Review of The Pleasure Garden

Alfred Hitchcock's films are often analysis by film critics, film students and filmmakers alike. Memorable Films like 1940 'Rebecca', 1948 'Rope', 1959's 'North by Northwest', & 1963's 'The Birds' are some of his most study. Yet, the 1925's silent film, 'Pleasure Garden' is not one of his films, well-known. In my opinion, it equally worthy of seeing and dissecting, even if some parts of the film was a bit boring. Made way before the director became the master of suspense. 'Pleasure Garden' is the director full feature debut after filming short films for years. While, Hitchcock fashioned for himself a recognizable directorial style, over a career spanning more than half a century. His stylistic trademarks begun to take shape here. You see it, in the opening scene, where he use the camera to mimic a person's gaze, forcing viewers to engage in a form of voyeurism like 1954's 'Rear Window' or 1960's 'Psycho'. Lots of surprising, raciness sexual overtones in this film. It's rare to see that much 'skin', in this time period of filmmaking history. There is also a spiral staircase in the opening of this movie like 1958's 'Vertigo', use as a motif for impending danger or suspense. Still, if you hoping for something like a serious psychological thriller, then this film might not be for you. Most of the film is told through ditzy romantic & comedy. Don't get me wrong, the cheesy comedy parts were fine and I did like the dog, "Cuddles", but there were a few things that could had made this film, a lot better. First off, I think the film could had juxtaposing the humor against some of the heavy subject matter, a lot better. The horror part of the film, really comes out of nowhere with the film turning an odd slasher film. I think, the movie needed a better way of foreshadowing it. Another problem with this film is missing a strong 'MacGuffin' for the protagonist to pursue. The movie is almost directionless, and bit too melodrama, because of it. The first half of the film looks nothing like the second half, at all. It seems like two different movies, sloppy edited together with lots of pacing issues. Because of this, it become very jarring to watch at times. Based on a novel of the same name by Oliver Sandys AKA Marguerite Florence Barclay, the plot is supposed to tell the story of two chorus girls, Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty) & Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli) at the Pleasure Garden Theatre in London and their troubled relationships. While, at first, it seems, like Jill Cheyne will be the protagonist of this story, due to her strong desires to be a dancer; it became apparent, that Patsy is indeed the main focus of this film with her melodramatic with her husband, Levett (Miles Mander). This wouldn't be a problem, if Patsy wasn't so bland. She really wasn't that interesting. I think the movie could had solve it, if they kept with the chorus theme, even when the two main actresses can't dance worth crap. Why, because it would allow, the good hearted Patsy and the self-center gold digger, Jill to have some competition with each other. I kinda like the rivalry, between the uber rich and the middle class. It would make a better movie. It would be like something similar to 1924s 'White Shadow' movie theme. Instead, the second half also takes us, out of the interesting, yet sexy world of Chorus dancing, into the out of place, plains of the British Empire colonies. While, in truth, these movie sequence is indeed, shot in Italy; in story it's supposed to be, Africa. At least, what's I believe is supposed to be, Africa. In my opinion, it looks more like, Malaysia or Indonesia, based on how the location & people look. I really couldn't buy, it being Africa, at all. To make it worst, there were a numerous mishaps surrounding the production such as the film stock being confiscated by Italian customs officials & a whole load of expenses going missing. For a Hitchcock movie, I really surprised by the lack of any exotic & adventurous with this location. Because of that, it was somewhat dreary. Even the supporting actors, were a mixed bag for me. Miles Mander was alright for the villain, but I really didn't care for John Stuart as love interest, Hugh Fielding. I found his character to be, just as dull as Patsy. I couldn't care for their clumsy totally unmotivated Deus ex Machina love affair. It was just awkward to watch. No wonder why, not a lot of people watch this movie, when it came out. To add to the misery, there was no cameo from Alfred Hitchcock. So don't bother, looking for it. The film was not actually much liked by the distributors as well, who took exception to its European-influenced 'arty' touches and a violent shooting near the end. It was only released after the success of Hitchcock's next picture, 1927's 'The Lodger'. Since then it has existed in a bewildering number of hack versions often containing alternate or cut footage but recently most DVDs has fully restored the film to its original 90 mins from five different edits. Just make sure, you get the right DVD if you choose to watch this movie. Still, the print used for most of these DVDs, clearly seen better days. So, don't be surprised to see rather heavy contrast, and plenty of scratches and speckles. The music score composed and performed by Lee Erwin, was surprising, well done, but its mono, so it's not saying much. Overall: I have to say, this dinky period melodrama lacks the depth and engagement of the director's better films to come. Still, it's worth checking out for any Hitchcock fan, even if it's just for analyzing all of his work.