Secret Agent (1936) User Reviews

Hitchcock adapts Campbell Dixon's play...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 29 January 2023]

... itself based on W. Somerset Maugham's novel Ashenden. In 1916, British Army officer Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) is conscripted into the intelligence bureau. He's given the name "Ashenden" and assigned to assassinate an unknown enemy agent. Ashenden is given a "wife" (Madeleine Carroll) as part of his cover, as well as the assistance of an oddball professional killer known as "the General" (Peter Lorre). While Ashenden and the General hunt for the enemy agent's identity, the "wife" makes time with American playboy Robert Marvin (Robert Young). With Percy Marmont, Florence Kahn, Charles Carson, and Lilli Palmer.

It's interesting to see Gielgud in a leading role, although it's quickly evident why it didn't happen more often. He lacks any romantic chemistry with Carroll, and he frequently seems bored by the proceedings. Carroll and Young both do well with under-thought characters, but Lorre easily steals the picture as the strange assassin with a morbid sense of humor and indeterminate ethnicity.

A little creaky, but quite enjoyable.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 10 December 1999]

"Secret Agent" seems to be one of Alfred Hitchcock's most (unjustly) forgotten films. It may be flawed and technically creaky, but there are some brilliant Hitchcock touches throughout (the greatest scene is probably the one involving a dog's howling). Peter Lorre overacts outrageously in this film (it's one of his weirdest performances), but the other actors are effective and convincing. The plot has two big twists, the first is a killer (literally!), the second is not. It's not one of Hitchcock's classics, but it's one of his most eccentric curios. **1/2 out of 4.

Spy story with suspense and romance by the master of thriller

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 21 September 2006]

This espionage film concerns about Ashenden (John Gielgud), a secret agent is sent Switzerland to kill an unknown enemy spy . There he deals with various characters , as a quirky Mexican general (Peter Lorre), a smart gentleman (Robert Young) and a gorgeous woman (Madeleine Carrol) who poses as his wife , causing the classic loving triangle (Gielgud , Carrol , Young). The movie is based on Somerset Maughan's novels titled : Ashenden , taken from ¨The Traitor" and "The Hairless Mexican" spy stories.

This enjoyable picture blends action , a love story , comedy , adventures , thriller , suspense and results to be quite entertaining . Hitchcock said about this film being well developed in Switzerland , it's plenty of typical elements , such as : folkloric dances , Swiss Alps , lagoons and a chocolate factory . Alfred Hitchcock convinced John Gielgud to play the lead by describing the hero as a modern day Hamlet ; Gielgud, however, ended up hating that his character was an enigma and felt Hitchcock made the villain more charming than the hero . Besides , it contains the usual Hitch's touches and the elegant as well as intelligent baddie (repeating in posterior films as James Mason at ¨North by Northwest¨) , the enticing blonde (as later happened with Grace Kelly and Kim Novak) , the filming on the train (a very agreeable vehicle for the director) . It's an uneven movie and Hitch wasn't proud but it had excessive irony as he said in the famous interview with Francois Truffaut . Rating : Good , well worth watching . The motion picture will appeal to Hitchcock fans . Essential and indispensable seeing for Hitch lovers .

Creative & Carefully Crafted Spy Story

[Snow Leopard · 5 June 2001]

While not one of Hitchcock's most well-known films, "Secret Agent" is one of his most creative. His version of the world of espionage is quite different from, and much richer than, the usual James Bond-type spy story. This movie is also distinguished by large doses of good humor and by some creative uses of the story's setting in Switzerland.

John Gielgud plays Ashenden, an English spy in World War I. He is assigned to go to Switzerland, determine the identity of an important German agent, and then stop the enemy agent before he can carry out his mission. Gielgud has two assistants: a young agent posing as his wife (Madeleine Carroll) and an eccentric assassin (Peter Lorre). What makes the film interesting is that Gielgud's character is not at all the stereotyped dashing movie spy, and he has a keen sense of the human cost involved in what he is doing. By contrast, his two assistants are both excited about the mission, and look forward to the game of tracking down and eliminating their quarry. As the story proceeds, it is the reluctant but responsible Ashenden who persists in continuing the mission in spite of some bad surprises, while the once enthusiastic "Mrs. Ashenden" quickly begins to lose heart when she realizes what espionage is really all about. At the same time, the twists and turns of the mission itself lead to some interesting and tense developments. This is all handled with Hitchcock's usual mastery of suspense and irony.

Hitchcock also makes full use of the setting, and typical Swiss themes like mountain climbing, chocolate, and folk dancing are all part of the plot. Hitchcock makes use of these elements in a natural way, not forcing them into the plot, and the whole production is nicely crafted. There are some excellent scenes, including a scene in an old country church that combines humor and suspense, and a chase through a chocolate factory.

Because its hero has a reluctance about his mission that we do not expect in our spy heroes, "Secret Agent" has never been one of Hitchcock's most popular films. And the story does have some odd aspects to it. But this is quite a good film, worthy of attention, and one that shows many aspects of the great director's skill and imagination.

"Perhaps this lie is true"

[Steffi_P · 6/10 · 5 October 2010]

The series of espionage thrillers produced at British Gaumont Pictures in the mid-to-late 1930s, scripted by Charles Bennet and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, have a consistent quality to them. They don't repeat characters or plot elements, but they all follow a similar winning formula – not merely that of Hitchcockian suspense (of which there isn't really that much in Secret Agent), but of the notion that scrambling all over Europe bumping off spies and leaping off trains, constantly in fear of your own life, can be made to look rather good fun.

First we have the cast and characterisation. A relatively young John Gielgud takes the lead and, although the director reportedly didn't like his performance, he does here epitomise the classic British hero. Laid back, unassuming, with an air of effortlessness, he is in some ways reminiscent of a certain other fictional British spy popularised in the latter half of the twentieth century, although Gielgud's Ashendon is far more human than the somewhat mechanical Mr Bond. Paired with a bubbly and very believable Madeleine Carroll, and supported by bluff gentleman Percy Marmont, chirpy yank Robert Young and crazy generic foreigner Peter Lorre, the overall feel is like one of those "Brits on holiday" comedies. The only difference is, occasionally people kill each other or send out coded telegrams.

Then there is the Charles Bennet screenplay. Bennet was, after Elliot Stannard in the silent days, the second writer to really work well with The Master of Suspense™. Like Hitch, Bennet loves double meanings and secret knowledge. Take the scene where Gielgud arrives at the hotel finds out from the clerk that his new persona has a wife. He asks the clerk "Did she look well?" meaning of course "Is she attractive?" It is of course a little joke with no bearing on the plot, but it's moments like this that keep us engaging with the material and root us in the world of spying and bluffing. He also brings characters in with memorable bits of business to give us strong and meaningful impressions of them – for example Peter Lorre chasing a woman up the stairs or Percy Marmont being introduced when Gielgud trips over his dog.

And then there is the director, who is let's face it the only reason anyone pays attention to what would otherwise be obscure English films in the first place. Hitchcock has simplified and streamlined his technique, which a few years earlier had been little more than a needlessly showy display of camera tricks. He's still not subtle – he never would be – but at least he is now tasteful. We see here his regular method by which the camera leads the audience by the hand, dollying in on an object or throwing a close-up at us as if to shout "Look at this!" What's good about it is that it allows Hitchcock to move the audience at any rate he wants. At the end of the first scene there is a dolly in on a portrait of a soldier. No-one is looking at or gesturing at it, but Hitch forces us to take notice. Later, when Gielgud walks into his hotel room and finds both Carroll and Young inside, there is a quick montage of close-ups as he checks he has the right number, and we essentially ride with his thought process for a few seconds.

Secret Agent is by no means as good as The 39 Steps or The Lady Vanishes, not really having any major build-ups of suspense or danger. However, it does gently pull us along for a well-paced and slightly irreverent ride, and is ultimately watchable because it has very few bad bits. It is a good example what Hitchcock and co. were creating at Gaumont – pictures which were undemanding on the attention because they were smooth, unpretentious and yet continually gave us something to tickle the brain.

Good, but not classic, Hitchcock

[TexMetal4JC · 6/10 · 20 July 2001]

When the topic of spy movies comes up, James Bond is usually one of the first names to arise. But even spy movies had a beginning, and sure enough, in the first couple decades of cinema, who was there making spy movies? Alfred Hitchcock.

Like the other spy movies he did, (Take Torn Curtain and Topaz for instance, two of his later works. How much later? Nearly 40 years later), Secret Agent is a spy movie without lots of explosions or car chases or shootouts. Instead it is about a man who goes undercover to break up a potentially disastrous international agenda of some kind, and along the way falls in love with his partner and realizes that he's not up to the task of murdering someone.

This 1936 movie is another in Hitchcock's decade-long run of British talkies: highly-contrasted black and white, under 90 minutes generally, and devoid of major stars (except for Peter Lorre, who appears in this movie two years after he did The Man Who Knew Too Much).

But unlike many of the movies surrounding it (Young and Innocent, The 39 Steps), this one isn't quite as good. Not that Secret Agent is a bad movie, far from it:

The directing is fine, and the church-murder scene is a beautiful mix of sound and picture. Lorre is much like the male version of Bette Davis - overacting and proud of it. His role as the womanizing yet clever "General" is much lighter than his usual horror-laced stuff, and he still pulls it off with ease. The leads are equally good. And the humor laced throughout is genuinely funny. (Note that, even in 1936, it is obvious that Hitchcock was already looking for the actress that would be fulfilled in Grace Kelly - the strong, feisty, beautiful blonde leading lady.)

But there's nothing here to just make the jaw drop and the eyes widen. It is a good movie, and from a director that has had whole decades worth of *great* movies, it just seems subpar. A previous commentor was right: This was the movie for Hitchcock to remake in the 1950s (with color and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - heck, maybe even a minor role for Jimmy Stewart), not The Man Who Knew Too Much, which was one of his best British films.

Overall, it is good and worth the watch - especially for Hitchcock fans, but it's just not quite *there*.

7/10

Decent Hitchcock Movie, With a Confusion in Early Titles

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 19 June 2006]

SECRET AGENT is notable for being the only Hitchcock film with John Guilgud in it - and a young, dapper looking Guilgud at that. But most people recall it rather for the second (and, regrettably, last appearance) of Peter Lorre under Hitch's direction. It is also the only film by Hitch with Robert Young and Lili Palmer in it and the second with Madeleine Carroll in it.

Those cast notes being noted, let us now look at a confusion of titles in Hitch's movies of the 1930s.

THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS is okay - John Buchan's novel (one of several with Richard Hannay as the hero - another is PRESTER JOHN) has a similar plot to the movie. But SABOTAGE is based on a Joseph Conrad novel, THE SECRET AGENT. SECRET AGENT is based on W. Somerset Maugham's novel (somewhat based on his experiences as a spy in World War I) entitled, ASHENDEN, THE SECRET AGENT. Maugham would use the character of Ashenden in some of his later fiction, as a peace time writer. YOUNG AND INNOCENT is based on A SHILLING FOR CANDLES by Josephine Tey. THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is the title of a novel by G.K.CHESTERTON about a socially well-connected man who knows where all the skeletons of the upper crust are buried, but helps keep them buried. It has nothing to do with the plot of the 1934 Hitchcock film.

Just why most of his movies changed titles is hard to pinpoint. Obviously box office attraction is involved.

SECRET AGENT begins with word (during World War I) that Willie Ashenden, the well known writer, is dead. We see a closed coffin wake for the man, and when everyone leaves we discover the coffin is empty. Ashenden has gone undercover to do some espionage for the British military during the First World War. He is assisted by Lorre, nicknamed "The General" or "the Mad Mexican" (Lorre is not Mexican in the story). They make an odd pair, with Guilgud stiff and proper, and Lorre definitely odd looking. They head for Switzerland, where they meet several people: Carroll, Young, and Percy Marmont (travelling with is wife and dog). Marmont soon appears to be the dangerous German agent that Ashenden and Lorre are to do in. And they do, in the most memorable portion of the film - only to discover subsequently that Marmont was not the spy.

Of course, barring Carroll, that leaves only one possibility, so the degree of surprise in the plot is less than desirable. Hitch overcomes this by taking our agents into the territories of the Central Powers after Young, and here Palmer enters the story (briefly - it was an early bit part). The conclusion is an exciting confrontation on a passenger train and a disaster. And Guilgud and Carroll are together for the romantic conclusion (not as good a romantic teaming as those of THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS or THE LADY VANISHES).

Of the major Hitchcock films from 1934 to 1939, SECRET AGENT is not one of the greatest. Guilgud was far too reserved in his part - good enough to watch but one would hardly think he was (at that time) the leading stage star in Britain. Lorre is better because of his eccentricity, and his blending of the sinister and comical (he is an assassin after all). Young, for the first time, played a villain - but nothing like his later performances in THE MORTAL STORM and THEY WON'T BELIEVE ME. Carroll is adequate, but her role opposite Robert Donat a year before was more interesting. A slightly better than average Hitchcock movie, but not a dull film by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, John Gielgud Really Was Young Once!

[bsmith5552 · 6/10 · 5 January 2007]

"Secret Agent" is a cloak and dagger spy yarn set in 1916 amid WWI. Directed by the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, it is unfortunately one of the weakest efforts from his British pre-WWII period.

The film opens at the funeral of Captain Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud)who has apparently died while home on leave. We learn however, that the British government has fabricated the death because they want him to undertake a special mission. From British Intelligence under a character known only as "R" (Charles Carcon), Brodie learns that his assignment will be to track down and kill a German spy who is undermining Britain's efforts to form an alliance with Arab countries. To assist him an eccentric character known only as "The General" (Peter Lorre) is assigned to him.

With his new identity, Richard Ashenden, he arrives in Switzerland and learns that as a cover, he has a "wife", Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll). When he arrives in his room, he discovers playboy Robert Marvin (Robert Young) putting the moves on Elsa. The Ashendens and "The General" begin their search for the German spy. They are directed to an organist in a small town who has information they need, but he is found dead. They then are led to suspect that Cayper (Percy Mormont) is their man. The men lure him into a ski area and "The General" causes him to have an unfortunate "accident". All the while they are away, Marvin continues to pursue Elsa.

Later they learn that they have murdered the wrong man and that the real German spy is still at large. "The General" learns from a comely young wench, Lili (Lili Palmer) that her fiancé (Howard Marion-Crawford) may have information that will identify the spy. In the suspenseful climax aboard a train going to Germany................................

John Gielgud, as good an actor that he was, just doesn't come off as a dashing leading man. It's difficult to imagine the beautiful Madeleine Carroll being romantically interested in him. He simply comes across as a stuffed shirt. Peter Lorre is way over the top as "The General". His role is played more for comic relief rather than the cold blooded killer he's supposed to be. I'm not quite sure how Robert Young, an American, came to be cast in this film. In any case he carries off his part quite well. And as was the case in several of his movies, Hitchcock again uses a train as a key plot item.

Watch for early appearances by Sebastian Cabot, Michael Redgrave and Michael Rennie in minor bit roles. I have to say that I missed Hitchcock's trademark cameo in this one. He's gotta be in there some place.

Classic early Hitchcock

[kiroman101 · 8/10 · 24 October 2005]

This, in my opinion, is one of the master's best early films, so good, in fact, that it begs for repeat viewing. That is the only way I know to absorb the subtle verbal repartees (observe the fascinating expressions and body language of Madeleine Carroll as she repeatedly defends herself from the blandishments of the affable American played by Robert Young); the hilarious malapropisms and convoluted syntax courtesy of the unpredictably eccentric Peter Lorre (there is good reason to believe this was unfeigned because Mr. Lorre, a Hungarian by birth who had achieved a well-deserved reputation as a chilling screen presence in German cinema before leaving for England following the National Socialist take-over, had not yet mastered the nuances of the English language); the classic understatement by that most aristocratic of all British actors, John Gielgud; and for those of us who never tire gazing at the incomparably beautiful Madeleine (Elsa) Carroll, the camera angles finally do justice to her divinely-wrought features (she also delivers her usual elegantly controlled performance). And, of course, there is all of the excitement and suspense one comes to expect from the great Alfred Hitchcock... Needless to say, I highly recommend this film.

A Good Early Hitchcock Film

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 11 January 2007]

During the 1930s, the "Master of Suspense" Alfred Hitchcock was still developing the film-making skills that would inevitably lead him towards cinematic greatness. 'Secret Agent' is one of two films he released in 1936 (the other being the surprisingly suspenseful 'Sabotage') and it is a worthy effort.

John Gielgud plays Edgar Brodie, a young British army officer whose faked death is orchestrated in order to assume a new identity as Richard Ashenden to aid in the assassination of a German spy. Madeleine Carroll is the young woman masquerading as Mrs. Ashenden, and she is very enthusiastic about her task, and dying to see some "action." Peter Lorre (a favourite actor of mine) plays a fellow British spy known affectionately as The General, who is playful and ardent womanizer, but, at the same time, a cold and ruthless killer when his job calls for it.

The acting performances are generally very good. Some have criticised Lorre for overplaying his role, but I enjoyed his reckless enthusiasm, a side of his character which contrasts starkly with the side he would later reveal.

The beginnings of the genius of director Alfred Hitchcock shine through in several parts of the film, most notably the scene involving a hike up the mountain with a suspected German spy, and the howling of the doomed man's dog. Though it is perhaps a bit slow-moving, 'Secret Agent' is a good film - most especially for curious Hitchcock fans - and I highly recommend it.

"Somehow I don't like murders at close quarters as much as I expected..."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 15 February 2006]

First off, I'll state that I enjoyed "Secret Agent", however on reflection, the story doesn't hold up realistically as the espionage drama it sets out to be. Not that it couldn't have been, it's just that the story development overlooked some important considerations. The main one is the integrity of Madeleine Carroll's character, Elsa Carrington. Presumably, Elsa is an agent assigned to assist novelist/aviator Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) in his new identity, that of Richard Ashenden. When the going gets tough after she gets romantically involved with Ashenden, she's ready to ditch him and seek escape in the company of their known target, a German courier named Robert Marvin (Robert Young). Had the British government known how wishy washy she was, would she have ever been given such an important mission? Come to think of it, how did she even become a spy? And how does Ashenden decide he's simply going to quit the mission after the wrong man is killed? Fortunately that didn't have to be answered, because he was back on the case quicker than a commercial break.

There are some other elements that stretch credibility also. While I can accept an intangible connection between a man and his pet, I found Caypor's dachshund to be absolutely psychic, so tuned in was he to his master's unfortunate death.

On balance though, the film is somewhat redeemed by an amazingly adept performance by Young's character as he attempts to woo Elsa, even though her cover was as wife of Ashenden. Director Hitchcock's reliance on humor was served well by their steady comedic banter which had a genuine naturalness to it. I won't get into Peter Lorre's characterization as the hairless Mexican, as even the film admits coming up short on that one. Lorre is gleefully crazed as he pounds walls with his fist and attacks a roll of toilet paper, which by the way, wasn't exactly in a bathroom, was it?

I don't quite know what to make of the climactic closing sequence. With Elsa once again changing stride in midstream, the British agents confront their quarry in a confined railroad car, the rest of the train brimming with German military. As English planes commence a bombing run and destroy the tracks, the train collides in a heap, leaving the four principals dazed in their compartment. As they all slowly come to, The General (Lorre) sets his handgun in front of the German agent, presumably to elicit his own suicide in a hopeless situation. Bad move, he uses it on The General. It reminded me of an earlier quote uttered by both Ashenden and The General in unison - "He hasn't got a copy of the rules".

The Moral Ambiguity of Sanctioned Murder and Other Humorous Anecdotes.

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 26 January 2008]

Despite the abject absurdity of Hitchcock's "Secret Agent", I adored it.

The film starts off as a farcical story following John Gielgud and Madeline Carroll - two novice British spies - hunting down a German agent with the help of a more experienced man - "The General" - a Mexican hilariously played by Peter Lorre. With these principal players, it should be no surprise that the performances are top-notch. However, given the fact that Lorre was, at the time, at one of the lowest points in his tumultuous but brilliant career, it is possible that his over-the-top and uncharacteristically comedic performance at least began unintentionally (and was exploited by the great director as a last-ditch effort to complete the film successfully).

The story is based rather loosely on a Somerset Maugham story translated for theater by Campbell Dixon then adapted by Hitchcock favorite Charles Bennett. Quite a bit, as you can well imagine, changes as a result of the translations from medium to medium.

The drama turns on a developing romance between Gielgud and Carroll's characters - and the burgeoning consciences which accompany it. Will they be able to carry out their patriotic duty if and when they finally track down their opponent, or will they fail? Furthermore, what will the zealous and perhaps a little psychotic General do if his co-conspirators drop out of the spy business at the last instant? Typical Hitchcock plot devices (i.e. trains, quirky romantic relationships, European ethnic stereotypes) make cameo appearances at appropriate points in the story, and enhance the experience for Hitchcock aficionados.

The script and general story-line is not one of the best Hitchcock would have access to throughout his career, but it is quite rich compared to some of the plots he worked with earlier in his career, and the director develops the comedy, suspense, and human drama economically and affectively, if not fully. The camera-work is, of course, good, but not nearly as experimental or interesting as many of Hitchcock's earlier and later films. This is generally true of most of Hitchcock's excellent efforts for Gaumont British Pictures of America during the 1930s (I.e. Sabotage, 39 Steps, etc) - very British films made with American/British casts and production for an international audience.

Though less suspenseful than many of Hitchcock's contemporaneous efforts, Secret Agent remains a good and entertaining example of Hitchcock in the 1930s.

Outlandish spy thriller, occasionally awkward but frequently very powerful.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 9 January 2007]

Alfred Hitchcock was riding the crest of one of his early masterpieces, The Thirty Nine Steps, when he released this unusual spy thriller based on the "Ashenden" escapades by W. Somerset Maugham. Secret Agent is a very impressive film, though one inevitably experiences a mild feeling of anti-climax when Hitch isn't able to reacquire the sublime heights of his previous film. But, as we all know, it's hard to strike gold EVERY single time, so it is perhaps unfair and irrelevant to compare the two films. Secret Agent is a worthy movie in its own right, with many powerful sequences and some fascinating performances. Certain moments might seem cluttered or awkward, but the overall result is an effective and well-made film.

During World War 1, British Intelligence fakes the death of a popular novelist named Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) and give him a new passport and identity. Posing under the name Ashenden, he is instructed to travel to Switzerland to locate and eliminate a German spy. It seems the spy in question is just about to head to Arabia to build sympathy and support for the German cause among the various Arab tribes. Ashenden's job is to stop this from happening. Joining Ashenden on his dangerous mission is a Mexican assassin known as the General (Peter Lorre) and a female spy called Elsa Carrington (Madeline Carroll) posing as Ashenden's wife. During their hunt for the enemy, Elsa finds herself pursued romantically by incorrigible American playboy Robert Marvin (Robert Young). Eventually the trio of agents think they've located their target in the shape of an elderly Englishman named Caypor (Percy Marmont). They lure him up a mountain on a climbing expedition and kill him, only to learn later that they've accidentally assassinated the wrong man. The real German spy is Marvin – Elsa's charming admirer – and in a desperate final chase into enemy territory they try to stop him from making his escape by train to Arabia.

The film is quite interesting in showing how Ashenden and Elsa grow to despise the dirty work they're involved in. In espionage, killing often takes place at close quarters and sometimes innocent lives are lost, or at least ruined, in the course of a day's work. While The General takes an obscene pleasure in his murderous trade, Ashenden and Elsa find it increasingly distasteful and devious. This kind of reaction is most unusual for a screen hero, and it makes the film rather different from the norm. Gielgud is OK in the lead role, but he is upstaged by the charismatic Lorre and the gorgeous Carroll. Some scenes in Secret Agent are slightly fudged, such as the chase in the chocolate factory which suffers from terribly fuzzy sound quality (it seems almost as if the sequence belongs in a silent movie). However, other scenes are tremendously powerful, especially the tense sequence in which Caypor is mistakenly killed during the climbing trip and the exciting train-set climax. Secret Agent is by no means the best film that Hitchcock made during his illustrious career, but it is proof once again that even when he was slightly off-form he was more than a match for other directors.

A muddle

[davidmvining · 5/10 · 22 June 2020]

I can understand why this is kind of a forgotten Hitchcock mystery thriller. It has most of the elements of a Hitchcockian adventure, but it doesn't quite gel together all that well. I think there are a few reasons why it doesn't really work, and they all extend back to the script. Loosely based on a series of short stories by W. Somerset Maugham, Secret Agent feels almost cobbled together from different stories or adventures and sometimes even different genres.

In the middle of World War I, British intelligence, manifested by a man named R, pull Captain Edgar Brodie from the front line and give him a new identity, Richard Ashenden. He's sent to Switzerland and the Hotel Excelsior where a German agent is in hiding. British intelligence does not know who he is, just that he's in that hotel, so it's up to Ashenden, and the agent "wife" they provide for him, Elsa, to identify him on their own. Alongside is The General, a not general played by Peter Lorre with a wig, a mustache, and an earring. He's quite the character, and he's obviously so.

Up to this point, there's nothing particularly wrong with the picture. It's fine and functional, a solid grounding for a spy adventure to come. The problem comes at about the halfway point when they think they get their man and they end up being wrong. The movie stops cold because there's a serious moral question that comes up and it shakes the pair of secret agents rather thoroughly. Suddenly, the movie isn't a spy adventure but a drama about the effects of the spy game and the fog of war on the individual caught in the middle of it.

Except that the movie is still going to push forward with the spy adventure stuff. It's that disconnect that really undermines what's going on. It splits in two. Ashenden and the General keep on with the spy adventure (prompted by a chance meeting that gets them going again, which is never a particularly satisfying way to move a plot forward after an hour). On the other hand, Elsa keeps on with the dramatic aspect (with a healthy dose of unearned pathos from a feeling of romance that's underserved and never feels genuine), skipping out on the spy game and Ashenden completely. The fact that she ends up running away with the actual spy (the only other prominent character in the film up to that point) and meets up with Ashenden as he has figured out who it is and tries to catch up is weird.

The movie ends with an appropriately climactic chase through a train that's technically competent but comes at the end of a movie that's been a rough journey, so it has limited impact.

Is it impossible to add in a heavy theme like the morals of spycraft and the fallout from a bad choice that leads to the death of an innocent man with a spy adventure? Not in the least. I could easily imagine that combination working really well. The problem is really the Elsa character. She's not terribly convincing in any major emotional thing she does, she doesn't affect the plot despite being one of the three protagonists, and her involvement tends to slow things down more than anything else. She feels like she was added late in the writing process to add a romantic interest and the dramatic question without really bothering with the two men who actually drive the plot forward.

It's a mixed bag. There's some basically entertaining stuff, mostly deriving from Peter Lorre and the chase sequences, but the mix of genres doesn't work and Elsa is not really a good character. It's an unfortunate step down from Hitchcock's masterfully entertaining The 39 Steps. Instead of the clear adventure, we get a muddle that attempts something serious and never finds a way to integrate it well. Oh well, I'm sure this Hitchcock fellow will manage to turn things around soon.

The oddest Hitchcock

[cstotlar-1 · 12 July 2011]

Hitchcock was an extremely visual film-maker as a rule and this film took an entirely different direction. What I remember most are the sounds - or more specifically, the noises. The discordant sound of the organ, for example, stands out. It isn't pretty and why should it be? The organist's dead after all. The noise in the chocolate factory is a continuous din relieved only by a fire alarm! Then, two of the main characters are caught in the bell-tower of a church when the bells begin to ring. Again, the sound isn't pleasant at all but quite annoying. A "musical" scene with yodelers ends up with coins being swirled around plates and is almost overbearing. The dog's howling in its psychic moment is long and unnerving. In all, these sound effects set the audience on edge which I think was part of the original plan. The two central characters are uneasy with their task and we are made to suffer too. This is an unusual film for Hitch and well worth the time.

Curtis Stotlar

Creaky but good

[holdencopywriting · 7/10 · 6 May 2007]

I would like to see a remastered version of Secret Agent. The versions I have seen (tv, VHS and DVD) have all been murky and hard to hear. Despite the creakiness of the film, it is a pleasure to see John Gielgud as he must have looked in his theater star days. I enjoyed him most in his scenes of repartee with Peter Lorre and with Madeleine Carroll. He conveys his growing affection for Carroll slowly and subtly, and I like the way he befriends Lorre yet manages to make it clear that he doesn't approve of him. However, I'm less impressed with the rest of the cast. Madeleine Carroll's performance overall is average and I find it hard to distinguish her from other 30s leading ladies. Peter Lorre always is worth seeing, but here a little of his off-the-wall performance goes a long way. It's interesting to see Robert Young as a young man and as a suspicious character. However, his portrayal is too bland to stand out much. Still, all in all, Secret Agent is well worth seeing. I suggest watching the hotel scenes between Gielgud and Carroll more than once--Gielgud really tosses off some witty dialogue and delightful bits of business in those scenes.

The greatest non-spy movie ever made

[rooprect · 7/10 · 16 August 2009]

With a title like "Secret Agent" and the stamp of Alfred Hitchcock, I'm sure most people are expecting a classic spy thriller with a suave, impeccable hero, a cold-hearted villain and a lot of patriotic drum beating. There's none of that here, and perhaps that's why this film gets a lot of abuse from reviewers.

No, what you get instead is a very realistic story (almost cynically so) where the hero is fallible and full of doubts, where the villain is someone whom you'd sooner buy a beer than hate, and where the political message of the film borders on anti-British at times (or as far as Hitchcock could go without being strung up for heresy). In that respect, this film is way ahead of its time--and perhaps still so, 70 years later.

In the late 30s when every British citizen was expected to do his or her duty without questioning orders, this film dared to present the notion that it's the individual who must think for himself, hold himself accountable for all errors, and never pass the buck as "just following orders". Perhaps if people had paid attention to this sort of message, the world wouldn't be in the sorry mess it's in now. But I'll leave it up to you do find the present-day significance of the theme.

The film itself has some absolutely brilliant moments. For one thing, there is no music. So, much like the Fritz Lang masterpiece "M", the suspense hangs entirely on the camera. There is one particular scene--one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever watched (yes more suspenseful than the Psycho shower)--that focuses almost entirely on a dog. A cute little weiner dog. But I swear my heart was beating a mile a minute. Why don't they ever teach this sort of stuff in film school? Future film makers of the world, please watch this old gem, take notes and learn. They just don't make em like this anymore.

Not quite ready for Hollywood

[Anne_Sharp · 7/10 · 13 September 2000]

Though definitely one of the better films of Hitchcock's British Primitive period, it's still hard to see the hand of the master craftsman who would make "Rebecca" in this interesting but clumsy spy melodrama. The two major problems in this film are John Gielgud, looking distinctly uncomfortable in a dashing leading man role that would have gone down much better with Robert Donat or Laurence Oliver, and Peter Lorre, not able to do much with the grotesque, embarrassing Mexican blackface minstrel routine the film forces on him. The film's saving graces are Robert Young as Gielgud's unsettlingly suave American rival, and Madeline Carroll, looking and sounding uncannily like Miranda Richardson as perhaps the most uncharacteristically vivacious of Hitchcock's cool blonde heroines.

Long before James Bond, we had this

[chris_gaskin123 · 7/10 · 16 January 2006]

Long before James Bond hit our screens, Alfred Hitchcock made this Bond type movie and I found Secret Agent quite enjoyable, even though there isn't an awful lot of action in it.

A pair of English agents, pretending to be husband and wife are sent to Switzerland to look for a German agent out there. The investigation eventually leads them to a chocolate factory, where they track him down. At the end, the two English agents fall in love for real.

Though a little slow moving at times, Secret Agent is quite gripping and has some good scenery thrown in too.

The cast includes John Gielgud, Peter Lorre (The Beast With Five Fingers, Mad Love), Madeleine Carroll, Robert Young and Lili Palmer. Good parts from all.

Though no James Bond, Secret Agent is worth a look. Check it out.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

John Gielgud as you've never seen him before

[lucy-19 · 9/10 · 11 December 2007]

Actually Gielgud is not bad at all as the novelist turned soldier turned spy. He has a fine, brittle way with a one-liner. Madeleine Carroll is excellent. This being Hitch, there are some tense scenes, like the one where the alleged baddie's wife is giving Madeleine a German lesson. As she stumbles over "Was kostet es...?" she can't help thinking about what's happening to the woman's husband. So the gossip is that Gielgud was persuaded to play the role because it was "Shakespearean", and his disappointment shows through? What an incredibly silly theory. Next you'll be telling me that you can see ghostly figures in the net curtains. But I can believe Hitch told Gielgud the character was like Hamlet. What happened to Hamlet? (Now listen carefully, this could help with your English essay.) He was told by a mysterious figure that it was absolutely necessary for him to kill a man. He spends a lot of the play wondering if he should, and wondering about the moral implications, and incidentally kills an innocent bystander. Now d'you get it?

Lots of fun

[jem132 · 7/10 · 24 April 2008]

This is a good early effort from Hitchcock. As the title implies, it's full of espionage, international intrigue and hidden motives, and it's very entertaining. A very young John Gielgud is the male lead who becomes embroiled in spy drama at the height of WW1. Madeleine Carroll is the very pretty, very English woman who, at the behest of the mysterious "R", comes along to help the British cause by posing as Gielgud's wife. Peter Lorre is Gielgud's curly haired sidekick "The General" with a ridiculously long name. Robert Young also plays a major role as a young man apparently after the hand of Carroll, yet who turns out to be someone far more sinister.

I enjoyed this film a lot. Hitchcock didn't have much of a budget to work with in this period, yet he creates a lot of suspense with what he has. The film is also very witty, and many moments are played for pure comedy. Gielgud is solid as the male lead, yet unfortunately lacks charisma. He is very much in the stiff upper-lip Brit style, and as a young man he hadn't developed enough as an actor to counteract this. Carroll is simply gorgeous and seems to have just exist rather then act, but her pluckiness is refreshing and she does a good job. Lorre overacts badly as The General. Young actually fares the best of all of them, even if it is confusing as to why this clearly American man is there at all. The film has a number of cool scenes, particularly the murder of a "wrong man" seen through telescope, Carroll and Gielgud in an intimate scene as the loved-up new couple, and the final tense scene aboard the train.

No Job For Amateurs

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 8 November 2007]

Secret Agent is filmed version of a W. Somerset Maugham novel in which Maugham relives some of his own experiences as an espionage agent during the first World War. Apparently what I got out of the film is that espionage just ain't a job for amateurs.

Maugham's protagonist here is John Gielgud and he's given a wife as part of his cover in the person of the beautiful Madeline Carroll. He's also got another companion in the person of a cheerful little assassin played by Peter Lorre. He easily steals the film from everyone involved.

Seen today, the special effects are themselves kind of amateurish with those model trains used. Of course Hollywood wasn't above doing the same thing in their B productions, but this was an A product for the British film industry by its most acclaimed director, Alfred Hitchcock.

Gielgud's supposed to investigate and finger an enemy agent who absolutely must be eliminated for reasons that are never really made clear in the film. Lorre's the professional here, maybe a little too professional when Gielgud fingers the wrong guy at first. Never mind, figures Lorre, we'll get the right one this time. Just collateral damage as the officials would say today.

Robert Young is also in the film over from America to play a helpful, but wolfish American who Carroll turns to for comfort because she's developed a real distaste for the job she has.

I'm betting that Somerset Maugham did in fact find the espionage business distasteful and wrote the same in this novel. But in this Hitchcock misfire, the only lesson I got from it was that espionage is best left to the professionals.

Underrated Hitchcock

[zetes · 9/10 · 4 April 2003]

The only thing generic about this British thriller is its title. After that, it's a rather remarkable and suspenseful Hitchcock movie. John Gielgud plays a WWI pilot who is hired by his government as a spy. He meets up with two operatives, one who is playing the part of his wife (Madeleine Carroll) and one who is just Peter Lorre. I'm not sure what his cover was (perhaps this is just a small flaw; I think that if these were real spies they wouldn't make it very far, but I think I'm mature enough to suspend my disbelief on this kind of thing). They are in Switzerland to root out a German spy. Robert Young plays an American tourist who has a thing for Carroll. The script is excellent, with some fine dialogue. The characters are well developed. Hitchcock's direction is super-taut. The acting is just great here, especially Peter Lorre, who is just delicious. One thing to note in this movie, as well as Hitch's other 1936 film, Sabotage, in my opinion one of his greatest achievements, is the weight that death carries. In most of his other films, the death of a human being is treated rather cynically. One need only view The Trouble with Harry, which displays Hitch's wildest cynicism. I don't particularly mind this normally, but it's interesting to see the moral implications explored more fully in Secret Agent and Sabotage. 9/10.

Somerset Maugham or Hitchcock?

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 1 May 2019]

Those who have read Somerset Maugham's works will not find the tale unusual or fascinating. The Ashenden tales were interesting semi-autobiographical incidents published as novels and shortstories. Hitchcock's film script is built on those Maugham tales.

What then is Hitchcock's contribution? First, the casting of the young John Gielgud and the almost unrecognizable Lili Palmer alongside the scene-stealer Peter Lorre deserve credit. The editing of the chocolate factory sequence is truly remarkable, with touches of Eisenstein's editing skills. The humour of the one-armed spy dropping an empty coffin while trying to lift it was stretching Hitchcockian humour with little purpose.

Where the morality of cold-blooded killing gets some into hot water.

[RJBurke1942 · 4/10 · 27 April 2008]

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.