User Reviews

Hitchcock's first film is fascinating in that him shows him leaping, almost fully formed, onto the screen with his lifelong themes and his jaundiced views present and shockingly incorrect. The Pleasure Garden tells the story of a chorus girl, Patsy, who gives the gift of friendship to a newcomer, a rube of a girl called Jill who gets herself robbed on her first visit to the theatre and who lacks a friend, contacts and a place to stay. Patsy gives her all of these.

At first the film seems that it is going to be Jill's story, as we follow her hiring by the masher of an impresario and her quick elevation to the star of the lowbrow dance show the theatre is presenting. But it gradually becomes apparent that Patsy is the focus of the tale, as she is romanced by a friend of Jill's earnest fiancée Hugh, a rodent of a man called Levett. Levett and Patsy marry, whilst Hugh finds himself sidelined by Jill's new found stage-door-Johnny admirers. Levett and Hugh sail away to their overseas job in the colonies, leaving Patsy to pine for her husband and Jill to romance a roué Prince.

Patsy and Levett's marriage is a curious thing. He asks her that they "share our loneliness together" before he sails back to his job, which she takes as a proposal of marriage (we get the impression he was after some temporary female company). Once back in the colonies, Levett shows his true colours, shacking up with a dusky native maiden and drinking like a soak. Patsy gets word that he's sick and decides to ship out to see him, but the fare isn't easy to raise; her now wealthy old friend Jill refuses to help her point blank, and only the cosy old couple who run the house where she boards save the day. Unfortunately for Patsy, the first thing she sees when she arrives at Levett's lodgings is her husband in his native maiden's arms. There follows a denouement of rather rancid melodrama, as Levett kills his mistress, is haunted by her ghost, almost kills Patsy, is killed himself by a deus ex machina colonial superior, leaving Patsy and Hugh free to realise that they love each other.

Levett's cynical view of women (he quickly recognises Jill for what she is), his view of marriage as a mutual sharing of loneliness, his sexual obsession with his Other of a mistress, his murder of her when she puts his respectable life at risk and his haunting by the dusky temptress is a pretty lurid and provocative portrait of white middle-class masculinity soured by experience and conflicting desires. That he has to die for Hugh and Patsy to get together suggest that Hitchcock and his sources were up to the idea that respectable petit bourgeois marriage is built on the grave of all that it excludes long before the cultural and queer theorists were writing their stuff. Levett is a fascinating character, far richer and far more unknowable than the rather bland leads - the first in a long line of portraits of human oddity from The Maestro.

The film's opening sequence, as Charles Barr points out in his introduction to the recent Region 2 Network release in their The British Years box-set, has a dirty old man sitting in the front row of a theatre looking through a lens at the bodies of the dancing girls - voyeurism, the male gaze, women subjected to it all ready to go in old Hitch's very first sequence in his début film.

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.

"The Pleasure Garden" is a British/German co-production from 90 years ago and the only reason why this film is still somewhat known today I guess is because the man behind the camera was Mr. Alfred Hitchcock, in his mid-20s, with one of his earliest filmmaking efforts. He still had a long way to go to his best achievements, however. But as he was not the writer here, you cannot really blame him. The story wasn't particularly interesting. The best thing about the film was maybe the cute dog. Too bad he did not even appears in 5 scenes, even if he had the final shot. I cannot say I am familiar with anybody from the cast here, even if some of them have been prolific in film before and after this one. It is a silent (don't be fooled by the music), black-and-white film that, like so many other suffer from simply not enough intertitles to understand exactly what's going on, even if the dramatic finale was decent. Also like many other films from almost 100 years ago, this one got restored and there are several information in terms of the runtime. The version I saw was really short, barely made it beyond the 1-hour mark. Good thing though as it really wasn't a thrilling watch. Not recommended unless you're a Hitchcock completionist.

Alfred Hitchcock's The pleasure garden is a very good silent movie two young dancers' love lives are intertwined, but the film mostly focuses on Patsy and her loveless marriage. Even early in his career, we can see Alfred Hitchcock tropes taking form. Love affairs, suspicious husbands and even insanity/murder. Even a suspenseful climax, in which Patsy's husband goes crazy and tries to kill her. However, these elements aren't fully formed here. For instance, the sense of suspense only bursts out at the end, when Patsy's husband tries to kill her. And it isn't rooted in what the audience knows but the character doesn't, like Hitch's later works. She knows her husband is crazy. And, in that same scene, she is suddenly saved by the man she really loves. Later in his career, Hitchcock hated having sudden saviors come in to save the character. And while it is somewhat of a cheap move, such things have happened in great movies like Star Wars, and it works here.

In conclusion, Hitchcock'a earliest fully surviving film is a solid one, and a worth while watch for fans of his work and silent cinema.

The tendency to see greatness in the earliest extant work of a true master is understandable yet not entirely merited in this, the first feature-length film directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

We arrive upon a stage production of "Passion Flowers," a dance-hall revue where pretty girls kicking up a storm seems the main attraction. One of our "Flowers," Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli) keeps the lusty patrons at a wry distance. She opens her arms only to a new girl, Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty), who seems an innocent but quickly shows she's a woman with an agenda, and little time for friends after they serve their purpose. This includes a "dewy-eyed" fellow named Hugh Fielding (John Stuart) who is engaged to Jill but finds a truer friend in Patsy.

A dinky period melodrama with overplayed sentiment and silent-cinema quirks galore, "The Pleasure Garden" benefits from a smooth opening sequence that shows our young director in splendid form. We begin with a shot of dancing girls rushing down a spiral staircase to perform, followed by a shot of a row of male spectators, each individually expressing voyeuristic delight, capped off by the one woman in the row, who has nodded off.

I felt a bit like her well before the business of "The Pleasure Garden" had concluded. Not that "Pleasure Garden" is ever bad. It offers decent central performances and some delightful bits of business courtesy of Patsy's middle-class landlord couple and a cute dog, named "Cuddles" in the film. But the story lacks the depth and engagement of Hitchcock's better films to come.

Hitchcock does a nice job early on playing with audience expectations. Patsy's opening moments show her in a blond wig, and when one patron clumsily compliments her on her "lovely curl of hair," she takes it off her wig with a smirk. "Then I give it to you and hope you have a nice time," she says, cutting him off.

But it's Jill who turns out to be the film's heel, something anticipated in the way she pushes Cuddles off Patsy's bed in a moment no one else sees but us. Hitch loved these sort of designing women, and made much of them in other movies, but here he just trots Jill through her paces until she upstages Patsy 11 minutes in and then proceeds to shake her off once she gets herself established with the same sleazy patrons Patsy wisely avoids.

The story is much the same with the other duplicitous character in the film, a friend of Hugh's named Levet (Miles Mander, the only actor here who worked in another Hitchcock film, "Murder!"). Levet is entirely too sly and one-note to make us understand why practical Patsy jets off with him after he tells her sob stories of a lonely life on a tropical post. No surprise we find him a few minutes after marrying Patsy in the arms of a tropical-island girl he treats like a maid.

The story does nothing with Jill after establishing her true nature; we watch her coldly cut off Patsy a couple of times and wonder what made Patsy into such a victim when she had smarts and looks to spare. Valli, like Geraghty an American actress in this very British film, plays her part with too much fluttering vibrato, even if it is what the story requires. The resolution of Patsy's unhappy marriage is done in a particularly utilitarian style, Hitch showing his screen economy but not the shadings or textures of his later work.

I liked "The Pleasure Garden" more for the hints of later greatness, though the symbolism here is too often on-the-nail for its own good. When Levet is done with Patsy, he casually throws a rose he gave her into the river and tells her "Had to - it wilted." Meanwhile, her relationship with Hugh just sort of happens out of left field, with us being told by the end Cuddles knew all along.

It's a pat end for a pat film, not terrible, just stunted by the time it was made, the silent medium it was made in, and the inexperience of its maker, who managed to get much better very soon.