original or remake? comparison!


both films are pictures of their times (30s and 50s: 1934 and 1956).

if you are here to find a helping hand which movie you shall see,
i would say, watch the remake, (cause all in all its the better film)
but if you want to see both anyway,
start with the original,
cause the second film will be still a somewhat very different experience plot wise
and will even then, after seeing the original, offer a lot of surprises

(obviously some SPOILERS ahead! i am talking about both films, and sometimes in detail)

the original shows us at the beginning a quite strong woman (much more independent and she is even a great shooter).
The woman and the man are on the same level
and the characters, especially the couple, have in the first scenes much more wit.
they were lax, but still cultivated, well educated europeans of the 20s and 30s.
people which were more natural, more free and not so much locked in social conventions.

the remake shows a narrow-minded, prissy and common american couple of the 50s,
which was the role model even for european middle class families.

though i usually like James Steward, he looks much too often quite stupid in this movie
and his indolence (which i haven't realized that much before) nearly got on my nerves in this film.
(he used to be one of my favorite actors of the past, but recently i began to get another feeling about him. hope that will change again - or: maybe his character fits to some roles better than to others. i didn't like him that much in this movie)

and Doris Day is (for me) an icon of the 50s smugness and prudery.
She also looks up to her husband which is undoubtable the boss.
He is the guy who has to act, while she is just emotional, though she stands behind him.
even when she sets out to go to chapel, she stops there and call her husband.
though it was maybe a wise action anyway...
this retro image of men and women got underlined by the girlfriends of her,
who said that they hope their child gets the beauty of the mother and the intelligence of the father.
some say her best scene is this one, in which she come to know that her son is kidnapped,
i think her best scene is in Albert Hall, when she is really desperate and doesn't know what she shall do
and starts to cry.

first i liked the original couple more, which were (for me) even more modern than DDay and Steward,
but after they went to London they aren't that interesting anymore.
they had witty dialogues and they had (at the beginning) much more sleaziness,
which is more likable and more interesting to watch.
this scenes were much more entertaining, it started more like a comedy,
while the remake was more like a "issues film", but with lack of depth.

the original was in black and white, which made a much darker and mysterious atmosphere,
light and shadows are great there,
but, because of the age, this film sometimes had the feeling of a silent movie,
(too many fingers pointing on the bullethole in the window, the watch in close-up view, lot of scenes without dialogue, ...)
which isn't that astonishing when you look at the production date of the original.
these scenes, in which pictures were used to explain everything too obviously, were considered as too artificial by a viewer of today,
and those picture throw you out of the movie sometimes, cause you realize that everything is artificial and just an illusion. but those sections are visually quite interesting.
they reminded me on political propaganda posters of that (and later) time(s).
its a more offensive pictorial language.

the remake had great 50s colors, but it doesn't fit that well to the subject of kidnapping,
in comparison to the original it first looked more like a comedy.
though colors will always have a different feeling than b&w.
i think the movie was (at least at the beginning) too bright and too colorful,
but that was the way every film had to look like
whatever subject the film had.

Hitchcock or his cameraman tried to create a similar feeling with quite unusual perspectives,
but darkness creates such an atmosphere much easier and more obvious.
also the music got much more important in the remake,
mostly just the sound created the danger
without it the whole film wouldnt be that exciting.

Peter Lorre is always great, especially because of his face and villain "charisma".
he was a complex and interesting character which is missing in the second film.
in this one there was no real villain.
the younger determinist looked somewhat creepy, but couldn't be compared with such a complex character as Peter Lorre is.
though the idea with the tiger at the side of taxidermist and the perspective which is used there
was a great and effective idea.

the biggest problem of the remake was the beginning, i think.
the remake needs 45mins to get the couple to London.
In the original they get there after around 12 or 13mins.
45mins is quite long and it was even a little bit boring,
because there was no suspense and the characters were not that interesting.
the kidnapping wasn't that interesting that 45mins were really needed
and though some say, this film is more about the relationship between the couple,
i don't see that this is so interesting: they are a boring couple which have their problems,
but none of them is really likable and we see their problem just on the surface, later on this relationship problem isn't even a subject anymore.

though the original is maybe a little bit too fast with this prologue,
which leeds to the problem, that you get just an idea of the couple,
it was anyway much more exciting to watch.
it had wit and a vibrant atmosphere.
but after the prologue the newer film is better,
though half of time of the remake is already used by then.

a lot of people hate the song of Doris Day in the remake
and though i can understand that,
because the song is really not that intelligent and demanding,
someone has to admit that it is a song which is enormous well known even today.
its a simple, but an all time classic
and writing such a song seems easier than it is.
i think that song was stupid, but great in its way.
and Doris Day sings it quite good.
while it is okay the first time, it really doesn't fit to the society of an ambassador,
which was somewhat unbelievable, that she will sing such a song there.
the son would know her voice anyway, whatever song she is singing.
another problem is, that not many boys are able to whistle that way and IF.... its extraordinary hard to whistle a melody in that whistle-style.
i know noone who is able to whistle that way

a lot of people like the dentist scene of the original,
but i can understand that Hitchcock cut it out.
i don't really need it, but maybe i was expecting too much,
cause i have heard its about a "sadistic" dentist, but i haven't seen that much sadism there.

on the other hand i liked the footsteps scene in the remake,
though the sound of this footsteps was absolutely un-believable,
cause footsteps doesn't sound that way on a street,
(they felt like being recorded at an empty department corridor)
it was quite suspenseful.

the dentist produce the fear in our mind and is fed by our own experiences
while the taxidermist has more fear to offer for the eyes.
all in all the suspense was better in the remake,
the footsteps create fear, though nothing happens at last.
the same happens when Stewart enter the house complex at the taxidermist.
you are awaiting something, though there is no real danger.
that was much more exciting and even more realistic,
cause when you are going to the place of such criminals you will have more fear
than the man in the original has shown.
those scenes were the highlight of the remake
(after a very slow and sometimes even boring beginning)

what i also like more in the remake is the scene at the intro,
that it will get important later in the film,
which is quite funny and intelligent,
cause you haven't thought that this will get THAT important.

the ending on the stairway of the remake was not that great, but still okay,
but the reunite with their friends and Stewarts last sentence was just silly.
great was the change of the female kidnapper.

Hitchcock said that the remake is better, that it was made by a pro
and the original just by a talented amateur.
i have to agree with him,
the remake was more complex plot wise, the coincidences still made sense,
while the original plot was easier to follow and more direct,
the coincidences there were - if you think about them - even more unbelievable.
(f.ex.: seeing the tickets for the concert in the pocket of a jacket
versus going there, because the boss of security service will be there on such an important night)

some ideas of the script of the remake were also better,
f.ex. that Stewart invented the excuse that the murder victim has spoken to him in french, so he was able to pretend that he hasn't understood him. that was a good and believable idea for an excuse.
not to forget at last, the remake plays much more with the exceptions of the viewer. it produces suspense where at the end no danger is to be feared
and it sends the protagonists in some dead ends, which is funny to watch. the original is much more straight forward.

quite unbelievable is the sharpshooters choice of weapon in both film.
i don't know much about weapons, but i think every sharpshooter would use a rifle instead of a pistol/gun,
if the target is that far away and if he wants to get sure.

all in all it depends which era you like more.
the 20s/30s or the 50s
and if you want to see a more modern film
or a more demanding piece of the early years of cinema.
i think both are good and "okay" films, but both not "class A hitchcock-films".
both have strong moments at different scenes.

the original has (for me) the better characters at the beginning
and a more interesting, but also more un(!)common picture language for a viewer of today.
the remake feels much more modern and not so dated,
but has a more conservative view of men and women
and a very long prologue which uses half of the film and doesn't win anything, which was quite unnecessary.
on the other hand, except the too long prologue, the rest of the remake has the better and more elaborated arc of plot
and it gets much more dynamic from that point on.

anyway... i can understand why the second version got the better rating on imdb:
it IS - all in all - the much more MODERN version.
maybe the remake is really the better film, all in all.

though they share the main features of the plot
there are still so many different scenes and ideas
that it made sense to make a "remake".
the second one is not just a clone, its an independent movie.
i am not even sure if "remake" is the right term...
its even hard to believe that both were made by the same person,
cause the original one had more the feeling of such films like "M",
the later one is more the hitchcock we all know.

"remakes" are often absolutely unnecessary, especially when US film industry is copying asian or european films,
just because their audience is to lazy to read subtitles,
but in this case the update was a understandable decision in that time.
because society went through enormous changes in those years.

and in those 20 years also cinema was hardly comparable anymore.
these 2 pictures are a great example for this phenomenon.
the filmmakers learned to use everything in a professional way the medium film had to offer. (f.ex. the film music, with which the second film primarily created the suspense)
in such few years the filmmakers have elaborated everything for the talkies which is the basis even today.
those 2 flicks are divided by "worlds".

Original - pro: Peter Lorre, black & white, dynamic and witty beginning
Remake - pro: better story after the too long beginning, more modern

Original: 6,5 to 7/10
Remake: 7 to 7.5/10

reply

Count me among the remake's fans too... although fan is a big word, I enjoyed the original as well, but just because it's THE original doesn't make it necessarily superior. If Hitchcock remade his own movie, that might be because he wanted to fix a few things or felt that some aspects were too dated or far below the level of perfectionism upon which he built his reputation.

To give you an example: there's an overlong chair fight which is so bizarre and grotesque you don't know if you're supposed to laugh or to be thrilled, I guess it was meant to be funny, but it's like Hitchcock never knows exactly where to go. But even comedy requires a good timing in the execution so I couldn't believe my eyes and had to rewind the scene. When Lawrence gets his friend Clive off the temple, he's hit on the shoulder, he freezes and then acts as if he was hurt in the head. I know this is the 30's, and I didn't let modern standards affect my opinion, the ski accident was quite well made for the time and at least, Hitch had the guts to try something, Pierre Fresnay's death scene was awkward but it could work, and I didn't have a problem either with Edna Baker's fainting and hitting the floor with her arm first, but that moment, as trivial as it was, was too much for me. All right, there can be mistakes in movies, but not in something of the caliber of "The Man Who Knew Too Much".

See, it's precisely because I was drawn by the film that I'm so critical. I loved the witty interactions within the couple, especially in these awesomes scene where she was both flirting with the ski champion and teasing her husband. And talk about Hitch's mischevious mind, just when we had enjoyed the little knitting prank, the murder happens and the story picks off and, unfortunately, this is where the movie gets itself in the situations where the likeliness of goofs and mistakes increases. But it's a shame because the beginning is so beyond the 30's standards that I felt disappointed when it became as cheesy and laughable as a 30's film. So if we feel the film is dated, it's precisely because it starts with non-dated elements. And one of the most modern aspect is Peter Lorre, who, half a century before Alan Rickman in "Die Hard", plays the sophisticated and friendly-at-first-sight villain, getting more and more sinister as the plot advances. Peter Lorre is half the rating the film gets.

And his performance is so immense it dwarfs all the others, which were good actually. Edna Best had that average type look that magnified her strength as a mother, making her revenge at the end even more savory, going from "Never raise any children" to holding her traumatized girl in the arms, and Nova Pilbeam was actually quite convincing in the daughter's role, I've seen kids acting worse in later movies so let's give her the credit for that. I also discovered a new actress, Cicely Oates who played the intimidating Nurse Agnes, and I was saddened to know she passed away the year of the film's release, it's a pity because she was talented, and I just love the eyes of Lorre witnessing her sudden death during the shootout. She and the actor who played the killer were worthy additions to an already complete villain... which leads me to the most problematic character: the father.

I have nothing negative to say about Leslie Banks, but I have nothing eulogistic either, from his constant frowning in the first act, he struck me as a continually malcontent character, one who considered his wife more than a burden than anything else, but after the kidnapping, nothing really seemed to affect him. Granted he was supposed to be the stronger one, but I wish he could display more emotional range, even in the most critical situations, his expressions were the same, as if he delibeteraly chose the one that could pass everywhere, whether during a shootout or over the course of his investgation. Speaking of this investifation, I know Hitch has a wicked sense of humor and it was fun to hear that Clive guy scream at the dentist, being hypnotized or the two men using exchanging crucial instructions while pretending to sing, but I couldn't buy that from a father whose daughter's life was at stakes. Oh well, let's just say it was fun, but for all the dark atmosphere and the whole black-and-white thing, they should have stuck to a more sinister tone, even the dentist's scene is quite underexploitexd when you consider its potential.

It's only near the end, just when you think the climax would consist on the cymbal crashing and the attempted murder that the film delivers a terrific shootout sequence, and quite a violent one, that had many cops getting killed which was quite new for the time. But the gunfight goes so long that again, it allows some goofs and mistakes to be done, if only for the laughable way the characters die. It’s all in the execution, and I guess Hitch was only warming up before starting to be more perfectionist in his work.

There's also one element in the writing that I felt was a bit exaggerated, would really a man like the father not know about Sarajevo and the Archduke assassination that lead to World War 1, I mean the film was made at a time where everyone lived the Great War, so I find it highly unlikely that people wouldn't know about its starting point. By the way, am I the only one who finds the film a bit prophetic, as it centers on the assassination of a Head of State during an official visit, in 1934, the same year, the King of Yugoslavia was assassinated during his visit in France, and it was the first time the camera's eye caught such an event.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

reply