Secret Agent

When the topic of spy movies comes up, James Bond is usually one of the first names to arise. But even spy movies had a beginning, and sure enough, in the first couple decades of cinema, who was there making spy movies? Alfred Hitchcock.

Like the other spy movies he did, (Take Torn Curtain and Topaz for instance, two of his later works. How much later? Nearly 40 years later), Secret Agent is a spy movie without lots of explosions or car chases or shootouts. Instead it is about a man who goes undercover to break up a potentially disastrous international agenda of some kind, and along the way falls in love with his partner and realizes that he's not up to the task of murdering someone.

This 1936 movie is another in Hitchcock's decade-long run of British talkies: highly-contrasted black and white, under 90 minutes generally, and devoid of major stars (except for Peter Lorre, who appears in this movie two years after he did The Man Who Knew Too Much).

But unlike many of the movies surrounding it (Young and Innocent, The 39 Steps), this one isn't quite as good. Not that Secret Agent is a bad movie, far from it:

The directing is fine, and the church-murder scene is a beautiful mix of sound and picture. Lorre is much like the male version of Bette Davis - overacting and proud of it. His role as the womanizing yet clever "General" is much lighter than his usual horror-laced stuff, and he still pulls it off with ease. The leads are equally good. And the humor laced throughout is genuinely funny. (Note that, even in 1936, it is obvious that Hitchcock was already looking for the actress that would be fulfilled in Grace Kelly - the strong, feisty, beautiful blonde leading lady.)

But there's nothing here to just make the jaw drop and the eyes widen. It is a good movie, and from a director that has had whole decades worth of *great* movies, it just seems subpar. A previous commentor was right: This was the movie for Hitchcock to remake in the 1950s (with color and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - heck, maybe even a minor role for Jimmy Stewart), not The Man Who Knew Too Much, which was one of his best British films.

Overall, it is good and worth the watch - especially for Hitchcock fans, but it's just not quite *there*.

7/10

This, in my opinion, is one of the master's best early films, so good, in fact, that it begs for repeat viewing. That is the only way I know to absorb the subtle verbal repartees (observe the fascinating expressions and body language of Madeleine Carroll as she repeatedly defends herself from the blandishments of the affable American played by Robert Young); the hilarious malapropisms and convoluted syntax courtesy of the unpredictably eccentric Peter Lorre (there is good reason to believe this was unfeigned because Mr. Lorre, a Hungarian by birth who had achieved a well-deserved reputation as a chilling screen presence in German cinema before leaving for England following the National Socialist take-over, had not yet mastered the nuances of the English language); the classic understatement by that most aristocratic of all British actors, John Gielgud; and for those of us who never tire gazing at the incomparably beautiful Madeleine (Elsa) Carroll, the camera angles finally do justice to her divinely-wrought features (she also delivers her usual elegantly controlled performance). And, of course, there is all of the excitement and suspense one comes to expect from the great Alfred Hitchcock... Needless to say, I highly recommend this film.

One of the more ignored early Hitchcock thrillers, and unjustly so. In 1916 Switzerland, Bookworm John Gielguld, Beautiful Maddeline Carroll and and Pesky, over sexed Peter Lorre are three very unlikely enlisted civilians made to assassinate an unknown foreign agent. One right after another fall superb Hitichcock scenes, high on visuals, in no need of dialog. Such scenes include Gielguld and Lorre discovering a murdered agent in a noisy Swiss church, an assassination seen through a telescope while the victim's dog howls mournfully, a chase through a chocolate factory. What hurts the film is Lorre's shameless overacting, and the too neat ending. It's as if Hitchcock decided "This is beginning to ramble, let's have an explosion here." Don't be put off by co-star Robert Young's comic relief, there's a reason for it. I could picture a 1950's remake, in Vistavision in color with Cary Grant, Grace Kelly and a more restrained Peter Lorre.

Hitchcock was an extremely visual film-maker as a rule and this film took an entirely different direction. What I remember most are the sounds - or more specifically, the noises. The discordant sound of the organ, for example, stands out. It isn't pretty and why should it be? The organist's dead after all. The noise in the chocolate factory is a continuous din relieved only by a fire alarm! Then, two of the main characters are caught in the bell-tower of a church when the bells begin to ring. Again, the sound isn't pleasant at all but quite annoying. A "musical" scene with yodelers ends up with coins being swirled around plates and is almost overbearing. The dog's howling in its psychic moment is long and unnerving. In all, these sound effects set the audience on edge which I think was part of the original plan. The two central characters are uneasy with their task and we are made to suffer too. This is an unusual film for Hitch and well worth the time.

Curtis Stotlar

Despite the abject absurdity of Hitchcock's "Secret Agent", I adored it.

The film starts off as a farcical story following John Gielgud and Madeline Carroll - two novice British spies - hunting down a German agent with the help of a more experienced man - "The General" - a Mexican hilariously played by Peter Lorre. With these principal players, it should be no surprise that the performances are top-notch. However, given the fact that Lorre was, at the time, at one of the lowest points in his tumultuous but brilliant career, it is possible that his over-the-top and uncharacteristically comedic performance at least began unintentionally (and was exploited by the great director as a last-ditch effort to complete the film successfully).

The story is based rather loosely on a Somerset Maugham story translated for theater by Campbell Dixon then adapted by Hitchcock favorite Charles Bennett. Quite a bit, as you can well imagine, changes as a result of the translations from medium to medium.

The drama turns on a developing romance between Gielgud and Carroll's characters - and the burgeoning consciences which accompany it. Will they be able to carry out their patriotic duty if and when they finally track down their opponent, or will they fail? Furthermore, what will the zealous and perhaps a little psychotic General do if his co-conspirators drop out of the spy business at the last instant? Typical Hitchcock plot devices (i.e. trains, quirky romantic relationships, European ethnic stereotypes) make cameo appearances at appropriate points in the story, and enhance the experience for Hitchcock aficionados.

The script and general story-line is not one of the best Hitchcock would have access to throughout his career, but it is quite rich compared to some of the plots he worked with earlier in his career, and the director develops the comedy, suspense, and human drama economically and affectively, if not fully. The camera-work is, of course, good, but not nearly as experimental or interesting as many of Hitchcock's earlier and later films. This is generally true of most of Hitchcock's excellent efforts for Gaumont British Pictures of America during the 1930s (I.e. Sabotage, 39 Steps, etc) - very British films made with American/British casts and production for an international audience.

Though less suspenseful than many of Hitchcock's contemporaneous efforts, Secret Agent remains a good and entertaining example of Hitchcock in the 1930s.