Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Spellbound’ (1945)

picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Spellbound

Lead Actors: Ingrid Bergman (Dr. Constance Petersen), Gregory Peck (Dr. Edwardes/John Brown), Michael Chekhov (Dr. Alexander Brulov, ‘Alex’)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel The House of Dr. Edwardes (1927) by Francis Beeding. 

The movie Spellbound deals with psychoanalysis as its director, Alfred Hitchcock, warns us from the very beginning: ‘the story deals with psychoanalysis, the method by which modern science treats the emotional problems of the sane.’ In comparison to other movies of Hitchcock, Spellbound has also a motto from Shakespeare: ‘The fault…is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’

Despite its psychoanalysis topic, this movie is not a psychoanalysis movie. What I mean is that A. Hitchcock does not apply psychoanalysis to his characters, but the characters deal with a psychoanalysis topic. The movie presents the story of a young psychiatrist, Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) working at the Green Manor's hospice in Vermont, who met and fell in love with John Brown (Gregory Peck) who pretended to be Dr. Anthony Edwardes. She discovered that John Brown was an impostor comparing his signature ‘Dr. Edwardes’ to the autograph of the real Dr. Edwardes that she had previously received on a limited edition of his psychoanalysis book. Accused of having murdered the real Dr. Edwardes, Constance continued to believe in Brown’s innocence and to help him recover his memory from deep amnesia and overcome his guilt complex. They run away from the police to Dr. Alex Brulov – Constance’s former professor, who had only words of appreciation for her as a professional. Constance even introduced him as her husband, but Alex realized that he was just a patient suffering from amnesia that she was trying to help, and he agreed to help shortly before turning him in to the police.

The Spellbound is another remarkable movie made by A. Hitchcock. It was nominated by the American Film Academy in several categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects. Although in a supporting role, Michael Chekhov made a fantastic role as Dr. Brulov. Besides the way he played Dr. Brulov, he also had a few memorable lines such as: ‘The brain of a woman in love operates at the lowest level of its intellect,' or ‘her husband is my husband.' J 

            In the process of recuperating from amnesia, a highly important role was played by dreams – the night dreams of the patients. And in order to successfully reflect this on the screen, Alfred Hitchcock used drawings of Salvador Dali – which from an artistic point of view is both a brilliant and an original idea. Furthermore, it is remarkable the way Hitchcock thought to show the memory recovery process: he used a series of doors getting opened and lights – which from a technical point of view, it was a terrific idea. 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next great movie made by Alfred Hitchcock! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Lifeboat’ (1944)

picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Lifeboat

Lead Actors: Tallulah Bankhead (Connie Porter), William Bendix (Gus Smith), Walter Slezak (Cpt. Willi), Hume Cronyn (Sparks Garrett), Heather Angel (Mrs. Higley)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novella written by John Steinbeck.

Lifeboat[1] is a psychology movie that presents people’s behavior and thinking in a life-threatening circumstance and in a limited space, such as a lifeboat. The movie presents the story of a group of people who survived their ship being torpedoed by the nazis during WWII. And for the pressure on both the mind and the body to be higher – due to limited space and resources – one of those rescued from the ocean was one of the German crew members who torpedoed the ship.

In the lifeboat, there are just a few characters, of different genders, colors, and professional backgrounds. One of the characters is Connie (Tallulah Bankhead) a journalist who first lost her camera, then the tipper, then the suitcase, and in the end, she lost even a golden bracelet with which they tried and even caught a fish. And she laughed about all this. It was like Hitchcock would say that laughter is the best medicine, particularly under such circumstances.

            Another character is ‘captain’ Willi (Walter Slezak), who initially pretended that he did not understand any English, while Connie was translating from German. He was just checking whether the rest of the crew could be trusted. He was a lifesaver when amputating Gus’ leg (William Bendix), but also his executioner when throwing him in the ocean for discovering that he had water to drink, while the others were thirsty. Willi played with Gus’ hallucinating mind, actually encouraging him to go overboard. And as if Hitchcock would try to say that what goes around comes around, captain Willi had a similar end. Following an exchange fire between two ships, another German was saved by the survivors on the lifeboat. And it looked like Hitchcock would tell us that history repeats itself.

Lifeboat is particular not only for a fine presentation of different peoples’ behavior in survival[2] circumstances but also for the way Hitchcock decided to do it. First, he chose very close camera shots – so close shots that the viewer can smell the actors’ breath. J This is hypothetical speaking because nowadays most of us wear masks to protect ourselves from the spread of Covid-19. Second, he chose a dynamic dialogue, with rare moments of silence, and only one healthy laughter – that of Connie, when she lost the bracelet. 

            One such close camera shot is in minute 50, and it focuses on Connie’s face. Basically, the entire screen is her face exposing a natural beauty – a typical beauty for classic black and white movies – where make-up was just a tool to emphasize some face features. Here, Connie used lipstick to keep the focus on her lips, mouth, words, and the entire discussion under the framework of a dynamic dialogue - an original and brilliant idea.

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s movies! 

---

[1] This is the free version of the movie that I watched on YouTube. The movie can also be found on Amazon.

[2]  I started this Hitchcock series practicing film review writing after having successfully completed the course on Academic and Business Writing (click here to view my final paper film review for the course). But these survivors on this lifeboat reminded me of the course PredictionX: Lost Without Longitude that I completed during this Hitchcock film series (click here to read the course review).

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Suspicion’ (1941)

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Suspicion

Lead Actors: Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth), Cary Grant (John Aysgarth, called Johnnie), Nigel Bruce (Beaky), Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Gen. McLaidlow), Auriol Lee (Isabel Sedbusk).

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel Before the Fact (1932) by Francis Iles.

The movie Suspicion is a psychological movie. It is the story of Lina (Joan Fontaine), the daughter of Gen. McLaidlow (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) who accidentally met (and liked) John Aysgarth (Cary Grant), called Johnnie. They soon got married and had a long honeymoon trip. Then, Lina started to discover Johnnie’s betting addiction, his debts, the stealing and selling of things from the house. He lost his job and he was not interested in another one, but he tried to establish a real estate company with his friend Becky (Nigel Bruce), who died in Paris in a suspicious way. Lina’s suspicions got higher when Johnnie got interested in crime novels written by the successful writer Isabel Sedbusk (Auriol Lee), particularly in poisons. She suspected that he wanted to kill her.

From an artistic point of view, Hitchcock used the idea of books and words to present this psychological game. He used the scrabble words game to suggest that Lina’s suspicions were about murder – a very original idea to use books, words, and a word game in a movie as a psychological game. Brilliant! J 

            Lina is an intelligent woman reading psychology books. A literate in psychology, Lina had a trained mind. Still, Johnnie succeeded in playing with it. Fed up with Johnnie's lies adapted for each circumstance, she even tried to leave him, not face to face, but through a note (which may suggest that she was still loving him): ‘I’m leaving you. It is very important that we never see each other again. I am sure that you will be able to explain everything very smoothly to yourself as well as to the others. Lina.’ Then, she tore up the note, she stayed, and the viewers get confirmed that she still loved him dearly. 

            The character Lina has a remarkable arch: from the woman who could not wait to be with him, looking for him, calling him, to suspect him of having murdered Becky, to seek distance of fear not to be murdered by him – but always in love with him. My guess is that the reasons why Johnnie could so easily play with her mind were: his ‘smooth way’ of finding a plausible explanation on the spot and her love for him.

From a technical point of view, every scene took place in beautiful sceneries that are splendid even in black and white. They are well-framed by the camera. There are some single shots that were memorable. For example, the scene from the very beginning of the movie that shows Johnnie playing with Lina’s hair and that ends shortly with Lina’s purse. It is suggestive of the story and as strong as the sound of the closing clip of the purse.

As usual, a lovely doggy was not missing from most of the scenes, as in all Hitchcock’s movies. It is also said that Hitchcock appeared in all his movies, but in some – as is the case in Suspicion – I had difficulties in identifying him. I guess the credit for it goes to those who were in charge of the make-up and the costumes. 

The movie Suspicion is a fascinating movie with psychological twists and a great cast. It was a pleasure to watch Cary Grant playing so naturally the role of Johnnie. And Joan Fontaine made such a remarkable role: her thoughts and feelings transcended the screen. Fabulous! No wonder she was awarded an Oscar for this role. 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next Hitchcock movies! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Sabotage’ (1936)

 picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: Sabotage

Lead Actors: Sylvia Sydney (Mrs. Verloc), Oscar Homolka (Mr. Verloc), John Loder (Ted), Desmond Tester (Sylvia’s young brother) 

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad (or as an ebook available for free reading) 

Sabotage is a black-and-white drama (with sound) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is the story of a detective, Ted (John Loder) working undercover as a groceries seller to investigate Mr. Verloc (Oscar Homolka) – a cinema owner – on suspicion of involvement in the city black-out and bus bombing.

In order to picture the novel The Secret Agent written in 1907 by J. Conrad, Hitchcock chose to start the movie in the most original way: with the word definition. Therefore, the very first scene of the movie is a dictionary page, which was defining the word ‘sabotage’ as a ‘wilful destruction of buildings or machinery with the object of alarming a group of persons or inspiring public uneasiness.’ This idea of Hitchcock is both original – as I have never seen any other movie opening directly with a dictionary page to emphasize a definition – and cultural.

            Ted’s undercover mission was discovered during a meeting with a group of social agitators, which included also Mr. Verloc. From this moment, the suspense of the movie starts growing. And although one might believe that with the bus bombing the bombing series was over, it was actually followed by a second one, at the cinema.

            Mr. Verloc sent the brother (Desmond Tester) of his wife (Sylvia Sydney) with the tape of the movie Bartholomew the Strangler, which exploded in a bus full of people. Besides the tragedy of the human loss, and that of Mrs. Verloc’s young brother, this particular scene reminds us that at the beginning of the cinema, the movies were taped on an inflammable tape. And for this reason, many movies from the beginning of the cinema are lost - specialists speak of a 90 percent loss from the total of all movies made in that period. It means that great stories are gone, great interpretations, artistic mise-en-scène of different directors, movies that pictured the life, the habits, and the people with the techniques of those times cinema is all gone. People, stories, and movies are gone forever.

         There are two particular scenes that I would like to point out from this movie: the first for its artistic relevance, and the second for its cultural information. The first is the scene at the beginning of the movie when Mr. Verloc came home while the cinema had a blackout and people were asking for their money back. In a complete black-out, Mr. Verloc could not fully rest because he was disturbed by the street light and he covered his face with a newspaper. I found this scene brilliant because, on the one side, people were restless and wanted their money back, while on the other side, Mr. Verloc could not rest in a black-out because of the … street light. Furthermore, the covering of his face with the newspaper is also brilliant because it was in the spirit of the dictionary scene – Mr. Verloc is covering his eyes with the written words of a newspaper. The second scene, I would like to point out, happened ten minutes later and showed a meeting in what we would call nowadays an ‘aquarium’. It was an Aquarium back then, too. It was open to the public, and it was impressive for those times. It helps to realize the development gap between London and the rest of the country, and the rest of the world at that time.

In conclusion, the movie Sabotage is a great drama concentrating on lots of suspense, particularly after the ‘blowing up’ of Ted’s undercover mission, which continues with the blowing-up of the bus and culminates with the blowing-up of the cinema.

Enjoy the movie! J

P.S.: See you in the next review of Alfred Hitchcock’s series! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Rebecca’ (1940)

photo edited by Laura Lai 

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Rebecca 

Lead Actors: Laurence Olivier (Maxim de Winter), Joan Fontaine (Mrs. de Winter), Leonard Carey (Ben)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The movie is based on the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. 

Rebecca is a romantic suspense movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock and inspired by the novel of the same name written by D. Du Maurier and published in 1938.

            It is the story of a newlywed couple, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) and his wife (Joan Fontaine), fighting with the ghost of Maxim’s first wife, Rebecca. The couple met in the lobby of the Hotel ‘Princess’ in Monte Carlo. They got married and decided to live at Mr. de Winter’s residence at Manderley. The residence was a big stone house, taken care of by several servants, and it kept inside its walls lots of souvenirs difficult to live with. The entire movie spins around the mystery of Rebecca’s death and the investigation of her death once a boat was found with her body inside. Suspicions of murder and claims of suicide make this 2-hour movie captivating. 

This movie is a black-and-white movie. And the love story is about who, meaning Maxim, his second wife – that is only known as Mrs. de Winter in the movie – and the ghost of the first wife, Rebecca. The story is about what, is about when, and how long. When it is about how intense their love is, the movie impresses with its acting and with lines. Joan Fontaine did a marvelous role by playing the second wife of Maxim de Winter. She entered the role of the young, inexperienced, and devoted wife naturally. Fantastic!

In the same line of ideas, the more recent movies that happen to contain a love story put a lot of emphasis on how when intensity or passion needs to be emphasized – and it is, usually, by demolishing the whole room. No, it is not a critique! It is an observation about the movies then and about movies now. Nowadays, it might be more about violence and nudity. Then, it was more about writing words and dialogue exchange. But one thing stayed constant: actors' talent. They are today as talented as before. 

            Similar to most of Hitchcock’s movies, in Rebecca, the viewers came across a dog – Jasper -  and some great shots. I particularly want to stress the dinner scene (min. 34) that starts from the plate and the napkin (with the initials of the first wife as an element between the newlywed), then the attention is directed toward the second wife, then the entire room, including Mr. de Winter and the servants - these are all the current and past characters in Manderley. Then, the next sequence starts with Manderley. It is a scene with no lines that make as one thousand words but backed by a piece of beautiful music. Brilliant! A hilarious scene is the one in which the two got married and forgot the certificate that was thrown at them from the window upstairs. From an artistic point of view, this is a brilliant idea to show how much in love the two were. Last but not least, I want to stress the fantastic secondary role played by Leonard Carey interpreting Ben's character, living in the cottage next to the sea. He does not have many lines in the movie, but his acting was great and his entries wonderful.

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s film series!   

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Jamaica Inn’ (1939)

picture edited by Laura Lai

 

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: Jamaica Inn

Lead Actors: Charles Laughton (Sir Humphrey Pengallan), Maureen O’Hara (Mary), Robert Newton (James Trehearne), Laslie Banks (Joss), Mary Ney (Patience). 

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The movie is based on the novel Jamaica Inn by Daphne Du Maurier.

Jamaica Inn is the story of Pengallan…legend. The action is placed on the cost of Cornwell, at the beginning of the 19^th century. A group of wreckers, thieves, and murderers was luring ships to the rocks of the coast stealing all the goods on the ship. The constant repetition of the wrecks grew suspicion among officials who sent an officer to work undercover – James Trehearne (Robert Newton). He mixed with the gang at Jamaica Inn, led by Joss (Laslie Banks) and his wife, Patience (Mary Ney).

            At the inn arrived the niece of Patience, from her recently deceased sister – Mary (Maureen O’Hara). She was a beautiful young woman, with principles and lots of character. Officer Trehearne was convinced that this gang had an informer that provided precise information on the ships to be lured to their doom on the rocks of the Cornish Coast. And the entire movie is a great story involving Mary’s character, James' undercover operation, and Sir Humphrey's (Charles Laughton) duplicity. Laughton made a fabulous role. Absolutely magnificent!

From a technical point of view, the wrecking scenes are impressive with the 1939 technique movie. Both the images and the sound are clear – and this fascinates me to dig more and find out the way the director did it. In the scene of the dialogue between Sir Humphrey and Joss (min. 38-39) the camera shots are suggestive in determining the hierarchy of the characters. It is usually said that each person has his own shadow. Well, Sir Humphrey was such an important person, that he was depicted with two shadows. J I would not disconsider this little detail because Alfred Hitchcock is a film mastermind for whom, theoretically, each detail matters.

From a cultural point of view, or better said from a linguistic point of view, officer Trehearne’s short speech while he was tied up is memorable. It is a one-two minutes scene in which he made an appeal to the consciousness of Patience to release him. His words are well-chosen and they made her consciousness clash with her devotion to her husband. 

This scene from a 1939 movie reminded me of more recent movies. See, for example, Al Pacino, ‘Inch by Inch’ speech, Any Given Sunday here, or Al Pacino, ‘I’ll Show You Out of Order!’ speech, Scent of a Woman here, and Leonardo di Caprio, The Wolf of Wall Street speech here). 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next Hitchcock movie review! J

Hitchcock Film Series. ‘The Lady Vanishes’ – Book Review

 picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Review 

I posted this week my review of the movie The Lady Vanishes (1938) directed by A. Hitchcock. This movie is based on the novel The Wheel Spins (or The Lady Vanishes) written by the British crime author Ethel Lina White (1876-1944). 

Thanks to the Gutenberg Project Australia the book is available free of charge as an eBook. The book is divided into thirty-three chapters and it is a great novel for spy genre lovers, as well as for mystery books lovers. For those reading in English as a foreign language, the book is well crafted, is literary, and its vocabulary should not put too many problems for the readers. This book was of great interest to me from the point of view of the movie. More precisely, I wanted to know things like: What elements from the book did the film director keep? Which one-third of the plot he kept? And why?

            First and foremost, the film director kept the general spy and mystery genre. Second, similarly to the movie, most of the action happens on the train – a night express coming from somewhere in the Balkans, maybe even from Turkey and passing by the Balkans going to Trieste-Milan-Calais; and from there, to London (ch.5). Third, there is a Miss Froy that vanished from the compartment, as well as the complicity of those in the compartment and of the stewards to convince Iris that she was imagining, dreaming, inventing the whole Ms. Froy story. Furthermore, similar to the movie, the disappearance of Ms. Froy involved a doctor and there is an investigative couple: Iris and a young man named Hare.

            Other elements kept in the movie, but slightly adapted are the signature of Ms. Froy on the ‘smoked window’ (ch. 26), Trieste as an execution place (ch. 27), the scene Iris was sedated (ch. 32), and the general ‘shouting, smoking and gesticulation’ (ch. 33) with what the movie actually starts.

            Instead, the film director came up with different sets of characters that deepened the mystery, elaborated more on the execution scene for more action in a spy genre movie, and left aside lots of descriptions of places, and characters’ details that are more appropriate for a book writing than for a movie. Knowing how much to take and how much to leave, makes both the book well-written and the movie well-done. J

In the book, I have not found the expression ‘don’t judge a country by its politics’, but I found ‘[p]ersonally, I should not compare Italy with Piccadilly Circus’ (ch. 24), which might have been the one giving the scriptwriter the idea to come up with something even wiser. Instead, the book contains the formulation of another great observation: 

‘…strangers were caricatures of humanity – blank, insensible, and heartless. While Miss Froy was going to be murdered, no one cared for anything but dinner.’ (ch. 27) 

It is a good observation, but, sadly, a true one. In documentary movies, there are testimonies of illegal property seizing at the beginning of WWII, while nobody was protesting, even going and enjoying holidays. Then, Europe was bombed, artifacts from many museums were seized, and when people realized what was happening, it was too late to react: the whole world was at war.

The characters in this book, which is a piece of art and of literature, only care about their dinner because some of them did not even believe the story of Miss Froy who got vanished. But in real life, some real characters on the stage of life not only do not care about the misfortune of somebody else, but some are even accomplices to it – as the characters in the book. The formulation 'caricature of humanity’ is very artistic - it makes the reader visualize a caricature, and in it, it is humanity depicted. And the scene is better visualized, and Iris's emotions and perceptions are better understood. 

Real life is, usually, beautifully mirrored in art. The artist knows what to take from real life, and what not to so that art has the power to reach the soul. So is with this book and the movie. Ethel Lina White crafted a great spy book, while Alfred Hitchcock adapted it and made it a great spy movie.

Enjoy both the book and the movie! And I'll see you in the next review of Hitchcock’s movies!

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Lady Vanishes’ (1938)

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: The Lady Vanishes 

Lead Actors: Margaret Lockwood (Iris Hendersen), Michael Redgrave (Gilbert), Dame May Whitty (Miss Froy), Paul Lukas (Dr. Hartz)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The movie is based on the novel The Wheel Spins (1936) by Ethel Lina White (you can read the free ebook here).

The Lady Vanishes is a black-and-white thriller and one of the very last movies made by Alfred Hitchcock before moving to Hollywood. 

The action of the movie takes place mainly on the train to London, but the action starts in the hotel next to the station – that was a great opportunity for the characters to get acquainted and for the viewers to get to know the characters. The hotel was crowded and the manager was a polyglot, speaking English, Italian, French, and German – which reminded me of Switzerland when I did not know any German. J Anyway, it would have not made any difference, because the Austrians and Germans themselves do not understand spoken Swiss German – so different they are!

At this hotel, a guitar singer got killed. Then, on the railway platform, a flower pot accidentally hit Ms. Hendersen (Margaret Lockwood), a young woman going to London to get married. A chatty old British lady, Ms. Froy (Dame May Whitty), accompanied her to the train and shared the same compartment, but after Ms. Hendersen woke up from her nap, she realized that Ms. Froy disappeared – actually, vanished.

A conspiracy involving the people in the compartment, two stewards, and a dr. Hartz (Paul Lukas) was trying to convince Ms. Hendersen that she was imagining things, that there was no Ms. Froy, and even developing a plausible theory that this might have been caused by the flower pot that fell on her head in the railway station. The only person who believed her was Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) whom she previously met at the hotel. Together they started looking for Ms. Froy on the whole train.

From a technical point of view, I loved the camera shots, particularly the beginning one, when the camera gets from the outside (a mountain landscape), gets down to a hotel, then to the window of the hotel, and then inside it. This suggests the idea of a story that is going to be told. In this story, my favorite scene is the one in the luggage room, which shows a fight between some characters, with rabbits, pigeons, illusionist chamber that made the scene hilarious. 

From an artistic viewpoint, I loved the idea of an illusionist in the train that creates a diversion. But the fact that Ms. Froy vanished had nothing to do with the illusionist. Second, I loved the idea that the train turned when the story itself was turning - a brilliant idea by Hitchcock! Third, I loved the fact that Ms. Froy wrote her name on the dusted window of the train - an original idea by Hitchcock! Fourth, I loved the wise statement ‘you shouldn’t judge a country by its politics.’ The statement belonged to Ms. Froy and it is also relevant in the current political context when U.S. President Joe Biden meets the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in Geneva (Switzerland). This quote is just perfect to remind us that a country like Russia, for example, is more than Putin. For example, Russia is about the many great writers, who entered world literature, whose works are world patrimony; it is about beautiful architecture (in St. Petersburg, for example), and a beautiful language – as there is no such thing as an ugly foreign language. It is about A. Pushkin, N. Gogol, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoyevsky, A. Chekov, M. Gorki, and many other names and classical writing talents who painted in words époques in a great artistic way that is hard, if not impossible, to equal, because they wrote literature. Fifth, I loved the beautiful happy end. 

            I left as last and least an element that stroke me in this 1938 movie. In the train compartment, Ms. Hendersen wanted ‘to ring for an attendant’ for Ms. Froy. Nothing special, right? Well, think again! ‘Ring for an attendant’ from a button applied to the compartment door in a train in 1938? I have not seen it on the trains in 2021! J

Enjoy the movie! 

P.S.: See you in the next film review! Or in the review of the book that inspired this movie. 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Downhill’ (1927)

 photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: The Downhill

Lead Actors: Ivor Novello (Roddy Berwick), Robin Irvine (Tim Wakeley), Isabel Jeans (Julia Fotheringale), Norman McKinnel (Sir Thomas Berwick)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The Downhill is a black-and-white, silent drama about honor and dignity. It is the story of two friends and schoolmates: Roddy (from a wealthy family) and Tim (a student with a scholarship). Following an incident involving a woman, Roddy is expelled from school one week before the end of the term. Although the incident was Tim’s fault, the woman intentionally accused the innocent Roddy, who preferred to keep silent so that his friend not to lose his scholarship. Roddy had to leave home, and all experiences he lived were from bad to worse, until he returned home in a deplorable condition. He was determined to keep his promise to his friend to death – his own death.

This movie is divided into several chapters: Old Boys’ Team, The World of Make-Believe, The World of Lost Illusions, and Searching, Restless, Sun-light. There are two advantages to having organized the movie structure this way. First, the screenwriter (Eliot Stannard) succeeded in providing a cyclical structure to the movie. Second, this particular unfolding of the story puts the viewer in a good mood after such a long series of misfortunes happening to Roddy in an almost 2-hour movie.

From an artistic point of view that is mainly the job of the director, I liked many things  - but I will stick to two main ones.

            First, I loved the way the director artistically reflected the ‘downhill’ that was happening to a young man in real life. When Roddy was expelled, he took the stairs down; when he had to leave home, he took the subway rolling downstairs; when he got divorced, he took the elevator down; even, when he returned home, there were two-three steps he took down. Is there anything left for the 1927 époque that a character could take to go down and Hitchcock forgot? I don’t think so! J

          Second, I loved the use of light as a symbol. At the end of the chapter The World of the Lost Illusions, the windows of a dancing saloon open. It was then that Roddy realized the degrading place he was frequenting. And, in a brilliant way, the next chapter is called Searching, Restless, Sun-light. 

From a technical point of view, Hitchcock used light for a beautiful scene in the shop, with the waitress that took him responsible for something he did not do, just because his father – Sir Thomas Berwick ‘was rolling in the money’ – in which the characters play behind a curtain of stripes, and light is coming from behind. This is my favorite scene of all. But Hitchcock played with the camera, took shots from all angles, and this helped transmit to the audience the emotions of the characters. It, actually, helped a great deal to communicate although the movie was silent.

Enjoy the movie!

P.S. See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s movies!

Lost Without Longitude. Course Review

 

by Laura Lai/Review 

Here I am interrupting the series of film reviews with a … course review. J I guess it happens when one writes. The thing is that in the process of sharpening my writing techniques for reviews, particularly films – and that is because I did book reviews before when an undergraduate, postgraduate, and Ph.D. student – I came across a course generously provided free of charge by Harvard, and implicitly by its outstanding professors and researchers. 

It is a one-week online course under the coordination of Prof. Alyssa Goodman. I interrupted almost all my thoughts and work to get on board before the course gets archived. The reason I took the decision to enroll in the course PredictionX: Lost Without Longitude is its relevance to a play I am having in mind, which was inspired by a short online course also provided by Harvard: Becomea More Resilient Leader in Turbulent Times (please click here for the course review).

This course is about the art of navigating on the sea, mainly before the era of GPS. The word ‘navigation’ comes from the Latin words ‘navis’ (ship) and ‘agere’ (to drive), meaning ‘navigare’ (to travel in a ship). In general, to navigate means to move from one place to another by a way of an intended course. This implies other concepts, such as position, distance, direction, speed, the margin of error, etc. Therefore, to navigate means to predict when and where someone or something will be at a certain future point.

This course points to the role played by astronomers and clockmakers in accurately assessing this prediction. It is also a course about people who impacted, in a positive way, the long scientific process of getting to an accurate prediction: Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Hipparchus, Nevil Maskeyne, etc.

The course includes also the beautiful story of the clockmaker John Harrison – a simple clockmaker in wood, from Lincolnville village, who in the 1730s traveled to London seeking financement to his ‘sea watch’, and whose reward for his great discovery in settling the longitude was put on hold by Nevil Maskeyne – an outstanding astronomer working on the same longitude issue, but from an astronomical point of view, and who, in the meantime, got to such a social position that he had the power to put on hold Harrison’s discovery based on the argument of replication. I will let you follow the course to discover the way Harrison’s son thought to work things out, and whom exactly he went to see to cancel the order given by Nevil Maskeyne - his father’s competition.

Personally, I do not see any competition between the two. They were two brilliant minds that worked on the same longitude theme, each of them from the point of view of academic and professional competence: Maskeyne as an astronomer, and Harrison as a clockmaker. Although I dislike human shortcomings, I appreciate the great input both brought to the progress of science and the king’s decision.

This course provides concepts, notions, and facts that are fascinating in the ‘pre-writing’ phase when an author is researching its topic. It is scientifically argued that an author usually uses only 30 percent of the research for writing, and 70 percent is left aside. However, the research process before writing gives the author a complete picture of the story it wants to write about. Indeed, there is lots of work behind any piece of writing and only a few authors can live only from book sales – lots of the effort remains non-remunerated. Therefore, it is disappointing when some readers or viewers (depending on the medium) do not consider measuring their words when criticizing. In terms of measurements, the course PredictionX: Lost Without Longitude, suggests nautical miles, fathom, chip logs, etc. J

To sum up, although after the course on Academic and Business Writing, I thought to practice my film reviewing techniques with a series of Alfred Hitchcock movies, I considered it relevant to pause for today, and for this week, and to post another review – a course review, relevant for a piece of writing I am having in mind. I hope to be forgiven. 

I will definitely see you in the next review of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies!

Other links:

Lai, Laura. ‘Shackleton’s Captain – The Famous Antarctic Expedition’. Online Movie. Writing Blog. March 9, 2021. Web. May 30, 2021. https://writingbreaklauralai.blogspot.com/2021/03/film-review-shackletons-captain-famous.html

Old Film (and Book) Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘The Lodger’ (1927)

photo edited by Laura Lai

Laura Lai/Review

Film’s Title: The Lodger

Lead Actors: Daisy (June), the lodger (Ivor Novello), Joe (Malcolm Keen), and the landlady (Marie Ault), the landlady’s husband (Arthur Chesney)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Based on the novel The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes (1911)

The Lodger is a silent movie thriller that starts with a murder and keeps the audience in suspense with great turns and twists as created by the master of suspense, A. Hitchcock.

            A serial killer was at large even after having committed the seventh victim – all of them blonde women, which, from a scientific viewpoint, was the work of a psychopath that developed a fixation. The murderer was ‘signing’ his murderous acts with the name of ‘The Avenger’ and an upwards triangle. According to police calculations, the following victim should be from a certain area of lodging houses. In one of these houses, lived a young blonde girl named Daisy (June). To this house, a tall man, with his face half-covered – as ‘The Avenger’ was described by a witness after his last victim – asked for accommodation (Ivor Novello). The lodger was carrying a leather bag, he was wealthy enough to pay the rent in advance, and he was having a map on which it was marked all the places where the murderer made his victims – altogether a triangle-perimeter on the map of London. Following a series of coincidental events, the lodger almost got annihilated by the masses – wrongly annihilated by the masses constantly reading in the Evening Standard about The Avenger’s victims. 

It is in this scene that Alfred Hitchcock is caught on camera, as an actor – a lovely and original idea. Nowadays, I think that Quentin Tarantino sometimes does that, too: being both the director and the actor. But there may be others I am not aware of just as a cinema movie consumer. 

            I remember that during my Drama Writing course in 2019, we got to the topic of book adaptations for screen and/or for the stage. Our drama writing tutor at Oxford asked us about a book that we would adapt, for which medium, and the way we would do that. I answered that I would adapt Romeo and Juliette by W. Shakespeare for several reasons: remembering Shakespeare, for the fun of updating the topic and pacing it in the present, for the challenge of the medium change adaptation (text written for the stage but adapted for the screen), and for the even greater challenge of transforming a tragedy into a comedy. Just that I would call it Roman and Julie, and the way I described how I envisioned my adaptation was just an allusion to Shakespeare's play. The tutor found my creative idea lovely and asked me if I saw the movie Romeo and Juliette directed by Baz Luhrman. I was just about to reply ‘I’ve seen the movie Romeo and Juliette with Leonardo di Caprio’, but I checked on the Internet and I learned that we were referring to the same movie - just to see the difference between the way a professional asks a question about a movie ('by Baz Luhrman') and the way a cinema consumer would answer ('with di Caprio'). J My drama writing tutor, Nicholas McInerny directed a series called The Rainbow Dads and got the Silver Award at the British Community Radio Awards 2020. 

In the movie The Lodger there are particularly three scenes on which I would like to pause, because they made quite an impression on me, from either an artistic or a technical point of view – both stressing Hitchcock’s film genius.

First, from an artistic point of view, to have a lamp as a leitmotif of a movie whose subtitle is A story of London Fog is an absolutely brilliant idea! Brilliant! Second, from a technical point of view,  and related to the idea of searching for a serial killer in a London fog, I want to point to the scene when the camera shoots the back of a police car with two windows through which one could see the driver and the agent sitting next to the driver, both dressed in black. The way the car swings creates the artistic impression of two eyes looking left and right. And that I also found absolutely brilliant as an idea. The third scene I would like to mention is one of the mobs wanting to annihilate the lodger, who was stuck in a fence because of his handcuffs. The moment he is brought down from the fence, with Daisy crying over his wounded and bleeding body was, from my point of view, an allusion to the biblical story of Jesus' crucifixion.

After having read the book The Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes I am persuaded by the biblical allusion to this scene because in the book the lodger is described as a gentleman who the moment he arrived in this house seeking accommodation, he also asked for a Bible. He was also quoting from the Bible. I find it fabulous the way Hitchcock transposed on screen this information from the book. However, I think that the use of the Bible in the book and referring to the lodger was intentionally used to raise questions about the true character of this lodger - to be or not to be the serial killer. The reason why I believe so is that there is an old saying that says that the devil can also quote very well from the Bible. Therefore, the fact that this lodger asked for a Bible does not say anything about his innocence because he could be that evil-spirited serial killer having a Bible and even knowing quotes from it. 

            This book that inspired Hitchcock for the screen is structured into twenty-seven chapters. The landlady and her husband are, actually, the Buntings and Daisy is Mr. Bunting’s daughter from a first marriage. Daisy is described as having ‘always lived a simple, quiet life in the little country town…’ while in Hitchcock’s movie, she’s a mannequin having periodically a show – an idea that is more attractive for cinema. However, in adapting the book for the screen, Hitchcock kept many elements from the book, including the description of the lodger (Sleuth, in the book) who was ‘dark, sensitive, hatchet-shaped face’ wearing a black leather bag that was kept closed in a ‘chiffonnier’.

            This book from 1911 uses the French word ‘chiffonnier’ that was used in English at the beginning of the XXth century, and that is no anymore mentioned in the English dictionary. In French, it means a piece of furniture that is relatively high, not too large, and that, usually, has drawers. It is in this kind of piece of furniture that the lodger was having his bag closed both in the book and in the movie. Furthermore, Hitchcock used the idea of a serial killer, ‘the avenger’ signature with the triangle sign as in the book, and the Evening Standard. But contrary to the book, he built a love story between the lodger and Daisy – a love story that only Hitchcock could envision taking shape during a chess game. A very original idea within this movie context! Maybe the most original and the most intriguing was the back story Hitchcock created for the lodger’s character: ‘the avenger’ as being ‘the revenger.’ I will let you discover why I believe so. 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s movies!  

  #filmreview, #oldfilmreview, #bookreview, #writing, #Hitchcock, #amblogging