Juno e o Pavão

This has to be Hitchcock's least cinematic film he ever made. It's a filmed play with almost nothing cinematic to add to the mix. It's a miscalculation of the early sound era that equated theater and film because they shared a lot of the same parts. There are actors, sets, lights, and dialogue, and yet the mediums are actually really different because of the camera and the edit inherent in film.

The story itself is nothing that special. It's the counterfeit rise and then real fall of a poor Irish family in the early 20th century. The titular Juno is the female head of a small household of four with two adult children, and the paycock is the male head. Juno's level-headed while her husband, Jack, spends as much of his time drinking in a bar as possible. The girl, Mary, is courting a young man while the boy, Johnny, lost his arm in the Irish Civil War while fighting with the IRA. There's a good amount of time trying to set up all four characters, but most of the time is really dedicated to Jack, the vessel through which most of the exposition flows.

The story turns when they discover a relative has died and left them several thousand pounds. Their hardscrabble life is over. Jack's drinking away all of their extra money is done. Immediately Juno goes out and starts taking out large loans for furniture and other items around the house. Mary gets the attention of a new beau who whisks her away from her current beau, Jack feels like a big man around town, and Johnny stays remote and hidden in the background, consumed about news that started the movie of one of his friends from the IRA having gotten killed. The treatment of Johnny is the only real cinematic touch in the entire film. As conversation goes on around him, the camera pushes in to watch him at key points of the film. It's probably the only way to highlight him since he's so quiet through much of the story anyway.

The predictable thing happens and the money from the relative doesn't come through. Seriously, the second I saw Juno in the furniture shop taking on the debt, I knew there wasn't going to be any actual money for the family. The family then gets brought low. They have to sell everything from the new furniture to the old to settle their debts. Mary's new beau disappears after he impregnates her, leaving her a ruined woman in 1924 Ireland and disowned by her father. Johnny gets carried away as an informer by other members of the IRA. Jack takes the last of his money from his shoe and goes off to have a drink. Juno's left alone in the empty apartment, wailing about the fate of her family.

Now, the weirdest part of the ending is that, at least the way the film presents it, it feels like the movie itself agrees with Juno's assertion is that Jack is the source of their financial woes, but it wasn't Jack who went and took out massive loans. She was the cause of the family's newly destitute state. Jack just drank, like he always did. If the moment is supposed to be ironic, that depends on the execution of the individual performance, and I don't think the movie captures that feeling.

Anyway, in terms of the story itself, it's fine. It's not great, but it's fine. In terms of its cinematic execution, it's boring. It's a series of long, static shots that never look in the direction of the fourth wall in any of the limited environments. It's quite literally a filmed play, and I think it suffers for it.

Blackmail was in production when The Jazz Singer came out and they retooled it for sound. It was already effectively one picture that got sound added. Juno and the Paycock feels like a studio not quite sure what to do with sound finding one of the more obvious choices (a play) and just handing the assignment to one of their contract directors. I get the sense that it was filmed really quickly, possibly in less than a week, and then quickly assembled for release. This feels like chasing a fad more than compelling storytelling.

Good story, but poorly executed. Juno and the Paycock is another less than stellar early film from Alfred Hitchcock. The story is actually quite interesting, revolving around a poor Irish family who begin putting on airs when they think they are about to inherit a fortune. Comedy and drama blend nicely in this script, letting us get to know the characters in a lighthearted setting before descending into full fledged tragedy. Sara Allgood and Edward Chapman head up a good ensemble cast as the long suffering wife and lazy, drunkard husband, respectively. The film also has a rare edgy quality for its time, as the actors were able to get away with some swearing and irreverence. Sex, however, was still the one thing that could not be talked about. You have to figure out for yourself that the daughter has been knocked up by her boyfriend because they will never just say so. The downfall of the film is that Hitchcock seems to have been uninterested in his own subject. The film feels cheaply thrown together with none of the director's usual style or active storytelling. The spars camera work makes the movie seem like little more than a filmed recording of the stage play it was adapted from. With a little imagination this could have been much better.

Sean O'Casey's play does not translate to the screen very well. A bit talky, it may have worked fine on stage, but it is not movie material. Still Hitchcock has moments where he shows his genius as a filmmaker. There are camera shots and editing cuts that tell more of the story than any of O'Casey's dialog.

Still, I would not recommend this film for anyone who is new to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Save this one for the advance class, and let the beginners view "The Secret Agent," "Shadow of a Doubt," "Vertigo," and "Psycho," just to name a few.

Most people don't like this film, not realizing that a) it's one of Hitchcock's very first British films, on a low budget; and b) that it's not a thriller or suspense film, but based on a masterfully written comic tragedy by Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. Very faithful to the play, this film is fairly well acted, and fairly well cast. Though most seem to think Sara Allgood is the standout as Juno, I particularly like Sidney Morgan's wonderful portrayal as Joxer, and Edward Chapman's performance as Captain Boyle is also very good,

But writing and acting aside, this film is not without its flaws. Obviously on a tight and tiny budget, the quality of film and sound are fairly awful, and Hitchcock's direction and cinematography is less than stellar, with a rash of low shots and cut-off heads.

Still, the poor quality of film and filming can be excused for budgetary constraints, and the fact that this is such an early Hitchcock film. Definitely worth watching if you like the play, which I do, but don't expect and thrills or shocks; this is a talk-heavy play about Irish troubles during the uprising with some very sharp and wicked humour and some very tragic commentary. Not Hitchcock's best by a longshot, but severely underrated. 6/10.

Having been a Hitchcock fan for forty years I have not been able to see this until now, thanks to a very cheap and poor quality DVD.

This straightforward fill of Sean O'Casey's play turns out to be a powerful piece of admittedly primitive early film-making. This is from a time when sound editing was impossible - scenes had to be taken in long takes with four cameras and cut ins added in - very much like studio TV.

I am shocked that one reviewer refers to bad photography with heads cut off. That's the bad transfer on the disc which cuts quite a lot of the image, often cutting of heads. If we could see a good print this would be powerful stuff with, surprisingly, a lot of very strong Hitchcock moments - including a ma in atrench coat waiting in the street - to execute JOhnny who was betrayed his republican group. It's also an extraordinarily authentic picture of an intensely catholic world. Ireland is still suffering from internal fighting but the is celebrating independence - but at the same time these people suffer from extreme judgemental attitudes. The rejection of the pregnant daughter by her previous boyfriend is simple and chilling.

We desperately need restorations of Hitchcock's pre 1934 films. The silents are excellent when you see them pristine. The copies in circulation are only hints of what they are really like. In its way a key work in Hitchcock's oeuvre. He may have dismissed it in the TRuffaut interviews, but take that with a pinch of salt. He avoids any mention of Fritz Lang influence too - and yet if you see Spione, M, or the Mabuse films you see how much he owed to Lang.