in the history of cinema. This, because in his particular remake of the classic Psycho -as unnecessary as unpalatable, even despicable-, we appreciate the same, the duplication of practically everything, characters, dialogues, framing, shot by shot; but the rest, his filmic failures, are so well known and as unnecessary to narrate as his own remake. Anyway...
But the master Hitcchcock had the pulse and the sufficient nose for, removed sequences apart, respect and maintain the main segments of his first work, and in this way we see the sequence of deliberation in which Mary is unanimously declared guilty, forcing Sir John, though, and precisely in that activity is repeated the oppressive atmosphere generated. The behavior of the camera is similar, identical to Murder!, the severe pressure exerted by the group, almost devouring the individual who thinks Mary is innocent, forcing him to change his initial verdict, and the fast pace, frantic montage of the jury members close-ups, repeat intentionality, and each palate will judge if the effect achieved is greater or less than in the predecessor film. Hitch actually respects the best achieved sequences, the most effective and important expressive and visually, which best work transmisting feelings, repeating some obscure and memorable frames of the protagonist, especially when shown in the cloister, almost iconic image of the picture, or when she has the definitive dialogue with Sir John; these are two good examples of the camera work and realization in which Hitch knew what to respect and what to dispense off in this particular remake. Another of the most important sequences could not be missing either, this is the sequence, after the forced verdict, of Sir John meditating, thinking inside while shaving, and flows the exquisite melody of the prelude to the Wagnerian composition, Tristan and Isolde. The merits of this sequence are maintained and are not few, highlighting the growing tension that is imprinted, in addition to the element of inner monologue, voice-over resource, so newfangled and effective then, the British wields two proper and obvious resources of a talkies filmmaker. It will remain in question what was the real reason for the realization of this "second" work, sometimes it seems as if the master had tried to "improve" himself, perhaps filing some sequence that he considered "over" in the work a year ago produced, is like if Hitchcock did a review of his own work, underpinning some details, eliminating others that were considered to be left over. It may be that, as is often the case, the motive is simple, but in any case it is more likely that to this particular regard the as famous as extended interview that the illustrious disciple Truffaut made to Hitch would bring new lights. Hitchcock does not cease surprising, so many decades later, with this peculiar exercise of remake, with which so many contemporary so called filmmakers could learn, and much.
Muy Bueno! Gracias!
ResponderEliminarThank you indeed!
ResponderEliminar