The Man Who Knew Too Much

I don't think you'll find many cinephiles who dislike it when a remake takes a different spin at the original property. A great example is Scarface; the original is set in gangland Chicago, while the remake is in 80's Miami. The different settings allow for some different themes to be explored, but by and large, it's the same story. So, what does one make of The Man Who Knew Too Much? A remake that takes the central point of the original -- a family on vacation stumbles onto an assassination plot and their child is kidnapped as leverage -- but builds a different story around it? And it's by the same director?!? Yeah, it's a curiosity. It makes comparing and contrasting the two rather difficult. The original is a leaner movie with a more distinct antagonist. This, by comparison, has a lot more focus on the family unit, building up their bond, and putting the family through other twists and turns on the way to the resolution, although there isn't a distinct villain here. The director of both, Alfred Hitchcock, said the original was the work of a talented amateur while this was the work of a professional. In some ways, this is true. The 1956 version is a far better film visually. Simple shots like Jimmy Stewart thumbing a phone book nervously remind the viewer of the character's anxiety, while there's a lovely shot of Stewart and Doris Day, our main couple, both listening to a phone call with their kidnapped son. It's shot from above and at an angle, making them appear smaller and weaker and powerless. The 22 years between the original and this one gave Hitchcock more than ample time to learn how to use the camera to accentuate the story, to bring a visual artistry to the proceedings. Likewise, this version overshadows the older one in the star power. Leslie Banks and Edna Best are no match for Stewart and Day as the lead couple. There is wonderful chemistry between the two, far more than the original, where they felt more like people who just met than a husband and wife. And I found the story much easier to follow here (even if there are some narrative jumps in the Albert Hall scene that make no sense with any scrutiny). However, the original has a clearer antagonist. The conspirators here are no match, individually or combined, for the sheer sleaze and loathsomeness of Peter Lorre in the original. This version trades in an obvious dirtbag for a pair of unassuming, middle-aged British folk, who look like they know as much about planning political assassinations as they do quantum mechanics. This contributes to the movie's biggest flaw -- the stakes never feel as high as the movie says they are. This version is over 40 minutes longer than the original, and while it does use that time to build some connection to the characters, it also dawdles. A lot. The movie has almost no sense of urgency, something that cannot be said about the original. A movie like this -- a child abducted, an assassination attempt, and two parents caught in the middle -- should be high-stakes tension, building up speed to an exciting climax. Instead, it ambles along in the middle gears, things get resolved, and the movie ends abruptly on a weird joke, making the whole thing feel kind of deflating. I wouldn't say this is a bad movie, by any stretch. Just by sheer virtue of the star power and Hitchcock hitting the heights of his directing prowess, this along makes it worth a watch. But if Hitchcock intended for this to be his second, better swing at this pitch, he only improved from a single to a double, and there was no reason to settle for that.