MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1935) Discussion > Why this is the better version

Why this is the better version

posted 19 years ago by benzin
44 replies | jump to latest

As every fan of Hitchcock knows, the maestro directed two different versions
of The Man Who Knew Too Much. The 1956 version with James Stewart is much
better known, but is in actuality clearly inferior to the original 1934 British
version (My opinion, of course. No need to get angry if you disagree...).

Here are the main reasons that makes the original so much better for me.
1) No "Que Sera, Sera". Performing that song (especially by children) should
be outlawed, it really, really is horrible.

2) The kidnapped child. In the earlier version the kidnapped child was played
by the talented and beautiful Nova Pilbeam, who was 15 at the time. She was a
strong-willed character, who really contributed something to the movie. In the
1956 version the kid was some 10-year old boy, who was mainly an annoyance, and
his only contribution was singing that God-awful song (see point one).

3) The other actors. James Stewart is always a delight to watch, and I have no
complaints about him. Even Doris Day gave good enough a performance. But still,
the original movie was pretty perfectly cast. Bonus points for Peter Lorre.

4) The plot. The remake differed quite a lot plot-wise from the original. I
thought the beginning of the film worked better in Switzerland. Also I
preferred the dentist-scene to the taxidermist-scene (I saw the '56 version
when I was about ten or twelve and I knew instantly that 'Ambroce Chapel' is a
place, not a man. It's just plain stupid that it took the characters so long
to figure it out!).

The one scene that is very similar in both movies, the Royal Albert Hall scene,
is to me the only part in the remake that is better than the original.

So here you go. Anyone agree? Disagree? Anyone have different reasons for why
either of the versions is better?

--------------------
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style
Ladies vomit when I smile

[–] archer1949 15 years ago

Definitely the original. The remake is too Clean snd shiny and bright, almost Disney-like.

Jesus is my Best friend, but he still won't loan me money.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Re: no 2) - the kid actor in this 1934 film was a terrible, teeth gnashing, malnutritioned nightmare; she looked more bizarre and creepy than Peter Lorre. An awful casting choice and an awful performance. Don´t really remember the kid from the remake.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] BitterAsHell 13 years ago

I vote for the re-make.

1. I prefer the taxidermist to the dentist. Not that the dentist scene in 1 is bad(it's pretty good), but you can't beat the creepy stuffed heads symbolizing the anxiety being masked by the ostensibly polite conversation.

I also like the fact that the taxidermist turns out to be a red herring. It adds another layer of confusion to the narrative. In a good way.

2. The church from 2 is one of my all-time favorite scenes in Hitchcock, mostly because of the eerie music. The Tabernacle Of The Sun just doesn't compare. (And really, what are a bunch of sun worshippers doing having a service at night?)

3. I like the "international" flavour of the second. Maybe it's my age(born late 1960s), but I feel more affinity for the post-WW2 era, when former colonies were being brought into the global conversation, than for that whole 1930s "Oh my God, are we heading into another war?" thing that was mostly centred on Europe.

Jimmy Stewart's Provincial-American-In-Morocco still speaks to us today, I think, when the west is increasingly having to confront Islamic culture and politics(and the issue of Muslim women's headgear makes it all the more relevant).

In fairness to the original, I do agree with those who like Jill Lawrence as a character better than Jo Mckenna(can't beat a girl with a gun!) And yeah, I can do without hearing Que Sera Sera.

[–] newt_jorden 13 years ago

I always thought the original version was better

[–] mortycausa 12 years ago

I disagree. The remake has Stewart's performance, and that makes all the difference. Pictorially, the remake is as stately an orchestration as you could wish. The cinematography is beautiful--a wonderful palette for Stewart's driven father to move through.

[–] arnez88-237-649302 11 years ago

The original makes you fall asleep, the remake doesn't.

[–] domester82 11 years ago

Watched both versions tonight, one after the other, and enjoyed both.

Peter Lorre is better as the villain, than the head honcho in the remake. But I think Stewart and Day are better leads.

I loved the dentist scene. Moreso than the taxidermist one. I especially enjoyed it when the dentist wakes up and he has to gas him again! Very funny!

I like the shootist wife moreso than Doris Day's singer. She is more useful to the story, shooting the villain at the end

I haven't seen every one of Hitch's movies yet, but there haven't been any yet that I've not enjoyed, on some level.

[–] DrGlitterhouse 9 years ago

I like the shootist wife moreso than Doris Day's singer. She is more useful to the story, shooting the villain at the end

That's always been the main selling point of the original to me. I just saw the original again on the big screen yesterday, and you can add Peter Lorre's performance as the villain and the climactic shootout to my list of pluses to the original. Is there any evidence that Hitchcock was setting out one-up Fritz Lang shootouts in the first two Doctor Mabuse movies.

Je suis Charlie Hebdo.

[–] steven_torrey 11 years ago

I think the original 1934 version was far superior. The 1956 version seemed too mannered: "The Man Who Knew Too Much" STARRING, Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, DIRECTED by Alfred Hitchcock. It was like BIG TIME PRODUCTION from superannuated Hollywood types that gave mannered performances while the 1934 version clearly felt amateurish, so the story line had to be conveyed by its own force. Even looking at "Dial M for Murder" 1954--worked by virtue of its story line and not by virtue of its cast, however excellent that cast was. It was like by 1956--the cast and director were just too much in love with themselves or too aware of their being 'masters' of the acting/directing profession....

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

The dentist scene and Uncle Clive balance the loss of the taxidermy scene because I loved the latter. I vote for this version of the film too.

A bird sings and the mountain's silence deepens.