Le ring

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?

"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 symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.

It's basically just a love-triangle story, but Hitchcock's storytelling skills and mastery of silent film techniques make "The Ring" well worth watching. There is a lot of visual detail and symbolism that add meaning to a basically routine story about small-time boxer Jack, his girl, and the champion who gives Jack his big break but who also tries to steal his girl.

The opening sequence establishes the triangle amidst the colorful atmosphere of a traveling show, where Jack takes on all comers inside a tent. It is filled with a lot of detail, especially the bracelet that Bob, the champion, gives to Jack's girl, which is important as a plot element and as a symbol. (This "ring" is one of several meanings of the film's nicely-chosen title.) Most of the plot that follows is predictable, as it is clear from the beginning that someday Bob and Jack will have to square off in the ring with more than Bob's title at stake. But if the story is routine, Hitchcock's technique is not. There are a lot of creative touches that develop the characters and story, and that add humor and interest. The cast is pretty good, and some of the secondary characters from the traveling show are very funny in the earlier scenes.

This is certainly an old-fashioned movie, and won't be of general interest today, but it's a nice little film. Anyone who likes silent films or who wants to see something quite different from the "Master of Suspense" should find this worth a look.