The Skin Game (1931) User Reviews (51)

"No matter how you begin, it all ends in this skin game"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 16 January 2008]

The early 30s were a time of experimentation for Hitchcock, with theme as much as with technique. After discovering that the crime thriller was his forte with Blackmail and Murder!, his at the time zigzagging career lead him to attempt a talkie drama adapted from a fairly mediocre stage play concerning a feud between the families of an aristocrat and an entrepreneur.

In attempting a straight ahead drama without any major thriller elements, Hitchcock nevertheless employs all the techniques he had been perfecting in his earlier crime pictures – dynamic editing, a focus on the psychology of guilt and fear, as well as some of the sound techniques of his previous talkies. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. He tries to inject some tension into an auction scene with whip pans and quick editing, which is a fairly good display of technique but we don't really care enough about the outcome of the bidding to get really drawn in at this point.

For some of the more talky scenes, Hitchcock tries to move beyond the story's theatrical roots by focusing on reactions and having dialogue take place off screen. This helps to give weight to the second half of the film. In particular, Hitch's dwelling on the face of Chloe, the innocent victim of the feud, makes the audience feel sympathy for her character, which in turn makes the climactic scenes work and prevents them from slipping into ridiculous melodrama (which the stage version may well have done). For some of the more subdued scenes, Hitchcock preserves an unbroken take but still takes the focus on and off different characters by smoothly dollying in and out. This same method would be used by Laurence Olivier when he began directing Shakespeare adaptations in the 1940s. However, too many of the dialogue scenes in The Skin Game are simply a lot of panning as the camera tries to keep up with extravagant theatrical performances.

This is a fairly good go at theatrical drama for Hitchcock, but it was made at a time when he was coming to realise not only his strength in the suspense thriller, but his weakness in (and utter distaste for) every other genre. He was probably beginning to look at this kind of project as a rather dull waste of time, and definitely at odds to his sensibility. As an example, this is one of the very few Hitchcock pictures to take advantage of natural beauty, and yet he makes this aspect a victim of his playful irony, by taking his most beautiful countryside shot, then pulling out to reveal it is merely a tiny picture on a sale poster, surrounded by Hornblower and his cronies laughing over the deal they have just made.

The Skin Game is rarely gripping, but at times it is powerful, and in any case it has a short enough running time to prevent it from getting boring. Hitchcock however was looking now to have more fun with crime and suspense, and this sense of the dramatic (not to mention a sense of genuine sympathy for the victim) would not return until his later Hollywood pictures, and even then only occasionally.

Not exactly the snobs versus the slobs...

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 29 January 2023]

... but it is an adequate way to explain the dynamic for Americans.

Alfred Hitchcock directs this adaptation of John Galsworthy's play. The moneyed, cultured Hillcrists battle against the nouveau riche Hornblowers, the latter headed by the ambitious, combative patriarch (Edmund Gwenn). Their squabbles over the use of farm land for industrial purposes ends up causing heartache and tragedy for both families. Featuring C. V. France, Helen Haye, and Jill Esmond as the Hillcrists, and John Longden, Phyllis Konstam, and Frank Lawton as the other Hornblowers. With Herbert Ross, Dora Gregory, and Edward Chapman.

This had already been filmed (also with Gwenn) in 1921. The class-conscious storyline resonated well with the British, I suppose. Gwenn plays his role big, and is a stark contrast to his later, best-known Kris Kringle role in Miracle on 34th Street. Jill Esmond, the first wife of Laurence Olivier and originally the bigger star in the marriage, has one of her better film roles. As for Hitchcock's direction, the only stand-out scene is a lengthy auction with a lot of rapid-cut edits.

Not typical Hitchcock, but not bad.

[gridoon · 7/10 · 15 March 2004]

Technical crudities, print/sound deficiencies and dated acting styles taken into consideration, "Skin Game" still has innovative (for the time) camera techniques and thematic ambiguity (who is right and who is wrong? Who are the true villains of the story?) and is generally better than other, more "typical" Hitchcock films of the period, like "Murder!" from 1930.Edmund Gwenn is terrific and Phyllis Constam is quite sexy. (**1/2)

great suspense build-up, abrupt ending

[steve.schonberger · 6/10 · 28 March 2000]

Hitchcock may be the master of suspense, but this movie doesn't show that mastery fully-developed. The movie starts out strong, and builds to a great climax, but then wraps up abruptly. The movie shows much of Hitchcock's skill at building suspense, but doesn't deliver an ending to match the rising tension. It's too bad, because the build-up is very strong. Pay attention to the epilogue scene for great use of irony.

About the title: A "skin game" means a swindle, trick, or scam.

The movie starts with Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) buying property from the proud, proper English landowner Hillcrest (C.V. France), assuring him that the tenant farmers would be allowed to stay. Soon Hornblower evicts them to build factories, because he is a man of progress and industry. Hillcrest is outraged, and sets out to stop Hornblower's efforts to buy up land for more factories.

Hillcrest attempts to slow down Hornblower's land purchases by rigging an auction on some property that's up for sale. But Hornblower figures out the scheme, and outsmarts Hillcrest with his own tricks. Hillcrest escalates the feud by hiring a man to dig up dirt on Hornblower and his family.

To avoid spoilers, read no further ...

The hired investigator manages to dig up a secret about Chloe Hornblower (Phyllis Konstam) that's so horribly scandalous that the characters in the 1931 movie can't even explain it in plain language: She went with men to help them get their divorces. The Hillcrest family blackmails Hornblower with the threat of revealing the secret. Hornblower sells the property he had bought back to Hillcrest, at a loss, to keep the dirty secret quiet, and Hillcrest solemnly promises to say nothing. But the secret, once discovered, can't be kept hidden by mere promises, and it comes out. Chloe is desperately shamed, and kills herself. Hornblower is ruined, his his family name smeared and his wealth greatly diminished. Hillcrest has won the feud, but at the cost of his pride as an honorable landowner. Ironically, when the tenant farmers appear to thank him for being able to return to their rented farm, Hillcrest doesn't even remember Hornblower's original offense.

A Few Hitchcock Touches in An Otherwise Bland Film

[Snow Leopard · 17 May 2001]

"The Skin Game" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's earlier sound pictures, and although the story held potential, it is a rather bland film despite a couple of good Hitchcock touches.

The story centers on a rivalry between two neighboring families who have very different views on the future of their community. Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) wants to see the land developed and used for factories and businesses, while the Hillcrest family wants to see the traditional homes and countryside preserved. The resulting conflicts hold some real potential, and lead to some good moments as the families try to outwit each other in a "skin game", but the movie as a whole is never really very compelling.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly why this is not a better film. There are no big names in the cast, but Hitchcock made several fine movies with just this sort of cast. Gwenn is good in his role, and Phyllis Konstam is believable and sympathetic as his daughter-in-law whose troubled past eventually provokes a crisis between the two families.

Perhaps Hitchcock stayed too close to the play on which the film is based (it does have a bit of a stage-bound feel), or perhaps for once he did not have a strong sense of the material's potential.

Hitchcock saved his best for the movie's most important scene, when a crucial parcel of land is auctioned off. The auction scene, and a confrontation afterwards between the main characters, is well-done with some good twists.

There are also some nice ironic touches at the end.

Hitchcock fans should still watch "The Skin Game" at least once, to notice the ways that the director's usual touch can be seen, but this movie may not be of much interest to others.

Worth the time, but a "classic" only in terms of its age.

[zBirdman · 6/10 · 23 July 2002]

"The Skin Game" is a great example of Hitchcock's trek into the cinematic master that was to become. His 15th film as a director, the first 10 being silent films, and the film's soundtrack suffers from the same sort of distractions that all cinematic innovations seem to generate; early color films often used overly intense and saturated colors, the first widescreens spread the action out simply because they could, and 3D movies used deliberate dimensional effects that had no real part of the movie (the paddle-ball guy in "House of Wax" comes immediately to mind). There are several sequences where people are shouting, dogs are barking, and car horns are blowing - having absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but certainly it stunned the audience of its day with ACTUAL SOUND! The soundtrack was very obviously redubbed (and rather poorly in places) probably due to the camera equipment being so noisy. To make matters worse, the dogs barking sound suspiciously like people, and there are a lot of sequences of dialog where the actors deliberately turn their backs to the camera - redubbing is much easier when you don't have to lip-sync. There are also several scenes that have a noticeable lack of sound effects until the characters begin speaking (example: Hornblower leaves a house, closes the door, walks to his car and gets in, all in complete silence... something that the audiences of the day would probably never have noticed).

I won't duplicate the descriptions that others have left - the plot is not very complicated, so long as you can follow the dialog through the poor soundtrack and the various British accents. Even the DVD soundtrack is horribly inconsistent, but the film is still worth the time for any Hitchcock fan. This is a film that could benefit greatly from having subtitles - and the DVD does indeed have subtitles - but only in French, Spanish, and Portuguese... no English!

The conflict of old money versus new money and the unstoppable progress of industry eroding away at the established lifestyle of the days of the land-owners figure prominently in the plot. The film "bookends" in a truly bittersweet way with an elderly couple and their cottage, which results in what was easily the most stunning comment of the entire film (far more startling than the "big secret" that the film really revolves around). If you look close enough, there's a really significant story... and it's worth the effort. I'd give it a 6 out of 10 for today, but probably a 7.5 for its day.

ANTI-SPOILER: Don't look for the traditional Hitchcock cameo. He doesn't make an appearance in this film. ;)

Mainly for completists

[Richard Keith Carson · 4/10 · 13 March 2001]

On average, this is perhaps the lowest-rated of all Hitchcock's films among professional critics, but while I cannot call it good, in my opinion it is not even in Hitchcock's bottom 10. Like his worst, "Juno and the Paycock" from the previous year, it is essentially a filmed play, but it is somewhat less stage-bound and certainly more interesting, if not very. At least one scene (the auction) is distinctly Hitchcockian in style, and Phyllis Konstam is wonderful.

Good but dated Hitchcock film about a twisted and thunderous family confrontation

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 7 July 2021]

Fine and interesting story from the play of the same name adapted by Alfred Hitchcock himself and his wife and usual writer Alma Reville . Dealing with two British families : the aristocratic Hillcrist family, and Hornblower family headed by proud and ambitious Mr. Hornblower : Edmund Gwenn , both of them feud over land rights . As the latter , the mercilessly pushy Mister Hornblower sends away and evicts poor farmers to build factories on their lands . After that , Mr. Hornblower outwits Hillcrist in an auction for an additional piece of area property , the wealthy Hillcrists find their big estate completely surrounded by the upstart Hornblower . Things go wrong when Mrs. Hillcrest settles a terrible secret about a dark past of the Hornblower family .

It isn't thrilling , neither suspenseful , non characteristic of working with Hitchcock , but a tumultuous and strong drama . Way too much talking in excruciating , long and drawn-out scenes . This is a brooding drama whose premise turns out to be the hard confrontation between a rich family , the Hillcrests , fighting against the speculator who attempts to make a chimneyed factory complex , Hornblower , then emerges a dark secret resulting in tragic consequences , as it is used as a blackmail againts the speculator and force him to stop doing business . Performances are uniformly good , though in an excessive theatrical style . Based on a successfyl play and still stunningly hypnotic to see today . In fact , being , nowadays ,more stimulating for its innovations in that area , and by experimenting with a peculiar narrative structure . This fine early effort by Hitch has several novelties , as the movie transcends the limitation of its dramatic plot by dealing with thought-provoking issues and focusing on the theatrical meditations of reality . Here Alfred gives a few signs to be an expertise at tightening tension that was already building up . Main known actor results to be Edmund Gwen , giving a nice acting as the nouveau riche, social climber Mr. Hornblower who buys a lot of property abutting their state. Along with other notorious but unknown actors such as : Jill Esmond , Helen Haye , Phyllis Konstam, John Longden, Frank Lawton , C. V. France , Herbert Ross , among others .

This early talkie motion picture was well realized by the famous Alfred Hitchcock and made in his previous British period . His first sound film for Great Britain was ¨Blackmail¨, being made as a silent movie , this one was really an early talkie . This film ¨Skin Game¨1931 belongs to Hitch's first British epoch 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 ¨Murder¨(1930 , ¨June and the Paycock¨(30) , ¨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 and continuing with other popular movies and masterpieces with world successes .

A Bland Early Hitchcock Film

[Rainey-Dawn · 5/10 · 6 May 2016]

The Skin Game is mediocre at best when it comes to stories - a story of two rich families with a petty argument between them which turns into an all out war of families feuding with a very tragic ending. All this drama over a petty argument.

The best parts of the film is the auction, just as others have mentioned. It really is an intense scene and very well filmed at that. I loved the camera motion here when we saw the auctioneer's view point with edits to view the auctioneer as well. The other best part of the film is the ending, it's sad, tragic and nicely filmed as well. The rest of the movie is very, very dry or bland.

The film is worth watching if you are really into young Alfred Hitchcock's directing career or just want to see a melodrama that you have yet to see. I would not say this is a film that most people would enjoy - I honestly believe that most would be bored to tears unless they are viewing the auction scene.

5/10

Wow, this is hard watching--but stick with it--it's worth the trouble.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 1 August 2009]

This old Alfred Hitchcock film is extremely tough to watch, as the film (even by 1931 standards) has very poor sound and the print is pretty bad as well. Being a public domain film, it's been pretty much neglected. On top of this, the film's style is very old fashioned compared to products made by Hollywood at this same time. The simple fact is that the United States was leading the world in film technology at this point and other countries' films lacked clear and effective sound. Interestingly enough, the UK was pretty advanced in this area, as in some counties (such as Japan and China), silent films would be made well through the 1930s. However, despite this and despite the film starting very slowly, it's well worth seeing--but you need to be patient.

The film begins with two rich families--the Hillcrists and the Hornblowers. The Hillcrists are "old money"--a bit snobbish and clinging to their ideals of class. The Hornblowers are "new money"--newly rich, not particularly sophisticated and angry that the old money treat them like riff-raff. In fact, the head of the family (Edmund Gwen) seems determined to teach the Hillcrists a lesson by buying up the land around their estate and turning it into factories and cheap housing! The Hillcrists, in a desperate move, send out investigators to see if there is any dirt they can use to stop the Hornblowers. Unfortunately, the Hillcrests ARE able to find some lovely dirt but despite this, the film ends in unexpected tragedy.

The film, despite having terrible cinematography (the zooming shots are just horrible, heads cut off in many scenes and a jerky camera) and dull pacing, the film has such a strong story that it's well worth seeing. This is especially true since the film ends so well--leaving the viewer amazed at how well all the story elements work together. Sadly, this film could really use a remake--it's just too well written to be forgotten.

Generally dull and unenthusiastic drama, made so that Hitchcock could fulfil his quota for British International Pictures.

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 29 August 2007]

Although widely regarded as one of the best directors ever to make movies, Alfred Hitchcock made occasional duds along the way. Shortly after his first talkie, Blackmail (1929), Hitchcock went through a major lull and what he described as his "lowest ebb". For a four year period he made films that didn't interest him and didn't allow his creative juices to flow - films like Juno And The Paycock, Rich And Strange and Waltzes From Vienna. Also made around that time was The Skin Game, a talky and generally unexceptional adaptation of a John Galsworthy play made as part of Hitch's contractual obligation to British International Pictures. In later years Hitchcock always maintained that he never really wanted to make this film, that it was forced upon him by the studio, and if this is true then it goes a long way towards explaining why it is such a static, unenthusiastic offering.

Aristocratic landowner Mr Hillcrist (C.V. France) sells a row of cottages to a self-made businessman, Mr Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn). However, Hornblower deliberately goes back on an agreement by ejecting an elderly couple, the Jackmans, from their cottage even though he made a verbal promise not to do so. Hillcrist is furious when he hears of this, but his fury only increases when he learns that Hornblower wants the cottages to house a group of workers. Seems Hornblower has plans to buy a picturesque piece of countryside right outside Hillcrist's grand mansion and build factories upon it. After a dramatic auction for the said land, Hornblower emerges with the winning bid. However Mrs Hillcrist (Helen Haye) refuses to accept defeat lying down and tirelessly seeks a way of gaining the upper hand in the battle of wills between the two families. She gets just the handle she is looking for when it emerges that Hornblower's daughter-in-law, Chloe (Phyliss Konstam), has a scandalous past. Before marrying into the Hornblower clan, hard-up Chloe was allegedly paid to play the lover with several married men seeking divorces. She has never told anyone about this unsavoury secret, including her husband Charles Hornblower (John Longden). When Mrs Hillcrist threatens to publicise the truth unless Hornblower surrenders ownership of the land he has bought, she sets in motion a chain of events that lead to scandal, broken relationships and eventually suicide.

Even in a film as uncharacteristic and unremarkable as this, Hitchcock still manages a few innovative touches. The auction sequence, by far the best and most dramatically absorbing part of the film, is notable for its use of clever zip pans. The camera zips frantically from face to face as the bidding intensifies, adding drama and urgency to the scene. There are several fine performances too, particularly Gwenn as the arrogant Hornblower and Haye as the the merciless Mrs Hillcrist. These two commanding performances lift the film considerably and make bearable some of the long-winded, dialogue-heavy scenes. The Skin Game's plot, however, contains very few of the themes and features that typify most of Hitchcock's work - as one reviewer noted "the film is more Galsworthy than Hitchcock and seems very stagy". For this reason the film is not an especially worthwhile one and should perhaps only be sought out by Hitchcock completists or fans of the original play. Everyone else is likely to find The Skin Game somewhat disappointing.

Early HItchcock Stands Test of Time

[mikhail080 · 8/10 · 3 August 2010]

I recently saw Hitchcock's "Rich and Strange" and really enjoyed it, so I was game for another go at this early 1930's British cinema, in my attempt to become a "Hitchcock completist." Please keep in mind that I'm an American with a pretty-good ear for British dialog, but there are some speeches contained here that I couldn't understand in the least. But only a fairly small portion that is. The early sound equipment doesn't help either.

The title "The Skin Game" refers to a heated altercation that leaves no holds barred, and no prisoners taken. The plot line is essentially a "Hatfields and McCoys" family feud over land rights, with a lot of dirt being dug up on both families involved. Like pretty much all early sound films, there is a heavy reliance on dialog and the spoken phrase, which makes "The Skin Game" obviously derived from the stage.

At the beginning there's a long take with probably ten pages of dialog in it, using a medium shot of three characters, with the camera panning between them. At least once, someone was speaking dialog while not on camera, which I always find distracting -- a minor flaw I admit, but noticeable. Hitchcock's pacing feels relatively quick considering, and he keeps interest in these scenes with dramatic exits and entrances of characters, and revelations of plot details.

Really some of these takes were so long that actors coughed, dropped things and retrieved them, and other apparent flubs that were never re-shot. Seems like once the director was five minutes into a scene he couldn't afford the film stock to begin again, so there are a lot of miscues and such, which kind of adds to the immediacy. Especially considering that I'm certain that even the young Hitchcock was keenly aware of every missed cue and dropped line, and it had to drive him to distraction! I was certainly impressed by this early Hitchcock effort and I'm sure that audiences back then went away from this one with the feeling that they got their money's worth. It was apparent that an extremely talented film maker was at work here, trying to keep the audience involved every step of the way. And he did succeed actually.

For instance, there is a scene at an auction house that lasts for about ten minutes, and Hitchcock sets it up in such a way to keep the audience anxiously awaiting the outcome. He has the camera making very fast pans from one bidder to the next, slowing down only when the bidding does. The audience has some background information about the proceedings, but not enough to spoil the surprise at the end.

It's early sound cinema -- so most viewers today can't bear this kind of thing, but if you're familiar with and enjoy films of the early 20Th Century, it's extremely enjoyable and does have a payoff at the end! *** out of *****

Hitchcock camera work

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 19 June 2021]

Two neighboring families with large estates become rivals. The Hillcrists are an old family with a long history on their estate. The Hornblowers are new arrivals buying up local farms to build a factory.

This British talkie film is most notable for its director Alfred Hitchcock. He's obviously trying different ideas. Some work more than others. I couldn't really care less about the characters or the plot. It's Hitchcock's camera work that is the most interesting. First, he's doing long single takes with the dialogue and this does not make it any better. He's operating the camera almost as one of the characters on stage. He's panning the camera back and forth. It's fascinating but it's also not working. There are other filming choices. There are some beautiful visual compositions. There is one crazy single shot scene at the auction. I've seen anything like it and it's better than most modern work. It does go on for too long but that's part of the experimentation. I can't say that I love this movie but I do love Hitchcock trying some interesting ideas.

Crass Struggle

[slokes · 5/10 · 7 December 2007]

One of Alfred Hitchcock's atypical non-murder films comes with some suspense and a nice take on the issue of class which marked the world he came from, courtesy of a John Galsworthy play. But its soapy leanings cost it the ground gained by a strong start.

Rural England is changing into something unrecognizable to the snobby highborn Hillcrist family whose own estate is threatened by the impish pottery tycoon Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn). His low tactics in securing a neighboring property for a factory bring out the Lady MacBeth in Mrs. Hillcrist (Helen Haye), who with the help of her amoral gopher Dawker (Edmund Chapman) uncovers a nasty secret regarding Hornblower's daughter-in-law Chloe (Phyllis Konstam) which could cost him all his ill-gotten gains.

"The Skin Game" starts out strong, with Gwenn striding into the Hillcrist manor like a conquering hero, a dynamo in a bowler hat, giving them whatfor in such a way as to earn us both our respect and our active dislike. He's impossibly smug, like New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick after running up the score on another overmatched opponent. Yet he's in charge all the same.

"I fancy there's not enough room for the two of us here," he tells the Hillcrists, after breaking his word by evicting an elderly couple whose property Mr. Hillcrist sold him under the condition he leave the couple alone. "You've had your own way much too long. And you're not going to any longer."

The action heats up at an auction which is the film's one sterling set piece, Hitchcock's camera rearing back and forth between Hornblower and Dawker like a spectator at a Wimbledon match. Ronald Frankau as the auctioneer is one of those one-scene performances in a Hitchcock film you remember long after forgetting most everything else, blowing his nose and guying up the price so amiably as to undercut the building tension. Mr. Hillcrist finally jumps in as the price goes ever higher, only to discover he's not only failed to foil Hornblower but earned the blaggart's redoubled enmity.

But things fall apart after, as the story of Chloe takes center stage. Konstam is way too hysterical, her trebly voice making even more shrill lines such as "What gets in the wind never gets out...Never...Just blows...And then blows home!" By the time we get to the sad resolution, the once-involving tale is drowning in melodrama and bad acting. Even Gwenn is reduced to a kind of Nosferatu, eyes shifting and hands wringing.

There's a nice through-line regarding how the game of social advancement was played in early 20th century England. The Hillcrists start out fairly decently, but wind up rather dastardly. Yet however awfully Mrs. Hillcrist plays her whiphand in this affair (and Haye, like Gwenn reprising her role from a 1921 silent, is the class of the cast), you realize she had to be ruthless in order to win, and there's some ambiguity at the end as to whether it was worth it.

But that's Galsworthy's contribution. Hitchcock was not in his element here, and it shows. "The Skin Game" is another of those early curiosities of the Master seeking his voice but not quite finding it.

Not only for completists...

[dbdumonteil · 16 November 2006]

....this is good early Hitch! good screenplay,good directing and good acting!Phyllis Konstam is the stand-out .Her portrayal of Chloé can still grab today's audience .

Good scenes:

-the auction sale,twenty-eight years before "North by Norwest" ,is one of the most suspenseful moments of the Master's English era.And there's a brilliant unexpected twist when we think it's over!

-when Chloe takes refuge in her father-in-law's enemy's house,the things seem to have a life of their own:the door,the window,the curtains..

And in 1931,Hitchcock avoids over-simplification:who is good,in the end?who is evil?The local squire and his lady or the arrogant nouveau riche?Who did you have to save?the old couple or the ill-fated Chloé?

In the Truffaut/Hitchcock book,the master says "I did not choose that subject and there is nothing to say about it."

Great story, middling film

[I_Ailurophile · 6/10 · 24 May 2022]

There is a strong plot here - compelling, and surprisingly dark. It's a pity the construction of the film doesn't match it.

There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.

True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.

Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.

The film hangs from the script like a sack of potatoes.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 6/10 · 11 March 2007]

In one of Hitchcock's slowest moving films, we see the tense interaction between two feuding families with different plans for the future of their community. There is a piece of land at the center of the dispute, which one family wants to use to preserve a life of family and tradition, and the opposing family wants to use to build a scenery-killing but productive factory.

The film is based on a play and is not only extremely slow moving, but Hitchcock, with the exception of only a few scenes, simply points and shoots throughout the majority of the film. In the film's defense, the script is exceptional, but the problem is that the film is a technical mess, with the sound quality coming and going with such extremes that at times no audible dialogue can be heard at all. You can catch the crackling pace of the script but there are so many scenes where the film drags almost to a stop and Hitchcock does little to make up for it.

The pace picks up slightly when the scandal involving the daughter in law comes in, but compared to what we have come to expect from Hitchcock, both before and after this point in his career, cause this one to fall pretty low on the relevance scale. A curiosity piece for Hitchcock fans and completists, though.

Must watch again!

[Sylviastel · 5/10 · 20 September 2013]

Sir Alfred Hitchcock's early works in his screen adaptation of a play entitled "Skin Game." It is easy to see why this film is forgettable. First, there are too many characters in the film. The script is uneven at times. They have great cast members like Jill Esmond and Edmund Gwynn there. Many of the cast members here are known for their theatrical backgrounds. The film is about aristocracy, business, and the changing guard in England. The film's complicated plot involves blackmail and bait and switch scheme. This film never really develops in the first viewing. I give kudos for Hitchcock about a woman who uses her female prowess to help unhappy husbands get a divorce. In the thirties, women's sexual behavior remained taboo in films.

The Skin Game review

[JoeytheBrit · 7/10 · 1 July 2020]

An adaptation of a John Galsworthy play that isn't the type of movie we expect to find from Master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock, although he does manage to wring some tension from an auction scene in which the heads of two warring families - one old money, the other nouveau riche - seek to outbid one another for a symbolic piece of land. Edmund Gwenn, who's best known for his turn in Miracle on 34th Street, is as far removed from Kris Kringle as it's possible to get as the blunt Northern industrialist willing to brush aside anyone who threatens his vision. It all falls apart a llittle once a blackmail plot kicks in, but is still an absorbing watch.

A minor Hitchcock dated even in its own present...

[ElMaruecan82 · 4/10 · 14 June 2021]

I'm going into a marathon of earlier Hitchcock earlier features (the silent ones and the pre-1934 talkies) and there's the same French expert who announces the film and provides some interesting backstories about the making and many appetizing trivia. And so it's very telling when the same Hitch enthusiast tells you before the beginning of "The Skin Game" that this is not the director's best film, not even by the era's standards. Granted we know that the real thing started with "The Man Who Knew Too Much", it doesn't set your anticipation very high when you're told from the get-go that you might not enjoy the film and when it takes merely five minutes to say anything remotely interesting about it. But I wouldn't call myself a Hitchcock fan if I didn't have one thing or two to say about "The Skin Game" and it so happens that I have things to say so let's get over it.

For the sake of simplification, let's say that the film is about a feud between two highly-influent families in the English countryside: the upper-class and long established Hillchrists and the nouveau-riches Hornblowers and for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that the three main characters are Mr. And Mrs. Hillchrist (C. V. France and Helen Haye) and Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn aka Kris Kingle from "Miracle at 34th Street"). May I add that the 'skin game' involves some elaborate schemes from Hornblower consisting on buying land and then booting off the farmers in order to build factories, to which the Hillchrists are firmly opposed. The plot revolves around some counter-attack from the Hillchrist that goes through blackmailing Mr. Hornblower with some dark secret about his daughter-in-law's dubious past. That's the nature of the beast.

The film was based on a 1920 play from John Galsworthy that was adapted into a silent movie version in 1921. Gwenn and France reprised their roles. But this contextualization is just to tell you that the plot was already dated in 1931 when the Great Depression had made these feuds rather obsolete in a time where anyone would have dreamed to see the dark smokes of factories over the green landscapes if that meant more jobs for people. Much more after winning his Nobel Prize, Mr. Galsworthy passed away one year after the film's release. The film belonged to the past during its own present and nothing could possibly elevate it not even among Hitchcock's good enough little films to be watched. But I think the reasons of the film's relative failure are to be counted in three.

First, the acting. It is way too theatrical to be remotely entertaining. Mr. France keeps carrying that constantly infuriated gaze of a sinister school principal, even in his moments of weakness there's never an emotion or a shade of warmth drawn in his stone-face whereas Mrs. Haye struck me as a less likable and thinner version of Margaret Dumont and so these two people who represent the old order, rooted in their bucolic and picturesque past, are rather plain and uninteresting individuals, which makes difficult to root for them. And when the acting takes off to melodramatic summits with actors or actresses looking for long monologues, the adaptation shows its first signs of fatigue and the material gets dangerously risible.

The acting actually highlights what is the strength and therefore the weakness of the film, Mr. Gwenn is a superb actor, he brings in his portrayal of the cocky and straightforward Hornblower the very likability we were demanding in the protagonists. He's smiling, cocky, larger-than-life, with all the stamina that the film lacks and every moment he's here, the film reaches a high spot... I can say that Gwenn reinforces my conviction that Hitchcock films needs faces and actors and some good stories can suffer from unknown faces. I could see the colorful Gwenn who played Santa Klaus or even the corrupt bodyguard in "Foreign Correspondent" and the the film makes him the antagonist, daring us not to root for him. Impossible!

The third weakness is the rather tedious plot that relies way too much on monologues and melodrama with solemn oaths, fainting and all that jazz... and all ends on a bittersweet notes where Mr. Hornblower curses the Hillchrists for what they did and the film concludes on a climate of unpleasantness with Hitchcock who couldn't decide between cynicism or comedy and just went on rolling with the lucidity of the beginner who knows he doesn't have the upper hand.

That said, even in the lesser Hitchcock, there's one golden rule: you have your Hitchcockian scene. And for all the bad things I said, I can say that the film features one of the most memorable auction scenes I've ever seen one that for once allowed Hitchcock to distance himself from the pompous codes of the stage and have the camera go back and forth between one auctioneer to another with various speeds, and Gwenn's subtle eye signals, creating so many swings and double swings it's like watching a Roland Garros finale. Hitchcock was said to film crime like love scenes, this time he filmed an auction like a tennis game, one that went on and on so much, with one agent outbidding another, I couldn't get over it and wish it would never end, for I felt the film had reached its momentum and would feel downhill after...

... just like that tree in the final shot that reminds you that even after a dull movie that it's not the man behind the camera to blame and Hitchcock had a few tricks under his sleeve he destined to better movies.

That's all to say about "Skin Game", a film for hardcore fans only with one great sequence and one great performance... and a competent director striving for greatness.

Machiavellian machinations, country style

[grantss · 6/10 · 19 February 2024]

Mr. Hornblower, an up-and-coming industrialist, is buying up land in the county, much to the disgust of the old money Hillcrists. They previously sold a property to Hornblower with the proviso that the current tenants would not be evicted and now he's kicking them out so that he can build on the land. After a bit of skulduggery at the auction, Hornblower buys up a prized piece of land, further cementing his hold on the region. Now the Hillcrists come into some information which should persuade Hornblower to back off.

An Alfred Hitchcock film that is more political drama than the suspense-thrillers he is known for. "Political" in that this film involves power plays, machinations and general manoeuvring for position.

Quite interesting, the cut and thrust of it all. Is a bit dry at times but reasonably intriguing and the plot has a good, upshot and moral.

Won't be remembered among Hitchcock's best but worth watching.

Hitchcock still isn't worth watching with this one. Almost starts with social commentary but nope.

[Dominic_25_ · 3/10 · 17 February 2023]

Going back into Hitchcock and I remember why I was so reluctant to. The films this early in his career are really not very imaginative, which I guess was emblematic of English cinema at the time.

By this point in his career it is very clear that he has developed a taste for thrillers. In a few of his earlier efforts he showed that he has some promise with very interesting scene transitions, framing, and shot composition. Yet in this one it isn't quite as imaginative. He does include some slow zooms and one shot of a lady on a horse but overall the technical aspects of this film are only marginally above the average 1931 film. The horror directors by this point had certainly surpassed Mr. Hitchcock.

Aside from that, the story is almost unbearably boring. It starts off so slow that I was considering just turning it off and jumping back over to the Hollywood drivel. Luckily Alfred Hitchcock must have understood the limits of this story because it is under 90 minutes and it gradually gets more interesting throughout, ending at mildly intriguing. He took a story about displacement in the name of profits and turned it into a tale about rivalry among landlords. Interesting starting concept made boring turns into annoying concept made almost tolerable.

If I could get past my burning hatred for profits or landlords or Capitalism then I guess I would have liked this film more than I did. All of the non rich people only serve as obstacles for the wealthy people in this story and not in a deliberate criticism way. And this was made during the Great Depression.

I guess I should keep watching this guy's filmography, surely he will get to be as good as everybody says, right. I know his best is over a decade away so it's a long journey for me to get there.

a much overlooked early Hitchcock work

[gavinlockey · 8/10 · 31 December 2004]

I feel many writers and critics, David Sterritt, Donald Spoto to name but two are too dismissive of this movie. With the technological restrictions of the very early talkie, Hitchcock as used his artistry to compose fluidity and cinematic suture to a rather stolid Galsworthy play. Already mentioned are the innovative zip pans, he also has intelligent use of dissolve, symbolism aplenty within montage sequences, sheep v horn (Hillcrest v Hornblower). The juxtaposition in the opening sequence of the car and the horse sets the theme beautifully. Occasionally there is daring reverse shots of the same objects defying the 180 degree rule, especially noticeable as we break into the proscenium arch of theatre.

Hitchcock has done much better, but The Skin Game is still nowhere near his worst

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 23 November 2013]

The Skin Game is one of Hitchcock's lowest rated films here, and has been met with indifference or dislike among the other Hitchcock fans I know. While it is understandable why people wouldn't be crazy about The Skin Game and it has a lot that is not so great about it, personally it is better than it's given credit for. It's not Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train or The Lady Vanishes but it is far better than Juno and the Paycock(his worst), Champagne, Number Seventeen, Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn and Topaz. The camera work is very scrappy and unfocused, the script is often too talky and exposition-heavy, the story has moments but can feel a little too leisurely and stage-bound complete with a melodramatic and abrupt ending and CV France is over-theatrical at times. However, while The Skin Game is not Hitchcock all over there is much more of his style than there was in Juno and the Paycock(also based on a play) with some irony and suspense and the auction scene is masterful(the film's best photography is in this scene, its cleverness adds to the intrigue). The script has have some nice ironic humour and heartfelt pathos. While the story doesn't quite come off as well as it could have done it does have some good ideas that are identifiable and has its heart in the right place. As an adaptation of the play it's good, as a Hitchcock film while a big improvement on Juno and the Paycock it does fall short. The acting is much more subtle and the chemistry between the actors is more apparent. Edmund Gwenn has a ball as a very arrogant character, Helen Haye is aristocratic and dominant and in a commanding way without falling into over-theatricality-land and Phyllis Konstam is appropriately sympathetic. All in all, nowhere near Hitchcock's best but also nowhere near his worst, ranking it it would be around low-middle, a similar position to Rich and Strange. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Another fairly dull early Hitchcock film

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 4/10 · 23 April 2020]

An old traditional family and a modern family battle over land in a small English village, and bring great misery to each other in the process. I gotta admit, out of all the Hitchcock movie's I've seen this is the one I remember the least. All I can recall was that it was a pretty dull and reasonably difficult to follow melodrama with a lot of characters that kind of looked similar and lacked notable personality traits that made them unique. The acting and direction weren't bad, but to call this film forgettable would be a great understatement. 4.5/10