L'homme qui en savait trop

I must confess that I rather like this earlier version more than the definitely more polished, bigger budgeted 1956 version. Don't get me wrong, that film is a fine film too, but the lower budget, the quick pace, and the presence of Peter Lorre make this one a gem. Alfred Hitchcock, the undeniable maser of suspense, shows his early skills as a director able to create suspense and engineer circumstances that affect individuals who would normally NOT be affected by them - a Hitchcock trademark. Here we have Leslie Banks and Edna Best playing the parents of a young teen girl who has been kidnapped because her parents were the last ones spoken to by a man(a friend) at a party in a European country. Intrigue abounds, the man tells Best who then tells Banks of a note in a brush handle that alerts them to some international incident that will occur in England. Well, the kidnappers alert them of what they have done and shut them up. But through parental devotion, once in England, the father begins to hunt for his daughter. This film has all those Hitchcock trademarks that we know Hitchcock for. We have the normal person(s) put into extremely difficult and complicated situations. We have expressive camera angles. We have humour amidst taut, tense action. We have good, all-around acting. Banks, just a year or so removed from his awesome portrayal of General Zaroff in The Most Dangerous Game, gives an incredibly low-key, convincing performance as a father trying to find his daughter no matter what. He is able to inject light touches of humour here and there to make his performance all the more real. Best is adequate although a bit wooden. Hugh Wakefield as the uncle is a real hoot. Cicely Oates as a nurse is also very convincing. Peter Lorre; however, solidifies his English/American career as a heavy. Coming from a Hungarian background and not able to speak English yet, Lorre learns his part phonetically - which is all the more impressive when you see his performance as a killer with little scruples yet a generous sense of humour. Lorre conveys menace in his ever-alert eyes and his almost sugary voice. Hitchcock knows just how to use him and the climatic scene really is pulled off rather well. This movie is not very long and it is a tad creaky. It has little budget as well, but it conveys lots of action and suspense and has some very good performances. The air of conspiracy, another director's trademark touch, pervades the film almost from beginning to end.

In the novel, THE SECRET AGENT, Joseph Conrad had dissected the world of anarchists, double agents and spies, and police in the East End of London of 1894, the year that an attempt to destroy the Greenwich Observatory occurred. Alfred Hitchcock used Conrad's novel for his film SABOTAGE in 1936. But two years earlier he did the film THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. It was the first of two films in which Peter Lorre was directed by him. It was also the only one of his movies that he remade complete with title. But he decided to use the film to film a scene from British criminal history - the January 1911 "Siege of Sidney Street".

There had been an incident in December 1910 when several Russian aliens were involved in a burglary in Houndsditch. The proceeds of their robberies (aside from supporting themselves) helped fund anti-Tsarist activities in Russia. They killed three constables in making their escape from the shop. They were eventually tracked down to a house on Sidney Street, and fired at the police who tried to get them to surrender. The Home Secretary of the day (a politician named Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill) sent out troops, sharp shooters, and artillery. The cannon set the house on fire, and the men found inside were found to be dead. The best account of the event is Donald Rumbelow's THE SIEGE OF SIDNEY STREET called THE HOUNDSDITCH MURDERS in Great Britain.

Here, instead of radicals (called anarchists in 1911) we have foreign conspirators planning an assassination in London of a foreign head of state. Peter Lorre is the leader. Leslie Banks and his family are on vacation to Switzerland. Banks witnesses the murder of a Frenchman (Pierre Fresney, a great French star of the period - this English film is a rarity for him). Fresney reveals the assassination plot to Banks, and Lorre and his associates kidnap his daughter (Nora Pilbeam) to keep his mouth shut. But the police are aware that he heard something from Fresney, and try to pressure him to talk.

So we watch Banks try to track down his daughter (and get captured himself) while his wife goes to the Albert Hall to see what she can do.

The finale of the film is based on the Siege - with some exceptions (one of the bobbies in the Houndsditch tragedy is shot and killed in the start of the movie's version of the incident). But Hitchcock maintains the suspense to the end, when the last villain is taken care of.

It's an interesting film - not a great one. And it is somewhat different from the 1956 remake.

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.

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?

Hitccock's first major release in the USA and Peter Lorre's first English-speaking role are two firsts scored by this 1934 thriller. This is, of course, also Hitchcock's first attempt to to make this film. His second, released in the mid-50s was more successful and better funded. This very British and relatively pithy film retains most of the character of Hitchcock's earlier efforts, but is lean and economical, with less camera play and simpler cinematography and pacing.

The acting is generally very good. Of the main cast, Nova Pilbeam, who plays the kidnapped daughter of Leslie Banks and Edna Best, is the only survivor today, at the age of 87. Most of the action centers on Banks,and he is fine, but (and I tend to think this is Hitchcock's doing) very emotionally compressed throughout the film. Banks' Bob Lawrence has a loving, flirty, wife (Best) and a delightful young daughter (Pilbeam). They are away on holiday in the alps when a new friend of their is shot dead while dancing with Best. As he dies, he passes along some information which creates the family's predicament. Lorre and his people kidnap young Pilbeam in exchange for Banks' silence, and he must then decide what to do. It seems that no matter what he does, his daughter is likely to die.

It is remarkable that Lorre did not even know what he was saying throughout most of this performance. The legendary actor, as usual, dominates all of his scenes and gives the film a creepy, psychotic feeling that would have been difficult to achieve without him.

The plot is a bit light on logic, but brisk, satisfyingly convoluted and entertaining. The script is OK, but often maintains too stiff an upper lip. A few opportunities for elaboration were missed - probably a limitation inherent in the original Wyndham Lewis story. I think it would have been interesting (and more credible) if the authorities had followed up on their knowledge that Banks knew something and trailed him throughout the film. This could have added an extra layer of potential suspense, mystery and obfuscation, since Best's heightened paranoia might have lead him to suspect all sorts of things about anybody keeping tabs on him.

Hitchcock definitely knew he had a potential gem here, and it is a credit to him that he revitalized the film with Jimmy Stewart in the 1950s - after establishing himself as a force to be reckoned with.

Worth seeing for Hitchcock fans and those interested in early British film as well as fans of the 1950s version. O/w only very mildly recommended.