I grew up with this film but it has never been one of my favorites of Hitchcock's. I always found the kid in it annoying, still do, and Doris Day was before my time so I never got her appeal and found the song Que Sera to be too repetitive and trite to want it running through my head for days afterward. Incidentally, this happened to me after this viewing as well.
As I revisit the film now, however, I realize how much this film, just like many of Hitchcock's thrillers, lay the groundwork for what we now think of as a spy thriller like James Bond, Mission Impossible, and even the Taken franchise. Without films like this one and others like "North by Northwest" someone else would have had to fill this niche or action movies might feel very different today.
Unfortunately, that leaves me in a quandary about recommending it. On the one hand, it probably won't thrill the way our modern thrillers do, or even keep you guessing and the foreshadowing is pretty heavy handed even by today's spoon feeding accustomed audiences. If you can't figure out the key secrets of this film pretty quickly, you just aren't watching closely enough.
Yet, I found this to be my most eye opening viewing of this film so I want to push people to check it out or at least consider what it was I saw in it this time that made "The Man Who Knew Too Much" so engaging, this time around.
Did you know that the way men treat women has been and continues to be a problem? Growing up, I didn't. No one in my middle school circles talked about the inherent sexism of many of our institutions or even the way most families were structured so it never really entered into my thinking on this or any other film I watched at that time.
With the #MeToo movement, however, I found myself having more frequent and deeper conversations with my female friends and, especially, my wife. My eyes being opened to certain realities and tendencies, I may not always agree with every statement or reaction people make in regard to this subject, I do find myself to be very sympathetic to the core concerns of the movement and certainly believe it has had a positive affect on my thinking and the way I interpret events and narratives.
This film is no exception and one of those movies that I actually found I enjoyed more having grown in appreciation for how difficult things have been for women in certain regards, in the past.
Much of this film revolves around a family spending time abroad and finding themselves a bit out of their depth in cultural situations. This puts them at the mercy of kind strangers going out of their way to help them but luckily there are several examples of such helpful people waiting in the wings to do just that. Stewart's ("It's a Wonderful Life") character, Ben, is the trusting sort and seems to know a lot about travel, having spent time overseas in the war, but also just due to his higher education as a doctor. His wife Jo, played by Doris Day ("Pillow Talk"), is less trusting of these strangers and notices how little they seem to be sharing about themselves even as Ben shares practically his life story. Ben reassures her that she is being paranoid and that he has everything in hand.
Of course, this turns out not to be true and the rest of the movie revolves around the two of them trying, by various means both together and separate, to extricate themselves and their son from the situation that their too quick to trust nature caught them up in the middle of.
There are several scenes in this movie that seemed to be especially different with eyes that noticed certain treatments of women. Obviously the scene where Jimmy Stewart basically forces his wife to take a sleeping pill before he tells her that their son has been kidnapped is more than slightly problematic, though maybe true to the attitudes of the day. However, the two that I want to focus on are not the one of the many ways that Hitchcock and directors of his day discounted women. Instead I want to talk about a few ways this film is actually very forward thinking in its treatment of women.
The first, I have already described. Jo being nervous about their new friends and Ben not taking it seriously. The entire plot of the film basically hinges on the fact that Jo is not believed by her husband. If he simply weighed what she said appropriately instead of dismissing it because he didn't agree, then the entire tragedy that ensues as a result could have been avoided. Another is the climax of the film so...
*****SPOILERS WARNING***** Jo ends up at the music hall where a Prime Minister is going to be assassinated during a loud piece of music to hide the noise of the gunshot. She knows where the assassin is but can't stop him because his associates will kill her son. She can't warn the Prime Minister or the Police because they won't believe her. She is caught there watching the music play and glancing from side to side at the assassin and the target, biting her hands, crying, casting about in anguish. The scene plays like that for a full minute till she can't help but scream, consequences be damned.
Watching the scene I felt some of what it must feel like to be a woman who can't trust the men around her to believe her. She is so powerless to do what she feels must be done to such an extent that she is glued to the floor in inaction till her pent up fears, frustrations, and panic erupt in her godsend of a scream which saves the PM's life. *****SPOILERS END*****
Hitchcock is no progressive when it comes to how he treats women but as an audience member I see different things based on how my eyes have been changed or opened over the years. I don't think there was ever a time where I would have said that Ben was right to drug Jo in this movie but it took me till 37 to see some of the pain Jo was facing as a uniquely female struggle that I had not appreciated before.
Strange that this revelation should come from the equivalent of a modern blockbuster spy thriller. Perhaps not though. Hitchcock has always been about drawing out the terror and suspense from the everyday. A mistaken identity, an innocent item at auction that contains a secret, and the one sleeping next to you who secretly wants you dead. Is it really that surprising that when he focuses a thriller on family and the trust issues and pains that come within one that one of the greatest pains for women, being controlled by, not believed by, and even hurt by men should be among those that he couldn't help but explore in his own imperfect way.
As I revisit the film now, however, I realize how much this film, just like many of Hitchcock's thrillers, lay the groundwork for what we now think of as a spy thriller like James Bond, Mission Impossible, and even the Taken franchise. Without films like this one and others like "North by Northwest" someone else would have had to fill this niche or action movies might feel very different today.
Unfortunately, that leaves me in a quandary about recommending it. On the one hand, it probably won't thrill the way our modern thrillers do, or even keep you guessing and the foreshadowing is pretty heavy handed even by today's spoon feeding accustomed audiences. If you can't figure out the key secrets of this film pretty quickly, you just aren't watching closely enough.
Yet, I found this to be my most eye opening viewing of this film so I want to push people to check it out or at least consider what it was I saw in it this time that made "The Man Who Knew Too Much" so engaging, this time around.
Did you know that the way men treat women has been and continues to be a problem? Growing up, I didn't. No one in my middle school circles talked about the inherent sexism of many of our institutions or even the way most families were structured so it never really entered into my thinking on this or any other film I watched at that time.
With the #MeToo movement, however, I found myself having more frequent and deeper conversations with my female friends and, especially, my wife. My eyes being opened to certain realities and tendencies, I may not always agree with every statement or reaction people make in regard to this subject, I do find myself to be very sympathetic to the core concerns of the movement and certainly believe it has had a positive affect on my thinking and the way I interpret events and narratives.
This film is no exception and one of those movies that I actually found I enjoyed more having grown in appreciation for how difficult things have been for women in certain regards, in the past.
Much of this film revolves around a family spending time abroad and finding themselves a bit out of their depth in cultural situations. This puts them at the mercy of kind strangers going out of their way to help them but luckily there are several examples of such helpful people waiting in the wings to do just that. Stewart's ("It's a Wonderful Life") character, Ben, is the trusting sort and seems to know a lot about travel, having spent time overseas in the war, but also just due to his higher education as a doctor. His wife Jo, played by Doris Day ("Pillow Talk"), is less trusting of these strangers and notices how little they seem to be sharing about themselves even as Ben shares practically his life story. Ben reassures her that she is being paranoid and that he has everything in hand.
Of course, this turns out not to be true and the rest of the movie revolves around the two of them trying, by various means both together and separate, to extricate themselves and their son from the situation that their too quick to trust nature caught them up in the middle of.
There are several scenes in this movie that seemed to be especially different with eyes that noticed certain treatments of women. Obviously the scene where Jimmy Stewart basically forces his wife to take a sleeping pill before he tells her that their son has been kidnapped is more than slightly problematic, though maybe true to the attitudes of the day. However, the two that I want to focus on are not the one of the many ways that Hitchcock and directors of his day discounted women. Instead I want to talk about a few ways this film is actually very forward thinking in its treatment of women.
The first, I have already described. Jo being nervous about their new friends and Ben not taking it seriously. The entire plot of the film basically hinges on the fact that Jo is not believed by her husband. If he simply weighed what she said appropriately instead of dismissing it because he didn't agree, then the entire tragedy that ensues as a result could have been avoided. Another is the climax of the film so...
*****SPOILERS WARNING***** Jo ends up at the music hall where a Prime Minister is going to be assassinated during a loud piece of music to hide the noise of the gunshot. She knows where the assassin is but can't stop him because his associates will kill her son. She can't warn the Prime Minister or the Police because they won't believe her. She is caught there watching the music play and glancing from side to side at the assassin and the target, biting her hands, crying, casting about in anguish. The scene plays like that for a full minute till she can't help but scream, consequences be damned.
Watching the scene I felt some of what it must feel like to be a woman who can't trust the men around her to believe her. She is so powerless to do what she feels must be done to such an extent that she is glued to the floor in inaction till her pent up fears, frustrations, and panic erupt in her godsend of a scream which saves the PM's life. *****SPOILERS END*****
Hitchcock is no progressive when it comes to how he treats women but as an audience member I see different things based on how my eyes have been changed or opened over the years. I don't think there was ever a time where I would have said that Ben was right to drug Jo in this movie but it took me till 37 to see some of the pain Jo was facing as a uniquely female struggle that I had not appreciated before.
Strange that this revelation should come from the equivalent of a modern blockbuster spy thriller. Perhaps not though. Hitchcock has always been about drawing out the terror and suspense from the everyday. A mistaken identity, an innocent item at auction that contains a secret, and the one sleeping next to you who secretly wants you dead. Is it really that surprising that when he focuses a thriller on family and the trust issues and pains that come within one that one of the greatest pains for women, being controlled by, not believed by, and even hurt by men should be among those that he couldn't help but explore in his own imperfect way.