September 20, 2018
The Manxman –
1929, UK
Alfred Hitchcock’s last silent film (technically, his next
film, Blackmail, was shot as both a
silent and a talkie) is all about atmosphere. It’s about the bright lights and
joyous aura of a harbor city pub, the small town camaraderie that can produce
smiles and laughter as easily as rumors and distrust. It’s about stolen looks between
characters that fate has seen fit to keep apart, the resignation that hangs in
the air when one’s destiny does not seem to be one’s own, and the heavy
physical and emotional burdens that promises given in haste can create. It is
not a film about the dark underbelly of society or characters driven to murder
by circumstances considered to be out of their control. In fact, of all of the
Hitchcock’s films I’m familiar with, The
Manxman has the simplest plot, and this is both a blessing and a curse.
It’s a blessing because its limited scope allows Hitchcock
to focus almost exclusively on the film’s three main characters: childhood
friends Pete Quilliam (Carl Brisson) and Philip Christian (Malcolm Keen), and
Kate Creegan (Anny Ondra). Pete is a seaman, Philip a lawyer, and Kate the
woman they are both madly in love with. This is made abundantly clear in the
facial expressions that form when they simultaneously greet her in her father’s
pub. Both of their faces begin to radiate unabashed adoration, and as the scene
progresses, we get hints of a looming conflict.
Oddly enough, that conflict really kicks in when the film
begins to veer into what contemporary viewers will recognize as Pearl Harbor territory, which only goes
to show just how long plots have been being recycled. (The Manxman is itself a remake of a 1917 film of the same title.) By
now viewers will recognize the structure instantly: Love is interrupted by a
departure; the departed one is assumed dead; the departed’s best friend attempts
to comfort the woman his friend left behind only to find himself falling in
love with her, despite the overwhelming sense that doing so is an act of betrayal.
Of course, young passion is rarely contained for long in movies, of course, and
it is not here. And then, just in time to contribute to the emotional mess that
already been created, the young man returns alive, desiring to resume the
relationship, which, in his eyes, never really ended.
So, as far as the plot goes, we’ve seen this before (though
perhaps the word after better
reflects the situation here). Now, this is normally when I say something to the
effect of but we’ve never seen it done
this well, but I find it hard to make that assertion here. For one, The Manxman’s narrative brevity is not
reflected in the film’s length. Many of the scenes go on much longer than they
should, and while this gives the cast plenty of opportunities to display their
impressive talents, there’s simply no way to escape the feeling that
eliminating about a half an hour would have made the film a great deal tighter.
Two, the film requires viewers to have an understanding of late 19th
century-early 20th century British law (Hall Caine’s novel of the
same name had been released in 1894.). For example, it would help viewers to
know in advance that people who failed at suicide could be prosecuted in court and
that divorce was far harder to get. If you don’t know these details, the film’s
final scene can be a bit jarring.
As a director, Hitchcock gets powerful performances from his
cast. As played by Brisson, Pete is a genuinely heartbreaking character, for he
is played as such a joyful, aspirational one. Pete is a reminder that men who
get exactly what they want in love are often blind to its disintegration. As
much as I appreciated Brisson’s performance, Keen actually has the more
difficult role, for he has to convey resolve, disappointment, love, and pain
often in the same scene. Looking at him, we fully comprehend Philip’s torn
loyalties and the emotional toll that doing the right thing takes on him.
However, the film’s best performance is given by Ondra. She is tasked with
making viewers understand the playfulness of her character, how someone can
flirt with one person while preferring the person standing next to him. Kate
could easily have been portrayed as an virtue-less woman playing with men’s
hearts, and callously leading them down a path of destruction. However, the way
Ondra portrays her allows us to understand her pleasure at being pursued by
more than one person, as well as to see the honorable side of her character. In
a way, the emotional devastation of the second half is the direct result of her
having kept her word.
There are some memorable Hitchcockian moments scattered
throughout the film. In several scenes, he shoots from the perspective of the
outsider looking in, as if we looking through Pete’s eyes and thereby feeling
his hopes and fears. In another, he masterfully shows us Kate immediate regret
after she playfully agrees to wait for Pete. Hitchcock allows us to see her
full facial expression, and it is one of absolute agreement. Wisely, Hitchcock
keeps his camera on Kate as she turns and sees Philip, and her expression
becomes truly distressing. There are other things to admire, for example,
Hitchcock’s use of Kate’s short diary entries to convey her growing closeness
with Philip and an excellent scene of Kate and Philip waiting for Pete’s ship
to arrive at a spot where high land meets the ocean. This is the Hitchcock that
gets less attention, the one that could make us both believe that two
characters were in love and feel both the glory and tragedy of that level of
affection.
The box art for the DVD of The Manxman includes the following description: “An early
masterpiece and Hitchcock’s last silent film.” I respectfully disagree. While The Manxman is a moving film about memorable
characters in situations that we can easily empathize with, it is also a film that
never finds the right pacing, and there were several times when my eyes began
to feel heavy, only for them to open wide again once the next scene began. So,
the film is both mesmerizing and dull, a strange contradiction to say the least,
but one that feels appropriate in this case. In the end, it’s a film I admire a
bit more than I like, one that had the potential to be great but settled on
being pretty good at times and just good at others. It’s a film that some
reviewers will undoubtedly refer to as “lesser Hitchcock.” I would agree with
that description. (on DVD)
3 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment