Elstree Calling

Elstree Calling (1930), like most of the revues of the era, has some high points and misfires. Hitchcock's linking material here can be quite funny, and the colour sequences aren't bad (even if "The Thought Never Entered My Head" is a bit ungainly). A pleasant goof, for most

This is interesting as a period piece. It is also of interest to Hitchcock fans.

Rather like the better-known American film King of Jazz, it is a collection of sketches albeit from the British music halls. Alas, this film is not nearly so good.

Sadly the music hall acts do not work so well on film. Will Fyffe, composer of "I Belong to Glasgow" in particular dies the death of a dog in a ditch.

There is a little Russian folk instruments orchestra who are uncredited. They probably only cost the studio ten pounds for the lot, and they may have been the same musicians who accompanied the great bass singer Fyodor Shalyapin on some of his best known records. To me they are the one act who come across well in this film. (Unlike Will Fyffe, balalaikas and domras will hold their own anywhere.) Sadly we may never know their names.

I doubt if the film makers were aware that what they were producing was a time capsule.

Is it worth it to buy this movie? To a Hitchcock fanatic like myself (Vic Evans)I would say "Yes!" but to any person other than a movie historian I would say "Forget it!"

It is a collection of skits and songs with a bit of comedy in the form of a London stage musical and comedy "Vaudeville" revue. Revues like this one have been done on the London stage from time to time since Vaudeville days. I remember seeing one in London in 1974 called "Carry On London" with Sid James and many other members of the "Carry On" movie comedy crew.

"Elstree Calling" (1930) is presented in the form of a very early live TV broadcast hosted by Tommy Handley. You also see a family attempting to tune into this program. Every so often between skits, you see how they are making out. They experience great difficulty throughout the show. The picture comes and goes as they attempt to adjust the set. The TV set even blows up and is later repaired. By the end of the presentation, the reception finally is restored and the program ends. The problems with this new medium (television) is one of the running jokes.

To the audiences of today it is of little interest. The singing, dancing and comedy is standard for this type of English variety show of the day but terrible by today's standards. For dancing, think of "The Pleasure Garden" as a comparison. Those familiar with Hitchcock's work may remember "Mr. Memory" from "The Thirty-Nine Steps". The music hall in that film is a similar setting. Alfred Hitchcock said to Francois Truffaut about this film - `Not good.'

There is little evidence of Hitchcock except perhaps for a short scene about a murder of the "wrong man". You should recognise the Hitchcock touch in it.

While I don't think anyone knows for sure, I have read that Alfred Hitchcock may have been responsible for the TV broadcast/TV viewing family framework that links the skits together and a running gag with Donald Calthrop attempting to recite Shakespeare periodically throughout the broadcast.

Best wishes,

Vic Evans (marmalade_man [NOSPAM] at yahoo.com

I've always wanted to see proper vaudeville live. The ever-changing tones, acts, talents, & forms seem like a lively style of theater. Onscreen, however, it's just a mess. I think we're taught to expect a through-line in film, & there simply isn't one. Not to mention several of the segments are hindered by mawkish emotion, unoriginal musical numbers, or straight racism. Still, there are good pieces (fat musician, "wrong apartment", recurring Shakespeare joke).

A distinctly off-form Tommy Handley introduces this rather curious piece of cinematic entertainment that features a variety of stars from the British stage at the end of the 1920s. The mixture of musical, comedy and magical turns illustrates well just quite how a real pot-pourri of acts took to the stage in theatres up and down the UK - but there is no audience. Without the engagement, even applause, from those watching the whole thing comes across as a rather sterile collection of concert performances, as if filmed in an empty television studio. It has a couple of rather tenuous continuing threads that try to hold it together - one features a fellow with an elementary television trying, unsuccessfully usually, to catch some of the performance on his set. The other, has a more contrived Shakesperian theme to it that coupled with a lot of Handley's equally over-cooked links make this all rather a disjointed, and frankly rather staccato film to watch. As a curiosity, it is certainly worth a watch - but mainly just as a bit of nostalgia.