The Ring

It's basically just a love-triangle story, but Hitchcock's storytelling skills and mastery of silent film techniques make "The Ring" well worth watching. There is a lot of visual detail and symbolism that add meaning to a basically routine story about small-time boxer Jack, his girl, and the champion who gives Jack his big break but who also tries to steal his girl.

The opening sequence establishes the triangle amidst the colorful atmosphere of a traveling show, where Jack takes on all comers inside a tent. It is filled with a lot of detail, especially the bracelet that Bob, the champion, gives to Jack's girl, which is important as a plot element and as a symbol. (This "ring" is one of several meanings of the film's nicely-chosen title.) Most of the plot that follows is predictable, as it is clear from the beginning that someday Bob and Jack will have to square off in the ring with more than Bob's title at stake. But if the story is routine, Hitchcock's technique is not. There are a lot of creative touches that develop the characters and story, and that add humor and interest. The cast is pretty good, and some of the secondary characters from the traveling show are very funny in the earlier scenes.

This is certainly an old-fashioned movie, and won't be of general interest today, but it's a nice little film. Anyone who likes silent films or who wants to see something quite different from the "Master of Suspense" should find this worth a look.

"The Ring" is, for me, Hitchcock's best silent feature. It is a nippy little romance which sprints along with a surprisingly swift pace.

There's the typical early Hitch experimentation - the camera getting "knocked out" in a boxing scene is a prime example and some fine comedic moments in what is otherwise a pretty serious story of love and betrayal although, with the boxing backdrop, the rather mundane story is slightly more exciting.

Less gimicky than the more famous "The Lodger", and therefore more believable, "The Ring" is an underrated, early effort from the man who went on to become one of the most celebrated directors in the world.

NB. Catch hold of the BFI release of this video if you can - the score is superb and by far the best new music I have heard composed for a silent movie.

Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.

The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.

"The Ring" is a surprisingly torpid little film which I thought was not one of The Master's better efforts. Yes, yes, I know, there were some of his signature cinematic compositions and visual touches, but the play's the thing, right? This was pretty ordinary subject matter for someone with Hitch's reputation - love triangle, jealousy, revenge, etc. There were no surprises, no maguffins, no suspense, just plodding drama.

Maybe the best part of this film is the casting. I enjoyed watching Carl Brisson very much as the cuckolded husband, "One-Round Jack" and the always affable Ian Hunter - even when playing a cad, although he is slightly paunchy for a heavyweight champ. Hitch also got a lot of mileage from the entertaining Gordon Harker as Jack's second.

But I disagree with some reviewers that this was one of Hitchcock's better silents. "The Manxman" is a far superior film, and also stars Brisson as a cuckolded husband. That was a story you could get your teeth into; not so with "The Ring", which was pure pablum.