Meurtre

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.

This was one of the few times that Alfred Hitchcock filmed one of his stories as a "whodunit" in which you are not sure until the end who committed the crime. "Murder!" is often slow-moving, but it has some good features, and is worth watching the whole way through. It was one of Hitchcock's earliest sound pictures, and he tried some new things here, some of which work quite well.

Herbert Marshall stars as Sir John, a famous actor who sits on a jury for a murder case. After the case is decided, Sir John starts having second thoughts over whether the verdict was really correct, and he decides to investigate on his own. His investigation itself moves rather slowly, but it has some entertaining moments. Everyone connected with the murder was part of a theater group, and Hitchcock gets some good mileage out of having the characters alternate between their real identities and their stage roles. There are some pretty good scenes, most especially the one of the jury's deliberations - it is quite amusing, and a not-too-subtle example of Hitchcock's lack of confidence in the infallibility of the legal system.

There is not very much of the suspense for which Hitchcock is famous, but instead there is some subtle humor and a lot of atmospheric detail. While not having the sustained excitement of Hitchcock's best films, "Murder!" is still worthwhile as a slightly different kind of film by the great director.

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.

Early Hitchcocks are all worth seeing to observe how the Master's style evolved over the years. This story, based on a Clemence Dane book, is interesting, if only for the sub-texts flowing through it. The dialogue comes in fits and starts, which is common in the early sound films and some of the camera work is rudimentary.....but you can still spot the Hitchcock touch in the nuances of some of the scenes. Herbert Marshall is especially dashing as Sir John; he was a particularly attractive actor in his early years. Nora Baring is servicable as the accused but it is Esme Percy, as Fain, who is intriguing. As a "half-caste", originally written by Dane as gay, he is either overacting like hell or is fascinating in his interpretation....there is a fine line. Regardless, he holds your attention when he is on the screen. The film moves slowlllllllly, very slowlllllly.....but for Hitchcock and early talkie buffs, it is well worth it. Catch Una O'Conner in her younger years as the landlady. She's a treat.

In an early depiction of Hitchcock's fear and mistrust of the police and the legal system, we have a very legal thriller about a murder and it's subsequent trial. We are given the facts of the case, even a sort of a limited view of the murder itself taking place, followed by the prosecution and defense presenting their cases at the trial and a detailed look at the jury's discussion of the case. Sort of Hitchcock's version of 12 Angry Men.

There is a curious cast of characters involved in the film, and two of Hitch's biggest interests, the law and the arts, are on center stage. Sir John in the single character who takes the time to really look deeply into what really happened that night, even though someone's life is on the line based on the verdict that they reach, and his personal investigation is probably the best part of the film. One of the things that this movie is famous for is for being the first film where someone's thoughts are shown in a film, in the scene where he is looking at himself in the mirror, shaving. For this scene, a recording of him speaking was played off screen, since vocals could not be added to the film later.

There is a scene in the film where Mr. Marlowe goes to visit Sir John at his request, and as he approaches Sir John's desk there is a close up of his feet, which sink deeply into the rug as though it were laid over a soft mattress. This is never explained, although I am willing to accept that this is a spot of symbolism the meaning of which escaped me, since so much of the rest of the film is deeply layered, literally and figuratively, as well. There is an astonishing amount of technique and content to be seen here, impossible to catch all in one viewing, which is one sign of a great film.

Some editing and filming techniques I suspect were not as successful as they seemed in the writing stages, but the film is strong nonetheless. Consider, for example, the brave and highly successful technique of lingering on the empty jury room while the verdict is read offstage, and the shockingly effective technique of having the face of the victim hanging in the vision of the murderer. Incredibly, I think this is one of the single most haunting shots I have ever seen in a Hitchcock film. It has its slow moments and may be a bit longer than it's content can support, but this is a brilliant example of Hitch's early work.

Also keep your eye out for Hitchcock's cameo, which is a full hour into the film. This was long before he began putting all of his cameos in the beginnings of his films, knowing that the audience would be watching for him and not wanting this to distract from the stories.