IMDb रेटिंग
6.6/10
1.3 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA fake music-hall clairvoyant meets a woman, and suddenly his predictions seem to come true ...A fake music-hall clairvoyant meets a woman, and suddenly his predictions seem to come true ...A fake music-hall clairvoyant meets a woman, and suddenly his predictions seem to come true ...
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 जीत
Felix Aylmer
- Prosecutor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Donald Calthrop
- Derelict
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Frank Cellier
- MacGregor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Margaret Davidge
- Lodging Housekeeper
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Howard Douglas
- Waiter at Banquet
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Carleton Hobbs
- Racing Commentator
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Eliot Makeham
- Audience Member with Letter
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
George Merritt
- Train Guard
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Graham Moffatt
- Page Boy
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Percy Parsons
- Barker
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Seems very strange to see two famed Hollywood actors, Rains and Wray paired together in this early British low-budget film, but there they are...and a marvellous job they make of it. Rains plays Maximus, a charlatan "clairvoyant", and Wray plays his wife and act sidekick. The act is dying on it's feet when Rains pulls of an act of genuine clairvoyance, with a little help from Jane Baxter. All good fun from there...a nice little twist at the end. Well worth a look at.
The Clairvoyant (1935)
This is a British movie with the flavor, and look, of Hitchcock's British films, and it's as good in many ways.
And Claude Rains as the title character is sharp, funny, sophisticated, warm, all in that way Rains has of being a little removed, gently above it all without being above his peers. He is way younger (of course) than his famous persona from, say, "Casablanca" or "Notorious" but it's still the same Rains, and in a way if you appreciate him in his American films, you should see this to see where he came from.
The filming and editing feels so much like Hitchcock at times I wondered just what kind of connections there might be between him and the director here, Maurice Elvey, and couldn't find anything obvious (like a shared cinematographer). But Elvey was the most established and famous and therefore the most influential of British filmmakers, making a hundred films before Hitchcock made his first. So the influence is probably one way at first, with Hitch picking up on Elvey's methods.
But by 1932, when Elvey made a talkie remake, "The Phantom Fiend," of an earlier Hitchcock masterpiece, the 1927 "The Lodger," the influence is obviously going the other way. The whole train scene in the first half of this movie is a masterpiece of filming and editing. In all, the plot is so interesting, with some honest twists to accompany what seems at first to be a slightly mystical theme, it deserves an honest remake of its own.
I think it's further worth noting some serious content. The movie deals (at least obliquely) with labor relations in the mines, with the acceptance by the establishment that mediums and clairvoyants are charlatans (or entertainers, as the charlatan says), with greed (in the depression), and with marital fidelity.
The copy you can stream on Netflix is only fair--not especially sharp, and with muddled sound, probably thrown together for television broadcast decades ago. It's good enough to watch anyway, but let's all hope for a remastered version soon.
This is a British movie with the flavor, and look, of Hitchcock's British films, and it's as good in many ways.
And Claude Rains as the title character is sharp, funny, sophisticated, warm, all in that way Rains has of being a little removed, gently above it all without being above his peers. He is way younger (of course) than his famous persona from, say, "Casablanca" or "Notorious" but it's still the same Rains, and in a way if you appreciate him in his American films, you should see this to see where he came from.
The filming and editing feels so much like Hitchcock at times I wondered just what kind of connections there might be between him and the director here, Maurice Elvey, and couldn't find anything obvious (like a shared cinematographer). But Elvey was the most established and famous and therefore the most influential of British filmmakers, making a hundred films before Hitchcock made his first. So the influence is probably one way at first, with Hitch picking up on Elvey's methods.
But by 1932, when Elvey made a talkie remake, "The Phantom Fiend," of an earlier Hitchcock masterpiece, the 1927 "The Lodger," the influence is obviously going the other way. The whole train scene in the first half of this movie is a masterpiece of filming and editing. In all, the plot is so interesting, with some honest twists to accompany what seems at first to be a slightly mystical theme, it deserves an honest remake of its own.
I think it's further worth noting some serious content. The movie deals (at least obliquely) with labor relations in the mines, with the acceptance by the establishment that mediums and clairvoyants are charlatans (or entertainers, as the charlatan says), with greed (in the depression), and with marital fidelity.
The copy you can stream on Netflix is only fair--not especially sharp, and with muddled sound, probably thrown together for television broadcast decades ago. It's good enough to watch anyway, but let's all hope for a remastered version soon.
10dcole-2
Claude Rains gives one of his finest performances ever -- and that's saying a lot. The rest of the cast is also first-rate in this story of a fake fortune-teller who suddenly starts seeing visions of the future for real. I really liked the small touches that director Elvey put in to make you feel as if Claude and his family really were a family -- little things like the way wife Fay Wray will touch his shoulder, the way the family talks on top of one another -- it's all carefully and perfectly done. Congratulations also to Glen MacWilliams' photography -- his footage of the mine shaft rivals Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS. Good work all around.
Professional mind-reader Maximus (Rains) suddenly becomes a genuine foreteller of the future, causing a bunch of problems.
That early scene of Maximus on stage is a little gem of staging, editing, and directing. The backdrop of a giant The Thinker is impressive, suggesting that a mental force much larger than the dwarfed Maximus is in play, as indeed it is. His transition from professional trickster to derided dunce to man possessed is riveting, especially as echoed in the gamut of audience reactions. Riveting also is Christine's (Baxter) trance-like stare, which oddly becomes Maximus's pathway to the future. I just wish the movie's remainder equaled this early atmospheric plateau.
The main problem is that the screenplay, having set up the compelling premise of genuine clairvoyance, is unsure where to go with it. As a result, events meander into a love story culminating in an utterly conventional ending that unfortunately undercuts that brilliantly ominous stage sequence. Then too, as others point out, the coal mine and court trial sequences are poorly thought out, making that part pretty murky. Just why Maximus is blamed is never made clear-- (although the mine owners responsible for the dangerous conditions could have been implicated for shifting blame).
Claude Rains as a leading man takes some getting used too. Nonetheless, he's excellent at alternating Maximus's many moods, and I especially liked his moment of uncharacteristic gaiety when he thinks he's out-foxed the money men. And, of course, there's the gorgeous Fay Wray—a man like Maximus is truly possessed who would think of leaving her. Plus, Jane Baxter who I haven't seen before is also compelling in a very well-cast film. All in all, the movie comes across as an uneasy combination of the brilliant, the conventional, and the muddled.
(In passing—one direction for the uncertain storyline would have been the question whether the future is ruled by the inalterable hand of fate. If so, then future events cannot be changed no matter how hard we try. Maximus thinks his prophetic ability provides the opportunity to alter the future. However, suppose we factor in the possibility of a future ruled instead by fate. Then the question of how Maximus fits into fate's inalterable equation becomes an interesting one. Anyway, it's a thought.)
That early scene of Maximus on stage is a little gem of staging, editing, and directing. The backdrop of a giant The Thinker is impressive, suggesting that a mental force much larger than the dwarfed Maximus is in play, as indeed it is. His transition from professional trickster to derided dunce to man possessed is riveting, especially as echoed in the gamut of audience reactions. Riveting also is Christine's (Baxter) trance-like stare, which oddly becomes Maximus's pathway to the future. I just wish the movie's remainder equaled this early atmospheric plateau.
The main problem is that the screenplay, having set up the compelling premise of genuine clairvoyance, is unsure where to go with it. As a result, events meander into a love story culminating in an utterly conventional ending that unfortunately undercuts that brilliantly ominous stage sequence. Then too, as others point out, the coal mine and court trial sequences are poorly thought out, making that part pretty murky. Just why Maximus is blamed is never made clear-- (although the mine owners responsible for the dangerous conditions could have been implicated for shifting blame).
Claude Rains as a leading man takes some getting used too. Nonetheless, he's excellent at alternating Maximus's many moods, and I especially liked his moment of uncharacteristic gaiety when he thinks he's out-foxed the money men. And, of course, there's the gorgeous Fay Wray—a man like Maximus is truly possessed who would think of leaving her. Plus, Jane Baxter who I haven't seen before is also compelling in a very well-cast film. All in all, the movie comes across as an uneasy combination of the brilliant, the conventional, and the muddled.
(In passing—one direction for the uncertain storyline would have been the question whether the future is ruled by the inalterable hand of fate. If so, then future events cannot be changed no matter how hard we try. Maximus thinks his prophetic ability provides the opportunity to alter the future. However, suppose we factor in the possibility of a future ruled instead by fate. Then the question of how Maximus fits into fate's inalterable equation becomes an interesting one. Anyway, it's a thought.)
Claude Rains plays the psychic Maximus, a man with no discernable talent until his mind connects with a newspaperman's heiress daughter. This little film directed with some panache and skill by Maurice Elvey chronicles the abrupt rise and fall of a vaudevillian-like music hall act. Rains is, as always, very good. A good performance with some moments of genuine ham - just watch him do the things with his eyes. Fay Wray is also a nice asset as his wife. She seems to be very bubbly and brings some gentle humor and emotion to the film. The story has some nice twists and turns and has a surprise ending of sorts. The film is obviously somewhat old and has some creaky qualities to it as well. All in all, however; I found The Clairvoyant to be a nice way to spend a cold evening.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAlternate title is "The Evil Mind"
- गूफ़A witness at the trial is asked for her opinion. She quite properly replies that she is not possessed of sufficient knowledge to answer, but the prosecutor insists on her opinion, and the judge backs him up. Counsel are not permitted to ask a witness for an opinion, and in these circumstances it is even more obviously wrong.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनScratchy multi-generation prints shown on TV under the title The Evil Mind are from a 68 min. reissue with different titles than the British original.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 21 मि(81 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें