Number Seventeen (1932) - Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchocck continued during the thirties of the last century evolving and developing as a talkies filmmaker, with filmic exercises that still were not near the higher summits that the director would achieve some years later, but it can be recognized some of his main features already. If in previous exercises to this picture Hitch had been ostensibly moved away from his most recognizable imprint as master of suspense (not to go further, we see it on immediatelly previous Rich and strange, released the same year), with themes and topics far from mysteries, intrigues and uncertainties, recovers in the present work a bit of his innermost essence the director. In order not to lose the custom, Hitchcock once again adapts to the cinema a new literary work, a new theatrical piece, written by Joseph Jefferson Farjeon, to capture one of the shorter films that he ever shot, with the simple history of a group of thieves, a band that takes refuge in an abandoned house, being followed by a detective; when a young woman, member of the gang, prevents the detective from being killed, in love with him, an intense persecution to recover a jewel will begin. Another picture with which, without being the best work of the director, you can follow the evolutionary path of the filmmaker.

              

In an undetermined place, two individuals are in a lonely location, it is a stormy night, they wander the shady corners of what appears to be an uninhabited house. As they walk through the interiors of the abandoned house, they find the corpse of a man, not quite knowing what has happened. They are thieves, they are hiding in that abandoned address, which is the number seventeen of some avenue in England. Among the refugees is Ben (Leon M. Lion), and the young woman Nora Brant (Anne Gray), they are hiding with their cohorts, they have stolen a valuable necklace, but they know that a police officer is tracking them. Appears then the detective, Barton (John Stuart), who suspects what is happening, but there is no certain, and begins an investigation, searches the house, as well as everybody, not finding any definitive evidence. But Barton is getting closer to the truth, in the numerous band are also Brant (Donald Calthrop) and Henry Doyle (Barry Jones), and when the detective has identified the band and is going to arrest them, they are about to eliminate him, but Nora helps Barton, and he survives. It follows an intense persecution, Barton follows the band that flees in train, they carry the necklace, but the detective manages to reach them, the jewel has been recovered, and even the romance between Barton and Nora has been born.

Hitch recovers some of the dark directives of his cinema immediately in the present film, when the beginning of the same one is tenebrous, with parsimony initiates the movie, but plagued of mystery, when we see one of the members of the band entering the dark abandoned house on a hectic night. But while entering the location, and always treated everything without words, the rhythm changes, as well as a lights-and-shadows management that immediately generates suspense, and also the camera work and montage will finish setting this brief but effective sequence. The mentioned management of lights and shadows will be extended to the whole feature, being a more than appreciable resource, contributing decidedly in the final dark aesthetic of the film, with the human shadows that project in ways almost unreal by all the house, looking sometimes as another character in the movie. Hitchcock sets up a powerful work of backlighting, which is also associated with chiaroscuros that engender an atmosphere of seclusion, an atmosphere of isolation, we feel that tense seclusion of the fugitives, the urgency of their situation with the detective on top of them, an effect that during the first part of the film, the most dilated, while they are all in the house of number seventeen, works very effectively. Again, the director uses minimal resources for his work, few protagonists, narrow scenarios and spaces -this, for with the exception of the final persecution, almost everything happens in the dark and abandoned residence of number seventeen-, Hitch's narrative economy will again manifest, this probably also conditioned by the low budget with which the feature was shot, but this is not a factor that feels that has been definitive for the staging.

Also in this short film Hitch recovers to a certain extent what was always one of his cinematic watchwords, the efficient and attractive camera work in his visual narration, a camera of free and precise movements, good-timing zooms and resolute travellings that follow the action of the protagonists by times, and by others places us practically in their perspectives, in their points of view. It is also added to that remarkable and recovered camera mobility, the aforementioned montage, with those changes of rhythm that are distributed in the film, and that suddenly unleash a frantic pace in the presentation and the way these images are intertwined. Images reinforced powerfully by high-angle shots, or low-angle shots, obtaining with those sudden changes of pace a suspense that is distended during the film, capturing efficiently the attention with that deployment, that work by the camera. The change of pace is something that will repeatedly use Hitch on the picture and always with good results, because then again will change the pace of his film in a notticeable way, with the second and shorter, but more intense part, the frantic chase to the train, the turning point in the film. The final persecution is a well-succeeded sequence, where all the aforementioned work of montage, of rapid concatenation of frames, reaches its culminating point, its highest cusp, to portray the speed of both the train and the bus, and the inertia in the protagonists, the frenetism reaches its greater point, good way to close the film, it was saved for the end that exciting outcome. Again we see travellings, more risky and dynamic than ever, diversity of angles, frames, camera mobility that also reaches its best moments, everything converges in a sequence that also has a lot of dynamism, diversity in their expressive records, correct and effective dynamism for that final persecution.














It is a film coherent with the moment of Hitchcock's career, that stage of his career, in which was still in formation the great genius, but who was already taking the final steps in that formation. Thus, as pointed in the opening paragraph, the feature immediately precedent to this work had been the atypical Rich and strange, also released in 1931, an unusual and innocuous study of the aristocracy and its frivolities, a subject that would not be exclusive to that film for Hitch by the way. But the present work recovers, from the aesthetic point of view, passing through the camera work, in addition, warmly, to the topic, much of what is the essence of the highest Hitchcockian cinema. Although almost all those guidelines are reflected to a lesser extent than in his masterpieces, and although the film feels to me at times a little slow, already it is perceived as an approach to what it was always Hitchcock; warm approachement, because it is a suspense not yet framed in all the artistic edges of the british, but already the path of his best norms is resumed. The film, in short, can not be counted among the best productions of the british filmmaker, but it has positive things, within its limitations, and in its brief footage, it achieves its objective, captures and maintains interest, weaves some intrigue, and aesthetycally the director meets again with some guidelines of his that had diluted strikingly in previous exercises. Does not recruit Hitchcock flashy actors, nor does he continue working with actors of his previous silent stage -as he did in other early talkies-, is a simple movie, simple plot, but with those elements, it is enough for Hitch to configure a decent, decent and appreciable work. Like almost all the productions of this moment in the cinematographic creation of the enormous Hitchcock, this is a film that can surprise the one who only knows the masterpieces of the english, but for the connoisseur of all his filmography, will serve as a useful tool for a global understanding of the oeuvre of the immortal master of suspense.

The Pleasure Garden (1925) - Alfred Hitchcock

After some experiences as assistant or auxiliary in certain silent films, would come the debut as filmmaker, the first film as director by Alfred Hitchcock, a film in which naturally we still observe the absence of his biggest guidelines, his main cornerstones artistically speaking, but that never cease to be his first film as director. Hitchcock from his initial works makes what would be a constant throughout his cinematic life, adapting literary novels to the big screen, being the movie now commented a work by Oliver Sandys, in which the story of two dancers is portrayed. Two attractive young friends see their friendship crumble as one progresses and rises in the entertainment world, becoming frivolous and ungrateful, while the other follows a path of greater sacrifices, austerity, but remaining virtuous; the picture will show their disparate ways and their relations with their partners, being one path more fatal than the other one. Yet we find the master looking for the edges that would lead his work at the top of world cinema, we will see how it begins Hitch to take his first steps in the seventh art, showing already his preferences for topics, but still in his search for a style.

                  

In a center of night entertainment, called The Pleasure Garden, a show takes place, a group of chorus girls perform a dance number, to the delight of the spectators, one of them is Oscar Hamilton (Georg H. Schnell), who admires particularly the beautiful Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli). Finished the artistic number, Patsy knows Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty), a young dancer, newcomer who wants to connect in the world of showgirls, to work, but being alone, and having been stolen all his money, he is helpless. The Brand girl hosts the young lady at her home and introduces her some theater people where the showgirls perform, leaving Jill a good impression for his skills in dancing, getting a good working agreement. Patsy is committed to Levett (Miles Mander) and Jill in turn with Hugh Fielding (John Stuart), but both men must leave to fight in the tropics. Patsy tries to take care of her friend, who has promised to wait for Hugh, however she meets Prince Ivan (Karl Falkenberg), and the life of luxury in her new job soon gets her besotted. Before leaving, Levett marries Patsy, but barely reaches the tropics, he gets a native lover, sends news to his wife of being very ill, and she, already estranged from Jill, manages to go there, where also Hugh is. After discovering some truths and untie certain torments, Patsy will find happiness.

This is a film that, within the passions and strong human feelings that recreates, it is everything framed in the history of the two girls, the dancers and their world is showed to us immediately, the chorus girls going to perform, and the very pleased parishioners watch the show. In this historical sequence, in which Hitchcock was making his debut as cinema director, we see one of those assistants watching with binoculars Patsy's legs, lust is manifested in the picture right away. The printed lust continues after the approach to the legs of the dancers, we see them undressing, partly of course, but when seeing an image of the clothes being thrown, then seeing the naked torso of the girls, the suggestive power of the film gets already declared. It is a power that will no longer be reflected in the film, but it remains that impression, which at least is mildly retaken when appears Jill provocatively dressed for her new job as a showgirl, again revealing her well shaped legs. Her character is outlined soon, the first fearful and abandoned girl, alone and without money nor home, receives willingly Patsy's help, but as soon as she has a chance, she will show her real face, Machiavellian and light woman, proves to be more adequated to that world that her own protective. It is a film that portrays intense passions, and this is taking shape soon, when we see the flirtatious and outgoing Jill, whose personality, uninhibited, suggestive and manipulative, is the opposite of Patsy's, believer and religious, loyal, even in their clothing is reflected that opposition. Levett plays the most perturbing, most disturbing character, alienated character who proposes marriage and marries a good girl, to immediately get a mistress, to whom also liquidates, and pretends to return to his initial partner, his still wife.

Finally, with the torment of the spirit of her murdered lover ahead, tries to kill Patsy as well, he will be the prey for the metaphysical tortures; meanness and abjection have in him their greatest exponent. An unusual but nice element is the detail of the puppy, canid pet that gives a little more variety to the story, and providing the final nuance that Levett was indeed a jerk, an unbalanced and alienated lout whose tragic end is justified, and the dog was the only one to notice that since the first meeting; the animal appears in much of the picture, a detail that would not be seen in other works of Hitch. As mentioned, Hitchcock, from the start made it clear what would be a constant throughout his film career, the fact of adapting literary works, literary works that later some writer would translate into screenwriting. It seems evident that, among all the talents that had the gigantic Hitch, screenwriter certainly was not the most brilliant of all, or at least the filmmaker exercised it rarely. The film, without being banal, feels still relatively innocuous, not so much for its content as for its treatment, but was normal, being the first experience as a director for Hitch, coming from previous years as an assistant on the set. British master not yet had discovered his sap, the suspense, the source from which he would drink his entire cinema lifetime, he was still in search of his edges, his main guidelines, but certainly he would not delay so much in achieving this, because two years later, with The Lodger (1927), his third film, found them. Given the age of the film, and because of some normal wear of the film by ambient temperatures and the natural pass of time, the film was deteriorating, then it was restored, and there is more than one version in circulation. This current article is based on the viewing of a version of exactly one hour, sixty minutes, which differs in fifteen minutes from another version, in which probably not so many gaps will be notticed.

And thus, certainly in the one-hour-length cut, some gaps are detected, rather abruptly in the story, some details or flaws that probably are not due to the inexperience of the filmmaker, but to the effect that any reduction always has on the original assembly that a filmmaker wants in his film. For instance, it feels a bit too much frantic the way how in a few minutes the narrative informs us about the wedding of Patsy with Levett, then see the immediate disappointment of him, and then also see him already with his native lover, a certain dissonance that is likely to decrease in the full 75 minutes version. Hitch, yet finding his suspense, sets however in a story full of very intense feelings and passions, of ingratitude, love, hate, jealousy, betrayal, lies, lust and madness, and there lays the strength of the film, which feels plausible, human, real. Still of course lacks the mastery of this great filmmaker, still could not find his great style, can not be considered the film as one of his greatest creations, but the then fledgling director gives us the first sign of independence behind the camera. For example, precisely that camera, which is one of the hallmarks of the Hitchcockian cinema, is observed even static, still lacks all the dynamism and precise movements that later would know the filmmaker imprint, since in this film, his first experience, the director still lacks from a developed and identifiable language; perhaps some difference may be missing in those fifteen minutes cut, but the overall impression given to me by the film is what I just stated. What we can highlight are certain resources used by the filmmaker, certain tricks for staging as the moment of Levett being haunted by the ghost of her murdered indigenous lover, with classical overlayed shots getting that spooky, other dimensional, surreal effect; good resource, although appearing briefly, is the only time it feels the visual narrative linearity breaking, a resource that Hitchcock would use quite often in future films. It is a feature which, without being extraordinary, without being a masterpiece, will seduce the appropriate viewer, because you do not think twice about visioning it, because it is the debut as filmmaker of Alfred Hitchcock.