The Man Who Knew Too Much

It does happen, once in awhile, that a remake emerges as a far better film than the original, which is true of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, which not only changes many of the plot twists but also changes the setting to a more exotic one in Morocco.

The script is much more detailed and wittier than the original, giving charismatic roles to JAMES STEWART and DORIS DAY as the American husband and wife who learn about an assassination plot and then have to spend the rest of the story trying to rescue their son from the would be assassins.

Not surprisingly, Day does get a chance to have her way with a song and in this case it's a good one, Que Sera, Sera, which went on to become a huge recording hit for her. But the musical sequence that dominates the film and provides its most climactic moment is the Albert Hall sequence using "Stormcloud Cantata" (with Bernard Herrmann conducting) and the famous symbols that are about to clash, timed with the assassin's shot.

Photographed on location in gorgeous Technicolor, with a good score by Herrmann and an intelligent script by John Michael Hayes, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is superior entertainment from "the master of suspense".

Especially worth noting are the sinister performances by BRENDA de BANZIE and BERNARD MILES as the kidnappers and DANIEL GELIN as the man in the marketplace whose death puts the whole story into gear.

Trivia note: Hitchcock himself called his early version "the work of an amateur" and got his wish to do a remake at a time when he was doing his best work.

I hadn't seen it since I was in college. I remembered it like a fun, absurd movie. Now in 2018 what hit me the most was the wife played by Doris Day. She is spectacular and the absurdity becomes totally real just by looking at her. James Stewart is great of course but he seems to be the foil here rather than the center that keeps us connected to that essential leap of faith. The scene in which he gives her the tranquilizers before telling her the terrible news. What Doris Day manages to do with her character is extraordinary. Brenda de Banzie is a terrific villainess and Bernard Herrmann's score another major plus. I'm sure that even my grandchildren's grandchildren will talk about The Man Who Knew Too Much and about Doris Day.

Both versions of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have their strong points, and are well worth watching. This 1950's remake is carried mostly by its star power, with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day being convincing and very sympathetic as the parents of the kidnapped child. It also has more lavish settings and better (not just because it is color) photography than the earlier version. On the other hand, it lacks the wittiness of the British version, and moves more slowly.

The remake spends much more time setting up the story than the original did, with the family spending a lot of time on their vacation in Morocco before the crisis occurs. It makes possible some colorful scenery and settings, and allows you to get to know the family a bit more, although the quicker pace in the original established more tension and kept your attention throughout. The Albert Hall sequence works well in both films, with this one having the added bonus of allowing the audience to see Bernard Herrmann, who wrote so many great scores for Hitchcock's films, conducting the orchestra.

Despite having essentially the same story, the two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have a much different feel. Which one you prefer is largely a matter of taste - while neither is usually considered among Hitchcock's very best, they are both good movies with a lot of strong points. Take a look at both if you have the chance.

Alfred Hitchcock's more assured telling of a film he made twenty-one years earlier is infinitely superior to the original. Hitchcock said himself that his first version was the work of an amateur, and although it certainly isn't a bad film, he does appear to be right. That being said, this remake, although definitely better, still isn't among Hitchcock's best work. That's certainly not to say that it isn't good, it's just more than a little overindulgent, and that drags it down. Hitchcock seems all too keen to drag certain elements out, and these are parts of the film that aren't entirely relevant to the plot, which can become annoying. Some of these dragged out sequences, such as the one that sees James Stewart and Doris Day eating in a Moroccan restaurant are good because it helps establish the different culture that our American protagonists have found themselves in, but for every restaurant scene, there's an opera sequence and it's the latter that make the film worse.

The plot follows a middle-aged doctor and his wife that go to Morocco for a holiday with their young son. While there, they meet a French man on the bus and another middle-aged couple in a restaurant. However, things go awry when the French man dies from a knife in the back, shortly after whispering something to the doctor. The holiday then turns into a full blown nightmare when the couple's son is kidnapped, which causes them to cut it short and go to London in order to try and find him. The film has a very potent degree of paranoia about it, and it manages to hold this all the way through. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that this is the most paranoid film that Hitchcock ever made. Like most of Hitchcock's films, this one is very thrilling and keeps you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire duration, with only the aforementioned opera sequence standing out as a moment in which the tension is diffused. There is also more than a little humour in the movie, which gives lighthearted relief to the morbid goings on, and actually works quite well.

The original version of this story was lent excellent support by the fantastic Peter Lorre. This film doesn't benefit from his presence, unfortunately, but that is made up for by performances from the amazing James Stewart, and Doris Day. James Stewart is a man that is always going to be a contender for the 'greatest actor of all time' crown. His collaborations with Hitchcock all feature mesmerising performances from him, and this one is no different. (Although his best performance remains the one in Mr Smith Goes to Washington). Stewart conveys all the courage, conviction and heartbreak of a man that has lost his child and would do anything to get him back brilliantly. In fact, that's one of the best things about this film; you are really able to feel for the couple's loss throughout and that serves in making it all the more thrilling. Doris Day, on the other hand, is a rather strange casting choice for this movie. She's definitely a good actress, but she's more associated with musicals and seeing her in a thriller is rather odd (even if she does get to flex her vocal chords a little).

As I've mentioned; this is not Hitchcock's best film, but there's much to enjoy about it and although I'd recommend many Hitchcock films before recommending this one, I'll definitely give it two thumbs up as well.

As we learn early in the movie, Doris Day's character has left the stage for marriage and motherhood in a city far from the bright lights. Then her child is abducted and in order to find him she has to return first to the place where she was famous and the people who knew her, and finally to the songs she sang. It's strange, in a movie by Hitchcock, to find we are watching the story of a woman who sacrifices her identity to her husband's and then finds it again, but I find it hard to ignore the parallel between the child held hostage by killers and the singer's career held hostage by her husband. Heavy stuff for 1956.