The Lady Vanishes

Title: The Lady Vanishes

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Country: United Kingdom

Year: 1938

Running time: 97 minutes

Starring: Margaret Lockwood, Micheal Redgrave, Paul Lukas, Dame Mae Whitty

Criterion Spine No: 3

Primary Reviewer: Nick

 

Background

      Adapted from Ethel White's The Wheel Spins (1936), The Lady Vanishes was Alfred Hitchcock's second-to-last film in Britain before moving to the United States. Already in production, the script was completed before Hitchcock signed on as director, and unlike many of his projects, he made few changes to it.

First Impressions

      Even from the opening sequence, the film struggles to find a tonal center. It lacks the tension typically associated with Hitchcock's oeuvre. Out of all the films from his British period, it relies most heavily on slapstick comedy and mass appeal. With that said, aspects of Hitchcock's masterful technique with picture and sound do overcome a weak script to redeem The Lady Vanishes as an interesting piece of film history, if not a particularly spectacular viewing experience.

Review

     Opening on an idyllic model of central European countryside, (literally, as Hitchcock loathed filming on location) The Lady Vanishes immediately begins throwing together the calm and chaotic. Unable to settle on a screwball comedy or an espionage drama, the script wavers between the two throughout the opening act. By the time it settles down, it has already expended this viewer's goodwill. Lacking the usual complexity of a Hitchcock film, it relies instead on poor plot twists to compensate for the absence of character development.

While many will argue for films as a product of their time period, The Lady Vanishes tries its hardest to offend on every level. Roles for any character in the film break down into four stereotypes; British characters either remain stoic and wry, or outspoken and noble. Alternatively, any non-Brits (since regardless of nationality all other characters get lumped together) must provide comic relief or serve as calculating villains. These paper-thin archetypes don't fit well with Hitchcock's style of character development and limit the possibility of their growth over the course of the film.

      Despite these failings, the film still has some things going for it. If nothing else, it feels both grand and claustrophobic at the same time, a credit to Hitchcock's ability as a filmmaker. On a cramped, meaning under 40 foot long, set using the tiny train compartments, it stretches its available location to maximum effect. Fans of the director will enjoy it the most though, since little trademarks of his, moving train tracks comes to mind, appear constantly. The actors also do the best they can to hold up the floundering film; Paul Lukas particularly shines and manages to add a layer of sympathy to an otherwise villainous role, and, as always, Mae Whitty as the matronly spy Mrs. Froy shows off her impressive range.

 

Second Opinion

      Not having quite the extent of Hitchcock experience, but still being relatively familiar with his later works, I have to agree that this film is a oddity in his repertoire, but what stood out most to me was the depiction of its female characters. In the first act we primarily meet young women (Iris and her friends as well as the hotel maid). They are all quite active and worldly, Iris telling her friends she is happy to return to England to settle down as she has already “...been everywhere, and done everything.”

      Yet there is a sexualized aspect to these young women that alternately fixates the camera and shocks the more stoic of male characters. Charters and Caldicott are perplexed and embarrassed when the hotel maid (whose room they occupy) walks in on them and begins changing her clothes. The hotel attendant is in turn at a loss when he enters Iris's room where she is standing on the table, bare legs exposed directly in front of him, and taking up the focus of the frame. Imagine his confusion a moment later when she requests assistance getting down and he must clasp her barely dressed waist.

      I'm tempted to add to Nick's assessment of character stereotypes and conclude that there are two types of women in the film (although some women do not fall into these categories, instead fitting into the general 'foreigners' classification), these being the adventurous and attractive young women, and the matured, darkly mysterious women (characters who later appear on the train). Oddly enough Mrs. Froy is the only woman who doesn't fit just one of these two descriptions, instead landing somewhere in between, another reason why she is the most interesting character in the film.

 

-Karah

Closing Thoughts

      As an intriguing piece in Hitchcock's growth as a filmmaker, The Lady Vanishes is worth watching as window into the history of film while not being particularly accomplished or valuable as entertainment.

Grand Illusion

Title:  La Grande Illusion
Director:  Jean Renoir
Country:  France
Year:  1937
Running time:  114 min, 94 min. (original)
Starring:  Jean Gabin, Dita Parlo, Pierre Fresnay, Erich von Stroheim, Marcel Dalio
Criterion Spine No:  1


Background
    Made at the height of Jean Renoir’s film career, Grand Illusion has long been a classic of French Cinema.  At the time of it’s release the Nazi Propaganda Minister banned it, which lead to the destruction of many of the prints during the Nazi occupation of France.  After the war it was thought that the original print of the film had been destroyed and subsequent distributions of the film were of copied prints.  However, in the early 1990’s the original was rediscovered and became the first of the Criterion Collection DVD releases.  Having now seen this edition, I can say that it is an exceptionally clear copy.

First impressions
    What makes it work as a war film is that, while war is always present in the background, the piece as a whole focuses on the human element removed from the fighting but still strained by its effects.  What makes it work well is that this is all done with great subtlety.  Whereas today issues of shared humanity and class obligation would be presented with dramatic looks and heroic swells of the orchestra, here the characters simply exist.  They don’t enact humanness, they just are human.


Review
    In general I like war movies about as much as cats like taking a shower:  On rare occasions the experience takes, but the vast majority of the time the encounter results in a lot of hissing and disgruntled moping.  My problems tend to center around the heavy-handed depiction of honor and heroism that is juxtaposed against the message that war is horrible.  Can there be honor during war, yes.  Is war horrible, yes.  However, dramatic music and emotional montages of bloody, filthy skirmishes don’t actually accomplish much.  Maybe that’s why I actually enjoyed Grand Illusion.
    Despite continual reminders that World War I carries on, Grand Illusion never forgets to laugh.  Though the jovial attitude of the characters is occasionally a coping mechanism for the emotional strain of being away from family and country, it is also frequently just an aspect of the men’s personalities.
    The men (and the few women that appear) feel real.  The Germans might be the enemies but they aren’t evil or vindictive, they’re doing their job, a job the French acknowledge as necessary.  Themes of class, race and the destructive nature of war play out through the characters. Captain de Boeldieu and Captain von Rauffenstein hold themselves to an aristocratic sense of honor, separated from the other soldiers though not loftier.  Rosenthal comes from a wealthy Jewish family who raised themselves up from nothing to run one of the largest banks in France.  He then in turn shares this wealth with his fellow prisoners, countering the shrewish stereotype. When Maréchal becomes upset at having been in solitary, his German guards acknowledge that his distress stems from the war continuing for too long.
    The overall messages of the film, once distilled from the experiences of the characters, are ones of the futility of war and its inability to accomplish anything substantial.  As Rosenthal says, “You can’t see borders, they’re human creations.  Nature could care less.”  A sentiment shared by their German pursuers who, upon seeing Maréchal and Rosenthal run across the presumed borders of Switzerland, lower their guns and remark, “Good for them.”

Second Opinion
    While I generally agree with Karah’s review of Grand Illusion, I need to make a note of the superb directing from Jean Renoir. Whereas most war movies are, as Karah described them, “heavy-handed”, the viewer barely feels Renoir’s hand guiding the progress of Grand Illusion. Subtle touches effectively build the atmospheric tension in a way many modern filmmakers could learn something from. A careful eye for each element of every shot defines the film, from both figurative and literal shadow guards, to the background props of a cross-dressing stage production, Renoir leaves nothing to chance, and imprisons the viewer in his world as surely as the characters.
    Also, does Jean Gabin look like Kenneth Branagh to anyone else?
-Nick

Closing Thoughts
     Creating real, human characters gets more across to the viewer than sweeping, overarching themes painted with a thick brush.

Introduction

Welcome to Cheaper Than Film School, a blog dedicated to getting around the rising cost of educating yourself about films readily available on the internet! Beginning with Grand Illusion we plan to watch the entirety of the Criterion Collection in order of spine number. Typically reviews will alternate, with one of us taking care of the main review and the other offering a short second opinion. So enjoy the beginnings of a comprehensive blog about some of the best films ever made! Below I've posted a summary of how a typical review will work:




Background: Fairly evident, a smattering of facts and interesting bits of information.




First Impressions: Thoughts on the film immediately after viewing, a general sense of what the film is about.




Review: The full review of the film.




Second Opinion: Thoughts from the other reviewer, overlooked aspects of the film.




Closing Thoughts: What you can learn from the film that you didn't need to go to film school to figure out.