19. Waltzes from Vienna (1934)

Following Lord Camber's Ladies, Hitchcock ended his time with British International Pictures and moved to Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Ltd. where he would direct this and the following 6 films in his cannon. From what I could gather, this film was assigned to him (considering following Rich and Strange and Number Seventeen, his reputation had dwindled) and was based on a 1930 stage musical of the same name.

The story deals primarily with Johann Strauss II (played by Esmond Knight and called Schani in the film) and his desire to compose despite his father (Edmund Gwenn) thinking his son's works are laughable and not worthy of his name. Schani meets the Countess Helga von Stahl (Fay Compton) who recognizes his talents and says she has influence to get the elder Strauss to play his works. Schani then works on composing the Blue Danube Waltz, inspired by his girlfriend Resi (Jessie Matthews) who works in her father's bakery. When Schani proposes marriage to Resi, her father says he should give up his music and concentrate on actually earning a living. He completes his waltz however, but when it comes time for it to be played, will his father accept it? Will Schani be able to choose between Schani and the Countess?

Hitchcock is very dismissive of the picture saying it was made at the lowest ebb of his career. I think that overshadows the fact that the movie isn't that bad. It is somewhat slow moving because it seemed Hitchcock was required to tell more of a story, but there are some nice humorous touches in the movie. The music is used very well (putting a squash on Hitchcock's assessment that the movie was "a musical without music", however being in the public domain, there isn't a really good restoration out there that takes advantage of the audio.

The Yorkshire Post commended Hitchcock for making the movie take advantage of nuances that the stage production could not provide, as well as doing a fine job of integrating the Strauss melodies. I would also give a lot of props for Compton's performance as the Countess, actually giving a characterization as woman with a use for the head on her shoulders, rather than just window dressing.

One person who oversaw production of the movie, Michael Balcon, who had given Hitchcock his first directing opportunity with The Pleasure Garden, asked Hitchcock what he would be doing next. The result would be a new phase in Hitchcock's career starting with the film for discussion next week.

18a. Lord Camber's Ladies (1932)

Following the both commercial and critical failure of Number Seventeen, British International Pictures took Hitchcock off directing movies and assigned him to produce films for other directors. The first (and only) one he would do with give the directorial debut to Benn Levy, who had written the dialogue for Blackmail.

Lord Camber's Ladies (based on the play The Case of Lady Camber by Horace Annesley Vachell) tells the tale of Lord Camber (Nigel Bruce) who while courting Shirley Neville (Gertrude Lawrence) he secretly romances florist shopgirl Janet King (Benita Hume). Lord Camber marries Shirley and leaves Janet waiting for his return. Janet becomes a nurse working under Dr. Napier (Gerald du Maurier). When Lady Camber becomes ill, she falls under the care of Dr. Napier and Nurse King, while the latter gets a startle when she sees Lord Camber. After Lady Camber succumbs to her illness, people wonder if she died naturally.

The movie is pleasant and not a chore to sit through. Levy's direction is somewhat uninspired but does not drag along. Benita Hume, despite being fourth billed, gives the best performance of the bunch. du Maurier, was well respected and known at the time (Hitchcock did say he was the finest actor of his time), but he only appears halfway into the film and seems more of a supporting player rather than the lead actor (the same could be said of Lawrence).

According the Daphne du Maurier (Gerald's daughter and source of future Hitchcock films Jamaica Inn, Rebecca and The Birds) said that her father and Hitchcock tried to break the levity by playing practical jokes on each other and the cast, which apparently did not sit well with Levy. Hitchcock called Levy obstinate and indicated that the director didn't make the best of the opportunity that was offered to him (this movie would be Levy's only directorial effort).

The Times enjoyed Hume's performance while wondered why du Maurier wasn't on screen more. BIP had more plans for Hitchcock to produce more films (he described them as films to satisfy quota films for American studios, where the US studios had to produce all-British productions in order for American films to be released in England). Hitchcock said he was to produce a film for playwright John Van Druten to direct, which sounded like a precursor to Roman Holiday (1953). He also claimed that a script was written for a film to be entitled Bulldog Drummond's Baby, but more about that next week.

The film is a difficult one to find. I do not believe that has been commercially released on home media in the US or UK. There are a couple of bootleg dealers who have a copy, which I guess is the best alternative until a better print comes along.

18. Number Seventeen (1932)

Hitchcock's career at British International Pictures was wrapping up. He had wanted to direct an adaptation of the play London Wall, but BIP had given that assignment to Thomas Bentley (who would film it under the title After Office Hours, not to be confused with the 1935 Clark Gable film of the same title). BIP gave Hitchcock the assignment of this film based on a Joseph Farjeon play.

The plot has the film open at an abandoned house where a person arrives, sees a corpse and a simpleton who claims innocence. As the evening goes on, more people arrive, the "corpse" is now living and it seems that a stolen necklace is the MacGuffin and is to be escorted away from this house via train.

I apologize for the inadequate plot description (here is the Wikipedia entry in case you'd want to read it), but despite the film's 65 minute running time, the storyline is a completely confusing mess with characters being introduced rapidly and then have each one not being what they seem to be. After the halfway mark of the movie, I really found myself just waiting for this to end. Granted now, the train chase scene is somewhat exciting (even though its done with obvious models), but it's just too little and way too late.

Now, as mentioned before, the film was assigned to Hitchcock, but that's not really an excuse for shoddy directing and this bewildering script. You would really think that Hitchcock would make a better use out of an old dark house scenario, but as more and more characters are introduced, you really need to get the scorecard out to keep track. Leon Lion is the only performer in here worth remembering, but when he's the comic relief, it says a lot about the rest of the cast.

Hitchcock called the film a disaster. Variety echoed the film's confusion (which was echoed from the original play) and despite the chase scene climax, the movie was nothing more than a routine programmer. Viewers today haven't been that kind to the film as well with a 22% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie is currently in the public domain and can be viewed on numerous streaming services and has been released on VHS and DVD numerous times, but beware the quality.

17. Rich and Strange (1932)

"The story was about a young couple who won a lot of money and took a trip around the world." That is how Alfred Hitchcock described the film to François Truffaut in their series of interviews and that is apt a description as you can get. Watching it in 2020, I enjoyed the movie. Watching it in 1932, I probably would not have comparing it to its competition.

Going further than Hitchcock's description some 30+ years later, the synopsis (based on a novel by Dale Collins, which is really difficult to find) concerns office worker Fred Hill (Henry Kendall) and his wife Emily (Joan Barry) living a modest existence in their small London apartment. Fred receives a letter from his uncle giving the couple their future inheritance. Fred quits his job and the two leave for a once-in-the-lifetime vacation starting in Paris and then a cruise in the Orient. En route (while Fred is stuck in his cabin with seasickness), Emily is charmed by Commander Gordon (Percy Marmont) and when Fred recovers (thanks to spinster busybody played by Elsie Randolph), he is becomes taken by a German princess (Betty Amman). By the time the cruise ship docks at Singapore, the couple plans to leave each other with their suitors. Eventually things don't work out and the two have to head back to England.

Rich and Strange is a bizarre movie. The plot plays more like a series of vignettes rather than a single storyline. There are long sequences where there are absences of dialogue and there are even intertitles, some of which are needless (One instance, after Fred meets the princess, we see an intertitle, Fred Meets a Princess. Gee thanks Captain Obvious). There are also copious amounts of stock footage (which would be clearly used for background scenery in a low budget picture), so you really wonder what British International Pictures was thinking about Hitchcock's abilities when they set up the budget.

I found it kind of funny that in a future film like The Man Who Knew Too Much, where a couple goes on vacation and encounters espionage and danger, here we get a low key romantic assignations or we would have in later films a cast that might have Cary Grant or Grace Kelly as the couple, but here we have non-descript Henry Kendall and Joan Barry, who are decent in their roles, but are not that memorable. Marmont is too stuffy as Emily's intended and Amman is too over the top as the tease.

The film was a disappointment both financially and critically. Variety said that the film seemed to be a matter of taste and praised the performers, but the review makes it seem like its trying to circumvent the fact that its an artsy film rather than commercial fare. The Times really felt Hitchcock was out of his element and despite his skills, could make a purse of a sow's ear. Hitchcock did seem to be happy to talk about the film, but felt that the cast should have been stronger.

The movie was released on DVD in 2007 by Lionsgate Entertainment, but I believe its out of print. The film is also in the public domain, so it can be viewed on Youtube or other streaming sites.

16. Mary (1931)

Today if a production company is releasing a film into a foreign language market, all that needs to be done is to translate the dialogue into subtitles. Dubbing is another option even though it seems to be less popular that it was about 40 years ago where Godzilla movies, German krimi films and Italian spaghetti westerns got that treatment. In the early days of talking pictures, dubbing was not an option since recording for film was in its infancy and with silent pictures being passe, studio bigwigs didn't think people would want to read subtitles.

Film studios had a solution, but an expensive one. Reshoot the film with a foreign language cast. There are several existing examples with dual versions available for comparison. Universal's Dracula (1931) is probably the best known example, with the original Bela Lugosi version shot during the day and a Spanish language version shot at night. Eight Laurel & Hardy shorts and one feature were made in Spanish (as well as some in German, French, Italian and Esperanto) with the comedy duo reading their lines off a blackboard. Paramount on Parade (1930) was translated into at least 4 foreign languages (Paramount did a few French versions of Maurice Chevalier films his native country). Foreign language films also received translation to English such as The Blue Angel (1930) and M (1931).

Starting with The Pleasure Garden and The Mountain Eagle, Hitchcock already had a German market and in 1930 while Hitchcock was filming Murder!, simultaneously, he worked on the German version on the same set, but a different cast (Miles Mander and Esme Chaplin were the only two to be in both versions).

The plot is no different than the original, but the German version is about 25 minutes shorter than its British counterpart with a chunks of dialogue (especially during the jury deliberation scene) and an effective montage of Sir John and Markham (renamed Brown in the German version, as were a number of the characters) discussing their next move while we see Diana/Mary pacing her jail cell while the gallows are constructed.

I had no success of finding reviews of this film from 1931 (which I don't think would be easy to translate). Hitchcock did have difficulty with the shooting since his German was only passable and he claimed he wasn't too familiar with the language's idioms to be too effective. Also, the production studio, Süd-Film, wanted several changes to the script which Hitchcock didn't want since he didn't want to deviate too much from the original.

Personally, I found the German version to be a slight improvement over the British film, only because the acting is a lot better here. Where Herbert Marshall was stuffy and droll in Murder!, Alfred Abel is a lot more relaxed and comfortable in his performance (in fairness to Marshall, Murder! was his sound debut). Olga Tschechowa is no great legend of cinema history, but she was a lot better here than Norah Baring as the condemned woman.

Apparently, Mary was a lost film for several years and the edition presented on Kino Lorber's Blu-Ray and DVD (which can be purchased here) is taken from the only known print. That being said, it does seem to have some warbled dialogue around 40 minutes into the film where the Browns get a call from Sir John and the ending does seem to be missing its last scene. However, its good to be able to compare and contrast both versions at your pleasure.