Easy Virtue (1928) - Alfred Hitchcock

In the year this film was released, 1928, the sound had just arrived to cinema to realize one of the greatest revolutions that have been in the history of seventh art, forever changing its scenario, modifying careers of all directors and actors who had hitherto shone. Therefore, this was one of the late great master of suspense's silent films, his silent exercises were almost always oddities, still looking for a definitive stamp on his language, the master embarks on adapting a literary work to the big screen again. For this work, again Hitch adapts a novel by the actor and playwright, Noel Coward, and portrays the story of a female in British society, who will face an unthinkable nightmare when her past mistakes, having been in the middle of a mess between two men, costing the life of one of them, will generate her a bad reputation, which pursues until the end; even when she tries to rebuild her live, that burden will not disappear when her new partner's family harass, after finding out about her past activities. Unusual film of the British, like most of his nearly ten pictures of the silent period, which certainly can not be classified among the best of the production of the giant producer, but being a silent film by Alfred Hitchcock, the correct palate will surely be enthusiast for this appreciable tape.

            

When the movie gets started, a trial is underway, Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans) is being accused, the prosecuting attorney who accuses (Ian Hunter), urges her to respond, she recalls how a brilliant young painter was portraying her, when her jealous and drunken husband, who abused the lady, interrupted. The husband has a bad response, assaults the artist, who unexpectedly shoots, killing his aggressor; lawyer accuses heatedly women, to complicate the issue when a large inheritance is left for her product of the murder, she is accused and the jury convicts her. She is not condemned, but is exposed to humiliation and shame by media, for which she goes away from it all. Already away, Larita meets John Whittaker (Robin Irvine), a millionaire who courts her, and, after thinking, she accepts his marriage proposal. Once married, they move to the house of John, where Larita meets his new mother in law (Violet Farebrothers), steely woman who from the beginning has suspicions about the origin of his daughter in law. In that house the mother makes her life miserable, especially when comes to light his past, she is only supported by John's father (Frank Elliott) and Sarah (Enid Stamp-Taylor), for even the prosecutor who accused her appears at parties of aristocrats. The tormented Larita can't continue anymore, states Sarah that she must have married John, and puts an end to her martyrdom in that house.

The beginning of the film is typical of hits silent exercises, when the first image we see is a text box in which is differenced what is virtue, defining it as something that is its own reward, from what is the easy virtue, reward of society to a slandered reputation; it is a good summary of what will be appreciated in detail in the film, and is characteristic of several of his silent films to start such as in this picture. The beginning of the story itself, is treated with a language inviting the optimism, with some positive looseness of the camera, offering close-ups, detailed drawings of objects, reflecting the judgment with which the film is opening, there is some mobility of lens, freedom of approaches, zooms, all sorted correctly to portray those tense moments early. Even promptly, in those first minutes immediately we see flashbacks, past action and present merge properly, without elaborate mechanisms or obvious breaks, it is quiet but satisfying how this transition is printed, ending the setting of a start of film that, as stated, invited optimism. Expressive images, monocles swaying imitating the next picture, the pendulum of a clock, side shots of the faces of those involved, prosecutor and defendant facing each other, enriching a narration without words, something quite common in Hitch. It is unfortunate that such a promising beginning of the picture was left on that, an optimistic promise. But continuing with the images, director manages pleasant moments such as horses near each other, as Larita and John, who are feeding their love; and of course the most important sequence in that sense, narrating wordless when Larita finally agrees to his marriage proposal, is through the phone that she accepts, and Hitch gets the luxury of not letting us doubt of her answer without even showing a single shot, nor hers nor his. It is extraordinary that moment, the telephone receptionist is the conduit, narrative and informative vehicle, as her reactions indicate the development of this conversation, some uncertainty at first, but her wide smile and gesture tell us that no doubt she accepted; very remarkable, we, without being showed any of those involved, no doubt know the result of the proposal.

It is true that the film begins showing a murder, but despite that as usual element in the Hitchcockian cinema, the feature is far away from most major artistic vertices of the British, there is no doubt that the master was still self discovering, discovering expressive field in which he would become legend. We speak of course of suspense, which he had warmly tasted in his first major film, The Lodger (1927), but still was finishing the filmmaker to take the final brush strokes before ending his mute stage, and without this being a mediocre picture -for this, as we have seen, contains remarkable and apreciables elements-, is still far from the highest levels subsequently reached by the director. The great filmmaker took very little time, however, finding his topic, some argue that the limited success of previous films made producers interfere more than before on the subject of this feature; but whatever the case might be, we feel that the strength of the director is diluted, in the absence of tension, intrigue and uncertainty of Hitch's suspense, loses his effectiveness the master, in such an innocuous field like this, we nottice the loss of all power that springs forth when performing suspense. Interesting, yes, regardless of whether the chosen theme fully reflects the will of the filmmaker or not, is the treatment of the female protagonist, this because well known is the misogyny of which is accused Hitch, and in this opportunity, the woman, Larita, is no longer the light female who without the slightest thought triggers misfortunes on the male protagonists. Now there is some variation of it, now she is the persecuted, to whom neither her reputation nor hypocritical society will leave alone (we see how John's sisters lurk even in her drinking). Everything becomes relatively ambiguous when we appreciate Larita's attitudes, her instances, her constant action of smoking copiously, her drinking, makes one feel her to some point worldly, plus the way she approaches Sarah. Hitch certainly leaves some room for the viewer to think a little, makes to struggle hesitating whether indeed she is a victim or not, the director makes "suffer" the viewer, something that Hitchcock always stood in the way of making films.

We are certainly facing a novel treatment of female elements in Hitch, to already commented on Larita and her ambiguous person, we add the maternal element, the imposing mother of John, who actually gets to eclipse him in prominence. Like almost never seen in Hitchcockian films, we see a female duel, Larita against the mother, an unprecedented duel of feminine forces, interesting in a film by the British, as well as the empowerment of the mother; but the maternal theme in Hitch's oeuvre would be the subject of another article (see only the mother of Norman Bates). Among the negative elements of the film, one becomes a certain weakness to represent many of the sequences of the picture, lacks of tension, strength in representations, feeling almost loose and limp the core of portrayed. Starting with the brawl between the jealous husband and the young painter, continuing with sequences as the first contacts between Larita and John, just to cite examples in which feels that lack of strength in other films so strongly appreciated. Also, after the commented initial deployment of the camera, we will not see much of the visual narrative elements of the British, only glimpses of them, like when the Whittaker family is eating, and food and dishes disappear by dissolution of shots; this lack of resources and visuals definitely are detrimental to the film. But all is not bad, it is interesting that Hitchcock slides a study, a look at the society of his time, the hypocrisy of the rancid aristocracy, because as soon as the mother of John learns the truth about Larita, she and most of the family condemns her; but with the imminent humiliation and gossip of society ahead, they prefer to remain silent, conceal the truth. Although despise her, rather than being consistent to it, they prefer to keep up appearances, they prefer to maintain a false image of normalcy to their peers, the double standards of the aristocrats, that society are portrayed. In his period as a silent filmmaker, Hitch is still looking for his style, and almost every one of his films constituted a rarity, brought novelties, in 1927 produced The Ring, non-repeated pugilistic exercise, and Downhill, attractive analysis of physical and moral decay of an individual, and in 1928 comes the unusual comedy The Farmer's Wife. Then comes the film now commented, with that unsettling end of her asking to be "shot", because there is nothing left to kill. Atypical but interesting years for Hitch, those are his silent films, although no masterpieces, are real jewels to appreciate.

Downhill (1927) - Alfred Hitchcock

In the final moments of silent cinema, in 1927, just a year before reaching the great revolution of sound to the seventh art, one of the biggest names in cinema, the British titan Alfred Hictchcock showed a significant and known prolific activity. Three films even produced Hitch in that year, before he finally made his triumphant entry to talkies; The Lodger earned him his first major international success, then The ring would continue the early stage of the master of suspense. The third film of that year becomes the one in question in this article, a film that departs largely from many of the cornerstones that would accompany forever Hitch's movies, and that he was already outlining in his features then, but nevertheless keeps closeness and loyalty to other main reference points. The British adapts once again work from literature, a play curiously co-written by the protagonist, Ivor Novello, in which the vicissitudes and misfortunes of a young student in Britain are reflected, who covers up to a friend, assumes culpability for a breach of him, being expelled from their school, and initiating a series of bitter adventures for him, but not everything is lost. Hitchcock continued cementing one of the most remarkable filmographies, and this silent film, without being a masterpiece, is a significant mark of his genius.

          

After seeing a text informing that this is a story about the disparate loyalty of two friends, we are introduced to a world of youth, young students play rugby in their student campus. Among them is Roddy Berwick (Novello), who is hailed by his peers, he is appreciated by everyone, including the school principal. During a dinner, Mabel (Annette Benson), flirts with both Roddy and Tim Wakely (Robin Irvine), his great friend; she is dependant in a shop, inviting Tim to an alone meeting, but both friends go to the shop. When in there, Tim tries to molest her, not getting it, the girl continues flirting with both, but the next day the director sends for the two friends. Mabel accuses Rod of trying to molest her, and, although Tim was the real offender, he accepts guilt, is expelled from school, and his father, after learning, despises him, Rod leaves home. Working as a waiter, he meets Julia Fotheringale (Isabel Jeans), famous actress, and she, when the young man inherits 30,000 pounds of his godmother, gets to steal his money in collaboration with her friend Archie (Ian Hunter). A collapsed Roddy is dedicated to being the company of older women, he is a gigolo, activity that ends up destroying him, but at the worst moment, alone, with no house nor friends, crazed, instinctively returns home, where his father will give him a pleasant surprise.

The movie's preface already will inform us correctly, the picture we will watch portrays a dissimilar story of loyalty, it tells us that a friend keeps it, and at a high price; great way to go diagramming what will be largely appreciated in the feature. Then we are introduced to the youth world, that is portrayed with the rugby game, with the innocence of young flirting, school, games in the dining room, all initial subtle and carefree tonic proper of youth, a tonic which will be maintained during the first part of the film. We attend to a novelty in the Hitchcockian cinema, something hitherto unseen, he does not use the suspense that had already discovered with The Lodger, does not lays his story on murders nor mysterious deaths, but uses another kind of darkness, another sleazy topic, moral decay, the collapse experienced by the young, the individual who calmly accepts a guilt stranger to him, accepts what at first almost ruins his life, a new topic and relatively unheard of in the filmography of Hitch. It is set in the picture, yes, one of the few guidelines -perhaps the only one- that would be constant in his films, the culprit false, but in a variety of first time seen, the false guilty accepting this false guilt, even at the expense of vital integrity, something that we would not see repeated until I confess (1953). It seemed that his luck would shift when receiving succulent and unexpected inheritance, when he marries a famous actress, but that will be only the final step to bottoming out in his decline, when Julia divests him of nearly all his money, is an endless road, an endless fall that is presented in the film. But then comes the worst, having to resort to be gigolo, another character says she can not believe he has reached that, curiously the character with whom one of the most pathetic moments of the film is generated, an elderly woman lustfully looking the young fellow, offensive image, is his lowest point.

Hitch is often accused of misogyny, and that might be seen, perhaps, in the way that the female characters are addressed, always shown the women as weathervanes, light and licentious, provocative, without too much judgment, always creating problems for their fickle and reprehensible behaviors. Both Mabel and Julia are negative elements, as in many films by Hitch is appreciated. First Mabel, who flirts shamelessly with the two friends, cites one of them alone, to finally, between both, accusing the innocent one of having had dubious intentions toward her, when actually she tried to instigate him; without any problems or reasons, she shows a despicable behavior, spoiling the life of the most beloved student. Julia would complet misogyny, the actress who after marrying Rod, finally ends up wresting his large inheritance, plunging him into misery; attitudes like this are seen more then once in Htchcock, especially in his initial stage, perverse women whose role seems to be only generating problems, with poor judgment or unscrupulous, main reason for director being accused thay way, maybe not so unjustly. Hitch is an individual who, speaking in terms of silent cinema, was never excessively devotee of verbal language, the proof is that almost dispenses explanatory texts or dialogues, for over the first fifteen minutes, almost only one dialogue is appreciated; Hitchcock never used the conventional way of narrating or transmitting, from his initial works is noticed that. As a natural consequence of this, the actors, in the latest years of silent cinema, had a higher dramatic responsibility, lacking dialogues, their histrionic skills, variety of records, had a much greater impact on the narrative. With few exceptions, only at the end we will see the camera regain an ease and variety of records that previously filmmaker was already perfecting, we do not see in his lens his marked agility and ease-of movements -seen for example, in the two quoted features of the same year- of before, no travellings, just some interesting moment of light contrasts. The first daring or shake of the lethargy of the camera is seen when the two friends approach the principal, indeed the first turning point of the film, the focus and camera movement depict the first moment of a certain vigor, and we must wait to see the next one.

For ending sequences filmmaker gets back that ease and prowess that was developing: placing ourselves in the perspective of tormented Rod, a tremulous camera transmits his final collapse. Trembling sequence shots goes parading with overlayed shots, close-ups and certain darkness to capture that terrible moment, even some images as a leitmotif (posters referring to Mabel, gears), contrasting light and shadows game, etc. Everything is articulated in moments that condense the visually most remarkable assets of the picture, because apart from this, in that field there is not much to see in the film, the dizzying visual zenith of the movie is left to the end, correct resource since this aligns with the climax of the story itself. As recalls the great Truffaut in the extensive interview that the French made to his idol Hitch, the symbolism of the escalator obviously serves to make the analogy to the decline Roddy is about to embark in when he leaves his house; degradation that is just beginning, and it will again be symbolized with the elevator, which also descends, as the degradation continues for false guilty. When Rod, apparently recovered, happy to heir 30,000 pounds, gets a new disappointment from another female, symbolically falls again, this elevator goes down, descends, as our protagonist. This feature of silent period of Hitch certainly is not the best he produced, lacks several of his main artistic edges (including humor, an essential tool in virtually all films by Hitch, appears with droppers in this exercise), it is relatively a rarity in his production. But eventually there will be a happy ending, there is redemption, hell is over, there we do have something very consistent with Hitch, thus finishing a picture, a happy ending despite all the nightmare, when we see Roddy playing rugby again. Hitch produced this feature as last task with his then producer, the Gainsborough Pictures, a few weeks before finishing contract with that study, reuses Ivor Novello, who incidentally, along with Constance Collier -both under the pseudonym David L ' Estrange-, wrote the play that inspired the film. Took the British Novello's popularity, his success with the female audience (he was a sort of sex symbol then), and wields, for a change, a warm sexuality, with moments like Ivor topless. Among the nine exercises of silent films by Hitch, maybe this is not considered as one of his highest points, but being a film of this stage of the British, is enough incentive for viewing.