MovieChat Forums > The Lady Vanishes (1938) Discussion > Not one of Hitchcocks best. Lots of plot...

Not one of Hitchcocks best. Lots of plotholes. Doesn't deserve top 250

posted 16 years ago by fp_ff_fp
40 replies | jump to latest

Overall, considering the era in which it was released, I can understand why people then thought this movie was great.
However, I think this movie cannot stand the test of time. Lots of inconsistencies, plot holes and other general amateurish direction.
I would rate this movie a 6/10. Certainly doesn't deserve being in the top 250 movies of all time. No way. Its a very simplistic movie with lots of amateurish direction and plot. Definitely films of 1938 had more intelligence than that.

Some of the plotholes -

1. Bad guy with the gun given to passengers holds the heroine at gun point before the train starts moving. Then the train starts moving and he disappears !?
What became of him ? Meaningless.

2. The bad guy at the end gets knocked over, they steal his gun which seems to fire endless bullets before they finally realize it has only one bullet left.
I must've counted like some 20-25 bullets fired from it. WTF ? That felt terrible

3. They train lines of Europe are all interconnected ? They can drive their train across the border with no checkpoint ? Especially when they are having some military style folks around ?

4. They decoupled the train and went through some long chase instead of storming the stopped train at the station and arresting the old lady ?

5. They shoot the old lady who seems to be either dead or not. Next scene, they're chasing the now moving train ? WTF ? What happened to checking up on whether she's dead or not ? Ridiculous.

6. They know where the single train switch is to switch tracks ? And they can throw it that easy ? ( ok this may be possible given 1938 ) but still its absurd

7. The bad guys have a ridiculous shootout. 2 cars of armed men (say around 7-8 at least ) and they don't go around the train or storm it. Just fire from some distance away ? The whole shooting scene was ridiculous

8. The old lady is in the middle of some hostile country possibly chased by bad guys and makes it back to England even before the hero/heroine.
This looked the inspiration for Steven Spielbergs War of the worlds end scene where Tom Cruises son makes it to Boston from an unbelievable no-win scenario.

9. The train has doors on both sides. There was no need to hoist the old lady through the window.

10. High body count in the movie - so many people killed easily. And the hero conveniently can be a musician and knows how to drive a train. Moronic

11. They don't bother interviewing anyone else re. the old lady. All this elaborate plot to capture her from a moving train when they could've done it easier at the hotel where they tried but failed.

Anyways, there's more plotholes these.
The movie is definitely not worth being in the top 250.

[–] capricious_nature 16 years ago

Hitchcock once referred to people who go through films looking for plotholes as the 'plausibles'. They ruin the movie for everyone else and can't just enjoy cinema for what it is. I'm not going to address all your rather slight problems--see the posts in the thread entitled 'Psycho and this crap from the same person' if you want answers. But for God's sake, why do you feel the need to poke very small holes in what is otherwise a very good film? Sigh.

~There's a man in my office holding a hatrack. I'll have to call you back~

[–] fp_ff_fp 16 years ago

Simple minded people exercise no intelligence and are content to eat buttered popcorn and whatever the director feeds them. To them, they don't want to get tired by exercising their brain and trying to figure things out by analyzing situations. Plotholes in a movie are a result of analyzing the movie.
What I have listed are plotholes. Plain and simple. Some glaring, some not so glaring. I, for one, like to analyze movies and discuss intellectual points on movies and get clarifications for plotholes or share ridiculousness of movies and their plotholes. This movie is not the masterpiece I have come to expect from Hitchcock, perhaps because it was early in his career but still, this movie doesn't deserve to be in the top 250.
You can enjoy your popcorn.

[–] capricious_nature 16 years ago

Junior, go back to the Star Trek board and lodge your complaints. Read the responses in the thread I directed you to, rather than posting the same damn thing a second time. And learn to appreciate cinema instead of nitpicking. I don't have the time or energy to repeat what I've said on the same before, several times. Since going to another thread appears impossible for you, I'll paste what I said there:

The Lady Vanishes is considered, and rightly so, to be one of Hitchcock's best British films (along with The 39 Steps). The brilliance of the first half hour is that it opens like a screwball comedy, introducing the male and female leads and the cast of eccentric characters that provide pure comedy. Then it switches tack once we get on the train: a little old lady disappears. Fine. Why? Did she ever even exist? Surely others have seen her, or is the entire first section created out of Iris's shaken imagination? And why would anyone want to do away with a sweet little governess? Hitchcock manipulates the audience's perception: as Iris questions her own sanity, so do we question ours. What have we actually been watching?

Is the movie flawed? Oh, undoubtedly. But, like most modern day action films, you have to take what you're watching with a grain of salt. Does anyone complain that Jason Bourne really can't leap from roof-top to rooftop in the pursuit of an assassin? No, not really, because we're conditioned to accept that he can. I can give fairly satisfactory explanations for a lot of your objections. For instance, we don't know what the doctor said to the railway men to get them to detach the train. Perhaps he gave an intelligent reason for it, less suspicious than gathering a large group of men together to have the train searched. Besides, they're parked at a train station, giving Miss Froy et al a reasonable chance to get off and escape in the crowd. Diverting them to a deserted area isolates them and makes it easier to capture them. Finally, a battle and shootout in the middle of a train station, in which at least three people will have to be killed, would definitely create an international incident. All of which argues for the doctor's intelligence in getting them away from the public.

There are a number of intelligent responses on that thread that you might be well served by reading. I'm not saying that the film is a masterpiece, but it's damn close. Peace.

~There's a man in my office holding a hatrack. I'll have to call you back~

[–] fp_ff_fp 16 years ago

None of what your explanations are happened in the movie which is what that counts. This film is no masterpiece. Hitchcock made several films that are masterpieces.
I consider a film to be a masterpiece if it can stand the test of time.
eg. 2001 : A Space Odyssey.
See it today and its cerebral content still tickles you.
This movie doesn't stand the test of time. You are bothered by the glaring plotholes. Sure, the film opened with a different note but with a title like "The Lady Vanishes" you know its not a screwball comedy from the start. Also, you got the sense from the murders that took place. It also wasn't explained why the singer who was singing below the lady's hotel room was murdered ? Was he the informant passing the song clue to Ms. Froy ? Not explained.
Who dropped the thing at the station missing Froy and hitting the heroine accidentally. Not explained. Were they trying to kill her or capture her ? Not explained. etc. etc. etc.
The movie is more flawed than you will admit. Either you're deluded or you cannot admit you are wrong. This movie doesn't deserve to be in the top 250.

Just because its Hitchcock doesn't automatically make it a masterpiece.
Like I said before, simple minded folk will find this movie a masterpiece.
I respectfully disagree. If you really want to see good cerebral movies, watch The Following or Memento or 12 Monkeys. Don't just buy into a movies hype. Have your own opinion.

And btw, Star Trek 2009 was a great movie.

[–] capricious_nature 16 years ago

1. Yes, he was singing the same song she later says is the code. Doesn't need an explanation for those who pay attention.

2. The box was dropped apparently by the operatives after Miss Froy. They are trying to kill her, or at least get rid of her, as Dr. Hartz talks about later.

No, there is no one who stands around and explicates this issue. There is no, "here's what happened and why" speech. Why? Because the film doesn't need it.

Your apparent problem is that everything is not spelled out for you, that you actually have to work at something. What is more, this isn't a cerebral hack job like Memento, that loses all its fascination once you've seen it one time. It's a nice little romantic thriller, with excellent acting (one of the better British casts of the time period), a good shot of comedy, and a well-constructed (though not flawless) plot. It's no Psycho, but then it doesn't want to be.

Simple minded people are fooled by movies like Memento, that hold pretensions to intelligent filmmaking and are actually remarkable sleights of hand that lose their interest once the trick is discovered. At least three top Hitchcock scholars consider The Lady Vanishes to be the best film of Hitchcock's British period. Sorry you can't agree with them.

~There's a man in my office holding a hatrack. I'll have to call you back~

[–] sevenwaves 15 years ago

If you're going to complain about people who "exercise no intelligence and are content to eat buttered popcorn and whatever the director feeds them," you might want to pay more attention to the movie you're discussing. The serenading musician sings the same tune that is later revealed to be Mrs. Froy's code. The movie has plenty of plot holes (um, weren't the two leads poisoned?!), but that's not one of them.

I have to say also that I think you're misunderstanding what fans of The Lady Vanishes enjoy about it. It's not so much the plot as it is the humor, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the two leads. Anyway, aren't plot holes and implausibilities par for the course for Hitchcock?

[–] billgh4 15 years ago

I really don't want to get in a fight about this. I really don't.
But I just don't understand this.

Taken from the 2001: A Space Odyssey goofs:

Factual errors: In one of 2001's best known visuals, the moon shuttle stewardess turns upside down to go from the cabin to the cockpit. Although there is no "up" in space, this is not a practical ship design: when it enters an atmosphere, one or the other will be upside down at landing. They can't have it both ways, literally.

Plot holes: Spacecraft will always have redundant computer systems. Even with the HAL9000 series having had up until then flawless operations, no craft in deep space would be without one or more back up systems, especially for life support on the crew that were in suspended animation.

Factual errors: During Bowman's EVA, stars are moving by, as though the ship was moving at about 5 light years (30 trillion miles) per second. In reality the star field would be stationary. Discovery's velocity of 28 miles per second is insignificant relative to interstellar distances.

Errors in geography: Earth should appear closer to the horizon at Clavius than at Tycho, not vice versa.

..I mean, how perfect does a film have to be to 'deserve to be on the top 250'? Is there a set point of goodness? Is there a goof-quota? Should I take a sharpie and write 'Doesn't-belong-on-the-top-250' on all the DVDs that don't?
I think you said, it's about whether it can stand the test of time. Okay. Understood.

But I mean, there's no way you can come and say as a FACT, 'this doesn't deserve to be on the top 250.'
Technically, if the regular voters' ratings are among the highest 250, then this film does Indeed FACTUALLY belong on the list.

Like I say. I don't want you to me mad at me for this. I don't want to quarrel over it. I really don't. You don't think much of this film, and that's fine. Post that as an opinion, not a fact! :)
By the way, I saw on the 39 Steps forum that you liked that film. Saw it last night, so did I! :-D
Cool.

[–] Mindeye 15 years ago

"um, weren't the two leads poisoned?!"

No, they weren't, the fake nun refused to do it and told Gilbert.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

The movie has plenty of plot holes (um, weren't the two leads poisoned?!)

Erm, no the nun who passed the poison to the waiter to drop in their drinks, passed an innocuous substance instead. She turned gamekeeper, as we say, when she realised it was an English woman, like herself, that her cronies were going to murder.

I suspect that many plot holes can be resolved through second and third viewings where small details are missed.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

[–] greenbanzanas 14 years ago

I wonder if you knew that the Philadelphia Story was a screwball comedy right from the start? What about the Tramp? What about My Man Godfrey?

The logic in concluding that the movie was not a screwball comedy because of the title is kind of absurd, won't you admit, fp?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alsanali 14 years ago

If you think analyzing movies consists of seeking out plot holes, you clearly don't know how to analyze a movie.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"I, for one, like to analyze movies and discuss intellectual points on movies".

Not one thing you`re written here qualifies as this "intellectual analysis"; picking the film apart in a pedantic search for some "holes" does not really qualify as such.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] cate08 8 years ago

Boy, You sure like writing "Plotholes".

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 15 years ago

At least half of your complaints are realism complaints. It's not a plot hole that a films doesn't match what you believe to be true of the actual world. Noticing that it doesn't match what you believe to be true of the actual world doesn't suggest that you're intelligent, but just the opposite, in my opinion, as you're not understanding a very basic conceptual idea with fictions.

At least half of the other points contain assumptions that are not warranted (such as asserting that Mrs. Froy was shot), at least once you apparently weren't paying attention (the comment about "the hero conveniently knows how to drive a train"), and many are simply cases of us not being shown every detail about every character. It's not a plot hole to not show every detail of every character.

It's fine that you didn't like the film. You're not more (or less for that matter) intelligent than anyone else for not liking it.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] rick03 14 years ago

i love how the OP talks about intelligence and not mindlessly watching movies. He complains about all the plot holes that us dimwits apparently missed. Just one problem: none of those are plot holes..........................

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

At least half of your complaints are realism complaints. It's not a plot hole that a films doesn't match what you believe to be true of the actual world

Excellent point and very true. Too many people cry 'plot hole' when in fact there's no plot hole merely a mismatch between film and their belief(s).

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

[–] knifeparty2004 14 years ago

1. This is probably the biggest continuity error in the film. Maybe the film ran out of financing and they couldn't finish the scene, the film was on a pretty low budget but even with this gaffe, I feel TLV is still alot better than some of the other Hitchcock films ahead of it in the top 250 (Shadow of a doubt, Rope, Notorious, Diam M for Murder etc)

2. AFAIK, the guy they stole his gun off wasn't the only one firing so that would explain the multiple shots. Secondly, I could rattle off hundreds of films that contain shootout scenes where shooters seem to have unlimited amounts of ammo.

3. I think its fair to say that we are not meant to assume that the Heroes drove the train all the way from Vandrika to Britain, they would have had to have crossed the English channel if that was the case and it the channel tunnel didn't exist back then. Im sure audiences were aware of this also. Its likely they jumped off in France and made their way back to England via air/ship transfer.
As for European railway lines, I believe a fair few lines are connected today and have been for many years, ie you could travel from Italy/France/Germany via rail. I don't see why this point is really so unbelievable.
Thirdly, as far as military checkpoints go - have you not seen the Great Escape? Some of those guys made it out when they were being scrutinized and when security was much higher during WW2. This was pre WW2, so I can just assume that the heroes crossed the border into France by foot at some juncture where security was scarce.

4. I haven't seen the movie in years but IIRC, the reason they didn't storm the train at the station was because they didn't want to arouse suspicion with the general public. They decoupled the train when they realised that the Heroes pulled a switcharoo with the old lady and were pretty much forced to forget about discretion.

5. They assumed they shot someone, but its likely that she fell over a small hill which would make it look like she fell down. Also, perhaps they didn't know it was the old lady that they had shot and they thought it was just a random passenger. If they knew it was the old lady, it makes her escape even more unbelievable because I can't see her escaping from several troops 40 years her junior. I can only assume they thought whoever it was that jumped the train was dead and continued to pursue the train. Either way I guess it shows Vandrika's military personnel to be pretty incompetent.

6. You say its possible considering its 1938, yet then you say its absurd? It can't be that absurd if you think its possible right? Secondly, when a train line forks, I think it would be rather easy to see where about the track switch is esp considering how slow trains were going back in those days.

7. As I said earlier, this is obvious incompetency on behalf of the military personnel. Secondly, perhaps they did not want to fire at the target (train) from opposite directions which is a very obvious no-no.

8. As far as the old lady goes. We can only assume, she made it to a safehouse in Vandrika (by foot) lol. Who knows maybe the old girl was alot fitter than she looked? And was then obviously able to be moved out of the country with the help of fellow spies. I highly doubt we were to assume that she made it back to England all on her own, now that would be truly outlandish.

9. If there was a door available not sure why they didn't use it, I wouldn't call this a huge plothole either.

10. High body count? lololol Pretty sure there are fewer than a dozen deaths in this film. Have you not seen Commando?
As for Gilbert driving the train, doesn't he mention his uncle being a traindriver or something. Again, I don't find it all unbelievable for a Musician to have multiple skills.

11. There intention wasn't to capture her at the hotel, it was to kill her once she came under suspicion after the singer delivered the message. I guess it would have been easier to knock her off the night before the train left but maybe they wanted to make it look like an accident/ not arouse suspicion from the public, hence pushing the potplant off the balcony.

[–] maybe730 12 years ago

@knifeparty2004: Thanks for your response. Most of the others were reactionary and didn't address the original post but yours was excellent. I agree that some of the "plot holes" aren't really plot holes or are too insignificant to detract from the overall film, which is definitely an entertaining one. But some of the other "plot holes" definitely hurt my enjoyment of the film and oddly they all happen in the last 20 minutes (the inept villains vs stopped (and re-stopped) train and elderly woman, the disappearing policeman). I did slap my forehead at how naive the main couple was regarding the doctor but that happens in nearly every Hitchcock film.

[–] mark-1589 14 years ago

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. This was Hitchcock's very best film in his Britain period (before he began making films in the US in 1940).

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

I consider it one of the best Hitchcock films, and my movie group especially enjoyed it, along with YOUNG AND INNOCENT, Saturday night.

I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.

[–] changedname 14 years ago

fp_ff_fp is a pseudointellectual troll.

The funny thing is that people like fp_ff_fp are generally the most retarded of all, have no friends, achieve nothing in life, and are always miserable. Sad, pathetic, loser.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

Well, he seems to still be busy analyzing films and looking for potholes and I guess if that's the only way he can enjoy movies, he'll just have to miss the true appreciation of classics and the better current movies. And of course he can imagine himself to be superior to those of us who enjoy the depth and true value of movies. His comment that THE LADY VANISHES doesn't pass the test of time is definitely off kilter. I guess it is dated, but that doesn't make it less enjoyable for the more perceptive movie buffs of this time and age.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 14 years ago

" His comment that THE LADY VANISHES doesn't pass the test of time is definitely off kilter. I guess it is dated, but that doesn't make it less enjoyable for the more perceptive movie buffs of this time and age."

I agree, and in fact, that plot has been done by other authors. Someone on another board said something about a John Dickson Carr radio play about a couple of newlyweds who board a boat and the husband suddenly goes missing. I looked up that play and I thought that it was great. :) Also, "The Lady Vanishes" was remade a few years ago. I forget the name of the movie, but it took place on a plane.

Ellery Queen (Jim Hutton) = sexiest man ever!

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

Maybe it reveals me to be dumb, but I much prefer to sit back and enjoy the film if it's reasonably good. Others can search for goofs, but I don't think they are getting their money's worth out of the film that way.

I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mickeyone 13 years ago

2. The bad guy at the end gets knocked over, they steal his gun which seems to fire endless bullets before they finally realize it has only one bullet left.
I must've counted like some 20-25 bullets fired from it. WTF ? That felt terrible

I just re-watched this movie. I've got my Criterion DVD cued up right now. At 1:23:46, right after the shooting starts, we hear (and I am getting this from the subtitles):

Charters: Got plenty of ammunition?
Gilbert: Whole pouch full.
Charters: Good.

So there's one plot hole filled in for you. Amazingly easy, only 8 words needed. Hardly seems worth the trouble.

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 13 years ago

Definitely films of 1938 had more intelligence than that.

Well, I've just returned from seeing two screenings of TLV and have had the privilege (and it was a privilege, no mistake) of sitting through four separate screenings of The Lady Vanishes over the past three days on the Silver Screen:

http://www.stanfordtheatre.org/stf/calendars/Summer%202011.html (See August 27-September 2)

Judging by the applause given at the end each time, (and these were four completely different audiences, mind) the audiences that watched it along with me in the year 2011 didn't find The Lady Vanishes lacking in intelligence at all.

I actually feel sorry for the OP because, clearly, he was unable to derive pleasure from a film that many hundreds of thousands of people have enjoyed since 1938 and, what's more, will continue to enjoy well into the 21st century. This despite all the plot holes, real or imagined, (and, let's face it, most of them exist solely in the OP's own imagination) that the OP claims detracted from his enjoyment of the film.

I don't know when the Stanford will see fit to bring the film back again, (their last screening of The Lady Vanishes prior to this one was in 2009) but I can assure the OP that the Stanford is not known for screening clinkers. Frankly, and at the risk of sounding unkind, I think the only thing lacking intelligence around here is the premise of this thread. There's watching a film, and then there's watching a film solely with the intent of finding fault with it and never giving it a chance. I'm afraid the OP watched The Lady Vanishes in the latter manner, and so cheated himself out of what could have been a great film experience. Like the one I had. Four separate times.

He's far more deserving of sympathy than contempt, really.

[–] mickeyone 13 years ago

Certainly doesn't deserve being in the top 250 movies of all time. No way.

I don't know what s/he was complaining about anyway. "The Lady Vanishes" is not on the top 250 list of IMDb (rather, it is filled with what are obviously more deserving movies, such as "Batman Returns" at #113 and "Toy Story 3" (definitely a ground-breaking classic if there ever was one) at #37). I don't exactly understand why, since "The Lady Vanishes" has a rating of 8.1, and there are about 60 movies on the list with only an 8.0 rating. Oh well ...