Spellbound (1945)

Spellbound (1945)

In 1945, Hitchcock was arguably at the top of his game.  He was well established in America with Rebecca, Saboteur, and Lifeboat produced and released to generally major success: Rebecca was nominated for Best Picture, while Lifeboat achieved some acclaim with a bit of vitriol.  Even though his relationship/contract with studio head David O. Selznik was reportedly combative, the combination of their creative juices made some fantastic pieces of cinema.  With this said, Spellbound, his follow-up to Lifeboat, is another romantic thriller like Rebecca, including The Master's visual flair mixed with Selznik's trademark emphasis on melodrama and romantic flourishes (think Gone With The Wind, another Selznik production), along with a dash of psychoanalysis for good measure.

Ingrid Berman plays Dr. Constance Petersen, a workaholic psychiatrist working at Green Manors mental asylum.  There we find new chief psychiatrist Dr. Edwards (played by a very young Gregory Peck), arriving to the fanfare of Dr. Petersen as she is a fan of his books on psychology.  While they quickly (and surprisingly based on Petersen’s robotic demeanor) fall in love, problems emerge as Dr. Edwards himself seems ironically ill.  In a tense moment, she discovers he is not Dr. Edwards at all, but an unknown imposter, who actually doesn't know who he is either (they must be thankful this all very appropriately happened in a mental asylum).  Upon his assumption the real Dr. Edwards is dead, our character (now going by "John Brown” as he believes his name is related to the initials "JB") goes on the run to find himself, all the while having moments of psychosis when seeing odd fabric patterns. Yes, odd is the appropriate word.  

As Petersen follows "John Brown" we proceed into a world of romance, thrills, suspicion, and psychological intrigue.  One could think of this film as a psychoanalytical procedural: as the unique duo flees from the authorities, we get a continuation of the investigative session where Dr. Petersen questions John in an attempt to break through his amnesia.  Many scenes include symbolism and reference to psychoanalysis of the day, including the meaning of dreams and clues revealed from John's episodes of crazy (Salvidor Dali even attempted to construct setups for dream sequences, which for the most part we only see a fraction of).

While not as good as some of the predecessors in this series, it is clearly another great Hitchcock picture. Notable is the mystery at hand: even once the movie is ostensibly ending, there are multiple reveals that remain to be seen.  The fact that we are aligned with Petersen’s mindset towards the end adds fantastic doubt/tension, as she (along with we the audience) don't know what to expect.  Music is wonderfully catchy (I'm still whistling the main tune 24 hours later) along with unique instrumentation to supplement moments of John's psychosis (notably a Theremin, which you've heard in any B-Scifi movie from the 50s, or in the Burton masterpiece Mars Attacks!)  With some effective subjective cinematography (watch out for the big ass gun!) and lighter comedic moments by supporting characters, the piece is undeniably entertaining.  

While there are times I wish Hitchcock was independent (aka without Ego Maniac Selznik watching over his shoulder) and therefore less blatantly grandiose romance, these pictures are standouts of a unique collaboration.  And anyway, The Master would eventually be free.  

Lifeboat (1944)

Lifeboat (1944)

There probably aren't too many people alive today who have been waiting and yearning to see this classic as much as myself. Learning of its existence in my Group Communication class at WSU, my professor offered her course VHS copy to me as she knew I was a fanatical film buff, and VHS was long past the way of the dodo.  Regarding the latter aspect, I never gained access to the proper equipment so that I may finally check this jem.  Low and behold, my brother of all people purchased a Hitchcock DVD set that included this, finally giving me my long awaited chance to view it (don't tell him I pilfered it).  But why you may ask would I ever want to see this arguably lesser known flick by Hitch?  It all takes place on a lifeboat!  That fact alone, even if directed by Uwe Boll, would still drive an interest in me difficult to suppress.

Lifeboat brings Hitchcock and uber producer Darryl F. Zanuck together for the first time, after Hitchcock's initiation into Hollywood with David O. Selznick and the gothically grandiose Rebecca (he and Zanuck being both massive studio heads in their day).  It also brings us the viewer into a World War II movie made right in the middle of the hostile period, with the relevant mind set giving us a look into fairly topical creativity.  Confining himself and his cast of 6 or so to a set smaller than that of 12 Angry Men, we encounter a taut and tense suspense thriller of uncertainty, possibly even more fascinating/disturbing for those who saw it in 1944.

The tale is written by the inspired choice of John Steinbeck, in an original story strictly for Hollywood.  His previous works may not imply an obvious relation to a taut and tight knit thriller, but his clear thought process and creativity behind interpersonal conflict works wonders here.  As the movie brilliantly begins right after an unseen ocean battle, we find a diverse including a millionaire, a merchant marine, American sailors, and an outlandishly placed woman with just enough common ground between them to give the belief they may survive. Throw in a surprise German survivor, either a friendly private or a duplicitous Captain, and the suspense is palpable within 15 minutes of the opening.

Though Hitch may be slightly out of place in the ocean, his knowledge of how to thrill remains present, along with his excellent cinematic viewpoint.  Even in a boat, one incredibly tiny set, his vision keeps the camera tuned to many promising angles and viewpoints, avoiding monotony and boredom.  With great limitations physically, The Master succeeds beautifully.  If you're restricted to watching only 15 Hitchcock movies in your lifetime (how verrrryyyy unfortunate), make sure this one makes it to the marque.

The 39 Steps (1935)

The 39 Steps (1935)

In what I first assumed to be a documentary on the origin of the 12 step program (England was apparently hardcore in those days, adding a whole 27 steps to a unfortunate drunkard’s hydration) I instead find Hitchcock adeptly continuing his fascination with the wrongly accused as seen in Young and Innocent.  Major alterations are afoot however, with grand espionage at the heart of the murder and a vacationing Canadian at the center of a plot both personal and epic.

Our main character Hannay (aka nob, hoser, etc.) probably felt lucky when a beautiful yet mysterious foreign woman named Annabelle Smith abruptly asks for a visit to his home following a comedy show they attended.  While he gets to know her and realizes the perceived pleasurable motives he saw were a facade, she delivers some minor information regarding her plight in an attempt to gain possible assistance and sanctuary.  However, detailed information regarding this (or these) esoteric “39 Steps,” (some vital McGuffin that will soon leave the country of Scotland and is yearned for by evil-doers) is unfortunately not apparent to our lead when Miss Smith is murdered in the night.  As is such, he must fight to clear his name when he is accused of murder by fighting to discover what the hell this invasive woman was talking about!  Luckily, our main character (played by Robert Donat) can laugh at his dilemma, especially when running into a skeptical damsel who only adds to his turmoil.

As Young and Innocent seemed to first establish The Master’s association with the wrongly accused man (in that case not so obviously innocent), here we see that interest come to major fruition in a combination of his fascination with murder mysteries and espionage stories (the latter seen in Sabotage).  What makes the film a pioneer in this aggregate field is the main character, locales, and light hearted moments that add humor to the fairly dire situation at hand.  With Donat’s Hannay we find a foreign vacationer visiting another foreign location in Scotland, where irony strikes humor due to the fact its simple denizens don’t evoke the malice provided by the film’s villains (though they do provide interesting obstacles/advantages for Hannay).   Just as well, his antagonistic and brimming (yet happily not fully developed) romance with the previously mentioned skeptical damsel (played by Madeleine Carroll) gives a target for witty banter by our protagonist, who seems to have plenty.

Visually the piece didn’t completely stand out and I saw no phenomenal shots as seen in the previous films of the series so far, but it was still effective in its verisimilitude and overall consistency.  If there were to be any nitpicking, it would be in the unclear actions taken between certain scenes: as Hannay is about to be taken away by police, he inexplicably escapes through a window, where the previous shot gave no such suggestion.  While Hitch seems to generally work with a clear grasp on logic, there were a few moments where I questioned their believability.

Regardless, logic isn’t always vital and necessary here.  The Master has proven again his grasp over the suspense genre by daftly combining elements from his previous films into this sourced story (based on an oft adapted novel by John Buchan).  Anxiety rises to a point where all looks lost for the main character, but through wit and luck he escapes to continue on his mysterious quest.  This is another common positive thread in Hitchcock’s filmography; he knows when to leave out vital details in order to make the story that much more enthralling. 

Based on minor research, many film scholars regard this film as the turning point in Hitchcock’s career towards Hollywood: based on the entertaining results here, it makes sense.  

Sabotage (1936)

Sabotage (1936)

In what would be his first foray into titles beginning with “Sabot” (he filmed the exciting Saboteur later), Hitchcock delves into his familiar world of espionage with a film based on the Joseph Conrad novel The Secret Agent (having made an eponymously titled movie previously, it couldn’t follow tout de suite).  Still, based on plot along with the diegetic use of the word “Sabotage” throughout, nothing else feels appropriate. 

Here The Master begins another intriguing plot archetype he would refine and revisit later:  Contently running a movie theater with her foreign husband Mr. Verloc (played effectively with empathy, intrigue, and disgust by Oskar Homolka), Mrs. Verloc (played equally effectively sans disgust by Sylvia Sidney) deals with a “greengrocer” who more and more seems like a detective showering doubt onto her and her brother about Mr. Verloc’s true nature.  In essence, an arguably naïve family learns their patriarch, breadwinner, or idol isn’t as wholesome as previously believed (see Shadow of a Doubt, purportedly Hitch’s favorite film of his own).

Taking place in the period right before World War II, Hitchcock could not have found a better story to play off of suspicions and distrust English citizens probably had of alien travelers.  Our foreign antagonist appears normal enough, but certain mannerisms and rapid avoidance of the truth give off the vibe of a cool if slightly reluctant traitor, which is how the audience can give some if any sympathy due to his apparent appreciation of human life.  The fact that some of his traitorous acts occur in the public only helps to build tension, especially regarding one scene involving Mrs. Verloc’s brother on a bus.  Ironically enough, (SPOILER) The Master himself has been documented saying the “bombastic” ending to this scene actually hurt the tension, along with his cardinal rule of suspense wherein characters the audience invests in do not die (maybe not too much of a spoiler considering where the rest of the film goes, but generally the less known about the story the better).

Another plot archetype Hitch plays with is that of familiar, pedestrian, even amicable antagonists.  As would be seen later in Saboteur and his second take on The Man Who Knew Too Much, members of an evil league appear to be kind and polite at first.  Even after the protagonist(s) purposefully or inadvertently discover or appear to discover this group’s foul intentions, their “normality” lingers.  Those members effective in this film are various unnamed figures; some menacing, some likable, and some comically weird such as the bird keeper/bomb maker.  Hitch’s portrayal of these characters treads a line that avoids parody and truly leads to further and tenser suspense.  After all, these characters could be anyone (I’m looking at you Dissmore’s grocer).

Lean and Taut at under 80 minutes, Sabotage gives a glimpse into The Master’s fascination with secret plots set against the world stage and its effect on the home life, all while enjoying the direct reflection of plot points via movie theaters playing movies within our movie: watch for guns being pulled on screen and on screen…still with me?

Tidbit:  I just obtained the Hitchcock Limited Edition Blu-Ray Set by Universal; I think we’ll be seeing more than just three films in this series!

Blackmail (1929)

Blackmail (1929)

This film actually happens to take place quite a while before my previous entry Young And Innocent, and truthfully it does show in the quality.  However, this being made 8 years prior, that is very acceptable, as the quality of the story and technique on display may even surpass the previous film's stature.  

As the opening credits faded to display a car on a London road, I began to become interested in the notion that there may be no intertitles in this ostensibly silent film (cards showing dialogue, as there be no sound).  However, after about 10 minutes or so following an arrest with multiple characters including officers and criminals, dialogue and sound suddenly became existent (further research after the watch showed that Hitchcock changed his mind during the production to make it a "talkie", creating Great Britain's first picture with diegetic noise).  Finally overcoming my shock, I continued to watch with a greater intrigue than previously imagined, as silent pictures are great, but honestly can sometimes drag (I'm looking at you Wings).  As the plot builds towards an unexpected climax, we see many of the Master's well-regarded traits not only surface, but flourish with wonderful freshness. 

The main plot moves at a pace patient enough where you think all is clear; a young shopkeeper Alice (Anny Ondra) ditches her boyfriend Detective Frank Webber (John Longden) for a mysterious artist (Cyril Ritchard).  However, after she ends up at his apartment, and with no inkling as to why she has pursued him, tragedy strikes.  I feel as though this is the point that I should tell you what happens… but why spoil the genuine surprise that I had?

While this movie may appear dated, it truly has Hitchcock's youth apparent throughout.  Even though it has been over 80 years since this was made, I can't deny a freshness that permeates (along with Young and Innocent) yet watching it next to one of the director's future works, you can see so much in common: themes of mystery, betrayal, and building suspense all the way to the climax.  That isn't to say all of his films are the same by any means, but that many do share one or more of these traits, and you can discover a film is of his hand without any prior knowledge of such. 

As I expected this to be a "decent" or "satisfactory" entry in his filmography, color me surprised as I'm still slightly in awe of what I witnessed.  Issues of morality, truth, and fidelity (this being directly intertwined with the first two) surround the unexpected nature of what we see.  The fact that the story itself only involves a few characters solidifies one of Hitchcock's masterful traits: taking what could be a small story in another's realm, and making it grand.  

Make sure you watch out for the trademark cameo!