Young and Innocent (1938)

Thanks for the memories!

Such a frustrating disappointment

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This film (also sometimes entitled THE GIRL WAS YOUNG) must have been made when Hitchcock himself was young and innocent. I say that only half in jest. His British films of the 1930s were so much more authentic and interesting than much of his later Hollywood work such as REAR WINDOW (1954, see my review) and the second version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956, see my review), both of which were really terrible travesties and simply appallingly bad. Of course, when Hitchcock was on form in Hollywood, he could certainly make masterpieces such as VERTIGO (1958) and NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959, to be reviewed). But Hitchcock's early films other than the disappointing NUMBER SEVENTEEN (1932, see my review) can be especially exciting and worthwhile for viewers who do not mind black and white and are not disoriented by period films. (I know some people who only watch colour and never anything old.) Or perhaps another way to put it is to say that of the 69 films directed by Hitchcock, some were excellent and others were duds, at all periods. Maybe we expect too much of him, wishing him always to be in top form. This film stars the wonderful young actress Nova Pilbeam, who had appeared in Hitchcock's first version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934, see my review). She retired from films in 1951, which is such a shame, considering that she lived to be 95. Here she truly shines, and has such wonderful and subtle scenes with her leading man, Derrick de Marney, who is so charming and witty and has such excellent chemistry with Pilbeam. The superb character actor Edward Rigby does an excellent job of playing the tramp Old Will in this film. He also appeared with Pilbeam in GREEN FINGERS (1947) and THE THREE WEIRD SISTERS (1948) In the latter, scary Mary Clare, who here plays Pilbeam's aunt, also appeared. The story concerns the body of a woman being washed up on a British beach, apparently in Cornwall. But it turns out that she was strangled before entering the water, and did not drown. In fact, she was strangled with the belt of a cloth raincoat, a belt (but not the coat) which is found washed up beside her. So whodunit? At the beginning of the film we see the woman, Christine, having a quarrel with her husband, who has a terrible nervous tick which leads him to blink both of his eyes continuously. Later in the film, in a search for the murderer, the only way to identify him is because of his nervous facial twitching. This is similar to the situation in THE 39 STEPS (1935), where the villain can only be identified by the fact that he is missing half of one finger. In fact, the two films are often compared generally as well. Hitchcock was evidently trilled at the mystery of the desperate pursuit small clues, and they certainly add to the dramatic tension. There are many Hitchcockian touches throughout this film, not least that the tension is often relieved by humour, but also with such standard Hitchcock scenes as being trapped by the police in a public event (here a dance at the Grand Hotel) and having everyone stare at you accusingly (here at the beach when everyone stares menacingly at de Marney when they think he is the murderer). Another favourite Hitchcock theme explored here is the race against time of a man to prove he is innocent. Also, Derrick de Marney at first is threatened with being reported to the police by Nova Pilbeam, just as Robert Donat was by Madeleine Caroll in THE 39 STEPS. But in both cases, the accused man's innocence becomes clear to the women, and they end up helping him. This film has charm, vivacity, and tension aplenty.

As this film opens we see a couple arguing in a seaside house; the next morning the woman is found dead on the tide line with a raincoat belt nearby. Her body is discovered by Robert Tisdall who runs to alert the authorities; he is witnessed by two women who assume he is the fleeing killer. He is later arrested when it emerges that he knew the woman and she'd left him a considerable sum of money in her will. He manages to escape from custody and while the police are searching for him he meets Erica Burgoyne, the daughter of the chief constable, and after some time persuades her to help him find his own raincoat and thus prove his innocence. It won't be easy though as it was stolen and was last seen being worn by a tramp!This is an interesting early Hitchcock film; there was no real mystery as the identity of the killer is very strongly implied at the start and we see that Robert did find the body as he claimed. That doesn't matter though as the film is all about how he will prove his innocence. Derrick De Marney puts in a solid performance as the wrongly accused Robert and Nova Pilbeam is a delight as Erica; the two of them have a good chemistry. The rest of the cast are solid too. While this isn't a comedy there are plenty of laughs to be had; these are gentle and unforced so don't feel out of place. There is a scene where our protagonists drive into a disused mine working and the ground collapses under their car; I was surprised at just how good this scene looked given that the film will be eighty years old this year. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to Hitchcock fans and people looking for a good drama with no really offensive content.

Sandwiched between "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes", "Young and Innocent" is an oft neglected thriller by Alfred Hitchcock. Released in 1937, the film stars Derrick De Marney as Robert Tisdall, a struggling screenwriter who is wrongly accused of a crime. On the run from the police, Tisdall sets off to both prove his innocence and locate the film's true culprit.It's a familiar Hitchcockian plot, but "Young and Innocent" nevertheless contains a number of excellent moments. These include an elaborate, now famous crane shot, and an audacious cutaway to a flock of birds, angrily screaming as a corpse tumbles into view.Bizarrely, Hitchcock paints Tisdall as a man who, though innocent of murder, nevertheless feigns innocence in order to win the heart of a naive teenager (directors Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol would flat-out label Tisdall a "weasel" and "male gigolo"!). In this way the film's title has a double meaning: Tisdall, innocent of crime, but unscrupulous enough to prey upon the genuinely young and innocent. 7.5/10 – Worth one viewing.

Not one of Hitchcock's best films, but certainly one of his most overlooked. Despite being seemingly treated as a minor entry, Young and Innocent does show a master at work and is lots of fun as well as nail-biting. It's only let down by the presence of the black-face band towards the end which will leave a bad taste in the mouth nowadays for most, up to then Young and Innocent was actually without fault. As always with Hitchcock it is a very well-made film and has Hitchcock written all over it, that's how strongly his direction and unique touches come through. It is in Young and Innocent that has one of his most ingenious touches, which is the travelling shot to the murderer's twitching eye, chilling and audaciously shot, proving that not only was Hitchcock the unparallelled master of suspense but one of the masters of film technique too. The music is haunting, the atmosphere tense and nail-biting to the end and the dialogue snappy and not giving anything away. The story moves quickly and without a pacing lull, with many memorable scenes, the children's party scene will effectively jangle the nerves as will the scene in the mine. The climax is also suspenseful and nerve-shredding, helped partly by that travelling shot but mostly because of the atmosphere. The story also succeeds in how you care for the lead characters every single step of the way, and the acting is strong. Derrick De Marnay and Nova Pilbeam(much improved from her acting in The Man Who Knew Too Much) are likable leads, and the supporting cast don't put a foot wrong either, nobody gives one of the all-time great performances in a Hitchcock film but they didn't try to. To conclude, a great film and deserves more attention. 9/10 Bethany Cox