Blackmail (Alfred Hitchcock, 1929)

Alfred Hitchcock, prior to his acclaimed Hollywood masterpieces such as Vertigo, Psycho and Strangers on a Train, had his roots within the German and British cinema system. This month the BFI are celebrating his silent films in the aptly titled ‘Hitchcock Silents’ season. Blackmail, particularly, is a milestone in British cinema as it is considered one of the first “all-talkie” films – and yet I viewed the film as a silent. Indeed, Hitchcock created two versions; one loud-and-proud “all-talkie” version and another (for those cinemas not fully-fitted for sound) silent version. The latter is more difficult to get hold of – and even if you manage to track down the German DVD that includes both versions, you’d find it tricky to hunt down live piano accompaniment to perform alongside. Thankfully, this experience is what the BFI is providing and considering the silent version has different scenes and actors (as they were shot separately), this screening is a rare treat and something to take advantage of when it screens on Southbank.

Blackmail sets-up the usual Hitchcock three-way relationship involving uncomfortable murderers, alongside drawn-out suspense and a grand finale at the British Museum. Flirty girlfriend of police investigator Frank (John Longden), Alice (Anny Ondra), naively entertains a sleazy Artist (Cyril Ritchard). Arriving at his flat, after some creepy and sinister advances, she becomes the victim of an attempted rape. She murders the artist and wanders London as news of the murder spreads – and Frank realises (through a forgotten glove) that Alice is the murderer. He confronts her and, as they discuss the situation, a third man joins the conversation – “Tracy” (Donald Calthrop) – and he also knows who killed the artist and blackmailing the couple.

At only 75-minutes long, this is a short film that manages to cram in an exhilarating story. The dark themes that dominate the first act is a moment that the film harks back to time and time again. Within the artists flat resides a painting of a laughing jester; an image that haunts Alice throughout. And though the murder takes place behind a curtain, the limp hand that falls to signify his death also becomes a reminder to Alice as she walks London and notices arms resting out of car windows and on a ledge. These recurring moments hint at the same type of repetition we see later in Hitch’s career, such as the latch key in Dial M for Murder, or the use of circles in Vertigo.

A stand out film in Hitchcock’s career, the sharp hats in silhouette show how mature Hitchcock already was in 1929. Blackmail is thoroughly enjoyable and sets the scene for the future of his films through narratives and plot-developments we have seen many times. A final chase in the British Museum seems to echo North by Northwest as characters run amongst enormous pharaoh heads leading to a climax as – akin to Saboteur, Vertigo and The Man Who Knew Too Much – Tracy falls from the top of the building, through the glass to a grisly end. But Hitch knows how to end a story and, despite a dated joke as everyone laughs at the idea of a “Lady Detective” (who would think!), a carefully controlled approach and close-up on Alice gives the impression that maybe there is more to her than meets the eye. By releasing alternate sound and silent versions to suit different audiences, Hitchcock ensured he was at the forefront of cinema. Like the continuous-shot-film Rope and 3D Dial M for Murder, In 1929, I’d like to think that many people knew that Alfred Hitchcock himself had much more to offer after watching Blackmail ...

Dial M for Murder (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)

"Mind you, even I didn't guess that at once... extraordinary."

Introduction

Rarely does 3D demand your attention. Avatar broke the mould; Life of Pi brought heart and beauty to 3D; Dial M for Murder is a master filmmaker ahead of his time. When Alfred Hitchcock directed Dial M for Murder almost 60 years ago, 3D existed. In fact, 3D existed under the guise of stereoscopic as far back as the late 1890's as experiments in filmmaking determined the future of the medium. 1922 introduced the first 3D feature-film in The Power of Love, but it was 1952 that became the 'Golden Era' of 3D in cinema. Hitchcock plays with perspective and toys with the foreground and background so that in 2013, when re-mastered and re-issued at cinemas in a limited release, you are expected to attend. Hitchcock has been temporarily re-born to take part in the 3D craze that has dominated blockbuster cinema - and what an incredible film it truly is.

The Theatre

A small-scale story on a par with Rope and Lifeboat, this is a small cast with murder on their minds. Opening on a couple enjoying breakfast, Mrs Wendice (Grace Kelly) spies an article highlighting the arrival of a boat - cut to a smart gentleman (Robert Cummings) stepping off boat; immediate cut back to the house whereby a gentleman and Mrs Wendice are in a heated embrace. Within a minute, we know the set-up: A woman is having an affair and they are deeply in love - and her husband is unaware. This fast and functional start implies that Grace Kelly and Robert Cummings are to lead the thriller but it is only after they highlight their fear, anxieties and conflicted ideas about how to move forward do we meet Tony Wendice (Ray Milliand), her husband - and the man we hold mixed emotions towards throughout Dial M for Murder. He is a victim to their infidelities but his murderous plan is, shall we say, a little unreasonable as a reaction.

Set almost exclusively within a single flat in Madia Vale, the story plays out over three acts. Tony Wendice explains in exquisite detail the plan to kill his wife and his unwilling accomplice Swann (Anthony Dawson) is slowly drawn into his role to play. This intelligent writing and perfectly placed actions and manouvres exemplify the very best elements of theatre as Mr Wendice wipes down each item within the room and lays white gloves carefully on the side - noting to Swann that, if he does pick up anything, to use the gloves. To make matters more fascinating, Robert Cummings plays Mark Halliday - crime journalist and writer. His insights into what could - or could not - be a perfect murder means that we assume he may work out the plan himself. Instead, Hitchcock paces the film gently so that we are intently listening and trying to work out where the story will go. Wendice has planned it out so well - how will it go wrong? If indeed it does. The genius of Dial M for Murder is how we don't particularly trust the storyteller himself - as all the characters are despicable to some extent it is not out of the question that everything goes to plan. Hitch knows us better than that.

Do we benefit from 3D?

Depth of composition and perspective is something that, for Alfred Hitchcock, is not new. Dial M for Murder is unqiue as Hitchcock knew the possibilities of 3D filmmaking and rather than interesting shots taking place at different points, Hitchcock guarantees that every single sequence and shot utilises the 3D feature. The DVD release highlighted many elements of the film that purposefully acknowledged the 3D medium, but David Bordwell on his site Observations on Film Art manages to breakdown almost every single style of 3D Hitchcock uses.

As a adaptation of Frederick Knott's play, Dial M for Murder often situates our perspective from beneath - akin to the experience when looking up to actors on stage. But there is so much more as lamps and chandeliers obscure the shot and create deep persepctive as characters converse; even the characters themselves utilise the perspective. In one sequence, Hitchcock regular John Williams plays the Chief Inspector and as he questions the victim, behind him another character awaits the change in statement the victim is making. Two specific shots are incredible in 3D, and though I won't spoil both - the theatrcial poster whereby the hand reaches out of the screen is a pleasure to watch in three dimensions.

Now is the time ... 

The re-release has been incredibly popular in Toronto and New York - and with screenings at the Curzon, Barbican and BFI, there is no reason it cannot continue to attract audiences. Watching the film on DVD prior to this cinematic release, the story alone was so intrieguing and tense, it was frustrating that films like Dial M for Murder are no more. Indeed, the small-scale, careful plotting and theatricality of the actors is a rare occurence. But it doesn't need to be - those who limit their film-viewing to new releases and post-1977 cinema will benefit hugely from Dial M for Murder. This is a master ahead of his time and one can only hope that many viewers may watch Dial M for Murder as their introduction to Alfred Hitchcock - and if not, watching Dial M for Murder in the way it was intended is fascinating to see too. Viewing at the BFI, families viewed the film together and what an incredible, eye-opening experience that would be.

Originally published for Flickering Myth on 27th July 2013

Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)

"Anyone could become obsessed with the past with a background like that!"

Introduction

Inevitably perhaps, I believe I should argue my support of Vertigo. But I sensibly waited to write about the film after I had rewatched the film at a screening at the BFI on Southbank. Many months of screening Hitchcock's back-catalogue has also coincided well with Sight and Sound's screening's of the Top 10 Film of All-Time which are all screened throughout September. My attendance recently at the 'Call it a Classic?' discussion resulted in many conversation's about what defines a film classic, without a specific focus upon Vertigo as the winner (More about why Citizen Kane wasn't the winner). Why is Vertigo the best film of all-time? In fact, is it even the best Hitchcock? I believe it is.

The Male Gaze

As aficionado's are aware, Vertigo is seen as an exceptionally personal Hitchcock film. Jimmy Stewart usually plays a character similar to Hitch himself - while Cary Grant roles in his films are usually characters who Hitch could fantastize about being.

In Vertigo, it is a Jimmy Stewart film and he plays 'Scottie'; a police detective who, in the opening sequence, realises he has a fear of heights. He is retired in the following scene and is hired by an old college friend to follow and 'detect' where his wife, Madeline (Kim Novak), is going. As viewers, we are forced to watch what he watches; to see what he see's. Many minutes are spent observing Madeline as she drives down the long San Franciso roads; she sits and observes a painting at the California Palace of the Legion of Honour and she 'wanders' towards the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

'Scottie', we realise, is falling for her. As a narrative, this is an investigation - we question: What is she doing? Where is she going? Is she meeting anyone - and who? This entire plot hinges on the possibility that Madeline has been possessed by Carlotta Valdes. Is it possible that someone from the past has taken hold of her and controls her? Amongst the three acts, this supernatural plot is a macguffin – and merely a way for Hitchcock to draw you into the story, and into the fascination Scottie has with her.

It is the end of this act which commands your attention. Scottie and Madeline begin an affair and they are drawn to the Mission San Juan Bautista whereby in a moment of passion and panic, Madeline runs from Scottie and up the stairs before falling to her death on the roof of the church – Scottie, as in the opening sequence, is frozen as she runs up the stairs and can only witness her death. And feel responsible for it.

The film shifts tone now as, rather than merely focussing on a man in mourning, we see the man become obsessed. And obsessed with a woman, he has seen commit suicide. This is not your usual drama of a married woman engaging in an affair – this film pierces the heart of man, and destroys any notion of love and purity. We are desperate men who seek women in an obsessive attempt to fulfil our own selfish desires.

Obsession

 

What is unique about this film, in comparison with other films by ‘The Master of Suspense’ – indeed in comparison with all other films – is the pessimistic subtext regarding love and lust. It is nice to imagine that love can be at first sight; that love is purely your heart ruling over the mind. Vertigo seems to imply that it is more an obsession verging on madness. The final act shows us how Scottie begins to see ‘Madeline’ in every woman – and then forces Judy to literally become Madeline.

There is no apology made and the shop assistants and hair stylists are all bemused and confused with Scottie’s increasing frustration at the minor differences that are not altered – the grey dress is incorrect, the bleached hair is not styled in the exact same way. He manages to turn Judy into Madeline – and Judy begs and pleads Scottie to stop. But she loves him. And she wants to make him happy. And she wants to be with him.

 

Do we fall for one type of woman – and spend the rest of our lives searching for someone to become her? Do we create our own perfect ideal – a fantasy of what we expect from a partner? Our obsession with the first love is what pushes them away – our desperation to keep hold of the fantasy ideal. Then, when we find love, we seek to change them – to ‘improve’ who they are and become the fantasy ideal. Are you disorganised? Well you should be more organised. Do you dress in the wrong way? Well, I’ll show you what I want you to wear. It is combination of man’s obsession with seeking out the fantasy ‘ideal’ – and the woman seeking to make her man happy. (Obviously, you could interchange the gender, but for the sake of argument I will use the gender of the characters in Vertigo).

The finale seems to argue that our obsession with this ideal consequently angers us; the woman attempting to change for the sake of man then creates a conflict as she is now false and not honest about who she actually is.

 

Midge

In contrast to Madeline, we are introduced to Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes) – a previous love of Scottie. They were due to be married but Midge called it off. She represents a woman less subservient to the man – she is not obsessed with exclusively making men/Scottie happy. Midge supports and helps Scottie (Introducing him to the San Francisco book seller; attempting to defeat his acrophobia by using a step-ladder). Scottie is not attracted to this – he is attracted to the unobtainable desire; the married woman. Midge wants him to accept her for who she is – not a false ideal. In an attempt to show her love to Scottie, she paints her own head on a picture of Carlotta Valdes. Comedic to some extent, it also shows how she is showing him how she feels by mocking his obsession for the unobtainable woman – indeed, she remains attracted to him despite his own shortcomings and obsessions. Scottie is angry with her mockery and this is the last conversation the two appear to have on screen.

 

 

Influence

 

The opening sequence, visually, is separate to the rest of the film and it is no surprise that this sequence directly influences the opening for The Matrix. In both films, cops run across roof tops preceding the themes of obsession which dominate the films themselves. Neo is obsessed with finding out what more there is to life – as Scottie is obsessed with Madeline.

The film is equally profound as it is personal. Hitchcock himself had an obsession with the blonde-woman: Kim Novak, Grace Kelly, Tippi Hedren. All women who inspired Hitch – to the point of resentment. Indeed, the films released this year – Hitchcock and The Girl – both deal with Hitchcock’s love life. Sienna Miller portrays Tippi Hedren in The Girl and it seems that Hitchcocks obsession with the blonde woman became a serious problem in his later films. Hedren herself states how his obsession was more than mere infatuation:

“I unfortunately witnessed a side of him that was very dark and one I did not want to be involved with.”

Vertigo is the most personal film Hitchcock made. The final scene shows Jimmy Stewart dragging and pulling at a screaming Kim Novak up flights of stairs. He is forcing her to acknowledge her lies and deceit as she led him on claiming that she could be the woman he loves. You have to wonder: is this the frustration of an old man and his obsession with younger women? Or is this the reality of every man and their deep desires of lust?

 

Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948)

"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us"

Introduction

As the BFI celebrate Alfred Hitchcock with many months of screenings including all his esteemed 'classics', I felt it was only right to revisit one of my personal favourites: Rope. Prior to 2008 I had seen very few films of his films and Rope was one of the earlier films I saw of his that left me feeling frustrated at the state of cinema today: Why aren't more films made in this manner? Why aren't characters as interesting? Why aren't stories and narrative techniques as innovative?

Through the purchase of widely available boxsets, I managed to watch many more of his finest films: Vertigo, Pyscho, Dial M For Murder, North by Northwest. Time and time again, the same feeling.

If you are at this point in my analysis, then clearly you must value the genius of Hitchcock and those who are frightened to venture back prior to 1977 should take a good look at themselves because, I tell thee, the reign of Hitchcock will never return and we should be glad that these are availabel to watch. No one has made films of a better, consistent, standard.

Two Guys Kill a Guy

 

Akin to Russian Ark, Rope attempts to show an entire feature-length film in one take. There are two definitive cuts (minor cuts on the grand scale of things) and eight semi-seamless cuts as the camera ducks behind an actors back, then the shadow changes ever-so sligthly, and the camera continues to move. Not perfect but this was 1948 and film reels could only show a certain amount of information. Roughly 10 minutes apparently.

The plot revolves around two students: Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Grainger). They decide to 'kill off' a fellow student David Kentley. Shockingly, we see this as the film begins - the opening shot showing Kentley's open mouth as the last gasp of air leaves his lungs. As soon as they have killed him they plan to hold a party with his family and loved ones assuming nobody could ever suspect them as the killers. When David's time of death is worked out, everyone will say "oh yeah, we were at Brandon and Phillips [30-minute] party so clearly they aren't the killers". This is delivered in impeccable English - the upper class never had it so good.

Unfortunately Brandon has a little darkness in him. His cat-like eyes and tone of voice are unsettling. He discusses with David Kentley's father how 'Murder is okay'. This playful approach is what Hitch enjoyed creating - murder and black-comedy, hand-in-hand.

Writer, Arthur Laurents, felt that David's death should not have been shown adding an extra layer of tension as the audience would question whether they killed him or not. I have a funny feeling that on the first watch without the audience seeing his death, it just seemed too clear. Brandon is clearly psychotic, whilst Phillip is clearly cracking under pressure. The tension is if these too well-educated young men will 'get away' with the crime. A feature of many Hitchcock films - will the Strangers on a Train plan work? Will the Dial M For Murder plan succeed? Hitchcock always explores the fascinating possibilitiy of the 'perfect' murder.

The Theatre and it's Influence

One thing that I find fascinating about British films of the 40's is how they are clearly influence by the theatre - and Rope is no exception. Hitchcock wanted us to watch it as we would watch a play, whereby it is uninterrupted and, akin to The Mousetrap, has an unexpected finale. Dial M for Murder, based on a play too, used 3D to create a more 'theatrical' experience. In Dial M For Murder  the 3D was used so that you would often look up to the characters, as if they stand on a stage. I think the only film I can recall, based on a play and recently released, is Polanski's Carnage - a film I greatly enjoyed as it really harked back to the theatrical experience, basing the whole film within an apartment. With regards to 3D, its comforting to know the Dial M For Murder has gained it's re-release in 3D already, with screenings in the BFI.

Guest of the Party

Jimmy Stewart portrays 'Rupert Cadell'. He is a lecturer who Brandon and Phillip adore. He has discussed with them the Nietzsche 'Superman' attitude and the 'Survival of the intelligent' (that the intelligent should prosper, weeding out the 'less-useful' humans of the world). To Rupert, it is merely conversation. Unknown to Cadell, like Nazi's, Brandon and Phillip twists it out of context completely and decide to try and kill off, who they believe, is one of the 'weaker' members of society.

Until Rupert arrives, the film is mildly entertaining, but you are full engaged to the film once he walks on set. His entire persona, attitude and conduct surpasses every other character. Not only is it Jimmy Stewart prescence, but the character is aspirational - he is intelligent, funny and clearly enjoyable company. He treats everyone equally - including the maid, whom Phillip seems to dismiss very quickly - which is strange considering how Brandon believes that Cadell may even support their plan.

Homosexual Undertones

The most socio-political factor to finish surround the relationship between Brandon and Phillip. Like Rebel Without A Cause, this film is 'clearly' about the homosexual relationship between the two lead characters. Even though it is briefly mentioned that Brandon dated Janet (before Kenneth, before David...), it is clear this simply keeps the censors off their back. Janet could be a friend, or she could be Kenneth and David's ex-girlfriend. Her past with Brandon does not alter the plot in the slightest. Writer Arthure Laurents seems to indicate that not only are Phillip and Brandon in a relationship, but Jimmy Stewart's 'Rupert Cadell' is gay too and was probably in a relationship with one of the murderers. This homosexual context is also another connection to the historic Loeb-Leopold case, whereby the two men were in a relationship themselves, before murdering a 14 year old boy. Other similarities between Rope and this case include how the two were wealthy Chicago law students. The two were motivated by a "desire to commit the perfect crime".

The techinical skill behind managing the camera is fascinating to see whilst Stewart's performance is throughly engaging. John Dalls arrogance and Farley Graingers 'I-can't-hold-a-glass-without-breaking-it' attitude may be a little cliche, but the uniqueness of the film still stands and if you are new to 'Classic Cinema', I can only beg you to watch this film. Once you watch one Hitchcock, you'll be desperate for more...

Originally written on 16th May 2009, but significant changes have been made for this article

Rebecca (Alfred Hitchcock, 1940)

"I say, marriage with Max is not exactly a bed of roses, is it?"

Introduction

Hitchcock's Rebecca rarely features in boxsets. It doesn't feature in the set which includes The Birds, Psycho and Vertigo (as I understand, his 'Universal' films), whilst it additionall does not feature in the box with North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train and I, Confess. Additionally, it is not as early to feature in the 'Early Hitchcock' collection (Blackmail, The Ring) and, as it was made in America, it is obsiously not in the 'British Hitchcock' collection (The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes). Much like To Catch a Theif, this film sits independently. So, funnily enough, having watched many Hitchcock films, this is the most recent one I have viewed, and it is indded quite telling how big an influence Hitchcock is...

Citizen Kane - you have some explaining to do!

As soon as I popped this film in, it opens with a slow zoom-in to some gates - and then through the gates to settle onto Manderlay. Manderlay is a huge, imposing building that - we hear through narration - "Manderley-- secretive and silent/ Time could not mar the perfect

symmetry of those walls"

It is a dreamlike world this 'Manderlay'. In these opening minutes, I was amazed: "This is hugely influenced by Citizen Kane!" I thought. Even the iconic zoom-in, the dreamlike Manderlay replacing Kane's Xanadu. All we need is the 'No Trespassers' sign and it is virtually the same opening. Suffice to say, Citizen Kane was released one-year later and Hitchcock's Rebecca preceded Orson Welle's classic film.

The actual story itself is completely different as a nameless woman (Joan Fontaine) falls for an exceptionally affluent and mysterious man: Maxim De Winter (Lawrence Olivier). She first meets him as he appears to be considering suicide and, the film unravels, as the two marry and Fontaine has to take the place as Maxim's second wife. When they return to his mansion - Manderlay - the servants and maids appear to be resentful towards Fontaine. Especially Mrs Danvers (Judith Anderson) who clearly became obsessed with Maxim's first wife - Rebecca is her name.

Throughout the film, there is a sinister undercurrent of fear as we do not know how the story will roll out. We do not know which perspective the film is truly siding with - is Mrs Danvers a threat? Is Fontaine losing her mind? Is Maxim hiding something? The film is split categorically into three acts. The first act capturing the fast-romance between Fontaine and Maxim De Winters, the second act showing the challenge Fonatine has to take the role of 'the new' Mrs De Winter. Then the final act, reveals multiple truths about 'the old' Mrs De Winter and Maxim himself. It truly is a great film, so I shall shy away from spoiling the film.

Critical Success for Mr Hitchcock and Selznick

The 1940 Academy Awards praised this film with 11 nominations - notably for Joan Fontaine, Lawrence Olivier, Judith Anderson and Hitchcock himself for Best Director. Considering the previous year, 1939, is renowned for being the best year in film history (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach  - and they were only a few of the Best Picture nominees!), 1940 was pretty strong too - with Hitchcock going up against George Cukor and The Philadelphia Story and John Ford for The Grapes of Wrath - and losing to Ford ultimately. Rebecca did win for Best Picture though whilst George Barnes took home the statuette for Best Cinematography. A tough year - and I think, though Hitchcock didn't win an Oscar at any point in his career, this was the closest he got and, without having seen The Grapes of Wrath, I have a feeling that there is an argument for Ford's winning.

If I was to summarise the film into a Maths equation I would use Gone with the Wind and mix it in a pot with Citizen Kane and you would come out with Rebecca. Considering Gone with the Wind won the previous year, it strikes me as a telling notion of cinema at the time as these two films won the awards back-to-back.

To Finish...

This is the first Hitchcock American film - and it comes across as very un-American and un-Hitchcock. No Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant, instead we have the true British Thespian Lawrence Olivier. No quirky elements or fantastical tales - this is played straight and very serious. Indeed, a true murder has occured - or has it, even that is unclear! It shows Hitchcock playing with the audience - and playing with the ambiguity of each character: Who is loopy? Mrs Danvers the housemaid clearly is a little bit too obsessed ... is the new Ms De Winter simply not settling into this affluent lifestyle or, even, are they even truly in love?

I have recently been reading the highly acclaimed interview between Truffaut and Hitchcock and, when discussing Rebecca, they note how the story is supposed to be dark and twisted fairytale - in fact, arguing most fairytales are dark so it is a Cinderella-like tale of Fontaine in a position whereby Mrs Danvers is a wicked step-sister. This is where I shall conclude my post, as this is Hitchcock's only fairytale-like film. It marked the point, whereby Hitchcocks move to the US truly began - and his career spiralled ever-upwards, establishing him as the Master of Suspense.

Next Week: Midnight Cowboy

TSAJS: 07/11/2010 'Back to the Future' Trilogy/Psycho

This week, having caught a bunch of this weeks films at The London Film Festival, we use the opportunity to discuss the Back to the Future Trilogy - thats right, all three releases between 1985 and 1990 to coincide with the latest blu-ray release.

To Listen ... 

We then discuss some of the latest news and London box-office and some of the recent trends in Hollywood Rom-Coms - 'no strings-attached' sex. Finally, we then discuss Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho which had been shown at the Union Chapel at Islington, London - through Jameson Cult Classics.

And, obviously, we mentioned the Brokeback to the Future mash-up ... click here.

Trailers

Two examples of those 'lots-of-sex-for-men-doesn't-have-repurcussions' films coming out are below...

But there are many more, including Hall Pass with Owen Wilson, Just Go With It with Adam Sandler and the Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway in Love and Other Drugs - click on the titles if you are interested in this trend.

Links

Luke Owen's writings on An American Werewolf in London as it was screened at London Zoo.

Simon guests on the LAMBcast soon so ... get prepared and start listening to the podcast now!

Music

All music is from the soundtrack from Back to the Future including the score by Alan Silvestri and eighties classic by Huey Lewis and the News and a new take on Johnny Be Good.

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter (simonandjoshow) and Facebook.

The Ring (Alfred Hitchcock, 1927)

"Jack.... I'm with you.... in *your* corner"

Introduction

I noticed that the Barbican are showing a bunch of early Hitchcock films including showing Blackmail with a full orchestra! Here is a very early Hitchcock movie- its obviously black and white and silent. As I said before, this film was in a [not as popular] Hitchcock boxset and, as someone who wants to be clearly aware of the history of Hitchcock it is required watching. I won't lie - for the casual film viewer these are quite clearly dated, but as a film viewer this is the type of thing which I love as it shows early 'signs' of Hitchcocks style and ideas that, to some extent, continued into his films in the future. I would like to think that as I watch more and more silent/early Hitchcock films I will draw more parrallels and come back to these posts but, currently, this is where we start and this is only my initial impression of Hitchcocks The Ring (alas, nothing to do with Gore Verbinski and Hideo Nakata)

Simplistic Plot

It is merely a love-triangle story between 'one-round' Jack Sander (Brisson), his fiance Nelly played by Lilian Hall-Davis and Bob Corby (Hunter). Interestingly, the film begins at a fairground as we see Nelly on the ticket booth collecting the tickets before a fight begins, I think this is interesting because only seven years prior, the highy influential Das Cabinet of Caligari shows the sonambulist as a fairground attraction as a set-up. In a similar sense, we are teased for many minutes as we don't know what is behind the curtain and we only know what is behind the curtain as a man is 'egged-on ' by friends to go in ... he emerges shortly afterwards bloodied. Already, we have a comedic touch with an element of mystery - consistent aspects of Hitchcocks films.

The finale of the film is, additionally, at The Royal Albert Hall. This feature, again, is a trademark of Hitchcock. As both The Man Who Knew Too Much films use The Royal Albert Hall as  the centre piece of the final act. I am positive that many more theatres feature in the directors canon, but suffice to say, a huge epic-scale finale goes without saying - Mount Rushmore in North by Northwest and Statue of Liberty in Saboteur, are two major set pieces that finish Hitchcocks films. This finale is an incredible sequence that utilises the entire scope of the hall.

The Ring also features a regular actor of Hitchcocks - no, Cary Grant and James Stewart does not feature but Clare Greet does. Greet featured in seven of Hitchcocks films beginning with The Ring and finishing with Jamaica Inn.

Multiple Meanings

The title of 'The Ring' is highly appropriate as throughout the film we get many 'reasons' that determine the title - in the first instance we know that within the love-triangle is a professional boxer who Nelly falls for when he fights, in the ring. Additionally she wears a bracelet on her arm that symbolises this relationship and, finally, the marriage ring is clearly important as Jack and Nelly are engaged to be married at the start and Bob Corby is the Australian fighter who breaks them apart - and who Nelly runs away with prior to the final fight at The Royal Albert Hall.

Hitchcocks mastery of skill is shown throughout - from the epic scale of the Royal Albert Hall to the fuzzy and use of focus to show the dazed states(during boxing)/drunken perspective of the characters. It is fascinating to watch this purely for those unique little indications that led to the future of Hitchcocks career.

The Simon and Jo Show Podcast: 18/10/2009

The latest podcast from Jo and I:

"Live from the Southbank for The Times London Film Festival. We discuss the top 6 films in the UK including Halloween 2. Also in-depth chat on Film festival releases Double Take, I Fought the Law (Shorts), Fantastic Mr Fox and Kinatay."

I put this online just before watching Kinatay. I am scared. Wish me luck.

Double Take (Johan Grimonprez, 2009)

"If you meet your double, you should kill him"

Introduction

In the last few years I have made a concentrated effort to watch a lot of Hitchcock movies and managed to see the vast majority of American films (Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Topaz, Torn Curtain, and the many, many more) he made and the 'big ones' he made in Britain (The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes) and then I have [still not watched] all the early silent films that are available (The Farmers Wife, The Ring and the others...). So, when I was reading the options for The 53rd London Film Festival this looked interesting... now there is only so much to say so i shall move on swiftly...

What I reckon ...

First off, it is an art piece first and foremost. Would I call it 'entertainment' or, better still, a 'yarn' as Hitchcock himself would say? No. The majority of footage seems to have been prised from the archive of material from the Alfred Hitchcock Presents ... series. A fair bit also from the fantastic trailer for Psycho as Hitchcock walks around the set, teasing us about what the film includes without showing us the footage itself.

For me, I haven't seen much of Alfred Hitchcock Presents ... but it does interest me as you do see a fair few of Hitchcock's regular actors turns up - such as Joseph Cotton amongst others. In terms of Hitchcock, this film merely seemed to use his thriller style to set the scene for the real focus of the Cold War. By using a vast majority of footage from The Birds there is an indication of impending doom that shadows the film - and makes an interesting contrast to the possible doom that Nixon was entertaining with Khrushchev. Throughout the film, it often stopped and white text on black would pop up to inform us on the history of the cold war: "1969, Nixon signs ... " etc. The film shows all this historical footage alongside a carefully shot film explaining a situation whereby Hitchcock met himself on the set of The Birds. The parrallel again between these doubles - and Nixon and Khrushchev as doubles themselves - was made that much more sinister as we were constantly told that "If you meet your double, you should kill him" - a plan that Nixon and Khrushchev were attempting to do. Destroying the world in the process.

The film then moves on and, as Kennedy becomes president in the historical story, the film focuses on Topaz - a film set within the Cold War. The producer spoke in a Q&A after the screening and explained that the majority of footage used was taken from free-footage that is in the public domain - so the trailers for Hitchcock's movies are in the public domain and we are then subjected to alot of trailer footage: "Shock, horror, beware of The Birds".

It is simply a non-stop barrage of information. News footage, advertising footage, trailers - bam bam bam - and to top it off, there is a strong use of Herrman's strings from Psycho which constantly forces you to be on edge. It happens so much, you eventually climbatize and the tension wears off. We also have these interspersed advertisements for coffee which adds a little relief before going straight back into footage of Nuclear bombs going off and Nixon and Khrushchev mocking each other and then Hitchcock: "Good Evening ..." and then theres more - we meet Ron Burrage a Hitchcock lookalike whose birthday is the same as Hitchcock's! Not to mention the story about Hitchcock meeting his double. The film is juggling all these different threads and, in the end, its just too much.

As discussed with Jo on the podcast, this would not be out of place in an Art Gallery whereby you can appreciate the mixture of media used - and people who love Cold War stuff and Hitchcock movies can stay for the duration. Hitchcock was an entertainer first I felt - and thats not to say there was no depth (as Vertigo shows) but he ultimately wanted people to enjoy and be entertained. Thing is, as much as Double Take might capture Hitchcock's 'tone' of conversation and ethos towards life and how humour and horror go hand-in-hand, it is hardly a good contrast to his films themselves. I would rather watch a Hitchcock movie any day to this strange analysis on Hitchcock.