bbmtwist
In his second sound film, Hitchcock forgets everything silent film taught him and simply photographs a depressing, static, one set stage play. Gone are the innovative camera and editing tricks that graced most of his silent work and even his first sound film.There are the occasional attempts to be artistic (two dolly ins to paranoid son as dialogue reflects his guilty situation; tight close up of father's friend and tailor gossiping re the loss of fortune; the room emptying via sound of all in cast, with tight shot of son the only visual.)Otherwise this is an interminable experience of characters babbling about anything and everything under the sun without valuable content until the rapid denouement. One hour and fifteen minutes of blather and twenty minutes of dramatic proceedings.The acting is not acting at all, but posturing, declaiming. The direction seems non-existent. Sara Allgood comes out best, but even she can't escape the poor dialogue and the "woe is us" attitude of looking aloft, arms outstretched, to a hidden God, begging mercy.My print ran 94 minutes and 20 seconds. IMDb lists running time variously from 85 to 96 minutes.One of the earliest of what was to become known in the UK as a "kitchen sink" drama, realistic, sordid, hopeless and ugly depiction of the downtrodden in their daily lives.
Rainey Dawn
The film is about as dry as stale bread. It does hold my interest to a degree but it's not the greatest film nor the worst film that Hitchcock has made (in my opinion). From what I've read, not even Alfred wanted liked this film - he didn't even want to make it but he did.It's not an unwatchable film but it is not a good movie. It's more of an interest to Hitchcock fans and maybe some film students - that's about it. There might be another small crowd interested in this one, those that are interested in all things Irish.IDK what this film is missing really, maybe a bit more comedy to make it "spicy" or entertaining. A bit quicker pace couldn't hurt either.Not bad but not good - It's in the middle ground for me.Note: IMDb has this film listed as 1929 while most other sources have this film listed as 1930. 3/10
Bill Slocum
The curse of the Irish is the Irish male, a lazing brute whose two passions are booze and homicide. At least that's the take offered in this simplistically annoying play by Irish nationalist turned expatriate Sean O'Casey, in a film adaptation by a young Alfred Hitchcock.Escaping from gunfire on a Dublin streetcorner, "Captain" Boyle (Edward Chapman) and pal Joxer (Sidney Morgan) enjoy lives of irresponsibility, Boyle sponging off his wife Juno (Sara Allgood) and daughter Mary (Kathleen O'Regan), Joxer sponging off Boyle. Boyle also has a son, Johnny (John Laurie), who lost his arm in the Easter Rising and now stalks about the apartment mysteriously, keeping to himself. Suddenly, word comes that Boyle and his family will inherit a legacy from a wealthy cousin. In no time the poor Boyles are spending their anticipated fortune well in advance of its arrival."I'll never doubt the goodness of God again!" proclaims the Captain, hammering home the "too-good-to-be-true" theme.In an October 2004 review, "gazzo-2" makes a nice point of this being an "Oy-rish Honeymooners", only bathetic rather than funny. Chapman reminds me of Ed O'Neill on "Married With Children", hands stuffed in his pants as he attempts a magisterial scowl. Everything is played very broadly on the dingy set, at first for laughs, then for melodrama. The combination apparently made "Juno And The Paycock" a big theatrical hit in 1924, with the Irish Civil War that forms the play's backdrop still an active concern. But the film version feels dated beyond its years, sickly sentimental, cheap, and mean.Hitchcock fans, along with Irish history buffs the only ones with an interest in this production, will find little to chew on here. "Juno" is not even the same kind of failure as is "Topaz", "The Paradine Case", or "Jamaica Inn". Those bear the Master's signature and their flaws are thus worth study. Hitchcock's sole contribution here seems to have been to point a camera in a well-designed but static set, letting his stage veterans set down their matinée performances for posterity.Maybe what was needed was not a director but a lion tamer. There's more ham on display with this cast than in a butcher-shop window. Laurie particularly shrieks every line, rolling his eyes like Joe Flaherty on "Monster Chiller Horror Theater." Interestingly, both he and Chapman give strong performances in other Hitchcock productions of this decade, "The 39 Steps" and "Murder!" respectively. Here they are awful, as are just about everyone else except for Allgood, O'Regan, and John Longden as the lawyer who brings news of the inheritance.Since he's a man, it's probably not a good idea trusting Longden's character. Every male in the play is either a drunk, a sponger, a cheat, a snitch, a killer, or several of these at once. Presenting such unsympathetic people and then asking us to care about them is one of "Juno And The Paycock's" two great failures, the other being O'Casey's heavy hand when it comes to dramatic reversals."Take away our hearts of stone, and give us hearts of flesh" is a repeated phrase in this film. But the overall effect of the film is to leave us more stony-hearted about the plight of the poor Irish than we began. No wonder the ex-Republican O'Casey died in England.
