MovieChat Forums > Secret Agent (1936) Discussion > Opinions on the general...curious.

Opinions on the general...curious.


I noticed a reviewer above mention that Lorre's General stood as a drawback to this film. The post went on to claim that the character was somehow 'offensive' (politically incorrect I gather?) and offered little for Lorre to work with. I realize the subjectivity of opinion and whatnot but this reading of the character took me aback. I actually feel the performance holds up remarkably well and remains to this day quite humorous. It may in fact be one of the strongest points of the film...?
Outside the casino when asked of his approval of a dog, he states
something to the effect of: "You know EXACTLY, I hate ALL dogs." I may be alone but I found that *beep* hilarious. ANyway, just curious as to other viewers' opinions/interpretations of the character.

reply

I enjoyed Peter Lorre's over-the-top characterization and bought the idea that the General is both wildly comic and yet extremely dangerous. But two other IMDb posters watched this film with me and they disliked Lorre's performance. (Both of them enjoyed Lorre in The Man Who Knew Too Much.)


...Justin

reply

I liked Peter Lorre's performance as such. It would have been wonderful in a Pink Panther-like spoof, because he is a great, versatile actor. But because this film never went anywhere, constantly vacillating between comedy, drama and romance, I can see why people thought it was ill-judged. Gielgud played it straight, Lorre as a hoot, and I think the rest of the cast were at a loss what to do. A wretched movie! Like a lot of Peter Sellers stuff, I could enjoy this for Lorre's over the top characterization, not for anything else.

Dicky

reply

I liked the film better than you did, but there's no question it's a failure, however many good things there are about it. And The Man Who Knew Too Much is definitely the better Hitchcock-Peter Lorre collaboration.


...Justin

reply

I can see why Hitchcock buffs like this, because there are certain Hitchcockian themes and touches that fans recognize and appreciate. I think of the central notion of mistaken identity, the innocent suspect, the obsession with/fear of falling, and the way dialogue is drowned out by bells and factory noises in some scenes.

While this may be apparent to the film historian, I sort of wanted to go with the flow of the story, and gauge if viewers interested in a good spy yarn and who know Hitchcock as a household name, would like a movie like this. That's when I decided it would harm Hitch' reputation a lot more than it would enhance it.

Dicky

reply

I guess I'd describe it as a weak spy yarn with excellent moments, such as the chocolate factory scene. Maybe the movie as a whole doesn't enhance Hitch's reputation, but individual scenes might.


...Justin

reply

I loved the General/ Mexican… He was prone to irrational outbursts like the paper towel scene, but he was also fun and energetic. He was a comic book character.

In the original Man Who Knew Too Much I was clear that he was a dangerous man, but only dangerous to the one he was paid to dispose of. I never thought he had intentions to hurt the little girl.


Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

reply

Without the strong performance of Mr.Lorre as The General this would have been dry as burnt toast. Should have had a series of spy movies starring Mr. Lorre as The General!

So long and thanks for all the fish!

reply

The guy`s a creep, man, the guy`s a creep. But he certainly does bring some life and extravagance into this otherwise dry, unfancy affair.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply