The Alfred Hitchcock Filmography - A Chronological viewing (2 Viewers)

[Nelson Au]

Interesting comments on The Trouble with Harry guys. I was expecting maybe more comments that this is a much more liked film then I thought.

I hope my comments was not misunderstood, as I thought Harry and Mr. and Mrs. Smith are two titles that are interesting for trying new territory.

David, interesting comments as I will have to see the film again to see the sections you refer to. I recall the coffee mug scene, but I didn’t recall the feeling you mention. And about the tree painting and art comments, I get what you’re saying. I’ll have to re-view that segment as well.

 

[Cineman]

...
David, interesting comments as I will have to see the film again to see the sections you refer to. I recall the coffee mug scene, but I didn’t recall the feeling you mention. And about the tree painting and art comments, I get what you’re saying. I’ll have to re-view that segment as well.

Nelson, next time you watch it, just for the fun of it, allow for the possibility that the Capt. Wiles and Ivy characters might stand in for Alfred and Alma Hitchcock. In fact, the actors portraying them bear a general resemblance to them.

So, here you have a lovely older couple delighted with each other's company, sharing interests in food, tea, conversation. Their living conditions are comfortable, the environment is idyllic, they are no longer driven by the passions of youth. They could have such a drama free life.

However, there's this dead body in the picture (literally) that must be dealt with. How odd that such a prosaic couple is charged with burying and digging up that body over and over again at such a time in their lives.

Isn't a dead body the central element of the Hitchcocks' life work in film? Isn't that an essential feature of the movie genre they can only rarely avoid or risk financial underperformance for the studio, the suits, themselves as well as disappointing their audience?

I don't mean to say their being charged with dealing with dead bodies in one movie after another is perceived as a terrible burden to them. Not at all. It isn't taken that way by the characters in the movie. If there is anything to this view I have of it, the Hitchcocks are more amused by what they have found themselves up to than anyone else.

There was a time when Alfred Hitchcock cited The Trouble With Harry as either his favorite movie or surely among them. I think when he was keeping it out of circulation he would instead cite Shadow of a Doubt as his favorite. Therefore, I feel there must be something about TTWH that affected him in a special, perhaps very personal way. All I am saying now is perhaps what I see in it was part of the reason it held a special place in his heart.

 

[Nelson Au]

The Man Who Knew Too Much
1955
99 minutes Color 1.85:1 VistaVision
Cast-
James Stewart - Doctor Ben McKenna
Doris Day - Jo McKenna
Brenda De Banzie - Lucy Drayton
Bernard Miles - Edward Drayton
Ralph Truman - Buchanan
Daniel Gélin - Louis Bernard
Mogens Wieth - Ambassador
Alan Mowbray - Val Parnell
Hillary Brooke - Jan Peterson
Christopher Olsen - Hank McKenna
Reggie Nalder - The assassin
Richard Wattis - Assistant manager
Noel Willman - Woburn
Alix Talton - Helen Parnell
Yves Brainville - Police inspector
Carolyn Jones - Cindy Fontaine
Based on the novel The Trouble with Harry by Jack Trevor Story
Written by- John Michael Hayes, based on the story by Charles Bennett and D B Wyndham-Lewis
Score by - Bernard Herrmann
Directed by - Alfred Hitchcock
Production Studio - Paramount Studios
View 9/14/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012
Also available in the Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection box set, Universal Studios, 2005

Synopsis

Dr. Ben McKenna and his wife Jo And son Hank are Americans on vacation in Morocco when they become embroiled in an assassination plot. The McKenna’s meet the mysterious Louis Bernard on a bus who helps them out with a misunderstanding on the bus. The next day, Ben and Jo encounter Bernard in a Marrakesh marketplace who is murdered and gives Ben information of an assassination plot as he dies. In the event that the assassination plans were compromised, the McKenna’s son is kidnapped to keep the McKenna’s from telling the police what Ben knows.

Impressions

This is the second time I’ve viewed this version of The Man Who Knew Too Much and I’d not seen it in about 5 or 6 years. A lot of the details I’d forgotten, so it was like seeing it for the first time. Also since I finally have seen the 1934 original The Man Who Knew Too Much that was made in England, I can finally compare the two. My impression is that both films are good and that I’m not so sure that one is that much better then the other version. They both have their good points. I liked a lot of the elements in the 1934 version. There are some good funny bits too in the 1934 version and who can top Peter Lorre. It was probably wise that Hitchcock told John Michael Hayes to not see the 1934 version. This 1956 version had an equally off tilting villain in the character played by Reggie Nalder. I thought he was great as the killer and he didn’t try to emulate what Peter Lorrie did and was a completely different character. The people plotting the assassination were different too. So while the major elements are the same, it’s a different movie.

I kept asking myself, Why did they pick McKenna? Were they just in the wrong place at the right time? Was it just a coincidence? What made me ask the questions was why Lucy Drayton is shown so sinisterly as the McKenna’s arrive at the hotel in Marrakesh. Was she just noticing that they recognized Jo as a famous singer? It didn’t seem possible that they preplanned the kidnapping, unless they knew that Louis Bernard had gotten friendly with the McKenna’s and targeted them too in case they knew something. And they knew Louis Bernard was an agent similarly to the agent in the first film who was killed.

I was impressed with Doris Day’s dramatic breakdown when Ben told Jo what happened to Hank. I thought she was really good in this film, I’ve not seen a lot Doris Day’s films, I am aware of her other works, but only seen one or two other of her films. Stewart was pretty rough with Jo too at first in telling her, but they later were working together really well in their search of their son.



I thought that the Royal Albert Hall sequence was a lot clearer in the second film as to what was going on and what Jo was doing. The suspense there was very good and then the sequence afterwards I thought was cleverly done to get Jo and Ben into the Embassy that the police could not. It was a climax after another climax. I did enjoy how both films used the mother’s particular talent and skill to take down the people who kidnapped her son. Though I like the original’s reveal as it felt very satisfying. The new film’s resolution was differently handled so it was a little less satisfying. The bad guys got what they deserved and I was still on the edge of my seat.

I didn’t notice the Bernard Herrmann conductor poster outside the Royal Albert Hall the first time I saw the film. That was a fun in-film joke. And seeing Herrmann actually doing the conducting of the orchestra was fun. Though I missed the Hitchcock cameo.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey David, I like your assessment of The Trouble with Harry and I can buy the idea that Capt. Wiles and Ivy could be Alfred and Alma!

 

[Matt Hough]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is one of my very favorite Hitchcock films, and I find myself returning to it again and again to enjoy its complexities. I find it infinitely superior to the 1934 original. I think the suspense is sustained far longer (well, it has to be; it's a much longer movie) and with much more skill, and yet Hitchcock takes his time setting up his moments. And, with the facilities of a great Hollywood studio at his beckon call, the film is much slicker. Hitchcock always said that the original was a film made by a talented amateur and the remake was one made by a professional, and I agree with him 100%.

In his critique, Leonard Maltin damns the film for too many reprises of the Oscar-winning "Que Sera, Sera,' but that's a very unfair criticism. It's sung the first time to establish the mother-son link to the tune, and then it's used in the climax to bring mother-father-and-son back together again in a very dramatic way. (I'd also love to hear 'We'll Love Again" in its entirety somewhere, the song Doris follows up with as McKenna hunts for Hank in the embassy.) I don't find that an overuse of the song at all.

 

[benbess]

I agree that The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fantastic movie, but unfortunately the blu-ray has only so-so picture quality. I wish they would remaster this VistaVision film. Here's what RAH wrote about it back in 2012....

"The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a problem negative, but with today's technology, should not have been a problematic Blu-ray.

It should have, and could have, looked exactly as it did in 1956.

To me, there was a chance here to make everything perfect, and to be blunt, it was blown.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of quality by looking at the occasionally superb resolution.

It's the color and densities, that for much of the film, make it a failure of a Blu-ray.

Image - 2

Audio - 4.5

I would suggest a recall on this title, which needs to go back to square one.

RAH"

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...knew-too-much-in-blu-ray.318427/#post-3883040

 

[Matt Hough]

Yeah, the Blu-ray leaves much to be desired, but it is sharp, and the video quality seems to get a little better as the picture runs.

 

[Nelson Au]

I remember when the blu ray set was released this film got a lot of grief for the image quality. I think I recall a lot of the issue was the rear projection on the bus and other scenes in Marrakesh. I had never seen it before, so when I watched it the first time, I found it watchable and forgave the rear projection as it did not seem that out of whack. Rear projection almost always never looks real. But maybe you guys are referring to something else.

Matt, In the Truffaut interviews, I heard Hitchcock say the original film was by a talented amateur and the remake was by a professional. I guess he earned the right to say that.

 

[TJPC]

I have read that Hitchcock often liked to use rear projection as a stylistic choice, even when other techniques were available.

 

[Cineman]

The Man Who Knew Too Much
1955
...
I kept asking myself, Why did they pick McKenna? Were they just in the wrong place at the right time? Was it just a coincidence? What made me ask the questions was why Lucy Drayton is shown so sinisterly as the McKenna’s arrive at the hotel in Marrakesh. Was she just noticing that they recognized Jo as a famous singer? It didn’t seem possible that they preplanned the kidnapping, unless they knew that Louis Bernard had gotten friendly with the McKenna’s and targeted them too in case they knew something. And they knew Louis Bernard was an agent similarly to the agent in the first film who was killed.

I was impressed with Doris Day’s dramatic breakdown when Ben told Jo what happened to Hank. I thought she was really good in this film, I’ve not seen a lot Doris Day’s films, I am aware of her other works, but only seen one or two other of her films. Stewart was pretty rough with Jo too at first in telling her, but they later were working together really well in their search of their son.
...
I didn’t notice the Bernard Herrmann conductor poster outside the Royal Albert Hall the first time I saw the film. That was a fun in-film joke. And seeing Herrmann actually doing the conducting of the orchestra was fun. Though I missed the Hitchcock cameo.

It was purely an accident in Louie Bernard following the wrong married couple tourists as the suspected facilitators for the assassination. Wherever that bus ride originated (the airport?), he must have been staking it out, saw the McKennas and thought they might be the couple he was looking for. So he got on the bus, too. Then it was Hank committing an inadvertent cultural faux pas that brought him into a conversation and brief relationship with them, casually interrogating them to see if they were indeed the couple he was looking for or not.

There follows one cultural faux pas after another, an amazing chain link of them throughout the entire movie. Virtually every key scene and moment in the movie hinges on some cultural norm being clumsily or purposely broken.

It is also possible that the main reason the McKennas stood out (literally) in any group of tourists for Louie Bernard was because of Stewart's height. lol. I mean, Hitchcock plays on that problem, comically, in the restaurant scene. He also photographs Stewart at least a head taller than everyone else in the market place where Bernard sees him again and singles him out to pass along the assassination plot info. His physical height characteristic is treated both as Stewart's "strength" as an intimidating presence when necessary and his "weakness" in that it got him into the complex intrigue in the first place.

Hitchcock's cameo is in that very brief shot at the marketplace where the camera is behind the crowd watching the kids stand on top of each other's shoulder to create, well, a "tall" person. lol. Hitchcock steps into the shot on the lower left corner of the frame in a light colored suit and turns to watch the stunt, puts his hands in his pockets I think. The very next shot is of Hank and Lucy McKenna. Hank looks at an Arab squatting in the middle of a group wearing a garment not dissimilar in color to what Hitchcock was wearing (as I recall) in the previous shot, waving a stick and he asks, "Whos that?" Mrs. McKenna say, "That's the teller of tales, Hank."

Hmmm....

 

[Cineman]

The Man Who Knew Too Much
1955
...
What made me ask the questions was why Lucy Drayton is shown so sinisterly as the McKenna’s arrive at the hotel in Marrakesh. Was she just noticing that they recognized Jo as a famous singer? It didn’t seem possible that they preplanned the kidnapping, unless they knew that Louis Bernard had gotten friendly with the McKenna’s and targeted them too in case they knew something. And they knew Louis Bernard was an agent similarly to the agent in the first film who was killed.

I was impressed with Doris Day’s dramatic breakdown when Ben told Jo what happened to Hank. I thought she was really good in this film, I’ve not seen a lot Doris Day’s films, I am aware of her other works, but only seen one or two other of her films. Stewart was pretty rough with Jo too at first in telling her, but they later were working together really well in their search of their son.
...

I think Lucy Drayton is the only really complex character in this movie. Almost every other character is about as straight arrow conventional as a 1950s sitcom family or the villain in an episodic drama. Good ones. And appropriately so for the subject and intent of the movie. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. It's just that the movie benefits greatly from the star power of its two leads. But so much is going on, action, plot, twists and turns, this is not the kind of acting showpiece that we have in, say, VERTIGO or MARNIE. This is not a deep, emotional psychological thriller. It is a picturesque and exciting one.

However, Mrs. Drayton is a truly complex character. Yes, our first impression of her is she is looking at the McKennas with sinister suspicion. But, in true Hitchcock fashion, we are wrong about what we "see". I think she simply recognized Jo as the singer she knew and liked. Notice Mr. Drayton's casual, vaguely interested response when Mrs. Drayton grabs his arm in the cart, indicates Jo and says something we don't hear. He is not looking for the McKennas, doesn't care anything about them except that his wife sees something familiar about one of them.

We are wrong about what we see regarding Mrs. Drayton several more times in the movie. She is worried about Hank at the marketplace, wants to take him back to the hotel, but then puts him in grave danger by kidnapping him. Her demeanor seems akin to a gun moll for a moment, then tells her assistant something like "It doesn't hurt to be kind" when the assistant says something mean to Hank. She seems as tough as the best of them but appears to recoil at the sight of the man who will pull the trigger. There is that deeply complex moment when Hank hears his mom singing downstairs at the Embassy, Mrs. Drayton asks if he is sure its her, the look on her face is for all the world like she is going to throttle Hank and throw him in the closet...yet that is the exact opposite of what she does.

Her complex behavior even prompts a question in Stewart's mind about it at the crucial moment. She tells him to hurry, get out with Hank, but he stops to turn and ask..why? He doesn't get to the question. But it would have to be something like, "Why did you help us rescue Hank? I thought you were evil." And so did we.

You are right about Doris Day's performance especially in that scene where she has been drugged and must portray a person drifting into sleep AND hearing alarming news about the kidnapping of her son at the same. Amazing performance, utterly believable and real seeming on all counts. And in the Albert Hall scene. I well up just watching her silent performance in that scene. She has the finest "acting" moments in the movie, imo. Oh, every moment for the actors in this movie is perfectly believable. The restaurant scene is a master class in hitting the beats, the plot and theme points all while the behavior is utterly natural, seeming to be improvised. But for the most part the acting is all about selling the "chase" scenes so to speak, as professional and informative as possible, not dipping deeply into ones tortured past to produce a moment of emotional revelation.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yep, Doris was cheated of Oscar nominations two years in a row: in 1955 for Love Me or Leave Me and in 1956 for The Man Who Knew Too Much (with Julie as another dramatic showcase the same year to show how valid an acting nomination would be for her).

 

[Robert Crawford]

Man, I have to revisit "The Man Who Knew Too Much" as I don't remember Doris Day being that good in which she was superior to those other five actresses that were actually nominated. I'm not saying she didn't give a great performance in that film, but those other five actresses were chopped liver in their respective film performances.

 

[Nelson Au]

The Wrong Man
1956
105 minutes B/W 1.85:1
Cast-
Henry Fonda - Manny Balestrero
Vera Miles - Rose Balestrero
Anthony Quayle - Frank O'Connor
Harold Stone - Lieutenant Bowers
John Heldabrand - Tomasini
Doreen Lang - Ann James
Norma Connolly - Betty Todd
Lola D'Annunzio - Olga Conforti
Robert Essen - Gregory Balestrero
Dayton Lummis - Judge Groat
Charles Cooper - Detective Matthews
Esther Minciotti - Mama Balestrero
Laurinda Barrett - Constance Willis
Nehemiah Persoff - Gene Conforti
Kippy Campbell - Robert Balestrero
Richard Robbins - Daniell
Peggy Webber - Miss Dennerly
Based on the novel "The True Story of Christopher Emmanuel Balestrero" by Maxwell Anderson
Written by- Angus McPhail
Score by - Bernard Herrmann
Directed by - Alfred Hitchcock
Assistant Director - Daniel McCauley
Production Studio - Warner Brothers
View 9/21/19

Warner Brothers Archive Collection 2016 Blu Ray

Synopsis

Manny Balestrero is a musician who plays the bass at a nightclub called the Stork Club in New York. He works hard and struggles to make a living and support his wife and two young sons. When he learns that his wife has a tooth ache that needs attention, he decides to make a visit to the insurance company that has a policy for his wife to borrow $300 against the policy to pay for the dental bill. While at the insurance office, the clerks recognize Manny and wrongly thinks he is the man who robbed the office the year before.

Impressions

This is another film I had no exposure to before and had no real idea what the story is about. Though knowing that Hitchcock often tells the story of the main character who is wrongly accused of a crime, I had a sense of what the story would involve. But I had no idea this film is based on a true story. So I had not expected to see a docudrama.

This has to be one of Hitchcock’s most brutally realistic films. It has some of the Hitchcockian elements, but it felt so real. The location filming adds to that too and Henry Fonda’s performance is at the center of the drama. He’s is so Everyman. He plays the whole arrest sequence so real and dialed back. And yet, I had the sense that he was internally feeling all kinds of emotions from confusion to anger to frustration to suddenly be taken away from his family and life. From the sequence when Manny is finger printed, put in a cell, with the dizzying effect shot, then the next day taken to be arraigned and then placed in a cell was so realistic and using Hitchcock’s first person cinema, so scary and downbeat. It felt like he was doomed. The shot with the camera pushing into the cell through the slot in the door was also an amazing little camera trick.

No doubt the famous story of Hitchcock being put into a jail as a naughty small boy for 5 minutes affected him for the rest of his life.

Vera Miles was also good as Manny’s wife, Rose. She goes from concerned and supportive wife to loosing her confidence in her husband to depression from her own guilt of somehow feeling responsible for their situation. Had she not asked about her toothache, Manny would not have gone to the insurance office. Her sudden change adds to Manny’s worsening situation as they encounter more roadblocks in their efforts to set up their defense.

There are several notable actors I recognized in smaller roles who later become more known for their work in the 1960’s. Werner Klemperer has a role as a psychiatrist who treats Rose. Nehemiah Persoff play’s Manny’s brother in law and I seem to remember him for many guest appearances on TV shows in the 1960’s. Then there is an uncredited walk-in one line part for Paul Carr who I recognized because of his role as Lee Kelso on Star Trek. Harold Stone has a major role as the police Lt Bowers, the arresting officer who takes Manny in along with Detective Matthews. Harold Stone I recall from a notable guest role on Get Smart in a comedic role. But he is so matter of fact and unemotional as the police officer intent on running Manny in. He’s convinced they have their man that he made his role so villainous in my mind. Charles Cooper plays Matthews and I totally did not recognize him, but I knew the name as the actor who played the Klingon Chancellor k’Mpec in Star Trek The Next Generation. I had to look him up to check if it was the same person. He’s also effective as the emotionless and matter of fact police officer who pushes to railroad Manny through the investigative process. But at least he is shown to have a heart later on when he discovers something that affect’s Manny’s case.

This was an interesting movie as it started out with showing us Manny’s daily life, and his very happy marriage, then he’s suddenly thrust into the penal system in all its cold darkness. Hitchcock made that part really feel terrible with the shots that appeared to be a combination of real shots in the prison to the sets in the studio. The black and white photography also adds to the darkness of the situation. Then when Manny’s is released when his bail is paid, the film took an unexpected turn as Manny works with his lawyer on his defense but then his wife has a breakdown and his happy marriage is torn away as his wife begins to doubt him and blames herself. So it’s such an unexpected direction the film takes as I expected to see Manny in jail with scenes of him in the prison and then working with the lawyer.

This is a pretty dark film and very gritty. There is no humor and it’s very serious. It is a real life event and it’s nice it has a happy ending. It wasn’t an enjoyable and fun film like To Catch a Thief or North by Northwest. There is no customary Hitchcock cameo either, and rather, Hitchcock appears at the start of the film to introduce a film that is not one of his customary suspense tales. According to the making of documentary, this film could have been an attempt on Hitchcock’s part to reinvent himself as there was a new wave of European films coming out at the time and the traditional glossy Hollywood film was seen as old school and no longer in vogue. The Wrong Man apparently was innovative and influential on future directors. It was a good film still, even though it wasn’t a fun film like the ones mentioned earlier.

 

[TJPC]

I have a copy of all Hitchcock movies on DVD or Blu ray, and of course have watched them all. I am sorry to say this and believe me I am not just a contrarian, but I find “The Wrong Man” dreary, dull, totally uninteresting and boring. I have watched it once, then put it on the shelf with his others. I don’t intend to watch it again.

 

[Matt Hough]

For me, this is the "nightmare" Hitchcock film, and I mean that in the most complimentary way possible. A good man scooped up and put into the system, totally innocent and comes within an inch of losing everything. You're right: there is no humor, no lightness, and no hope for a great portion of the movie. Fonda's Manny keeps his cool much better than I would do in a similar situation. I'd be hysterical, demanding to face my accusers and never shutting up proclaiming my innocence.

And I hope the women who fingered him wrongly never slept well again. They didn't even offer an apology for ruining a man's life.

 

[Nelson Au]

Oh yeah, in the sequence after the women identify the actual robber, as they left they could not even look at Manny.

I believe one of those actresses was Roger Thornhill’s secretary and she was one of the people terrified by the birds in the diner.

 

[Osato]

I have a copy of all Hitchcock movies on DVD or Blu ray, and of course have watched them all. I am sorry to say this and believe me I am not just a contrarian, but I find “The Wrong Man” dreary, dull, totally uninteresting and boring. I have watched it once, then put it on the shelf with his others. I don’t intend to watch it again.

I watched mine again last winter. I just sold it actually.

 

[Nelson Au]

I’ll keep my copy of The Wrong Man. I can see why it’s not one of Hitchcock’s more popular films. But it is an interesting divergence from his usual work.

 

[Osato]

I’ll keep my copy of The Wrong Man. I can see why it’s not one of Hitchcock’s more popular films. But it is an interesting divergence from his usual work.

im actually hoping that some of Hitchcock’s films will be reissued on 4k in the next few months..