As an Ivor Novello enthusiast (you don't have to be nearly in your grave to be interested in this superlative Welsh superstar of the earlier 20th century!) my prime purpose in buying this DVD was to have an Ivor Novello talkie since the only other movie I have of him is the famous silent Lodger. So it was a delight to hear and see him in action. Also a delight to for the first time see him playing piano live.
I presume the director decided this movie must not be a copy of the marvellous expressionist 1926 Hitchcock movie. So Novello is required to be relatively "normal" rather than as in the silent movie when his behaviour is so often disturbing. Unfortunately the normalness removes some of the tension. The Lodger still has opportunities to look guilty, but not enough.
*****spoiler********
I think we understand far too soon that the lodger is not the Avenger. In the earlier movie, we could still wonder even after someone else is arrested when caught in the act. Seminal moments that are used to full effect by Hitchcock are glossed over in 1932, especially the Lodger's arrival in the fog which isn't sinister enough and his demand to have the pictures of pretty women removed - 1926 he turns them to the wall as in the book, so why change this in 1932 to a weak protest about preferring plain walls? The romance with Daisy is nicely acted and Novello is very accomplished at love scenes (no wonder women adored him) but lacks the startling charisma between Novello and the actress June in 1926 and the tension is lost somewhat when the Lodger says too much too soon re himself to Daisy.
Daisy's parents are well acted although the landlady doesn't in this movie have that strange relationship with the Lodger that is in the other movie to some extent and very strongly in the book.
Joe the brash journalist is well played by very young Jack Hawkins.
The finale is rather weak. Does the Lodger (Michel) actually murder his brother the Avenger? It seems so unless the Avenger has a heart attack and dies after Michel has prevented him killing Daisy. As both parts are played by Novello, we don't actually see the Avenger's death, just Michel crouching over his brother. It seems clear from Michel's weeping statement afterwards that he did actually commit murder or thinks he did in order to free his brother from the misery of his insanity.
Daisy comforts Michel and says he is now safe, no one can hurt him now. But we don't learn if Michel is to be free - or will he be hanged for murder? Impossible to know without some further information although it's ominous as Michel has no wish to hide what he has, or thinks he has, done. The movie stops here very abruptly.
Annoying too to learn this version I have is probably shortened by about 20 minutes. Does this mean there are further scenes which show what happens next and what else is missing?
I don't entirely agree with those reviews that say this is a weak movie but it's certainly not as good as the 1926 and the unfortunate American title (the original title was also The Lodger) which belittles this classic story into any old horror story. However, one is comparing good with exceptional.
I happened to see a later version of this story with Jack Palance which is good on tension and stays more closely to the book so it seems clear the Lodger is the Avenger. Palance acts the part very well although lacks that amazing charisma Novello has that lights up the screen no matter what he does. But Palance isn't meant to be beautiful but fated which was so often Novello's movie setup, but instead inspires plenty of fear at his increasingly obvious strangeness.
There's a magnificent book "Ivor Novello Screen Idol" by Michael Williams that delves deep into the Lodger, Novello's style, etc, and explains a great deal about expressionism and Hitchcock. Rewatching The Lodger both versions after reading this book was particularly interesting.
Note the pun in the Lodger's name in this movie? Michel Angelo - Michaelangelo. I wonder who thought that up - possibly Novello who so we're told had a wicked sense of humour.
I presume the director decided this movie must not be a copy of the marvellous expressionist 1926 Hitchcock movie. So Novello is required to be relatively "normal" rather than as in the silent movie when his behaviour is so often disturbing. Unfortunately the normalness removes some of the tension. The Lodger still has opportunities to look guilty, but not enough.
*****spoiler********
I think we understand far too soon that the lodger is not the Avenger. In the earlier movie, we could still wonder even after someone else is arrested when caught in the act. Seminal moments that are used to full effect by Hitchcock are glossed over in 1932, especially the Lodger's arrival in the fog which isn't sinister enough and his demand to have the pictures of pretty women removed - 1926 he turns them to the wall as in the book, so why change this in 1932 to a weak protest about preferring plain walls? The romance with Daisy is nicely acted and Novello is very accomplished at love scenes (no wonder women adored him) but lacks the startling charisma between Novello and the actress June in 1926 and the tension is lost somewhat when the Lodger says too much too soon re himself to Daisy.
Daisy's parents are well acted although the landlady doesn't in this movie have that strange relationship with the Lodger that is in the other movie to some extent and very strongly in the book.
Joe the brash journalist is well played by very young Jack Hawkins.
The finale is rather weak. Does the Lodger (Michel) actually murder his brother the Avenger? It seems so unless the Avenger has a heart attack and dies after Michel has prevented him killing Daisy. As both parts are played by Novello, we don't actually see the Avenger's death, just Michel crouching over his brother. It seems clear from Michel's weeping statement afterwards that he did actually commit murder or thinks he did in order to free his brother from the misery of his insanity.
Daisy comforts Michel and says he is now safe, no one can hurt him now. But we don't learn if Michel is to be free - or will he be hanged for murder? Impossible to know without some further information although it's ominous as Michel has no wish to hide what he has, or thinks he has, done. The movie stops here very abruptly.
Annoying too to learn this version I have is probably shortened by about 20 minutes. Does this mean there are further scenes which show what happens next and what else is missing?
I don't entirely agree with those reviews that say this is a weak movie but it's certainly not as good as the 1926 and the unfortunate American title (the original title was also The Lodger) which belittles this classic story into any old horror story. However, one is comparing good with exceptional.
I happened to see a later version of this story with Jack Palance which is good on tension and stays more closely to the book so it seems clear the Lodger is the Avenger. Palance acts the part very well although lacks that amazing charisma Novello has that lights up the screen no matter what he does. But Palance isn't meant to be beautiful but fated which was so often Novello's movie setup, but instead inspires plenty of fear at his increasingly obvious strangeness.
There's a magnificent book "Ivor Novello Screen Idol" by Michael Williams that delves deep into the Lodger, Novello's style, etc, and explains a great deal about expressionism and Hitchcock. Rewatching The Lodger both versions after reading this book was particularly interesting.
Note the pun in the Lodger's name in this movie? Michel Angelo - Michaelangelo. I wonder who thought that up - possibly Novello who so we're told had a wicked sense of humour.