I suppose if you were to pick anyone to remake the classic Alfred Hitchcock film The Man Who Knew Too Much, Hitchock himself would not a bad choice. And that is just what the master of suspense did in 1956. In fact this version feels more like an extended, director's cut than a remake.The story is essentially the same. Ben (James Stewart) and Jo MacKenna(Doris Day)are vacationing in French Morocco with their son (Christopher Olson). They are quickly caught up in international intrigue and must try to stop an unknown diplomats assassination and keep their son from being harmed.
While the original stays mainly indoors keeping its action to a few set pieces. In this new version Hitchcock thrills in taking his characters, and the audience, to wild, colorful places around the world. It begins in Northern Africa and here we see many lovely shots of the country side. The action moves to London where there numerous shots inside enormous, gorgeous buildings like the Royal Albert Hall.
The opening credit sequence is beautifully done. Hitchock shoots a half orchestra playing the opening music. It takes a few moments to realize that the typical orchestrated number you are hearing over the credits is visibly being played by real people on the picture. This inventive bit is promptly ruined by an uninteresting title card played over the cymbalist.
I own the original 1934 version and recently watched it. There are many debates raging over the internet on which version is superior. Frankly, I find both version to be lacking. The original was paced quicker but suffered from several jolts in plot which created some confusion and no sympathy for the protagonists. The newer version tries to help this out by giving us over long and unmoving scenes in which the protagonists try to stretch out their characters. Jimmy Stewart does a marvelous job as usual, but Dorris Day is annoying in nearly every scene. She is pretty and plays the part of a normal, cheerful American girl, but she grits my teeth while she's on the screen. Maybe I'm just not a fan. In a scene towards the end she sings "Que Sera Sera" and to my ears it sounds like she's howling the number. One could argue that she is singing loudly for a plot purpose, but I would say it would serve the movie better if it was pretty and not harsh. In an interesting bit of trivia Ms. Day apparently didn't like the song to the point of nearly refusing to record it. It turned out to be her biggest hit, and won the Oscar that year.
Article comments
1 - Rodney Welch
The English version blows, but so do a number of Hitchcock's early films, though by no means all; Sabotage, The Lady Vanishes, and The Thirty-Nine Steps still hold up nicely. Still, Hitchcock didn't really hit his stride until he arrived in Hollywood, and most of what he did before looks like apprentice work by comparison. By the 1950s, he was at the top of his game. I think that's why there's such a night and day difference between the 1934 version, with those two dullards in the lead parts, versus the 1956 one, with such screen naturals as Stewart and Day. And, as most of his 1950s work did, it had Bernard Herrmann's score and Robert Burks' beautiful color cinematography. The script is a lot better, too; it has more of his wit. There is, also, a layer of weird obsessiveness to Stewart's good guy character, particularly in that scene where he dopes up his wife. Stewart was, of course, making a lot of films where he was showing his dark side, and Hitchcock would explore its full potential two years later in Vertigo.
2 - Mat
Ah the original version isn't that bad. There are some nice moments, and I like Peter Lore in just about anything. I got a collection of early Hitch for christmas way back when and TMWKTM is the only one I've successfully made it through.