Skin Game (1931) - Alfred Hitchcock

Another of the early sound film exercises of the giant British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, the immortal master of suspense, who in those years, beginning the third decade of the last century, was naturally still delineating his definitive cinematic style. Picture that is very coherent with the other works that together give shape to the director's film production, in which we miss almost all the main artistic vertices of the filmmaker, but in turn, for the prepared eye, it will be possible to recognize some common points with the mentioned features, the other films that make up this formative stage of the great Hitch. Keeping some of these common points, the director adapts to the big screen again a work primarily literary, in this case a play of a certain success by John Galsworthy, which portrays the history of the rural drama of two families, one of rooted country ancestry, which will have a rough shock when its tranquility and routine break when the other, a wealthy family, whose wealth is product of great businesses, arrives; that friction will bring lamentable and even fatal consequences. We will recognize some relatively assertive faces of Hitchcock's filmography, as well as new additions to his acting team as is natural; a movie branded as minor, but never despicable.

              

   

The actions begin in a farm, a rural environment where the daily activities of these locations are carried out, is the estate where the Hillcrist marriage lives, the husband (CV France) and Mrs. Hillcrist (Helen Haye), among to his Daughter Jill (Jill Esmond). Their existence is quiet, however, some economic hardships begin to torment the peasant clan, and at that moment appears Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn), wealthy city aristocrat, that arrives at the field with intentions to buy lands and modernize the area. In an initial interview with Mr. Hillcrist, Hornblower makes known his intentions to buy their land, obtaining negative resistance; the war is declared, even says Hillcrist. The economic difficulties do not cease, an auction is carried out by the lands of the Hillcrist, buying it Hornblower for a large monetary sum. Thus comes the aristocratic patriarch and his sons, Rolf (Frank Lawton) and Charles (John Longden), in addition to his daughter-in-law Chloe (Phyllis Konstam), but the way they arrive does more than irritate former owners, particularly Mrs. Hillcrist. The country matriarch does not doubt in, aided by Dawker (Edward Chapman), blackmailing Mr. Hornblower with shameful secret information that has on Chloe. The very tense situation will finally have a regrettable ending for both families in litigation.












The feature depicts a strong human conflict, a social conflict, a social-classes-clash, and this marked contraposition and contrast is readily printed, when we see a representative of each clan together in one of the first sequences, the beautiful Jill and the young Rolf Hornblower, and the opposition becomes clear and obvious: he in a car, she on a horse; he wearing black, she in white. Whether or not random these details, let us glimpse the strong antagonism of families we will appreciate, including some shots overlaying to reinforce this intention of Hitch. Curiously (and strangely as well, by the way) Hitch does not dare to make many of his usual visual contraptions like the one just mentioned, and in the other few that he wields, a nice and warm Expressionist heritage is noticed. Nevertheless, in certain cinematographic edges, it does keep closeness and similarity the picture with other contemporaries, like the immediately previous Murder!. Thus, we can see a very characteristic beginning of the film, when we see a fast parade of images chained, typical images of the area where everything happens, detailed images of animals, domestic dogs, people, a horn, etc. These images are characteristic of the pictures of this stage of Hitch, and are, among other elements, what make a task relatively easy, for the connoisseur, to recognize this hitchcokian movie as a work of its author. Like so many other Hitchcockian features of those years, the present video, inspired as many times in theater dramas, is impregnated with a strong scenic conception of that artistic branch. Thus, slow plane sequences in turn give form to a theatrical halo; that curtain, which, like a sheet, repeated and significant times appears on the screen (when Chloe approaches a collapse over her reputation), sometimes transforming into a door, which separates the viewer from the action, who almost feels it.












Also, most of the actions happen indoors, and this, added to the few main characters, with secondary ones as well, contributes to generate that subtle theatrical but almost always present in the movie aura, and inevitably also gives it a certain slowness development to the film, which ends at certain moments feeling innocuous. We will appreciate some details of plastic beauty at the beginning of the film, Miss Hillcrist walks away riding a horse, and a beautiful frame presents her to us, surrounded by the natural environment, and despite the absence of vital color in the black and white, beauty is appreciated in that brief picture. In an almost immediate sequence, we appreciate the car of a member of the Hornblowers approaching a house, with an equal of laudable frame, but unfortunately, the images of these characteristics practically do not repeat during the film, because as it was said, incomprehensibly the director almost completely resigns to his accustomed and appreciable visual tricks; something lamentable, is a film of the most linear that has been seen from him. But among the positive elements in the film, which of course there are, we have the sequence of the auction, which is one of the highlights of the film in terms of staging, starting with a slow pace, barely interrupted by certain Jill's hallucinations, to then reach a frenetic pace when bidders begin to make their offerings. To this fast pace collaborates an energic and vigourous camera work, trembling putting us in the auctioner's point of view, the situation grows in intensity at a geometric rhythm, and reaches the greatest tension when Hornblower's final offer is accepted. The change of rhythm in this sequence is sensible, and it is necessary considering how crucial the circumstance is, introducing us to the drama of both the peasant and the aristocrat, introducing us to the closest thing to the suspense that is in the picture.

Interesting in a not very attractive work is Hitch's portrayal of the society of his time, of the rancid aristocracy -as in the very film sometime is said-, of its concern to maintain a false and artificial image before the society, the fear of social humiliation. But also hypocrisy, machiavellianism, things that are not alien to the supposedly lower stratum, the rural stratum of the Hillcrist, particularly in the surprising and cold figure of the mother. In the film we explore dangerous human relations, what the passions can unleash on the people, putting at risk their own existences, an aggressiveness that became psychological torture for poor Chloe, who ends up crumbling in the middle of that despicable world. In the midst of these outrages, in the midst of that hardness, of that machiavellianism and coldness, only Chloe cracks, she is the fragility in the middle of all that hardness. The director portrays many of the human passions, negative passions, flaws, complex human relationships seen through the lens of social conflict. The final figure of the tree going down is the obvious symbolism of a human group that has decomposed, has broken, has been corrupted to its root. It is said that Hitch made this film more commissioned by British studies than anything else, and perhaps it is true, a conflict, a clash of two social masses is not a recurring theme in Hitch, aside from being left out a little the political cinema or class struggle, focusing more on human confrontation. Another work not very similar to filmmaker's usuals, something common in this period as it was said, his main topics are missing, there is no death, no suspense, no police investigation, and the few cornerstones that appear, do it in dribs and drabs. It is very noticeable that it is a feature of the initial period of Hitch, his English period, is still warm the filmmaker, still young, still without completely entering fully in his thing, the suspense. Depending on the audience, it is a non-spectacular feature, but necessary for fans of the great Hitch.

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.