MovieChat Forums > Juno and the Paycock (1930) Discussion > Does anyone care about this movie?

Does anyone care about this movie?


Wow, I was given this movie as a Christmas gift, thinking it was some sort of Hitchcock gem. Boy was I wrong! I couldn't even get through the movie. I was wondering if people thought it was as bad as I thought and appearantly everyone else thought so too as the only comments it recieved were back in 03'. That is hilarious! If anyone ever reads this and has seen the ending to the movie (I know I'm asking alot) can you tell me the ending, I really can't get through it.

reply

Yea it was tough and i even wont watch it ever again. Its a terrible theater play Hitch never was interested in. In the end the son is taken away and executed being guilty of the political murder, the daughter is left by her boyfriend and the mother is left behind alone in the house praying to god to get along with all the debt they loaded after they stupidly believed in the big heritage.

reply

I haven't had the chance yet to see the movie, but it sounds like it's better to read the play by Sean O'Casey. It's probably easier to get a copy of that, too.

reply

I'm doing my Masters Thesis on the O'Casey play and watched the film just to see what it was like. I waited 8 weeks for it to be delivered from the US (New Zealand is pretty far away apparently :-) I watched it with an open mind (1930 british film not leading me to expect too much). technically its poor, but for me it was worth it to see Sara Allgood's performance as Juno. Having read so many reviews applauding her, it was great to see her in action. The freedom of film, not being restricted to the one set, allowed for the extra scenes outside and in other buildings. I was dissapointed that Hitch deleted the final scene after Juno's lament, when Captain and joxer come in drunk and don't realise anything's wrong. the juxtaposition of the two scenes, and the effort O'Casey went to to show his common theme of females being smart and composed and men being, well, losers is lessened without the final scene. Overall i was impressed though, and i guess, yes, i do care about this film.

reply

I haven't seen the film but I'm studying the play by Sean O'Casey for my english class and I logged on here hoping to see loads of great reviews and opinions - guess not. The film isn't worth seeing then? I'll just stick with the play. On that subject does anyone know a website where I can discuss the play?

P.S. Mary is pregnant at the end and we're given the impression that that's why her boyfirend Bentham leaves her

reply

The other great thing about this film is that it is a record of the performances of many of the original Irish Players who created the parts.

reply

I recently bought this film on video as I have always loved the play and in fact saw a production at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin nine years ago. The film is certainly not so good as any production on TV that I've seen and the sound quality is poor. Another message on this Board suggests that Hitchcock wasn't really interested in the play, but his biography suggests otherwise. What I didn't like is the cutting out of Mary's scenes at the beginning. She was a much stronger character in the play than in the film. Unlike her father and brother, she actually had a job prior to the start of the film. The women are portrayed as stronger characters than the men. Was O'Casey an early feminist? I think so.

reply

O'Casey's feminist views were molded by being brought up single handedly by his mother, who he had a lot of respect for.
So yes, he was a feminist.

reply

I can't believe I actually sat through this movie. I am watching all my Hitchcock DVDs from the Lodger (1927) to Family Plot (1976). Both the Lodger and the Farmer's Wife (1928) were really entertaining. This however the third in my marathon was spectacularly aweful. It is the only Hitchcock movie I've seen that I can say is bad. Although the story tells a moral tale of how greed and apathy lead to bad consequences, the way Hitchcock goes about it is passive to say the least. For the most part the camera remains positioned in a room of characters giving sentimental drawn out pieces of irrelevant dialogue. Although being an early talkie this is understandable. The film is therefore drawn out and unbearable to modern audiences. Having spent almost the entire length of the film confined to the apartment of our protagonists the viewer is left we a sickening feeling of claustrophobia, allowing a cheer of joy when the film finally ends.

I give this film a 2/10 and not a 1 purely because it contains a moral importance. Nonetheless unless you're an absolute Hitchcock fanatic (like myself) I wouldn't dare tell anyone to watch this film. It is so bad its not even fit for use in torture methods!!!

reply

I have to agree with Stevoc, it's not as people make it out to be, I think there's more element of surprises then some of the earlier ones. As Indie?? commented about the pregnancy, I think Mr. Bentham was a con-artist from the start and just wanted Mary Boyle to get into his pants. I think he had to bring in the good news to persuade Mary to sleep with him. He never had good intentions and left everybody in a bad position. Yes, the family could have waited for the money instead of going into further debt but what's interesting about that. Johnny was in a heap of trouble anyway and his death was but a matter of time. Things could have worked out better but who was the only faithful one in times of trouble, Juno still believed things would work out as she should.

Life is like a dance,
You learn as you go,
Sometimes you lead,
Sometimes you follow.

reply

Sean O'Casey may have composed his play with skill, but the movie just throws things at you, plot points out of thin air. And that scene when Johnny is being taken away by the trenchcoat guys is pure Monty Python, what with his one-armed gesticulating and his other arm clearly jutting from his midriff while he goes into some rant like John Cleese being carted off for overacting.

It's never established that he was an informer, that Bentham had a prior relationship with Mary, that they had not yet gotten the money when they start buying things, etc. It's really a mess, and Hitchcock's camera work is pathetically bad, even for that era ("Blackmail" and "The Lodger" both precede this).

reply

[deleted]

Indeed, not very well directed by Hitch. But I thank him for showing Sara Allgood playing in her success role, nice to see that.



-I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film.-

reply

Hitchcock loved this play, he stated to Peter Bogdanovich that it was one of his favourites and saw it several times (see McGilligan, 2003). To say that it is not typical Hitchcock would be true but also small minded - dismissing a film merely because it does not fit into your idea of what it should be (Hitchcock hated the box he was put into by his public later on in his career).

This is a faithful retelling of an emotionally charged yet humourous play about troubles in Southern Ireland. It is set in one room is in black and white and concerns Irish people (yes, some with Irisha accents - although John Laurie's accent sounds like his own - Scottish) so what are you expecting from this? This film is not The Lodger and doesn't try to be.

If you do not make it to the end of the film you miss the point entirely, the play and film are essentially about the strength of women under great social pressure and this is clearly bourne out in the final scene which, by the way, Sara Allgood plays briliantly.

I would suggets that H's direction here is subtle and respectful to the text, he never lets his obvious directoral talents get in the way of narrative but does allow the full emotional impact to be felt. If you are interested in Hitchcock, I would recommend this film, not because it represents what is usually thougth of as his style but because it doesn't. It shows another, more technical, subtle side.

reply

[deleted]

I live just ouside of Chicago,IL.in Crown Point,Indiana and Wycc ch.20 a local Chicago PBS station has been playing old public domain movies for about a year now starting at 2Am daily.As I work nights I get home just in time to catch the movies shown.Well this week was "Hitch" week and this early mornnings feature is "Juno and The Paycock" and I could`nt even make it 10 minutes into this film before I switched to an infomercial instead........

"Do not let thorns in your side become nails in your coffin".-Bruce Richard Bundy 10/2006

reply


Yeah...
Have to agree... This movie is little more then a footnote in Hitch's catalog. This film could have been made by anyone; I don't see any of the "Hitch Trademarks"... Something to be mourned... :o(
P

Trust me,
Swan

reply

It`s like there`s nothing blatantly bad or objectional about it. It just failed to garner or keep my attention.I didn`t care for or about the characters.Obviously for whatever reason Hitch just phoned it in on this movie.Somehow I seem to think he knew it was bad and had his reasons for being associated with this film..

"Do not let thorns in your side become nails in your coffin".-Bruce Richard Bundy 10/2006

reply



I love Hitchcock's films and have re-watched almost every one of them, I haven't seen this movie and I'm pretty sure I don't want to, but I might only because it is Alfred Hitchcock, but I probably won't re-watch it.

reply

Right now it is THE WORST Hitchcock film I've ever seen. Got it as part
of a multi-disc set. Oh it was hard to sit through.

reply

I gotta agree with most, I wasn't really liking this one.
Hitchcock's first talky was very good, gut I had a hard time keeping my attention with Juno. Hitchcock normally had a sense of what stories would make good movies, but Juno is probably the weakest Hitchcock film that I've seen. The quality is bad and there is a bunch of scenes where peoples heads are cut off at the top of the screen.

reply

I am also agreeing with most people on this posting and saying that it is not a very good film at all. This is actually the first Hitchcock movie I have thoroughly disliked, and I've seen more than 30 of his films. Slow, difficult to understand (language), moved around exactly like a stage play, and to top it off, the transfer was horrible (not Hitch's fault, but still...). I won't be viewing this one again, and I'm hoping as I continue to watch the Master of Suspense that I never run into another stinker like this one.

Of course, with over 50 features to his credit, he was bound to misstep at least once.

reply

It's an adequate record of a good performance or two. Sara Allgood is excellent. And it's very, very close to the original play. So it's also a record of how the play was performed only a few years after it was first staged.

But it's so technically poor. Even though Hitchcock later found a limited space freed his creative mind in Lifeboat, Rope, Dial 'M' for Murder and Rear Window, and even though he later was capable of doing a fine job when he was only phoning it in (Mr. and Mrs. Smith), this movie looks positively inept. The camera rarely does anything except stand way back and record everything. And when Hitchcock does go for an effect, it's usually bad.

As I recall, Hitchcock loved the play, but didn't necessarily think he was the one to film it. (But don't quote me on that.)


...Om

reply

easily hitchcock's worst 3/10

Inception - never in my life have I been more excited about seeing a movie

reply

Has anyone seen a good copy?

The only copy I have seen is a terrible 16mm print that cuts off the top part of the picture with terrible sound.

Does a good 35mm print exist?

I thought it was a good straight adaptation of the play, remembering that it was 1931 and sound editing was virtually impossible. Hitchcock was clearly serious about it. He wasn't a suspense director yet and he was interested in films based on plays - Rope and Dial M for Murder carry on the idea.

We really n eed restored versions of these early sound films that are as good as recent releases of things like M.

reply