Waltzes from Vienna

It is not his best, not even close, but his worst film is Juno and Paycock with Jamaica Inn and Champagne not far off. Number 17, Under Capricorn and Topaz are also towards the bottom. Waltzes from Vienna does look lovely, sumptuous sets and costumes, good photography and some nice visual flourishes. The music sparkles with beauty and energy throughout, while Edmund Gwenn gives a great performance, Jessie Matthews is charming enough and there's also the Blue Danube scene which is by far the highlight of the film. Esmond Knight does look uncomfortable and can have a tendency to over-act, while Fay Compton under-characterises. The direction has its moments but there is a sense that Hitchcock wasn't particularly interested in the project. The comedy scenes are rather forced and are played too broadly, while the story has a little charm but can be a little dull and silly, with some underdeveloped characters and relationships- that of Johann and Rasi is rather un-engaging- and sub-plots that serve little point and the script is on the talky side. Overall, one of Hitchcock's weakest but not his worst like he considered it to be, of the films of his personally seen there are at least 6 or 7 that are worse. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Biography of the Strauss boys set in Vienna in mid 19th century. The stars are Jessie Matthews as Rasi, the daughter of a confectioner, Esmond Knight as Strauss Jr., and Edmun Gwenn as Strauss Sr. Also notable are Fay Compton as the countess, Frank Vosper as the count, and Robert Hale as the confectioner.

What makes this film notable is that the director is Alfred Hitchcock. Alma Reville is listed as one of the writers.

From the opening scene, the film is unusual. The film starts with a closeup of a fire team racing to a fire in a confectioner's shop. The scene is obviously fake because of the background and the fake horses. The actors jostle about and spout wisecracks. At the scene of the fire, we see a madhouse of onlookers and employees. The employees are taking tables and chairs out of the shop and setting them up in the street to avoid losing customers. The confectioner is in a panic as he tries to save a huge wedding cake. Smoke billows from the building but upstairs there is music and singing as Strauss and Rasi go through one of his compositions. The sequence is manic, full of pratfalls and sight gags.

At a dress shop across the street the countess is trying to buy a dress but the models are all watching the fire. When a bumbling fireman carries Rasi down a ladder, she tears her dress off and must run to the dress shop for clothing. She meets the countess who is asking to meet the man playing that piano. Thus begins the triangle.

Almost as a subplot, we get the adversarial relationship between the father and son since the film really focuses on the "love story." Although Hitchcock always thought this film his worst, there is much to enjoy. The pacing is brisk. The dramatic story is lightened by comic episodes. The direction is very fluid (if not florid) like the music, and the music is terrific, especially the climactic "Blue Danube" number.

Also notable are the sets. You would expect very fussy, claustrophobic rooms filled with furniture and ponderous draperies but the sets are mostly spartan, white, softly lit. In one scene the countess sits having coffee in a huge white room before huge curtainless windows. Not what you'd think of for 1850s Vienna.

The acting is uneven, with Matthews and Knight overacting and Gwenn and Compton underacting. The comic scenes are very broad and involve pratfalls into cakes, slapping, falling down stairs, etc. Yet it all seems to work.

Matthews hated this film and Hitchcock. England's premiere musical star of the time doesn't get to dance and only warbles here and there. She definitely takes a backseat to the Strauss music, but she's at her prettiest in this film. Esmond Knight's character reminded me of Marius Goring's manic composer in THE RED SHOES right down to the hair cut. Gwenn, for all his billing, gets less screen time than Matthews, Knight, and even Fay Compton.

Jessie Matthews hated this film and if you're foolish enough to watch it, you can understand why. The story, the script and the characters are so utterly frivolous and light that they'd get blown away by your snoring.

It was the brainchild of a theatrical impresario called Tom Arnold who thought turning a popular musical into a film would be a good idea....it wasn't. By persuading Gaumont-British to back him, he secured the services of Jessie Matthews but the role she was given was woefully insubstantial. It didn't give her any opportunity to show her comedic skills let alone her singing or dancing - she did not enjoy this at all.

Not only was her role dreadful but her co-star had zero charisma and worst of all she didn't get on with the director. She was a huge star and knew it. Hitchcock with about 20 films under his belt believed that he was the best director in the country but having just been 'let go' from BIP, the industry in 1934 didn't particularly agree. There was therefore a huge ego battle going on here which didn't make for a happy set.

Although it's not good, it's not entirely awful. Despite the insane underutilisation of Miss Matthews, ('the dancing divinity' or 'the diva of debauchery' depending on your choice of 1930s newspaper), it is reasonably well made as of course you'd expect from Hitchcock but you can tell that nobody's heart is in this. She didn't want to make it, Hitchcock didn't want to make it and although Gaumont-British were a wealthier and classier studio than Hitchcock's former studio BIP, from the look of the cheap shabby sets, it looks like even G-B didn't want to make this either.

This is neither a Jessie Matthews film nor an Alfred Hitchcock film. Being the most beautiful girl in the world she still looks lovely but she's not really Jessie Matthews and because Hitchcock wasn't involved in the writing, there's none of his characteristic dark humour. When it tries to be funny it is just embarrassingly silly. Avoid this!

This musical comedy must be one of Hitchcock's most obscure movies (not even reviewed in Leonard Maltin's guide until the latest edition!). It has very little dramatic interest, and not much in the way of notable visuals either, but the production does have a certain opulence (including some enormous sets), and of course the Strauss music is a pleasure to listen to, particularly in the concert sequence. Apparently Jessie Matthews was one of Britain's biggest musical stars around this period, but you'd never know it from this picture - she sings only once and never dances. ** out of 4.

Strauss's Great Waltz will go down as your most atypical Alfred Hitchcock film. Mainly because at this time he was not an icon in the film profession but a contract director Gaumont-British Pictures. The Hitchcock stamp is definitely not on this one.

But it is the only musical in his career so you would think something better would have come from it, especially since he had the United Kingdom's number one musical star at the time Jessie Matthews. Who has no real musical numbers, talk about strange. Her singing and dancing talents may have been left on the cutting room floor.

The story was covered far better in MGM's high gloss film, The Great Waltz. Young Johann Strauss, Jr. is considered by his father to be the least promising of his offspring and the senior Strauss Edmund Gwenn ridicules his efforts at composing at every opportunity. Young Strauss who is Esmond Knight in this film has even gone to work in a bakery, in real life Strauss wanted his son to be a banker.

Countess Fay Compton however encourages Knight's genius and we all know what happened after that.

The musical with book and lyrics by Guy Bolton had a nice run on the London Stage. Obviously Hitchcock just didn't have his heart in this assignment and sadly the results show.