There is a strong plot here - compelling, and surprisingly dark. It's a pity the construction of the film doesn't match it.
There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.
True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.
Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.
There are instances where dialogue is unintelligible as two people argue, or audio of dialogue trails off as one person becomes lost in thought, or instances where audio is so deficient that dialogue can't be heard at all. Such poor treatment of the dialogue kind of describes the picture as a whole. From one scene to the next, sound design, acting, and plot development are all mired in a flat, nearly unchanging tone that means voices of raised anger, soft whispers of secrecy, and normal speaking voices are all identical. There was one case where my attention had wavered - the film had failed to hold it - and I suddenly realized I needed to rewind several minutes because it seemed as though the level, unchanging presentation had made me lose a good few minutes of story. Before that, I had to pause as I altogether fell asleep for how completely 'The skin game' lost my focus.
True, it may well be that I found myself watching a copy of the feature that had been bootlegged somewhere early on in its history, and perceived deficiency owes some bits more to poor transfer than to lousy craft. Yet not all the flaws can be so ascribed. Some small inclusions don't seem to have real bearing on the narrative. There are definite examples through the length of editing or camerawork that are self-indulgent and overblown (primarily a first-person perspective utilized during the auction), and sometimes the editing is simply far too curt. Some performances are quite good (most notably Phyllis Konstam as Chloe), yet at large, the cast struggle to consistently convey the weight of the unfolding drama. The movie sometimes struggles with pacing in the advancement of the narrative, and in some scenes the actors' delivery and comportment feels strained, as though the director were pushing for a take that ultimately didn't come across as natural.
Alfred Hitchcock's reputation is well deserved, his earliest films especially are rife with difficulties that dampen the entertainment value. There are plenty of features from the same timeframe - early talkies - and even silent films with far greater production values, that far more raptly hold one's attention and propel the story. I can't claim to entirely know what it was that happened here to so sully the spectacle, but the end result is unfortunate. I recognize a narrative that, though grim and tragic, is engaging and satisfying as a viewer. The movie that tries to impart that narrative is not nearly as successful. 'The skin game' is ultimately worth checking out, if you come across it, but in light of its shortcomings, I can't say it's essential.