Have you seen this film? If so, plz read...

I got mine from ebay. I've just got to figure out what they're saying now.

There are english subtitled prints of this.

The BFI is screening it at their Hitchcock retrospective this season - I just saw it there last night.

Exactly, and I just watched it.

Once you get past the wooden or theatrical acting from some players, which is typical of many early 30's movie, and a rather excusable flaw (if flaw is the right word), you appreciate the film even more especially in the way some point-of-view shots or very inspired bits of editing illustrate the then-blooming talent of Alfred Hitchcock.

There are two standout sequences though that makes the film all worth to watch, and redeem the lack of enjoyability of the rest: one taking place at the jury room and one at a circus. I refuse to believe that the jury room sequence didn't inspire, not a bit, the writing of 12 Angry Men, it's the closest to the claustrophobic and psychologic vibes that made Reginald Rose' play and the movie adaptation such a thrilling spectacle, and it was two decades before. Now, the second is pure Hitchcock, and it's even funnier to say this, as he was 32 when he made it, but the movie's climax is foreseing his craze for thrills culminating in the most peculiar and pittoresque places, here a circus and during a trapeze number. I won't spoil what happens after, except that you don't see it coming no matter how prepared you are to see it coming. I was bluffed and shocked, and I liked the way it was both dark and emotionally rewarding.

I supposed the original would have been more enjoyable, because the German performances, the subtitles, and the rather blurry quality of the black-and-white photography makes some part difficult to follow, also the fact that many characters look exactly alike, with the same bourgeois demeanor, same slick hair and dark clothes that I wondered if it wast a deliberate attempt to confuse us, but for what reason? Maybe Hitch wanted to emphasize the fact that any of the protagonists could be the real killer or maybe it was an esthetic choice, or maybe I'm reading too much and it was just a pure coincidence. Anyway, this isn't exactly where the film sins. While it was very economical and never wasted lines or scenes, there were a few scenes or lines too many even for its eighty minutes duration.

First, we didn't really need the last shot because as soon as the innocence is proven, the sight of the innocent woman leaving prison and being comforted, doesn't add much to the story, we already know justice has been done. Another missed opportunity was with the motive of the murder, all through the film, the one question left unanswered was "what was the victim about to reveal about the man (likely, the murderer) so that she had to be killed?". We know there's a secret to reveal, it's a mystery that remains unsolved but whose necessity plot-wise is lost when it has served its purpose, which is to unmask the real killer. Once justice is done, of course, we want to know the secret, and one of the protagonists asks the question, but seriously, would have any answer been as satisfying as having good old Hitch cut to another scene before we know.

I know he wasn't good old Hitch then, but it would have been a brilliant hint of his wicked humor to leave the secret unrevealed and having kept it as a MacGuffin. So many film come very close to being modest masterpieces thanks to some clever endings, original in a cunning, if not cynical, way. Hitch had all the material to close "Mary" in a very Hitchcockian way, but I guess it took him a few conventional films to make his bones before making unconventional ones. Four year laters, he'd make "39 Steps", which are like giant leaps from "Mary", still a good film to watch for all the fans of hitchcock.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather