Sunday, November 09, 2008

Movie review – Hitchcock #2 - “The Ring” (1927) ***1/2

One of Hitchcock’s few films on which he took a credit as screenwriter. It starts with a scene at a fun fair, full of artistic boldness (compared to other films at the time), and showing a real feel for the sort of lower middle-class entertainment that he would in The 39 Steps and Strangers on a Train.

Great use of point of view – the woman looking through the whole in the canvas into the male boxing world, Ian Hunter looking back, shots through a pond, close ups and reaction shots. William Goldman once said that the one requirement of a film director was that they had a vision about where to put the camera, and Hitchcock sure had that.

Also terrific atmosphere – carny signs, smoke. There’s even a black character in the movie – not a big role, but he’s still there. (Although to counter balance this liberalism there is a title card which says “win the fight with the n*gger and you’ll be there”). And a person picks their nose in church – you wouldn’t have that in a Hollywood movie at the time.

The plot has a girl planning on marrying one boxer but falling for another, more famous one – Ian Hunter, the best known member of the cast (he went to Hollywood and carved out a niche as a second lead, often outshone by Errol Flynn). She puts a bracelet on her arm – ring symbolism! – and she’s pashing him, the hussy. Actually this scene has a fair amount of sexual charge – certainly more than anything in The Lodger. So it’s not surprising she doesn’t tell her boyfriend, who then puts an engagement ring on her finger – more ring symbolism.

The nice poor boxer works his way up the ranks via a poster montage then we cut to the wife who is sitting on the leg of the rich boxer at a roaring 20s party watching some flappers Charleston. She’s so flirty with Hunter that the husband is a bit of a dill for not figuring out something is up until over an hour in (he suspects but he doesn’t get really angry until then – when he rips off her sleeve, revealing her bra strap).

Lovely quirky Hitchcock humour – such as a wedding where the guests are carnies (dwarves, Siamese twins who argue over where they should sleep), an entertaining flapper party sequence. Watching these you can’t help think that Hitchcock didn’t need sound to tell a story – indeed there are very few titles in the whole film - but sound would have made it far more entertaining. There’s some scenes which cry out for music, like the party scene, and when Brisson clocks Hunter at a nightclub while the band plays on; others which need atmosphere noises, like the fight scenes and carnie scenes. This is why, I think, silent film was replaced in popularity very quickly (except for Charlie Chaplin).

Some good acting. The final fight is well staged, fast-paced and exciting. At the end the girl goes back to her husband, takes off Hunter’s bracelet – but surely it’s only because Hunter loses the fight. Doesn’t auger well for the future! They’ll be alright just as long as he keeps winning, I suppose.

NB A thought – I would have loved Errol Flynn have made a film for Hitchcock – he would have been so easily castable by the great director, either during his dashing period (would have loved to see him in Suspicion), or his later seedy days (Rope, The Paradine Case, Dial M for Murder).

No comments: