The Man Who Knew Too Much

It's well known that Alfred Hitchcock had a penchant for casting icy blondes as his leading ladies, but it's often forgotten Doris Day was once one of them. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, the pronunciation of which was forever immortalized by Robert Osbourne, she's married to James Stewart, another of Hitchcock's favorites. In a rare dramatic turn, Doris shows her hidden talents. There's a famous and heart-wrenching scene that's nearly impossible to watch without a tissue handy. Doris and Jimmy's son has been kidnapped, and Doris is having a meltdown. James injects her with a sedative because he's a doctor and believes that's the best way to help her, and she hysterically cries until she passes out.

While Doris usually gets all the acting praise from this movie, it's probably because everyone expects James Stewart to be great in a Hitchcock film. But let's not forget he was the other actor in that difficult scene, watching and deciding how to help his wife. He's wonderful in this movie, but if you know and love him like the rest of the country, it's not really a surprise.

The Man Who Knew Too Much isn't the most famous Alfred Hitchcock movie out there, but it's absolutely worth watching. It has Doris's quintessential song "Que Sera Sera" and she also credits it with spawning her lifelong devotion to animals. Plus, it's pretty suspenseful, a necessity in a Hitchcock movie. There are exotic locations, good-looking leading actors, murder, and intrigue. What else do you want?

Both versions of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have their strong points, and are well worth watching. This 1950's remake is carried mostly by its star power, with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day being convincing and very sympathetic as the parents of the kidnapped child. It also has more lavish settings and better (not just because it is color) photography than the earlier version. On the other hand, it lacks the wittiness of the British version, and moves more slowly.

The remake spends much more time setting up the story than the original did, with the family spending a lot of time on their vacation in Morocco before the crisis occurs. It makes possible some colorful scenery and settings, and allows you to get to know the family a bit more, although the quicker pace in the original established more tension and kept your attention throughout. The Albert Hall sequence works well in both films, with this one having the added bonus of allowing the audience to see Bernard Herrmann, who wrote so many great scores for Hitchcock's films, conducting the orchestra.

Despite having essentially the same story, the two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" have a much different feel. Which one you prefer is largely a matter of taste - while neither is usually considered among Hitchcock's very best, they are both good movies with a lot of strong points. Take a look at both if you have the chance.

As we learn early in the movie, Doris Day's character has left the stage for marriage and motherhood in a city far from the bright lights. Then her child is abducted and in order to find him she has to return first to the place where she was famous and the people who knew her, and finally to the songs she sang. It's strange, in a movie by Hitchcock, to find we are watching the story of a woman who sacrifices her identity to her husband's and then finds it again, but I find it hard to ignore the parallel between the child held hostage by killers and the singer's career held hostage by her husband. Heavy stuff for 1956.

I'm not sure why I didn't have a more enthusiastic reaction to The Man Who Knew Too Much. Hitchcock is the director that got me interested in classic cinema, and Rear Window, Notorious, Psycho, The Birds, Rebecca, and The Lady Vanishes are all among my favorite movies. It's a globe-trotting adventure with all the tension, intrigue, assassinations, conspiracies, and suspense you could want, but there's something about it that just didn't really catch my interest until the last 30 minutes, or so. The ending is great, but the rest of the movie was just missing something, in my opinion. 

The problem certainly wasn't with the two lead actors. James Stewart gave another great performance under Hitchcock's eye (he was my favorite Hitchcock leading man), and Doris Day was charmingly determined and convincing as a confused wife  and mother, desperately searching for her son. 

The Man Who Knew Too Much certainly isn't a bad movie (is there such a thing as a bad Hitchcock movie?), and I expect that other people might have a more favorable response to it than I did. I suspect this is just one of those times when a good film just doesn't completely "click", with me, for whatever reason. I recommend it to anyone who is interested, though.

When you start watching the 1956 version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, you'll think it's a minor work by Alfred Hitchcock. The countless scenes showing a lovely, but buffoonish vacationing American couple (James Stewart, Doris Day) seem to lead nowhere. But, hold on, about thirty minutes into the film, during a very dreamlike murder sequence (which takes place in bright sunlight, and involves blue paint) the film really takes off. Personally, I find the opening "character development" sequence between protagonists James Stewart and Doris Day very charming. It sets you up for the second and third acts of the film. You get to like this couple so much, you are raelly rooting for them as they try to rescue their kidnapped son amidst a plot to assassinate a visiting diplomat. Of course, the high-point of the film is the assassination itself, a twelve minute wordless sequence. Hitchcock beautifully brings us back to silent film! The ending, which involves a rescue at an embassy, is wonderfully silly and tense. For those not familiar with Hitchcock, this is Hitchcock's own remake of a film he made under the same title in 1934 in England. This is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. It's proof that this master loved his audience and wanted to keep them thrilled!