The Lodger

Silent films are, as the kids say, a whole-ass mood. Without dialogue, so many other elements have to be employed, and usually at an extra level, to get across story, atmosphere, and character development. Acting is done, much like on the stage, for "the back of the room", with exaggerated expressions and melodramatic gestures. Staging and blocking are entirely different. And the soundtrack has to play into the moment to fill in the gaps where words should be. As of the writing of this review, I've seen around half a dozen feature length movies, and they vary in quality, but the one thing I've felt watching all of them is a ceiling on the potential quality. It's just a personal preference; what's necessary to make a silent film work, even when done to its best, doesn't speak to me in the same way a movie with dialogue does. All this is to say that The Lodger comes pretty close to that ceiling. It's a fine movie, and for being Alfred Hitchcock's second feature length film, It doesn't hit that ceiling, and it's really just personal preference, because there really isn't anything wrong with the movie (aside from a few odd musical choices at certain points). There's just silent movies I like more. The story is of an area in London beset by a serial killer named The Avenger. A witness sees a man fleeing the scene with a scarf around his face. Shortly thereafter, a man shows up at a place with a room for rent. He is wearing a scarf on his face, and he is acting suspiciously. The house is owned by an older couple, and their adult daughter, who works as a model and may or may not be dating a cop, lives with them. The movie's story concerns the growing triangle of these three people, and whether or not the lodger is the killer. If you can get past certain conventions of the time -- true love hitting people within minutes, for instance -- it's a solid silent thriller. Ivor Novello plays the lodger, and he does a good job (for the time) straddling the fence; he is suspicious, but his actions could also be reasonably dismissed as innocent. I won't say any of the characters have this amazing depth to them; they're all there to move the plot along, but that was also the style of the time. It's an engaging enough plot, with plenty of misdirects to keep you guessing. I will say, though, that if you come in expecting to see Hitchcock hallmarks, you will be sorely disappointed. Only in retrospect can one find anything that hints at future works, and I find that totally dishonest. Really, this movie could've been directed by anybody; there is little of the Hitchcockisms one would be familiar with and would appear like clockwork only 10 years later. The direction is good, although it is decidedly non-distinct, but given it was his second film, that's fine. The directors who come out and deliver masterpieces in their first couple films are the exception, not the rule. I wouldn't recommend this be among the first things you watch if you want to get into Hitchcock, and especially if silent movies aren't your jam. But if you want to do a deeper dive, or you'd like to see how a thriller can be done without words (but with plenty of style), The Lodger is a good watch.