User reviews

The Pleasure Garden is the first film that Alfred Hitchcock directed to completion. It's a nice look into the earliest directorial thoughts and techniques of the master. Even in this earliest film, we can see signs of what would become some of his signature trademarks. I enjoyed some of the point of view shots early in the film with the blurred view of the man looking through his monocle as well as the gentleman looking through the binoculars at the show girls legs. There is also a spiral staircase in the opening of this movie. Not that it was used like the staircase in Vertigo, but it made me smile thinking of how important that would be in his later film. The story deals with the idea of infidelity. Jill (Carmelita Geraghty) is an aspiring dancer who gets engaged to Hugh (John Stuart) who has to leave for work overseas. Patsy (Virginia Valli), who has helped Jill get her start, starts to worry about Jill keeping her promise to wait for Hugh. Jill's career is taking off and she begins to fool around with other guys. Patsy marries Levett (Miles Mander), Hugh's friend who also goes overseas to work with Hugh. Unlike Jill, Patsy remains true to her husband, thinking only of being with him. She receives a letter that her husband has taken ill and scrapes up the money to go be with her husband in his time of need. When she arrives, she finds that he has taken to drinking and island women. That's when the trouble ensues. I enjoyed Hitch's first film. It's a little slow starting, but picks up pace as it goes along. I liked seeing Cuddles, the dog, thrown in for a little comic relief to contrast the seriousness of the film, which of course is another of Hitchcock's trademarks. There was also a nice, subtle score by Lee Erwin, that fit the film well.

*** (Out of 4)

The Pleasure Garden is notable for being the first complete film of Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest and most influential directors in film, so it is one of great historical interest. It's not one of his best, there is somewhat of a primitive look, some of the pacing does get pedestrian in the middle and the scripting at times suffers from being overly talky. Hitchcock has definitely done worse though, and The Pleasure Garden is a decent film. Even for such an early effort, Hitchcock's direction does shine through with great use of camera angles and directorial flourishes. No signs of phoning in. The story is intelligently explored, the script serves the actors and Hitchcock competently(though of course there have been much better scripts since) and while the pacing is uneven the beginning and ending are solid enough. The acting give their all, maybe with some over-playing here and there, but there is signs of effort. All in all, a quite decent first complete film, though Hitchcock definitely went on to much better since. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Looking at Hitchcock's early pictures, one struggles to see signs of his genius, like looking through every manger for the baby with the halo. But this, the first complete Hitchcock movie, shows no signs of his future greatness. He is clearly a journeyman director, some one who shows promise, but sent to Berlin for his final exam.

On the plus side, this movie starts off surprisingly well, with a snappy, American-paced, chorines-on-the-town plot. If they had cast Marion Davies and Marie Prevost in this, it would be typical, if rather underwritten. The start moves fast, plot points pop up, and suddenly we take a turn and the story descends into melodrama.

Fairly typical of Hitchcock, you might say and you would be right, but he hasn't got any sense of what his chosen symbols are -- both leads are brunettes, which will come as a surprise to anyone who knows Hitchcock's taste for icy blondes. The symbolic items are standard and not particularly shocking -- Virginia Valli's wedding-bed deflowering is indicated by an apple with a large chunk bitten out of it -- and the actors are not really up to their jobs.

Hitchcock was never a great director of actors but a great director of scenes. By 1927 his visual flair got his bosses to invest in great actors for his pictures, starting with Ivor Novello for THE LODGER. But here, everyone is.... at best, adequate, with Miles Mander very stagy and whoever plays his native lover -- still miscredited in the IMDb as Nita Naldi -- seemingly brain-damaged.

There are a couple of interestingly composed visual glosses: the door that Mander must go through looks like a Turkish harem door and the decoration on either side differs dramatically; on one side is life, on another death. But this is UFA, with great cameramen and all the technicians who made great expressionist fare like CALIGARI and modernist masterpieces like Lang's work ready and eager to work.... and there's none of that here.

I find it hard to give this an exact rating: the great start is sunk by the foolishness of the ending, and Hitchcock at the the start of his career is not the film maker he would be in another thirty years -- or four. But it is Hitchcock, and therefore demands our attention, so I'll give it a good mark for that.

But if it weren't Hitchcock's first film, no one would care. It probably wouldn't even still be in existence.

Compared to the industries in Hollywood and Germany, precious few British films from the silent era have been preserved and deemed worthy of study. The Pleasure Garden would probably have been consigned to the dusty bin of obscurity, were it not for its being the debut of one Alfred Hitchcock.

Hitchcock was of course destined for greatness, so this picture inevitably gets scrutinised for hints of said greatness, or at least traces of Hitchcockiness. A point-of-view shot of the legs of a chorus line in the opening scene is often referenced as an example of such, a bit of pure voyeurism that is at odds with the moralist plot line. A slightly more story-orientated point-of-view shot occurs when a pickpocket eyes up Virginia Valli's handbag. Hitchcock was clearly interested from the beginning by the idea of putting the audience in the place of a character, and the latter example helps to tell the story visually, but it is of little long-term value. Neither the thief nor the leg-viewer become established characters, so there is really no need for us to "become" them.

The way these early scenes are shot may be aimed to cut down on the intertitles by conveying the story visually. You see, during his apprenticeship Hitchcock had done some art direction work on Der Letzte Mann, a picture best known for containing no intertitles whatsoever except one at the beginning and one near the end. While the resultant excess of technique is in fact more distracting than title cards, the idea obviously fired the young Hitch's imagination. To avoid having to "tell", he goes to somewhat forceful lengths to "show". Then again, it could just be because the 26-year-old director really liked to look at women's legs.

But after those showy opening sequences, The Pleasure Garden gets bogged down in a series of "talking" scenes. By contrast the interaction here is shot rather flatly, and there are suddenly lots of intertitles. This middle section of the picture is incredibly slow and boring. The plot is muddied by a lack of well-defined, memorable characters and the fact that the two female leads look very similar is especially confusing. In the melodramatic climax there are some vague attempts at psychological manipulation, with a few close-ups of a menaced Valli, but it's too little too late.

The Pleasure Garden is full of tricks, many of which can be seen as corresponding to the technique of the later Hitchcock – "God" shots, point-of-view shots, close-ups to focus us on a particular object. But these are all things any monkey could pick up after hanging around a few film sets, and the director does not yet know how to put them to best use. The Pleasure Garden may pique the interest of Hitchcock completists, but other than that it is simply dull.

I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film. It's true that little of the Hitchcock we've come to love comes through but there are quite a few touches at that and all of them work. The travel scenes at Lake Como and somewhere in the South Sea work very well indeed and there's precious little in this film that doesn't contribute meaningfully to the movie. I would agree with one reviewer that Cuddles the dog gives some of the scenes humor. The transformation of two of the characters for the worst is loud and clear and the plot is not only crystal clear but quite effective. I'm glad to say I've seen this one - my last of all the Hitchcocks! Curtis Stotlar

Interesting composure and camera-work, and the dog, are about all this one has going for it. Interesting, slightly voyeuristic opening shot of dancers pouring down a spiral staircase, in sepia-tinted brown. A bit of mild, subtle humour as we see a bored man among the first row of otherwise thrilled patrons at the revue. Top hat'd Hamilton smoking a cigar while standing in front of a 'Smoking Prohibited' sign. People coming home to find their dog has chewed up their clothes These bits show the director already having a sense of humour, and playing with his audience, but not yet really knowing what to do with the fairly uninvolving story present, a sort of behind-the-scenes melodrama at a revue; infidelity, and the murder at the beach house. Surprisingly dull and lackluster results, considering the way it all sounds, although the climax does have a little bit of action to it.

A lot of the sets are well done, as is the director's humorous flair in filming some of them, but quite frankly, the plot is just boring and uneven. Were it not for the fact that this is one of Alfred Hitchcock's first films as director (it is his first solely-directed feature film, but third film to be released) , no one would remember, or care about, this one.

This is a moral tale of a couple of women, one good and the other lost in her own self- importance. It's also about two men who find themselves on the opposite side of fence as well. One is a kind, caring guy and the other a selfish womanizing cad. The first part of the show is about how two women in a chorus line evolve. One knows she has it and immediately demands the attention of everyone. She has been embraced by her friend who has been in the chorus for a while, but one she gains popularity, she has no time for the other woman. A marriage of convenience takes place and things really unravel. Also, the young starlet begins to realize that all her attention can't seem to make her happy. Things get kind of weird when the cad ends up in some island paradise with a native cookie whom he uses in every way possible. There are some really ridiculous confrontations and overacting by the principles. Everything gets wrapped up kind of neatly. Hitchcock was obviously learning the camera. I disagree with a previous comment about a monkey hanging around a film set being able to come up with this film. There are already hints of a style coming to the fore. It's too bad a couple of other first efforts have been lost to the inevitable decomposition of film (or simply lost).

Without the Alfred Hitchcock connection, this 1925 silent film is an unfocused and rather stilted melodrama that plays with little success. With the Alfred Hitchcock connection it is still all of those things, but it is also the very first film by one of cinema's great masters of suspense. It just doesn't feel like he made it.

A young girl, Jill, moves to London to be a dancer. Without any formal training, she tries out for a theater and immediately gets the job, negotiating a rate of pay four times higher than what the theater manager first offers her based purely on her skill. She, though, is not the main character. That would be Patsy, another girl who dances in the theater and allows Jill to move into her small apartment.

Jill becomes a huge success very quickly and leaves behind everyone she knew. Patsy becomes a second thought while Jill's fiancé, Hugh, gets tossed aside for a man called The Prince about whom Patsy says isn't a real prince, but nothing comes of this assertion. Patsy, afraid for Jill and Hugh, grows close with Hugh's friend, Levet, who is visiting along with Hugh from their post in a tropical location. For reasons, Patsy falls in love with Levet and marries him really quickly. They then go on a honeymoon to Italy where Levet makes it obvious that he really has no affection for Patsy and can't wait to get away from her and return to his post in the tropics where he can't bring a wife.

He has a girl there and immediately falls into her arms when he gets back while Patsy returns to work at the theater and plays the part of dutiful wife, hoping for a letter from her husband. She ends up reading his first letter to her after some months as a plea for her to join him due to illness though it was, in point of fact, really just an excuse on his part to stay away. Patsy runs to Jill, begging for money to go, but Jill won't give her anything though Patsy's delightful landlord and landlady offer her money for her to go. In the tropics, Patsy learns the truth of Levet's infidelity and general awfulness while also finding Hugh convalescing and in serious danger of dying from some disease. Shots are fired, swords are swung, and Patsy finds herself free from marriage and in Hugh's arms.

The weird part of this whole thing is that bulk of story all happens in about 60 minutes. It's a short feature length film, and that's a lot of characters and story to fit in there. What ends up happening is that it gets confusing to keep Jill and Patsy straight when they're in a scene together because they look almost exactly alike. It's not filmed as flatly as some other low-cost silent films that set a camera on a tripod and filmed everything from afar (there are multiple setups within scenes like a real movie here), but it's all rather unenergetically done. There are hints of the strong visualist Hitchcock was to become, but it's rather subdued here.

A more focused story, tighter filmmaking, and differentiating the two female leads could have led to a better film going experience. As it is, The Pleasure Garden represents a curio kept alive purely by the fact that its director went on to make great films.

This was Hitchcock's first ever film as director to be completed and it is indicative of his huge talent. Despite its age and therefore somewhat primitive production the young Hitch does a superb, professional and classy job. The film maintains interest throughout and is still funny, entertaining and impressive when viewed today! Hitchcock imbues it with directorial flourishes of brilliance with clever, interesting camera shots, intelligent storytelling and little bits of his psychological themes which strengthen all his films.

In conclusion this is a superb film considering its age and the fact it is Hitchcock's debut.

Hitchcock's first film shows him to be merely a competent director. There's nothing Hitchcockian about this film, although a clever early shot shows a producer puffing away on a cigar next to a "No Smoking" sign, a visual contrast to show character.

The film does move along nicely and the acting is competent. Essentially a story about two show girls, one a gold digger, and the other a nice girl. The former marries into royalty and the latter makes an initial marriage mistake that makes up the bulk of the narrative.

The commercially released DVD, which I viewed, runs 59:35, but the timings here on IMDb range from 75 to 92 minutes. I was aware of a few abrupt transitions that may be due to trimmed footage, most notably the departure of Jill's husband from their honeymoon to his plantation job. Also we last see Patsy as she is selecting her trousseau for her upcoming marriage. I imagine the original film has a good deal more about how she ended up, contrasting with Jill's fortunes. It does seem unbalanced to leave her story up in the air.

All in all, an enjoyable and competently made film.

'Pleasure Garden' is Alfred Hitchcock's real firs movie as a director. He directed 'Number 13' before, but that shooting was shot down and the little of the footage he managed to shoot is now declared lost. 'The Pleasure Garden' is sweet little gem and is total pleasure to watch. It doesn't feel like Hitchcock's movie and there are very little his trademarks visible (how could there be, he was just beginner director). The story is very straightforward and simple melodrama, but it is not silly. Nothing is hidden under the surface. All the elements are well put together. Besides being Hitchcock's first movie as a director, there is nothing special, but it is a sweet film that definitely deserves to be seen. Especially by the fans of the legendary director.

P.S. Alma Reville and Alfred Hitchcock got engaged during the shoot and what a couple they became.

At the age of 25, Alfred Hitchcock, who had been an assistant director to Michael Balcon, was given the chance to direct his first film, which was of course silent. It is very good and showed at once that he had talent. Assistant director on the film was a girl named Alma Reville, who was to become Hitchcock's wife and lifelong partner in all of his film projects. The film is based on a popular novel by 'Oliver Sandys', which was the pen name of a woman whose real name was Marguerite Jarvis, and who in this same year appeared as an actress under the name of Marguerite Evans in the comedy film STAGESTRUCK, with Gloria Swanson. The title of this film is the name of a music hall in London, where two girls are in the chorus together, and share a room in Brixton. The melodrama concerns the adventures of their lives and respective fates. The film was shot at Babelsburg Studios in Germany and had an international cast. The American actress Virginia Valli plays Patsy, the good girl of the two. And Jill, the girl who goes to the bad, is played by another American actress, Carmelita Geraghty. The German actor Karl Falkenberg plays the unpleasant and sinister Prince Ivan, who leads Jill astray. Falkenberg acted in 100 films between 1916 and 1936, after which he disappears from history. Probably he was Jewish, was banned from the screen by the Nazis, and then sent to a death camp. Possibly the best performance in the film is by British actor Miles Mander, who outdid Falkenberg by appearing in 107 films, between 1920 and 1947, including WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939). In this film he plays a cad who married Patsy and then betrays her with a mistress and goes to pieces with drink and decadence. He delivers a very finely judged performance, and does not overact. Carmelita Geraghty is very convincing in her downward spiral into immorality, selfishness, and selling herself for fame and fortune. The film is not particularly creaky with age, and is well worth seeing.

I'm not a fan of the silent film. To me, a silent film is a group of photos. This is Alfred Hitchcock's directorial debut. He didn't write or choose this story, but it suits him and his eventual body of work. It's a dark tale of selfishness, greed, compromise, betrayal, addiction, and desperation.

Had Hitchcock controlled this project, the casting would have been better. Two brunettes, same height, same hair style, living together, even sharing a bed... in a silent film... I'm just saying, it's a little difficult to tell them apart sometimes. Hitchcock chose great music, understanding the importance of a good soundtrack to help set the tone of the film. The soundtrack to this movie sucks. Some of the music choices just don't make sense, and I kept imagining the guy that had to play the soundtrack live in the theater. Did people yell at him to stop ruining the film? After a few showings, did good theater organ players improvise to improve the soundtrack?

I shouldn't have to consider all of these things while watching a movie in 2019, and my scale for rating movies was created in 2019. Not only is this not a good movie as I write this review, but I question whether is was a good enough film back in 1925. For what it's worth, the script writers threw the kitchen sink at this film, executing so many twists and turns that it keeps the viewer invested throughout. But, it's not a wise investment. Hitchcock gets better. I will keep this film, despite the low rating, because it's Hitchcock's first and I don't have many silent films. However, 'The Pleasure Garden' (1925) did not provide enough pleasure for me to return for a second viewing any time soon.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1; Casting - 0/1; Directing - 1/1; Story - 0/1; Writing/Screenplay - 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 2.5

Modifiers (+ or -): Music Score/Soundtrack: -0.5 (The music is too upbeat and mostly inappropriate for the scene placement.);

Importance To Genre: +1 (Hitchcock's First Film.);

Total RealReview Rating: 3

In London, the dancer Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty) is pickpocketed when she arrives at the Pleasure Garden Theater. She intends to see the owner of the theater, Mr. Hamilton (George Snell), but her recommendation letter and all her money have been stolen from her purse. The chorus girl Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli) sees her condition and brings Jill to her lodging in the house of Mr. Sidey (Ferd Martini) and Mrs. Sidey (Florence Helminger). Then she helps Jill to have an audition with Mr. Hamilton and she is hired as the lead star. Patsy is introduced to Jill's fiancé Hugh Fielding (John Stuart) and to his co-worker Levet (Miles Mander) that works in a plantation in Africa, and she befriends Hugh. He travels to the plantation to spend two years overseas and save money to marry Jill. However, she meets the wealthy Prince Ivan (C. Falkenberg) and becomes a "kept woman", moving to her own apartment. Meanwhile, Patsy is proposed by Levet, and they get married, spending their honeymoon in Italy. Levet travels to the plantation and does not write to his wife, claiming that he is ill. Patsy borrows money from Mr.& Mrs. Sidey and finds what happened to Levet and Hugh.

"The Pleasure Garden" (1925) is the first feature by Alfred Hitchcock with a melodramatic romance. The characters are well developed and gives a sample of the human nature and moral, with Jill, Patsy, Levet, Hugh and Mr.& Mrs. Sidey, with a selfish promiscuous woman, a gentle and honest young woman, a honest man and an evil womanizer and a sweet old couple. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Jardim dos Prazeres" ("The Pleasure Garden")

Hitchcock's first full-length film may also be his worst. A predictable, joyless melodrama with no real visual style to speak of. And why would you cast two women who look almost exactly alike in the leads? It's infuriating.

This film is alright. It's definitely not one of Hitchcock's best, but it's not bad. The score isn't as annoying as other silent movie scores that drone the same chords over and over. It's pretty entertaining, the humour works well some of the same.

Aspiring dancer Jill comes to the city, looking for spot in the revue at the Pleasure Garden. One of the dancers, Patsy, not only helps her get a job in the revue but shares her apartment with her. However, romantic relationships and Jill's rising fame will test their friendship.

The directorial debut of master director Alfred Hitchcock. More specifically, the first released film with Hitchcock as director. In 1922 Hitchcock directed the film 'Number 13' but only a few scenes were shot and the film was never released. The footage subsequently disappeared and is still missing, making it highly sought after.

This, his official debut film, is okay. It's not a tense thriller like one would later associate with Hitchcock but more a relationship drama. However, there are some more intense scenes towards the end that are reminiscent of Hitchcock in his prime.

Plot is okay, for what is a largely a romantic-drama. It's not a all-wine-and-roses sort of romantic drama but more a warts-and-all type (which would have been quite rare in the 1920s), making it better than most. Things are a bit schmaltzy at times but the character and plot arcs are good and ultimately make for a decent story.

The Pleasure Garden takes a long time to get where it's going. It's also difficult to tell the lead characters apart at times. It seems Alfred Hitchcock was still getting his feet under himself when in regard to filmmaking, but it was still interesting to see his directorial debut.

It is finally time for me to binge through the legendary filmography of the late Alfred Hitchcock and that journey begins with his directorial debut, The Pleasure Garden (1925).

Positives for The Pleasure Garden (1925): It is always a pleasure (pun intended) to see where some of our favorite filmmakers began their careers at. This movie is an early and perfect example of Hitchcock's masterful abilities as a filmmaker and it is on full display here. The movie's story is very interesting for what was happening on screen.

Negatives for The Pleasure Garden (1925): Now to be fair, I am not well versed in silent movies and I actually haven't watched a lot of silent movies in my life. The only other silent movie that I've watched is The Gold Rush (1925) which came out the same year as this movie. The silent aspect of this movie took me out a couple of times and that is very unfortunate.

Overall, The Pleasure Garden (1925) is a great silent movie and a great directorial debut for Alfred Hitchcock.

At this point, I've seen 52 of the 54 feature films Alfred Hitchcock directed...and so I've decided to find his final two, both of which are silents. I was able to find "The Pleasure Garden" on Amazon Prime....but if you watch it, be sure to turn off your closed captioning if you use it. This is because with it, you get intertitle cards with double captioning....and the newer captions aren't even as good as they often tend to summarize instead of saying what was originally intended.

The story is about two chorus girls. When they meet, one is out of work and desperate...and the nice chorus girl, Pat, gets Jill a job and befriends her. Then, Pat and her boyfriend invite Pat out with them and get her a date as well. Things sure look swell, but you know there has to be SOME drama in order to make the story worth your time! What drama? Well, once Jill sees success, it all seems to go to her head. But things get MUCH weirder later when it all switches to a tropical island...then it just seems to run off the rails!

For a silent film, "The Pleasure Garden" is well made and very well directed. The acting is restrained and convincing and the story is worth seeing...especially in the first portion. While it's nothing like his later films, it's a very good silent and does have some serious melodrama and death in the latter portion.

By the way, this film clocks in at a little more than 59 minutes...not the 75 listed on IMDB. Perhaps IMDB is mistaken (it happens), but more likely the print was cut down over the years...a common occurrence with silent movies.