Der Weltmeister

"The Ring" is, for me, Hitchcock's best silent feature. It is a nippy little romance which sprints along with a surprisingly swift pace.

There's the typical early Hitch experimentation - the camera getting "knocked out" in a boxing scene is a prime example and some fine comedic moments in what is otherwise a pretty serious story of love and betrayal although, with the boxing backdrop, the rather mundane story is slightly more exciting.

Less gimicky than the more famous "The Lodger", and therefore more believable, "The Ring" is an underrated, early effort from the man who went on to become one of the most celebrated directors in the world.

NB. Catch hold of the BFI release of this video if you can - the score is superb and by far the best new music I have heard composed for a silent movie.

Alfred Hitchcock's only screen writing credit follows the story of two aspiring boxers as they slowly work their way to the top of their game. 'One-Round' Jack (Carl Brisson) works in a carnival show, using the gimmick of being able to knock any challengers out in one round to draw the crowds. When onlooker Bob Corby is reluctantly talked into going a round with Jack, he knocks him out, much to Jack's dismay and surprise. Caught between the two fighters is Jack's girlfriend Mabel (Lilian Hall Davis) who takes a liking to Bob, especially as he begins his rise up the boxing ranks. As Jack's frustration and jealousy grows, so does his success. As the two fight their way to the top, the likelihood of a climatic bout between the two protagonists increases with every fight. Ultimately it becomes a mental and physical battle for the love of Mabel.

The meaning of the title is multi-layered - of course referring the boxing ring, but also the arm bracelet that Mabel receives from Bob that comes to represent the everlasting loop that the three lead characters are caught up in. Although relatively little-seen compared to some of the popular boxing movies, Hitchcock's silent has undoubtedly had a great impact of the sport genre, especially on Scorsese's Raging Bull. Hitchcock was fascinated with boxing - the idea of a physical and mental duel between two gladiators, and also with the dirty feel of the arena. Halls would be filled by both smartly-dressed socialites, and the working-class looking for a bit of escapism. The place would be filled with cigarette smoke, sweat and dirt trampled in by the masses. Although this doesn't quite have the cinematic flair of Scorsese's masterpiece, the photography is clearly comparable, and is extremely impressive given its era. This is Hitchcock's early experiment, where he would develop techniques he would come to perfect in his long-list of truly great films. A fascinating film from the man that would become one of the giants of cinema.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

"The Ring" is a surprisingly torpid little film which I thought was not one of The Master's better efforts. Yes, yes, I know, there were some of his signature cinematic compositions and visual touches, but the play's the thing, right? This was pretty ordinary subject matter for someone with Hitch's reputation - love triangle, jealousy, revenge, etc. There were no surprises, no maguffins, no suspense, just plodding drama.

Maybe the best part of this film is the casting. I enjoyed watching Carl Brisson very much as the cuckolded husband, "One-Round Jack" and the always affable Ian Hunter - even when playing a cad, although he is slightly paunchy for a heavyweight champ. Hitch also got a lot of mileage from the entertaining Gordon Harker as Jack's second.

But I disagree with some reviewers that this was one of Hitchcock's better silents. "The Manxman" is a far superior film, and also stars Brisson as a cuckolded husband. That was a story you could get your teeth into; not so with "The Ring", which was pure pablum.

The story here is very slight, but it is told well by Hitchcock, with excellent choices of lighting and distances and a number of neat tricks. The editing is excellent, with dissolves effectively used throughout, and the simple cuts are perfectly timed. There is some clever image distortion, superb photography in general, and the film even manages to include some apt comedy relief, thanks largely to Gordon Harker's comic acting abilities. There is a dream sequences that is arguably poorly handled, and the story is downright predictable, but generally it is hard to hold anything against this early Hitchcock silent film.

I really wanted to like this one, even watching it twice in the past week, thinking that it might grow on me (as Hitchcock's Number Seventeen has done, slightly) but it just doesn't do anything for me. Apparently, it didn't do much for the audiences in 1927 either, because from what I've been able to find out about it, despite being popular with critics, it sank at the box office.

Hitchcock not only directed but also wrote this boring melodrama, a combination of two of my least favourite genres: boxing, and romance. The world of boxing provides the backdrop for this formulaic triangle between two competitors and the girl who loves them both: but which man does she really want to marry?

The title is good, with several layered meanings in relation to the story. The fact that the film used few title cards was unique, letting visuals tell the story by themselves. There are a lot of clever visuals by Hitchcock: as we look up through the water of a pond at the two lovers; placing the ring on her finger at the marriage ceremony, only to have the bracelet slip down to her wrist, reminding her (and the audience) of the other man; girl, sitting on hubby's lap, glances across the room toward a mirror, and sees reflection of the "other man"; fingers flittering away on the ivories, distorted - but the plot, again written by Hitchcock himself, was a routine melodrama which could hardly hold my attention.

Beautiful, slightly Gothic looking church in which the ceremony occurs is an asset to the film in its few, brief scenes. Goofball comically blowing the suds off the beer, then downing it, and the film's subsequent distorted Point-Of-View shot is an amusing moment. Was this film, released October 1927, the first to use POV shots?