Laquelle des trois?

Very funny. I never realized Hitchcock could do slapstick. Surprised to find the story and characters easy to follow and identify with even with the near lack of title cards. The best silent Hitchcock film I have seen and maybe the funniest film he ever made.

After his wife dies, and their daughter marries, lonely widowed farmer Jameson Thomas (as Samuel Sweetland) decides to look for holy matrimony with another woman. With the help of devoted housekeeper Lillian Hall-Davis (as Minta Dench) and handyman Gordon Harker (as Churdles Ash), Mr. Thomas proposes to three matronly prospects: independent widow Louie Pounds (as Louisa Windeatt), frigid spinster Maud Gill (as Thirza Tapper), and pillowy postmistress Olga Slade (as Mary Hearn). None of the women prove to be satisfactory, but Thomas' ideal mate is closer than he thinks…

If "The Farmer's Wife" were filmed a few years earlier, in Hollywood, with Wallace Reid and Norma Shearer, we might have had four decades of romantic Alfred Hitchcock comedies… well, maybe not. Anyway, it's a good silent moving picture. The opening sequence, which shows the sad passing of the farmer's wife, is very effective; it's a good change from the original play, considering the silent film medium. But, this film is too long, with the daughter's marriage immediately and unnecessarily dragging the story down; moreover, the ending is drawn out. Mr. Hitchcock's food filming fetish is evident throughout - nobody touches Ms. Gill's gelatin!

****** The Farmer's Wife (3/2/28) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Jameson Thomas, Lillian Hall-Davis, Gordon Harker, Maud Gill

I saw this years ago, enjoyed but forgot about it. On retrospect it seems a very long drawn out 96 minute comedy film with a flimsy plot, even so I wonder what a 129 minute version would be like.

Jameson Thomas plays thicko widower farmer who can't see beyond the end of his nose when it comes to looking to honour a woman by marrying him. It's obvious from the first reel what the story will be and the eventual conclusion, but for all that it's still well worth watching. Some of the outdoor shots are delightful, portraying the English countryside impressionistically, the indoor usually portray people in the throes of pigging themselves within slapstick routines. The farmers' handyman Gordon Harker was even stranger than his master, with make up absolutely caked on his face for some reason.

Altogether, a nice little film, totally inconsequential but with some nice touches from Hitch and fluid camera movements, all helping maintain interest.

The first half is rather slow, but keep going - it's definitely worth it. The humour in Hitchcock's films is generally based around great character actors (e.g. Jessie Royce Landis in To Catch a Thief and North by NorthWest), and here not one of the actors disappoints. Lillian Hall Davis has a better part in the Ring (also 1928 - Gordon Harker is again very amusing in it too), but is lovely in this film. Sound would have added nothing. My 8-year old daughter was apprehensive about watching a silent film, but once things started to get going in the second half, was hooked.

Hitchcock referred to it in later years as one of his "photographed plays", but the action occurs in several locations, so is nowhere near as constrained as many of his films (plays or not). In fact, even though the location shots are few and far between, they really give this film a non-studio feel.

All of Hitchcock's films are notable for their visual storytelling (look at the initial scene-setting in Rear Window that speaks volumes without a single word being uttered), and it is interesting to see the origins of this, and the great influence of German Expressionism.

If you loved Sir Alfred Hitchcock and his contributions and services to the film industry, you should see all of his films for study and preservation. This is one of his early silent films. If you have the patience to watch a two hour silent film, it's not that easy. We're so used to speeches and conversations that we forget to watch and see their facial reactions in the early age of cinema. This film is more comedic than dark and dramatic. While the story is more farcical, it is nice to see Hitchcock have a sense of humor since he became more known for the macabre in his films. It is not hard to believe that film audiences didn't laugh and enjoy this film in the cinema in 1928 long before the Great Depression. Still, I would watch it again if I had too. It's not a bad film. You wouldn't know Hitchcock directed it.