96 reviews
Hitchcock adapts Campbell Dixon's play...
... itself based on W. Somerset Maugham's novel Ashenden. In 1916, British Army officer Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) is conscripted into the intelligence bureau. He's given the name "Ashenden" and assigned to assassinate an unknown enemy agent. Ashenden is given a "wife" (Madeleine Carroll) as part of his cover, as well as the assistance of an oddball professional killer known as "the General" (Peter Lorre). While Ashenden and the General hunt for the enemy agent's identity, the "wife" makes time with American playboy Robert Marvin (Robert Young). With Percy Marmont, Florence Kahn, Charles Carson, and Lilli Palmer.
It's interesting to see Gielgud in a leading role, although it's quickly evident why it didn't happen more often. He lacks any romantic chemistry with Carroll, and he frequently seems bored by the proceedings. Carroll and Young both do well with under-thought characters, but Lorre easily steals the picture as the strange assassin with a morbid sense of humor and indeterminate ethnicity.
It's interesting to see Gielgud in a leading role, although it's quickly evident why it didn't happen more often. He lacks any romantic chemistry with Carroll, and he frequently seems bored by the proceedings. Carroll and Young both do well with under-thought characters, but Lorre easily steals the picture as the strange assassin with a morbid sense of humor and indeterminate ethnicity.
A little creaky, but quite enjoyable.
"Perhaps this lie is true"
The series of espionage thrillers produced at British Gaumont Pictures in the mid-to-late 1930s, scripted by Charles Bennet and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, have a consistent quality to them. They don't repeat characters or plot elements, but they all follow a similar winning formula – not merely that of Hitchcockian suspense (of which there isn't really that much in Secret Agent), but of the notion that scrambling all over Europe bumping off spies and leaping off trains, constantly in fear of your own life, can be made to look rather good fun.
First we have the cast and characterisation. A relatively young John Gielgud takes the lead and, although the director reportedly didn't like his performance, he does here epitomise the classic British hero. Laid back, unassuming, with an air of effortlessness, he is in some ways reminiscent of a certain other fictional British spy popularised in the latter half of the twentieth century, although Gielgud's Ashendon is far more human than the somewhat mechanical Mr Bond. Paired with a bubbly and very believable Madeleine Carroll, and supported by bluff gentleman Percy Marmont, chirpy yank Robert Young and crazy generic foreigner Peter Lorre, the overall feel is like one of those "Brits on holiday" comedies. The only difference is, occasionally people kill each other or send out coded telegrams.
Then there is the Charles Bennet screenplay. Bennet was, after Elliot Stannard in the silent days, the second writer to really work well with The Master of Suspense. Like Hitch, Bennet loves double meanings and secret knowledge. Take the scene where Gielgud arrives at the hotel finds out from the clerk that his new persona has a wife. He asks the clerk "Did she look well?" meaning of course "Is she attractive?" It is of course a little joke with no bearing on the plot, but it's moments like this that keep us engaging with the material and root us in the world of spying and bluffing. He also brings characters in with memorable bits of business to give us strong and meaningful impressions of them – for example Peter Lorre chasing a woman up the stairs or Percy Marmont being introduced when Gielgud trips over his dog.
And then there is the director, who is let's face it the only reason anyone pays attention to what would otherwise be obscure English films in the first place. Hitchcock has simplified and streamlined his technique, which a few years earlier had been little more than a needlessly showy display of camera tricks. He's still not subtle – he never would be – but at least he is now tasteful. We see here his regular method by which the camera leads the audience by the hand, dollying in on an object or throwing a close-up at us as if to shout "Look at this!" What's good about it is that it allows Hitchcock to move the audience at any rate he wants. At the end of the first scene there is a dolly in on a portrait of a soldier. No-one is looking at or gesturing at it, but Hitch forces us to take notice. Later, when Gielgud walks into his hotel room and finds both Carroll and Young inside, there is a quick montage of close-ups as he checks he has the right number, and we essentially ride with his thought process for a few seconds.
Secret Agent is by no means as good as The 39 Steps or The Lady Vanishes, not really having any major build-ups of suspense or danger. However, it does gently pull us along for a well-paced and slightly irreverent ride, and is ultimately watchable because it has very few bad bits. It is a good example what Hitchcock and co. were creating at Gaumont – pictures which were undemanding on the attention because they were smooth, unpretentious and yet continually gave us something to tickle the brain.
First we have the cast and characterisation. A relatively young John Gielgud takes the lead and, although the director reportedly didn't like his performance, he does here epitomise the classic British hero. Laid back, unassuming, with an air of effortlessness, he is in some ways reminiscent of a certain other fictional British spy popularised in the latter half of the twentieth century, although Gielgud's Ashendon is far more human than the somewhat mechanical Mr Bond. Paired with a bubbly and very believable Madeleine Carroll, and supported by bluff gentleman Percy Marmont, chirpy yank Robert Young and crazy generic foreigner Peter Lorre, the overall feel is like one of those "Brits on holiday" comedies. The only difference is, occasionally people kill each other or send out coded telegrams.
Then there is the Charles Bennet screenplay. Bennet was, after Elliot Stannard in the silent days, the second writer to really work well with The Master of Suspense. Like Hitch, Bennet loves double meanings and secret knowledge. Take the scene where Gielgud arrives at the hotel finds out from the clerk that his new persona has a wife. He asks the clerk "Did she look well?" meaning of course "Is she attractive?" It is of course a little joke with no bearing on the plot, but it's moments like this that keep us engaging with the material and root us in the world of spying and bluffing. He also brings characters in with memorable bits of business to give us strong and meaningful impressions of them – for example Peter Lorre chasing a woman up the stairs or Percy Marmont being introduced when Gielgud trips over his dog.
And then there is the director, who is let's face it the only reason anyone pays attention to what would otherwise be obscure English films in the first place. Hitchcock has simplified and streamlined his technique, which a few years earlier had been little more than a needlessly showy display of camera tricks. He's still not subtle – he never would be – but at least he is now tasteful. We see here his regular method by which the camera leads the audience by the hand, dollying in on an object or throwing a close-up at us as if to shout "Look at this!" What's good about it is that it allows Hitchcock to move the audience at any rate he wants. At the end of the first scene there is a dolly in on a portrait of a soldier. No-one is looking at or gesturing at it, but Hitch forces us to take notice. Later, when Gielgud walks into his hotel room and finds both Carroll and Young inside, there is a quick montage of close-ups as he checks he has the right number, and we essentially ride with his thought process for a few seconds.
Secret Agent is by no means as good as The 39 Steps or The Lady Vanishes, not really having any major build-ups of suspense or danger. However, it does gently pull us along for a well-paced and slightly irreverent ride, and is ultimately watchable because it has very few bad bits. It is a good example what Hitchcock and co. were creating at Gaumont – pictures which were undemanding on the attention because they were smooth, unpretentious and yet continually gave us something to tickle the brain.
Creative & Carefully Crafted Spy Story
While not one of Hitchcock's most well-known films, "Secret Agent" is one of his most creative. His version of the world of espionage is quite different from, and much richer than, the usual James Bond-type spy story. This movie is also distinguished by large doses of good humor and by some creative uses of the story's setting in Switzerland.
John Gielgud plays Ashenden, an English spy in World War I. He is assigned to go to Switzerland, determine the identity of an important German agent, and then stop the enemy agent before he can carry out his mission. Gielgud has two assistants: a young agent posing as his wife (Madeleine Carroll) and an eccentric assassin (Peter Lorre). What makes the film interesting is that Gielgud's character is not at all the stereotyped dashing movie spy, and he has a keen sense of the human cost involved in what he is doing. By contrast, his two assistants are both excited about the mission, and look forward to the game of tracking down and eliminating their quarry. As the story proceeds, it is the reluctant but responsible Ashenden who persists in continuing the mission in spite of some bad surprises, while the once enthusiastic "Mrs. Ashenden" quickly begins to lose heart when she realizes what espionage is really all about. At the same time, the twists and turns of the mission itself lead to some interesting and tense developments. This is all handled with Hitchcock's usual mastery of suspense and irony.
Hitchcock also makes full use of the setting, and typical Swiss themes like mountain climbing, chocolate, and folk dancing are all part of the plot. Hitchcock makes use of these elements in a natural way, not forcing them into the plot, and the whole production is nicely crafted. There are some excellent scenes, including a scene in an old country church that combines humor and suspense, and a chase through a chocolate factory.
Because its hero has a reluctance about his mission that we do not expect in our spy heroes, "Secret Agent" has never been one of Hitchcock's most popular films. And the story does have some odd aspects to it. But this is quite a good film, worthy of attention, and one that shows many aspects of the great director's skill and imagination.
John Gielgud plays Ashenden, an English spy in World War I. He is assigned to go to Switzerland, determine the identity of an important German agent, and then stop the enemy agent before he can carry out his mission. Gielgud has two assistants: a young agent posing as his wife (Madeleine Carroll) and an eccentric assassin (Peter Lorre). What makes the film interesting is that Gielgud's character is not at all the stereotyped dashing movie spy, and he has a keen sense of the human cost involved in what he is doing. By contrast, his two assistants are both excited about the mission, and look forward to the game of tracking down and eliminating their quarry. As the story proceeds, it is the reluctant but responsible Ashenden who persists in continuing the mission in spite of some bad surprises, while the once enthusiastic "Mrs. Ashenden" quickly begins to lose heart when she realizes what espionage is really all about. At the same time, the twists and turns of the mission itself lead to some interesting and tense developments. This is all handled with Hitchcock's usual mastery of suspense and irony.
Hitchcock also makes full use of the setting, and typical Swiss themes like mountain climbing, chocolate, and folk dancing are all part of the plot. Hitchcock makes use of these elements in a natural way, not forcing them into the plot, and the whole production is nicely crafted. There are some excellent scenes, including a scene in an old country church that combines humor and suspense, and a chase through a chocolate factory.
Because its hero has a reluctance about his mission that we do not expect in our spy heroes, "Secret Agent" has never been one of Hitchcock's most popular films. And the story does have some odd aspects to it. But this is quite a good film, worthy of attention, and one that shows many aspects of the great director's skill and imagination.
- Snow Leopard
- Jun 4, 2001
- Permalink
Spy story with suspense and romance by the master of thriller
This espionage film concerns about Ashenden (John Gielgud), a secret agent is sent Switzerland to kill an unknown enemy spy . There he deals with various characters , as a quirky Mexican general (Peter Lorre), a smart gentleman (Robert Young) and a gorgeous woman (Madeleine Carrol) who poses as his wife , causing the classic loving triangle (Gielgud , Carrol , Young). The movie is based on Somerset Maughan's novels titled : Ashenden , taken from ¨The Traitor" and "The Hairless Mexican" spy stories.
This enjoyable picture blends action , a love story , comedy , adventures , thriller , suspense and results to be quite entertaining . Hitchcock said about this film being well developed in Switzerland , it's plenty of typical elements , such as : folkloric dances , Swiss Alps , lagoons and a chocolate factory . Alfred Hitchcock convinced John Gielgud to play the lead by describing the hero as a modern day Hamlet ; Gielgud, however, ended up hating that his character was an enigma and felt Hitchcock made the villain more charming than the hero . Besides , it contains the usual Hitch's touches and the elegant as well as intelligent baddie (repeating in posterior films as James Mason at ¨North by Northwest¨) , the enticing blonde (as later happened with Grace Kelly and Kim Novak) , the filming on the train (a very agreeable vehicle for the director) . It's an uneven movie and Hitch wasn't proud but it had excessive irony as he said in the famous interview with Francois Truffaut . Rating : Good , well worth watching . The motion picture will appeal to Hitchcock fans . Essential and indispensable seeing for Hitch lovers .
This enjoyable picture blends action , a love story , comedy , adventures , thriller , suspense and results to be quite entertaining . Hitchcock said about this film being well developed in Switzerland , it's plenty of typical elements , such as : folkloric dances , Swiss Alps , lagoons and a chocolate factory . Alfred Hitchcock convinced John Gielgud to play the lead by describing the hero as a modern day Hamlet ; Gielgud, however, ended up hating that his character was an enigma and felt Hitchcock made the villain more charming than the hero . Besides , it contains the usual Hitch's touches and the elegant as well as intelligent baddie (repeating in posterior films as James Mason at ¨North by Northwest¨) , the enticing blonde (as later happened with Grace Kelly and Kim Novak) , the filming on the train (a very agreeable vehicle for the director) . It's an uneven movie and Hitch wasn't proud but it had excessive irony as he said in the famous interview with Francois Truffaut . Rating : Good , well worth watching . The motion picture will appeal to Hitchcock fans . Essential and indispensable seeing for Hitch lovers .
Good, but not classic, Hitchcock
When the topic of spy movies comes up, James Bond is usually one of the first names to arise. But even spy movies had a beginning, and sure enough, in the first couple decades of cinema, who was there making spy movies? Alfred Hitchcock.
Like the other spy movies he did, (Take Torn Curtain and Topaz for instance, two of his later works. How much later? Nearly 40 years later), Secret Agent is a spy movie without lots of explosions or car chases or shootouts. Instead it is about a man who goes undercover to break up a potentially disastrous international agenda of some kind, and along the way falls in love with his partner and realizes that he's not up to the task of murdering someone.
This 1936 movie is another in Hitchcock's decade-long run of British talkies: highly-contrasted black and white, under 90 minutes generally, and devoid of major stars (except for Peter Lorre, who appears in this movie two years after he did The Man Who Knew Too Much).
But unlike many of the movies surrounding it (Young and Innocent, The 39 Steps), this one isn't quite as good. Not that Secret Agent is a bad movie, far from it:
The directing is fine, and the church-murder scene is a beautiful mix of sound and picture. Lorre is much like the male version of Bette Davis - overacting and proud of it. His role as the womanizing yet clever "General" is much lighter than his usual horror-laced stuff, and he still pulls it off with ease. The leads are equally good. And the humor laced throughout is genuinely funny. (Note that, even in 1936, it is obvious that Hitchcock was already looking for the actress that would be fulfilled in Grace Kelly - the strong, feisty, beautiful blonde leading lady.)
But there's nothing here to just make the jaw drop and the eyes widen. It is a good movie, and from a director that has had whole decades worth of *great* movies, it just seems subpar. A previous commentor was right: This was the movie for Hitchcock to remake in the 1950s (with color and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - heck, maybe even a minor role for Jimmy Stewart), not The Man Who Knew Too Much, which was one of his best British films.
Overall, it is good and worth the watch - especially for Hitchcock fans, but it's just not quite *there*.
7/10
Like the other spy movies he did, (Take Torn Curtain and Topaz for instance, two of his later works. How much later? Nearly 40 years later), Secret Agent is a spy movie without lots of explosions or car chases or shootouts. Instead it is about a man who goes undercover to break up a potentially disastrous international agenda of some kind, and along the way falls in love with his partner and realizes that he's not up to the task of murdering someone.
This 1936 movie is another in Hitchcock's decade-long run of British talkies: highly-contrasted black and white, under 90 minutes generally, and devoid of major stars (except for Peter Lorre, who appears in this movie two years after he did The Man Who Knew Too Much).
But unlike many of the movies surrounding it (Young and Innocent, The 39 Steps), this one isn't quite as good. Not that Secret Agent is a bad movie, far from it:
The directing is fine, and the church-murder scene is a beautiful mix of sound and picture. Lorre is much like the male version of Bette Davis - overacting and proud of it. His role as the womanizing yet clever "General" is much lighter than his usual horror-laced stuff, and he still pulls it off with ease. The leads are equally good. And the humor laced throughout is genuinely funny. (Note that, even in 1936, it is obvious that Hitchcock was already looking for the actress that would be fulfilled in Grace Kelly - the strong, feisty, beautiful blonde leading lady.)
But there's nothing here to just make the jaw drop and the eyes widen. It is a good movie, and from a director that has had whole decades worth of *great* movies, it just seems subpar. A previous commentor was right: This was the movie for Hitchcock to remake in the 1950s (with color and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - heck, maybe even a minor role for Jimmy Stewart), not The Man Who Knew Too Much, which was one of his best British films.
Overall, it is good and worth the watch - especially for Hitchcock fans, but it's just not quite *there*.
7/10
- TexMetal4JC
- Jul 19, 2001
- Permalink
Decent Hitchcock Movie, With a Confusion in Early Titles
- theowinthrop
- Jun 18, 2006
- Permalink
Yes, John Gielgud Really Was Young Once!
- bsmith5552
- Jan 4, 2007
- Permalink
Classic early Hitchcock
This, in my opinion, is one of the master's best early films, so good, in fact, that it begs for repeat viewing. That is the only way I know to absorb the subtle verbal repartees (observe the fascinating expressions and body language of Madeleine Carroll as she repeatedly defends herself from the blandishments of the affable American played by Robert Young); the hilarious malapropisms and convoluted syntax courtesy of the unpredictably eccentric Peter Lorre (there is good reason to believe this was unfeigned because Mr. Lorre, a Hungarian by birth who had achieved a well-deserved reputation as a chilling screen presence in German cinema before leaving for England following the National Socialist take-over, had not yet mastered the nuances of the English language); the classic understatement by that most aristocratic of all British actors, John Gielgud; and for those of us who never tire gazing at the incomparably beautiful Madeleine (Elsa) Carroll, the camera angles finally do justice to her divinely-wrought features (she also delivers her usual elegantly controlled performance). And, of course, there is all of the excitement and suspense one comes to expect from the great Alfred Hitchcock... Needless to say, I highly recommend this film.
- kiroman101
- Oct 23, 2005
- Permalink
A Good Early Hitchcock Film
"Somehow I don't like murders at close quarters as much as I expected..."
- classicsoncall
- Feb 14, 2006
- Permalink
The Moral Ambiguity of Sanctioned Murder and Other Humorous Anecdotes.
Despite the abject absurdity of Hitchcock's "Secret Agent", I adored it.
The film starts off as a farcical story following John Gielgud and Madeline Carroll - two novice British spies - hunting down a German agent with the help of a more experienced man - "The General" - a Mexican hilariously played by Peter Lorre. With these principal players, it should be no surprise that the performances are top-notch. However, given the fact that Lorre was, at the time, at one of the lowest points in his tumultuous but brilliant career, it is possible that his over-the-top and uncharacteristically comedic performance at least began unintentionally (and was exploited by the great director as a last-ditch effort to complete the film successfully).
The story is based rather loosely on a Somerset Maugham story translated for theater by Campbell Dixon then adapted by Hitchcock favorite Charles Bennett. Quite a bit, as you can well imagine, changes as a result of the translations from medium to medium.
The drama turns on a developing romance between Gielgud and Carroll's characters - and the burgeoning consciences which accompany it. Will they be able to carry out their patriotic duty if and when they finally track down their opponent, or will they fail? Furthermore, what will the zealous and perhaps a little psychotic General do if his co-conspirators drop out of the spy business at the last instant? Typical Hitchcock plot devices (i.e. trains, quirky romantic relationships, European ethnic stereotypes) make cameo appearances at appropriate points in the story, and enhance the experience for Hitchcock aficionados.
The script and general story-line is not one of the best Hitchcock would have access to throughout his career, but it is quite rich compared to some of the plots he worked with earlier in his career, and the director develops the comedy, suspense, and human drama economically and affectively, if not fully. The camera-work is, of course, good, but not nearly as experimental or interesting as many of Hitchcock's earlier and later films. This is generally true of most of Hitchcock's excellent efforts for Gaumont British Pictures of America during the 1930s (I.e. Sabotage, 39 Steps, etc) - very British films made with American/British casts and production for an international audience.
Though less suspenseful than many of Hitchcock's contemporaneous efforts, Secret Agent remains a good and entertaining example of Hitchcock in the 1930s.
The film starts off as a farcical story following John Gielgud and Madeline Carroll - two novice British spies - hunting down a German agent with the help of a more experienced man - "The General" - a Mexican hilariously played by Peter Lorre. With these principal players, it should be no surprise that the performances are top-notch. However, given the fact that Lorre was, at the time, at one of the lowest points in his tumultuous but brilliant career, it is possible that his over-the-top and uncharacteristically comedic performance at least began unintentionally (and was exploited by the great director as a last-ditch effort to complete the film successfully).
The story is based rather loosely on a Somerset Maugham story translated for theater by Campbell Dixon then adapted by Hitchcock favorite Charles Bennett. Quite a bit, as you can well imagine, changes as a result of the translations from medium to medium.
The drama turns on a developing romance between Gielgud and Carroll's characters - and the burgeoning consciences which accompany it. Will they be able to carry out their patriotic duty if and when they finally track down their opponent, or will they fail? Furthermore, what will the zealous and perhaps a little psychotic General do if his co-conspirators drop out of the spy business at the last instant? Typical Hitchcock plot devices (i.e. trains, quirky romantic relationships, European ethnic stereotypes) make cameo appearances at appropriate points in the story, and enhance the experience for Hitchcock aficionados.
The script and general story-line is not one of the best Hitchcock would have access to throughout his career, but it is quite rich compared to some of the plots he worked with earlier in his career, and the director develops the comedy, suspense, and human drama economically and affectively, if not fully. The camera-work is, of course, good, but not nearly as experimental or interesting as many of Hitchcock's earlier and later films. This is generally true of most of Hitchcock's excellent efforts for Gaumont British Pictures of America during the 1930s (I.e. Sabotage, 39 Steps, etc) - very British films made with American/British casts and production for an international audience.
Though less suspenseful than many of Hitchcock's contemporaneous efforts, Secret Agent remains a good and entertaining example of Hitchcock in the 1930s.
Outlandish spy thriller, occasionally awkward but frequently very powerful.
- barnabyrudge
- Jan 8, 2007
- Permalink
Where the morality of cold-blooded killing gets some into hot water.
This is one from Hitchcock that doesn't quite come up to his standard fare, and definitely not equal to The 39 Steps (1935), The Lady Vanishes (1938) and many others. Perhaps it was the low quality of the production? Perhaps the story itself? Maybe the somewhat wooden acting from John Gielgud?
Having not read the novel by Somerset Maugham, I can't make any worthwhile comparison about how well or badly the narrative was put to film. I can say, however, that the plot has a few inexplicable narrative gaps or the DVD I viewed was an incomplete copy. I'll never know, either way, of course.
However, to the film: a soldier is pulled from trench warfare in France, given a new identity of Richard Ashenden (Gielgud), a fake wife Elsa Carrington (the delightful Madelaine Carroll) and then teamed up with a clown of a spy called the General (Peter Lorre) to then all travel to Switzerland to kill a German spy. Right.
Okay...moving right along: In Switzerland, an American playboy, Robert Marvin (a very young Robert Young) worms his way into the intrepid threesome from England, apparently intent upon stealing/wooing/seducing Elsa not sure which, actually. Neither does Elsa, it seems, who keeps trying to fob him off. In the meantime, the dynamic duo of Richard and the General find their informant dead in a local church, strangled, unable to tell them the identity of the German spy.
Undeterred, they chase up a clue left at the scene of the crime and narrow their search to a German couple. The man, a local mountain guide, agrees to guide them to a mountain top where the General pushes him off a cliff to his death. Unhappily for the team, they killed the wrong man. Quel domage!
From there, the plot muddles about a bit as the three try to decide what to do, Ashenden particularly remorseful about the wrongful killing. They get a break, however, about the German spy and board a train for Turkey, on which the denouement ensues. To say any more, however, would truly spoil the story.
Frankly, I wasn't all that impressed with the story: I think it lacked the depth and suspense that you expect from Hitchcock. Of the actors, only Carroll and Young showed any consistency of character while Lorre was just so over the top, it wasn't funny. And, it wasn't funny, also. Gielgud was a great actor, no question, but I think others would have been better as Ashenden (maybe only Gielgud was available, at the time?).
The cinematography is very good, reinforcing Hitchcock's developing expertise. In a chocolate factory, for example, there are some exquisitely choreographed panicky crowd scenes, reminiscent of Fritz Lang's M (1931). So, as a curiosity, it's worth seeing by all. For serious Hitchcock fans, it should be on the must-see list, if only to act as a comparison with his overall work. I'm glad I finally got to see it, but I wouldn't bother a second time.
Having not read the novel by Somerset Maugham, I can't make any worthwhile comparison about how well or badly the narrative was put to film. I can say, however, that the plot has a few inexplicable narrative gaps or the DVD I viewed was an incomplete copy. I'll never know, either way, of course.
However, to the film: a soldier is pulled from trench warfare in France, given a new identity of Richard Ashenden (Gielgud), a fake wife Elsa Carrington (the delightful Madelaine Carroll) and then teamed up with a clown of a spy called the General (Peter Lorre) to then all travel to Switzerland to kill a German spy. Right.
Okay...moving right along: In Switzerland, an American playboy, Robert Marvin (a very young Robert Young) worms his way into the intrepid threesome from England, apparently intent upon stealing/wooing/seducing Elsa not sure which, actually. Neither does Elsa, it seems, who keeps trying to fob him off. In the meantime, the dynamic duo of Richard and the General find their informant dead in a local church, strangled, unable to tell them the identity of the German spy.
Undeterred, they chase up a clue left at the scene of the crime and narrow their search to a German couple. The man, a local mountain guide, agrees to guide them to a mountain top where the General pushes him off a cliff to his death. Unhappily for the team, they killed the wrong man. Quel domage!
From there, the plot muddles about a bit as the three try to decide what to do, Ashenden particularly remorseful about the wrongful killing. They get a break, however, about the German spy and board a train for Turkey, on which the denouement ensues. To say any more, however, would truly spoil the story.
Frankly, I wasn't all that impressed with the story: I think it lacked the depth and suspense that you expect from Hitchcock. Of the actors, only Carroll and Young showed any consistency of character while Lorre was just so over the top, it wasn't funny. And, it wasn't funny, also. Gielgud was a great actor, no question, but I think others would have been better as Ashenden (maybe only Gielgud was available, at the time?).
The cinematography is very good, reinforcing Hitchcock's developing expertise. In a chocolate factory, for example, there are some exquisitely choreographed panicky crowd scenes, reminiscent of Fritz Lang's M (1931). So, as a curiosity, it's worth seeing by all. For serious Hitchcock fans, it should be on the must-see list, if only to act as a comparison with his overall work. I'm glad I finally got to see it, but I wouldn't bother a second time.
- RJBurke1942
- Apr 26, 2008
- Permalink
The oddest Hitchcock
Hitchcock was an extremely visual film-maker as a rule and this film took an entirely different direction. What I remember most are the sounds - or more specifically, the noises. The discordant sound of the organ, for example, stands out. It isn't pretty and why should it be? The organist's dead after all. The noise in the chocolate factory is a continuous din relieved only by a fire alarm! Then, two of the main characters are caught in the bell-tower of a church when the bells begin to ring. Again, the sound isn't pleasant at all but quite annoying. A "musical" scene with yodelers ends up with coins being swirled around plates and is almost overbearing. The dog's howling in its psychic moment is long and unnerving. In all, these sound effects set the audience on edge which I think was part of the original plan. The two central characters are uneasy with their task and we are made to suffer too. This is an unusual film for Hitch and well worth the time.
Curtis Stotlar
Curtis Stotlar
- cstotlar-1
- Jul 11, 2011
- Permalink
Creaky but good
- holdencopywriting
- May 5, 2007
- Permalink
The greatest non-spy movie ever made
With a title like "Secret Agent" and the stamp of Alfred Hitchcock, I'm sure most people are expecting a classic spy thriller with a suave, impeccable hero, a cold-hearted villain and a lot of patriotic drum beating. There's none of that here, and perhaps that's why this film gets a lot of abuse from reviewers.
No, what you get instead is a very realistic story (almost cynically so) where the hero is fallible and full of doubts, where the villain is someone whom you'd sooner buy a beer than hate, and where the political message of the film borders on anti-British at times (or as far as Hitchcock could go without being strung up for heresy). In that respect, this film is way ahead of its time--and perhaps still so, 70 years later.
In the late 30s when every British citizen was expected to do his or her duty without questioning orders, this film dared to present the notion that it's the individual who must think for himself, hold himself accountable for all errors, and never pass the buck as "just following orders". Perhaps if people had paid attention to this sort of message, the world wouldn't be in the sorry mess it's in now. But I'll leave it up to you do find the present-day significance of the theme.
The film itself has some absolutely brilliant moments. For one thing, there is no music. So, much like the Fritz Lang masterpiece "M", the suspense hangs entirely on the camera. There is one particular scene--one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever watched (yes more suspenseful than the Psycho shower)--that focuses almost entirely on a dog. A cute little weiner dog. But I swear my heart was beating a mile a minute. Why don't they ever teach this sort of stuff in film school? Future film makers of the world, please watch this old gem, take notes and learn. They just don't make em like this anymore.
No, what you get instead is a very realistic story (almost cynically so) where the hero is fallible and full of doubts, where the villain is someone whom you'd sooner buy a beer than hate, and where the political message of the film borders on anti-British at times (or as far as Hitchcock could go without being strung up for heresy). In that respect, this film is way ahead of its time--and perhaps still so, 70 years later.
In the late 30s when every British citizen was expected to do his or her duty without questioning orders, this film dared to present the notion that it's the individual who must think for himself, hold himself accountable for all errors, and never pass the buck as "just following orders". Perhaps if people had paid attention to this sort of message, the world wouldn't be in the sorry mess it's in now. But I'll leave it up to you do find the present-day significance of the theme.
The film itself has some absolutely brilliant moments. For one thing, there is no music. So, much like the Fritz Lang masterpiece "M", the suspense hangs entirely on the camera. There is one particular scene--one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever watched (yes more suspenseful than the Psycho shower)--that focuses almost entirely on a dog. A cute little weiner dog. But I swear my heart was beating a mile a minute. Why don't they ever teach this sort of stuff in film school? Future film makers of the world, please watch this old gem, take notes and learn. They just don't make em like this anymore.
Not quite ready for Hollywood
Though definitely one of the better films of Hitchcock's British Primitive period, it's still hard to see the hand of the master craftsman who would make "Rebecca" in this interesting but clumsy spy melodrama. The two major problems in this film are John Gielgud, looking distinctly uncomfortable in a dashing leading man role that would have gone down much better with Robert Donat or Laurence Oliver, and Peter Lorre, not able to do much with the grotesque, embarrassing Mexican blackface minstrel routine the film forces on him. The film's saving graces are Robert Young as Gielgud's unsettlingly suave American rival, and Madeline Carroll, looking and sounding uncannily like Miranda Richardson as perhaps the most uncharacteristically vivacious of Hitchcock's cool blonde heroines.
- Anne_Sharp
- Sep 12, 2000
- Permalink
Long before James Bond, we had this
Long before James Bond hit our screens, Alfred Hitchcock made this Bond type movie and I found Secret Agent quite enjoyable, even though there isn't an awful lot of action in it.
A pair of English agents, pretending to be husband and wife are sent to Switzerland to look for a German agent out there. The investigation eventually leads them to a chocolate factory, where they track him down. At the end, the two English agents fall in love for real.
Though a little slow moving at times, Secret Agent is quite gripping and has some good scenery thrown in too.
The cast includes John Gielgud, Peter Lorre (The Beast With Five Fingers, Mad Love), Madeleine Carroll, Robert Young and Lili Palmer. Good parts from all.
Though no James Bond, Secret Agent is worth a look. Check it out.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
A pair of English agents, pretending to be husband and wife are sent to Switzerland to look for a German agent out there. The investigation eventually leads them to a chocolate factory, where they track him down. At the end, the two English agents fall in love for real.
Though a little slow moving at times, Secret Agent is quite gripping and has some good scenery thrown in too.
The cast includes John Gielgud, Peter Lorre (The Beast With Five Fingers, Mad Love), Madeleine Carroll, Robert Young and Lili Palmer. Good parts from all.
Though no James Bond, Secret Agent is worth a look. Check it out.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
- chris_gaskin123
- Jan 15, 2006
- Permalink
John Gielgud as you've never seen him before
Lots of fun
A muddle
I can understand why this is kind of a forgotten Hitchcock mystery thriller. It has most of the elements of a Hitchcockian adventure, but it doesn't quite gel together all that well. I think there are a few reasons why it doesn't really work, and they all extend back to the script. Loosely based on a series of short stories by W. Somerset Maugham, Secret Agent feels almost cobbled together from different stories or adventures and sometimes even different genres.
In the middle of World War I, British intelligence, manifested by a man named R, pull Captain Edgar Brodie from the front line and give him a new identity, Richard Ashenden. He's sent to Switzerland and the Hotel Excelsior where a German agent is in hiding. British intelligence does not know who he is, just that he's in that hotel, so it's up to Ashenden, and the agent "wife" they provide for him, Elsa, to identify him on their own. Alongside is The General, a not general played by Peter Lorre with a wig, a mustache, and an earring. He's quite the character, and he's obviously so.
Up to this point, there's nothing particularly wrong with the picture. It's fine and functional, a solid grounding for a spy adventure to come. The problem comes at about the halfway point when they think they get their man and they end up being wrong. The movie stops cold because there's a serious moral question that comes up and it shakes the pair of secret agents rather thoroughly. Suddenly, the movie isn't a spy adventure but a drama about the effects of the spy game and the fog of war on the individual caught in the middle of it.
Except that the movie is still going to push forward with the spy adventure stuff. It's that disconnect that really undermines what's going on. It splits in two. Ashenden and the General keep on with the spy adventure (prompted by a chance meeting that gets them going again, which is never a particularly satisfying way to move a plot forward after an hour). On the other hand, Elsa keeps on with the dramatic aspect (with a healthy dose of unearned pathos from a feeling of romance that's underserved and never feels genuine), skipping out on the spy game and Ashenden completely. The fact that she ends up running away with the actual spy (the only other prominent character in the film up to that point) and meets up with Ashenden as he has figured out who it is and tries to catch up is weird.
The movie ends with an appropriately climactic chase through a train that's technically competent but comes at the end of a movie that's been a rough journey, so it has limited impact.
Is it impossible to add in a heavy theme like the morals of spycraft and the fallout from a bad choice that leads to the death of an innocent man with a spy adventure? Not in the least. I could easily imagine that combination working really well. The problem is really the Elsa character. She's not terribly convincing in any major emotional thing she does, she doesn't affect the plot despite being one of the three protagonists, and her involvement tends to slow things down more than anything else. She feels like she was added late in the writing process to add a romantic interest and the dramatic question without really bothering with the two men who actually drive the plot forward.
It's a mixed bag. There's some basically entertaining stuff, mostly deriving from Peter Lorre and the chase sequences, but the mix of genres doesn't work and Elsa is not really a good character. It's an unfortunate step down from Hitchcock's masterfully entertaining The 39 Steps. Instead of the clear adventure, we get a muddle that attempts something serious and never finds a way to integrate it well. Oh well, I'm sure this Hitchcock fellow will manage to turn things around soon.
In the middle of World War I, British intelligence, manifested by a man named R, pull Captain Edgar Brodie from the front line and give him a new identity, Richard Ashenden. He's sent to Switzerland and the Hotel Excelsior where a German agent is in hiding. British intelligence does not know who he is, just that he's in that hotel, so it's up to Ashenden, and the agent "wife" they provide for him, Elsa, to identify him on their own. Alongside is The General, a not general played by Peter Lorre with a wig, a mustache, and an earring. He's quite the character, and he's obviously so.
Up to this point, there's nothing particularly wrong with the picture. It's fine and functional, a solid grounding for a spy adventure to come. The problem comes at about the halfway point when they think they get their man and they end up being wrong. The movie stops cold because there's a serious moral question that comes up and it shakes the pair of secret agents rather thoroughly. Suddenly, the movie isn't a spy adventure but a drama about the effects of the spy game and the fog of war on the individual caught in the middle of it.
Except that the movie is still going to push forward with the spy adventure stuff. It's that disconnect that really undermines what's going on. It splits in two. Ashenden and the General keep on with the spy adventure (prompted by a chance meeting that gets them going again, which is never a particularly satisfying way to move a plot forward after an hour). On the other hand, Elsa keeps on with the dramatic aspect (with a healthy dose of unearned pathos from a feeling of romance that's underserved and never feels genuine), skipping out on the spy game and Ashenden completely. The fact that she ends up running away with the actual spy (the only other prominent character in the film up to that point) and meets up with Ashenden as he has figured out who it is and tries to catch up is weird.
The movie ends with an appropriately climactic chase through a train that's technically competent but comes at the end of a movie that's been a rough journey, so it has limited impact.
Is it impossible to add in a heavy theme like the morals of spycraft and the fallout from a bad choice that leads to the death of an innocent man with a spy adventure? Not in the least. I could easily imagine that combination working really well. The problem is really the Elsa character. She's not terribly convincing in any major emotional thing she does, she doesn't affect the plot despite being one of the three protagonists, and her involvement tends to slow things down more than anything else. She feels like she was added late in the writing process to add a romantic interest and the dramatic question without really bothering with the two men who actually drive the plot forward.
It's a mixed bag. There's some basically entertaining stuff, mostly deriving from Peter Lorre and the chase sequences, but the mix of genres doesn't work and Elsa is not really a good character. It's an unfortunate step down from Hitchcock's masterfully entertaining The 39 Steps. Instead of the clear adventure, we get a muddle that attempts something serious and never finds a way to integrate it well. Oh well, I'm sure this Hitchcock fellow will manage to turn things around soon.
- davidmvining
- Jun 21, 2020
- Permalink
Underrated Hitchcock
The only thing generic about this British thriller is its title. After that, it's a rather remarkable and suspenseful Hitchcock movie. John Gielgud plays a WWI pilot who is hired by his government as a spy. He meets up with two operatives, one who is playing the part of his wife (Madeleine Carroll) and one who is just Peter Lorre. I'm not sure what his cover was (perhaps this is just a small flaw; I think that if these were real spies they wouldn't make it very far, but I think I'm mature enough to suspend my disbelief on this kind of thing). They are in Switzerland to root out a German spy. Robert Young plays an American tourist who has a thing for Carroll. The script is excellent, with some fine dialogue. The characters are well developed. Hitchcock's direction is super-taut. The acting is just great here, especially Peter Lorre, who is just delicious. One thing to note in this movie, as well as Hitch's other 1936 film, Sabotage, in my opinion one of his greatest achievements, is the weight that death carries. In most of his other films, the death of a human being is treated rather cynically. One need only view The Trouble with Harry, which displays Hitch's wildest cynicism. I don't particularly mind this normally, but it's interesting to see the moral implications explored more fully in Secret Agent and Sabotage. 9/10.
Somerset Maugham or Hitchcock?
Those who have read Somerset Maugham's works will not find the tale unusual or fascinating. The Ashenden tales were interesting semi-autobiographical incidents published as novels and shortstories. Hitchcock's film script is built on those Maugham tales.
What then is Hitchcock's contribution? First, the casting of the young John Gielgud and the almost unrecognizable Lili Palmer alongside the scene-stealer Peter Lorre deserve credit. The editing of the chocolate factory sequence is truly remarkable, with touches of Eisenstein's editing skills. The humour of the one-armed spy dropping an empty coffin while trying to lift it was stretching Hitchcockian humour with little purpose.
What then is Hitchcock's contribution? First, the casting of the young John Gielgud and the almost unrecognizable Lili Palmer alongside the scene-stealer Peter Lorre deserve credit. The editing of the chocolate factory sequence is truly remarkable, with touches of Eisenstein's editing skills. The humour of the one-armed spy dropping an empty coffin while trying to lift it was stretching Hitchcockian humour with little purpose.
- JuguAbraham
- Apr 30, 2019
- Permalink
No Job For Amateurs
Secret Agent is filmed version of a W. Somerset Maugham novel in which Maugham relives some of his own experiences as an espionage agent during the first World War. Apparently what I got out of the film is that espionage just ain't a job for amateurs.
Maugham's protagonist here is John Gielgud and he's given a wife as part of his cover in the person of the beautiful Madeline Carroll. He's also got another companion in the person of a cheerful little assassin played by Peter Lorre. He easily steals the film from everyone involved.
Seen today, the special effects are themselves kind of amateurish with those model trains used. Of course Hollywood wasn't above doing the same thing in their B productions, but this was an A product for the British film industry by its most acclaimed director, Alfred Hitchcock.
Gielgud's supposed to investigate and finger an enemy agent who absolutely must be eliminated for reasons that are never really made clear in the film. Lorre's the professional here, maybe a little too professional when Gielgud fingers the wrong guy at first. Never mind, figures Lorre, we'll get the right one this time. Just collateral damage as the officials would say today.
Robert Young is also in the film over from America to play a helpful, but wolfish American who Carroll turns to for comfort because she's developed a real distaste for the job she has.
I'm betting that Somerset Maugham did in fact find the espionage business distasteful and wrote the same in this novel. But in this Hitchcock misfire, the only lesson I got from it was that espionage is best left to the professionals.
Maugham's protagonist here is John Gielgud and he's given a wife as part of his cover in the person of the beautiful Madeline Carroll. He's also got another companion in the person of a cheerful little assassin played by Peter Lorre. He easily steals the film from everyone involved.
Seen today, the special effects are themselves kind of amateurish with those model trains used. Of course Hollywood wasn't above doing the same thing in their B productions, but this was an A product for the British film industry by its most acclaimed director, Alfred Hitchcock.
Gielgud's supposed to investigate and finger an enemy agent who absolutely must be eliminated for reasons that are never really made clear in the film. Lorre's the professional here, maybe a little too professional when Gielgud fingers the wrong guy at first. Never mind, figures Lorre, we'll get the right one this time. Just collateral damage as the officials would say today.
Robert Young is also in the film over from America to play a helpful, but wolfish American who Carroll turns to for comfort because she's developed a real distaste for the job she has.
I'm betting that Somerset Maugham did in fact find the espionage business distasteful and wrote the same in this novel. But in this Hitchcock misfire, the only lesson I got from it was that espionage is best left to the professionals.
- bkoganbing
- Nov 7, 2007
- Permalink