From my comments you will immediately recognize I am not an expert on Alfred Hitchcook or film in general. My positive reactions to this this movie are based on the fact that I felt it held my interest and that it is technically better than most talkies made in the period of 1929 to 1931, even though I think that Herbert Marshall was hampered by a script that was fine for the level of the other actors but inferior for Marshall's talent. I feel that he was out of place in this movie because of the supporting actors. It was still a good movie and you could see hints of Hitchcock future genius in the direction of the plot. I think it took courage to include some of the longer scenes in this movie, especially for a movie made in 1930. That being said I think these longer scenes were mostly effective. I think this film is watch-worthy for any film student and anyone who is a fan of Hitchcock or early talkies. In my opinion if this film were made only 4 years later with the same cast it would have been a superior film because of the massive evolution in film making in the period between 1930 and 1934.
Add a Review
-
frankvisco-117 May 2009
-
slokes12 November 2003"Murder" is a film imprisoned by its time (the early sound period) and place (Britain before the era of the classless society), and largely because of that, quite enjoyable.
As the generic title suggests, you have a murder, a locked-room whodunnit of humble origin that would be pretty much not remembered today if it wasn't an early sound effort by the Master himself, Alfred Hitchcock. An opening shot is particularly effective, as we witness a reaction to a cry of murder (in the entire movie we never see any murder actually take place) along a row of second-story tenement apartments along a night-darkened sidestreet. "A highbrow shocker," it is called by its chief protagonist, Sir John Menier, and it is sort of that, not that it's an especially complex mystery but represents an early effort by a sophisticated directorial mind.
The acting is stilted but effective throughout, particularly the great Herbert Marshall as the lead character, Sir John. Not many films made so early in the 1930s offered such magnetic figures to gravitate around. Marshall is quite charming and plummy as the one man committed to seeing justice is done in the case of a woman who has been, he suspects unfairly, convicted of committing the title deed. You feel Sir John's pain, and enjoy his company, and that's unusual when you consider the fact movie characters spoke only via subtitles less than 18 months before.
I like the mise-en-scenes, particularly one that takes place in a jury room and another one that takes place backstage during a play. The acting isn't always sharp, but the characterizations are, and Hitchcock really allows us to distinguish among many minor roles.
Critics today have noted the attendant snobbery of the film, particularly the way working-class characters unfailingly defer to the noble Sir John. But Marshall is so good you root for his character even despite the class angle. He's so obviously full of good intentions and sensitive to others. Despite a penetrating wit, he's bears a real conscience. You can't help but identify with him in some way. "I found myself caught up in a machine," he confesses to Mr. Markham, who along with Markham's wife he enlists on a crusade to prove the condemned woman innocent.
Actually, I think it's nice having a movie that speaks in favor of Britain's class system; it's easy to do otherwise today, but this period picture usefully exemplifies the predominant thinking of the time. Plus the Markhams [Phyllis Konstam and Edward Chapman] are effective as comic relief, and well-taken care of by Sir John as we discover at the movie's end. Sir John is so considerate, well-bred, and decent that we kind of root for him despite his airs. Maybe we wouldn't resent Britain's noble classes if they all behaved so well. The way he puts Mr. Markham at ease ("Ah, yes, I anticipate your objection," he says as Markham struggles to keep up with the conversation) is one of many subtle humorous sections in the movie.
Also, Hitchcock does take pains to bring Sir John down to size, for example by having the lord spend the night at a policeman's house to get some intelligence on the murder case. There he must content with a morning wake-up call from an affectionate cat who crawls under the covers of his bed, and a huggy toddler who won't let go of her new daddy. Marshall makes us like his character by showing us his humanity, here and elsewhere, and the result is a scene that's charming and rich. (Also cut in many versions, unfortunately.) Hitchcock was very British, but no snob.
SPOILER ALERT [Does anyone watch a movie from 1930 expecting to be surprised by plot twists?] The killer in this movie is a fellow named Handel Fane, who fears his dark secret, that of being half-black, will be exposed. Actually, Fane is as black-looking as Robert Smith of the Cure, and critics are nearly uniform in saying his actual unaddressed secret deals with homosexuality. Esme Percy as Fane comes across as gay as a French horn at Mardi Gras. But Fane killed the victim because he didn't want the convicted killer to know he was in love with her, so that's that for the gay angle.
Still, Percy's fey mannerisms are offputting. So is the thick acting of Norah Baring as Diana Baring, a performance only notable in that her character has the same last name as the actress playing her. A good film when you make allowances for the time, but when you do, you can really get swept up in it. Hitchcock doesn't so much shine here as show an awareness of inner motives and psychology that would stead him well in time. A good movie mostly for discerning the genius to follow, but it does have its moments that shine even today. Watch it without great expectations, and you will be pleasantly surprised. -
ma-cortes26 April 2017A mystery movie adapted from the novel and play titled ¨Enter Sir John¨by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson . It deals with a girl (Norah Baring) silently accepts her prosecution for killing , while the jury is deliberating , there is a lone juror (Herbert Marshall) who believes in her innocence begins an investigation his own and winds up discovering weird happenings .
This fine early effort by Hitch has several novelties , as the movie transcends the limitation of its mystery plot by dealing with thought-provoking issues and focusing on the theatrical meditations of reality . An early talkie for Great Britain in which director Hitch features visualization of some typical Hitchcockian themes , being perhaps the most provocative of all early British films , adding the first gay stereotype in popular cinema and the first movie where a person's thoughts are presented by a voice-in-off . The story follows mysteriously the investigation of a murder and the protagonist attempts to keep the condemned girl from being executed to death penalty by hanging . One of the first and best Alfred film to explore the ideas and themes that would become his trademarks , including climatic and memorable scenes . Herbert Marshall gives a good interpretation as the jurist believing in a young woman's innocence and starts organizing the pieces of the crime in order to save her . Look closely for the Master in a rapid cameo about an hour into the film walking past the house where the murder was committed and Una O'Connor , John Ford's regular ; besides , brief acting by Miles Mander .
The film belongs to Hitch's first British period when he directed silent films such as ¨The lodger¨ (1926) , ¨The ring¨(1927) , ¨Easy virtue¨ (1927) , ¨The Manxman¨(29) ; being ¨Blackmail¨(29) made as a silent , this was reworked to become a talkie . Following sound movies and early talkies as ¨June and the Paycock¨(30) , ¨Skin Game¨(31) , ¨Rich and strange¨(32) , ¨Number 17¨(32) , ¨The man who knew too much¨(34) , ¨The 39 steps¨ (35) , ¨The secret agent¨(36) , ¨Sabotage¨(36) , ¨The lady vanishes¨(38) , ¨Jamaica Inn¨ (39) until he is hired by David O'Selznick to shoot ¨Rebecca¨(40) in the US . -
Bucs196028 November 2001Early Hitchcocks are all worth seeing to observe how the Master's style evolved over the years. This story, based on a Clemence Dane book, is interesting, if only for the sub-texts flowing through it. The dialogue comes in fits and starts, which is common in the early sound films and some of the camera work is rudimentary.....but you can still spot the Hitchcock touch in the nuances of some of the scenes. Herbert Marshall is especially dashing as Sir John; he was a particularly attractive actor in his early years. Nora Baring is servicable as the accused but it is Esme Percy, as Fain, who is intriguing. As a "half-caste", originally written by Dane as gay, he is either overacting like hell or is fascinating in his interpretation....there is a fine line. Regardless, he holds your attention when he is on the screen. The film moves slowlllllllly, very slowlllllly.....but for Hitchcock and early talkie buffs, it is well worth it. Catch Una O'Conner in her younger years as the landlady. She's a treat.
-
ackstasis19 November 2007Whenever I review one of Alfred Hitchcock's lesser-revered pre-1940 British efforts, I always find myself falling back upon an old cliché. Each time, in no uncertain terms, I declare that that, within this film, regardless of its cinematic merits (or lack thereof), one can detect the makings of a genius. At least in the case of 'Murder! (1930),' I can say this with complete confidence, since, though the film is rather ponderous between the interesting beginning and the thrilling ending, the director's aptitude for technical inventiveness is undeniably present. The film, one of Hitchcock's first talkies after he revolutionised British cinema with 'Blackmail (1929)' was based upon the novel "Enter Sir John," written by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson. Unlike the "wrong man" scenario that would become Hitchcock's trademark, 'Murder!' involves the "wrong woman," as a young stage actress is condemned to die following the murder of a fellow performer.
Just like a previous film of his, the silent melodrama 'Easy Virtue (1928),' this film dedicates many of its opening minutes towards a genuinely thrilling courtroom trial. After the damning evidence has been presented to the members of the jury, all but three of the jurors vote to have the young lady, Diana Baring (Norah Baring), hanged for her crime. Hitchcock's apparent disregard for the British legal system is evident for all to see, as the three solitary "not guilty" voters are practically bullied into altering their votes. The venerable stage actor Sir John Menier (Herbert Marshall), despite his fervent belief in the girl's innocence, is likewise bullied into changing his decision, pressured by the other jurors' impatient taunts; after mentioning an irrefutable fact of the case, the group would exclaim in unison, "any answer to that, Sir John?!" Once the trial has come to an end, Sir John decides to investigate the murder for himself, employing the services of a pair of husband-and-wife actors (Edward Chapman and Phyllis Konstam) to aid him.
The novel "Enter Sir John" had previously been adapted into a play, and style of the film does exhibit these theatrical roots. Each of the actors (most playing stage performers, no less), do provide performances that are more theatrical than realistic, and Herbert Marshall, in particular, struck me as an actor somewhat akin to our contemporary Kenneth Branagh {who'd be my obvious casting choice for Sir John if a remake were ever conceived}. There is an excellent little spin to the ending, with Hitchcock almost breaking the fourth wall, but not quite. The camera zooms out from the closing shot to reveal that it is taking place on a stage before a large audience, suggesting that the director knew quite well that the style and plot of the film resembled a dramatic performance. Even more interestingly, could Hitchcock be suggesting that we have been watching a play for the past 90 minutes? Rather than watching the events unfold as they happened, could we merely be a member of the audience watching Sir John's theatrical adaptation of the story? This tantalising possibility represents a level of abstract thought that is rather unique among films of its era. -
Although not as photographically fluid as his later films, Alfred Hitchcock, in his first sound film, managed to overcome the limitations of early recording equipment. With "Murder," he produced an entertaining work that holds up better and does not creak as much as many films of the early sound period.
"Murder" also provides early clues to themes that continued throughout Hitchcock's movie-making career. The accused perpetrator of a crime, who was caught with circumstantial evidence, has only a single champion that believes in her innocence. The wrongly accused would appear throughout Hitchcock's work from Robert Donat in "The Thirty-Nine Steps" to Henry Fonda in "The Wrong Man" and Cary Grant in "North by Northwest." Sexually ambiguous characters like Handel Fane in "Murder" would continue to fascinate Hitchcock over the years as well. Again, from Judith Anderson in "Rebecca," Robert Walker in "Strangers on a Train," Farley Granger and John Dall in "Rope," to even Mrs. Bundy, the ornithologist in "The Birds," Hitchcock displays a fascination with sexual ambivalence. However, the mincing character in "Murder," as played by Esme Percy, is borderline offensive, even in the context of the period. His sexual orientation is more than suggested by the character's predilection to wear women's clothing, revel in applying makeup, and use effeminate gestures.
However, despite the film's flaws and limitations, the story of Sir John Menier's efforts to prove a young woman innocent of murder is fairly engrossing. As Sir John, a well-known actor and a member of the jury that convicts the accused woman, Herbert Marshall is stalwart as ever, and he cleverly tracks down clues and devises an intellectual trap for his prey. The rest of the cast has little to do but follow Hitchcock's direction, which is capable but not his finest. For Hitchcock students, "Murder" is essential, for other viewers, this early sound effort is generally entertaining, if a bit slowly paced and static visually. -
blanche-28 August 2017Two things make Murder! interesting before one even sees it - it's early Hitchcock and the film is 87 years old!
It's not your typical Hitchcock story. A famous actor (Herbert Marshall) sits on a jury that convicts a young actress, Diana (Norah Baring) of murder, but he's haunted by the verdict. He had an encounter with this woman some time before and suggested she gain experience by "working in the provinces." He now feels slightly responsible, as she is accused of murdering a young female costar.
Enlisting the help of a married couple in the company, he sets out to find out what really happened.
Marshall is young and attractive, and Esme Percy as Handel Fane is very memorable. A distinguished stage actor, he actually studied with Sarah Bernhardt, and roles were written for him by Bernard Shaw. His style and look are unusual.
This was filmed in a precise manner - the camera focusing on doorways, going along the floor where the murder took place and showing the bloody poker.
The climax of the film is pure Hitchcock and astounding. Well worth sitting through this early movie. Hitchcock always is. -
bkoganbing25 October 2011Murder! is one of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest sound features and one of the first which will employ some clever Hitchcock suspense devices in the dialog and cinematography. The film concerns Herbert Marshall playing an actor/playwright in the tradition of Noel Coward who gets put on a jury where Norah Baring is on trial for Murder!.
Who Baring is accused of Murder! is a fellow actress in her theatrical company. She is shielding the real murderer and even after the verdict is brought in, only Marshall has his doubts. He starts his own investigation and eventually comes up with the real culprit.
I have to reveal it folks because while Marshall and Baring do some fine work here, I was really moved by Esme Percy's performance as the cross dressing murderer. The victim was about to reveal that Percy was of mixed racial origin, something he had kept carefully hidden for years. Back in those days when some John Bulls were trying to keep the British Empire intact and its rule over millions of non-white people such an accusation was as bad as being accused of being gay. And Percy's mincing performance because after all he is a female impersonator throws some hints at the audience of at least bisexuality.
Percy creates such an air of sadness about him when Marshall confronts him Hamlet like when he calls him for an audition of a new play he's doing based on the murder case on which he sat. With minimal dialog, but with expressions that say so much more Percy realizes the jig is nearly up. But as a performer he makes a grand exit from life itself.
Definitely a must see for fans of the master of suspense, especially those who like Hitchcock's English period work. n -
utgard1417 August 2014A jury finds an actress guilty of murder. Afterward, one of the jurors (Herbert Marshall) has second thoughts about their verdict. So he decides to conduct his own investigation into the crime. Early talkie from Alfred Hitchcock is notable for featuring the first voice-over in film history. Obviously the film shows the limitations of the medium in 1930. Given those limitations, Hitch's direction is all the more impressive. You can see some of the master's burgeoning greatness in some of the techniques he uses and the little bits of humor sprinkled throughout. It's still a slow-moving and often creaky relic of early sound filmmaking, but it managed to keep my interest. Nice ending, too.
-
Hitchcoc18 March 2017A recurring theme in Hitchcock's movies was the innocent accused who can't defend him or herself. In this case it's a young actress who is found, standing over the victim of a brutal murder, bloodied, with a fireplace poker at her feet. She has no recollection of the murder and is brought to court where she is convicted and sentenced to be hanged. But someone just doesn't believe she could have done this and begins to sort out evidence. All I can say is that there is so much promise in these early Hitchcock movies that pushes us forward to his more mature works. "Murder!" and "Blackmail" remain two of my favorite Hitchcock movies.
-
skeetsmiller10 March 2001Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! is not a great film, but I give it *** out of ****, so it must be good, and it is. The acting is good, the premise is intriguing, but the film being extremely slow-moving, makes the film boring at times, but it is still at times a quite mesmerizing film that is worth is just for the extraordinary ending. The plot deals with a woman( Norah Baring) being accused of murder, and a juror( a great Herbert Marshall) being almost sure that she is not the killer, and attempting to find this killer. I will not reveal any more of the plot to you, as I think that this film deserved to be seen, not just read. It is not one of Hitchcock's more popular films, and not one of his best. It is an early talkie, so be prepared for a poor print. But past that and it's slow-moving flaws, it's a well-acted film that deserves to be seen.
-
Anonymous_Maxine8 March 2007In an early depiction of Hitchcock's fear and mistrust of the police and the legal system, we have a very legal thriller about a murder and it's subsequent trial. We are given the facts of the case, even a sort of a limited view of the murder itself taking place, followed by the prosecution and defense presenting their cases at the trial and a detailed look at the jury's discussion of the case. Sort of Hitchcock's version of 12 Angry Men.
There is a curious cast of characters involved in the film, and two of Hitch's biggest interests, the law and the arts, are on center stage. Sir John in the single character who takes the time to really look deeply into what really happened that night, even though someone's life is on the line based on the verdict that they reach, and his personal investigation is probably the best part of the film. One of the things that this movie is famous for is for being the first film where someone's thoughts are shown in a film, in the scene where he is looking at himself in the mirror, shaving. For this scene, a recording of him speaking was played off screen, since vocals could not be added to the film later.
There is a scene in the film where Mr. Marlowe goes to visit Sir John at his request, and as he approaches Sir John's desk there is a close up of his feet, which sink deeply into the rug as though it were laid over a soft mattress. This is never explained, although I am willing to accept that this is a spot of symbolism the meaning of which escaped me, since so much of the rest of the film is deeply layered, literally and figuratively, as well. There is an astonishing amount of technique and content to be seen here, impossible to catch all in one viewing, which is one sign of a great film.
Some editing and filming techniques I suspect were not as successful as they seemed in the writing stages, but the film is strong nonetheless. Consider, for example, the brave and highly successful technique of lingering on the empty jury room while the verdict is read offstage, and the shockingly effective technique of having the face of the victim hanging in the vision of the murderer. Incredibly, I think this is one of the single most haunting shots I have ever seen in a Hitchcock film. It has its slow moments and may be a bit longer than it's content can support, but this is a brilliant example of Hitch's early work.
Also keep your eye out for Hitchcock's cameo, which is a full hour into the film. This was long before he began putting all of his cameos in the beginnings of his films, knowing that the audience would be watching for him and not wanting this to distract from the stories. -
TheLittleSongbird30 August 2013Of Hitchcock's early talkie films, Murder! is not as good as Blackmail and The Lodger but it is an improvement on Juno and the Paycock. It is an interesting film, particularly for Hitchcock completists, but it is a long way from one of his best. Murder! is very well shot and photographed, and Hitchcock directs splendidly with some tautness, subtle humour and a great deal of atmosphere. The lighting is very fitting to the tone of the story and the costumes and sets are beautifully evoked. The music is haunting and never too much or little, the use of the Tristan and Isolde prelude was also a nice touch. Of individual scenes coming off best were the thrilling beginning courtroom sequence and the suspenseful climax. Herbert Marshall is very good in the lead role. Apart from Marshall though the acting does come across as too stagy, Nora Baring and Esme Percy are particularly prone to it, but Marshall is the only actor who doesn't come across as on the stagy side. Aside the beginning and end, the story didn't come across as involving. A lot of it is rather dull and lacking in suspense, for a Hitchcockian whodunit with the wrong man theme that was somewhat odd and disappointing. The script has flashes of intelligence especially at the beginning but is tonally disjointed and lacks life in much of the film. And as a few have mentioned the voices and the way the actors speak are very heavily clipped and accented(even for a Hitchcock early talkie), so it is not always easy to understand what is being said. All in all, an interesting film but not a great one. 6/10 Bethany Cox
-
km_dickson8 August 2005Better than Hitchcock's earlier try at suspense, Blackmail, but still a far cry from his later work. The problem with Murder is that it never seems to find its niche. The movie changes pace so often it's almost hard to keep up with. It opens at a murder scene in which a stage actress, Diana Baring (Norah Baring), seems to have been caught red handed. As the various characters are introduced it looks like we have a classic Hitchcock suspense film building. Before anything really gets going, though, we are taken to Diana's trial, in which we see the entire Jury deliberation in real time. So much time is spent in this setting that you think you're in store for a jury drama in the vein of Twelve Angry Men. The last juror caves, however, and a verdict of guilty is given. Unsatisfied with the outcome, that final juror, Sir John Menier (Herbert Marshall), who is apparently now the leading man, begins his own investigation. Now we've got a detective style mystery. That storyline only goes on for about twenty minutes before the killer is pretty much revealed, and just like that, it's a suspense film again! A short game of wits ensues between Sir John and the killer which ends with the killer offing himself and leaving a confession that sets Diana free. In the last few minutes we are suddenly supposed to care about a love angle between Sir John and Diana. There is some good stuff in the film, but it's all too disjointed for you to be able to enjoy it. Good camera work and art direction.
-
This was one of the few times that Alfred Hitchcock filmed one of his stories as a "whodunit" in which you are not sure until the end who committed the crime. "Murder!" is often slow-moving, but it has some good features, and is worth watching the whole way through. It was one of Hitchcock's earliest sound pictures, and he tried some new things here, some of which work quite well.
Herbert Marshall stars as Sir John, a famous actor who sits on a jury for a murder case. After the case is decided, Sir John starts having second thoughts over whether the verdict was really correct, and he decides to investigate on his own. His investigation itself moves rather slowly, but it has some entertaining moments. Everyone connected with the murder was part of a theater group, and Hitchcock gets some good mileage out of having the characters alternate between their real identities and their stage roles. There are some pretty good scenes, most especially the one of the jury's deliberations - it is quite amusing, and a not-too-subtle example of Hitchcock's lack of confidence in the infallibility of the legal system.
There is not very much of the suspense for which Hitchcock is famous, but instead there is some subtle humor and a lot of atmospheric detail. While not having the sustained excitement of Hitchcock's best films, "Murder!" is still worthwhile as a slightly different kind of film by the great director. -
whpratt110 September 2007Enjoyed viewing this great Hitchock Classic which was created in London, England in the early talkie films and the sound and production was very poor but Herbert Marshall, (Sir John Menier) gave an outstanding performance along with Norah Baring, (Diana Baring). Sir John Menier had to serve on a jury and make a very serious decision in a murder case concerning actors and a murder that occurred behind the scenes. Sir John was persuaded by his other jurors to convict Diana Baring of this crime which he did not really feel committed this murder. Diana is sentenced to prison and possibly death, but Sir John has a deep concern that she is innocent and decides to start his own investigation into this murder case in order to obtain Diana an appeal. This story goes very deep into this investigation and there are many suspects involved which adds greatly to this very secret murder mystery. Enjoy.
-
"Murder" from 1930 is a rare film from Alfred Hitchcock in that the plot is a "whodunit." I can't recall many other films where the director would use the same kind of narrative. It works quite well on the whole but the pace could have been better and a running time of 90 minutes or less would have helped also. The explanation given at the end of the film for the murder, is rather unexpected and quite daring for those more Conservative times. It changes the complexion of the whole story. The killing of a theatre actress at the beginning, leads to the arrest and trial of a woman who's a member of the same acting company. Whilst the jury members debate who whether the woman is guilty or not, Herbert Marshall as one of the jurors, initiates his own investigation. With the assistance of Edward Chapman (later in some of the Norman Wisdom comedies), they both uncover a good deal of information that casts some doubt as to the suspect's guilt. There are many great Hitchcock moments and it's always interesting to follow Herbert Marshall's efforts in obtaining the truth. There is an interesting scene during when Marshall is having a shave. As he gazes into his mirror in a somewhat melancholic state of mind, his thoughts about the case are reflected in a separate voice-over which was recorded by the actor. An effective scene. In spite of the over-length, "Murder" is still a pretty darn good film.
-
Quinoa198422 April 2015It's easy to forget that when synchronized sound was first introduced into world cinema, it changed so much and yet for a short period of time made things difficult for filmmakers in ways they couldn't have perceived. Whereas in the silent era filmmakers had the freedom to move their cameras any which way they pleased (and Hitchcock was one of those, as seen in his first classic, The Lodger, with shots such as taken from under a glass floor to see a man walking by), in those first years of sound filmmakers had to be at the whim of the microphone that recorded right there in the studio or in close proximity - quickly, there would be innovations to record sound better, location-wise, but it was slow - and thus we have a picture like MURDER! in that mold.
One will likely come to see Hitchcock's Murder! after devouring many of his other films, some may even have that name in the title (Dial M for example), so it may come as a shock that we don't really get to see a murder take place. Oh, there is a dead body, and we see that pretty early on as the "Bobbys" and other on-lookers see a woman has been killed in a house. This is actually more of a 'whodunit', which the director did really on occasion actually - the norm was really about the 'Wrong Man/Woman' situation - and the first act, and sort of what follows, is closer to that of 12 Angry Men: a jury is practically unanimous for the guilt of murder for poor Diana Baring (Norah Baring, curious they have the same last name, she's fine by the way if under-used). All, except that is, for Sir John (Herbert Marshall, the best actor in this cast with maybe exception one other), who sees too many questions and reasonable doubt.
But Ms Baring is convicted as Sir John can't muster enough defense, and yet it eats away at him; here we get to see and hear cinema's first first-person narration. It's actually not that bad in terms of the words, though, again, it has dated ridiculously due to the fact that they had to have his audio recorded voice going on stage, along with an accompanied orchestra, so the delivery is creaky as hell. What we get from then on, as Ms Baring awaits her death sentence, is Sir John tracing down more of the facts that the police seem to have just let pass - forensics wasn't really that much of a commonality, one assumes, in 1930 England - and it leads all the way to another actor, currently working in the circus, played by Esme Percy in his screen debut.
Percy doesn't have much screen-time, but what he does have - in the last 25 minutes or so of the film - makes things pick up and become really interesting. It should be said that Murder! may be a disappointment for those looking for more chock-a-block Hitchcock razzle-dazzle with his camera. He does try to inject some movement here and there, to be sure, and it's really worth your while to check out the full director's cut if possible (Amazon video has the 104 minute version, other prints vary), and sometimes it's just in quick cuts like in the jury-room scenes, or in how a close-up of a clock or the timing of a noose being put together in Baring's cell another.
Thankfully, along with Percy's eerie, kind of over-the-top but winning performance, and Hitchcock's direction in this meeting between this actor and this writer Sir John (who has a scenario based on the Baring case, albeit with one page "missing" as to the details after a certain point, dot-dot-dot), Murder! has a smashing third act and climax. it suddenly becomes apparent that the movie's strength is in looking at the difference between the theatricality of the stage (and the circus) and real life, which is full of pressure to conform and dreary "facts" without any imagination to look deeper and further.
When one thinks about it, a lot of this movie may be kind of brilliant. But it takes some time to get there, and there's stretches of the film that drag, such as a scene with Sir John waking up in the morning, surrounded by, um, kids and a crying baby and a "pussy" cat, and an older woman delivering a LOT of exposition in the kind of English that needs subtitles. Some of the flaws can't be helped due to stone-age cinematic techniques, while others are just more due to a young filmmaker still trying to find his footing into what he "does". Still, Murder! is worth a watch if you dig this man's work, and there's glimpses (sometimes more) into what would become his signature moves. -
AlsExGal22 October 2016This is not your typical Hitchcock of later years as this is a straight up murder mystery. There is no elaborate plot. The police find Diana Baring, an actress in a troupe, in shock, covered in blood, and next to the body of her friend and next to the poker that killed her. All during her trial she says that she does not remember killing the woman but she is sure she did not drink the brandy in a glass nearby. Sir John Menier, who was on the jury that convicted her and an actor himself, is shaving and looking in the mirror after the trial when this one fact hits him. Why would she be so sure of not drinking the brandy but claim she could not remember if she did the killing? Was this the act of a guilty woman? Thus Sir John, played energetically and cleverly by Herbert Marshall, is out to find who did kill her. This is a well done scene in and of itself, as Marshall is shaving and we hear his thoughts in a voice-over. Remember, at the time, many films were still using title cards to change scenes!
Sir John is going to need the help of the acting troupe to solve this case. Thus he gets some of the members to help him by promising them jobs in his production company, which is a huge step up for them, before asking them for his help in clearing Diana. The rest of the film plays out like a police procedural, and although the British never had a formal production code like there was in America, Hitchcock does remove the reference to homosexuality in the film versus the play upon which the film was based.
I found the film rather slow paced, but the camera-work is interesting. When one couple in the theatre troupe gets the word that Sir John wants to see them, you see close ups of shoes being shined, stockings being put on, hair being combed, but they are all shots so close you only see the actions themselves. Prior to this you see the couple living in drab surroundings just to get an idea that life has been a struggle for them and that their child seems more like a lively nuisance than their pride and joy. There are close ups of unpaid bills on the mantle as their daughter clangs annoyingly on their piano. There is a rather surreal shot when they enter Sir John's office. The man's legs sink into Sir John's carpet so that his feet are swallowed up. This is never explained, so I am assuming it is just to show the elegance and awe the man ascribes to Sir John right down to the depth of his rug.
There are odd experimental shots like this all through the film, and Herbert Marshall's presence absolutely carries the entire production on the acting side. The film suffers due to uneven and often muffled sound which was just a problem that the early talkies shared, along with having long-winded spells of being too talkie and no scoring unless something important happens and the score comes blasting out of nowhere. I'd recommend it just because it is early Hitchcock and so unlike anything he did past 1940. -
rmax30482326 October 2005Hitchcock hadn't yet hit his stride but some of the effort he invested in developing his style is on display here. Basically a whodunnit, Hitchcock uses several stylistic devices, some of which work.
Example of one that works: when we first see the crowded room in which a murder has just taken place, the shot opens on the stunned face of a constable staring down at the body, then the camera pans slowly over the blank face of a woman sitting next to him, then down her arm to the handle of a poker lying on the floor, then up along the staff of the poker, slowly over a few spots of blood on the carpet, and finally we see the victim's body, her face turned away from the camera.
Example of a stylistic experiment that does not work: in the jury room everyone votes "guilty" except for Sir John (Herbert Marshall). He's the lone holdout. (I was beginning to think the movie should have been called "Twelve British Men.") In defense of the accused woman, Sir John makes a few feeble points. Hitchcock cuts quickly to the faces of the other jurors as they shout ripostes at him -- "What about the poker?", "And her dress allover blood!" Then, in chorus, they crowd around him and shout, "Do you have any answer for THAT, Sir John?" It's a little distracting because it doesn't fit into the film itself, which is fairly straightforwardly told. Also distracting, though not anyone's fault, is the sound, which was necessarily pretty primitive at the time. If someone brings a radio into a bathroom we have to listen to a fake broadcast in which someone off camera reads bulletins. Meanwhile two people are trying to talk, but it's hard to hear them because their conversation is eclipsed by the voice of the newsreader.
But never mind all that. Whether or not it's technically perfect, it has an interesting plot and Hitchcock works in some of his later concerns -- I'm trying to avoid saying "obsessions". There are multiple closeups of food. One is a fantasy of an elaborate dinner spread. The heavy is a "half-caste," which is to say he's gay. Easy enough to crack the code when the guy has a high, squeaky voice, dresses as a female impersonator in two independent venues, applies his makeup with relish, wears a never-changing expression of vampish languour, and extinguishes his cigarette fussily and with one pinky raised even higher than the British pouf norm. Hitch extends him some sympathy too. "Poor devil." An interesting movie, not just for its historical value but for its own qualities. -
dromasca12 March 2019Watching Alfred Hitchcock's early films is a special experience for any movie lover and fan of the master of suspense. The first period of Hitchcock's career took place in England. Hitchcock made his debut in the silent films, and his cinematography remained primarily a visual art during all his career. Around 1930, he lived together with the whole industry the transition to the spoken film or better said sound film, because at Hitchcock the soundtrack includes not only the voices of the actors, but also the sound effects and the music that plays a key role in creating the atmosphere . 'Murder!' belongs to this period, and is besides its dramatic qualities a document of this transformation, at a time when the soundtrack was recorded "live" during the shooting of the scenes, including the musical accompaniment. Many decades later the process would be rediscovered by film directors for artistic purposes, but at that time there was simply no separation between the visual and the sound channels.
'Murder!' is largely a movie about theater. The action takes place in the actors' world, the crime victim at the center of action is an actress, the main suspect is also an actress, and the role of the detectives trying to discover the truth behind the appearances is also played by actors. We find in the film even a 'theater in theater' scene used as a mean to provoke a guilt confession, which reminds us of 'Hamlet'. We can see in this work Hitchcock's passion for the stage and his pleasure to reveal what happens - technically but also from human point of view - in the backstage of the theater.
Leaving aside the historical aspects, what remains interesting in this film almost 90 years after its realization? Some of the acting performances are remarkable, especially Herbert Marshall 's lead role. There is a very good scene with a jury debate, perhaps the first in a cinematic series that later became a distinct genre, including '12 Angry Men '. Hitchcock's later directorial mastery is predicted by some excellently filmed scenes - the sequence of the windows in the opening scene, the shadow of the hanging in the prison, the suggested death by the end in which we only see the reactions of the spectators. This is not yet a masterpiece, but sparkles of genius are already visible. -
Yeahyeah4 January 1999Hitchcock himself liked this film, mainly because of certain innovations contained in it; the use of a stream-of-consciousness voice-over, for example. There are some scenes and shots that make MURDER worth seeing, but I must say that this film moves extremely slowly. One reason is the sometimes nearly unbearable amount of space between spoken lines. I understand that Hitchcock was experimenting with improvisation of dialogue, and the result was a movie that drags.
-
This is a brilliant early work by Alfred Hitchcock, a film full of ingenuity and originality, and showing unmistakable signs of Hitchcock's developing genius. It stars Herbert Marshall, in one of his finest performances as the conscience-stricken character Sir John Menier, a famous stage actor who serves as a juror for the trial of a woman named Diana Baring, who is accused of murder. Strangely enough, Diana Baring is played by a well-known British actress of the time called Norah Baring. Despite being a double-Baring, she does not bare anything but her own polite doubts and hesitancies, being so highly bred that she dare not even be so presumptuous as to try to defend herself. Norah Baring has that high wavering voice, exceedingly thin figure, and shy, saintly manner of the born victim. Such women were fashionable in England in the 1930s. They spoke like overgrown children, with the most perfect diction. Considering how over-mannered and feeble most English men were at that time, perhaps such victim-women were all they could cope with. When the story begins, Baring is found sitting in a kind of trance in front of a fire where a girl who was her friend lies dead, with a poker beside her covered in blood. She continues to sit there looking straight ahead of her in a daze while the police come in and investigate the crime scene in an oafish and clumsy manner, getting their own fingerprints all over everything and acting like the proverbial Mr. Plod. They ask her what happened and she says she cannot remember anything. So this is an excellent start to a jolly good Hitchcock drama. Baring is convicted of murder and due to hang. Marshall had held out against a bullying jury until he finally caved in and agreed to a guilty verdict. But then he had juror's remorse and set about actively trying to prove her innocence before she could be executed. His investigations become more and more complicated, and Baring is unwilling to help him, and in any case genuinely cannot remember what happened. Apparently, Baring thinks it is only good manners to submit to the verdict. If she ever had an ego, it had certainly drained out of her long ago, like rainwater going down a street culvert. Can Marshall possibly accomplish anything against all these odds? He is determined and indomitable. A most fascinating understated and inspired performance is given by Esme Percy, as the ambiguous character Handel Fane, who is both an actor and a trapeze artist who likes to dress in drag. In an understated performance laden with unspoken implications, Percy gives the character all the poignant underpinnings of a man tormented by his own contradictory impulses, and weighed down by the loneliness of his cross-dressing compulsion. It is an amazing psychological study of an extreme character type. Percy certainly was underrated in his career and his excellent interpretation of this difficult character helps make the entire film a true classic.
-
LeonLouisRicci3 September 2013Very early Hitchcock is very interesting with its display of some Human Oddities like Homosexuality and Race Mixing. The Director interweaves these Fringe elements disdained and Hush-Hush in Polite Society and puts them in front of a backdrop of the British Caste System where everyone grovels at the feet of a "Sir".
There are many Flamboyant touches that help propel this along with enough Showcasing to exploit its mixed Theme of Theatre Folk, Circus Performers, Stuffy Aristocrats, and the Criminal Justice System. It weaves Hamlet and Vagner with Vaudeville and the Big Top.
The Director's Heavy Visual Hand is not as evident here, it seems more restrained and subtle, although they are at work nonetheless. Not the best of Hitchcock, even His two preceding Films, one Silent and one a Silent/Sound Hybrid were better. But even Midland Hitch is always a bit different and intriguing than the Midland of His Contemporaries. -
planktonrules30 July 2007The film begins with a murder. A woman is found beside the dead lady and she has no recollection of what transpired. Given that she was in the room with the victim and there didn't appear to be anyone else, she is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In Hitchcock tradition in the 1930s, the rest of the film is about someone who investigates because they think she MIGHT be innocent (in this case, a juror who has second thoughts played by Herbert Marshall). This is a very, very familiar plot device (in fact, too familiar) that was repeated in Hitchcock's YOUNG AND INNOCENT as well as THE 39 STEPS. On top of that, Marshall's acting is really dull and he seems bored at times--something that surprised me since I usually like him in films. Plus, the plot has a lot of silly devices and holes that make it all seem very unpolished and ordinary.
Unfortunately, in addition to having a too familiar plot, the movie itself is a bit dull, though there are a few bright spots here and there that give it some life. First, the way the trapeze artist deals ends his role in the film is very, very memorable and shocking. Second, in one cute scene, Una O'Connor brings her five brats into Marshall's bedroom and thoroughly annoys him with their behaviors. This is very reminiscent to a funny scene with kids from Hitchcock's BLACKMAIL (1929) and it seems that in light of these two scenes and his never having had kids himself you'd think the director probably despised children! One final note is that this film was made one year after England's first talking picture (the previously mentioned BLACKMAIL) and because sound technology was still new, the results are rather poor. In some cases, people talk over each other and the conversations are muddled and in others the sound volume for each actor hasn't been compensated for--making the softer-voiced actors harder to understand. In addition, the print seemed a tad old and I am sure some restoration work could improve the sound immensely. However, since it's not that great a film to begin with, don't hold your breath!