Saturday, August 30, 2003
The Masterworks of the German Horror Cinema DVD:
Der Goleum (1920) directed by Henrik Galeen & Paul Wegener
The Cabinet of Dr Caligari directed by Robert Wiene
Nosferatu directed by F.W. Murnau
Der Goleum revolves around the story of a Rabbi Loew who saved the Jews from the emperor who had wanted to kill his people. He moulded out of clay, The Goleum which would not only entertain the king during the Rose Festival but also saved the king and his own people.
Der Goleum draws biblical references and allusions in the scene where a white little girl would offer Goleum an apple (Adam and Eve). It is perhaps less well-known as compared to the other two classic silent movies in this DVD but it certainly inspired Frankenstein.
The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, is a more sinister piece which has a stronger twist towards the end. Francis relates his story to an old monk. He starts his story with Dr Caligari who appeared in his town’s carnival and opened a freak stall - the somnabulist Cesare, who lives in a cabinet and prophesize. When his friend Alan asked Cesare about his future, the man said that he would die tonight. True enough he was murdered and the suspicious Francis began to embark on a hunt for the murderer, whom he suspects to be Dr Caligari, the monk/trickster himself.
The expressionistic set is one of the more captivating aspects of Dr Caligari. Houses are made up of slanted doors and windows. Shot in the studio mainly, backgrounds of the town is a painted canvas of houses in pointed angles.
Dr Caligari explores themes of madness and sanity akin to the movement of German expressionism.
James Berardinelli has a well-written review of Nosferatu which I probably should not duplicate in my efforts in writing a similar review or vein. What I would like to point out though is the film’s tools employed for horror effects. The image of Nosferatu is devious looking with rat like features. Though it might not inflict the same kind of fear for today’s audience, it does have resonating characteristics that shows Murnau’s artistic skills. For example, Jonathon who arrived at the land of the phantoms is immediately greeted by a couch and driver who scurries like a rat. He meets Nosferatu who wines and dine him and upon seeing his cut; reveals his bloodthirsty nature upclose that is chillingly scary.
Nosferatu has also lighter-hearted moments at times which has been neglected by critics. Nosferatu’s servant, Knock (Alexander Granach) who arranges for his master to arrive; is another rat-like character who is locked up and tries to escape the police station after he was caught for insanity acts.
The music accompanying this DVD sounds rather minimalist and modernist. For example, drum beats accompany to Jonathon’s wife when she saw that Nosferatu has become their neighbour and lives just opposite them.
While these three films seem dated; they are however to be seen; for film enthusiasts to understand their influence on Hollywood film noir and horror movies.
Der Goleum (1920) directed by Henrik Galeen & Paul Wegener
The Cabinet of Dr Caligari directed by Robert Wiene
Nosferatu directed by F.W. Murnau
Der Goleum revolves around the story of a Rabbi Loew who saved the Jews from the emperor who had wanted to kill his people. He moulded out of clay, The Goleum which would not only entertain the king during the Rose Festival but also saved the king and his own people.
Der Goleum draws biblical references and allusions in the scene where a white little girl would offer Goleum an apple (Adam and Eve). It is perhaps less well-known as compared to the other two classic silent movies in this DVD but it certainly inspired Frankenstein.
The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, is a more sinister piece which has a stronger twist towards the end. Francis relates his story to an old monk. He starts his story with Dr Caligari who appeared in his town’s carnival and opened a freak stall - the somnabulist Cesare, who lives in a cabinet and prophesize. When his friend Alan asked Cesare about his future, the man said that he would die tonight. True enough he was murdered and the suspicious Francis began to embark on a hunt for the murderer, whom he suspects to be Dr Caligari, the monk/trickster himself.
The expressionistic set is one of the more captivating aspects of Dr Caligari. Houses are made up of slanted doors and windows. Shot in the studio mainly, backgrounds of the town is a painted canvas of houses in pointed angles.
Dr Caligari explores themes of madness and sanity akin to the movement of German expressionism.
James Berardinelli has a well-written review of Nosferatu which I probably should not duplicate in my efforts in writing a similar review or vein. What I would like to point out though is the film’s tools employed for horror effects. The image of Nosferatu is devious looking with rat like features. Though it might not inflict the same kind of fear for today’s audience, it does have resonating characteristics that shows Murnau’s artistic skills. For example, Jonathon who arrived at the land of the phantoms is immediately greeted by a couch and driver who scurries like a rat. He meets Nosferatu who wines and dine him and upon seeing his cut; reveals his bloodthirsty nature upclose that is chillingly scary.
Nosferatu has also lighter-hearted moments at times which has been neglected by critics. Nosferatu’s servant, Knock (Alexander Granach) who arranges for his master to arrive; is another rat-like character who is locked up and tries to escape the police station after he was caught for insanity acts.
The music accompanying this DVD sounds rather minimalist and modernist. For example, drum beats accompany to Jonathon’s wife when she saw that Nosferatu has become their neighbour and lives just opposite them.
While these three films seem dated; they are however to be seen; for film enthusiasts to understand their influence on Hollywood film noir and horror movies.
The Story of Adele H.
Directed By Francois Truffaut
Truffaut is a master of depicting and crafting emotional romance dramas without sliding into overt melodramas. He draws out in his films richly emotional women and portrays them forcefully - sometimes vicious, at other times frail, even wild.
Two English Girls, Jules And Jim, and The Women Next Door are just some of his films where the female protagonists come out stronger than the men; and without stereotyping them. The Story of Adele H. especially follows Adele so closely that everyone else that appeared in the film becomes mere shadows opposite her.
Supposedly based on a novel and a true story, Adele (Isabelle Adjani) is Victor Hugo’s daughter who traveled from Guernsey to Halifax in the hope of marrying Lieutenant Albert Pinson (Bruce Robinson). Unfortunately, Albert has already got over her and Adele’s parent’s still objects to their marriage.
Throughout the film, Adele takes centrestage. She concoct lies and tries to get near Albert; and when she found that he has no more feelings for her and is seeing other women, she resorts to various measures to win him back. She talks to herself and writes her journal about her inner thoughts; sends letters to her parents and tries to coerce them to agree to their marriage.
From one perspective, Adele’s love for Albert seems crazy and denigrating in the modern women viewpoint. Yet if we were to look at the context that it happened: even before the First World War; her quest is out of step expected of a women her status; and hence considered a feminist act. Her obsession borders on the illusion of believing that she has found true love and creating this whole mirage of a life; which feels at times as if she was not in love with Albert; but the idea of wanting him only because he is not available. Hence, she can be viewed as being a self-flagellating masochistic narcissist; an idealist women in search for something which truly never existed. At no point in the story is anything mentioned why she loved him so much that she is willing to do anything for him. The absence of details in explaining her emotions creates a void which allows the spectator to read possibly many things (one of which I have mentioned above); and the other is that she is truly in love and hence her love needs no explanation. One can of course argue that her actions are not feminist in nature as she still craves to belong to own or be with a man and henceforth reinforce the patriarchal vicious cycle.
On the other hand, her dreams where she was drowning can be interpreted as a Freudian filmic component to further mask her psychological complex structure. How did her sister, Leopaldine ‘s death affect her? Did the fact that Leopaldine’s husband committed suicide after his wife died an epitome of true love model for Adele? Notice how she avoided mentioning her sister (and probably disliked or hated her as well which was implied in a film scene where she told the boarding house lady that she was lucky to be an only child) and famous father as she tries to conceal her shame and fear of being found out. She storms out angrily after the bookshop owner gave her Victor Hugo’s book to tell her that he knew her identity.
There’s a sequence in which she tries to get the help of a hypnotist to trick Albert into marrying her. Did it show her as simplistic or that she had ran out of ideas? Fellini had used a similar tool in The Night of Cabiria to delude the audience and his character by showing the power of hypnotism - which can be read as a parallel and central to spectator – film relationships. In Adele; that is probably not Truffaut’s intention but it however reveals an ironic parallel to Adele’s innocence in believing that her love was true and would be returned.
It must be mentioned that Isabelle Adjani as Adele looks so different at different points in the movie that it is hard to believe that we are seeing the same person. In that respect, she has created a character that defies expectations yet totally in sync with her wild but single-mindedly in love disposition. Her Adele is a fragmented women who is alive - mesmerizingly strong and weak at the same time, torn by dreams and desires.
I have mentioned before in my previous reviews of “The Women Next Door” as a story revolving around passionate lust and love that ends up in tragedy. The Story of Adele H. is equally powerful.
Directed By Francois Truffaut
Truffaut is a master of depicting and crafting emotional romance dramas without sliding into overt melodramas. He draws out in his films richly emotional women and portrays them forcefully - sometimes vicious, at other times frail, even wild.
Two English Girls, Jules And Jim, and The Women Next Door are just some of his films where the female protagonists come out stronger than the men; and without stereotyping them. The Story of Adele H. especially follows Adele so closely that everyone else that appeared in the film becomes mere shadows opposite her.
Supposedly based on a novel and a true story, Adele (Isabelle Adjani) is Victor Hugo’s daughter who traveled from Guernsey to Halifax in the hope of marrying Lieutenant Albert Pinson (Bruce Robinson). Unfortunately, Albert has already got over her and Adele’s parent’s still objects to their marriage.
Throughout the film, Adele takes centrestage. She concoct lies and tries to get near Albert; and when she found that he has no more feelings for her and is seeing other women, she resorts to various measures to win him back. She talks to herself and writes her journal about her inner thoughts; sends letters to her parents and tries to coerce them to agree to their marriage.
From one perspective, Adele’s love for Albert seems crazy and denigrating in the modern women viewpoint. Yet if we were to look at the context that it happened: even before the First World War; her quest is out of step expected of a women her status; and hence considered a feminist act. Her obsession borders on the illusion of believing that she has found true love and creating this whole mirage of a life; which feels at times as if she was not in love with Albert; but the idea of wanting him only because he is not available. Hence, she can be viewed as being a self-flagellating masochistic narcissist; an idealist women in search for something which truly never existed. At no point in the story is anything mentioned why she loved him so much that she is willing to do anything for him. The absence of details in explaining her emotions creates a void which allows the spectator to read possibly many things (one of which I have mentioned above); and the other is that she is truly in love and hence her love needs no explanation. One can of course argue that her actions are not feminist in nature as she still craves to belong to own or be with a man and henceforth reinforce the patriarchal vicious cycle.
On the other hand, her dreams where she was drowning can be interpreted as a Freudian filmic component to further mask her psychological complex structure. How did her sister, Leopaldine ‘s death affect her? Did the fact that Leopaldine’s husband committed suicide after his wife died an epitome of true love model for Adele? Notice how she avoided mentioning her sister (and probably disliked or hated her as well which was implied in a film scene where she told the boarding house lady that she was lucky to be an only child) and famous father as she tries to conceal her shame and fear of being found out. She storms out angrily after the bookshop owner gave her Victor Hugo’s book to tell her that he knew her identity.
There’s a sequence in which she tries to get the help of a hypnotist to trick Albert into marrying her. Did it show her as simplistic or that she had ran out of ideas? Fellini had used a similar tool in The Night of Cabiria to delude the audience and his character by showing the power of hypnotism - which can be read as a parallel and central to spectator – film relationships. In Adele; that is probably not Truffaut’s intention but it however reveals an ironic parallel to Adele’s innocence in believing that her love was true and would be returned.
It must be mentioned that Isabelle Adjani as Adele looks so different at different points in the movie that it is hard to believe that we are seeing the same person. In that respect, she has created a character that defies expectations yet totally in sync with her wild but single-mindedly in love disposition. Her Adele is a fragmented women who is alive - mesmerizingly strong and weak at the same time, torn by dreams and desires.
I have mentioned before in my previous reviews of “The Women Next Door” as a story revolving around passionate lust and love that ends up in tragedy. The Story of Adele H. is equally powerful.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Fahrenheit 451
Directed by François Truffaut
The DVD version comes with audio commentaries by actress Julie Christie; short documentaries on the making of the movie, an interview with author Ray Bradbury, of novel movie is based on; interviews about the making of the film with a Truffaut scholar, producer and editor; interview with author of book about Bernard Herrmann in which he talks about the effect of the music on Fahrenheit 451.
Judging by all the extras, it would be almost impossible for me to explain about this movie, which would have been talked about in these interviews. Yet Fahrenheit 451 still questions despite the comprehensive array of bonus given.
One notes the alarming Hitchcockian influence (which was stated in the bonus materials) due to Truffaut’s interviews with Hitchcock and also employing Bernard Herrmann to score who had worked with the great director in previous films.
That however does not mean that Fahrenheit 451 is unduly influenced by the master of suspense. Certain scenes or plot details doesn’t makes sense (but they are likely due to written and not film text). For example, the first time that Montag (Oscar Werner) picked up a book; he seems able to read the words rather too easily. One of course wonders how people are taught knowledge if without the use of printed words. Wouldn’t the absence of printed words degenerate the mind and hence reduce communication and make the written word indecipherable? If we are willing to forego this two basic fallacies (which we should because we are talking about sci-fi in the first place) then Fahrenheit 451 is an interesting movie.
Oskar Werner is Montag, a law abiding fireman who is getting a promotion for his unrelenting professional no nonsense and no questions asked attitude towards his work. He meets neighbour Clarisse (Julie Christie) on his way home one day who influenced him to question his lifestyle. His wife, Linda, also played by Julie Christie is mesmerized by television and dreams of being an actress. In this future, books are deemed as evil because they “make people unhappy” and the roles of firemen in society is to burn them (ironic twist to the word fireman?)
Montag’s conflict straddles between finding himself drawn to books while continuing to lead his life as a fireman. The climax enters as he finds himself at a fix when he decides he has to choose between one or the other when his wife betrays him.
There are numerous ways to read Fahrenheit 451. For example, one can read it as a dytopia the likes of George Orwell’s 1984 in which authorial power corrupts; the influence of mass technology over books; the recession of human thinking towards childlike simplicity as we try to simplify and make our lives less complicated and during the process allow brainwashing. Then of course, in film terms, it can also be interpreted as absence presence (and in which this film has plenty of references for); in this case, the implicit absence of the movie reality in actual real life as we know it denotes the presence of the actuality of what the film portrays in real life but in an inverted form (think of what we see as a mirror). As an example, the train which is inverted and a form of public transport runs above a patch of grassland which seems to stop (not at visible stop) is contrary to what we expect of the future totally. Yet, this absence or reality points towards the reflected reality by subversion, in totally opposite conditions. The same goes for the television, phones and shaver. When Linda was “playing” with the TV, one feels deception at how ridiculous the game is because Linda appears not to be playing the game at all; and with questions that does not seem to have answers that can be considered correct. One of course can read that as the hypnotizing effect of TV and media that it has on us. To go deeper, that is a critique of film and what we see on screen as mere projections back to us on what we want to believe in. The use of the word “cousin” by the TV commentator reflects an awkward distanciation which feels neither close nor near – the sort of strained relationship contemporary individual feels with regards to people around them. The word could also mean that the actual meaning of “cousin” has been thwarted to mean something totally different.
One of the more interesting question to ask with this film is the point in which Oscar changes his mental aptitude as the film does not seem not to move and suggests even a slight shift in attitude but rather, it all happens all of a sudden. Did the change occur upon reading his first book or was it before; when he found his wife almost dead? What triggered it off? Or can we safely say that he is already possibly a “book person” in him or else why would Clarisse have approached him in the first place (because she thinks he might have it in him to rebel against his job?)
Acting-wise the actors came off as what one would have expected them to in this fantasy scifi – almost too cold except for the people who read? Julie who plays two different characters does not look alike at all but her acting is not of opposite extremes. In both women, they live entrenched so deep in their beliefs that we see their pain. As the wife, Linda, she is agonized over Montag’s change. As Clarisse, her pain is one of being rejected by the school and the kids. Even though Oscar who is said to be difficult with Truffaut when working in this film; he still portrays the protagonist candidly and one detects a sense of Michael Caine in his demeanour.
I am much more perturbed by the closing scene where Montag finds that books have to be burned upon someone memorizes it. As much as one can read that as the trandescension of physical book into the mental of the book people, what they did is exactly what the firemen are doing and hence a disturbing ending.
Directed by François Truffaut
The DVD version comes with audio commentaries by actress Julie Christie; short documentaries on the making of the movie, an interview with author Ray Bradbury, of novel movie is based on; interviews about the making of the film with a Truffaut scholar, producer and editor; interview with author of book about Bernard Herrmann in which he talks about the effect of the music on Fahrenheit 451.
Judging by all the extras, it would be almost impossible for me to explain about this movie, which would have been talked about in these interviews. Yet Fahrenheit 451 still questions despite the comprehensive array of bonus given.
One notes the alarming Hitchcockian influence (which was stated in the bonus materials) due to Truffaut’s interviews with Hitchcock and also employing Bernard Herrmann to score who had worked with the great director in previous films.
That however does not mean that Fahrenheit 451 is unduly influenced by the master of suspense. Certain scenes or plot details doesn’t makes sense (but they are likely due to written and not film text). For example, the first time that Montag (Oscar Werner) picked up a book; he seems able to read the words rather too easily. One of course wonders how people are taught knowledge if without the use of printed words. Wouldn’t the absence of printed words degenerate the mind and hence reduce communication and make the written word indecipherable? If we are willing to forego this two basic fallacies (which we should because we are talking about sci-fi in the first place) then Fahrenheit 451 is an interesting movie.
Oskar Werner is Montag, a law abiding fireman who is getting a promotion for his unrelenting professional no nonsense and no questions asked attitude towards his work. He meets neighbour Clarisse (Julie Christie) on his way home one day who influenced him to question his lifestyle. His wife, Linda, also played by Julie Christie is mesmerized by television and dreams of being an actress. In this future, books are deemed as evil because they “make people unhappy” and the roles of firemen in society is to burn them (ironic twist to the word fireman?)
Montag’s conflict straddles between finding himself drawn to books while continuing to lead his life as a fireman. The climax enters as he finds himself at a fix when he decides he has to choose between one or the other when his wife betrays him.
There are numerous ways to read Fahrenheit 451. For example, one can read it as a dytopia the likes of George Orwell’s 1984 in which authorial power corrupts; the influence of mass technology over books; the recession of human thinking towards childlike simplicity as we try to simplify and make our lives less complicated and during the process allow brainwashing. Then of course, in film terms, it can also be interpreted as absence presence (and in which this film has plenty of references for); in this case, the implicit absence of the movie reality in actual real life as we know it denotes the presence of the actuality of what the film portrays in real life but in an inverted form (think of what we see as a mirror). As an example, the train which is inverted and a form of public transport runs above a patch of grassland which seems to stop (not at visible stop) is contrary to what we expect of the future totally. Yet, this absence or reality points towards the reflected reality by subversion, in totally opposite conditions. The same goes for the television, phones and shaver. When Linda was “playing” with the TV, one feels deception at how ridiculous the game is because Linda appears not to be playing the game at all; and with questions that does not seem to have answers that can be considered correct. One of course can read that as the hypnotizing effect of TV and media that it has on us. To go deeper, that is a critique of film and what we see on screen as mere projections back to us on what we want to believe in. The use of the word “cousin” by the TV commentator reflects an awkward distanciation which feels neither close nor near – the sort of strained relationship contemporary individual feels with regards to people around them. The word could also mean that the actual meaning of “cousin” has been thwarted to mean something totally different.
One of the more interesting question to ask with this film is the point in which Oscar changes his mental aptitude as the film does not seem not to move and suggests even a slight shift in attitude but rather, it all happens all of a sudden. Did the change occur upon reading his first book or was it before; when he found his wife almost dead? What triggered it off? Or can we safely say that he is already possibly a “book person” in him or else why would Clarisse have approached him in the first place (because she thinks he might have it in him to rebel against his job?)
Acting-wise the actors came off as what one would have expected them to in this fantasy scifi – almost too cold except for the people who read? Julie who plays two different characters does not look alike at all but her acting is not of opposite extremes. In both women, they live entrenched so deep in their beliefs that we see their pain. As the wife, Linda, she is agonized over Montag’s change. As Clarisse, her pain is one of being rejected by the school and the kids. Even though Oscar who is said to be difficult with Truffaut when working in this film; he still portrays the protagonist candidly and one detects a sense of Michael Caine in his demeanour.
I am much more perturbed by the closing scene where Montag finds that books have to be burned upon someone memorizes it. As much as one can read that as the trandescension of physical book into the mental of the book people, what they did is exactly what the firemen are doing and hence a disturbing ending.
Monday, August 25, 2003
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis
Directed by Vittorio De Sica
The Finzi-Continis are a Jewish family who isolate themselves after Italy’s Duce started to imposed racial discrimination laws. They invite friends over for tennis sessions including Micol’s (Dominique Sanda) childhood playmate, Giorgio (Lino Capolicchio) and Malnate (Fabio Testi) whom the former had a crush on. Micol’s brother, Alberto (Helmut Berger) incidentally is infatuated with her elder sister’s secret love. The main thrust of the story however revolves around Giorgio who is torn between declaring his love for Micol who does not reciprocate and living under the repressive Italy in 1938.
Stylistically, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis lavishes in rich bright colours whether focusing on trees, landscape or building interiors. De Sica uses extreme close shots to zoom into character’s faces highlighting their emotional states, allowing the audience to read the actor’s performance. Perhaps because of such stringent demands towards facial expressions, the actors tries to balance between emoting and underplaying (to reduce melodrama), resulting in a psychologically tense piece. Instead of prolonging the scenes, the effect of De Sica’s lingering shots holds attention as it opens up space for the audience to empathise with the actors who manage to play their parts convincingly.
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis is a beautifully shot picture that continues to stay in your mind without “sensationalising” the treatment of Jews in Italy during the fascist era.
Small Changes
Directed by Francois Truffaut
Small Changes is possibly one of Truffaut’s more heartwarming films which recalls to mind The 400 Blows and The Antoine Dionel series with its depiction of children in everyday life, whether they be playing pranks in class when the teacher is away or distributing toy guns.
Small Changes lacks a central narrative but revolves around a few children - the beaten up boy who was transferred to the school by welfare; the boy who has a crush on a classmate’s mother; and the unborn baby of the male teacher’s wife.
This lack of a plot is what makes Small Changes not just fictional; but a documentary as well. The teacher’s speech to his class before the end of the vacation could well have been Truffaut’s statement towards how he felt children should be protected in modern society.
Directed by Vittorio De Sica
The Finzi-Continis are a Jewish family who isolate themselves after Italy’s Duce started to imposed racial discrimination laws. They invite friends over for tennis sessions including Micol’s (Dominique Sanda) childhood playmate, Giorgio (Lino Capolicchio) and Malnate (Fabio Testi) whom the former had a crush on. Micol’s brother, Alberto (Helmut Berger) incidentally is infatuated with her elder sister’s secret love. The main thrust of the story however revolves around Giorgio who is torn between declaring his love for Micol who does not reciprocate and living under the repressive Italy in 1938.
Stylistically, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis lavishes in rich bright colours whether focusing on trees, landscape or building interiors. De Sica uses extreme close shots to zoom into character’s faces highlighting their emotional states, allowing the audience to read the actor’s performance. Perhaps because of such stringent demands towards facial expressions, the actors tries to balance between emoting and underplaying (to reduce melodrama), resulting in a psychologically tense piece. Instead of prolonging the scenes, the effect of De Sica’s lingering shots holds attention as it opens up space for the audience to empathise with the actors who manage to play their parts convincingly.
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis is a beautifully shot picture that continues to stay in your mind without “sensationalising” the treatment of Jews in Italy during the fascist era.
Small Changes
Directed by Francois Truffaut
Small Changes is possibly one of Truffaut’s more heartwarming films which recalls to mind The 400 Blows and The Antoine Dionel series with its depiction of children in everyday life, whether they be playing pranks in class when the teacher is away or distributing toy guns.
Small Changes lacks a central narrative but revolves around a few children - the beaten up boy who was transferred to the school by welfare; the boy who has a crush on a classmate’s mother; and the unborn baby of the male teacher’s wife.
This lack of a plot is what makes Small Changes not just fictional; but a documentary as well. The teacher’s speech to his class before the end of the vacation could well have been Truffaut’s statement towards how he felt children should be protected in modern society.
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
The primary impulse to read The Man Who Knew Too Much is that it is a spy thriller that works on trying to solve the mystery of Louie Bernard’s (Daniel Gellin) what he wants; his death; what he was trying to say and who he was saving before he died in Ben Mckenna’s (James Stewart) arms and whispered some words into his ears which would give the latter more clues to a planned assasination that he was supposed to foil.
Despite The Man Who Knew Too Much not being high on critics list as one of Hitchcock’s best, it is tempting to say that it could be one of Hitchcock’s most pro American (that I have seen at least).
The film revolves around a middle class proudly American family – Ben as a doctor, Jo (Doris Day) who used to be a famous singer in Londond; and Hank (Christian Olsen) a smart American boy who thinks South Africa looks just like Vegas.
On the bus to Marrakech for a holiday, they encountered Louie Bernard whom Jo is highly suspicious of (think Cold War). Ben gets offended when Louis cancelled dinner with them and instead turns up in the same restaurant with another young lady. Meanwhile, they befriended another elderly couple, the Draytons, at the restaurant, who took them to the market next morning. When Bernard was stabbed in the marketplace, the McKenna’s were taken for police questioning. At the same time, they found their son being kidnapped.
The apparent allegory is this – the kidnapping of Hank represents the abduction of American future and values. Doris’s and Ben’s worry are more of saving their son and how not to let this piece of information land on the wrong hands and hence do the right thing – American attitude towards right and wrong? The McKenna’s family scenes are also typically American. They sing about what Hank wants to do when he grows up. They argue about having another child. Ben disagrees with Jo’s suspicions towards strangers as paranoia and prescribe her sedatives before revealing her the news of their son being abducted.
Hitchcock also contradicts characters and the organisation they represent in this movie. The church people and the royal aristocrats are the villians in this movie whereas the scotland yards happens to quite helpless in solving the mystery.
It would however be too simplistic to read The Man Who Knew Too Much as just that. The movie also functions as a family drama foremost with the disappearance of Hank as a central plot showing family distress.
The Man Who Knew Too Much is one of Hitchcock’s more interesting films that I have seen to date which manages to hold attention more than being a suspense.
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
The primary impulse to read The Man Who Knew Too Much is that it is a spy thriller that works on trying to solve the mystery of Louie Bernard’s (Daniel Gellin) what he wants; his death; what he was trying to say and who he was saving before he died in Ben Mckenna’s (James Stewart) arms and whispered some words into his ears which would give the latter more clues to a planned assasination that he was supposed to foil.
Despite The Man Who Knew Too Much not being high on critics list as one of Hitchcock’s best, it is tempting to say that it could be one of Hitchcock’s most pro American (that I have seen at least).
The film revolves around a middle class proudly American family – Ben as a doctor, Jo (Doris Day) who used to be a famous singer in Londond; and Hank (Christian Olsen) a smart American boy who thinks South Africa looks just like Vegas.
On the bus to Marrakech for a holiday, they encountered Louie Bernard whom Jo is highly suspicious of (think Cold War). Ben gets offended when Louis cancelled dinner with them and instead turns up in the same restaurant with another young lady. Meanwhile, they befriended another elderly couple, the Draytons, at the restaurant, who took them to the market next morning. When Bernard was stabbed in the marketplace, the McKenna’s were taken for police questioning. At the same time, they found their son being kidnapped.
The apparent allegory is this – the kidnapping of Hank represents the abduction of American future and values. Doris’s and Ben’s worry are more of saving their son and how not to let this piece of information land on the wrong hands and hence do the right thing – American attitude towards right and wrong? The McKenna’s family scenes are also typically American. They sing about what Hank wants to do when he grows up. They argue about having another child. Ben disagrees with Jo’s suspicions towards strangers as paranoia and prescribe her sedatives before revealing her the news of their son being abducted.
Hitchcock also contradicts characters and the organisation they represent in this movie. The church people and the royal aristocrats are the villians in this movie whereas the scotland yards happens to quite helpless in solving the mystery.
It would however be too simplistic to read The Man Who Knew Too Much as just that. The movie also functions as a family drama foremost with the disappearance of Hank as a central plot showing family distress.
The Man Who Knew Too Much is one of Hitchcock’s more interesting films that I have seen to date which manages to hold attention more than being a suspense.
