15. The Skin Game (1931)

Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) bids while the Hilcrists (Jill Esmond, C.V. France and Helen Haye from right to left) look on

The Skin Game is based off a play written in 1920 by John Galsworthy and also made into a motion picture the next year (Edmund Gwenn and Helen Haye reprise their roles in the Hitchcock version).

The movie tells the story of two families, the old money Hilcrists and the formerly working class, now rich Hornblowers. Both patriarchs of the families, (C.V. France playing Mr. Hilcrist and Edmund Gwenn as Hornblower) are trying to get possession of a piece of land. Hornblower is seeking to obtain it so he can expand his pottery factories and Hilcrist seems not to want any of Hornblower's expansion into their nearby area. Hornblower acquires it at an auction, and Mrs. Hilcrist (Helen Haye) seeks her retribution by having an investigator (Edward Chapman) find out that Hornblower's daughter-in-law Chole (Phyllis Konstam) was hired out as the "other woman" in divorce cases. Hornblower agrees to sell the property to the Hilcrists so that the secret doesn't get out, but what happens when it does?

Chloe Hornblower (Phyllis Konstam) as the woman with a past

As it seems up to this point in his career, when Hitchcock adapts a play, his directing lacks imagination. The movie, like Juno and the Paycock, is filled with numerous long takes and a slow pace. That's not to say its a bad movie, which it isn't. The acting is very good by the performers especially highlighting future Oscar winner Gwenn, Haye and Konstam in their roles.

The scenario feels like one that could be stretched across many genres including romance and westerns with two families fighting over a plot of land (which here could be another example of a Hitchcock MacGuffin). The ending seems to feel more like the end of an act rather than the end of a play with the movie not exactly having a resolution to what you watched for the past 80 minutes. The highlight of the film is the auction scene which we will see Hitchcock use as a suspenseful setting in Saboteur and North by Northwest.

Hitchcock did not have much to say about the movie in his interview with Francois Truffaut, primarily because the movie was assigned to him rather than a personal project for Hitchcock. I was unable to find any information on how the film did at the box office but if it goes by critic's reviews, I don't think it was a success. The Western Mail critic pointed out Hitchcock's direction only makes this a picture to see if you've never seen the play and otherwise, Hitchcock's approach was a disappointment. The Brunley Express did praise the cast in its review.

The Skin Game recently got a restoration by the British Film Institute and is available as the only talking picture in its recently released DVD and Blu-Ray Hitchcock: British International Pictures set which can be purchased here.

14. Murder! (1930)

One film genre that Hitchcock never fully embraced was the murder mystery. Murder! was one of the few that he made which was based on the novel Enter Sir John by Clemence Dane (Winifred Ashton) and Helen Simpson (who would provide the source novel for Hitchcock's 1949 movie Under Capricorn). Reportedly, the novel was the inspiration for a play, but there's not evidence of it being produced unless it was a local repertory.

The movie opens at a theatrical boarding house where Edna Druce is found dead, her head bashed in with a poker. Sitting nearby in a chair with a dazed look is Diana Baring, and the poker lies right next to her. She's tried, convicted and sentenced to hang. One of the jurors is actor Sir John Menier, who despite his vote, is not entirely convinced of Baring's guilt. He works with theater manager Markham and his wife Doucie to uncover the killer.

Hitchcock avoided doing whodunits because it just revolved around the ending and there wasn't much emotion that could be had from that. Murder has the opportunity to be a really good film but just seems to never fulfill its potential. Hitchcock said that much of the dialogue wasn't completed when filming began and he asked the cast to improvise after being told of the scene's scenario. He claimed that using this process, the cast wasn't as spontaneous as he would have preferred and this directing method was abandoned.

The movie does follow the novel closely at times but veers off towards the end (the killer is the same is both mediums). In the book, Sir John is not a jury member but just an observer (the fact that he is a jury member just makes absolutely no sense considering the conflict of interest that he had worked with Diana before the crime was committed). One of the suspects, Handell Fane, is described as eccentric in the novel and in the movie he's a cross dresser.

Like Juno and the Paycock there is a series of long takes with a bunch of talking heads and much of the cleverness of the movie doesn't take place until the last 20 minutes of the film. One sequence that is effective is Sir John and Markham discussing their next move, while we see a montage of Diana pacing her jail cell, a weathervane and the shadow of the gallows on the prison wall. Another memorable scene is while Sir John is shaving, he has an interlude which was accomplished by having a recording of Marshall's voice in the background and the orchestra playing off camera.

Herbert Marshall for me is just too dull as the lead, just seemingly too stuffy and listless (a common observation of him in a good deal of his screen roles). Norah Baring is even worse as the condemned woman just appearing overwhelmed in every scene she's in and not because of the characterization. Edward Chapman and Phyllis Konstam do are very good as the Markhams giving some light comic relief while still being an essential part of the investigation.

The New York Times was indifferent in the review saying the film was inconsistent and Variety said that the film didn't live up to its title and Hitchcock could have interjected a better sex angle into the production. Hitchcock claimed that the film did very well in London but not so much in the provinces. The Variety review also alluded to that the film wouldn't do so well in the USA as it seemed it was made for British audiences.

Hitchcock makes his cameo appearance a little over an hour into the film walking with a female companion, past the boarding house after Sir John and the Markhams leave it following their investigations.

While the movie was being filmed, a German language version, also directed by Hitchcock entitled Mary was being made as dubbing was still not prevalent at the time. A review of that will be in a couple of weeks.

Murder! (and Mary) is available on both DVD and Blu-Ray from Kino-Lorber and can be purchased here. Enter Sir John was a very difficult novel to find and seems to be out of print for some time, so eBay would be a good place to look for a copy.

13. Juno and the Paycock (1930)

Sean O'Casey's 1924 play made an impression so much that it went to London in November of 1925. Hitchcock upon viewing the play was eager to make it into a movie, but O'Casey had his reservations, but was talked into visiting Hitchcock at Elstree studios (while making Champagne or Blackmail depending on who was telling the story). The two reached an agreement to bring the play to the screen as well as O'Casey writing a new opening scene for the film.

The play (taking place during the Irish Rebellion in 1922) deals with the Boyle family with Captain Boyle (Edward Chapman) who spends more time in the local pub that finding a job, wife Juno (Sara Allgood) and their two children Mary (Kathleen O'Regan) and Johnny (John Laurie), the latter of which lost his arm in bomb attack and is on edge throughout the film. Mary starts dating a lawyer Charlie Bentham (John Longden) who informs Captain Boyle that he has an inheritance coming from an old cousin and the family starts spending frivolously. Unfortunately a bookkeeping error nulls the inheritance and the family has to not only worry about the creditors but all of the friends they shunned while living "the high life".

The movie (by accounts) is a faithful adaptation of the play (Hitchcock's wife Alma Reville is credited as the screenwriter) and Allgood reprises her role from the original production. (Barry Fitzgerald, who played Captain Boyle originally in Dublin, has a smaller role as an orator at the beginning of the film, marking his movie debut). The cast does a great job here and the scenes do move along. The fault unfortunately lies in Hitchcock's directing with an overabundance of long takes that don't make the film look more like a filming of a play performance rather than a movie.

Critics took note of that as well, with the Times saying it had great acting but Hitchcock seemed to forget what medium he was working in. The Manchester Guardian said the film wasn't as good as Hitchcock's previous movie (Blackmail) proclaiming a lack of imagination in the grouping and cutting but some moments of beauty and good uses of sound (keep in mind that this film was Hitchcock's first fully realized foray into talking pictures).

Despite his enthusiasm for making the film, Hitchcock seemed disappointed by it telling Francois Truffaut that despite loving the source material, he couldn't turn it into cinema. He later told the director that he would rather not distort a famous work just to make it appear cinematic.

Juno and the Paycock is one of many of Hitchcock's films that's in the public domain. Despite a print existing in the British Film Institute, there doesn't seem to be any rush for a restoration.