My main complaint against this film is not the story, which hinges on the conflict of love versus class sentiments, and therefore is far more British than anything we can relate to in American cinema. No, the thing that struck me again and again as I watched this sudsy rubbish was the bad casting. The girl, a popular European 27 year old actress of that era, looks (intentionally, I think) like a ditzy 18 year old version of Jean Harlow. 18 may be a good age for a girl in trouble in traditional British lower class society, but it makes it hard to understand why the much older Philip would be in love with her, or why after her girl-in-trouble problem is solved, she would be so much in love with him as to push the love triangle into tragedy. The emotion flow doesn't make sense in either direction.
For the role of Philip -- good lawyer, unreliable friend and lover -- we see a man clearly in his 40's who looks old enough to be the girl's father. The third node in the triangle is Danish actor Carl Brisson (34 when this was made) , whose most often used talent in this film was his ability to grin glassy eyed into the camera, showing us two enormous dimple lines.
Despite the limitations of the casting and "Pete's" acting ability, the performance qualities aren't too bad. For example, when the town doctor comes down to announce the birth of the girl's child, he first asks "Who's the father?", as if he was the only person in a small fishing village who wouldn't know. Philip stands up excitedly and is about to claim the honor, but realizes that he can't give himself away, so he makes a small gesture to point at Pete. Nicely handled.
Bottom line is that there's very little evidence of Hitchcock's later, more polished style, and not much other reason to rent this movie.
For the role of Philip -- good lawyer, unreliable friend and lover -- we see a man clearly in his 40's who looks old enough to be the girl's father. The third node in the triangle is Danish actor Carl Brisson (34 when this was made) , whose most often used talent in this film was his ability to grin glassy eyed into the camera, showing us two enormous dimple lines.
Despite the limitations of the casting and "Pete's" acting ability, the performance qualities aren't too bad. For example, when the town doctor comes down to announce the birth of the girl's child, he first asks "Who's the father?", as if he was the only person in a small fishing village who wouldn't know. Philip stands up excitedly and is about to claim the honor, but realizes that he can't give himself away, so he makes a small gesture to point at Pete. Nicely handled.
Bottom line is that there's very little evidence of Hitchcock's later, more polished style, and not much other reason to rent this movie.