The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

(Movie Review)

I mentioned in the previous post I was on a bit of a Peter Lorre kick recently (the great Austrian-Hungarian character actor--see previous post) watching "The Maltese Falcon" and re-watching "Casablanca" and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".

And so, to round out my Lorre-athon, I found this in my local video store. This was Lorre's first big break in English speaking movies. As a European Jew, he had just escaped to England from Nazi Germany the year before, and barely spoke any English. According to wikipedia, he learned most of his lines phonetically for this movie.

If true, that represents quite an achievement because even working under that handicap Lorre still manages to steal every scene he's in. He plays the villain in the best tradition of spy movie villains. He is charming, polite, pleasant, and would cut your heart out in a minute.

This film is the only Hitchcock film to be later remade by Hitchcock himself, so it is not to be confused with the more famous 1956 Jimmy Stewart version. This is the 1934 version when Hitchcock was still making British films.

After recently watching several old classic films that don't feel like old classic films, this by contrast is a film that's showing its age a bit. The footage is grainy, the sound is staticky, and the cuts between shots are very abrupt. It might be tempting to explain all this away simply because of the movie's age, but then why do films like "Casablanca" "The Big Sleep" "The Maltese Falcon" or "Citizen Kane" retain such a smooth modern feel? With another film we could blame it on the director, but this film was made by Alfred Hitchcock himself.

Someone more versed in film history is going to have to explain this to me. Part of it is probably no doubt due to the fact that all of the British films Hitchcock made have now slipped into the Public Domain and so there is little profit motive for any would-be restorer of the work. That would explain at least the graininess and the static, but not so much the rough cuts. (Or I don't know, would it? How much stuff happens when you restore a film?) Maybe some of this is because Hitchcock didn't have as much money to play with when he was working for the British film industry. Or it could be because Hitchcock himself later considered his early work that of a talented amateur.

(Or, could it be that this movie was 1934, and all the other examples I cited above are from the 40s. Does that much change in 5 years? I'm going to have to re-watch a few1930s films for comparison).

...Anywho, despite all the production flaws on this film, one can see the Hitchcock genius popping up in a lot of the scenes. There's a few scenes were the tension is masterfully drawn out. And a big bang shoot 'em up finale at the end. Frankly I was surprised that a film this old would have such an intense shooting scene at the end. (Based apparently on the real life Siege of Sidney street, again according to wikipedia.)

More bonus youtube links: Here's Peter Lorre's famous scene opposite Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca". I know we've all seen this before, but go ahead and re-watch it. Look at how brilliant Lorre is as both pathetic and a little bit creepy, and yet sympathetic all at the same time.

and his capture scene here. Also brilliant, the look on his face when he first realizes what's happening.

Finally, whilst were wasting time on youtube, a couple different Peter Lorre tribute videos here and here.

Link of the Day
More news on Swagman Family blogging. It looks like my brother and his wife are going to be having another baby. Although this news is found on neither of their respective blogs (I guess new parents are busy people) but documented on my little sister's blog instead.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934): Movie Review (Scripted)

The Maltese Falcon

(movie review)

Another great movie! This movie was located just next to "The Big Sleep" in my video store. Since I enjoyed "The Big Sleep" so much, I thought I'd give this one a try while I was on a role.

On the surface, this movie seems almost identical to "The Big Sleep". Both are classic hard boiled private detective movies. Both star Humphrey Bogart. Both take place in California. And both movies even create a similar atmosphere.

Indeed the similarities between these movies do seem to outweigh the differences, but there are some differences. For example "The Maltese Falcon" is not about the adventures of Philip Marlow, but of Sam Spade, a different private detective from a different series of books. I've not read any of Sam Spade's books, but the general consensus among book reviewers seems to be that Raymond Chandler (the author of the Philip Marlow series) is much superior.

That, perhaps added to the fact that this film has no William Faulkner or Leigh Brackett credited on the screen play might account for the fact that the dialogue isn't as near as good as "The Big Sleep". But dialogue aside, I actually enjoyed the general story of "The Maltese Falcon" more.

The premise of "The Maltese Falcon" itself is based on a legend about the Knights Templars (just like another more recent popular novel/movie combination you may have heard of.) Several different people are interested in recovering the lost Templar treasure of the Maltese Falcon. There are several different characters with conflicting motives, and lots of betrayals and changing alliances. It requires a certain amount of close attention to keep track of everything, but if you watch closely, everything makes perfect sense in the end. Unlike "The Big Sleep", there are no big plot holes in this movie (or at least I didn't catch any. If someone out there has a quick eye, they're welcome to point some out to me).

And there are a couple great shockers at the end. One of the them I saw coming, the other one took me by surprise. But both of them make perfect sense once you think about it.

The lighting and cinematography are superior in this movie as well, although I'm almost hesitant to bring that up because it makes it sound like I'm discussing a classic movie. From my point of view this was a really fun movie that just happens to be a classic. Like "The Big Sleep", it can hold its own against any of Hollywood's modern thrillers today.

Finally, this movie is worth seeing if for no other reason than it has a great performance by Peter Lorre. Peter Lorre was the Austrian-Hungarian actor who was famous as a great character actor. You might be thinking you don't know who he is, but actually you probably do. He usually plays the creepy characters in old movies. He's been parodied a million times by a million different people.

I've actually been on a big Peter Lorre kick recently. With this movie I also rented "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Casablanca". Both of these are movies I've seen before as a kid, but I don't think I've seen either since about 7th grade.

"20,000 Leagues" was more or less how I remembered it, although I appreciate it a little more now knowing who all the famous actors are. And it is impressive they could pull off a movie of that scope way back in 1954.

"Casablanca" completely blew me away. The last time I saw that movie I must have been too young to appreciate it, but this time around I was struck by what a wonderfully movie it was, and how well it was scripted. If, like me, you haven't seen that movie for a while, it is definitely worth another viewing.

But all of this is really another subject for another post. One final note on "Casablanca" and "The Maltese Falcon" before I wrap this up though: it is interesting that both movies share 3 of the same major actors: Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, and Sydney Greenstreet. All 3 of whom do a great job in both movies. In fact, according to Wikipedia, "The Maltese Falcon" was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut.

Bonus wasting time on youtube link: here are Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet on a youtube video making some cameo together on some old film.

Link of the Day
New York Times Smears Peace Movement, Again: Newspaper invents Obama dig

The Maltese Falcon: Movie Review (Scripted)