Number 17

Number 17

Number 17

This old Alfred Hitchcock film is extremely tough to watch, as the film (even by 1931 standards) has very poor sound and the print is pretty bad as well. Being a public domain film, it's been pretty much neglected. On top of this, the film's style is very old fashioned compared to products made by Hollywood at this same time. The simple fact is that the United States was leading the world in film technology at this point and other countries' films lacked clear and effective sound. Interestingly enough, the UK was pretty advanced in this area, as in some counties (such as Japan and China), silent films would be made well through the 1930s. Before I tell you why I really disliked the film, this can't all be blamed on technology. That's because other primitively made Hitchcock films have managed to have excellent plots that more than make up for the film's deficiencies. For example, THE SKIN GAME was made a year earlier and suffers greatly from poor sound but is still great entertainment. The problem is that not only is the technology primitive, but so is the story. It is essentially an "old dark house" film (which were very common in the era from 1920-1935) and the plot really makes no sense. The film begins with a guy walking past a long-vacant house (#17) late at night and noticing that there is someone inside. So, he goes in to investigate. Oddly, despite being an abandoned home, people then start dropping in again and again throughout the film! It was like Grand Central Station in this place!! In many ways, this film looks and feels exactly like a typical play of the time--with people walking in and out like they are going on and off stage. It all comes off as very, very contrived. Overall, a boring mess of a film that I cannot recommend and one of Hitchcock's worst films.

I am a huge Hitchcock fan-I've seen about 30 of his movies-and I'm sorry to say but this is the worse Hitch movie I've ever seen. Now of course it's dated-it's from 1932 after all. But it was just so very boring from the word go, and, in my opinion, was extremely hard to follow. True Hitchcock fans, watch it if you must, but it's one hour of your life you'll never get back.

This time waster should have the negatives burned, and the prints should be destroyed...that's how awful it is. Guess even Hitchcock did not expect every one of his flicks to be great, but this one is REALLY BAD ! Slow moving, cliché ridden---even for 1932--absurd dialog and situations and characters. He was no where near the "Master of Suspense" that he would become...but he had also done flickers that were head and shoulders above this one... "Manxman", "Champagne", AND "Blackmail" among others...why this one had to happen, I cannot say, but I agonized through it once...and that is enough. If you have not seen it, there is no urgency...unless you simply feel you must witness the foibles of good directors who made some awful clunkers.

The opening scene really got my attention with a ton of atmosphere. I loved the shadows and light and suspense as man ascends a long staircase in a spooky old house, finding a dead man at the top of the stairs and a freaked out man along with him. As it went on, though, it got a little confusing and, frankly, is so dated that it seems like something from another planet. It's an odd film, or at least that's way some of the early "talky" films were. There is a big difference in movies in the early '30s, from year to year. The "Number 17" refers to a vacant house where much of the "action" takes place. It is spooky ("atmospheric," as some critics, including me, like to say here and there) but it doesn't always keep your interest. By the time things get pieced together and you get some semblance of what is exactly going on, you may have lost interest. I know I did, but I hung with it. In the end, though, this is recommended for mainly for those who want to see everything Alfred Hitchcock did. Otherwise, I see this as too dated, even for a lot "Hitch" fans.

Thank you to reviewers who went before. I thought I might have been missing something in "Number Seventeen", something on a grand and important scale. With a dark and mysterious set up, the film continues to introduce characters that begin to confuse the story line. The one piece of information that holds the whole thing together is the telegram detailing a stolen necklace and the identity of it's thief. Purportedly sent by a detective named Barton, director Hitchcock has his audience following a bogus Barton for pretty much the length of the movie. All of this would have been a lot less interesting if not for some of the trademark Hitchcock conventions - the long spiraling stairway, the black cat, and the train as a center piece in the latter part of the movie. Unless I missed it, the director wisely chose not to make an appearance in this one, unless that was his outstretched hand at the top of the stairs. For all the intrigue concerning the missing diamonds, isn't it odd that no one ever got back to the dead body attached to that hand? I'm always ready to give some leeway to players who go out of character in support of the story, but Ben (Leon M. Lion) could not have been more of a mess. Imagine testing the trigger of a gun while directed at your head, though I understand this has actually happened in real life, and not that long ago. Having him wind up with the jewels around his neck in the closing scene seems almost like an afterthought, a neat way to add humor to the ending, but without the satisfaction of an effective resolution. Sure the mystery was solved, but we had to endure a deaf and dumb woman who could speak, Doyle as Barton, and Barton as Thorndyke. Fans of early Hitchcock concede that he had done better films prior to this one, even as he was learning his craft - "Blackmail" (1929) and "Rich and Strange" (1931), and shortly after - "The 39 Steps" (1935) and "Sabotage" (1936). I guess "Number Seventeen" is the curiosity piece in his repertoire, completists should view it, but don't feel out of sorts if you let it pass.

So what do you get if you decide to finally check out this ultra-rare early Hitchcock thriller? You get a murky plot (though with a good twist at the end), choppy editing and an all-around archaic-looking production, presented in a print so bad it's almost unviewable. There are flashes of Hitchcock's characteristic black humor, but in all honesty, this picture is ONLY for Hitchcock completists and film historians. (**)

One of Hitchcock's very early works, the film is only an hour long. the plot is a mess, too many questions remained unanswered in the end. Sometimes you'll have no idea what the characters are actually doing. The acting is below average and has too much influence of stage acting, which is not perhaps unusual in those days. But Hitchcock still manages to keep the viewer interested till the end with his mastery of creating suspense. Some of his cinematographic styles became trademark shots of suspense thrillers and are being used till this age. In this film Hichcock also uses abundant action sequences and also a few outdoor shots. In the end, the story may leave you clueless, but if you are a fan of Mr. Hitchcock, you might not want to leave it behind.