Number 17 is a 1932 thriller that is generally regarded as one of Hitchcock’s worst films. Having watched it I don’t really understand why it has such a poor reputation. It has some rough spots, and some of the acting is quite poor, but it has quite a bit going for it as well. I can’t help wondering if a lot of people are simply frustrated by the poor picture quality of surviving prints and by their difficulty at times in understanding the dialogue because of the even poorer sound quality. If you’re not used to English accents that would compound the problem. Both those things are irritating, but they’re hardly the fault of the film or its director.
It’s actually an interesting picture. It starts out as a mystery involving jewel thieves, then two-thirds of the way through suddenly becomes an action thriller. The climactic train chase sequence is certainly exciting and inventive, and involves buses and ferries as well as trains. Much of it is done with models. Even though you can tell it’s been done with models the combination of some very fast cutting, lots of train noises and constant switching back and forth from one scene of action to another still manages to develop plenty of suspense and excitement.
Both the ambitious action sequences and the mixing of suspense and comedy are elements that would become Hitchcock trademarks. The movie also gets criticised for the confusing plot. I rather suspect the plot is supposed to be over-complex and to contain an absurd number of twists – I think it’s all been done with tongue planted firmly in cheek. It’s obviously intended as a movie that is pure fun. I found it very enjoyable.
Hitchcock's Number 17 (1932)
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Number Seventeen
Some time ago, when TCM had a month long retrospective on Alfred Hitchcock's work, they unearthed this relatively brief, obscure film, Number Seventeen (1932). While Hitch had not yet been able to translate all his powerful storytelling skills to the screen, (from what I've read about this period in his career, he was still struggling with mastery of talkie elements and the relatively penurious budgets in many of his British movies), there are a few wonderfully staged and edited sequences within the interior of the abandoned house where much of the action takes place in the first part of the film.
The plot is pretty lame, but you can see the director playing with early God's-eye-view p.o.v. shots (along with some of Hitch's sometimes unfortunate love of small scale model shots). Some suspenseful elements that became much more powerfully fluid and intricate in later gems such as The Thirty-Nine Steps, Foreign Correspondent, and North by Northwest are also in evidence here.
Not a great movie by any means, but so interesting when you know who created it.
The plot is pretty lame, but you can see the director playing with early God's-eye-view p.o.v. shots (along with some of Hitch's sometimes unfortunate love of small scale model shots). Some suspenseful elements that became much more powerfully fluid and intricate in later gems such as The Thirty-Nine Steps, Foreign Correspondent, and North by Northwest are also in evidence here.
Not a great movie by any means, but so interesting when you know who created it.