The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Hitchcock's First Five-Star Entry
I agree with Alfred Hitchcock in his assessment that his 1956 remake of this 1934 classic was a superior movie. However, that's only when pressed. Really, despite mostly having the same story line and climactic scene at the Royal Albert Hall, they are two different films.

It's not just because one is in black and white, whereas the other is in color, or that one features British and the other American leads. It's more intangible than that. It has to do with pacing, and that this is a more tongue-in-cheek thriller than the remake. Also, while Hitch never stopped pushing the envelope on visual effects, it's so interesting watching this one, because he was learning as he made it. When Edna Best faints upon learning that her daughter (Nova Pilbeam) has been kidnapped, the camera movement simulates the room spinning round and round. It's a sort of primitive shot, one that Hitch didn't smoothly master until the 1940s. That said, it cannot be denied that Hitchcock's primary visual contribution at this point was in applying the German Expressionist montage sensibility to the British cinema, which was theretofore fledgling.

The acting is all right from the good guys, but it's the villains who are most impressive in this version. Peter Lorre as Abbott is creepy, and quite a polished actor, whereas the British actors were a little awkward in reciting their lines. Lorre was smooth, confident, volatile and simply a pleasure to watch. Cicily Oates as Abbott's religious sect "front" is simply mesmerizing when she hypnotizes Leslie Bank's comic relief friend, Clive. There are some stark Expressionistic shots of her through a glass lens, and as the light intensifies on her face, so does her perverse concentration. Almost zombie, cultlike.

The climax at the Royal Albert Hall was Hitch's largest scale set piece, a tour de force of sight and sound. Arthur Benjamin's soundtrack and his "Storm Clouds Cantata really raised the bar for movie music in those early days of sound, and even influenced Hitch's most famous composer, Bernard Herrmann, decades later when he re-scored the 1956 version. Herrmann had such admiration and respect for Benjamin's Cantata, that he used it intact, even doubling some of the parts and lengthening the score.

All of that said, don't just watch this for academic reasons. It's hugely entertaining, and has lots of great gags and suspense.

far superior to doris day version
i have to admit right away that i am no fan of doris day, but, having said that, if you view both of these movies back to back and consider the age of the first one, you will find it to be far superior. the acting is better, the story is more tightly woven, and the ending is great--lots better than doris and her que sera....

Great performance by Lorre
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 considered 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 finally 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.)