53 reviews
"No matter how you begin, it all ends in this skin game"
The early 30s were a time of experimentation for Hitchcock, with theme as much as with technique. After discovering that the crime thriller was his forte with Blackmail and Murder!, his at the time zigzagging career lead him to attempt a talkie drama adapted from a fairly mediocre stage play concerning a feud between the families of an aristocrat and an entrepreneur.
In attempting a straight ahead drama without any major thriller elements, Hitchcock nevertheless employs all the techniques he had been perfecting in his earlier crime pictures dynamic editing, a focus on the psychology of guilt and fear, as well as some of the sound techniques of his previous talkies. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. He tries to inject some tension into an auction scene with whip pans and quick editing, which is a fairly good display of technique but we don't really care enough about the outcome of the bidding to get really drawn in at this point.
For some of the more talky scenes, Hitchcock tries to move beyond the story's theatrical roots by focusing on reactions and having dialogue take place off screen. This helps to give weight to the second half of the film. In particular, Hitch's dwelling on the face of Chloe, the innocent victim of the feud, makes the audience feel sympathy for her character, which in turn makes the climactic scenes work and prevents them from slipping into ridiculous melodrama (which the stage version may well have done). For some of the more subdued scenes, Hitchcock preserves an unbroken take but still takes the focus on and off different characters by smoothly dollying in and out. This same method would be used by Laurence Olivier when he began directing Shakespeare adaptations in the 1940s. However, too many of the dialogue scenes in The Skin Game are simply a lot of panning as the camera tries to keep up with extravagant theatrical performances.
This is a fairly good go at theatrical drama for Hitchcock, but it was made at a time when he was coming to realise not only his strength in the suspense thriller, but his weakness in (and utter distaste for) every other genre. He was probably beginning to look at this kind of project as a rather dull waste of time, and definitely at odds to his sensibility. As an example, this is one of the very few Hitchcock pictures to take advantage of natural beauty, and yet he makes this aspect a victim of his playful irony, by taking his most beautiful countryside shot, then pulling out to reveal it is merely a tiny picture on a sale poster, surrounded by Hornblower and his cronies laughing over the deal they have just made.
The Skin Game is rarely gripping, but at times it is powerful, and in any case it has a short enough running time to prevent it from getting boring. Hitchcock however was looking now to have more fun with crime and suspense, and this sense of the dramatic (not to mention a sense of genuine sympathy for the victim) would not return until his later Hollywood pictures, and even then only occasionally.
In attempting a straight ahead drama without any major thriller elements, Hitchcock nevertheless employs all the techniques he had been perfecting in his earlier crime pictures dynamic editing, a focus on the psychology of guilt and fear, as well as some of the sound techniques of his previous talkies. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. He tries to inject some tension into an auction scene with whip pans and quick editing, which is a fairly good display of technique but we don't really care enough about the outcome of the bidding to get really drawn in at this point.
For some of the more talky scenes, Hitchcock tries to move beyond the story's theatrical roots by focusing on reactions and having dialogue take place off screen. This helps to give weight to the second half of the film. In particular, Hitch's dwelling on the face of Chloe, the innocent victim of the feud, makes the audience feel sympathy for her character, which in turn makes the climactic scenes work and prevents them from slipping into ridiculous melodrama (which the stage version may well have done). For some of the more subdued scenes, Hitchcock preserves an unbroken take but still takes the focus on and off different characters by smoothly dollying in and out. This same method would be used by Laurence Olivier when he began directing Shakespeare adaptations in the 1940s. However, too many of the dialogue scenes in The Skin Game are simply a lot of panning as the camera tries to keep up with extravagant theatrical performances.
This is a fairly good go at theatrical drama for Hitchcock, but it was made at a time when he was coming to realise not only his strength in the suspense thriller, but his weakness in (and utter distaste for) every other genre. He was probably beginning to look at this kind of project as a rather dull waste of time, and definitely at odds to his sensibility. As an example, this is one of the very few Hitchcock pictures to take advantage of natural beauty, and yet he makes this aspect a victim of his playful irony, by taking his most beautiful countryside shot, then pulling out to reveal it is merely a tiny picture on a sale poster, surrounded by Hornblower and his cronies laughing over the deal they have just made.
The Skin Game is rarely gripping, but at times it is powerful, and in any case it has a short enough running time to prevent it from getting boring. Hitchcock however was looking now to have more fun with crime and suspense, and this sense of the dramatic (not to mention a sense of genuine sympathy for the victim) would not return until his later Hollywood pictures, and even then only occasionally.
Not exactly the snobs versus the slobs...
... but it is an adequate way to explain the dynamic for Americans.
Alfred Hitchcock directs this adaptation of John Galsworthy's play. The moneyed, cultured Hillcrists battle against the nouveau riche Hornblowers, the latter headed by the ambitious, combative patriarch (Edmund Gwenn). Their squabbles over the use of farm land for industrial purposes ends up causing heartache and tragedy for both families. Featuring C. V. France, Helen Haye, and Jill Esmond as the Hillcrists, and John Longden, Phyllis Konstam, and Frank Lawton as the other Hornblowers. With Herbert Ross, Dora Gregory, and Edward Chapman.
This had already been filmed (also with Gwenn) in 1921. The class-conscious storyline resonated well with the British, I suppose. Gwenn plays his role big, and is a stark contrast to his later, best-known Kris Kringle role in Miracle on 34th Street. Jill Esmond, the first wife of Laurence Olivier and originally the bigger star in the marriage, has one of her better film roles. As for Hitchcock's direction, the only stand-out scene is a lengthy auction with a lot of rapid-cut edits.
Alfred Hitchcock directs this adaptation of John Galsworthy's play. The moneyed, cultured Hillcrists battle against the nouveau riche Hornblowers, the latter headed by the ambitious, combative patriarch (Edmund Gwenn). Their squabbles over the use of farm land for industrial purposes ends up causing heartache and tragedy for both families. Featuring C. V. France, Helen Haye, and Jill Esmond as the Hillcrists, and John Longden, Phyllis Konstam, and Frank Lawton as the other Hornblowers. With Herbert Ross, Dora Gregory, and Edward Chapman.
This had already been filmed (also with Gwenn) in 1921. The class-conscious storyline resonated well with the British, I suppose. Gwenn plays his role big, and is a stark contrast to his later, best-known Kris Kringle role in Miracle on 34th Street. Jill Esmond, the first wife of Laurence Olivier and originally the bigger star in the marriage, has one of her better film roles. As for Hitchcock's direction, the only stand-out scene is a lengthy auction with a lot of rapid-cut edits.
Not typical Hitchcock, but not bad.
Technical crudities, print/sound deficiencies and dated acting styles taken into consideration, "Skin Game" still has innovative (for the time) camera techniques and thematic ambiguity (who is right and who is wrong? Who are the true villains of the story?) and is generally better than other, more "typical" Hitchcock films of the period, like "Murder!" from 1930.Edmund Gwenn is terrific and Phyllis Constam is quite sexy. (**1/2)
great suspense build-up, abrupt ending
- steve.schonberger
- Mar 27, 2000
- Permalink
A Few Hitchcock Touches in An Otherwise Bland Film
"The Skin Game" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's earlier sound pictures, and although the story held potential, it is a rather bland film despite a couple of good Hitchcock touches.
The story centers on a rivalry between two neighboring families who have very different views on the future of their community. Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) wants to see the land developed and used for factories and businesses, while the Hillcrest family wants to see the traditional homes and countryside preserved. The resulting conflicts hold some real potential, and lead to some good moments as the families try to outwit each other in a "skin game", but the movie as a whole is never really very compelling.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly why this is not a better film. There are no big names in the cast, but Hitchcock made several fine movies with just this sort of cast. Gwenn is good in his role, and Phyllis Konstam is believable and sympathetic as his daughter-in-law whose troubled past eventually provokes a crisis between the two families.
Perhaps Hitchcock stayed too close to the play on which the film is based (it does have a bit of a stage-bound feel), or perhaps for once he did not have a strong sense of the material's potential.
Hitchcock saved his best for the movie's most important scene, when a crucial parcel of land is auctioned off. The auction scene, and a confrontation afterwards between the main characters, is well-done with some good twists.
There are also some nice ironic touches at the end.
Hitchcock fans should still watch "The Skin Game" at least once, to notice the ways that the director's usual touch can be seen, but this movie may not be of much interest to others.
The story centers on a rivalry between two neighboring families who have very different views on the future of their community. Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn) wants to see the land developed and used for factories and businesses, while the Hillcrest family wants to see the traditional homes and countryside preserved. The resulting conflicts hold some real potential, and lead to some good moments as the families try to outwit each other in a "skin game", but the movie as a whole is never really very compelling.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly why this is not a better film. There are no big names in the cast, but Hitchcock made several fine movies with just this sort of cast. Gwenn is good in his role, and Phyllis Konstam is believable and sympathetic as his daughter-in-law whose troubled past eventually provokes a crisis between the two families.
Perhaps Hitchcock stayed too close to the play on which the film is based (it does have a bit of a stage-bound feel), or perhaps for once he did not have a strong sense of the material's potential.
Hitchcock saved his best for the movie's most important scene, when a crucial parcel of land is auctioned off. The auction scene, and a confrontation afterwards between the main characters, is well-done with some good twists.
There are also some nice ironic touches at the end.
Hitchcock fans should still watch "The Skin Game" at least once, to notice the ways that the director's usual touch can be seen, but this movie may not be of much interest to others.
- Snow Leopard
- May 16, 2001
- Permalink
Good but dated Hitchcock film about a twisted and thunderous family confrontation
Fine and interesting story from the play of the same name adapted by Alfred Hitchcock himself and his wife and usual writer Alma Reville . Dealing with two British families : the aristocratic Hillcrist family, and Hornblower family headed by proud and ambitious Mr. Hornblower : Edmund Gwenn , both of them feud over land rights . As the latter , the mercilessly pushy Mister Hornblower sends away and evicts poor farmers to build factories on their lands . After that , Mr. Hornblower outwits Hillcrist in an auction for an additional piece of area property , the wealthy Hillcrists find their big estate completely surrounded by the upstart Hornblower . Things go wrong when Mrs. Hillcrest settles a terrible secret about a dark past of the Hornblower family .
It isn't thrilling , neither suspenseful , non characteristic of working with Hitchcock , but a tumultuous and strong drama . Way too much talking in excruciating , long and drawn-out scenes . This is a brooding drama whose premise turns out to be the hard confrontation between a rich family , the Hillcrests , fighting against the speculator who attempts to make a chimneyed factory complex , Hornblower , then emerges a dark secret resulting in tragic consequences , as it is used as a blackmail againts the speculator and force him to stop doing business . Performances are uniformly good , though in an excessive theatrical style . Based on a successfyl play and still stunningly hypnotic to see today . In fact , being , nowadays ,more stimulating for its innovations in that area , and by experimenting with a peculiar narrative structure . This fine early effort by Hitch has several novelties , as the movie transcends the limitation of its dramatic plot by dealing with thought-provoking issues and focusing on the theatrical meditations of reality . Here Alfred gives a few signs to be an expertise at tightening tension that was already building up . Main known actor results to be Edmund Gwen , giving a nice acting as the nouveau riche, social climber Mr. Hornblower who buys a lot of property abutting their state. Along with other notorious but unknown actors such as : Jill Esmond , Helen Haye , Phyllis Konstam, John Longden, Frank Lawton , C. V. France , Herbert Ross , among others .
This early talkie motion picture was well realized by the famous Alfred Hitchcock and made in his previous British period . His first sound film for Great Britain was ¨Blackmail¨, being made as a silent movie , this one was really an early talkie . This film ¨Skin Game¨1931 belongs to Hitch's first British epoch when he directed silent films, such as ¨The lodger¨ (1926) , ¨The ring¨(1927) , ¨Easy virtue¨ (1927) , ¨The Manxman¨(29) ; being ¨Blackmail¨(29) made as a silent , this was reworked to become a talkie . Following sound movies and early talkies as ¨Murder¨(1930 , ¨June and the Paycock¨(30) , ¨Rich and strange¨(32) , ¨Number 17¨(32) , ¨The man who knew too much¨(34) , ¨The 39 steps¨ (35) , ¨The secret agent¨(36) , ¨Sabotage¨(36) , ¨The lady vanishes¨(38) , ¨Jamaica Inn¨ (39) until he is hired by David O'Selznick to shoot¨Rebecca¨(40) in the US and continuing with other popular movies and masterpieces with world successes .
It isn't thrilling , neither suspenseful , non characteristic of working with Hitchcock , but a tumultuous and strong drama . Way too much talking in excruciating , long and drawn-out scenes . This is a brooding drama whose premise turns out to be the hard confrontation between a rich family , the Hillcrests , fighting against the speculator who attempts to make a chimneyed factory complex , Hornblower , then emerges a dark secret resulting in tragic consequences , as it is used as a blackmail againts the speculator and force him to stop doing business . Performances are uniformly good , though in an excessive theatrical style . Based on a successfyl play and still stunningly hypnotic to see today . In fact , being , nowadays ,more stimulating for its innovations in that area , and by experimenting with a peculiar narrative structure . This fine early effort by Hitch has several novelties , as the movie transcends the limitation of its dramatic plot by dealing with thought-provoking issues and focusing on the theatrical meditations of reality . Here Alfred gives a few signs to be an expertise at tightening tension that was already building up . Main known actor results to be Edmund Gwen , giving a nice acting as the nouveau riche, social climber Mr. Hornblower who buys a lot of property abutting their state. Along with other notorious but unknown actors such as : Jill Esmond , Helen Haye , Phyllis Konstam, John Longden, Frank Lawton , C. V. France , Herbert Ross , among others .
This early talkie motion picture was well realized by the famous Alfred Hitchcock and made in his previous British period . His first sound film for Great Britain was ¨Blackmail¨, being made as a silent movie , this one was really an early talkie . This film ¨Skin Game¨1931 belongs to Hitch's first British epoch when he directed silent films, such as ¨The lodger¨ (1926) , ¨The ring¨(1927) , ¨Easy virtue¨ (1927) , ¨The Manxman¨(29) ; being ¨Blackmail¨(29) made as a silent , this was reworked to become a talkie . Following sound movies and early talkies as ¨Murder¨(1930 , ¨June and the Paycock¨(30) , ¨Rich and strange¨(32) , ¨Number 17¨(32) , ¨The man who knew too much¨(34) , ¨The 39 steps¨ (35) , ¨The secret agent¨(36) , ¨Sabotage¨(36) , ¨The lady vanishes¨(38) , ¨Jamaica Inn¨ (39) until he is hired by David O'Selznick to shoot¨Rebecca¨(40) in the US and continuing with other popular movies and masterpieces with world successes .
Mainly for completists
On average, this is perhaps the lowest-rated of all Hitchcock's films among professional critics, but while I cannot call it good, in my opinion it is not even in Hitchcock's bottom 10. Like his worst, "Juno and the Paycock" from the previous year, it is essentially a filmed play, but it is somewhat less stage-bound and certainly more interesting, if not very. At least one scene (the auction) is distinctly Hitchcockian in style, and Phyllis Konstam is wonderful.
- Richard Keith Carson
- Mar 12, 2001
- Permalink
Worth the time, but a "classic" only in terms of its age.
Generally dull and unenthusiastic drama, made so that Hitchcock could fulfil his quota for British International Pictures.
- barnabyrudge
- Aug 28, 2007
- Permalink
Wow, this is hard watching--but stick with it--it's worth the trouble.
- planktonrules
- Jul 31, 2009
- Permalink
A Bland Early Hitchcock Film
The Skin Game is mediocre at best when it comes to stories - a story of two rich families with a petty argument between them which turns into an all out war of families feuding with a very tragic ending. All this drama over a petty argument.
The best parts of the film is the auction, just as others have mentioned. It really is an intense scene and very well filmed at that. I loved the camera motion here when we saw the auctioneer's view point with edits to view the auctioneer as well. The other best part of the film is the ending, it's sad, tragic and nicely filmed as well. The rest of the movie is very, very dry or bland.
The film is worth watching if you are really into young Alfred Hitchcock's directing career or just want to see a melodrama that you have yet to see. I would not say this is a film that most people would enjoy - I honestly believe that most would be bored to tears unless they are viewing the auction scene.
5/10
The best parts of the film is the auction, just as others have mentioned. It really is an intense scene and very well filmed at that. I loved the camera motion here when we saw the auctioneer's view point with edits to view the auctioneer as well. The other best part of the film is the ending, it's sad, tragic and nicely filmed as well. The rest of the movie is very, very dry or bland.
The film is worth watching if you are really into young Alfred Hitchcock's directing career or just want to see a melodrama that you have yet to see. I would not say this is a film that most people would enjoy - I honestly believe that most would be bored to tears unless they are viewing the auction scene.
5/10
- Rainey-Dawn
- May 5, 2016
- Permalink
Early HItchcock Stands Test of Time
I recently saw Hitchcock's "Rich and Strange" and really enjoyed it, so I was game for another go at this early 1930's British cinema, in my attempt to become a "Hitchcock completist." Please keep in mind that I'm an American with a pretty-good ear for British dialog, but there are some speeches contained here that I couldn't understand in the least. But only a fairly small portion that is. The early sound equipment doesn't help either.
The title "The Skin Game" refers to a heated altercation that leaves no holds barred, and no prisoners taken. The plot line is essentially a "Hatfields and McCoys" family feud over land rights, with a lot of dirt being dug up on both families involved. Like pretty much all early sound films, there is a heavy reliance on dialog and the spoken phrase, which makes "The Skin Game" obviously derived from the stage.
At the beginning there's a long take with probably ten pages of dialog in it, using a medium shot of three characters, with the camera panning between them. At least once, someone was speaking dialog while not on camera, which I always find distracting -- a minor flaw I admit, but noticeable. Hitchcock's pacing feels relatively quick considering, and he keeps interest in these scenes with dramatic exits and entrances of characters, and revelations of plot details.
Really some of these takes were so long that actors coughed, dropped things and retrieved them, and other apparent flubs that were never re-shot. Seems like once the director was five minutes into a scene he couldn't afford the film stock to begin again, so there are a lot of miscues and such, which kind of adds to the immediacy. Especially considering that I'm certain that even the young Hitchcock was keenly aware of every missed cue and dropped line, and it had to drive him to distraction! I was certainly impressed by this early Hitchcock effort and I'm sure that audiences back then went away from this one with the feeling that they got their money's worth. It was apparent that an extremely talented film maker was at work here, trying to keep the audience involved every step of the way. And he did succeed actually.
For instance, there is a scene at an auction house that lasts for about ten minutes, and Hitchcock sets it up in such a way to keep the audience anxiously awaiting the outcome. He has the camera making very fast pans from one bidder to the next, slowing down only when the bidding does. The audience has some background information about the proceedings, but not enough to spoil the surprise at the end.
It's early sound cinema -- so most viewers today can't bear this kind of thing, but if you're familiar with and enjoy films of the early 20Th Century, it's extremely enjoyable and does have a payoff at the end! *** out of *****
The title "The Skin Game" refers to a heated altercation that leaves no holds barred, and no prisoners taken. The plot line is essentially a "Hatfields and McCoys" family feud over land rights, with a lot of dirt being dug up on both families involved. Like pretty much all early sound films, there is a heavy reliance on dialog and the spoken phrase, which makes "The Skin Game" obviously derived from the stage.
At the beginning there's a long take with probably ten pages of dialog in it, using a medium shot of three characters, with the camera panning between them. At least once, someone was speaking dialog while not on camera, which I always find distracting -- a minor flaw I admit, but noticeable. Hitchcock's pacing feels relatively quick considering, and he keeps interest in these scenes with dramatic exits and entrances of characters, and revelations of plot details.
Really some of these takes were so long that actors coughed, dropped things and retrieved them, and other apparent flubs that were never re-shot. Seems like once the director was five minutes into a scene he couldn't afford the film stock to begin again, so there are a lot of miscues and such, which kind of adds to the immediacy. Especially considering that I'm certain that even the young Hitchcock was keenly aware of every missed cue and dropped line, and it had to drive him to distraction! I was certainly impressed by this early Hitchcock effort and I'm sure that audiences back then went away from this one with the feeling that they got their money's worth. It was apparent that an extremely talented film maker was at work here, trying to keep the audience involved every step of the way. And he did succeed actually.
For instance, there is a scene at an auction house that lasts for about ten minutes, and Hitchcock sets it up in such a way to keep the audience anxiously awaiting the outcome. He has the camera making very fast pans from one bidder to the next, slowing down only when the bidding does. The audience has some background information about the proceedings, but not enough to spoil the surprise at the end.
It's early sound cinema -- so most viewers today can't bear this kind of thing, but if you're familiar with and enjoy films of the early 20Th Century, it's extremely enjoyable and does have a payoff at the end! *** out of *****
- mikhail080
- Aug 2, 2010
- Permalink
Great story, middling film
There is a strong plot here - compelling, and surprisingly dark. It's a pity the construction of the film doesn't match it.
There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.
True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.
Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.
There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.
True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.
Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.
- I_Ailurophile
- May 23, 2022
- Permalink
Must watch again!
Sir Alfred Hitchcock's early works in his screen adaptation of a play entitled "Skin Game." It is easy to see why this film is forgettable. First, there are too many characters in the film. The script is uneven at times. They have great cast members like Jill Esmond and Edmund Gwynn there. Many of the cast members here are known for their theatrical backgrounds. The film is about aristocracy, business, and the changing guard in England. The film's complicated plot involves blackmail and bait and switch scheme. This film never really develops in the first viewing. I give kudos for Hitchcock about a woman who uses her female prowess to help unhappy husbands get a divorce. In the thirties, women's sexual behavior remained taboo in films.
- Sylviastel
- Sep 19, 2013
- Permalink
Not only for completists...
....this is good early Hitch! good screenplay,good directing and good acting!Phyllis Konstam is the stand-out .Her portrayal of Chloé can still grab today's audience .
Good scenes:
-the auction sale,twenty-eight years before "North by Norwest" ,is one of the most suspenseful moments of the Master's English era.And there's a brilliant unexpected twist when we think it's over!
-when Chloe takes refuge in her father-in-law's enemy's house,the things seem to have a life of their own:the door,the window,the curtains..
And in 1931,Hitchcock avoids over-simplification:who is good,in the end?who is evil?The local squire and his lady or the arrogant nouveau riche?Who did you have to save?the old couple or the ill-fated Chloé?
In the Truffaut/Hitchcock book,the master says "I did not choose that subject and there is nothing to say about it."
Good scenes:
-the auction sale,twenty-eight years before "North by Norwest" ,is one of the most suspenseful moments of the Master's English era.And there's a brilliant unexpected twist when we think it's over!
-when Chloe takes refuge in her father-in-law's enemy's house,the things seem to have a life of their own:the door,the window,the curtains..
And in 1931,Hitchcock avoids over-simplification:who is good,in the end?who is evil?The local squire and his lady or the arrogant nouveau riche?Who did you have to save?the old couple or the ill-fated Chloé?
In the Truffaut/Hitchcock book,the master says "I did not choose that subject and there is nothing to say about it."
- dbdumonteil
- Nov 15, 2006
- Permalink
Dirty Business
In the countryside of England, Mr. Jackman (Herbert Ross) and Mrs. Jackman (Dora Gregory) are evicted from the cottage where they have been living for thirty years by the new owner of the land, the industrialist Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn). They go to the house of the former owner, the conservative upper-class Mr. Hillcrist (C. V. France), who sold his land with the condition that the tenants would not be evicted. He calls Mr. Hornblower, and they have an argument, since they have different point of views of the future of the town. When Mr. Hornblower decides to buy the land of Mr. Hillcrist's neighbor to build another factory, the owner decides to sell it by auction. There is a dispute between Mr. Hornblower and Mr. Hillcrist, and the industrialist wins, but buys the land by twice its value. But their feud does not stop, and Mrs. Hillcrist (Helen Haye) uses the agent Dawker (Edward Chapman) to investigate the past of Hornblower's daughter-in-law Chloe Hornblower (Phyllis Konstam) and when she finds a secret, she uses it to blackmail Hornblower.
"The Skin Game" (1931) is a film by Alfred Hitchcock with a loathsome story of class warfare of two families, one hypocrite from the upper-class and the other ambitious from the working class that became new rich. The plot shows their irrational feud disputing a land in the beginning and turning into a dirty business from the hypocrite Mrs. Hillcrist. The conclusion is sad and tragic, with the suicide of the pregnant Chloe, but there is a revenge from Mr. Hornblower in the end, symbolized by the tree cut down in the last scene. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Jogo Sujo" ("Dirty Game")
"The Skin Game" (1931) is a film by Alfred Hitchcock with a loathsome story of class warfare of two families, one hypocrite from the upper-class and the other ambitious from the working class that became new rich. The plot shows their irrational feud disputing a land in the beginning and turning into a dirty business from the hypocrite Mrs. Hillcrist. The conclusion is sad and tragic, with the suicide of the pregnant Chloe, but there is a revenge from Mr. Hornblower in the end, symbolized by the tree cut down in the last scene. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Jogo Sujo" ("Dirty Game")
- claudio_carvalho
- Oct 4, 2024
- Permalink
Hitchcock camera work
Two neighboring families with large estates become rivals. The Hillcrists are an old family with a long history on their estate. The Hornblowers are new arrivals buying up local farms to build a factory.
This British talkie film is most notable for its director Alfred Hitchcock. He's obviously trying different ideas. Some work more than others. I couldn't really care less about the characters or the plot. It's Hitchcock's camera work that is the most interesting. First, he's doing long single takes with the dialogue and this does not make it any better. He's operating the camera almost as one of the characters on stage. He's panning the camera back and forth. It's fascinating but it's also not working. There are other filming choices. There are some beautiful visual compositions. There is one crazy single shot scene at the auction. I've seen anything like it and it's better than most modern work. It does go on for too long but that's part of the experimentation. I can't say that I love this movie but I do love Hitchcock trying some interesting ideas.
This British talkie film is most notable for its director Alfred Hitchcock. He's obviously trying different ideas. Some work more than others. I couldn't really care less about the characters or the plot. It's Hitchcock's camera work that is the most interesting. First, he's doing long single takes with the dialogue and this does not make it any better. He's operating the camera almost as one of the characters on stage. He's panning the camera back and forth. It's fascinating but it's also not working. There are other filming choices. There are some beautiful visual compositions. There is one crazy single shot scene at the auction. I've seen anything like it and it's better than most modern work. It does go on for too long but that's part of the experimentation. I can't say that I love this movie but I do love Hitchcock trying some interesting ideas.
- SnoopyStyle
- Jun 18, 2021
- Permalink
Crass Struggle
The film hangs from the script like a sack of potatoes.
In one of Hitchcock's slowest moving films, we see the tense interaction between two feuding families with different plans for the future of their community. There is a piece of land at the center of the dispute, which one family wants to use to preserve a life of family and tradition, and the opposing family wants to use to build a scenery-killing but productive factory.
The film is based on a play and is not only extremely slow moving, but Hitchcock, with the exception of only a few scenes, simply points and shoots throughout the majority of the film. In the film's defense, the script is exceptional, but the problem is that the film is a technical mess, with the sound quality coming and going with such extremes that at times no audible dialogue can be heard at all. You can catch the crackling pace of the script but there are so many scenes where the film drags almost to a stop and Hitchcock does little to make up for it.
The pace picks up slightly when the scandal involving the daughter in law comes in, but compared to what we have come to expect from Hitchcock, both before and after this point in his career, cause this one to fall pretty low on the relevance scale. A curiosity piece for Hitchcock fans and completists, though.
The film is based on a play and is not only extremely slow moving, but Hitchcock, with the exception of only a few scenes, simply points and shoots throughout the majority of the film. In the film's defense, the script is exceptional, but the problem is that the film is a technical mess, with the sound quality coming and going with such extremes that at times no audible dialogue can be heard at all. You can catch the crackling pace of the script but there are so many scenes where the film drags almost to a stop and Hitchcock does little to make up for it.
The pace picks up slightly when the scandal involving the daughter in law comes in, but compared to what we have come to expect from Hitchcock, both before and after this point in his career, cause this one to fall pretty low on the relevance scale. A curiosity piece for Hitchcock fans and completists, though.
- Anonymous_Maxine
- Mar 10, 2007
- Permalink
A minor Hitchcock dated even in its own present...
I'm going into a marathon of earlier Hitchcock earlier features (the silent ones and the pre-1934 talkies) and there's the same French expert who announces the film and provides some interesting backstories about the making and many appetizing trivia. And so it's very telling when the same Hitch enthusiast tells you before the beginning of "The Skin Game" that this is not the director's best film, not even by the era's standards. Granted we know that the real thing started with "The Man Who Knew Too Much", it doesn't set your anticipation very high when you're told from the get-go that you might not enjoy the film and when it takes merely five minutes to say anything remotely interesting about it. But I wouldn't call myself a Hitchcock fan if I didn't have one thing or two to say about "The Skin Game" and it so happens that I have things to say so let's get over it.
For the sake of simplification, let's say that the film is about a feud between two highly-influent families in the English countryside: the upper-class and long established Hillchrists and the nouveau-riches Hornblowers and for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that the three main characters are Mr. And Mrs. Hillchrist (C. V. France and Helen Haye) and Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn aka Kris Kingle from "Miracle at 34th Street"). May I add that the 'skin game' involves some elaborate schemes from Hornblower consisting on buying land and then booting off the farmers in order to build factories, to which the Hillchrists are firmly opposed. The plot revolves around some counter-attack from the Hillchrist that goes through blackmailing Mr. Hornblower with some dark secret about his daughter-in-law's dubious past. That's the nature of the beast.
The film was based on a 1920 play from John Galsworthy that was adapted into a silent movie version in 1921. Gwenn and France reprised their roles. But this contextualization is just to tell you that the plot was already dated in 1931 when the Great Depression had made these feuds rather obsolete in a time where anyone would have dreamed to see the dark smokes of factories over the green landscapes if that meant more jobs for people. Much more after winning his Nobel Prize, Mr. Galsworthy passed away one year after the film's release. The film belonged to the past during its own present and nothing could possibly elevate it not even among Hitchcock's good enough little films to be watched. But I think the reasons of the film's relative failure are to be counted in three.
First, the acting. It is way too theatrical to be remotely entertaining. Mr. France keeps carrying that constantly infuriated gaze of a sinister school principal, even in his moments of weakness there's never an emotion or a shade of warmth drawn in his stone-face whereas Mrs. Haye struck me as a less likable and thinner version of Margaret Dumont and so these two people who represent the old order, rooted in their bucolic and picturesque past, are rather plain and uninteresting individuals, which makes difficult to root for them. And when the acting takes off to melodramatic summits with actors or actresses looking for long monologues, the adaptation shows its first signs of fatigue and the material gets dangerously risible.
The acting actually highlights what is the strength and therefore the weakness of the film, Mr. Gwenn is a superb actor, he brings in his portrayal of the cocky and straightforward Hornblower the very likability we were demanding in the protagonists. He's smiling, cocky, larger-than-life, with all the stamina that the film lacks and every moment he's here, the film reaches a high spot... I can say that Gwenn reinforces my conviction that Hitchcock films needs faces and actors and some good stories can suffer from unknown faces. I could see the colorful Gwenn who played Santa Klaus or even the corrupt bodyguard in "Foreign Correspondent" and the the film makes him the antagonist, daring us not to root for him. Impossible!
The third weakness is the rather tedious plot that relies way too much on monologues and melodrama with solemn oaths, fainting and all that jazz... and all ends on a bittersweet notes where Mr. Hornblower curses the Hillchrists for what they did and the film concludes on a climate of unpleasantness with Hitchcock who couldn't decide between cynicism or comedy and just went on rolling with the lucidity of the beginner who knows he doesn't have the upper hand.
That said, even in the lesser Hitchcock, there's one golden rule: you have your Hitchcockian scene. And for all the bad things I said, I can say that the film features one of the most memorable auction scenes I've ever seen one that for once allowed Hitchcock to distance himself from the pompous codes of the stage and have the camera go back and forth between one auctioneer to another with various speeds, and Gwenn's subtle eye signals, creating so many swings and double swings it's like watching a Roland Garros finale. Hitchcock was said to film crime like love scenes, this time he filmed an auction like a tennis game, one that went on and on so much, with one agent outbidding another, I couldn't get over it and wish it would never end, for I felt the film had reached its momentum and would feel downhill after...
... just like that tree in the final shot that reminds you that even after a dull movie that it's not the man behind the camera to blame and Hitchcock had a few tricks under his sleeve he destined to better movies.
That's all to say about "Skin Game", a film for hardcore fans only with one great sequence and one great performance... and a competent director striving for greatness.
For the sake of simplification, let's say that the film is about a feud between two highly-influent families in the English countryside: the upper-class and long established Hillchrists and the nouveau-riches Hornblowers and for the sake of simplicity, let's just say that the three main characters are Mr. And Mrs. Hillchrist (C. V. France and Helen Haye) and Mr. Hornblower (Edmund Gwenn aka Kris Kingle from "Miracle at 34th Street"). May I add that the 'skin game' involves some elaborate schemes from Hornblower consisting on buying land and then booting off the farmers in order to build factories, to which the Hillchrists are firmly opposed. The plot revolves around some counter-attack from the Hillchrist that goes through blackmailing Mr. Hornblower with some dark secret about his daughter-in-law's dubious past. That's the nature of the beast.
The film was based on a 1920 play from John Galsworthy that was adapted into a silent movie version in 1921. Gwenn and France reprised their roles. But this contextualization is just to tell you that the plot was already dated in 1931 when the Great Depression had made these feuds rather obsolete in a time where anyone would have dreamed to see the dark smokes of factories over the green landscapes if that meant more jobs for people. Much more after winning his Nobel Prize, Mr. Galsworthy passed away one year after the film's release. The film belonged to the past during its own present and nothing could possibly elevate it not even among Hitchcock's good enough little films to be watched. But I think the reasons of the film's relative failure are to be counted in three.
First, the acting. It is way too theatrical to be remotely entertaining. Mr. France keeps carrying that constantly infuriated gaze of a sinister school principal, even in his moments of weakness there's never an emotion or a shade of warmth drawn in his stone-face whereas Mrs. Haye struck me as a less likable and thinner version of Margaret Dumont and so these two people who represent the old order, rooted in their bucolic and picturesque past, are rather plain and uninteresting individuals, which makes difficult to root for them. And when the acting takes off to melodramatic summits with actors or actresses looking for long monologues, the adaptation shows its first signs of fatigue and the material gets dangerously risible.
The acting actually highlights what is the strength and therefore the weakness of the film, Mr. Gwenn is a superb actor, he brings in his portrayal of the cocky and straightforward Hornblower the very likability we were demanding in the protagonists. He's smiling, cocky, larger-than-life, with all the stamina that the film lacks and every moment he's here, the film reaches a high spot... I can say that Gwenn reinforces my conviction that Hitchcock films needs faces and actors and some good stories can suffer from unknown faces. I could see the colorful Gwenn who played Santa Klaus or even the corrupt bodyguard in "Foreign Correspondent" and the the film makes him the antagonist, daring us not to root for him. Impossible!
The third weakness is the rather tedious plot that relies way too much on monologues and melodrama with solemn oaths, fainting and all that jazz... and all ends on a bittersweet notes where Mr. Hornblower curses the Hillchrists for what they did and the film concludes on a climate of unpleasantness with Hitchcock who couldn't decide between cynicism or comedy and just went on rolling with the lucidity of the beginner who knows he doesn't have the upper hand.
That said, even in the lesser Hitchcock, there's one golden rule: you have your Hitchcockian scene. And for all the bad things I said, I can say that the film features one of the most memorable auction scenes I've ever seen one that for once allowed Hitchcock to distance himself from the pompous codes of the stage and have the camera go back and forth between one auctioneer to another with various speeds, and Gwenn's subtle eye signals, creating so many swings and double swings it's like watching a Roland Garros finale. Hitchcock was said to film crime like love scenes, this time he filmed an auction like a tennis game, one that went on and on so much, with one agent outbidding another, I couldn't get over it and wish it would never end, for I felt the film had reached its momentum and would feel downhill after...
... just like that tree in the final shot that reminds you that even after a dull movie that it's not the man behind the camera to blame and Hitchcock had a few tricks under his sleeve he destined to better movies.
That's all to say about "Skin Game", a film for hardcore fans only with one great sequence and one great performance... and a competent director striving for greatness.
- ElMaruecan82
- Jun 13, 2021
- Permalink
Hitchcock has done much better, but The Skin Game is still nowhere near his worst
The Skin Game is one of Hitchcock's lowest rated films here, and has been met with indifference or dislike among the other Hitchcock fans I know. While it is understandable why people wouldn't be crazy about The Skin Game and it has a lot that is not so great about it, personally it is better than it's given credit for. It's not Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train or The Lady Vanishes but it is far better than Juno and the Paycock(his worst), Champagne, Number Seventeen, Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn and Topaz. The camera work is very scrappy and unfocused, the script is often too talky and exposition-heavy, the story has moments but can feel a little too leisurely and stage-bound complete with a melodramatic and abrupt ending and CV France is over-theatrical at times. However, while The Skin Game is not Hitchcock all over there is much more of his style than there was in Juno and the Paycock(also based on a play) with some irony and suspense and the auction scene is masterful(the film's best photography is in this scene, its cleverness adds to the intrigue). The script has have some nice ironic humour and heartfelt pathos. While the story doesn't quite come off as well as it could have done it does have some good ideas that are identifiable and has its heart in the right place. As an adaptation of the play it's good, as a Hitchcock film while a big improvement on Juno and the Paycock it does fall short. The acting is much more subtle and the chemistry between the actors is more apparent. Edmund Gwenn has a ball as a very arrogant character, Helen Haye is aristocratic and dominant and in a commanding way without falling into over-theatricality-land and Phyllis Konstam is appropriately sympathetic. All in all, nowhere near Hitchcock's best but also nowhere near his worst, ranking it it would be around low-middle, a similar position to Rich and Strange. 6/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Nov 22, 2013
- Permalink
Hitchcock still isn't worth watching with this one. Almost starts with social commentary but nope.
- Dominic_25_
- Feb 16, 2023
- Permalink
a much overlooked early Hitchcock work
I feel many writers and critics, David Sterritt, Donald Spoto to name but two are too dismissive of this movie. With the technological restrictions of the very early talkie, Hitchcock as used his artistry to compose fluidity and cinematic suture to a rather stolid Galsworthy play. Already mentioned are the innovative zip pans, he also has intelligent use of dissolve, symbolism aplenty within montage sequences, sheep v horn (Hillcrest v Hornblower). The juxtaposition in the opening sequence of the car and the horse sets the theme beautifully. Occasionally there is daring reverse shots of the same objects defying the 180 degree rule, especially noticeable as we break into the proscenium arch of theatre.
- gavinlockey
- Dec 30, 2004
- Permalink
Machiavellian machinations, country style
Mr. Hornblower, an up-and-coming industrialist, is buying up land in the county, much to the disgust of the old money Hillcrists. They previously sold a property to Hornblower with the proviso that the current tenants would not be evicted and now he's kicking them out so that he can build on the land. After a bit of skulduggery at the auction, Hornblower buys up a prized piece of land, further cementing his hold on the region. Now the Hillcrists come into some information which should persuade Hornblower to back off.
An Alfred Hitchcock film that is more political drama than the suspense-thrillers he is known for. "Political" in that this film involves power plays, machinations and general manoeuvring for position.
Quite interesting, the cut and thrust of it all. Is a bit dry at times but reasonably intriguing and the plot has a good, upshot and moral.
Won't be remembered among Hitchcock's best but worth watching.
An Alfred Hitchcock film that is more political drama than the suspense-thrillers he is known for. "Political" in that this film involves power plays, machinations and general manoeuvring for position.
Quite interesting, the cut and thrust of it all. Is a bit dry at times but reasonably intriguing and the plot has a good, upshot and moral.
Won't be remembered among Hitchcock's best but worth watching.
Terrible.
Apart from maybe 'Marnie', this might possibly be the worst film in Alfred Hitchcock's entire canon.
For one thing - and I'm not sure why this is - the sound quality is absolutely dreadful. The jarring frequency of the microphones is loud enough to sometimes drown out the voices of the actors. Some occasionally concerning feedback noises also suggest that something's not quite right with the tech behind the scenes(!). Not helped by the fact that the actors' enunciation - by modern standards - isn't phenomenal away, so it can be extremely difficult to follow what is actually going on in the plot.
The story itself (and this is neither the fault of Hitchcock nor the actors) isn't that original. It seems to be a combination of Romeo and Juliet and Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and a fairly boring combination at that, centred around agricultural politics?
We don't get treated to much (if any?) suspense or tension either; instead, our usually very expressionistic director just gives us shots of a room where two characters talk...and follow them around as they continue talking...(and as I've said, you're only guaranteed to comprehend about 50% of it).
What follows therefore is a boring, 82-minutes-too-long, incomprehensible, suspense-free drama where you're constantly wondering if the apparatus was about to explode...or if it's just a film hard to 'restore' properly for modern viewers.
For one thing - and I'm not sure why this is - the sound quality is absolutely dreadful. The jarring frequency of the microphones is loud enough to sometimes drown out the voices of the actors. Some occasionally concerning feedback noises also suggest that something's not quite right with the tech behind the scenes(!). Not helped by the fact that the actors' enunciation - by modern standards - isn't phenomenal away, so it can be extremely difficult to follow what is actually going on in the plot.
The story itself (and this is neither the fault of Hitchcock nor the actors) isn't that original. It seems to be a combination of Romeo and Juliet and Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and a fairly boring combination at that, centred around agricultural politics?
We don't get treated to much (if any?) suspense or tension either; instead, our usually very expressionistic director just gives us shots of a room where two characters talk...and follow them around as they continue talking...(and as I've said, you're only guaranteed to comprehend about 50% of it).
What follows therefore is a boring, 82-minutes-too-long, incomprehensible, suspense-free drama where you're constantly wondering if the apparatus was about to explode...or if it's just a film hard to 'restore' properly for modern viewers.
- lowefreddy
- May 21, 2022
- Permalink