Vienna di Strauss

This is a fairly entertaining pre-War cheaply made British musical comedy which sadly fails in a number of ways: it was the 3rd film with Jessie Matthews and Edmund Gwenn, and definitely the least satisfying of them; it was Hitchcock directing a non-thriller with his heart not in it; Hitchcock and Matthews didn't get on, and it showed in his screen treatment of her - Britain's top singing and dancing star at the time; and a ridiculously fictitious plot. Hitch thought it was the worst film he'd ever made and Jessie thought it was "perfectly dreadful".

It was an adaptation of a London musical stage play which apparently ran for over a year: Johann Strauss II played by Esmond Knight wants to be a composer like his father, I (Gwenn), who is arrogantly dismissive of his talents throughout. I'm afraid I won't see Gwenn as Santa quite the same again. II eventually succeeds spectacularly with the help of Countess Fay Compton (was she ever anything but elderly and wistful?) and barmaid girlfriend Matthews - incidentally Robert Hale who played her father was her real-life father-in-law. Jessie was as usual good to look at (personally speaking) but unfortunately didn't really get to sing much, and Hitchcock was excellent as usual but didn't get to show off much. Most people will be disappointed with the latter, but for myself it was with the lack of Jessie's beautiful singing voice in what was after all billed as a musical, and with her name over the title. On the other hand, Hitchcock seemed to be mining the One Hour With You stylistic vein a lot of the time albeit in a cheaper but still pleasant British way, there were some nice sets and of course there was Louis Levy's orchestrations for The Blue Danube to admire when it arrived. The less said about how II was supposed to have composed it here, the better!

It's a pleasant enough 76 minutes for someone like me who isn't a Hitchcock completist, but probably will be a real chore if you are.

This musical comedy must be one of Hitchcock's most obscure movies (not even reviewed in Leonard Maltin's guide until the latest edition!). It has very little dramatic interest, and not much in the way of notable visuals either, but the production does have a certain opulence (including some enormous sets), and of course the Strauss music is a pleasure to listen to, particularly in the concert sequence. Apparently Jessie Matthews was one of Britain's biggest musical stars around this period, but you'd never know it from this picture - she sings only once and never dances. ** out of 4.

British romantic drama from Gaumont and director Alfred Hitchcock details the events surrounding the 1866 writing of "The Blue Danube Waltz" by Johann Strauss II (Esmond Knight). Strauss lives in the disapproving shadow of his famed father (Edmund Gwenn), and the younger man hopes to make a name for himself with his own compositions. He's cheered on by baker's daughter Resi (Jessie Matthews), and he also catches the eye of Countess Helga (Fay Compton). Also featuring Frank Vosper, Robert Hale, Charles Heslop, Hindle Edgar, and Marcus Barron.

Hitchcock described this film as "the lowest ebb of my career", and it's arguably the least-shown of his sound films, and the only one that I had not seen until now. It's not as bad as I expected, but it won't find too many fans, either. Despite some of Hitchcock's directorial flourishes popping up now and then, this movie still resembles many British productions of the time, which all seem to have a certain indefinable remoteness to them. Perhaps it's the lack of close ups or a certain flat lighting technique or just the style of acting, but I find myself rarely becoming engaged in the onscreen action. As I said though, I didn't find this movie to be a complete bore or waste of time, as some of the shooting is inventive, the costumes and sets are good, and there's the music, of course.

Strauss's Great Waltz will go down as your most atypical Alfred Hitchcock film. Mainly because at this time he was not an icon in the film profession but a contract director Gaumont-British Pictures. The Hitchcock stamp is definitely not on this one.

But it is the only musical in his career so you would think something better would have come from it, especially since he had the United Kingdom's number one musical star at the time Jessie Matthews. Who has no real musical numbers, talk about strange. Her singing and dancing talents may have been left on the cutting room floor.

The story was covered far better in MGM's high gloss film, The Great Waltz. Young Johann Strauss, Jr. is considered by his father to be the least promising of his offspring and the senior Strauss Edmund Gwenn ridicules his efforts at composing at every opportunity. Young Strauss who is Esmond Knight in this film has even gone to work in a bakery, in real life Strauss wanted his son to be a banker.

Countess Fay Compton however encourages Knight's genius and we all know what happened after that.

The musical with book and lyrics by Guy Bolton had a nice run on the London Stage. Obviously Hitchcock just didn't have his heart in this assignment and sadly the results show.

Jessie Matthews hated this film and if you're foolish enough to watch it, you can understand why. The story, the script and the characters are so utterly frivolous and light that they'd get blown away by your snoring.

It was the brainchild of a theatrical impresario called Tom Arnold who thought turning a popular musical into a film would be a good idea....it wasn't. By persuading Gaumont-British to back him, he secured the services of Jessie Matthews but the role she was given was woefully insubstantial. It didn't give her any opportunity to show her comedic skills let alone her singing or dancing - she did not enjoy this at all.

Not only was her role dreadful but her co-star had zero charisma and worst of all she didn't get on with the director. She was a huge star and knew it. Hitchcock with about 20 films under his belt believed that he was the best director in the country but having just been 'let go' from BIP, the industry in 1934 didn't particularly agree. There was therefore a huge ego battle going on here which didn't make for a happy set.

Although it's not good, it's not entirely awful. Despite the insane underutilisation of Miss Matthews, ('the dancing divinity' or 'the diva of debauchery' depending on your choice of 1930s newspaper), it is reasonably well made as of course you'd expect from Hitchcock but you can tell that nobody's heart is in this. She didn't want to make it, Hitchcock didn't want to make it and although Gaumont-British were a wealthier and classier studio than Hitchcock's former studio BIP, from the look of the cheap shabby sets, it looks like even G-B didn't want to make this either.

This is neither a Jessie Matthews film nor an Alfred Hitchcock film. Being the most beautiful girl in the world she still looks lovely but she's not really Jessie Matthews and because Hitchcock wasn't involved in the writing, there's none of his characteristic dark humour. When it tries to be funny it is just embarrassingly silly. Avoid this!