The Lady Vanishes.

Review #2014: The Lady Vanishes.

Cast: 

Margaret Lockwood (Iris Henderson), Michael Redgrave (Gilbert), Paul Lukas (Dr. Hartz), May Whitty (Miss Froy), Cecil Parker (Mr. Todhunter), Linden Travers ("Mrs." Todhunter), Naunton Wayne (Caldicott), Basil Radford (Charters), and Mary Clare (Baroness) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, #1343 - The 39 Steps, #1739 - The Birds, and #1828 - Rebecca)

Review: 

Admittedly, I haven't covered many British films in the line of Alfred Hitchcock, but the man made a film in six different decades, so clearly there will be time yet to cover more of his films, especially when doing 18 of them isn't even covering half of his filmography. The Lady Vanishes is the penultimate film that Hitchcock made in his native England, as he would move to the States to direct in Hollywood after Jamaica Inn (1939). He had attracted attention with previous British classics such as The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The 39 Steps (1935), and American producer David O. Selznick believed he had talent waiting in America. However, Hitchcock still had a contract to go through with Gainsborough Pictures (with this being the 12th and final film with the studio), and it just so happened that a film idea called "The Lost Lady" fell into his lap, as plans to do the film with Roy William Neill fell through when background filing in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ended in embarrassment. The film is based on the novel The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White, with a screenplay by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder. The book has been adapted once more in film in 1979 (a Hammer production with Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould as stars) and it has been adapted to television (most recently as 2013 on BBC One) and radio. The nature of the book was shifted by Hitchcock and company, most notably with the climax, since the book did not have a gunfight resolution. There have also been thriller films released with premises that sound a bit similar to the one presented here, such as with So Long at the Fair (1950), about a suddenly missing hotel room and Flightplan (2005), which involved a missing daughter on a plane.

The patience one has with an innocent being thrust into peril will determine just how much of its exhilarating attempts at mystery thrills work for you, with most of it being set on a train filled with a few characters that have evident reasons to maintain the status quo no matter what. With a 97-minute runtime, it does a reasonable job with building the eventual confrontation that comes with trying to confront bold-faced statements without cheating. Lockwood makes a useful lead to follow with when it comes to a archetype familiar in a handful of Hitchcock films: an innocent thrust into a situation with little choice but to dig their way out. Granted, dealing with oddball hotel people that either won't shut up about cricket or music is pretty mundane when compared to missing old ladies, but I'm sure you get the picture of seeing how an ordinary person like her could get swept up in a sea of people being human in "decision-making"; Hitchcock once described her having a gift for both "expressing her beauty in terms of emotion" when it comes to camera shots and also the insight to get the feel of lines, and she became a prominent British star for several years. Redgrave was in his first film role after spending time in the theater, and he does pretty well here in general conviction for wavering belief when spent with Lockwood (whether the belief to mess with her or to be on her side). Lukas and his veteran presence makes a quality adversary in swift conviction that keeps the viewer occupied. Whitty makes a quality presence to serve as the title character, which goes over better when compared to Wayne and Radford, who actually played these "characters" (comedy relief) for a handful of other movies- eh, theyre okay. The funniest thing that happens is probably when one of the characters gets shot the hand when stumbling into a standoff. That, or the attempt at trying to get a "nun" away quietly.

Honestly, I wish I liked it more, but I suppose being a "good" film that just meets expectations is better than being a supposed great film that flounders if one expects way too much. The climax is when the film tries to play neat and tidy with resolving things in clever fashion, which does work out fine. As a whole, it certainly is a movie worth recommending for those quite familiar with the famed director Alfred Hitchcock, especially if one wants to see exactly where the line went from his British roots in directing to taking on Hollywood came with this particular film. You will find plenty to like if you are in the mood for it, and some have even called it one of his best films, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

No Orchids for Miss Blandish.

Review #1598: No Orchids for Miss Blandish.

Cast:

Jack La Rue (Slim Grisson), Hugh McDermott (Dave Fenner), Linden Travers (Miss Blandish), Walter Crisham (Eddie Schultz), MacDonald Parke (Doc), Danny Green (Flyn), Lilli Molnar (Ma Grisson), Charles Goldner (Louis, Headwaiter), Zoe Gail (Margo), Leslie Bradley (Ted Bailey), and Richard Neilson (Riley) Directed, Written, and Produced by St. John Legh Clowes.

Review:

In fairness, this film is only notable to really get around to covering because of the furor it inspired with contemporary critics of the time. The film is based on two sources: the original book, which was originally written by James Hadley Chase in 1939, and the play of the same name that was adapted by Chase and Robert Nesbitt in 1942. The original production ran at Prince of Wales Theatre in the West End for a brief run that had starred Travers in the lead role. Somehow, the play received better notice than the film eventually proved to have. The film starts with a listing on an "A" [Passed for Public Exhibition to Adult Audiences] rating, which would mean that someone under 12 couldn't watch it. Some of the critiques at the time even mentioned that when decrying the film as "salacious". Actually, let me rewind that a bit, because even the book had a bit of critique at the time for its violence and sensuality, where even George Orwell (essayist, journalist, and famous writer of works such as Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four) made an essay about it. To add on to that, the Chase novel was inspired by another novel involving "salacious" material with Sanctuary, written by William Faulkner in 1931 that involved a kidnapping of a college girl with bootleggers in the South alongside other seedy elements. Incidentally, Sanctuary also had its own film adaptation in The Story of Temple Drake (1933) that had La Rue in the lead role, and a further adaptation of the book alongside its follow-up book was done in later years, while Chase's novel would also receive a further film adaptation with The Grissom Gang (1971) by Robert Aldrich as director. In any case, this was the third and last film directed by Clowes, with the most other notable contribution being his play Dear Murderer (1946), which was turned into a film by others the following year. One alternate title was actually called Black Dice...creative in decadence, surely. Apparently, while the film was a hit with British audiences, it has never been shown on British television.

Look, the book had a blurb on the front that said it was "the toughest novel you'll ever read", so is the film really that surprising? Actually, the real surprise is the fact that the film really isn't that bad. Is it over-the-top and weird? Oh you bet, but that doesn't mean this is exactly horrific in its crime of daring to make a gangster film, albeit one that tries to sell a mix of British and European actors (save for La Rue) as Americans in a New York affair. Was this really something so bad that led to a publication calling it a "sickening exhibition"? Sure, the film tries to sell a kidnapping-turned-romance with a variety of plot twists and lines that are cliché to the maximum effect, but this isn't exactly what I call gruesomely disgusting. With lines like asking to soften up and given one a tumble, it has all the markings of a classic trashy gangster piece, complete with numerous examples of violence and raw energy that don't lift for its ending. What's to hate about this? I don't care for romance films like Twilight, but I didn't exactly call it sickening. If this had been done in the following decade, one would be wondering how similar in tone it sounded to Kiss Me Deadly (1955, which happened to he directed by Aldrich), which had a government commission decrying its effect on young viewers. The crime presented here is how easy this does well at being a B-movie. The acting is a blend of mediocrity, but that seems like part of the charm: La Rue and Travers are stuck in a tawdry script that puts them together: in that regard, Travers does well with her wavering nerves of grace, one that makes for plenty of posh quivers and swoons in a role near the end of her career before retiring. La Rue is fine as well in that tradition of gangster-ese acting that wants to play tender too, one supposes. Others are weird in placement, such as McDermott (a golfer-turned-actor) and his narc-type acting with a character that nearly distracts from the climax, while Molnar's maternal gangster presence is quirky enough to work. Crisham and Green make for good goon folks to go with refined Parke and others. For 102 minutes, what we have is a movie that might as well serve as unintentional parody, with a considerable count of bodies falling in a variety of ways (namely shooting) that nevertheless has a keen appeal to keep watching anyway. It might have been a bit much (or perhaps enough) for certain groups in 1948, but it has a place for itself regardless to be remembered. It is a strange, unusual movie that will make one look back on their noirs and romance and wonder just where this film got all of its weird hang-ups from each genre from.

Next Time: Killers from Space.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.