Murder!

Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! is not a great film, but I give it *** out of ****, so it must be good, and it is. The acting is good, the premise is intriguing, but the film being extremely slow-moving, makes the film boring at times, but it is still at times a quite mesmerizing film that is worth is just for the extraordinary ending. The plot deals with a woman( Norah Baring) being accused of murder, and a juror( a great Herbert Marshall) being almost sure that she is not the killer, and attempting to find this killer. I will not reveal any more of the plot to you, as I think that this film deserved to be seen, not just read. It is not one of Hitchcock's more popular films, and not one of his best. It is an early talkie, so be prepared for a poor print. But past that and it's slow-moving flaws, it's a well-acted film that deserves to be seen.

Two things make Murder! Interesting before one even sees it - it's early Hitchcock and the film is 87 years old!

It's not your typical Hitchcock story. A famous actor (Herbert Marshall) sits on a jury that convicts a young actress, Diana (Norah Baring) of murder, but he's haunted by the verdict.

He had an encounter with this woman some time before and suggested she gain experience by "working in the provinces." He now feels slightly responsible, as she is accused of murdering a young female costar.

Enlisting the help of a married couple in the company, he sets out to find out what really happened.

Marshall is young and attractive, and Esme Percy as Handel Fane is very memorable. A distinguished stage actor, he actually studied with Sarah Bernhardt, and roles were written for him by Bernard Shaw. His style and look are unusual.

This was filmed in a precise manner - the camera focusing on doorways, going along the floor where the murder took place and showing the bloody poker.

The climax of the film is pure Hitchcock and astounding. Well worth sitting through this early movie. Hitchcock always is.

A recurring theme in Hitchcock's movies was the innocent accused who can't defend him or herself. In this case it's a young actress who is found, standing over the victim of a brutal murder, bloodied, with a fireplace poker at her feet. She has no recollection of the murder and is brought to court where she is convicted and sentenced to be hanged. But someone just doesn't believe she could have done this and begins to sort out evidence. All I can say is that there is so much promise in these early Hitchcock movies that pushes us forward to his more mature works. "Murder!" and "Blackmail" remain two of my favorite Hitchcock movies.

Although not as photographically fluid as his later films, Alfred Hitchcock, in his first sound film, managed to overcome the limitations of early recording equipment. With "Murder," he produced an entertaining work that holds up better and does not creak as much as many films of the early sound period.

"Murder" also provides early clues to themes that continued throughout Hitchcock's movie-making career. The accused perpetrator of a crime, who was caught with circumstantial evidence, has only a single champion that believes in her innocence. The wrongly accused would appear throughout Hitchcock's work from Robert Donat in "The Thirty-Nine Steps" to Henry Fonda in "The Wrong Man" and Cary Grant in "North by Northwest." Sexually ambiguous characters like Handel Fane in "Murder" would continue to fascinate Hitchcock over the years as well. Again, from Judith Anderson in "Rebecca," Robert Walker in "Strangers on a Train," Farley Granger and John Dall in "Rope," to even Mrs. Bundy, the ornithologist in "The Birds," Hitchcock displays a fascination with sexual ambivalence. However, the mincing character in "Murder," as played by Esme Percy, is borderline offensive, even in the context of the period. His sexual orientation is more than suggested by the character's predilection to wear women's clothing, revel in applying makeup, and use effeminate gestures.

However, despite the film's flaws and limitations, the story of Sir John Menier's efforts to prove a young woman innocent of murder is fairly engrossing. As Sir John, a well-known actor and a member of the jury that convicts the accused woman, Herbert Marshall is stalwart as ever, and he cleverly tracks down clues and devises an intellectual trap for his prey. The rest of the cast has little to do but follow Hitchcock's direction, which is capable but not his finest. For Hitchcock students, "Murder" is essential, for other viewers, this early sound effort is generally entertaining, if a bit slowly paced and static visually.

From my comments you will immediately recognize I am not an expert on Alfred Hitchcook or film in general. My positive reactions to this this movie are based on the fact that I felt it held my interest and that it is technically better than most talkies made in the period of 1929 to 1931, even though I think that Herbert Marshall was hampered by a script that was fine for the level of the other actors but inferior for Marshall's talent. I feel that he was out of place in this movie because of the supporting actors. It was still a good movie and you could see hints of Hitchcock future genius in the direction of the plot. I think it took courage to include some of the longer scenes in this movie, especially for a movie made in 1930. That being said I think these longer scenes were mostly effective. I think this film is watch-worthy for any film student and anyone who is a fan of Hitchcock or early talkies. In my opinion if this film were made only 4 years later with the same cast it would have been a superior film because of the massive evolution in film making in the period between 1930 and 1934.