...where distraction is the main attraction.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

NOT Single Malt Report: Redbreast 12yr Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey

Label: Redbreast
Style: Single Pot Still
Age: 12 years
Maturation: Oloroso sherry casks
Country: Ireland
Alcohol by Volume: 40%


Irish whiskey, with an 'e', is distilled three times.  Scotch whisky, without the 'e', is distilled twice (except for a few bottlings).  The additional distillations smooth out the flavor and texture considerably which is why many folks take to Jamesons faster than to Johnnie Walker.  Until very recently, the malts used for Irish whiskies were never peated, thus they never had the salty smokiness of most Scotches.

The Irish whiskies you see in stores are blends: Jamesons, Powers, Bushmills, Tullamore Dew, Paddy, Michael Collins, etc.  If no age is listed then they're usually aged around three years and are a mix of malts and grains.

With the demand for Scotch swelling all over the international market, the Irish whiskey producers have risen to catch up and compete.  Irish single malts are easing onto the scene.  Accessibly to aged blends, 10 years and up, from all the labels is increasing.

Then there is Single (or Pure) Pot Still whiskey, a style and process unique to Ireland.  Irish blends are a mix of malts from pot stills and grains from column stills.  Single pot still whiskey doesn't include the column still grain spirits, but just the malted and unmalted barley spirits from pot stills.  Because it's a mix of malts, it can't be officially labelled "Single Malt", so it was given the "Single Pot Still" designation to keep it unique.

The pot still process was how Irish whiskey had been made for over 200 years before the column stills came along and allowed for mass production.  This old school pot still process is a little more expensive, a little more time consuming, but produces a devine product.  Here's a link to more specifics in case I have totally confused you.

Redbreast was one of the only pot still brands to survive throughout the years.  Only very recently have their products made it to the States.  They have a 12yr, 12yr cask strength (not in US yet), and a 15yr.

I bought a bottle of the 12 year for my birthday having never tried a sip.  It wasn't that much of a gamble because, despite all of these single malt reports, I have consumed more Whiskey than Whisky in this life.  And I've never had an Irish whiskey that I didn't like.

The bottle went very quickly.  I almost forgot to do a proper tasting...

The color is a mix of golds, pale through deep.  Lighter at the bottom of the glass, darker at the top.  The nose is full of musty molasses, sometimes peach, sometimes apple, and something ocean coastal.  A creamy texture.  And the flavor.  Delicious.  I'll try to be more specific: clean, fresh, oak, and vanilla.  And the finish is smooth vanilla with stamina.

This is one of the greatest things that has ever sat in my glass.  I've never hit it with water or ice because there's something already balanced and beautiful about it.

If you're a newbie to Irish whiskey, I'd recommend giving a couple of the blends a try first -- Jamesons, Powers, Paddy, Tullamore Dew -- to see if they're your cup of spirit.  They're available everywhere and are half the price of the aged blends, single malts, or pot stills.  If you like them, then you will love this.  And if you don't love this, please feel free to send me the rest of your bottle.

Pricing - Bargain! at $35-$45
Rating - 94  (Also, see more detailed tasting notes here.) [Ed. note: This score seems very high, even considering my Irish whiskey bias. I'll be reviewing it again in 2017 just to make sure.]

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mini-updates on movies, music, and home

This post will be much less organized than the previous one since my mind is scattered from many hours of working on stories.  So here's a list:

1.  MOVIES

Here's a full gear-shift from the previous post.  A video!

When Hitchcock's producers gave him the greenlight to turn Blackmail into a sound film, he had to figure out what to do with the accented voice of his Hungarian leading lady, Anny Ondra.  He ultimately decided to keep Anny as the lead, but have her lip-synch the dialogue while an English actress, Joan Barry, read the lines in the mic just off-camera.

Before he decided to do this, he ran some sound tests with adorable Anny.  Somehow this footage survived!

Watch Hitch drop an incredible old-school version of a That's What She Said joke:





2.  MUSIC

There's been an sudden influx of album re-releases:


Smile (The Beach Boys) - Arguably the most famous unfinished album in Pop music history dropped into the market yesterday, 44 years late, in at least four different packages -- 1 CD, 2 CD, 2 LP, and a $140 special edition.  This had been intended to be the followup to "Pet Sounds", a further revolutionizing of sound recording and songwriting.  But due to label issues, creative disagreement, and Brian Wilson's fragile state, the album was shelved before it was finished.  This pushed Wilson further into a mental illness that was later revealed to be schizophrenia.

"Smile" had been making its rounds via bootlegs for thirty-odd years.  Brian had also recorded it without the band back in 2004.  But this new set was completed with the original recordings and approval by the rest of the group.

No more songs about surfing, instead an avant-garde "teenage symphony to God."  That's going on my Wish List.

Quadrophenia (The Who) - For those who don't know me, I like The Who...to an irrational degree.  And this is my favorite studio album of theirs, and possibly anyone's, ever.  It's the Catcher in the Rye of Rock n' Roll.  It's both messier and more mature than "Tommy".  It's full of crazy love, crazy hate, and tremendous teen angst.  And like Catcher it takes on different colors and meanings as the audience gets older.  Eighteen years ago, I named my first real short story after one of the songs.  Today, I get the exact opposite meaning from that song, "The Punk And The Godfather."

I already have two previous releases of this album, so I'm going to avoid the massive release on November 15th.  There will be a double-CD (organized in a bizarre manner in order to fit in some demo recordings), a multiple-LP, a loaded iTunes LP, and a $130 special edition (with 4 CDs, the 1979 film, a hard cover book, and other Who-phernalia).


Achtung Baby (U2) - U2 rereleased THEIR BEST ALBUM (yes, their best album) yesterday for its 20th anniversary.  And yesterday, a cute little package arrived for me containing this very thing.

It was this 1991 album that got me hooked on these Irish fellas.  They had gained massive fame and fortune from the Unforgettable Fire to Joshua Tree to Rattle & Hum period, but had found themselves at a creative dead end.  So they ditched their world famous style and built their sound back up from scratch.  Gone are the politics and peaceful ruminations.  Here are seething broken hearts, the terror of unrequited longing, and spiritual disillusionment.  It's their best music and (by a considerable distance) their best writing.

The anniversary release came in FIVE parts: 1 CD, 2 CDs, a vinyl set ($140), super deluxe set ($125), and an Uber deluxe set ($435).

Okay...

Grrr...

I can't keep the rant holed up anymore.

I F***ing hate these $100+ releases!  It's an insult and punishment to the fans who cannot (legally) access the songs they want to hear without shilling out an incongruous amount of cash for RECORDED SOUND.  It's an execrable bourgeois show-off jerkoff golden-calf-wanking malignant affront and completely inappropriate in this economic climate.

It's conspicuous consumption.  It's not music.



3.  Abrupt subject change!

HOME

Kristen and I have been working on the second bedroom.  The Mold Room.  The Office To Be.

We've soaked the walls, removed the wallpaper, removed the wallpaper glue, bleached the mold, removed vents and weird wall things, and are now prepping to paint the walls and ceiling.

It's taken longer than we'd anticipated, but the work has been calmer than last month's Ceiling Spectacular had been.  Plus we've been able to work side-by-side which makes it feel more like teamwork.

The office may be ready by this weekend.  And that is great.  We'll have some before, during, and after pics once it's good to go.

A good Wednesday to you all!

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Post number 100: Deep in the cardboard maze

inside cardboard box maze
(Source)
My memory isn’t great.  The past attacks me at inopportune times.  Embarrassing memories hit when I’m in the midst of a conversation.  Hurtful old mistakes bubble up when I’m in traffic.  The erotic residue of past passions only surfaces when I’m drifting asleep.  The pleasant innocence never stops by.

I was driving back from the gym yesterday morning when I passed a handwritten sign for a local Halloween carnival.  At the bottom, in big block letters, read: MAZE FOR KIDS!

The neurological memory keeper opened the gates and something old slipped into my head and planted roots.  I don’t even remember the rest of the drive home.

I was about six years old, at least old enough to be going to Hendy Avenue School in Elmira.  It was an Autumn carnival, so it may have actually been Halloween.  It was one of those mini festivals held on a big playground in the early evening.  Bobbing for apples, dried brown and black corn husks, fat lumpy pumpkins.  Candy corn, Smarties, Necco Wafers scattered amongst the carpet of red maple leaves.

There was a maze for kids: dozens of massive cardboard boxes, bottoms cut out, taped end to end.  A brown square tunnel, curving, looping around on itself, splitting different directions.  Children crawl in one end and in thirty seconds come out the other.  It looked cool.  I wanted to do it.

I lumbered in, hands and knees, the late evening sun behind me.  The cardboard floor squashing into the mud.  I took a turn.  Then another.  Then another.  It got dark fast.  I kept going, bumping into walls, reaching out in front of me, trying to find the next turn.  Crawling and crawling, further into the darkness.  Little three- and four-year-olds climbed around me and disappeared.  I looked behind me and couldn’t see anything, nothing in front of me either.  Just more of the darkness.  The tiny laughs of toddlers drifted away and there was silence.


I'd always been a crybaby.  Not a screamer, just a sobber.  But there, in the damp abyss, I lost my little mind.

I shrieked and punched the walls until my ears rang and white knuckles bled.  It didn’t matter if other children got through the maze.  There was no way out for me.  I heard muffled voices outside but they would never find me.  I was in my own private dark place.

My nights had been full of dreams of blood and death when I was little; in fact my first memory is that of a nightmare I'd had when I was three.  In these dreams, when it was time to die, I would lay down and wait for it.  So now, I curled up on the cardboard floor, shivering.

The kid in charge of the maze, probably a sixth grader, came and got me.  When he led me back out through the exit everyone was staring at me.  All the other (much younger) children had gotten through just fine.  My parents thought that I’d gotten hurt.  No, just lost.

Now that I’m a legal adult, I cannot expect someone to save me when I’m lost in the darkness.  But some subconscious part of me still believes someone’s going to do it.  I struggle with the results of my decisions until I shut down when it gets really difficult, only to find myself in a considerably worse place than I was before.  These are challenges far short of tragedies and emergencies, but it takes a whole new fear to set in before I push forward on my own.

The decision, the struggle, the panic, and the rescue twenty-seven years ago.  I think about these things, as again I curl up on the wet cardboard floor.  And I wonder, what if they had just left me there...

Monday, October 31, 2011

The George Herman Hitchcock project, Chapter 3B: Champagne

Introduction

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2A  and  2B

Chapter 3A


HITCHCOCK
(1928-1930)
continuing from Chapter 3A...

Juno and the Paycock (1930)

The less said about this film the better, but I'm going to say it anyway.

"For the love of Christ, don't watch our film."
Anyone Anything could have directed this movie.  The mildew growing in your shower grout.  Governor Rick Perry's cowboy boots.  A jar of pickled radishes.  An empty shoe box.  A broken headlight.  The only reason I know that Hitchcock directed it is because he said he did.  More on that in a moment.

It's a statically filmed Sean O'Casey play, full of barely directed actors chewing through repetitive dialogue while employing broad Irish accents to portray broader Irish stereotypes.  I think it was supposed to be a combination of comedy and tragedy, but I cringed at the "comedy", laughed at the "tragedy", and fell asleep twice in the middle.

I kept wishing that I had a liter of the rotten potcheen the characters drank, but I would have been better off reading a whiskey label for eighty-five minutes than watching this.  The DVD transfer continually chopped off the actors' heads, which became kind of interesting.  So I pretended that their shoes were delivering the terrible performances.

Ostensibly the story's about a poor Dublin family living in the slums while the Irish Civil War rages around them.  The husband is a drunken, bloviating, layabout.  The wife complains about his inebriated slothly bloviations.  The daughter shames the family by getting knocked up outside of wedlock.  The one-armed son rats on the IRA and gets murdered for it.  There's an A-hole friend.  An A-hole bartender. And a bunch of other A-holes.

I have no doubt the play itself was of interest, but the film is not.  What's most frustrating is that Hitch was just coming off of Blackmail, his most solid film yet, and then turns in this unimaginative lazy turd.

In Hitchcock's own words:
"The film got very good notices, but I was actually ashamed, because it had nothing to do with cinema. The critics praised the picture, and I had the feeling I was dishonest, that I had stolen something." (Truffaut 69)
So what we're trying to say is that it's a fabulous film.



Murder! (1930)

Murder!

Herbert Marshall!

Brandy!

A bit of Hitchcock trivia:  Brandy makes an appearance in every single one of his films.  I don't know why.  She wasn't that good in "Moesha".

Zing?

"Listen very carefully to the sound of my handsome."
(pic Source)
There's a murder amongst a theatrical acting group.  One of the actresses is convicted by a jury and receives a death sentence.  One of the jurymen, also an actor, has second thoughts after the sentencing and leads his own investigation to get to the truth before the woman is hanged.

Yes, there are considerable logic issues with the story.  But Hitchcock and company have such a great time toying with reality, theatre, and theatre-reality that I wouldn't doubt some of the hiccups are part of the fun.  Also to be considered, Hitch's previous film was a labored (to be polite) adaptation of a theatrical piece, while this film plays with themes that surround The Theatre itself.

Plus, unlike Juno and the Paycock, the camera keeps moving and the quicker editing is tight.  Hitch even shows off a bit in one scene, dollying between two rooms, back and forth a half dozen times in one conversation, only to have all of that action dismissed by the other characters.

Some more good stuff:
-- Herbert Marshall, acting!
-- The jury: 12 Angry Men?  No, 12 Foolish People.
-- Death sentence handed down offscreen while the janitor cleans up the jury room.
-- Shadow of the gallows rising to mark time.
-- An impressively gruesome suicide.
-- A lisping transvestite mixed-racial acrobat.

And if you can catch it on Netflix (Quickster, R.I.P.) Watch Instantly, you'll get treated to two versions of the ending.

Though not at the same level as Blackmail, Murder! is an enjoyable film, especially if you like The Theatre.  Makes one look forward to the next films on Sir Alfred's slate.


Sources:
Spoto, Donald. The Art Of Alfred Hitchcock. Anchor Books, New York. 1992.
Truffaut, Francois. Hitchcock. Simon & Schuster, Paris. 1984.



RUTH
(1917)

(Source)
Ruth's pitching prowess continued in 1917, as did his relative dearth of hitting.  He led the AL in complete games by a considerable distance.  He finished 35 out of his 38 starts, a 92.1% rate, 5th best in the history of the AL up to that point.  He finished 2nd in wins, 2nd in innings, 3rd in opponent BA, 4th in WAR, but led lefties in every major pitching category.

He allowed only 2 home runs, but he hit only two home runs, again.  He led all pitchers in hits, singles, home runs, BA, OBP, SLG, and runs created but not by his previously impressive measures.  He was only brought in to pinch hit eleven times.

Boston did not make the World Series, finishing far behind the White Sox in the American League.  Their pitching continued to be the best in the league, but their hitting was amongst the weakest.  Management was sitting on a offensive gold mine, something they would begin to exploit in 1918, but only after switching managers and losing a considerable chunk of the lineup to the WWI draft.  But in 1917, the team struggled.  Ruth grew increasingly moody, picking fights in the clubhouse and on the field.  This culminated in a famous/infamous game on June 23rd.

Ruth walked the first batter on four pitches, arguing each call by umpire Brick Owens.  As the batter walked to first, Ruth cussed Owens out from the mound.  Owens threatened to toss Ruth from the game.  G.H. Ruth then declared that if he were to be tossed, he'd punch Owens in the face.  Owens made good on his threat.  The Big Bam made good on his.  He charged Owens, knocked over his catcher, and punched the umpire in the head.  Ruth was suspended and fined for his actions.  Meanwhile, Ernie Shore came in to replace Ruth.  The runner on first was caught stealing and Shore retired every single batter that came to the plate.  A perfect game.  With an asterisk.

1918 was to be much different, as mentioned above.  A new lineup.  A new manager.  No umpire punching.  A restless Ruth was going to get to bat, but first he had to prove his worth, next in Chapter 4: The 39 Steps.


Sources:
Creamer, Robert. Babe: The Legend Comes to Life. Simon & Schuster, New York. 1974.
Jenkinson, Bill. Baseball's Ultimate Power: Ranking the All-Time Greatest Distance Home Run Hitters. Lyons Press. 2010.
Jenkinson, Bill. The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs: Recrowning Baseball's Greatest Slugger. Carrol & Graf. 2007.
Montville, Leigh. The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth. Broadway Books, New York. 2006.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg 10 year

Distillery: Ardbeg
Age: 10 years
Maturation: bourbon barrels
Region: Islay
Alcohol by Volume: 46%

There have been a lot of Islays showing up on the Report recently.  That was unintentional.  They're just what I've been exploring recently.  We'll take a break from this region for a bit in order to continue reporting on a broad range of whiskies.  But before that, here's a whisky that I tried this very week...


Ardbeg is one of Laphroaig's neighbors in southern Islay.  Like Laphroaig and Lagavulin, Arbeg's malts are known for being very peaty.  These distilleries use an exceptional amount of peat smoke to dry out the malting barley at the beginning of the process.  All that smoke from a particularly intense salty peat influences the flavor of the final product.

Ardbeg is an older distillery, having started up in 1794.  They ran for almost 200 years before closing up in 1991.  In 1997 Glenmorangie purchased them, poured millions of dollars/euros/pounds into reviving the place, and have since reaped the rewards.

Ardbeg is well known for their peaty malts, often competing with other producers to create the peatiest whisky in existence.  They like to advertise the fact that their kiln and mill are amongst the oldest working kilns and mills in the world.  It helps create the PR image that their single malts are of the old school variety.

I wasn't sure how or when I'd ever get a chance to try an Ardbeg.  In the US, they're often overshadowed by those two South Islay big brothers.  But in the midst of my fantastic Sunday Night I discovered that the great little Piano Bar had Ardbeg 10 amongst its impressive selection.

The bartender started pouring it neat, looked at the green bottle, declared that it was about empty, then poured the remainder into my glass.  Never a bad thing.  It was priced reasonably too, considering Hollywood Bar prices nowadays.

The bar was dark, but using a white light background from my cellphone, I was able to somewhat eyeball the malt's color -- straw, as in hay straw.  This is fascinating because I caught some straw/hay in the nose, hidden behind some nice cream and sugar.  The elephant in the room, of course, is the peat smoke......which actually was mellower than Laphroaig's.  Or maybe I'm building up a tolerance.  It was there, but not punishing.  The ladies I was with thought it was strong, so there's that to consider.  The body/texture was oily.  The actual palate was mellow peat smoke, cereal, grass, and the straw again.  It finished calmly with light pepper.

Then I hit it with a little water; approximately 2 teaspoons.  I figured it could take it.  It was 46% ABV and it was Ardbeg's first unchillfiltered release.  It didn't cloud, but I could see the oils swimming around.  The peat smoke remained in the nose along with considerable fruit sugar and swimming pool.  Yeah, sense memories of swimming pools in Upstate New York.  The palate was all mellow peat smoke and oak.

And curiously, the finish was better -- more pepper and some bitterness.  With two teaspoons of water the finish went from early Mark Twain to late Mark Twain.

Because it sat in one of those wide-mouthed rocks glasses, it was difficult to glean anything more from the ten-year-old.  But I liked it.  I'll bet it would be great with a cigar.  Now I'm torn between the three big southern Islay producers.  I guess I'll have to give Lagavulin another try!

Pricing - Good at $40, Acceptable at $55
Rating - see note below

(NOTE: Second report and updated rating here.)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The Wednesday "What?"


Who’s got fleas?

We’ve got fleas.


OM NOM NOM NOM NOM!



















That's messed up, right there.

By “we”, I mean our condo.  And by “our condo”, I mean our condo that has no pets and had no fleas two weeks ago.  I just emptied out an entire can of Zodiac Aerosol Spray on our carpets and upholstery.  I shut the front door behind me, yelling “Goodbye fleas! You’d better be f***ing dead when I get home!”  Please feel free to co-opt that dialogue for any of your future screen- or teleplays.  You’re welcome.

A flea spray accidental high has some pretty interesting side effects.  The world just got very loud and I keep seeing cops everywhere.  That ain’t right.

Oh.  I'm at Starbucks.  How’d I get here?

My brother is in town from the bEast Coast.  The fleas are seriously endangering the pizza-grilling and whisky-sharing that I'd scheduled.  See, nobody wins.

Someday our home is going to be AWESOME.

Right?

In blog maintenance news, I’ve made some minor tweaks to the ‘About Me’, ‘Whisky Notes’, and ‘Declaration of Principles’ pages.  The most important update is that the Whisk(e)y Reports have actual stars in their ratings now.  ★★★★★.  I am clearly an HTML god.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The George Herman Hitchcock project, Chapter 3A: Champagne

Introduction

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2A and 2B


HITCHCOCK
(1928-1930)

It was an admirably busy time for Hitchcock.  He completed seven features and two short  films of varying genres, subject matter, and tone amongst the medium's most massive shift.  In the previous section, I'd covered The Farmer's Wife.  In this chapter I'll cover Champagne (light comedy), The Manxman (romantic melodrama), Blackmail (thriller), Juno and the Paycock (comedy/tragedy stage adaptation), and Murder! (a whodunit).  He also directed segments for the musicals Harmony Heaven and Elstree Calling.  AND he directed a German version of Murder! called Mary.  Sadly, these last three are unavailable for viewing.

He was wrapping up production on Blackmail when the producers came to him with the pitch to turn that silent film into Britain's very first sound feature.  So it was clear by that point, Hitch's previous films' financial successes were significant enough for the financiers to bank on him to deliver such a pivotal film.

Let's take these remaining features one by one:

Champagne (1928)

Hitchcock's next to last silent feature is a very light comedy.  Though Hitch dismisses it as "probably the lowest ebb in my output" (Truffaut 57), Champagne is much more relaxed than most of his earlier films.  Kind of goofy, a cheap sweet bubbly, a trifle that's aware of it's triviality.

A rich man is tired of his daughter's lavish partying lifestyle, so he decides to teach her a lesson and pretend that the family has lost all of their money in the stock market.  She's forced to get a job and be responsible to which she fails and succeeds at varying degrees until the ruse is revealed and she's a better person as a result.

That's the whole thing.  Not much actually happens, but some of the comedy is actually funny.  He has game actors (Betty Balfour, Jean Bradin, and Theo van Alten) whom are good with their close-ups.  The characters are all a bunch of shmoes, but they're clear and understandable enough to follow through the 85-minute runtime.  Balfour's character is much less of a coquette than any of the previous Hitchcock femmes, though she dreams up a surprise fantasy sequence wherein the bad guy physically overtakes her.

There are lovely bookend shots of champagne being emptied and action being seen through the bottom of the glass like so:
(Source)
And though there's no sound, the bounty of silent dialogue spoken throughout the film shows some level of subconscious(?) yearning for audio on Hitchcock's part.  Either that or he got a little lazy with this one, which he'd almost admitted.

(On a side note, the crummy DVD had terribly matched random classical music running throughout the film.  It distracted because it never fit any of the action and overlapped scenes and shots.  "Bolero" worked really well when it randomly came up, but that's probably because Ravel's composition feels so cinematic.)

Ultimately, the movie is paper thin, but should not be completely written off as a waste of time.



The Manxman (1929)

On the other hand, there's The Manxman.  Hitch had nothing nice to say about this one either.  And neither do I.

In what the great Hitchcock expert Donald Spoto described as "this relentlessly unhappy melodrama" (Spoto 19), a love triangle forms between three friends on the Isle of Man: a sailor, a judge, and a gaspingly irresponsible coquette.  The Flirt's been hooking up with the sailor for some time, but because he's poor he's not allowed to marry her.  So he leaves, declaring that he'll return with great wealth.  She promises him that she'll wait for his return.  She then almost immediately starts shagging his best friend, the judge.  A letter arrives saying that the sailor died at sea.  She declares her undying love for the judge.  Then (for reasons unexplained) the letter turns out not to be true.  The sailor returns home a success.  He gets the coquette's hand in marriage.  Neither the woman nor the judge have the fortitude to tell the sailor.  After the wedding, the coquette reveals that she's pregnant.  But it's not the sailor's child, it's the judge's!  And they still don't tell anyone!  The baby is born.  The sailor raises the kid.  The woman runs away.  She tries to kill herself.  Then everything is revealed in an interminably drawn out court sequence.

The best thing about this movie is that the Director of Photography's name is Jack Cox.  Actually Jack Cox was Hitch's DP eight times.  Jack Cox.

The male leads are from earlier Hitchcock films, each playing similar roles to their previous ones.  Pete the Sailor is played by Carl Brisson, who was the "good guy" from The Ring.  Malcolm Keen, the paranoid police boyfriend from the The Lodger plays Philip the Judge.  Anny Ondra who plays Kate is incredibly cute, but that doesn't distract from the fact that either her character is callous and daft or she's the true antagonist, destroying everything by taking no responsibility for her whims.

The film is frustratingly predictable.  I wound up unpacking five boxes of books while the story lumped along.  I described it to my wife as "The film before Hitchcock got his sh*t together."



Blackmail (1929)

The film wherein Hitchcock got his sh*t together.

Or to phrase it less crassly, Blackmail is of great artistic and historical interest.

As mentioned earlier, this was the first British sound film.  Unlike the US's Jazz Singer, Blackmail utilizes sound carefully, imaginatively, and effectively, much like Fritz Lang's M (Germany's first talkie).  There are long periods of silence where dialogue is unnecessary.  The word "knife" is repeated as a POV audio moment as a character mulls over her crime.  A bird chirps incessantly building up suspense.

There's great Expressionist-style high contrast lighting throughout the fast well-edited opening.  And there are fantastic distorted visuals throughout the British Museum chase at the climax.

(Source)

And there's this...
(Source)
...from a scene (34 minutes in) where it feels like Hitchcock has first pulled everything together:  blondes, sexuality, violence, suspense, morality, and questioning innocence.  Negligee and knives. The moment just clicks.  A birth of something new, taken from elements that were already there, like Pete Townsend discovering power chords.  I recommend clicking on the image to enlarge.  Along with the murdered child's balloon caught in electrical wires in Lang's M, this is one of the great visceral visual moments in the early sound era.

Oh yeah, there's a story in this film too.  PLOT SPOILERS HERE ON IN!

Alice (Anny Ondra, again, hot hot hot) ditches her detective boyfriend for another man; a horny artist that tries to take advantage of her.  He sexually assaults her, she defends herself with the above blade.  Then he quite dead.  She runs away.  The body is found.  While combing the scene the policeman-boyfriend finds her gloves.  He pockets the evidence, trying to shield her.  But there's a criminal who had witnessed her leaving the scene.  He blackmails both her and the policeman.  The policeman pins the murder on the blackmailer.  The police chase the blackmailer, who then falls to his death.  Alice goes to the police chief to confess, but their conversation is cut off.  And her boyfriend leads her away, her confession never delivered.

The film isn't perfect (it takes much too long to get going) but it's full of so many visual and auditory flourishes that it stands a full head over The Lodger.  But Blackmail's flourishes serve to bolster the storytelling of the film.  The aforementioned "knife" scene gets the viewer into Annie's head as she obsesses over her crime.  The heightened imagery of the chase sequence illustrates the twisted moral morass of the moment.

But I must stress this because it's an important part of Hitch's cinema:  In Blackmail, he is never asking us to meditate on society's ills.  He's crafting a piece of grand entertainment.  So if you like this particular flavor of cinematic ice cream, I recommend this film.



In Part B, I'll cover the last two films from this period, as well as George Herman Ruth's 1917 season.

TO BE CONTINUED...


Sources:
Spoto, Donald. The Art Of Alfred Hitchcock. Anchor Books, New York. 1992.
Truffaut, Francois. Hitchcock. Simon & Schuster, Paris. 1984.