If you knowAlfred Hitchcockfor one thing, it’s suspense. Many of his movies were thrillers, and plenty of his best ones still hold up today, given there are timelessly unsettling things about the likes ofVertigo,The Birds, andPsycho, for just a few examples. Also, his thrillers tended to have some moments of dark comedy, perhaps best showcased by the likes ofRopeandNorth by Northwest.
As for making full-on comedies, Hitchcock did that less frequently, and more often during his early days as a filmmaker. The following is a rundown of all his comedies as defined by Letterboxd, for consistency’s sake, andsomething being excluded here doesn’t mean it’s lacking in comedy altogether. Also, the only other exclusion isthe relatively obscureElstree Calling, since Hitchcock was just one of several directors credited with that oddity.
10’Juno and the Paycock' (1930)
Starring: Barry Fitzgerald, Maire O’Neill, Edward Chapman
Somelegendary directors have uneven filmographies, because that’s a potential consequence when one’s active for many years and inevitably prolific as a result. Alfred Hitchcock is included in this camp, and few films of his represent the lesser side of his body of work to quite the same extent thatJuno and the Paycockdoes.
It’s a very static and dreary film, even though it’s attempting to be a comedy and a drama simultaneously.The comedy falls flat and the dramatic side of the story feels preachy and tedious. It’s about a family coming into wealth very suddenly, then exploring how that inheritance changes them for the worse, and then making them reassess what is truly valuable in life. Blah, blah, blah, so on, whatever. Probably unexciting and unengaging for its time, and especially those things nowadays.
Juno and the Paycock
9’Number Seventeen' (1932)
Starring: Leon M. Lion, Anne Grey, John Stuart
WhileNumber Seventeenis more of a thriller over anything else, it’s also a comedy in part… well, it’s trying to be one at times, at least. The plot here concerns thieves being tracked to their safe house by a detective, and chaos unfolding as a result. The film itself is chaotically constructed, too, running for just 63 minutes and trying to do too much with too many characters at the same time.
There are onlysmall moments here and there that might be funny for unintentional reasons, while the thrills fail to thrill. All this compounds to makeNumber Seventeenfeel far longer than its actual runtime, and it’s only really worth watching if, for whatever reason, you want to be able to say that you’vewatched everything Hitchcock ever directed.
Number Seventeen
8’Champagne' (1928)
Starring: Betty Balfour, Gordon Harker, Jean Bradin
There are ahandful of Alfred Hitchcock silent movies, made either before the dawn of the talkie or around the time that things transitioned between silent and dialogue-heavy cinema.Champagneis one such silent film, and probably one of the weaker ones Hitchcock directed, too, being about a rebellious young woman living off her father’s wealth and continually going against his wishes.
Some silent movies absolutely hold upand don’t feel their age, butChampagneis not something that can be counted within such a prestigious crowd. It’s pretty plodding and very one-note, failing to surprise once its main story gets underway.That could be forgiven if the emotional core of the movie had some kind of resonance, or if the attempts at humor worked a little more, but that, sadly, wasn’t to be.
7’The Farmer’s Wife' (1928)
Starring: Jameson Thomas, Lillian Hall-Davis, Gordon Harker
Many of the previously mentioned criticisms apply toThe Farmer’s Wife, which is another early Alfred Hitchcockmovie that revolves around family, relationships, and wealth, all the while being something of a dramedy, too. The titular farmer is decently well-off, but also recently widowed, which sets him on a personal journey that involves trying to find a – you guessed it – wife.
The biggest and most glaring problem at hand is the runtime ofThe Farmer’s Wife, which is over two hours for some ungodly reason. At a point, things really start feeling like they’re trudging along,but there was a little more potential here for this one to work compared to some of the aforementioned films. It’s not as outwardly terrible or misguided, but instead suffers from being too long for something that’s ultimately rather straightforward and modest in its ambitions.
The Farmer’s Wife
6’Rich and Strange' (1931)
Starring: Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont
Things are starting to approach middling territory ranking-wise, but that’s probably not very comforting. Middling is still not the sort of word you’d want to have applied to a movie, even if it’s technically better than “bad.” Andthis is waffling a bit, but there’s also so little to say about something likeRich and Strange, so that’s just where things are at.
It’s, once more, about an inheritance and the way money can change a person’s outlook on life and overall values for the worse.Rich and Strangedoesn’t havemuch by way of interesting conflictor insight into a familiar premise. It’s not too long at least, and might be ever so slightly less stilted than a few of the previously mentioned films, but that’s not enough to graduate out of that dreaded “middling” territory.
Rich and Strange
5’Waltzes from Vienna' (1934)
Starring: Edmund Gwenn, Esmond Knight, Jessie Matthews
There’s a little more by way of confidence found inWaltzes from Viennacompared to some of the other early Hitchcock comedies, and part of that shines through because this is a bitmore than just a romantic dramedy. It’s got a historical setting (Vienna, obviously, but in the 1860s), and also works as a biographical movie aboutJohann Strauss IandII… which means music also plays a significant role here.
In some small sequences here and there, things come slightly alive,but then, for other stretches of the film,Waltzes from Viennafeels a bit static and less-than-compelling. At least its status as something of an outlier within Alfred Hitchcock’s filmography makes it a little interesting, but actually sitting through it proves to be an inconsistent sort of affair at best.
Waltzes from Vienna
4’Mr. & Mrs. Smith' (1941)
Starring: Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery, Gene Raymond
Alfred Hitchcock’s1940s got off to a great startthanks to 1940 being the year that bothRebecca(his only Best Picture winner) andForeign Correspondent(often unfairly overlooked) came out. Both of those were thrillers, which made it kind of surprising that, in 1941, Hitchcock returned to the world of comedy withMr. & Mrs. Smith, which itself is overshadowed by his other 1941 movie,Suspicion.
Mr. & Mrs. Smithis actually pretty decent, though, if a little limited. It’s about two married people who find out they’re not properly married, and so some minor doubts the pair had about their marriage kind of balloon to comedic effect. Ithits the ground running, stalls a bit around the halfway point, but then ends on a very Hitchcock note. Even if it’s not one of his greatest efforts, it’s still not bad overall.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
3’Family Plot' (1976)
Starring: Barbara Harris, Bruce Dern, Karen Black
Family Plotended up being the final film Alfred Hitchcock ever directed, and though it wasn’t one of his very best, it’s still decent and can be seen as a surprisingly solid note to end things on. After all, many of Hitchcock’s earliest films were comedies or dramedies, so having his final statement as a filmmaker be a pretty goofy crime/thriller/mystery flick kind of worked.
The premise here concerns two unusual people coming across a pair of kidnappers, and all the while, there’s also a search for a missing person going on, with chaos unfolding.It’s sort of slapstick and carefree, and not always successful at those things, but at least a little interesting nonetheless.Family Plotmight not represent prime Hitchcock, but it’s also one of his better efforts as far as his comedy-centric movies are concerned.
Family Plot
2’The Trouble with Harry' (1955)
Starring: John Forsythe, Shirley MacLaine, Edmund Gwenn
There is a mystery element to the story ofThe Trouble with Harry, but things are played for laughs to a greater extent than most of the other Hitchcock thriller/mystery movies out there. It’s about a town being thrown into chaos after the discovery of a dead body, with no shortage of people in said town being individuals who might’ve had something to do with the death.
It’s a morbid idea for a film, and that morbidity clashes with the bold use of colors in a pretty effective and memorable way.The Trouble with Harrycertainly has its fair share of moments, even if it’s not quite a perfectly paced or executed movie, andis otherwise noteworthy for being the first film that Shirley MacLaine ever starred in. Not sublime, but stillworthwhile and potentially underrated stuff.
The Trouble with Harry
1’The Lady Vanishes' (1938)
Starring: Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, Paul Lukas
Going by Letterboxd,The Lady Vanishesis considered, at least in part, a comedy, even though it’s probablymost easily definable as a thriller. It takes place mostly on board a train, and does indeed involve a lady vanishing from said train, kicking off an entertaining search that has its fair share of comedic, thrilling, and even romantic moments.
The Lady Vanishesdoes a bit of everything,feeling like a crowd-pleaser sort of film in the process,and it largely works. Hitchcock balanced a good many moving parts and genres here, and the resulting movie is genuinely well-paced and something that holds up surprisingly well considering it’s now well over 80 years old. As far as pre-1940 Hitchcock movies go, this andThe 39 Stepswould have to be the most essential and worthy of seeking out.
