Benutzerrezensionen

... but it is an adequate way to explain the dynamic for Americans.

Alfred Hitchcock directs this adaptation of John Galsworthy's play. The moneyed, cultured Hillcrists battle against the nouveau riche Hornblowers, the latter headed by the ambitious, combative patriarch (Edmund Gwenn). Their squabbles over the use of farm land for industrial purposes ends up causing heartache and tragedy for both families. Featuring C. V. France, Helen Haye, and Jill Esmond as the Hillcrists, and John Longden, Phyllis Konstam, and Frank Lawton as the other Hornblowers. With Herbert Ross, Dora Gregory, and Edward Chapman.

This had already been filmed (also with Gwenn) in 1921. The class-conscious storyline resonated well with the British, I suppose. Gwenn plays his role big, and is a stark contrast to his later, best-known Kris Kringle role in Miracle on 34th Street. Jill Esmond, the first wife of Laurence Olivier and originally the bigger star in the marriage, has one of her better film roles. As for Hitchcock's direction, the only stand-out scene is a lengthy auction with a lot of rapid-cut edits.

The early 30s were a time of experimentation for Hitchcock, with theme as much as with technique. After discovering that the crime thriller was his forte with Blackmail and Murder!, his at the time zigzagging career lead him to attempt a talkie drama adapted from a fairly mediocre stage play concerning a feud between the families of an aristocrat and an entrepreneur.

In attempting a straight ahead drama without any major thriller elements, Hitchcock nevertheless employs all the techniques he had been perfecting in his earlier crime pictures – dynamic editing, a focus on the psychology of guilt and fear, as well as some of the sound techniques of his previous talkies. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. He tries to inject some tension into an auction scene with whip pans and quick editing, which is a fairly good display of technique but we don't really care enough about the outcome of the bidding to get really drawn in at this point.

For some of the more talky scenes, Hitchcock tries to move beyond the story's theatrical roots by focusing on reactions and having dialogue take place off screen. This helps to give weight to the second half of the film. In particular, Hitch's dwelling on the face of Chloe, the innocent victim of the feud, makes the audience feel sympathy for her character, which in turn makes the climactic scenes work and prevents them from slipping into ridiculous melodrama (which the stage version may well have done). For some of the more subdued scenes, Hitchcock preserves an unbroken take but still takes the focus on and off different characters by smoothly dollying in and out. This same method would be used by Laurence Olivier when he began directing Shakespeare adaptations in the 1940s. However, too many of the dialogue scenes in The Skin Game are simply a lot of panning as the camera tries to keep up with extravagant theatrical performances.

This is a fairly good go at theatrical drama for Hitchcock, but it was made at a time when he was coming to realise not only his strength in the suspense thriller, but his weakness in (and utter distaste for) every other genre. He was probably beginning to look at this kind of project as a rather dull waste of time, and definitely at odds to his sensibility. As an example, this is one of the very few Hitchcock pictures to take advantage of natural beauty, and yet he makes this aspect a victim of his playful irony, by taking his most beautiful countryside shot, then pulling out to reveal it is merely a tiny picture on a sale poster, surrounded by Hornblower and his cronies laughing over the deal they have just made.

The Skin Game is rarely gripping, but at times it is powerful, and in any case it has a short enough running time to prevent it from getting boring. Hitchcock however was looking now to have more fun with crime and suspense, and this sense of the dramatic (not to mention a sense of genuine sympathy for the victim) would not return until his later Hollywood pictures, and even then only occasionally.

Technical crudities, print/sound deficiencies and dated acting styles taken into consideration, "Skin Game" still has innovative (for the time) camera techniques and thematic ambiguity (who is right and who is wrong? Who are the true villains of the story?) and is generally better than other, more "typical" Hitchcock films of the period, like "Murder!" from 1930.Edmund Gwenn is terrific and Phyllis Constam is quite sexy. (**1/2)

"The Skin Game" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's earlier sound pictures, and although the story held potential, it is a rather bland film despite a couple of good Hitchcock touches.

The story centers on a rivalry between two neighboring families who have very different views on the future of their community. Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) wants to see the land developed and used for factories and businesses, while the Hillcrest family wants to see the traditional homes and countryside preserved. The resulting conflicts hold some real potential, and lead to some good moments as the families try to outwit each other in a "skin game", but the movie as a whole is never really very compelling.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly why this is not a better film. There are no big names in the cast, but Hitchcock made several fine movies with just this sort of cast. Gwenn is good in his role, and Phyllis Konstam is believable and sympathetic as his daughter-in-law whose troubled past eventually provokes a crisis between the two families.

Perhaps Hitchcock stayed too close to the play on which the film is based (it does have a bit of a stage-bound feel), or perhaps for once he did not have a strong sense of the material's potential.

Hitchcock saved his best for the movie's most important scene, when a crucial parcel of land is auctioned off. The auction scene, and a confrontation afterwards between the main characters, is well-done with some good twists.

There are also some nice ironic touches at the end.

Hitchcock fans should still watch "The Skin Game" at least once, to notice the ways that the director's usual touch can be seen, but this movie may not be of much interest to others.

On average, this is perhaps the lowest-rated of all Hitchcock's films among professional critics, but while I cannot call it good, in my opinion it is not even in Hitchcock's bottom 10. Like his worst, "Juno and the Paycock" from the previous year, it is essentially a filmed play, but it is somewhat less stage-bound and certainly more interesting, if not very. At least one scene (the auction) is distinctly Hitchcockian in style, and Phyllis Konstam is wonderful.

Fine and interesting story from the play of the same name adapted by Alfred Hitchcock himself and his wife and usual writer Alma Reville . Dealing with two British families : the aristocratic Hillcrist family, and Hornblower family headed by proud and ambitious Mr. Hornblower : Edmund Gwenn , both of them feud over land rights . As the latter , the mercilessly pushy Mister Hornblower sends away and evicts poor farmers to build factories on their lands . After that , Mr. Hornblower outwits Hillcrist in an auction for an additional piece of area property , the wealthy Hillcrists find their big estate completely surrounded by the upstart Hornblower . Things go wrong when Mrs. Hillcrest settles a terrible secret about a dark past of the Hornblower family .

It isn't thrilling , neither suspenseful , non characteristic of working with Hitchcock , but a tumultuous and strong drama . Way too much talking in excruciating , long and drawn-out scenes . This is a brooding drama whose premise turns out to be the hard confrontation between a rich family , the Hillcrests , fighting against the speculator who attempts to make a chimneyed factory complex , Hornblower , then emerges a dark secret resulting in tragic consequences , as it is used as a blackmail againts the speculator and force him to stop doing business . Performances are uniformly good , though in an excessive theatrical style . Based on a successfyl play and still stunningly hypnotic to see today . In fact , being , nowadays ,more stimulating for its innovations in that area , and by experimenting with a peculiar narrative structure . This fine early effort by Hitch has several novelties , as the movie transcends the limitation of its dramatic plot by dealing with thought-provoking issues and focusing on the theatrical meditations of reality . Here Alfred gives a few signs to be an expertise at tightening tension that was already building up . Main known actor results to be Edmund Gwen , giving a nice acting as the nouveau riche, social climber Mr. Hornblower who buys a lot of property abutting their state. Along with other notorious but unknown actors such as : Jill Esmond , Helen Haye , Phyllis Konstam, John Longden, Frank Lawton , C. V. France , Herbert Ross , among others .

This early talkie motion picture was well realized by the famous Alfred Hitchcock and made in his previous British period . His first sound film for Great Britain was ¨Blackmail¨, being made as a silent movie , this one was really an early talkie . This film ¨Skin Game¨1931 belongs to Hitch's first British epoch when he directed silent films, such as ¨The lodger¨ (1926) , ¨The ring¨(1927) , ¨Easy virtue¨ (1927) , ¨The Manxman¨(29) ; being ¨Blackmail¨(29) made as a silent , this was reworked to become a talkie . Following sound movies and early talkies as ¨Murder¨(1930 , ¨June and the Paycock¨(30) , ¨Rich and strange¨(32) , ¨Number 17¨(32) , ¨The man who knew too much¨(34) , ¨The 39 steps¨ (35) , ¨The secret agent¨(36) , ¨Sabotage¨(36) , ¨The lady vanishes¨(38) , ¨Jamaica Inn¨ (39) until he is hired by David O'Selznick to shoot¨Rebecca¨(40) in the US and continuing with other popular movies and masterpieces with world successes .

The Skin Game is mediocre at best when it comes to stories - a story of two rich families with a petty argument between them which turns into an all out war of families feuding with a very tragic ending. All this drama over a petty argument.

The best parts of the film is the auction, just as others have mentioned. It really is an intense scene and very well filmed at that. I loved the camera motion here when we saw the auctioneer's view point with edits to view the auctioneer as well. The other best part of the film is the ending, it's sad, tragic and nicely filmed as well. The rest of the movie is very, very dry or bland.

The film is worth watching if you are really into young Alfred Hitchcock's directing career or just want to see a melodrama that you have yet to see. I would not say this is a film that most people would enjoy - I honestly believe that most would be bored to tears unless they are viewing the auction scene.

5/10

I recently saw Hitchcock's "Rich and Strange" and really enjoyed it, so I was game for another go at this early 1930's British cinema, in my attempt to become a "Hitchcock completist." Please keep in mind that I'm an American with a pretty-good ear for British dialog, but there are some speeches contained here that I couldn't understand in the least. But only a fairly small portion that is. The early sound equipment doesn't help either.

The title "The Skin Game" refers to a heated altercation that leaves no holds barred, and no prisoners taken. The plot line is essentially a "Hatfields and McCoys" family feud over land rights, with a lot of dirt being dug up on both families involved. Like pretty much all early sound films, there is a heavy reliance on dialog and the spoken phrase, which makes "The Skin Game" obviously derived from the stage.

At the beginning there's a long take with probably ten pages of dialog in it, using a medium shot of three characters, with the camera panning between them. At least once, someone was speaking dialog while not on camera, which I always find distracting -- a minor flaw I admit, but noticeable. Hitchcock's pacing feels relatively quick considering, and he keeps interest in these scenes with dramatic exits and entrances of characters, and revelations of plot details.

Really some of these takes were so long that actors coughed, dropped things and retrieved them, and other apparent flubs that were never re-shot. Seems like once the director was five minutes into a scene he couldn't afford the film stock to begin again, so there are a lot of miscues and such, which kind of adds to the immediacy. Especially considering that I'm certain that even the young Hitchcock was keenly aware of every missed cue and dropped line, and it had to drive him to distraction! I was certainly impressed by this early Hitchcock effort and I'm sure that audiences back then went away from this one with the feeling that they got their money's worth. It was apparent that an extremely talented film maker was at work here, trying to keep the audience involved every step of the way. And he did succeed actually.

For instance, there is a scene at an auction house that lasts for about ten minutes, and Hitchcock sets it up in such a way to keep the audience anxiously awaiting the outcome. He has the camera making very fast pans from one bidder to the next, slowing down only when the bidding does. The audience has some background information about the proceedings, but not enough to spoil the surprise at the end.

It's early sound cinema -- so most viewers today can't bear this kind of thing, but if you're familiar with and enjoy films of the early 20Th Century, it's extremely enjoyable and does have a payoff at the end! *** out of *****

There is a strong plot here - compelling, and surprisingly dark. It's a pity the construction of the film doesn't match it.

There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.

True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.

Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.

I found it hard to not think about Juno and the Paycock as I finished The Skin Game and read the little there is to read about it. Much like the former picture, The Skin Game is based on a play, but unlike Juno, it actually feels like a movie. Hitchcock wasn't able to do much in terms of scripting and the choice of the project wasn't his being a studio assignment and limited by contract to keep pretty much all of the original play intact, but it doesn't feel like someone set up a camera in front of a theater stage and just filmed the actors. I was really surprised to see that The Skin Game actually has a rather negative reputation, being tossed off as almost nothing. I actually quite liked it.

It's the story of two families at war, particularly the patriarch of the nuevo-riche Hornblower family and the matriarch of the old money Hillcrist family. Hornblower is new to the area and buying up as much of the land in order to create an industrial base while the Hillcrist's remain utterly opposed to the changing of a single thing in the area from building more chimneys (factories) to removing a single couple from their cottage of 30 years. What I found most interesting about the film's structure was that the rather generic feeling families at the beginning gain layers and break out of their stodgy stereotypes.

We start the film with Hornblower evicting that elderly family from their cottage of thirty years, in contradiction of the gentleman's agreement he had made with Hillcrist when he bought the land. There's something different afoot when, making a call at the Hillcrists, Hornblower says, "Well, if it's important to you, why don't you build them a cottage?" The Hillcrists refuse. Hornblower owns the cottage now and he has a use for it (to house the workers of his new factories), but Hillcrist insists on simply sitting on the sidelines and telling those around him what to do without doing anything himself.

The action really turns around the purchase of one large piece of untouched land called the Centry. Hornblower goes to buy it, but the Hillcrist agent convinces the owner to put the land up for auction instead. The auction scene is the most cinematic of the movie with whip pans between the different bidders and a great use of sound as the auctioneer takes the bids and others speak in whispers. Hornblower gets the land at an inflated price because of Hillcrist's bids, and Lady Hillcrist decides to take her vengeance. The tool of that vengeance is Hornblower's daughter-in-law, who has a past of helping men get divorces by being the "other woman". It's a sordid bit of business, but Lady Hillcrist has few qualms about using this information to hurt Hornblower.

And that is really the crux of why I like this movie, I think. First off, Lady Hillcrist and Mr. Horblower are played by Helen Haye and Edmund Gwenn who originated the roles on the stage. They're great in the roles. Secondly, Lady Hillcrist is an evil woman who will destroy the life of a young woman, pulling herself up from the dregs of society and her own past of sin through an advantageous marriage. Hornblower, the supposedly amoral man of no name, sacrifices everything he has gained in the area to try and support his daughter-in-law, giving up the Centry in order to try and protect her.

Hitchcock has a very good cast, uses his camera and the tools of editing to create a film that feels like more than just a filmed play. It also continues a series of films he had made about young men and women paying for the sins of their past, a theme that is surprisingly strong especially considering the nature of Hitchcock's contract work. It's a good film filled with strong performances. I do not understand the dismissal so many have towards it.

Sir Alfred Hitchcock's early works in his screen adaptation of a play entitled "Skin Game." It is easy to see why this film is forgettable. First, there are too many characters in the film. The script is uneven at times. They have great cast members like Jill Esmond and Edmund Gwynn there. Many of the cast members here are known for their theatrical backgrounds. The film is about aristocracy, business, and the changing guard in England. The film's complicated plot involves blackmail and bait and switch scheme. This film never really develops in the first viewing. I give kudos for Hitchcock about a woman who uses her female prowess to help unhappy husbands get a divorce. In the thirties, women's sexual behavior remained taboo in films.

Two neighboring families with large estates become rivals. The Hillcrists are an old family with a long history on their estate. The Hornblowers are new arrivals buying up local farms to build a factory.

This British talkie film is most notable for its director Alfred Hitchcock. He's obviously trying different ideas. Some work more than others. I couldn't really care less about the characters or the plot. It's Hitchcock's camera work that is the most interesting. First, he's doing long single takes with the dialogue and this does not make it any better. He's operating the camera almost as one of the characters on stage. He's panning the camera back and forth. It's fascinating but it's also not working. There are other filming choices. There are some beautiful visual compositions. There is one crazy single shot scene at the auction. I've seen anything like it and it's better than most modern work. It does go on for too long but that's part of the experimentation. I can't say that I love this movie but I do love Hitchcock trying some interesting ideas.

In this spin on Romeo & Juliet, two families try to one-up each other with disastrous results. It's not an overly compelling movie, though, with long stretches of nothing really happening. The ending, however, packs an emotional punch along with a not-so-subtle message about holding grudges.

Mr. Hornblower, an up-and-coming industrialist, is buying up land in the county, much to the disgust of the old money Hillcrists. They previously sold a property to Hornblower with the proviso that the current tenants would not be evicted and now he's kicking them out so that he can build on the land. After a bit of skulduggery at the auction, Hornblower buys up a prized piece of land, further cementing his hold on the region. Now the Hillcrists come into some information which should persuade Hornblower to back off.

An Alfred Hitchcock film that is more political drama than the suspense-thrillers he is known for. "Political" in that this film involves power plays, machinations and general manoeuvring for position.

Quite interesting, the cut and thrust of it all. Is a bit dry at times but reasonably intriguing and the plot has a good, upshot and moral.

Won't be remembered among Hitchcock's best but worth watching.

This early talkie suffers from the fact Hitchcock was rather hemmed in by the John Galsworthy play it's adapted from. He wasn't allowed to influence the script it as much as he was later in his career, and so it's not quite as human as you'd expect. And of course some of the characters' attitudes (especially towards women) are very much of their time.

As a grim drama, it's not bad at all. It's a decent story with a good old-fashioned moral at the end of it. Edmund Gwenn is an actor I would loved to have seen on stage in his heyday, and his performance is excellent here - it's just a shame it's all-but-ruined by his horrendous Generic Middle Class Industrialist Regional Accent, which seems to be half Yorkshire and half Brummie.

There are a couple of interesting moments in terms of filmmaking - the hectic market scene; a cut from what we think is a view out of the window to a poster on a wall; and of course the rather daring (for the time) whip pans in the auction scene. Hitchcock also chooses to have several large chunks of dialogue delivered off screen, too, another in the long list of Voyeuristic Hitchcock Moments.

Verdict: If you're looking for classic Hitchcock, look elsewhere.

yetanotherfilmreviewblog.tumblr.com

I feel many writers and critics, David Sterritt, Donald Spoto to name but two are too dismissive of this movie. With the technological restrictions of the very early talkie, Hitchcock as used his artistry to compose fluidity and cinematic suture to a rather stolid Galsworthy play. Already mentioned are the innovative zip pans, he also has intelligent use of dissolve, symbolism aplenty within montage sequences, sheep v horn (Hillcrest v Hornblower). The juxtaposition in the opening sequence of the car and the horse sets the theme beautifully. Occasionally there is daring reverse shots of the same objects defying the 180 degree rule, especially noticeable as we break into the proscenium arch of theatre.

In one of Hitchcock's slowest moving films, we see the tense interaction between two feuding families with different plans for the future of their community. There is a piece of land at the center of the dispute, which one family wants to use to preserve a life of family and tradition, and the opposing family wants to use to build a scenery-killing but productive factory.

The film is based on a play and is not only extremely slow moving, but Hitchcock, with the exception of only a few scenes, simply points and shoots throughout the majority of the film. In the film's defense, the script is exceptional, but the problem is that the film is a technical mess, with the sound quality coming and going with such extremes that at times no audible dialogue can be heard at all. You can catch the crackling pace of the script but there are so many scenes where the film drags almost to a stop and Hitchcock does little to make up for it.

The pace picks up slightly when the scandal involving the daughter in law comes in, but compared to what we have come to expect from Hitchcock, both before and after this point in his career, cause this one to fall pretty low on the relevance scale. A curiosity piece for Hitchcock fans and completists, though.