L'homme qui en savait trop

Both versions of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" are well worth watching, and each one has its own strong points. While this British version cannot match the Hollywood remake in terms of star power and lavish production, it has several strengths of its own: it is fast-paced, filled with wit, and nicely atmospheric. Despite being 20 years older, it is also more 'modern' in its portrayal of the woman whose child is kidnapped.

Aside from Peter Lorre, always a big plus to any movie, the cast does not have too many names that would be familiar to today's audiences, but they all are good actors who fit in well with the style of Hitchcock's British films, exuding self-control and good-natured wit even in the most trying of circumstances. Edna Best as the heroine is noticeably different from Doris Day, lacking the glamour but giving a convincing performance as a more determined, resourceful mother.

There are some interesting settings in this version, too, with much of the action taking place in some interesting buildings in a less elegant neighborhood in London. A lot of it looks a bit murky in the old black-and-white print, but in a sense even that adds to the atmosphere.

Certainly there are those who have good reasons for preferring the remake, but every Hitchcock fan should watch the original, too. Hitchcock's British films had a pleasant style all their own, and while this one might not measure up to "The Lady Vanishes" or "The 39 Steps", it's still very entertaining.

The tale deals with a marriage (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) and their daughter (Nova Pilbeam) on holiday in Saint Moritz , Switzerland . They are witnesses for the assassination of their friend Louis (Pierre Fresnay) , before giving them a message and then they become involved into a confuse and obscure international plot , concerning their abducting daughter .

The movie gets the seed in which later emerged many Hitchcock's suspense pictures . In fact , Alfred Hitchcock reverted back to the more familiar territory of a suspense/intrigue thriller after the lousy result in Walzes from Vienna (1934) . It has a typical theme of the suspense master : innocent people become caught up into a cobweb of intrigue . The film displays interesting issues and a good cast , as an excellent Peter Lorre in his first English role , he interprets a clever and uncanny villain . However , the plot isn't narrated in agility and it seems some forced . The film highlights are the following ones : the happenings at the Royal Albert Hall of London , the rescue of the kidnapped daughter in the Tabernacle of the Sun and the final showdown remembers the authentic events on riots in Sidney Street , year 1911 , where a lot of citizens died . At the time the general public loved it and obtained smash-hit . Hitchcock's remade in 1956 is considered much better and with more lavish setting and glimmer color , besides , being starred by James Stewart and Doris Day singing : Que sera , sera . Rated : Good but dated .

There is a long-standing tradition in film for someone to come along at a later time and feel moved to remake a movie now considered a classic.

In many cases, the remake is really nothing more than an homage to the earlier version----perhaps updated to reflect the use of color and employment of some subsequent technical advances---but with little else to offer. "Prisoner of Zenda" (1952) and the recent "Psycho" come to mind as examples of such productions.

Occasionally, the creator of the earlier film feels inspired to try to improve upon it himself. This by no means ensures success. Compare Frank Capra's "Lady for a Day" (1934) with his "Pocketful of Miracles." ((1951) On the other hand, many believe that DeMille's "Ten Commandments" (1956) is better in its story telling than his silent version made in 1923.

So much has been written about the two versions of "Man Who Knew Too Much" that there is very little one can add that hasn't been said before. Having seen them recently back-to-back, my personal opinion is that they are both flawed---but in different ways. The earlier film is quaintly primitive---particularly in matters involving continuity, use of sound, editing and other technical issues. On the other hand, the later version seems excessively padded with much extraneous material, has a male juvenile actor who is quite inferior to Nova Pilbeam in the original and has villains who lack the unique menace of Peter Lorre---with his rare combination of subtle humor, wit and terror.

In the end, the viewer is left with a sort of Hobson's Choice. Hitchcock himself said that the earlier work was that of a skilled amateur while the latter was the effort of a seasoned professional. No doubt in many ways he is right.

But there is something to be said about the sheer originality and power of a first effort----flawed though it may be. "Citizen Kane" was also the product of a skilled amateur. Could a more mature Orson Welles have improved upon it even with its flaws?

...of a family that becomes entangled with a spy ring. Bob (Leslie Banks) and Jill Lawrence (Edna Best), along with teen daughter Betty (Nova Pilbeam), vacations in the Swiss Alps where they learn of an assassination plot masterminded by the bizarre Abbott (Peter Lorre). The gang kidnaps Betty to ensure the silence of the Lawrences until the assassination, set to take place in London at the Royal Albert Hall, but Bob and Jill try to rescue their daughter first. Also featuring Hugh Wakefield, Frank Vosper, Cicely Oates, and Pierre Fresnay.

I like this more every time I see it. Peter Lorre, in his English-language debut, makes for one of Hitchcock's most entertaining villains. It's remarkable that Lorre delivered his lines phonetically, not yet being proficient in English. I also liked Cicely Oates as Lorre's coldly efficient "nurse". The film's finale, a protracted shoot-out between the gang and the police, is well done, shockingly violent for the time, and full of little visual gags.

There's also a harrowing trip to the dentist, the big Albert Hall concert scene, a quick turn by French star Pierre Fresnay as Lawrence family friend, and a dachshund. This film is inevitably compared to the 1956 remake, and I've always liked this original take more.

One of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest classics, made before he came to Hollywood. A couple's daughter is kidnapped to keep her parents quiet about an assassination plot. The couple is played by Leslie Banks and Edna Best. Banks is good in a role that's a long way from his florid performance in The Most Dangerous Game from a couple of years earlier. Best is impressive in a sympathetic turn. Peter Lorre is menacing and even a little creepy as the leader of the assassins. This was his first English-speaking role (he learned the language while filming). Nice photography from Curt Courant and some fun little creative touches from Hitchcock. The dry humor is blended nicely with the action and suspense. The cult of sun worshippers and The Royal Albert Hall scene are both worthy of Hitch's highlight reel. Perhaps one too many abrupt cuts from one scene to the next, often as a character is in mid-sentence. But clearly Hitch was still honing his craft. At least he was trying things as opposed to the static direction of many of his contemporaries.

Remade in 1956 by Hitchcock himself, with James Stewart and Doris Day. That version is more polished and "Hollywood," and is arguably the more popular of the two. Although neither film is perfect, I prefer this one. It may not have the two decades of advancements in production techniques or the bigger budget of the remake, but it has a tighter plot, shorter runtime, faster pace, darker tone, and it builds suspense without the distracting side stuff of the remake. Plus there's no incongruous scenes of Doris Day singing.