MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1935) Discussion > Why Would Hitchcock Remake This?

Why Would Hitchcock Remake This?

posted 18 years ago by Danespina
35 replies | jump to latest

I heard the remake of The Man Who Knew To Much (TMWKTM) was better than the orginal, so during my journey of watching all the Hitchcock films in a somewhat chronological order, I contemplated for a while if I should in some ways ruin the remake by watching the inferior orginal first. I decided to watch the orginal first with the fear that I'd never want to watch it after seeing the remake. Expecting a poor movie in need of a remake, I found myself blown away.

1. The scene in the beginning, where the couples are dancing and a muffled gunshot goes off and the man who gets shot doesen't realize what happened until he see's the blood. The was amazing! It was so well executed that I got shivers. The music, acting, and directing all just blended so well together that it is quite simple unforgettable. One of my favourite cinema moments.

2. The child actor was actually good! I usually hate casting for the young ones in films but I felt the little lady in this one actually added something to the movie.

3. The dentist scene and the hypnotist scene were great.

4. The Albert Hall scene was just beautiful. Again one of my favourite cinema moments. A must see sequence.

All together this film just worked and has jumped to be one of my favourite films of the 1930s. After watching it I just coulden't understand why Hitchcock would find a need to remake this film of his thats already so good. I'll admit, I still haven't seen the remake. But in my shoes, as of now, TMWKTM is in no more need of a remake then Sabotage, Secret Agent, or Lady Vanishes (Flightplan was meh). So what was Hitchockc reasoning behind it? Did he just want to Americanize it? Because I thought it was already very American in many aspects. Do you think the remake was worth the effort?

[–] collin-reid 18 years ago

I actually like the original better than the remake although I though the remake was quite good as well. Unfortunately, in Region One there is not a "clean" DVD to enjoy but I thought the energy, timing and quickness of the original with Lorre was better.

It must be noted Hitchcock was such a perfectionist in his movie execution that I suspect that he always found something wrong in any of his movies. Also I technically, budget, location and costume (etc.) the remake is probably better.

[–] Mik_In_Montague 17 years ago

I haven't yet seen the remake (just finished watching the original just now) but I'm guessing that after he re-watched the original, since he put so much emphasis on the reuniting scene at the end, he probably figured that didn't put enough emphasis on the kidnapped child during the rest of the movie, or the emotion that a parent would have about their child being in the hands of a killer. I'm sure he wanted to build up more familial scenes, more familial heartbreak, all for the more emotional reunion at the end. And also user a better actor in the role of the father.

[–] vollydoll 17 years ago

Hitchcock wanted to remake a lot of the films that he made in England when he came to America. The Man who knew to Much however was the only one that he was able to remake. He said that the orginal was made by an amateur. I would have to agree...some scenes were so overexposed you could barely make out the details in peoples faces...i have to say that i enjoyed the remake much more then the original

"I am not a pollack, people from poland are poles!!!!"

[–] duderunner 13 years ago

"some scenes were so overexposed you could barely make out the details in peoples faces"

I think you must have seen a duff version. The version I watched had no such problems.

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

some scenes were so overexposed you could barely make out the details in peoples faces

That has nothing do do with young Hitchcock's skill or the original photography. That was just some crappy dupe you watched. Some hack who can't even get the exposure right would have never been employed in professional capacity. It's a low budget film but it wasn't made by children in someone's back yard.

[–] numberonecubsfan 17 years ago

Having just watched it....I can clearly see why he remade it. Aside from the memorable scene with the dentist, it's otherwise a very flawed and choppy film that comes off as low-budget even by 1930's movie standards.

[–] jtyroler 17 years ago

I would imagine that there was some pressure from the studio.

[–] jayanxiety 17 years ago

There's a number of possible reasons. Maybe he didn't have enough finances to properly finance his picture to make it the way he wanted to. It's possible that he had a chance to make the film the way he had originally intended it to look, this time with a body of work behind him and now it was time to update his vision. Also, maybe the possibility of having Jimmy Stewart in the title role was a opportunity he couldn't resist. It is possible that Hitchcock had every intention of remaking his older works, yet this may have been the only one that the studio approved. Unfortunately, most of Hitchcock's later films WERE remade, but with other directors!

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

Fortunetly Hitch died before he had a chance to remake "Zontar, Thing from Venus".

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] SlamDunking 15 years ago

Zontar was one of his best films, but it would have made a great remake.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

When did he remake it -- the year after he died?

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

[–] wtdk123 12 years ago

Actually the only other film Hitchcock obsessively wanted to remake from his own work was "The Lodger". That project kept falling through although he got close when he started his own Transatlantic Pictures.

-"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense." -Steve Landesberg

[–] rollieri 12 years ago

He said several times that he wasn't sufficiently accomplished when he did the (1934) version and wanted to "get it right". However, Doris Day endlessly repeating Que Sera Sera becomes hard to take.
He never expressed any interest in returning to any other movie he had made.

Howard Roller

[–] richard.fuller1 11 years ago

rollier1: "Doris Day endlessly repeating Que Sera Sera becomes hard to take."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

She sang the song twice in the movie, once to introduce it and then at the end to find the kid's whereabouts.

[–] megArnold 17 years ago

I think it's interesting how the role of women changed from one film to another: Here we have a sports champion mother wielding a deadly gun and a daughter freeing herself on her own, as well as a somewhat inept father trying to solve everything on his own... in the remake mommy's role is restricted to sitting at the piano and belting "Que sera, sera" in order for sonny to wake up and do something...

[–] stargazer1701-1 15 years ago

I enjoyed both versions. They are clearly the same story, but different in many ways.

By the way, Yodzingie, I have the remake of ‘Zontar’ by Hitchcock. Send me 40$ in papypal and I will send you the DVD.

Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

Absolute perfection in the face of woofing. However, I know for a fack that Hitch was in negotiations for making a big budget version of Captain Z-ro. I wonder what happened to that?

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

[–] billgh4 15 years ago

I watched the remake several weeks ago, the original tonight.

I like both of them very much.

I would have to say that I like the remake better. The story felt slightly more detailed and developed, giving us more of an emotional attachment and innovating plot. The shooting scene is good in both films, though I'd have to say that in my opinion, the remake's shooting scene was far superior - built up the tension in the most ingenious manner - one of Hitchcock's best cinematic moments by my book, and why he's called the Master of Suspense.

He prolly wanted to remake it to give it a little more emotional and distressed feel (ie between the parents and the kid), changing this film from a mere mystery to a tense and emotional action-packed adventure.

Kudos to both movies!

[–] Bpaxson002 15 years ago

Really it is a case of being able to use modern technology. Hitchcock had the chance to film a very interesting story with higher production values than the original and film it in color and on widescreen. I believe of all his British movies, this is one of his favorites and was an excellent choice for a remake.

While I do enjoy the remakes, I have never liked Jimmy Stewart in the lead. The pairing of him and Doris Day was rather odd. I also think that Peter Lorie was miscast in this version. He would have been better as the shooter than as the mastermind.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] topitimo-829-270459 14 years ago

The original movie is way better. Peter Lorre is amazing, other actors too. In the remake Doris Day keeps singing that horrible song over and over again...

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poetcomic1 13 years ago

He loved the wealth of ideas in the film and back in the 1950's (outside a few revival houses in New York etc.) no one would have seen the film. This is the only way he could have gotten the film to millions again - by remaking it.

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

I prefer the remake to the original which as a previous person has stated, the use of technology played a large factor. The technology available for the remake made for a more suspensful film such as the more mobile cameras, etc.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] nsavage3-1 12 years ago

They should remake it again, now that we have CGI and other modern technology, and modern actors like Lindsy Lohan and Jason Stathum. It would be so cool now.

REMAKE! REMAKE!

[–] poetcomic1 8 years ago

Remaking a Hitchcock film is a recipe for disaster.