MURDER!

UK, 1930, 104 minutes, Black and white.
Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring, Edward Chapman, Miles Mander, Esme Percy.
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Murder! is one of the earliest sound films made by Hitchcock – and there were complaints that it moved too slowly. The reason given was that Hitchcock was experimenting in the use of sound and the introduction of dialogue.

The film was based on a novel, Enter Sir John, by British Clemence Dane and Australian Helen Simpson (Simpson providing the novel for Hitchcock’s 1949 Under Capricorn).

The plot is familiar enough, but interestingly done, especially with Herbert Marshall in the central role. After a woman is convicted of murder, one of the members of the jury has second thoughts and tries to solve the mystery for himself.

The film has the atmosphere of Hitchcock’s British films and he was to flourish during the 1930s, with such films as The Thirty-Nine? Steps and The Lady Vanishes, culminating in Jamaica Inn and his move to the United States for Rebecca which won the Oscar for best film. He continued his career in the United States for another thirty-six years.

1. A good Hitchcock film? The title and its giving meaning to the film? The theme of murder: how sensational, how much an exploring of murder and character, how much insight into a murder situation? Was the film a good whodunit? Something more?

2. The film was made a year after sound was introduced popularly. Comment on the techniques and use of sound. The staging of the action, the movement of the camera, the focus on faces and profiles, the style of acting and other devices of the early thirties?

3. How enjoyable a murder mystery was this? How did it retain audience interest? Did the film and its plot seem remote? How real did it seem? Why?

4. The impact of the opening murder, the screams, the couple looking out and the incidental comedy, the clues, the police arrival, the girl and her reaction to the murder situation?

5. How well did the film focus on the girl? How much strength of character, her role in the courts admission of guilt, imprisonment? The importance of the reconstruction of the crime and to see the place of the girl?

6. How interesting were the jury scenes and the establishing of guilt or innocence? Comment on the technique of the decision of the various jurors? The idiosyncrasies of the various jurors? Hitchcock’s getting interest in this sequence?

7. How noble a hero was Sir John? From the silent film traditions? Did he seem remote or real? His motivations for justice? His motives for helping the girl?

8. How interesting was the development of reconstructing the crime from the clues? The retaining of audience interest? The humour of interviewing the people and the incidental sequences with particular characters like the landlady?

9. What insight was given into the mind of the murderer? The early sequences of seeing the men in the play, the transvestite aspect, the seeking out of the murderer, the importance of the audition technique, seeing the murderer in his act and in woman's dress, the tightrope walking, the death? The device of his confession for the completion of the play?

10. What insight was given into the girl when the murderer was revealed? Modern overtones to his secret of being mixed blood?

11. How satisfactory was the resolution of the film? The resolution of the plot and the romantic ending? The right ending for this kind of film?

12. What Hitchcock techniques were obvious in this film of 1930? How did they indicate the style of his films in the future?