MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1935) Discussion > Why this is the better version

Why this is the better version

posted 18 years ago by benzin
44 replies | jump to latest

As every fan of Hitchcock knows, the maestro directed two different versions
of The Man Who Knew Too Much. The 1956 version with James Stewart is much
better known, but is in actuality clearly inferior to the original 1934 British
version (My opinion, of course. No need to get angry if you disagree...).

Here are the main reasons that makes the original so much better for me.
1) No "Que Sera, Sera". Performing that song (especially by children) should
be outlawed, it really, really is horrible.

2) The kidnapped child. In the earlier version the kidnapped child was played
by the talented and beautiful Nova Pilbeam, who was 15 at the time. She was a
strong-willed character, who really contributed something to the movie. In the
1956 version the kid was some 10-year old boy, who was mainly an annoyance, and
his only contribution was singing that God-awful song (see point one).

3) The other actors. James Stewart is always a delight to watch, and I have no
complaints about him. Even Doris Day gave good enough a performance. But still,
the original movie was pretty perfectly cast. Bonus points for Peter Lorre.

4) The plot. The remake differed quite a lot plot-wise from the original. I
thought the beginning of the film worked better in Switzerland. Also I
preferred the dentist-scene to the taxidermist-scene (I saw the '56 version
when I was about ten or twelve and I knew instantly that 'Ambroce Chapel' is a
place, not a man. It's just plain stupid that it took the characters so long
to figure it out!).

The one scene that is very similar in both movies, the Royal Albert Hall scene,
is to me the only part in the remake that is better than the original.

So here you go. Anyone agree? Disagree? Anyone have different reasons for why
either of the versions is better?

--------------------
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style
Ladies vomit when I smile

[–] RainAndTangerines 18 years ago

okaay there..enough said.

[–] Trouter2000 18 years ago

yeah, I hate remakes in general. They take the originaltey out of movies. I won't watch them.
So this to me is the obvious version of choice.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=19776148

[–] Animal_Hospital 18 years ago

Oh, come on, he remade his own film. And, apart from the last siege scene, it's a completely different film. This one is an adventure romp, terribly amusing and unrelenting in pace. The remake is a relationship analysis of power balance between a man and a woman. In a way, a sequel to Rear Window.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jasonbourneagain 14 years ago

I agree. The remake had the lavish budget, but this one built up the suspense through Peter Lorre, its minimal plot, pace, action and an awesome ending for a Hitchcock film. Did he ever have any shootout scenes like this one?

EDIT: I just re-watched the first part of the movie and it shows the agent recognizing Abbott, but he's there with his entourage, too.

[–] ancientnut 18 years ago

I like both versions, but I agree that the original is superior to the remake in several ways:
In the original the character of the wife is much better. Doris Day is too helpless and weepy in many scenes and her husband is much more involved in the action. Edna Best is a much stronger woman who saves her daughter while her husband is locked up by the bad guys!
The rescue of the kidnapped child is much more exciting in the original. Jill "wins" the re-match of the clay pigeon contest by shooting Ramon from the rooftop as he threatens her daughter. Jimmy Stewart trips his son's kidnapper, who rolls down the stairs and shoots himself with his own gun...very anti-climactic!
Peter Lorre is a better and more sympathetic villian. He is a gentleman most of the time and laughs out loud in several scenes. When Bob helps Clive escape from the church, Abbott (Lorre) approaches Bob menacingly and you expect him to punch Bob. Instead he merely pushes at him in frustration, then apologizes to him! He is very moved at the death of the nurse [The actress who played her died a few months after the release of this movie].
Also, I agree with you that Nova Pilbeam's performance was much better than the boy in the remake.

[–] doctorcrimedog 17 years ago

I pretty much agree with all the previously stated reasons, but have one to add: the remake completely dispensed with the motif of Lorre's chiming watch, which was one of my favorite devices used in the original. Though I did enjoy the punch line of the couple's forgotten guests waking up hours later as they finally show up after "picking up Hank" in the remake.

-There is no such word as "alot."

[–] nm16 17 years ago

Yeah, I'd give my vote to the original as well. To me, the original has a sly vein of humour running through it that isn't in the remake eg. the way the father's mate keeps getting a raw deal, and the way the fight in the church develops into a scrappy free-for-all with everyone frantically throwing chairs at each other. Realistic and funny! Also, I think Leslie Banks is really good as the dad, I like the way he amateurishly blunders into everything feet first almost Pink panther style. James Stewart is enjoyable (as usual) but he's just too smooth, too cautious. The two films are very different in tone. Also any film with Lorre as a baddie gets bonus points!

[–] Mrs_Bundy 17 years ago

I prefer the remake. Although this version has some interesting touches, and I love Peter Lorre in his first English-language role here, the film doesn't flow, IMO, and seems forced.

[–] nosnojsirhc 17 years ago

Might they both be good? I see flaws and good points in both...

[–] pandora8 17 years ago

They both have good points, and I must say the technicolor in the remake is gorgeous. Doris Day gives one of her finest performances as well (of course James Stewart is always great), and I actually give props to the little boy who I liked better than the girl (just my opinion though). But in the end the original is just more fresh and spontaneous. I love how the unravelling of the knitting during the dance is leading up to the punchline, but instead we get a murder not a punchline. It also is more thrilling, the dentist scene is brilliant, and I must say if I were kidnapped I'd prefer a mother who was a sharpshooter instead of a singer. Plus, as many have said, Peter Lorre... what can I add.

~If you say "I had everything under control" one more time I'm going to slap you with my guitar.~

[–] nosnojsirhc 17 years ago

Good highlights of the solid virtues of both films.

[–] chaoticjoe82 17 years ago

Hitchcock thought the remake was superior to the original. But peter lorre is almost unbeatable

[–] gkichok 16 years ago

I think they are equally good but it depend on what you, yourself, like about each, or hate. One thing I did not see mentioned yet was that one was pre-WWII and one post-WWII and the assignation plot is definitely more believable in the the early version. That said, James Stewart made the difference and the remake is my favourite.

[–] morgana-31 16 years ago

Jill "wins" the re-match of the clay pigeon contest by shooting Ramon from the rooftop as he threatens her daughter.

I loved that scene so much.

Love is never having to say you're sober.

[–] c7c7c7r 11 years ago

'Nova Pilbeam' sounds like the name of an angel.

[–] Mimi38 17 years ago

I prefer the original, and agree with your points.

[–] suckerdwsp316 17 years ago

Almost no one in their mind, from a subjective, objective or any kind of point of view would say the 1934 version is the better remake. The original film is like a doodle on a napkin, while the 1956 remake is a near masterpiece.

C'mon now, be sensible, a 1934 low-budget 75 minute british film is better than a 1956 full length hollywood film? In the middle of Hitchcock's prime? No contest here.

[–] Gurtinator 17 years ago

75 minute british film is better than a 1956 full length hollywood film
Enough said there.

While we're at it, is the 2005 epic length King Kong better than its 90 min B&W counterpart?

"So it goes" -Slaughterhouse Five

[–] DrGlitterhouse 8 years ago

I will take Edna Best shooting a killer off the roof to save her daughter over Doris Day singing for her son to return any day. The original is better.

Je suis Charlie Hebdo.

[–] Mik_In_Montague 17 years ago

There is always beauty in crude originality.

[–] Hyman_Flomax 17 years ago

There's not always beauty in crude originality, and it should never be mistaken for profundity or sincerity. But in this case, I would agree that this version is superior to the remake, mostly by virtue of Hitchcock's visual ingenuity and gift for breakneck pacing. The 1956 version was needlessly fleshed out to the point where the ludicrous nature of the plotting became rather glaring, as the audience was given too much of an opportunity to give consideration to logic. It's not one of his best films regardless (7/10 for me) but a fine example of Hitch's distinguished film craftsmanship.

Cinema is an old whore who knows how to give many kinds of pleasure.

[–] jamasian_man 17 years ago

Everyone is forgetting the greatest scene in the orignal. The chair fight in the chapel. whe nthe dad whips a chair across the room nba style wtith that organ playing, and that villain yells and falls down. classic.

[–] clivey6 15 years ago

It's been some years since I saw the remake and I thought of it as Hitchcock lite. But I saw the original yesterday and though it has some classic scenes I couldn't buy into it. It's very dated - well, so's The 39 Steps but I love that - but some of the early stuff could be from Top Hat. I didn't like the way it ventures into humour when the husband is investigating around Wapping; I mean his daughter's life is meant to be at risk and he seems to find it all a bit funny! It all seems very naive.

Another remake would be great, in the vein of Liam Neeson's Taken. Play up the divisions between husband and wife, and their couldn't care less attitude to the statesman about to be shot; it could sublty reflect differing attitudes in the US to foreign policy.

[–] Kinematico 16 years ago

The remake was better, perhaps the original was more "atmospheric" but the plot was better developed in the remake.

I liked both, though

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I found the original more interesting. remake was good. But slow compared to this one. Hitchcock should have given to somebody like Ernest Lehman for the screenplay.

Pace of John Michael Hayes is slow. And in the original, we see Peter Lorre.

[–] MissMcCrocodile 16 years ago

The original is one of my favourite movies. I enjoy Hitchcock's UK films more than his US ones.

Yes, sir, I'm going to do nothing like she's never been done before!

[–] marvel88 16 years ago

It's a tough say...I enjoyed both Leslie Banks and James Stewart in the lead role, but I thought Edna Best was a better leading lady. Also, you just can't beat Peter Lorre as a villain, that seems to be accepted.

The remake is better in some aspects, like the scene in the chapel in which Stewart and Day are talking to each other during the creepy singing. That scene gives me goosebumps...but I think overall, I like the original more. But Hitchcock did a fantastic job with both versions.

"I know you're in there, Fagerstrom!"-Conan O'Brien

[–] donbren-1 16 years ago

I'm disappointed that no one commented on Lorre's death scene; as in all other times when things went poorly for the bad chaps, Lorre was less nonplused than expected; he died without argument or any signs of distress -- simply 'que será, será!'

~~

All right, I'll agree that alright is a lot worse than alot.

~~~
There are no ordinary moments; there's never nothing going on

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anscules 15 years ago

i love this film and am fairly ambivalent about the remake. the original is very dark and cynical... the remake rosy and squeaky clean, with a hit song!

my favorite part in this film is near then end when the villains are have their shoot-out... they look so bored and ready to die. when the guy that looks a tad like mark twain is fatally shot, he stands there looking mildly annoyed and then keels over. brilliant!

"Rampart: Squad 51."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]