what is the stars?
by Douglas Messerli
Alma Reville (scenario, based on the play by Sean O’Casey),
Alfred Hitchcock (screenplay and director) Juno
and the Paycock / 1930
The great Alfred Hitchcock’s 1930 attempt to film Sean O’Casey’s classic play, Juno and the Paycock, is generally recognized as a failure. Although critics of the day, such as James Agate declared the work as being “nearly a masterpiece,” Hitchcock himself described the movie as “just a photograph of a stage play,” expressing great doubts about the project even going into to. Yet he and his wife, Alma Reville, worked hard with O’Casey himself, changing some of the play’s language—including the introduction of an opening sequence in which a character performed by Barry Fitzgerald extolls Irish unity—and a shift in some of the characters’ focuses. O’Casey supported all of Hitchcock’s changes and, apparently, was pleased with the final production, hoping to work with the director on another later project that never took place.
Part of the problem is also an acting style, imposed upon the director by the famed Abbey Theatre, which in several of its set pieces locks the work into a kind of Irish theatricality that does not adapt well to the screen. In this story of a poor Dublin family, moreover, characters shift easily between a kind of lyrical poeticism and kitchen-sink realism, between a loveable roguery—particularly in the parts of the boastful “Paycock” (Edmund Chapman) and his partner in drink, Joxer Daly (Sidney Morgan)—and the stolid realism of Juno, beautifully underplayed by Sara Allgood. And then there is the haunted, half-dead man, her son, who has betrayed the Irish cause by informing on a friend, whose death he caused. Add to that the bawdy, musical hall-like character, Mrs. Madigan (Marie O’Neill) and quiet, almost inverted daughter, Mary, portrayed much less complexly that in the original, and suddenly you can perceive why the close quarters of a sound stage made for an almost claustrophobic work of cinematography. It is only when these several different figures are each trying to showcase their singing talents at the party celebrating their sudden good luck for being monetarily remembered in a distant relative’s will that the ensemble really works.
Suddenly faced with new possibilities in a world that seemingly appeared
closed for each figure, the Boyle family is caught up in both a larger economic
framework and the local political struggles which do them in, as they put
themselves into debt, fall into selfish bourgeois behavior, and put themselves
on public display which helps, in the end, to utterly destroy them, separating
the family, destroying the son, and forcing the women into destitution.
Film’s natural bent for verisimilitude—as Hitchcock quickly learned,
perhaps through this and other films of the period—is nearly devastating to the
kind of poetical realism of writers such as O’Casey. Allgood almost gets it
right, but the others, in their declamations of imponderable questions such
“What is the stars, what is the moon?” appear to be near ridiculous when recorded
on a machine of light and dark. In order to create a truly “theatrical” work,
as Hitchcock did later in almost all his films, the camera must dance, moving
with liquid flexibility in and out of the shadows it traces, the microphone
traveling along in equal pace.
What is astonishing in this film, however, is precisely what Hitchcock
damned it for. In Juno and the Paycock
the director has captured an important document of theater history, in that we
see what an actual Abbey Theatre performance of the day might have encompassed,
and observe the actors of the day strutting—or at least gesticulating—upon the
stage boards. In that sense, I find this film, despite its obvious flaws, to be
wonderfully revelatory of theater, a kind of theatrical document, in fact, that
perhaps ultimately helped Hitchcock perceive how to better recreate theater in
the cinema. If Juno and the Paycock does
not represent great film-making, as a theatrical document it is a nearly lost
gem, and is worth seeing just for that—for we truly get to know, in the sense
of theater history, “what is the stars.”
Los Angeles, March 5, 2013
Reprinted from International Cinema Review and USTheater,
Opera, and Performance (March 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment