This is one from Hitchcock that doesn't quite come up to his standard fare, and definitely not equal to The 39 Steps (1935), The Lady Vanishes (1938) and many others. Perhaps it was the low quality of the production? Perhaps the story itself? Maybe the somewhat wooden acting from John Gielgud?
Having not read the novel by Somerset Maugham, I can't make any worthwhile comparison about how well or badly the narrative was put to film. I can say, however, that the plot has a few inexplicable narrative gaps or the DVD I viewed was an incomplete copy. I'll never know, either way, of course.
However, to the film: a soldier is pulled from trench warfare in France, given a new identity of Richard Ashenden (Gielgud), a fake wife Elsa Carrington (the delightful Madelaine Carroll) and then teamed up with a clown of a spy called the General (Peter Lorre) to then all travel to Switzerland to kill a German spy. Right.
Okay...moving right along: In Switzerland, an American playboy, Robert Marvin (a very young Robert Young) worms his way into the intrepid threesome from England, apparently intent upon stealing/wooing/seducing Elsa not sure which, actually. Neither does Elsa, it seems, who keeps trying to fob him off. In the meantime, the dynamic duo of Richard and the General find their informant dead in a local church, strangled, unable to tell them the identity of the German spy.
Undeterred, they chase up a clue left at the scene of the crime and narrow their search to a German couple. The man, a local mountain guide, agrees to guide them to a mountain top where the General pushes him off a cliff to his death. Unhappily for the team, they killed the wrong man. Quel domage!
From there, the plot muddles about a bit as the three try to decide what to do, Ashenden particularly remorseful about the wrongful killing. They get a break, however, about the German spy and board a train for Turkey, on which the denouement ensues. To say any more, however, would truly spoil the story.
Frankly, I wasn't all that impressed with the story: I think it lacked the depth and suspense that you expect from Hitchcock. Of the actors, only Carroll and Young showed any consistency of character while Lorre was just so over the top, it wasn't funny. And, it wasn't funny, also. Gielgud was a great actor, no question, but I think others would have been better as Ashenden (maybe only Gielgud was available, at the time?).
The cinematography is very good, reinforcing Hitchcock's developing expertise. In a chocolate factory, for example, there are some exquisitely choreographed panicky crowd scenes, reminiscent of Fritz Lang's M (1931). So, as a curiosity, it's worth seeing by all. For serious Hitchcock fans, it should be on the must-see list, if only to act as a comparison with his overall work. I'm glad I finally got to see it, but I wouldn't bother a second time.
Having not read the novel by Somerset Maugham, I can't make any worthwhile comparison about how well or badly the narrative was put to film. I can say, however, that the plot has a few inexplicable narrative gaps or the DVD I viewed was an incomplete copy. I'll never know, either way, of course.
However, to the film: a soldier is pulled from trench warfare in France, given a new identity of Richard Ashenden (Gielgud), a fake wife Elsa Carrington (the delightful Madelaine Carroll) and then teamed up with a clown of a spy called the General (Peter Lorre) to then all travel to Switzerland to kill a German spy. Right.
Okay...moving right along: In Switzerland, an American playboy, Robert Marvin (a very young Robert Young) worms his way into the intrepid threesome from England, apparently intent upon stealing/wooing/seducing Elsa not sure which, actually. Neither does Elsa, it seems, who keeps trying to fob him off. In the meantime, the dynamic duo of Richard and the General find their informant dead in a local church, strangled, unable to tell them the identity of the German spy.
Undeterred, they chase up a clue left at the scene of the crime and narrow their search to a German couple. The man, a local mountain guide, agrees to guide them to a mountain top where the General pushes him off a cliff to his death. Unhappily for the team, they killed the wrong man. Quel domage!
From there, the plot muddles about a bit as the three try to decide what to do, Ashenden particularly remorseful about the wrongful killing. They get a break, however, about the German spy and board a train for Turkey, on which the denouement ensues. To say any more, however, would truly spoil the story.
Frankly, I wasn't all that impressed with the story: I think it lacked the depth and suspense that you expect from Hitchcock. Of the actors, only Carroll and Young showed any consistency of character while Lorre was just so over the top, it wasn't funny. And, it wasn't funny, also. Gielgud was a great actor, no question, but I think others would have been better as Ashenden (maybe only Gielgud was available, at the time?).
The cinematography is very good, reinforcing Hitchcock's developing expertise. In a chocolate factory, for example, there are some exquisitely choreographed panicky crowd scenes, reminiscent of Fritz Lang's M (1931). So, as a curiosity, it's worth seeing by all. For serious Hitchcock fans, it should be on the must-see list, if only to act as a comparison with his overall work. I'm glad I finally got to see it, but I wouldn't bother a second time.