BLOGGER-ARCHIVE FILM REVIEW
Alfred Hitchcock: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
***SPOILER ALERT***
I was not expecting a lot from Hitchcock’s first film. When one watches films from this era you have to focus a bit less on what interests you about the movie and a bit more on how it has influenced the modern era. What I try to do is put myself in the shoes of someone watching during this time, and it ends up being an artifact of history. Europe was likely experiencing reverberations of the Great Depression during this time and certain (unnamed) countries were preparing themselves for a cough* more significant cough* place on the world’s stage. Despite being a few years away from wartime, what an interesting period to analyze in terms of film in Europe.
This was one of Hitchcock’s first feature films which would receive critical acclaim in the UK. It was also one of the more significant products of the director’s British period lasting approximately until 1939 when he got a contract with David O Selznick to come make movies stateside.
The film centers around a couple traveling abroad in Switzerland who get wrapped up in an assassination plan of an esteemed diplomat. When the couple overhears when/how the man will be killed, the would-be assassins add kidnapping to their resumes and take the couple’s young daughter. The assassin, head-honcho being Peter Lorre, blackmailed the couple into keeping their mouths shut until the deed was done. The couple end up following the Blackmailers back to their native England where two great scenes occur: an altercation in a church where the father, played by Leslie Banks, tries to reclaim his daughter in what can only be described as “disorderly behavior in a sacred edifice.” He then rushes to Albert Hall to prevent the assassination itself, which has been timed to happen at the moment of the concerto crescendo. Banks is able to stop the assassination and tracks the blackmailers/assassinators to a top-floor apartment where a shoot-out ensues.
The best part of this movie, hands-down, is Peter Lorre, (which is likely why his face was put on the poster) who is depicted constantly throughout the film grimacing in a corner taking drags from his cigarette. He adds a sort of ominous charisma to the film which keeps it interesting towards the end during the shoot-out. The actor has a great face that expertly conveys his evil sentiment. Apparently, this Peter Lorre’s second English language film and he still had trouble with the language so he had to learn his lines phonetically. It was interesting during this to try and hear if you could tell.
Two technical elements of this film that I noticed was (1) the sloppy-looking editing throughout that just looked a little unpolished. I imagine editing was very difficult for the time so I can easily excuse it; (2) Hitchcock’s Albert Hall scene really kept me on the edge of my seat. He demonstrated a good understanding of creating and holding tension which is no surprise at all considering the rest of his career.
Overall, this film was good, but would likely exist towards the bottom of my rankings because of its juvenile lack of high quality that the director so easily demonstrates later in his career.
