Watch Easy Virtue For Free

Why so much hype?

Must See Movie...

Brilliant and touching

Absolutely Brilliant!

'Easy Virtue' is no high point in great master's career. To say it is the worst movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock would be too much, but it is definitely one of his lamest. It could have been great social criticism towards British high class snobbery (well, it is, sort off), but it all feels little bit stale. Somehow there are almost no energy and vitality in this film. Like the great director was forced to work on the picture by the studio. Perhaps it was the case, as there is nothing much wrong in technical sense (nothing inventive either), but it all feels uninspired. The story itself is quite interesting, although it covers rather melodramatic grounds. High point throughout the film was Isabel Jeans's portrayal of Larita Filton, a woman judged by her past.How to rate this movie by numbers? 5 is too low, 6 on the other hands is too high. Well, it gets six from me on a discount.

Alfred Hitchcock was the most exciting directorial find to come out of British cinema in the 1920s but even though "The Lodger" was an atmospheric, moody thriller of things to come, the Hitchcock of the twenties and early thirties tried his hand at a number of styles. Before Hitchcock, British cinema was in the doldrums - it's most prestigious film had been "The Rat", heavily inspired by German Expressionism and with an attempt to capture some of D.W. Griffith's lyricism - even to the extent of using Ivor Novello as it's leading man (he had just appeared in Griffith's "The White Rose")."Easy Virtue" came between "The Farmer's Wife", a comedy romance and "Champagne", a "spoiled heiress" comedy tailored to show off the charms of Betty Balfour, at the time Britain's top actress. "Easy Virtue" was Hitchcock's try at Noel Coward (the play had already had a New York run (1925) of 147 performances with Jane Cowl as the scandal plagued Larita). 1927 seemed to be Coward's cinema year - "The Vortex" with it's themes of incest and drug addiction and the much more sedate "Easy Virtue". And William K. Everson points out that the direction of the two films were poles apart with Hitchcock making his film in a far more interesting and exciting way than the other one with it's much more juicier subject matter.The first part of the film was opened out from the play and from the first scene Hitchcock is trying out innovative camera shots - the judge's eye glass becomes the camera lens and singles out the plaintiff's counsel (a youthful Ian Hunter - a Hitchcock regular by the early 1930s) as he tries to blacken the name of Larita (beautiful Isabel Jeans) who, as the decanter is grasped, thinks back to the scene of the scandal. Married to a drunken brute of a husband she is caught up in a messy scandal when a young portrait painter shoots her husband before turning the gun on himself. As he has already willed Larita his fortune, the public, lapping up the lurid headlines, believe her guilty of misconduct.Trying to forget on a Mediterranean holiday and under an assumed name Larita's vivid personality and a misplaced tennis serve brings her to the attention of young John Whittaker who falls under her spell and arranges for her to visit his family home - as his wife!! There are more nice touches - when John rings her to see if she accepts his marriage proposal, all the viewer sees is the switchboard girl (that's Benita Hume) but her expression tells the whole story.The marriage gets off to a shaky start - his family is stand offish (except the dad) and his mother has quickly invited Sarah, one of John's old flames, over for the weekend. But Sarah is a good sport and the only person at the weekend do who genuinely wants them both to make a go of it. When all seems lost, Larita musters up all the charm and magnetism that attracted John in the first place and wows the stuffy gentry at the evening dance. But it is a last hurrah and in a surprise ending Larita, walking down the court house steps bravely says to the press "Shoot!! There's nothing left to kill"!! Hitchcock apparently hated the ending but I found it confronting and unsettling. For poor Larita, who is completely destroyed by yet another scandal, there was going to be no happy ending.

The sad plight of a twice-wronged woman - first by her husband, then society - gets the silent treatment from Alfred Hitchcock in this early melodrama. Many of the themes of later Hitch classics come up, and in sometimes arresting ways, but the overall impact is a thud.Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans) finds herself ruined when her brutal husband catches her with a lovestruck artist. Not guilty, but too easily believed to be, she winds up divorced but well-off enough to take her broken heart to a French resort town on the Mediterranean. There she captures the fancy of a young man named Whittaker (Robin Irvine) who insists on knowing nothing of her past. Unluckily for her, his family is not as swept off their feet. Trouble ensues when he introduces her to them as his new wife, her secret unknown but festering all the same.Hitchcock's silent films are fascinating to watch even when they aren't all that good. For one thing, he had quite a stock company going by this time: Jeans, Irvine, Violet Farebrother (who plays Whittaker's disapproving mother), and Ian Hunter (who plays the attorney who handles the case against Mrs. Filton) all appear in "Downhill," a film Hitchcock directed the year before.Also, Hitch silents often reveal the unique nature of his approach to cinema in embryonic form. Here, he demonstrates a stylistic acclivity for quick cuts and arresting camera set-ups. Thematically, the sun- drenched French scenes remind you of "To Catch A Thief," while the Whittaker's stuffy estate, "Moat House," conjures up "Rebecca." Farebrother gives off the nasty vibe of every Hitchcock unfair mother to come in his oeuvre. Jeans likewise personifies every sexy-but-troubled blonde Hitchcock would find such reward in making suffer.What the film doesn't have is an engaging story. Larita is too passive a character, and her romance with Whittaker is so bloodless it's hard to understand. The acting is borderline, with both Jeans and Farebrother especially problematic. Both have good scenes, but also too many overheated moments they play too much with their eyes, which tend to roll like storm-tossed eggs. Finally, this is one time the silent medium really under-serves the story, as many scenes play out in long talky pantomimes with minimal dialogue cards.You really get the feeling Hitchcock wanted to explore his growing bag of tricks at the expense of intelligent exposition. One early example features Hunter holding a decanter as a key piece of evidence in Larita's divorce trial. This allows for a cut to the same decanter in a scene with the drunken Mr. Filton, but one is left to wonder: What's the point bringing the decanter into the courtroom? It plays no role in the actual climax with the artist. It's just there for the cut.There's perhaps a more interesting film at work in the corners of the frame. One aspect touched on in ackstasis's October 2007 review is Larita's unsympathetic character once imprisoned in Moat House. She smokes like a chimney, blowing her exhaust in the faces of Whittaker's troublesome sisters. It's perhaps a sign of her liberation, except you wonder before the roof caves in why she doesn't cool it a bit. Given a chance to explain herself to the mother-in-law, she waves her off with a snooty line: "I'm sure the names of my friends would convey nothing to you." If she isn't a Scarlet Woman, and we know she isn't, she acts more than a bit like one.This might have been better explored if the Moat House scenes were played for more subtlety. Jeans bears a strong resemblance to Helen Mirren, and brings some of Mirren's wounded charm to her role. Alas, the melodrama takes over too quickly. Irvine just seems lost in his key role. I stopped caring early, and just watched for the tricks and the echoes of things to come.You get plenty of those, anyway. Hitchcock is one of those major figures you want to see even when he's not at his best. That's the only kind of recommendation I can offer for this weak-tea soap opera.

The spoils of a male dominated society, as Britain was at this time. The main character is caught in a no win situation. Divorce, for whatever reason, was always put at the foot of the woman. She was the one disgraced. Abuse was accepted as the lot of many women because the husband was simply enforcing his rights. This is no great film. The hope that she could escape her past is certainly not a realistic one. She tries to start a new life with an anchor around one leg. Romance doesn't work out for her because she latches on to an innocent and so her doom is sealed. The family is unrelenting in its treatment of her and, of course, a news story surfaces. The performances are pretty ordinary. Hitchcock plays with the camera and one can pull some pretty neat scenes that probably were used again. I especially like the beginning scene where we focus on the judge's wig, soon revealing his stony presence. See this as a curiosity. It's by no means a masterwork.