The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

Much like Blackmail, The Lodger looks and feels like a Hitchcock piece.  But The Lodger is even better.

It’s about a series of murders committed by the neighborhood’s Jack the Ripper type killer called “the Avenger.”  Seven golden-haired girls have already bit the dust and the culprit is still at large.  Then, at the Bunting residence, a new tenant (Ivor Novello) arrives interested in their room for rent.  He’s very reserved, pays in advance, and is oddly frightened by golden-haired lady pictures  donning the walls.  Then, after first glance of golden-haired daughter Daisy (June Tripp… though apparently her screen name is simply “June”), this duo are instantly attracted to one another.  (There is no short supply of golden-haired chicks floating around, hence the periodic “To-night ‘Golden Curls’” memo – where, in fact, the blondies attempt to hide their golden locks for fear of being labeled as potential victims).

Daisy’s policeman beau Joe (Malcolm Keen) is assigned to the Avenger case and is definitely into Daisy’s new interest.  One evening Mrs. Bunting (Marie Ault) catches the lodger sneaking out in the middle of the night and the next morning another dead golden-haired girl is discovered – around the corner from their home.  Could the Avenger be the lodger? (he does have a name, by the way – Jonathan)

The Lodger is an excellent silent ranking in my top 3 early Hitchcocks.  It’s suspensful and excellently sets an apprehensive mood.  Our leading lady is an interesting character though at times a little much.  The other actors are quite good, particularly Ivor Novello.  The musical score (though better than Champagne) felt like the same three themes on repeat, but at least it was applicable.  Where history is concerned, this is the true molding for the master’s future career as it is his earliest to have survived in its entirety.  All in all a really great piece of work. 8/10

The Ring (1927)

I’m sick today. I’ve been sick for a few days actually… but not all is lost. I just get to watch a few more movies than usual. 

I’ve actually been compiling over 20 different “blah blah blah movies to see before you die” lists including those from  Empire Magazine, AFI, Yahoo, Roger Ebert and also all the Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress and Director Oscar winners. That alone includes over 1000 movies. I look at such lists and I find that I KNOW 95% of the movies just from my film knowledge but I’ve seen only about 15%. This frustrates me at first… but then I remember that I’m only 18. I’ve got lots of time to catch up.

I’ve been continuing to watch more old Hitchcock movies. For some reason I have this issue of keeping separate the main male characters. Me: “Wait, is that the husband or the lover?” My mom: “It’s the husband, he’s the BALD one…” I’m finding, however, that they are worth the time for historical purposes if nothing else. Many of these “comedies” are so unlike the Master of Suspense’s later work that it’s delightful to catch small glimpses of certain Hitchcockesque filming angles or other such qualities and techniques.

You’ve got your Rockys, your Raging Bulls and your Cinderella Storys… but go much earlier than 1947′s Body and Soul and you won’t find many movies centered around boxing. As I watched this movie, I thought how few films about boxing could have been made before 1930, so a silent dramedy about boxing in 1927 would have been something new to the British screen. That in and of itself is commendable. Since watching I have done a bit of research and found films such as the 1926 Buster Keaton movie Battling Butler or The Champ in 1931, neither of which I have seen. I remain, however, that The Ring was daring for its time.

The film itself was interesting, though not necessarily worth watching twice. The plot centers around a love triangle and the two lead men fighting (literally) for her (undeserving) heart. There were very few title cards, but the plot was predictable enough with them. I was especially impressed with the fight scenes, which were cinematically awesome for 1927, and I enjoyed one particular scene in which the two opposing men are dancing back-to-back in front of the camera while searching for one another. It was some very clever camera work.

I can’t say I enjoyed this film. I would say that I appreciated it. But I’d still take Rocky. 4/10