The Ring (Alfred Hitchcock, 1927) – and the BFI’s Hitchcock retrospective

Lilian Hall Davis and Carl Brisson

It’s great that so many classic movies are now available for home viewing – but nothing compares with seeing them as they were made to be shown, on the big screen. So far I’ve only managed to see a relatively small number of older films in this way, but I’ve found they tend to stick in my mind more vividly than those I’ve only seen on TV. Last weekend I was lucky enough to be at the historic Hackney Empire cinema in London for the premiere of the BFI’s (British Film Institute) new restored print of  Hitchcock’s silent boxing/romantic melodrama The Ring, accompanied by music from Soweto Kinch’s jazz band. I won’t write a full review (there are many excellent reviews of this film online, which I can’t add much to) but just wanted to say something about this movie and the BFI’s Hitchcock season. The Ring is one of the ‘Hitchcock Nine’ which the BFI has been busy raising money to restore – his nine surviving silent films. The £2million target to restore all of these with brand new musical scores has almost been reached, and four restored silent  movies are being premiered as part of the London 2012 Festival, but the BFI is not quite there yet and still needs more donations.

However, these screenings of  the newly-restored British silents are only a taster for the BFI’s major season The Genius of Hitchcock, a complete retrospective which will run from August right through to October and include various special events, talks etc as well as showings of all Hitchcock’s films. As I don’t live in London I’m not likely to be able to get to many, but may hopefully see one or two more of the films on offer during the run. I’ve read that the restored silents will also be going on tour to other parts of the world in due course, and let’s hope there will also be DVD and Blu-ray releases of the new prints eventually.

The film’s title, The Ring, refers not only to the boxing arena, but also to the wedding ring  - and to a suggestive snake bracelet which becomes a symbol of the love triangle at the centre of the film. In fact, it is notable how little boxing footage there is during most of the film, with most of the fights shown only through brief clips or montages of newspaper reports and posters, which all helps to build the tension for the final fight sequence.

Beautiful silent film star Lilian Hall Davies plays a woman working at a boxing stall in a fairground, who is engaged to handsome young boxer Jack ‘One Round’ Sander, played by Danish star Carl Brisson. (The heroine is described as just “the Girl” in the film’s cast list and intertitles, but is also sometimes known as both Mabel and Nellie in discussion of the film.) She is clearly bored by her repetitive life – there are some haunting shots of her standing at the corner of the tent peering through a window in the canvas at her husband-to-be seeing off one contender after another – and, when a handsome stranger turns up, Bob (Ian Hunter), she is reluctantly tempted to flirt with him. Bob takes up the challenge to fight Jack and surprises everyone at the fairground by easily beating him – but then it is revealed that the stranger is in fact an Australian boxing champ, who wants to employ Jack as his sparring partner. Ironically, the wages he pays enable Jack and his fiancee to marry, just as she is being  increasingly tempted to stray sexually – something shown by the way she moves the snake bracelet up her arm, and hides it with her hand when Jack is looking.

There was a brief talk by BFI representatives before the showing of The Ring at the Hackney Empire about how the “extreme restoration” had been carried out, and the chance to see a few clips in both the older, badly faded print and the new one, where the difference was quite startling. We were shown how even the intertitles had been restored to make them more readable and striking. The film itself runs at 108 minutes – it felt a little slow in places, but the print is stunning and the pace allows time to admire the various pioneering camera effects dreamt up by Hitchcock and cinematographer Jack E Cox, who went on to work on many more of the director’s early films.

Carl Brisson with Gordon Harker as his trainer

The love triangle plot does become clunkingly obvious at times, as Jack sees his wife practically sitting on Bob’s lap, or swooning over a framed photo of him, and still wonders if there is something going on – but, even if the surface story creaks at times, the film is still fascinating for its many experimental moments, such as dream sequences and the fuzzy photography to portray drunkenness. I also enjoyed the way the sleazy fairground atmosphere is created (the BFI’s notes say that a full-scale fairground was built on set and populated by hundreds of extras) – and all the main actors are excellent. Carl Brisson  had in fact been an amateur boxer, but is probably better in the scenes outside the ring, with his face vividly showing his fluctuating emotions. Lilian Hall Davis also gives a warm performance and makes her two-timing character more likeable on screen than she sounds when the plot is described. I was saddened to read that she was an actress who failed to make the transition to talkies and committed suicide in the 1930s – a real-life example of the kinds of stories which inspired The Artist.

I am definitely no boxing fan, but there is no doubt that it is the sport which has given rise to the most great films. This must be at least partly because boxing works so well as a metaphor for many other “fights” faced  in life. I don’t see The Ring as a great film in itself, but it certainly shows the way forward for Hitchcock’s later work, as the tension cranks up powerfully at key moments, especially towards and during the final fight sequence. It is clearly influenced by German expressionism (Hitchcock had worked in Germany) and also itself influenced later fight films. This is the only film where Hitchcock was credited as sole screenwriter as well as director, so he had a lot of personal investment in it.

11 thoughts on “The Ring (Alfred Hitchcock, 1927) – and the BFI’s Hitchcock retrospective

  1. John Greco

    The only silent film of Hitchcock’s I have seen is THE LODGER. It’ s definitely an area I need to catch up on. The Hitchcock retrospective sounds great! Having only seen three of his films on the big screen I would love to see many more of his great works in a theater. London surely is the place to be with the Olympics and now this.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Hopefully some of the prints featured in the BFI season will go on tour, John, so you may be able to see them eventually! I’ve only seen two Hitchcock films on the big screen, ‘Vertigo’ (in a pretty bad print) and now ‘The Ring’, but am hoping to see more. My brother lives in London, so he is managing to see quite a few, including the new restored print of ‘The Lodger’. You’re right that there is a lot happening in London at the moment!

  2. Pingback: The Wire, The Dark Night Rises, and Film Forum’s Universal 100th Anniversary Festival on Monday Morning Diary (September 23) « Wonders in the Dark

  3. Frank Gallo

    I never realized that Hitch actually wrote a screenplay himself. I must see this at some point. Marvelously written review with all sorts of fascinating details.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Thanks very much, Frank. This was the only original screenplay by Hitchcock where he got sole credit, though he did work alongside writers on other scripts during his career – the BFI notes say ‘writing for silent films came naturally to a director who already thought in visual terms.’

  4. Sam Juliano

    Judy, “The Genius of Hitchcock” retrospective is cause for celebration! I just clicked on your link and saw the exhilarating display of the restored Hitchcocks and envy all Londoners who will avail themselves of this rare opportunity. As it is I have never seen THE RING, though I have seen nearly all the master’s early films. You are quite right to attest to the incomparable aspects of a big-screen viewing, especially the intensity of the viewing, and how it stays with you far longer than anything watched at home. A case in point for me was the film noir CRISS CROSS, which I watched this week on the big screen, and found this obviously great work in a far more powerful light. The jazz band accompaniment must have really been something, and it’s even more ingratiating to know that film restoration is playing a large part in this series. I was saddened to learn that Davis committed suicide at a young age, and do remember her from THE FARMER’S WIFE. I’d say that baseball may arguably come close to boxing in the number of outstanding films that revolve around the sport, but I’d agree that the ringside sport probably wins, when you factor in RAGING BULL, BODY AND SOUL, THE SET UP and CHAMPION into this equation.

    Exceptional, engaging and all-together wonderfully-written report on one of those experiences you’ll never forget.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Thanks very much for this great comment, Sam, which is much appreciated. I have read the restored Hitchcock prints will be going on tour and would think it is highly likely they will turn up at the Film Forum, so that you will get a chance to see them in due course. Definitely agree that seeing a film on the big screen is so much better than watching at home, even though I’m very glad to get the opportunity to see films in that way, of course. ‘Criss Cross’ is one I still need to see. An interesting point about baseball – I suppose films about that sport don’t tend to get much attention in the UK, and so I tend to overlook them (especially as I haven’t got a clue about what the rules of the sport are), though I have seen ‘Field of Dreams’ and probably one or two others! Thanks again, Sam, for the kind words.

  5. Pingback: Killer Joe, Universal 100th Anniversary Festival and Comedy Countdown on Monday Morning Diary (July 30) « Wonders in the Dark

  6. Pingback: Comedy Countdown Launch, Planet of Snail, Universal Festival, The Wire and Sight and Sound Polling on Monday Morning Diary (August 6) « Wonders in the Dark

  7. Ellen Moody

    I don’t care for Hitchcock films as they seem to me so cruel but did want to say I agree about seeing a film in a large format. This past term (as it turns out my last teaching) I was pushed into using a room where I had to screen films using a large screen that came down from the ceiling, a projector and a computer. I did manage it! Better than that I discovered how much more I enjoyed all the films. It was like I was watching them for the first time. It felt like I had missed so many details when they were smaller. I also found my students in the room with the big screen like all the films much better than the students in the room where we were using a normal (21 inch or so) TV. Ellen

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      It must have been a bit daunting to start with to have to screen the films with a projector – glad to hear it was worth doing and added so much to the showings for you and your students, Ellen. I must agree with you that you see many details you miss on the small screen when a film is shown on a big screen – it also some performances that might seem “over the top” on a small screen are just right in that bigger format. I haven’t seen all that much Hitchcock as yet but did enjoy this early film of his – I am drawn to melodrama, as you know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s