The Skin Game (1931)

When a rich industrialist (Santa) eyes a valuable property with intent on building factories, an old money family is determined to stop him. The conflict has unintended consequences.

Come review time it had been several weeks since I watched The Skin Game, and truth be told, I didn’t remember much. I was forced to take drastic measures. I rewatched it.

The story mostly follows the old money Hillcrist family making them seem like the protagonists, but they are not without fault. Had they been more welcoming to the upstart Hornblowers, the whole conflict might have been avoided.

The central conflict is very much old money verses new money, a la The Gilded Age, or the Slobs verses the Snobs, if you prefer. Skin game is slang for a shady business deal, what Mr. Hornblower is accused of. But it is less the deal and more the conflict that is at the center of the story. And skin game takes on another meaning entirely at the climax.

Alfred Hitchcock was a little heavy handed with visual imagery early in his career. The Hornblower son and Hillcrist daughter meet at the beginning, teasing a love interest. She, on a horse, he, in an unusually loud car. When they separate, she follows a picturesque treed path, he, towards a more urban area. This kind of visual reinforcement is throughout.

Quite unlike latter Hitchcock, there is some sloppy dialog. Actors start speaking at the wrong time and correct themselves. Other times it feels like they are entirely improvising their dialog. It doesn’t detract from the film, however. Early talkies are pretty clumsy in general. Looking back, Hitchcock said about it in his interview with Francois Truffaut "I didn't make it by choice, and there isn't much to be said about it."

The Skin Game holds up to a second viewing. It could have been a two dimensional moral tale, but chooses a more nuanced path. AMRU 3.5.

Young and Innocent (1937)

A man finds a dead woman on the beach and leaves to find help. He is seen “running away” so the cops make him the prime suspect and call it a day. He sneaks out of the courthouse and goes on the run. He convinces a pretty young woman to help him find the real killer. She is also the police chief’s daughter. Will love bloom?

Pretty Erica is very young (Nova Pilbeam was 17 during filming) and dashing Robert is innocent. She’s young and he’s innocent. Not a bad play on words. Much better of a title than “A Shilling for Candles”, the source material’s title. When it came to the US it was retitled “The Girl Was Young”, leaning hard into innuendo.

The setting isn’t very different from The 39 Steps (1935), with an accused but innocent man attached to a suspicious woman. Hitchcock revisited themes quite a bit. I’m surprised there wasn’t a scene on a train.

Young and Innocent was an unexpectedly fun watch. Two weeks on I admit I am struggling to recall the details, but I do remember being entertained. It’s a better “lesser Hitchcock”. AMRU 3.5.

Sabotage (1936)

Scotland Yard is searching for the man who sabotaged an electric plant, and suspicions turn towards Karl Verloc, a foreign born movie theater owner.

Mrs. Verlock is played by Sylvia Sidney, whom I initially assumed to be his daughter. They were only twelve years apart, but visually it looked much more. And then there is Stevie, whom I assumed to be their son but in fact was her little brother. Sidney is much better known to my generation as Juno, the civil servant of the afterlife from Beetlejuice.

Based on the Joseph Conrad novel “The Secret Agent”, Sabotage is a pretty tight spy thriller. Because Hitch had just completed a film titled Secret Agent (1936), the name had to be changed. Hitch had a penchant for titling films after crimes.

Sabotage is one Hitch's better early films. Not as well known as The 39 Steps but every bit as good. It's concise, logical, and satisfying. AMRU 4.

Murder! (1930)

An actor in a local theater group is murdered and a fellow actress (Norah Baring) is convicted of the crime. Juror and famous thespian Sir John (Herbert Marshall) felt pressured to vote guilty and now wants to clear her name. She is so pretty, after all.

What follows is a better than fair police procedural, except instead of the police investigating, it’s the famous Sir John. He visits the crime scene, interviews witnesses and suspects, and uses his fame to subtly manipulate people into getting what he wants. If this were made in Hollywood a couple years later, I could see them wanting to make two 70 minute Sir John mysteries a year.

It’s revealed that Sir John had actually met the defendant when she came for career advice years earlier. I think even 95 years ago this would have invalidated him as a juror. Also interesting is that Norah and her character shared a last name. Character actress Una O’Connor appears in the earliest role I’ve seen her in. She was a fresh faced fifty year old. I was hoping for another memorable over-the-top performance, but she played it fairly straight.

One character is described as being “half-caste” which is olde-english for biracial, a terrible thing back in the day. However, this was a substitute because the filmmakers couldn’t imply he was the G-A-Y.

Murder! is a fairly entertaining story, even if it doesn’t feel very Hitchcock. It was his second fully sound feature and first successful one. AMRU 3.

Blackmail (1929)

Pretty blonde Alice ditches her boring Scotland Yard boyfriend for a dapper artist. That doesn’t exactly go as planned and she finds herself being blackmailed. Cop boyfriend investigates.

For a film called Blackmail, the blackmail element is rather minimal and introduced very late in the story. Most of the movie is of the events leading up to it. But it's adapted from a play of the same name, so I suppose there’s nothing for it.

This is Britain's first talkie, sort of. It started as a silent feature but certain scenes were reshot with audio for theaters wired for such. Pretty Anny Ondra, the first Hitchcock Blonde, had a thick Czech accent so she was dubbed, Lina Lamont style. I sadly recorded the silent version.

The Hitchcock style really starts to show through here, more so than even The Lodger. And the plot is quite good: A man investigates the murder of a man that his girlfriend (perhaps fiancee) is suspected of killing.

Blackmail is pretty good but Hitchcock would do his best work fully in the sound era. I would have liked to have seen the “talkie” version, but I don’t expect it would have been much better. AMRU 3.5.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Loving couple Ann and David (Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery) discover that their marriage three years ago was technically invalid. Marital antics ensue.

This is the second film I’ve covered recently where Cary Grant was unavailable for the lead, the first being A Foreign Affair. Oddly I have never covered any of Montgomery’s films. None of his others are even on my radar. Perhaps the only reason why I know him is because he is Elizabeth Montgomery’s dad. He would never work with Hitch again. As for Lombard, she would do only one more film before tragically dying.

The 2005 Pitt/Jolie film was very loosely inspired by this film, but it was mostly a remake of a short lived 1996 Scott Bakula TV show, where it got the espionage/assassin angle. There is also a 2007 TV movie as well as the current Donald Glover vehicle. All of these later properties wisely focused on the action elements.

Lombard convinced Alfred Hitchcock to do this film, or maybe she didn’t. Hollywood stories are to be taken with a grain of salt. While there is humor in many of Hitch’s films, this stands as his only screwball comedy. I support his decision to avoid the genre. Few laughs, little chemistry, wonky ending. If you are looking for this kind of film, consider The Palm Beach Story, Move Over Darling, or even My Favorite Wife. It was just done better. AMRU 2.5.

Spellbound (1945)

The surprisingly young psychologist (Gregory Peck) arrives to be the new director of a sanitarium, but his troubling behavior leads to suspicion that he is not who he says he is. Will love bloom?

Ingrid Bergman plays the psychologist with the heart of gold and Leo G. Carroll is the kindly outgoing Dr. Murchison. Also here is old friend Norman Lloyd as an inmate and Wallace Ford (Freaks) as a creep in a hotel lobby. There are a few interesting background characters that could have had more screen time, something screenwriter Ben Hecht was adept at creating.

The psychobabble, and there is a lot of it, doesn’t distract much from the story. Peck’s Ballantyne is in serious trouble and on the run, and Bergman’s Dr. Petersen believes in him despite having no reason to. Grant’s understated performance, while disappointing Hitch, was eerily appropriate for the amnesiac.

Spellbound takes some unexpected turns and features a pretty trippy dream sequence. This is classic Hitchcock. Maybe not a top five Hitch, but definitely top ten. AMRU 4.

Downhill (1927)

After taking the blame for an indiscretion he was innocent of, young Roddy’s (Ivor Novello) life heads in some sort of negative slope analogy.

Produced directly after the success of The Lodger, Alfred Hitchcock returned to his star, Ivor Novello. Unfortunately, Downhill wasn’t nearly as successful, and it shouldn’t come as surprise. All the mystery and intrigue of the previous film was replaced with “bad stuff happens to good guy”. No mystery, no suspense.

Metadata on IMDb implies gay coding with the Roddy character, but I don't see it. Novello himself was openly gay, but I sense this is commentary on Roddy not responding to Mabel's advances. I don't see that interpretation anywhere else.

Novello is an interesting character. A bona fide matinee idol at the time, the 35ish Novello believably played a high school boy. Ah, what acting talent, pancake makeup, and grainy film stock can do. He co-wrote the play on which the film is based, along with many other plays and songs. His film career would be fairly brief, but would continue to write. The Ivor Novello Awards are still presented for songwriting and composing.

Hitch wasn’t quite Hitch, not just yet. He played with elements of visual style uncommon of the day (some of which he would later criticize) but the film is a bit of a snoozer. Not a painful watch, but not a very compelling one either. AMRU 2.5.

Easy Virtue (1927)

Larita Filton, embroiled in a scandalous divorce, flees to the south of France to avoid the press. There she meets and falls for the young John Whittaker. When back in England and polite society, her new in-laws are suspicious of her past.

Ranked by IMDb as Hitchcock’s fourth worst film, it is a tedious and sometimes visually confusing mess. It does not help that my copy is a poor transfer. The film was thin with very poor contrast, and the score was damaged along with it. While a fully restored edition would have been more pleasant to watch, It would not have saved the film.

This is not to say there weren’t a few creative elements. A long shot of a tennis court starts through a tennis racket then progresses to the first volley. Another scene wordlessly communicates important information by watching the reaction of a telephone operator who is listening in on the phone call. Hitchcock is experimenting in a way we see much more of later in his career.

Based on a Noel Coward play, there is a 2008 version that didn’t fare much better. Prior to this the only Coward adapted film I have seen is 1933’s Cavalcade, which was dull as dishwater. I don’t know much about Coward and theater in general, but it appears he struck the zeitgeist of his time but his works became very dated very quickly. But I’ll leave that to someone’s Theater Philistine blog to explore.

As mentioned, Easy Virtue is ranked pretty low on Hitchcock’s CV, with the bottom three coming up if I continue chronologically. We will see what happens there. But as for this one, I found the characters hard to engage with, some of the action confusing, and the story tedious. But if you must watch it, find a much better copy. AMRU 2.

The Ring (1927)

The boxing champion hires a circus boxer (that’s a thing) as his sparring partner, and has eyes for his girl.

One of four Hitchcock films released in 1927, we follow ‘One-Round’ Jack from circus side show up the ranks of organized boxing to become a legitimate contender. All for the love of a woman. Shades of Rocky, anyone? The first Rocky, not the others were he fights space robots, or whatever foolishness. Lillian Hall-Davis plays ‘the girl’ that the men, for some reason, desire. Her career faltered in the early sound era, then she ended it all at age 35.

While never uninteresting, The Ring (not that Ring) drags a little, a victim of a one hour story with a two hour runtime. The twenty-something Hitchcock wasn’t yet the master of suspense he would later become. A more mature Hitch would have tightened it up a bit. Oh, and have left out the N word. AMRU 3.

Torn Curtain (1966)

Professor Armstrong (Paul Newman) is going on a secret mission, but unfortunately his fiancee (Julie Andrews) decides to tag along. He tries to ditch her, but she follows him into East Berlin. Golly, I wonder how this will all play out.

Getting through the rest of Hitchcock’s CV is going to be a slog. This is film 28 out of I believe 53 and one of his least interesting. Think North by Northwest if nothing about the plot was engaging and the stars had no chemistry. Which is very sad because I really like Newman and Andrews. Remember, this is just one year removed from her being irresistibly charming in The Sound of Music. They felt out of place in a Hitchcock film and didn’t have much to do.

Also, some of the techniques accepted in earlier films, like extensive use of rear screen projection, seemed conspicuously dated for 1966. Furthermore, the script is devoid of the humor so common in earlier films. Everything just fell flat.

Torn Curtain is like a well crafted slice of dry toast. No matter how perfectly it is toasted, it’s still toast. AMRU 2.

The Pleasure Garden (1925)

Pretty Jill wants to be a dancer at The Pleasure Garden, but her cash and a letter of introduction were stolen. Luckily the worldly dancer Patsy takes her under her wing, get’s her that introduction, gives her a place to stay, and keeps an eye on her while her faithful fiancee Hugh takes an assignment overseas. What could go wrong? Meanwhile Patsy takes a liking to Hugh’s buddy Levet. Predictably, things don’t go as planned.

Here is Alfred Hitchcock’s oldest surviving film and first feature. It was filmed in 1925 but wasn’t distributed until after The Lodger became a big hit. The Amazon Prime copy is sixty minutes long so if IMDb is to be believed, there is a reel missing. I didn’t miss it.

I don’t have much to say about The Pleasure Garden. It mostly held my interest but it’s quite skipable and not at all Hitchcockian. I’ve chosen to be a Hitchcock competionist, but for the majority of viewers it won’t have much attraction. AMRU 2.5.

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

A man calling himself The Avenger is murdering “fair haired” girls, causing panic in London. When a strange man matching his description rents a room, they begin to suspect him.

Set in current day (well, 1920’s) London, The Lodger is based on a book about Jack the Ripper. The book and the movie differ particularly in the ending in ways and for reasons that spoil. This is Hitchcock’s third film and first thriller. Having done his first two in Germany, he experimented with expressionist style to good effect.

The story centers around the husband and wife running the house, their fair haired daughter, her detective boyfriend, and of course, the lodger. Detective Joe is obsessed with catching The Avenger and doesn’t care much for this odd stranger, but pretty Daisy likes him just fine. Daisy is billed as being a “mannequin”, meaning she modeled clothes in a department store for rich people.

Hitch did his first ever cameo, and it came by accident. He didn’t hire enough extras for an early newsroom montage, so he sat in, back to the camera. A tradition is born. Assistant director and script supervisor Alma Reville had a quick cameo as well.

The expressive style and tense storytelling make The Lodger a compelling watch. The animated title cards were imaginative. One declaring Murder “Wet from the press”, which I presume to be the 1920’s London version of “Hot from the press”. But this film showed what Hitchcock could, and would eventually do. In fact, it would be years before he produced it’s equal. AMRU 4.

Marnie (1964)

A troubled woman (Tippi Hedren) robs her company, then jumps to a new job. Also, she is terrified of storms, the color red, and the embrace of a man. At her new job she catches the eye of the company president (Sean Connery). Can his machismo solve all of her problems?

Hey, look! It’s Alan Napier, Batman’s Alfred! He pops up in a number of films. Also here is a very young Mariette Hartley. I was unaware she was an actress. I thought she had a career simply as a guest on other people’s talk shows. She was quite pretty. A young Bruce Dern makes a small appearance.

I considered Marnie as part of Hitchcock’s continued slide after his masterpiece, but TCM introduced it as a film being reevaluated as a masterpiece itself. Maybe I dismissed Tippi’s acting talents too quickly after The Birds. So, clean slate. Is this a gem waiting to be rediscovered?

Nope. Hedren’s acting limitations stand out much more clearly in this very complex role. Especially next to Connery, who seems miscast. Showing all the smug confidence of his more famous role, it is hard to imagine him willing to risk it all for a profoundly damaged person. And, at best, the third most attractive woman in the film.

Hitchcock does well what Hitchcock does well, make no mistake. But at best Marnie is an uneven film with an uninteresting story. Full of pop psychology, poor acting, and a screeching score, it failed to charm me. And Connery’s Rutland “taking what’s his” scene does not age well. AMRU 2.5.

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

A retired sea captain (Edmund Gwenn) is out hunting when he discovers the dead body of a stranger he presumes to have accidentally shot. Not wanting trouble, he tries to hide the body. Unfortunately this corner of the forest gets many visitors today, some of which also feel responsibility.

It is said to be Hitchcock’s second comedy, but several of his early films are labeled as such. Either way, this is the first Hitchcock comedy I’ve seen. It was an experiment to see how audiences would react to a film without big stars. Lukewarm was the answer but that may have had more to do with the unexpected tone from The Master of Suspense. More of a dark comedy, there are few real laughs.

The film gives Shirley MacLaine an “introducing” credit which is strange as six year old Jerry Mathers didn’t. He, of course, had already done a fair bit of film and television by that time. The main protagonist was starving artist Sam (John Forsythe) who to me is Charlie of Angels fame. Known mostly for television, he also did a fair number of films.

Nobody feels sorry for dead Harry. And as the story progresses, we learn that we shouldn’t shed too many tears for him. This is key to the comedy. His inconvenient body is dragged around with little regard. Along the way we have not one but two obligatory Hollywood romances, with Santa Gwenn making time with the “well preserved” spinster Gravely. It was downright uncomfortable when the two male leads mention how no man had ever “crossed her threshold”. Well preserved, indeed.

Filmed in VistaVision, The Trouble with Harry looks fantastic. The exteriors were filmed in Vermont but most of the action was filmed on a Hollywood sound stage. They imported boxes of fall leaves. This is a surprising, pleasant diversion. A film I would not have even heard of had it not been for one YouTuber. AMRU 3.5.

“Yes, very well preserved. And preserves have to be opened, some day.”

I Confess (1953)

A man is murdered late at night and the murder confesses to a young priest (Montgomery Clift) in, well, confession. Because of the sanctity of the confessional, Father Logan can’t tell the inspector (Karl Malden) anything about it. Nor can he explain why can’t answer questions. Or keep from acting very suspicious. He becomes the prime suspect as details connecting him to the victim are revealed. He can’t explain any of that either, of course.

No mystery here. We know the murder and the circumstances very early on. The details of his relationship with a married woman (Anne Baxter) are slowly revealed. An obvious flaw here is how easy it would have been for Father Logan to better explain his situation without lying or violating his oath. Also, did it slip his mind to tell the murderer that you are not automatically forgiven just because you confess? That little point should at least have been mentioned.

Oh, and here’s a dumb little trope. The Inspector is discussing the case with the prosecutor, when he tells an off-screen character to bring the girls in. The old prosecutor's face lights up with an “oooh girls!” look on his face. He is disappointed when two young school girls (witnesses) enter the room. What did he expect to happen there? A surprise mid-day orgy?

Montgomery Clift is a weird leading man, his performance feeling awkward and unnatural. The Method seems to be comprised of equal parts emotional problems and substance abuse. Clift lived a tortured life, dealing with physical, mental, and addiction problems, and racked by gay shame, before falling from Hollywood favor. When Marilyn Monroe calls you "the only person I know who is in worse shape than I am", you know you have problems.

But I promised to discuss Karl Malden. Well, pretty boring dude. Professional, serious, hard working. You know, boring. Well liked, though. He was always going to be a certain kind of actor. Never a romantic lead, but his strong voice landed him roles of authority. He seemed to always play a detective of some sort. He was a staunch defender of Elia Kazan. I guess I over promised.

Still, I Confess is a pretty good lesser Hitchcock. He soon will be onto better work but his craft is evident here. The story is compelling enough to overlook the flaws. And besides, Anne Baxter is adorable. AMRU 3. 24 down, 32 to go.

Stage Fright (1950)

Jonathan confides in his good friend Eve (Jane Wyman) that his lover, stage actress Charlotte Inwood (Marlene Dietrich), accidentally killed her husband. And when he tried to help her out, he became a suspect. Eve is sweet on Jonathan so she tries to help him, hiding him away and doing some amateur sleuthing.

Let’s start off here. Alastair Sim steals the show. As Eve’s eccentric father, he dominates every scene he is in. There is no mystery why he is my favorite Ebenezer. Side note, Hitchcock named his daughter’s character “Chubby Bannister”. Seriously, dude?

This is my fourth film with Marlene Dietrich and she is still an enigma. In her late 40’s here, she is still playing the sexy sexy. I kinda get her sex appeal but at the same moment, I kinda don’t. And her big song is truly lost on me, but it didn’t help that I watched Blazing Saddles (1974) the prior weekend. If you don’t know why that is relevant, then you have some watching to do. Madeline Kahn was an absolute treasure.

Jane Wyman is our 33 year old, cute as a button ingenue college girl with a crush, fresh from her divorce from Ronny. She was made up to be dowdy when going undercover but looked pretty much the same. What did Marlene think of her? Well, here’s a quote of hers from IMDb in its entirety:

"I did one film for Alfred Hitchcock. Jane Wyman was in it. I heard she'd only wanted to do it if she were billed above me, and she got her wish. Hitchcock didn't think much of her. She looks too much like a victim to play a heroine, and God knows she couldn't play a woman of mystery, that was my part. Miss Wyman looks like a mystery nobody has bothered to solve."

Mee-OW!

Stage Fright is another worthwhile lesser Hitchcock. There is a little mystery here and a fun story to watch. And, for what it's worth, Hitch didn't work again with either actress. AMRU 3.5.

Saboteur (1942)

An airplane factory is set on fire, and Barry’s (Robert Cummings) buddy is killed. When it is discovered that his fire extinguisher was filled with gasoline, Barry is suspected. To clear his name he flees the police to search for the suspicious Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) who was clearly responsible.

No train here, but man does it hit all the other Hitchcock points. Innocent man on the lam with a hot blond (Priscilla Lane) he can’t trust? Check-a-roo! That’s four in one sentence. Much of the film was reminiscent of The 39 Steps.

Hitch was disappointed with this one mostly because he couldn’t get any of the actors he wanted. Robert Cummings was more of a light comic actor and Hitch felt he didn't bring the sense of danger the role demanded. I thought Priscilla Lane was great but you know how particular Hitch can be with his hot blonds. She played Cary Grant’s fiancee in Arsenic and Old Lace a couple years later then faded from Hollywood.

Hitch was almost impossible to see in his cameo. Apparently his first attempt was cut because of a rude hand gesture. Old friend Ian Wolf appears again, the thirteenth time we’ve crossed paths. Tony Randall has a small speaking part that I had to go back and search for. Another I felt compelled to search for was Will Lee. He was a minor character actor and would rise to fame as the owner of a store on some street. Robert Mitchum is rumored to be in a crowd scene but I never saw him.

Allegedly Barry’s ill-fated buddy was played by an electrical assistant who looked the part. Best I can figure, that would be Jeffrey Sayer, who at 40ish seemed too old to be the boyish character. The woman playing his mom was three years older. That said, Sayer appeared, mostly uncredited, in 516 films! Including TV, he has over six hundred screen credits. I suppose if he is already on set working the gaffers tape, it is easy to pull into a background scene. This is our twenty first film together, which is comically small, considering.

The real saboteur was played by Norman Lloyd in his first feature role. Remembered mostly for St. Elsewhere, he seem to be forgotten when discussing remaining actors from Hollywood’s golden era. Norman turned 106 last month. Give the man a little respect. He was a delightfully slimy villain.

Saboteur is what I would describe as a Worthwhile Lesser Hitchcock. At its heart it is a World War II fifth-column film of which there are a few. Bogart’s All Through the Night is a recent example. But it’s better than most. The plot is a little convoluted, has a few hokey scenes, and drags for a bit, but it is engaging enough and well worth your time. Classic Hitchcock. AMRU 3.5.

The 39 Steps (1935)

Regular everyman leaves a show when someone fires a gun. In the rush a strange woman asks to go home with him, and she does. Turns out, she is some sort of spy and needs to hide out for the night, safe in his apartment. Well, maybe not too safe. Our hero travels to Scotland based on her vague explanation. Cops want to arrest him, bad guys want to kill him, and the nation’s security hangs in the balance.

Hitch’s follow up to his successful Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps solidified his reputation as a hit maker. Similar in tone, both films feature the ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances, a theme he would repeat many times. Also on display is his love of trains and hot blonds.

Hitchcock directed 58 films including a few collaborations and an incomplete film. This is my twentieth and I have maybe five more recorded, so running out of Hitchcock films is not a far off reality. Many of his early silent films, if not lost, are hard to find.

The 39 Steps has a more than passing resemblance to It Happened One Night, both featuring a couple who don’t care much for each other, travelling with some danger. The story is different but the vibe is similar. Happened is clearly the superior film but 39 Steps is also fun to watch. There are a couple plot holes that I admit vexed me while watching, but I got over it. AMRU 3.5.

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

A Newspaper is tired of the bland reports coming from their foreign correspondents in Europe, so the editor decides to send the local screw-up reporter. Solid plan. John Jones (Joel McCrea) travels overseas to interview the famous pacifist Stephen Fisher, and maybe his hot daughter too.

Filmed after the start of war in Europe but set just prior, our heroes try to avoid war, but the bad guys want it. Mystery, suspense, and romance to follow. Standard Hitchcock stuff. Hey look, it’s Ian Wolf! That guy’s in everything! George Sanders is here too, and a bit of a cad, as always. Santa Gwenn was here but I somehow missed him.

I was a little disappointed by Foreign Correspondent. I like most of what Hitchcock directs, and there is no misstep here, but I failed to connect with the story or the characters. I’ve liked McCrea in other projects, and let’s face it. Joel McCrea only plays Joel McCrea. Maybe the fault lies in the lack of creativity in the “early war, Nazis are bad” microgenre (To Be or Not To Be, notwithstanding), but I didn’t take to it as I did his later work.

That’s not to say I hated it. It was fine. And I can see how his work improved over the years. It’s way more polished than the 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, and better in that regard than The Lady Vanishes, though I liked that more. The Hitchcock name comes with certain expectations and sometimes they land soft. Anyhow, AMRU 3.