January 31, 2005
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
The Man Who Knew Too Much, a film by Alfred Hitchcock with a screenpaly by John Michael Hayes, is another Hitchcock film that excels in so many areas, yet is just lacking or ignorant enough in others to prevent it from being a total masterpiece.
Hitchcock reveled in the everyman becoming the center of a heinous plot, and The Man is a case in point. Dr. Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart), wife/singer Jo, and their son Hank (Christopher Olson) are on a bus to Marrakech when Hank accidentally pulls the veil off of a Muslim woman. A man apolgizes to the woman in Arabic, then introduces himself Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin). They later decide to have drinks together, until Bernard myseriously excuses himself. Ben and Jo have dinner alone, and meet a couple Jo has suspected of spying on them. The couple - Edward and Lucy Drayton - admit to being admirers of Jo's singing, and the next day, they are all touring Marrakech together.
Suddenly, Louis Bernard, disguised as a Muslim man, comes around the corner with a knife in his back. He falls into Ben's arms and warns him of a government plot to kill a Senator in London. He tells him to find Ambrose Chapel, then dies. Ben and Jo soon learn that the Draytons have disappeared with their son, and receive a warning that if they reveal anything to anyone, Hank will be killed. The couple flies to London, where they hope to find their son.
As with all Hitchcock, that which works, works very very well. First off, this film contains two of the best performances in any Hitchcock film. When Doris Day first learns of the news that her son has been kidnapped, I expected the typical wish-wash of undirected emotions that comes from a director allowing his actors to do whatever the hell they wanted, so long as they were in the frame. Not so, however. Doris Day completely breaks down so utterly believably, her face contorting with pain for her missing son. Jimmy Stewart is similarly excellent as his slightly weak character attempting more than he is capable of working sheerly on emotions. Everyone else in the film are standard Hitchcock cast members, from the spies to the assassin to the prime minister character, but this isn't a bad thing.
I mentioned in my review of Strangers on a Train that Hitchcock seems to intentionally avoid setting his films firmly in reality, preferring instead to stylize them with unlikely plot turns, colors, movements, dialog, etc. At times, this works, and I can embrace the world he has created; at others, I wish he'd stick to reality. When Jimmy Stewart and his family are on the bus to Marrakech, it's clearly a rear projection of movement. Yet when they actually pull into Marrakech and show footage of it, you desperately want Jimmy Stewart to be there, part of the action. Because, hell, it's Jimmy Stewart in Africa! Not on a studio lot, but in Africa. How could a man be more out of his element? I'm not sure what the dividing line in footage is, but there is one seen that stands out, when Jimmy Stewart is in a crowd watching a man do a magic trick. However, everything is rear projection, save for Stewart, and you almost wish you could have seen the man amongst the swarming crowds. I think Hitchcock had a bit of Ed Wood in him that sort of said - that's not what I want to focus on, so it doesn't matter; if it looks like Jimmy Stewart is in Marrakech, he's in Marrakech. Similarly, in all the car scenes, I see no reason why they couldn't have actually pushed for a picture car.
However, I must mention that Hitchcock also smacks you over the head with information, and really isn't the master of subtle. For example, often in his films, when someone is spying on you, they are OVERTLY spying on you to the point of simply staring, then turning dramatically when you catch out. What I found amusing in this is that Jo suspects the Draytons of spying, which they are clearly doing. And then they reveal that yes indeed they were spying, as they recognized Jo and admire her voice! It's a very amusing twist.
That being said, the aspects of the film that take place in Marrakech are beautiful, from the blue restaurant to the nighttime city silhouettes, to the yellow deserts and colorful crowds.
The movie, in my opinion, takes a real downturn when they arrive in London, and as far as I can tell, it is all a means of getting to the big finale, which is worth it, but let's talk about that in a moment. This is when the bad (or neglected) elements of Hitchcock begin to show themselves. For example, it seems as if all the spies in his films are basically mom and pop operations, where there are about four or five people involved in the conspiracy. This makes for easy screenwriting, but when you learn that the Draytons make up the major part of the evil organization, it just gets lame. Furthermore, they unbelievably maintain a front at a chapel as a minister and wife seems stupid (again, I can almost picture Hitchcock coming up with this and thinking ingenious, but I find it unrealistic). I mean, that's the thing, you see the two main characters who are part of a bigger cause, but then it turns out the bigger cause is about two or three more people. Luckily, his McGuffin in the film - the actual assassination plot - gets by without explanation, which isn't always so (The 39 Steps McGuffin comes to mind as particularly noticably stupid). And this was the most disappointing aspect, as it showed that the screenwriter hadn't really pushed the threat of the story to its limits. I mean, when two average people topple the menace of ... two other people, it doesn't seem like they had much to begin with. Also, having just come from mysterious Morrocco, the small village sections of London are quite boring.
Again, this is all a means of getting to the climax, and what a climax it is. The assassin has been instructed to shoot a prime minister during a crash of symbols in a symphony piece, and the tension grows as the moments arrives. Jo is in the audience but doesn't want to scream out for fear of her boy getting hurt. It really is a wonderful scene, especially when the cymbal player - who has a single note in the piece - is just sitting there with his cymbals next to him...then slowly gets up...gets in position...
The film ends with a somewhat contrived scene in which they recover their boy and the wrongful parties get in trouble. And then, in true Hitchcock fashion, he ends the movie on a single brief 30 second scene, a sort of "that's all folks!" which always annoys me.
In the end, the premise, acting, Merrekech scenes, score, and finale are brilliance. The rest is cliched and really unthought out. Thus again, it pains me to award another Hitchcock film three stars.
***/****
(Three Veiled Stars / Four Stars)
Posted by nick at January 31, 2005 08:32 PM