If this is propaganda, it is among the most artful of all time. For it seems to emanate from the mind of an individualist and patriot. Alfred Hitchcock.
We get our subject material from Somerset Maugham. Ashenden.
“The wrong man! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.” Thus laughs “the General” Peter Lorre…a sort of lovable psychopath (if such a thing is possible). Yes, the wrong man. It is to Hitchcock’s oeuvre what prostitution is to Jean-Luc Godard’s. But it is a grotesque moment. The wrong man. In this case, it went all the way: they killed the wrong man. Just an innocent old man with a wife and a dog. All in a day’s work for a covert operative…Lorre’s laughter seems to tell us.
No. Lorre is no typical agent. He’s a hitman. He doesn’t mind killing. In fact, he kind-of enjoys it. Takes pride in his craft (as it were). Very clean, he says…strangling, a knife…no guns…too noisy.
But let’s back up to John Gielgud. To make a spy, you kill the man. It is quasi-Christian. The old is gone. Behold, the new has come.
The perfect spy has no past. This sort of agent wakes up to read his own obituary. Before long, he has a new identity.
Though this film predates WWII, its subject matter of WWI is certainly infused with the building tension of a second continent-wide conflagration.
And again we witness James Bond far before Ian Fleming birthed him. The milieu is the same. Gielgud reports to “R”…like the “M” we would all come to know and love. And of course Lorre…himself an M of another type (see Fritz Lang).
Trouble in the Middle East. Why can’t it be Tahiti? Where’s Leonard Bernstein when you need him???
“The Hairless Mexican” a.k.a. “The General” Peter Lorre…kinda like the Federal Reserve: not Federal and no reserves. Yes, Lorre is quite hirsute. As for his rank, it is as dubious as his other winning personality traits.
Gielgud’s not very careful…right from the start. I suppose they should have trained the chap in the dark arts before sending him out into the field. At least the field is Switzerland (Allen Dulles’ future stomping grounds).
Back to our Bond parallels…the gorgeous Madeleine Carroll, like Eva Green in Casino Royale, stipulates a separate-bed rule as part of her cover (Gielgud’s “wife”). We wonder whether her character, like Hitchcock and Green’s Vesper Lynd, is of Catholic upbringing.
But for the main course…we get some rather convincing ethics from Hitchcock–a morality which we would scarcely see again in the future of film through to the 21st century. To wit, espionage is the dirtiest of jobs. Never mind the old trick of digging though a rubbish bin: the whole operation is filthy and loused up with sickening concessions. Hitchcock gets right to the point quite forthright: murder. Many of the darkest jobs are just that! One can spin it anyway one wants, but it is still cold-blooded.
It’s not all fun and games, Gielgud tries to convey to Madeleine. If you’re here for a thrill, you’d best recalibrate your perspective: things are about to get real ugly!
It is some scary shit. Imagine Olivier Messiaen and Giacinto Scelsi collaborating with Morton Feldman for a 45 second piece. It’s called Sonata for Corpse and Organ. Their contact has been murdered. The assassin pulled out all the stops. Just after the prelude, a fugue of struggle ensued which left a button from the killer’s garments clutched in the dead organist’s hand. We get a rich, chromatic chord until Gielgud and Lorre realize there’s far too little harmonic rhythm to this chorale. The bloke’s been whacked (slumped upon the keys).
This button, a single-use MacGuffin, leads them to offing the wrong man. Poor old Percy Marmont…
At this, Gielgud is ready to quit…sickened by the thought of having innocent blood on his hands. Credit Madeleine Carroll with a nice performance…especially when she plays the straight (horrified) woman to Lorre’s laughter.
And so, again like Casino Royale, Gielgud and Carroll (madly in love) decide to dispense with the whole mission and pack it in (complete with a resignation letter to “R” from Gielgud).
I won’t give away too much. Lorre is fantastic: both ridiculously awkward in his humor and deft in his acting.
Unfortunately, the artfulness of the film which Hitchcock had lovingly built up is marred by a somewhat daft, abrupt ending.
It is really good article, as always, dear pauly:) I like to read Somerset Maugham’s stories. And for me, his storytelling is better than his novelist side. Secret Agent was also good. But, for example, movie adaptation “Up at the Villa,” I think was not good, if I do not remember wrong, it was in early 2000.
I guess, an another “Hitchcock” will not come to this planet.;)
Yes, Hitchcock was maybe the best so far…for film. Your earthling friend, Paul
Good review. This one happens to be on my list to watch in the next few weeks.
Thanks! Yeah, it’s worth a viewing for sure. –PD
Lovely piece of commentary again well done I always love your comments and you cant beat the acting talents of Lorre and Gielgud
Thank you my friend! Yes, Lorre really steals the show on this one!!