Tuesday, December 11, 2018

2018 Blind Spot Series: The Lady Vanishes


I'm still trying to catch up and get all of my 2018 Blind Spot selections watched before the end of the year. Sorry to Sonia of Returning Videotapes in case I overwhelm her (not likely) with posts this month. In case you didn't know, she's our host for the Blind Spot Challenge. For my first December post, we're starting with a legendary director.


Why did I pick it? Alfred Hitchcock. When a person pretends decides to become a full-fledged cinephile, in some order, they seek out individual movies considered to be great, the filmographies of iconic actors, and movies by directors they're told are legends. Obviously, Hitchcock falls into that last category. Over the last decade or so since I've considered myself a movie buff I've watched a few of movies simply because he directed them. However, I haven't gone full bore into the his work. Having seen eight of his movies before this one, I'd say I have a pretty good grasp on his style, his strengths, and weaknesses. On the other hand, he's directed fifty plus full-length features, so I'm no expert. I've a long way to go before I can claim such a thing. When I start looking down the various lists of Hitchcock's greatest movies, this is one of the ones that turns up most often of those I haven't seen. It's also his last official British film before making the move to the grand ol' U.S. of A. That's as good a reason as any, so here we are.

When The Lady Vanishes starts, I'm struck by how whimsical it is. This isn't something I've experienced while watching other Hitchcock films. In fact, the first act feels much more like a bawdy, screwball comedy than the mystery I've been led to believe it is. We meet a bunch of people staying in a hotel in the fictional country of Bandrika that is obviously ill-equipped to handle them. We just keep meeting them, one after another. Some of them will be involved later when we get to the main plot, some will not. Their main function is to deliver sly jokes poking fun at the more prudish among us. As such things go, it's okay, but not really blowing my socks off. The problem is the that this part of the movie contains zero narrative thrust. A lot is happening, but it all feels pointless. Characters aren't really being developed. We just go back and forth between them. Eventually, we do get some development when we meet Iris (Margaret Lockwood) and Gilbert (Michael Redgrave). Iris is one of the prudish ones, complaining about Gilbert's loud music from the room below her and has him thrown out of the hotel. Instead of just leaving, he goes up to Iris's room, brings his stuff with him, and threatens to stay. She backs off and he is allowed to go back to his room. Needless to say, the two are not fond of one another. Finally, we meet Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty). She opens a window to listen to a guy below her singer belt out the tune he's passionately into. We see something she apparently doesn't - the poor guy gets murdered before he finishes his song.

After all this, we finally get to the plot of the movie. As Iris boards a train headed back to Britain, she is accidentally hit on the head and his helped to her seat by Miss Froy who sits with her in a booth with a couple who has a small child. Iris passes out and wakes up hours later to find Miss Froy gone. She looks for her, but no one on the train even admits to ever having seen Miss Froy. Iris gets the authorities on the train involved to no avail. Eventually, she meets up with none other than Gilbert, also a passenger on the train. He reluctantly agrees to help her and off the two go criss-crossing the train in search of Miss Froy.


This is the earliest produced of the Hitchcock films I've seen which leads to my belief that this is the director still learning to be the Master of Suspense. It might seem a bit strange to say this considering he made more than twenty movies before this, but this lacks the focus of his best work. After we board the train, the tone bounces back and forth between being the battle of the sexes farce it was at the hotel to the serious minded thriller the title suggests. The second act is particular riddled with this problem as the plot seems to start, stop, then start again several times over. The herky-jerkiness of it all makes it difficult to become fully immersed in the plight of these people. Whenever we start to get pulled into the mystery at the film's core, it switches into cute mode for a few minutes, effectively keeping us at arm's length. I didn't have that problem with later Hitch. In those films, he set a tone early, maintained it throughout, and used it to draw us progressively deeper into the world of the people on the screen. The Lady Vanishes never quite gets us there.

I suppose some allowances should be made for the fact this movie was made in 1938. However, I got the same feeling from another movie made over three decades later - Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left. That is the horror icon's first feature and suffers from the exact same problem. The constant shifts in tone from menacing to goofy detract from the overall aim of the picture. It's Craven not trusting that he won't overwhelm his audience by keeping the tension high. Ultimately, it's what makes it one of his lesser outings. The Lady Vanishes feels like Hitchcock dealing with the same insecurities. Just when he should be cranking things up another notch, he pulls back and lets all the air out of the balloon. When he gets back to the mystery, the film has to rebuild momentum all over again, only to have it stopped before it gets back up to sufficient speed. While watching, I couldn't help but think that had Hitchcock made this movie in the 50s or 60s, he would've approached the material far differently. He might have gotten rid of much of the opening act and replaced it with more intense scenes once the action moves to the train.

Still, there are a number of things The Lady Vanishes does right. Oddly enough, though the opposing sides of the coin don't really work in tandem, they function pretty well individually. The comedy, filled with double entendre and slick nods to the audience, has its moments even though it's not a full-on laugh riot. The mystery portion is more up Hitch's alley and is solidly handled with a few nice twists to keep us invested enough to stick with it through the end. In each of the two genres this movie travels in, the chemistry between Lockwood and Redgrave is interesting, if not explosive. They're an amusing screen couple to watch and give performances where each person's dialogue bounces happily off the other. It makes for a viewing experience that mixes in a decent amount of fun with the frustration it delivers. The short of it is this isn't a bad movie. It's just one that doesn't live up to the potential of its premise.


Click below for more Alfred Hitchcock related posts

14 comments:

  1. I had a Hitchcock film as my Blind Spot this month too. I haven't seen this, I'm still making my way through his filmography. It's too bad it wasn't great though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not great, but it's not bad, either. It just could've been much more. There are a lot of us still working through his filmography.

      Delete
  2. I went through a Hitchcock phase in college (when I was a 'film' student), but it basically consisted of reading books about him...and watching Psycho over and over. Hell, I haven't seen The Birds.

    This seems like about the ninth movie I'd watch from his career, and honestly...after this review? Maybe push it even down the list. Good stuff, Dell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, there are a number of better movies by him to watch. So I wouldn't be killing myself to see it.

      Delete
  3. I saw this a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I think it's one of his quintessential films. Yet, I feel like I'm not doing enough when it comes to Hitchcock as I didn't get a chance to see more of his films this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's enjoyable, but not one of my faves of his. I'm still looking forward to seeing more from him, though.

      Delete
  4. I agree it's not bad but Hitchcock would get better. To me, the weakest part of this movie is the beginning as you could just start watching when they are on the station platform, as hardly anything happens in the opening 30 minutes. Yeah, there's some comedy, I see it as a thriller-comedy but not a story that sticks in my mind despite watching it twice!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This definitely isn't one of Hitch's best films, but his early British films were definitely not the full-on suspense thrillers that his American films were; they were also very concerned with being comedies about class and social mores. Which they do well, but you're right, the balance is sometimes a bit off. That said, I enjoyed this one because both the thriller elements and the comedy elements, while they don't always fit together as well as they could, are all so enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right! I did enjoy it, but it always felt a bit off. It was enough to bother me, but not make me give up on it.

      Delete
  6. This is a film that I call an early classic with hints of what's to come. I enjoyed it much more than you did especially the 2 men in bed together who appear in another film of his...which I can't recall right now. I found both leads amiable and worked well together. It is down the list of his greats but it is worth seeing none the less. You should see some of his earlier work like Rich and Strange.. the title is apt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It definitely hints at what's to come as the movie really is at its best when it deals with the mystery at its core. You can see Hitchcock headed in the direction of becoming the Master of Suspense. He just wasn't quite that, at the time.

      Delete
  7. I like this but never considered it top flight Hitchcock. It's tone is skittish and uncertain but overall its a breezy entertainment. However it is really representative of a major talent still developing his own signature voice.

    It is missing a few elements that would become common later, for instance the brunette Margaret Lockwood in the lead rather than the blond that became the rule of his productions. Though she was a rapidly rising star in British cinema at the time, she eventually was the top female English star throughout most of the 40's, and Hitchcock considered himself lucky to get her. She is appealing and pairs well with Michael Redgrave-himself just getting started-and has nice chemistry with Dame May Whitty who is a delight in her brief role as Miss Froy. But he probably would have demurred from using her a few years on in favor Madeleine Carroll (who he had used in The 39 Steps and was his initial choice but she had other commitments), Binnie Barnes or another blonde English actress, though he did screen test Vivien Leigh-at the time a minor actress.

    It may not be as assured as some of Hitch's later films but it's light years ahead of the late 70's truly ghastly remake also called The Lady Vanishes with the uninspired team of Elliott Gould and Cybill Shepard where they somehow managed to corral Angela Lansbury as Miss Froy. Need I add that she's the only decent thing in the picture?

    For an early Hitchcock in a more typical vein you should try 1936's Sabotage (which has been relabeled the much less appropriate The Woman Alone probably to avoid confusion with his American made Saboteur-my favorite Hitchcock film) with Sylvia Sidney. It's a tense well acted thriller of about a woman who discovers her husband is a member of a sabotage gang that has many echoes of his later movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page on this one. I'm not sure which one I'm going with just yet, but there will certainly be another Hitchcock film on next year's Blind Spot list.

      Delete