Review of Number 17

Number 17 (1932)
4/10
A real mess . . .
7 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Being a Hitchcock fan, I sat down to watch this film expectantly. Within 10 minutes, I was scratching my head, hardly believing what I was seeing. This was not only a poor film by Hitchcock standards, it was bad by ANY measure. This film has it all--horrible editing, inexplicable turns, over acting, ridiculous situations, unbelievable and sometimes stilted dialogue, and yes, inadequate, puzzling direction. A real mess. The plot involves a jewel heist that occurs before the film's beginning. Four men, two women, and a body eventually end up at the house where the jewels (a necklace) are hidden. Just who these people are, is, in some cases never adequately explained. **MILD SPOILERS** There is a deaf-mute, who suddenly begins to speak and hear (okay, she was pretending--but why?). We have the dead body suddenly disappearing, and then reappearing, now walking and talking (why was he pretending to be dead, or why was he unconscious?). Two of the men, who arrive at the house at the same time, have never seen each other, yet there is hardly any suspicion about each other. Why? These and many other questions are left unanswered. Then we have the uneven acting. Two of the jewel thieves are played with such laconic understatement, in SUCH a relaxed manner, it seems completely at odds with their situation. Then we have Ben, played by Leon Lion, for whom the term "over-acting" is an understatement. Because of these, and other problems, the film never generates any tension--until the finale. Even then, the tension is often undercut with some arresting implausibilities, and amateurish editing (e.g., during the runaway train sequence, they use the same bit of film with our two jewel thieves looking out the door of the engine, at least three different times).

This was an awkward era for movies. Sound had been introduced just three or four years previously, and film-makers were still struggling to incorporate the new technology. If generous, we might allow this as an explanation for some of the problems with "Number Seventeen," but by no means all. "Murder," for instance, was directed by Hitchcock two years earlier, and is by FAR a better film. So, whence cometh "Number Seventeen?" In order to make this inexplicable aberration explicable, we need only remind ourselves that, no matter how talented, Mr. Hitchcock was only human, after all, and thus capable of error. This film provides all the proof of that we could ever need. 4/10
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed