some people like movies

reviews and reactions to the wonderful world of film

Champagne (1928)

with 2 comments

What is this: name that tune classical edition?  I heard some “Liebestraum,” some “Clair de Lune” … Beautiful stuff.   Too bad it does absolutely nothing for the story.  I was already very opinionated about the importance of music and sound to affect the mood of the film.  This film reiterates my position.  Without the usual musical cues, the mood gets lost in translation.  The march begins while the characters laugh in a bedroom.  It’s light and airy when she’s obviously depressed.  I never knew when to be happy or sad or worried.  So I usually just laughed.

Champagne is about a spoiled heiress Betty (Betty Balfour) (also the only character with a name) who uses her father’s (Gordon Harker) airplane to meet up with her lover (Jean Bradin) on a ship and run off together.  Though apparently she’s not supposed to do the marriage arrangements otherwise groom-to-be will get angry and lose the desire to get hitched.  Our fourth character is a mysterious man (Ferdinand von Alten) whom Betty had met while her boy was seasick and stuck in bed and revisits the scene many times throughout the movie.

The tables definitely turn when her disapproving father announces that he has lost their entire family fortune.  Betty attempts to sell all her jewelry only to be robbed in the process.  Totally broke, they have to rough it and unfortunately for the father, little Betty can’t cook well enough for a dog.  She ultimately finds work at a restaurant where she meets up with the mysterious man and boyfriend one last time…

Etc. I’m having a hard time writing this review because I was as far from interested as I could be.  Don’t get me wrong – I gave it my all, I sat through the entire thing and tried my best to appreciate what little I could.  My biggest irritant was by far the music, though I can’t really blame Hitchcock for that.  I’m sure he had no intention of placing nearly 50 classical pieces to play at random throughout his entire work.  I suppose there’s nothing terribly wrong for the story, just the pace.  The acting is fair.  The only thing commendable is innovative visual technique.

I really hope I don’t have to watch this again.  That’s all. 2/10

Advertisements

Written by laurenthejukebox17

July 29, 2010 at 12:22 am

Posted in 1920s, comedy, movies

Tagged with ,

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I have to say, your description of the weird use of music makes me want to see it just for that. It’s funny that the music would be so off since Hitchcock often made very effective use of music (ie. Psycho).

    Michael Troutman

    July 29, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    • I honestly don’t think that it was originally intended to be the way it was on my DVD copy. It’s not original, it’s a complilation of some of the finest classical pieces in history. I assume it was tacked on in post-production.

      laurenthejukebox17

      July 29, 2010 at 3:26 pm


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

%d bloggers like this: