For most film viewers of today, this film will likely feel dull or boring or slow or dry or all of the above. And I don't blame them for holding that view. Unless you are a film historian, it is a bit difficult to put oneself almost a century in the past, relive the experience of watching the movies of that period with no sound or dialogues, relate them to the societal norms of that time and enjoy/appreciate it. So if you are curious to explore this film either because you want to know what silent films were like, and/or you are a big fan of Hitchcock and you just want to watch all of his work, I would advise you to first set yourself up for an expectation let down and be patient with how the film flows and let it slowly seep in.
The story mainly revolves around one woman Larita's love travails. It touches upon several taboo subjects of the era like divorce, extra-marital affair (which she's wrongly accused of), suicide and re-marriage.
The movie does show some early Hitchcock visual flourishes like a close-up of the judge's wig as he slowly raises his head and the camera zooms out, good use of flashbacks in the court scenes, etc. The lead and supportive actors have done really well for the most part. Larita's mother-in-law (played by Violet Farebrother) especially stands out with her brilliant facial expressions where no dialogues are really needed. Both Larita (played by Isabel Jeans) and her second husband John Whittaker (played by Robin Irvine) are very believable characters.
The story does suffer from not having a whole lot going for it leaving the director to do the heavy lifting to add some gravitas and bringing it alive on screen. But the pacing of the story is uneven with some parts positively boring.
Even after all the caveats are accounted for, this film falls a tad short of Hitchcock's genius. What would have made the film more interesting is if it began with the cameo shot of Hitchcock on the tennis court. If the story then proceeded with her second marriage with some lingering mystery about her past which is finally revealed, it would have had a much greater hold on the viewer's attention.
Overall, I would recommend it for a one-time viewing only for Hitchcock fans and people who would like to explore the silent era films. Rest of you can safely skip it.
The story mainly revolves around one woman Larita's love travails. It touches upon several taboo subjects of the era like divorce, extra-marital affair (which she's wrongly accused of), suicide and re-marriage.
The movie does show some early Hitchcock visual flourishes like a close-up of the judge's wig as he slowly raises his head and the camera zooms out, good use of flashbacks in the court scenes, etc. The lead and supportive actors have done really well for the most part. Larita's mother-in-law (played by Violet Farebrother) especially stands out with her brilliant facial expressions where no dialogues are really needed. Both Larita (played by Isabel Jeans) and her second husband John Whittaker (played by Robin Irvine) are very believable characters.
The story does suffer from not having a whole lot going for it leaving the director to do the heavy lifting to add some gravitas and bringing it alive on screen. But the pacing of the story is uneven with some parts positively boring.
Even after all the caveats are accounted for, this film falls a tad short of Hitchcock's genius. What would have made the film more interesting is if it began with the cameo shot of Hitchcock on the tennis court. If the story then proceeded with her second marriage with some lingering mystery about her past which is finally revealed, it would have had a much greater hold on the viewer's attention.
Overall, I would recommend it for a one-time viewing only for Hitchcock fans and people who would like to explore the silent era films. Rest of you can safely skip it.