User Reviews

Hitchcock frequently dismissed this film as the worst he ever made – it falls into the "lowest ebb" of his career that film analysts often refer to (the films he made, often reluctantly, between 1930 and 1934). It is always interesting to hear film-makers and film stars passing comment on their own work, particularly when naming their most and least favourite titles. What never ceases to amaze me is the way they often pick completely the wrong film to call their worst. Jack Benny despised The Horn Blows At Midnight; Frank Sinatra believed The Kissing Bandit was the nadir of his career; Michael Caine rated Ashanti as the absolute bottom of his acting barrel… yet in every case, they've picked on the wrong movie. And so it is with Waltzes From Vienna. Hitchcock may have been unhappy whilst making the film, and dismayed at the finished product, but in all fairness it is nowhere near as bad as its reputation suggests.

Johann Strauss Jr (Esmond Knight), or Schani as he calls himself, is a fairly talented young musician living under the immense shadow of his father, Johann Strauss Sr (Edmund Gwenn). Strauss Sr is a fearsome tyrant of a man, a musical legend with an ego as big as his reputation. Schani spends much of his time teaching his sweetheart Rasi (Jessie Matthews) to play the piano, and writing tunes which he dedicates to her. One day, he is approached by the wealthy Countess Helga Von Stahl (Fay Compton) who wants him to compose a waltz to go with some lyrics she has written. Rasi is engulfed with jealousy as her beloved Schani spends all his time with the Countess. And Schani himself is racked with self-doubt about his ability to come up with a suitable tune. His father has made him feel somewhat inept as a musician and he is totally convinced he isn't up to the job. In the end, Schani almost accidentally produces the Blue Danube waltz… a piece of music so spine-tingling, so perfect, that it becomes an instant sensation, much to the chagrin of his father.

There are stories of Hitchcock unleashing his frustration upon his actors during the production, often bullying them and forcing them to work unthinkable hours to get the film completed on time and on budget. If these rumours are true, it is a credit to the actors that they give such generally likable performances. Knight and Matthews are a little wooden as the lovestruck leads, but Gwenn is simply fantastic as the domineering Strauss Sr and Compton delivers a memorable turn as the designing Countess. There is a nice element of comedy in the film, and scene for scene the whole thing has been worked out cleanly and economically from start to finish. Perhaps Hitchcock's main beef with this film is that it is a soft, light-hearted romance with some features of a musical. He always was at his best doing man-on-the-run thrillers or black comedies. It is a very uncharacteristic film, and perhaps the master of suspense couldn't find anything to set his pulse racing in such material. However, my advice is: give Waltzes From Vienna a go. It's a good deal better than you might anticipate!

I don't know how historically accurate Alfred Hitchcock's 1934 operetta biopic "Waltzes from Vienna" is, but the hypothesis that Johann Strauss' "Blue Danube" might never have existed because of a juvenile romance with the baker's daughter, adds a delightful little twist to its already iconic dimension. Indeed, it is like imagining that Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to paint a beautiful woman but she couldn't make it, so he picked Mona Lisa, sometimes, historical events come close to never exist, and if you have a hard time imagining what our universal musical heritage might have been had Johann Strauss traded his piano for a baker's hat, imagine what history might have been had Hitler been accepted in that Painting School.

Still, when the film starts, we know "The Blue Danube" will exist and will become the most universally known Waltz tune, immortalized by cartoons and by a certain movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, as to convey the poetic symbiosis between the space vessel, a man's creation, and the universe, waltzing in sheer harmony. We know but it doesn't affect the enjoyment either, because like everybody, I love the theme. I'm not a musical expert but I know by just evoking the words 'Blue Danube', the melody is already playing in your head. And the most entertaining aspect of "Waltzes from Vienna" is to tell the genesis of this iconic melody, regardless of historical accuracy, when reality becomes legend, print the legend.

So, Johann Strauss (Esmond Knight) tries to make a name for himself, a twice difficult task because his name also belongs to his father (Edmund Gwenn) who's one of the greatest composers of Vienna, famous for the "Lorelei" and the "Radetzky March", and because the paternal aura inevitably overshadows the son, and affect his self-confidence. Strauss Sr. himself considers his son a dull composer, good enough to play second violin in his orchestra. Junior has no more confidence in his talent, and his romance with the lovely but directive, Rasi (Jessie Matthews) doesn't help. As the baker's daughter, she can only marry him a man who'd take care of the bakery, one that belonged to her family for four generations. So even though Strauss can't equal his father's stature, in the worst case, he'll marry a beautiful woman, so much for self-motivation.

So a kick from fate was much needed and it finally came with Countess Helga Von Stahl (Fay Compton) who asks him to compose a melody out of a poem she dedicated to the Danube. We don't know if it's the love for the man or for his talent, but in both cases, as Strauss' love or muse, she'll have the same rival. From this point, there's a funny vaudeville aspect in that love triangle whose only 'tragic' aspect lies on the way it threatens the existence of a masterpiece to come, that and many other factors like Strauss Sr.' reluctance to play for such pointless lyrics, the Countess' husband jealousy (the film's comic-relief), and even Strauss is his own enemy, thinking of giving up if the price to pay is Rasi' love. In a way, the film questions the notion of ambition and the misguiding effect of love but I might give more credit to the film than needed to, it's less a character study than the fun and enjoyable chronicles of the making of a music, and I don't think it tries to do more than that.

Hitchcock himself considered it as one of the lowest points of his career and It's true there are some bits of overacting and under-acting, and the lead protagonist doesn't strike for his charisma, but it didn't bother me because the real star of the film is "The Blue Danube", and the movie is never as exciting as when you see the things that made its creation possible. There's one magnificent sequence where Strauss visits the bakery and the melody starts to evolve, men throwing bread back and forth or tossing croissants or the sound a dough mixing inspire the whole music. So, if there ever is a scene that makes the movie, it's this one, and it's the one that most reveals some early hints of the emerging Hitchcockian touch.

Indeed, ever since Hitch made films, music took an important place within the plots, illustrating a constant harmony between music and real life, from cymbals crashing during a gunshot in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to the violin screeching notes for each knife shot in "Psycho" or the psychological leitmotiv in "Shadow of a Doubt". Hitchcock knows how to use music as an expressionist tool, especially in 1934, when the talkies were still young. Music used to accompany the plots, to serve the atmosphere, Hitchcock made music serve the plot, just like the whistled tune in the German expressionist masterpiece "M". "The Blue Danube" is the film's central piece and we only get little bits of this much loved melody, never completely sung or hummed, not until the climax finally features the whole thing and that's the emotional pay-off we all waited for.

And since cinema is a world of images, 'show and tell' you know, the ending was the perfect way to conclude Johann Strauss' journey without any words. The father is approached by a young girl, asking for an autograph, he writes his name… and calls her back, so he can add "Senior", and his smile concludes the picture. Johann Strauss made a name for himself just by forcing his father to be called 'Senior'. So you see, "Waltzes from Vienna" might belong to Hitch' period as British Gaumont contract-director and not be consider as part of his canon (it was his last musical film) but it can be seen as an enchanting interlude before serious things start with his next-project "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and not the least, in terms of music's use. So Hitch might have learned one thing or two by making "Waltzes of Vienna".

I've been working through a few British Hitchcocks lately. I decided to try "Waltzes From Vienna" {1935} a rather lesser known work about which Hitchcock himself wasn't really very enthusiastic. I think that a fluffy romantic comedy was just too much out of his comfort zone. Esmond Knight {Johann Strauss Jr} was only adequate in the role and Jessie Matthews' singing ability was very much under-utilised, as was the opportunity to use more of the entertaining music of the Strauss family. One could never really engage with the romantic relationship between the characters Knight and Matthews played. Fay Compton's Countess was reasonable enough, but again somehow seemed to lack conviction. The humour, in my opinion, was frequently forced, slapstick, predictable and unconvincing. On the other hand, the set designs are frequently quite nice for a relatively low-budget film by the standards of his later works. There was a pleasant performance of "The Blue Danube" but one has to wait so long for it and the utterly silly explanation of its inspirational source beggars belief!

What makes the film worth watching is the great performance of Edmund Gwenn as the angry, jealous and dark Johann Strauss Sr. Fittingly, he has the last word in the film when he finally relents and signs his name for a young autograph hunter. Until this point he has been the only Johann Strauss. Now he finally recognises the merit of his son's work as he adds "Senior" to his name when the autograph is signed. It's a good moment and maybe just worth the wait.

All-in-all, it's a film that makes no real demands but is worth having as an example of a very unusual sortie into the genre of the romantic musical by Hitchcock. And despite my reservations about it, I think that all Hitchcock fans would like a copy in their collection.

A Great Musical Film by Hitchcock. He made this film when he was at the lowest point of his career. But he put all of his efforts into this project.

I love the humor used in this film. I love the scenes where Esmond Knight develops his music by watching workers arrange the bread and other food.

"Fear" is one of the major elements in a Hitchcock film. In this film, we see the fear of being ignored, fear of failure, fear of losing someone you love." Edmund Gwenn was brilliant as Johann Strauss Sr. We can really see his fear through his actions and emotions. He is a man who is dedicated to the world of music. But he is getting old. And he is afraid that his career as a composer is almost over. And he is also afraid that he will be forgotten in the future years as a great composer who put all his great efforts for the world of music. For Example, Johann Strauss says to his son Young Strauss "You think I am already at a standstill. Perhaps even a back number." This is mentioned before Young Strauss plays his music in front of his father and other composers in the middle of the film. This is connected to Hitchcock's life during that time.

When Hitchcock was making this film, his career was in trouble. Like Gwenn's character Johann Strauss Sr, Hitchcock did think about his future years as a filmmaker. But I heard through Truffaut/Hitchcock audio interview that it didn't fortunately reach to a point where he "believed" his career was over. But he didn't have any projects for thriller genre during that time. So he ended up picking this musical project so that there will be some hope for him in the future as a great filmmaker.

With the help of his wife Alma Reville, he puts his fear into the character of Johann Strauss Sr. and his son Young Strauss. His wife Alma Reville co-wrote the screenplay.

Young Johann Strauss Jr. is afraid that he will never become a successful composer in the future. During that time, Hitchcock was concerned about his future career. Hitchcock's 2 previous films (Rich and Strange, No. 17) before this film were failures.

Jessie Matthews (Rasi) fears that she may lose Young Strauss to Countess Helga (Fay Compton). That's why she is jealous of Countess Helga. Fear can lead a human into becoming a cruel person. That's what see in character Johann Strauss Sr (Gwenn). In Hitchcock's film Saboteur (1942), Blind Man (Vaughan Glaser) asks his niece Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) a question "Are you frightened, Pat? Is that what makes you so cruel?" We see this through the character of Strauss Sr too. Gustav (Frank Vosper) fears that his wife is having affair with another man. Hitchcock puts some of the film's humor through Gustav.

Hitchcock used lengthy shots in this film. Hitchcock used long take technique for the first time in Juno and Paycock. Here we see some lengthy shots in the film.

This film also shows Hitchcock's ability to make a film outside thriller genre.

Although this film is ignored, still I think it is a great film from Alfred Hitchcock. Even though Hitchcock wasn't really interested in this project, still he put a great deal of effort into this film through the script and the direction.

Like I mentioned before, another thing I love about this film is the personal elements applied by Hitchcock. For Example, the scene where Rasi's father comes and talks to Rasi about Johann Strauss Jr (Esmond Knight). Rasi's father says this to Rasi - "He (Strauss Jr.) will never make a baker. He hasn't his heart in it." This is like Hitchcock saying "I am not interested in making musicals. I am interested in making films in the thriller genre." I think these elements make this film stronger, because Hitchcock is giving his personal statements to the audience through this film in a subtle way.

In a way, I "thought" Countess Helga was a cunning lady villain. Countess Helga "really" did want Strauss Jr. to become a successful musician. But she cunningly used the idea of providing a successful music career to Strauss Jr. so that she could eliminate the love relationship between Strauss Jr. and Rasi. She was interested in Strauss Jr. romantically and she also knew that Rasi was jealous. But the love Strauss Jr. and Rasi have for each other comes from the bottom of their hearts.

When Rasi tries to leave Strauss Jr. in the middle of the film, Strauss Jr. comes to her and tells her that he loves her and he sacrifices his whole music career for her by becoming a baker. Even after Rasi tries to end the romantic relationship, she comes to save her beloved Strauss Jr. when she finds out that he is in danger. It must be noted that Strauss Jr. becomes a successful music career "mainly" because of Rasi. Strauss Jr.'s musical work comes to "fruition" only after Rasi gets involved in his work. It was Rasi who gives the "music tune" of success to Strauss Jr. Not Countess Helga. Through Rasi, Strauss Jr. succeeded with his musical work. Although Strauss Jr. gets his great success as a composer, still he reveals to Rasi that he is nothing without Rasi. Despite all the conflicts, the deep romantic feelings they (Strauss Jr. and Rasi) have for each other brings them back together in the end.

I liked performances especially from Jessie Matthews, Esmond Knight, and Edmund Gwenn. My request is give this film a second chance. Afterall, it is a film from Hitchcock. I rate this film 10 out of 10.

I came upon this film through a rather accidental whim, and was immediately aware how unlike Hitchcock it felt - no fear, no thrilling suspense. But talented as I think he is, I am not a die hard fan, so was not disappointed to see him taking on a romantic musical comedy. I see now he calls it his 'lowest ebb', but to watch it you can't really tell. It is filled with lovely frames and graceful long shots, and has a pleasant air with dashes of humour. Judging by the rest of his catalogue this seems to be everything he is against, which is probably why he didn't like it, but anyone with a broader spectrum should be able to find some charm in it. In fact it is probably beneficial that an unromantic like Hitchcock filmed it, for in the hands of another it might have become too sappy, but as it stands, Hitchcock appears to know which moments are the cheesiest, and never lingers on them.

Strauss Jnr. is an aspiring classical musician, and son of a renowned one, Strauss Snr. He is in love with a bakers daughter Resi, yet tempted by the Countess, who has connections which would help him become famous. Resi is jealous of the Countess, and in order to prove his love for her, Strauss Jnr. must give up the music that he loves.

One of the biggest flaws of the film is that it never gives us enough reason to think Resi is worth the ultimatum - to think she is worth giving up your dreams for. Her character, and their relationship, is quite under developed, and thus the ultimatum becomes melodrama. To make matters worse, the original stage play, which ended with Strauss Jnr. and the Countess together, was ditched, seeing him get back together with Resi instead. One minute she appears distraught at his leaving her, the next she is declaring her love. It doesn't make a lick of sense, and is just one of those unpleasing crowd pleasers.

The music, limited as they were in their selection, is a highlight, and provides much of the films charm. I'm not sure if "The Blue Danube" bakery composure was intended as humour or not, I guess so, but either way it was great interplay between sound and image, which seems to be what Hitchcock most took out of this film. The cynic may scoff, but all artists know unlikely scenarios can birth ideas, and that scene - using bread making as inspiration for the song - is a neat depiction of it, even if a little unrealistic!

This film is not nearly as bad as many would have you believe, but neither is it a classic. It is simply a well made studio genre piece - just a different genre to the one we're used to from the director.

It is shocking to think that this is a "Hitchcock" film. On the other hand, this was made in 1934 and Alf was still finding his way. He had not defined his brand yet. This is a bizarre "comedy" that supposedly tells the story of how "The Blue Danube" came into existence. According to this movie, Johann Strauss Jr. Was working in the sub-basement bakery of his girlfriend's father, and the rhythmic tossing of loaves of bread and other inane antics somehow translated in his mind as the rhythmic pulse for "The Blue Danube."

This was insane and barely laughable, as it was so stupid. The rest of the film is just as, if not more so, bizarre. We have Johann Strauss, Sr. (Edmund Gwenn) who will not give Junior a second of his time and constantly rejects him and any melodic idea he might have. We have the sex/love-starved Countess von Stahl (Fay Compton), who sees in Junior a chance for romance, and also sees his potential as a composer. We have doll-faced Resi (Jessie Matthews), who seems to think that Junior's only responsibility in life is to worship the ground she walks on, and if that means working in her father's bakery and completely giving up his dream to be a composer, then so be it. We also have Prince Gustav (Frank Vosper), who thinks the Countess is his property and gets hysterical and violent if he thinks for a nanosecond that some other man might have interest in her.

This simply had to have been a "work-for-hire" contract for Hitchcock, and I will assume he was given directives by the studio and he carried out his task.

That said: there is absolutely nothing in this, except marveling at the huge, high-ceilinged sets, that could be considered engaging or entertaining.

If one wanted to go an extra step, one could imagine the tragedy of being Johann Strauss, Jr., who was rejected by his father, who was controlled by his girlfriend, and who was toyed with by his benefactress (the Countess), without anyone seeming to stop for one second to ask him what he wanted or how he felt. If it had been a psychological study of the hurt that this young man endured, it might have been worth watching. Instead, it was an adolescent costume drama. On top of that, the quality of the sound and the image is awful, so, unless you feel compelled to see everything Hitchcock ever laid hands on, it's my strong suggestion to run for the hills if this pops up on your feed.

There is a world of difference between Hitchcock's seven early sound films for UK's British International and this first of his Gainsborough sound films. Those seven early films were almost always deficient in the sound department and often clumsy in cinematic and editing assembly. The only standout and the only true Hitch classic from those seven is MURDER!.

Now suddenly with WALTZES FROM VIENNA we have an assured sound film, with fine cinematography, sound, art direction and costumes. Although it contains none of the Hitch touches we had come to expect from his silent and early sound career (unusual camera angles and editing tricks), and is the least Hitchcockian of any of his films, it is an assured and confident directorial effort.

It is fun to compare this to MGM's THE GREAT WALTZ of four years later. We have the same concocted group of characters: young Strauss, his bake shop fiancé, Rasi, and a countess, forming a love triangle. In the MGM film, the countess becomes an opera singer. The big difference is that in WALTZES the rivalry between the Strausses, father and son, is central to the plot. The father does not appear in the MGM version at all. WALTZES centers around the composition of ON THE BEAUTIFUL BLUE DANUBE, while MGM's film centers around the creation of TALES OF THE VIENNA WOODS.

Although Jessie Matthews (who is facially reminiscent of Ida Lupino, also a rising UK star of the era), is lovely as Rasi, she is no match for Luise Rainer in the MGM version. Likewise Fay Compton is charming and elegant as the Countess (and has a lovely singing voice), but is no match for MGM's Militza Korjus as her opera singer counterpart (who earned a deserved Oscar nom for the role). Esmond Knight in WALTZES is equally forgettable as Fernand Gravet in the MGM film as Strauss Jr. Edmund Gwenn is fine as the intolerant patriarch.

Hitch directs as if he were Ernst Lubitsch, whose elegant and humorous hand with lavish films in 19th century European Graustarkian settings dominated the early 1930s. There is a humorous scene where the Count and Countess converse through their maid and manservant in a central hall, as the two latter make out – very Lubitschian. Deft comic touches like this abound. Note that Korngold was one of the adapters of the Strauss music for the film.

The print I viewed, which was in impeccable condition, timed at 1:16:40.

To sum up, this is a lovely confection and lots of fun. It was to be a sort of intermission in Hitch's sound career. He would follow this with a series of seven more UK films, five of which are considered classics.