Watch Champagne For Free

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Of the six (out of surviving 8) silent films of Hitchcock that I have seen, this is the worst. It is dull, dull, dull, practically plot-less, and a crashing bore.It would seem Hitch did not do well with early films in which the protagonist was a woman. In THE PLEASURE GARDEN and EASY VIRTUE, both centered around women, I found equally uninteresting plots, plodding and repetitive scenes, and little of interest in either the performances or the narrative. His best so far have been the back-to-back films with Ivor Novello, THE LODGER and DOWNHILL.Balfour in the lead has no acting talent it would seem. Her one expression is an inane smile. Jean Bradin as the boyfriend is good-looking, but also has one expression, a frown. The father, played by Gordon Harker, likewise has one expression, anger. The most interesting character is the stranger, played by Ferdinand Van Alten, who remains enigmatic throughout, popping up now and then, for no apparent reason (until the denouement). He so resembles David Suchet, we assume he is Poirot on a holiday and expecting any one of the leads to be murdered at any moment.Would that that had happened. They all deserved it for their dullness, and at least it would have been more of a Hitchcockian development plot-wise.There are the usual handful of clever cinematic and editing effects Hitch likes to employ: the close-up of the champagne cork popping; the view of a room through the upturned glass of champagne (in fact several individual points of view of scenes); the theft of the jewelry case – a tracking shot at below waist level; the dissolve of the expensive bed sheet to an everyday cotton table cloth; dancers going from live action to a still photo with pull back to display it in a store window, etc.These are only for Hitchcock devotees. As a film, it is very weak and ponderous and for a comedy, not a laugh in it. Unless you are a fan of the director, I would avoid it.

Betty Balfour plays "The Girl" who is a fun-loving, sorta dingy, party girl in this lighthearted romantic comedy. She's pretty, bubbly & sparkles like "Champagne". Appropriate title for this film.The Girl goes off on and parties on her father's money and he is going to teach her a lesson by telling her he's broke - the stock market fell. Now she will find a way to go on herself.Not much to this film. I'm finding it more of a snore-fest than I am interested in watching it - it's cute but not my style. That's not to say that others won't like it because there is an audience for these types of films - I'm just not one of them.The one early, silent romantic comedy I enjoyed from Hitchcock was Easy Virtue 1928 (it deals with the once taboo subject of divorce).3/10

The recent BFI restoration of the Hitchcock silents brought to light the unhappy truth that the negative of "Champagne" held in the National Archive -- which on research proved to be the ultimate source of every other surviving print around the world -- is explicitly labelled as the studio's 'second negative', in other words a substandard back-up copy assembled from the shots that weren't quite good enough for the distribution print. The digitally restored version looks good, and some improvements have been made where shots were obviously spliced out of sequence, but since we now know that there are specific problems in this negative with poor editing/pacing (e.g. shots being held a little too long) and the use of reaction shots that didn't originally make the grade, it's hard to be sure how many of the film's issues are due to this fact and how many to an actually weak storyline. Given that the major problems are the complaint that the film seems to drag and that characters' reactions just don't seem to make sense, I'm afraid that "Champagne" as originally released may well have been substantially superior to the only version that we will ever be able to see :-( This was apparently a case of a film where the title and star were decided upon in advance, and then a scenario had to be constructed around them! Hitchcock's original plan was for a rags-to-riches-to rags plot (as opposed to the riches-to-rags-to-riches version ultimately used) in which a girl working at a rural champagne plant would go up to Paris and see for herself how the drink fuelled dissipated night-life, only to return disgusted to her poor but honest job. However, it was felt that the great British public would much prefer to see glamour celebrated on the screen rather than have their illusions popped -- cinema was an escapist medium for those whose life was hard -- and so a completely different scenario was developed. (It is interesting to wonder, however, how much of the cabaret sequence derives from this original concept.)Like most of Hitchcock's early films, this is not a typical "Hitchcock" production -- the director was expected to do his job as paid by the studio rather than provide his own material -- and is of interest to those who enjoy films of the era rather than to those who are looking for traces of "The Master of Suspense". Betty Balfour is the quintessential Twenties Girl here: wilful and bubbly with a Cupid's-bow pout, cropped curls and the ambition to dictate her own life rather than acquiesce to the plans of the male half of the population. The plot is thin and in places rather contrived, but as this is by no means rare in comedies of the period (or later ones...) I think the problem is with the handling of the material rather than with the storyline per se.The beginning is good (I particularly liked the description of the young man as a 'cake-hound'. a wonderfully period insult), and the wordless comedy of sea-sickness is very well handled without being merely crude: I love the way the Boy veers between outraged determination to confront his supposed rival and qualms from his uncertain stomach. The concept of forcing the spoilt flapper to fend for herself (echoing Buster Keaton's hapless couple on board the "Navigator") is obviously intended as a major comedy hook for the plot, although it's not played intensively for laughs. I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen a director actually get comic business out of the actual process of cooking (as opposed to simply miming that the rock-cakes are rock-hard) and did wonder if it reflected an impressive degree of domestication on Mr Hitchcock's (or Mr Stannard's) part!The main problem with the film is I think the cabaret sequence, and I do wonder if this is a left-over from the original scenario. Instead of developing the comedy inherent in a girl who 'makes a mess of everything she gets her hands on' (including the back of her lover's jacket...!) looking for a job, we are plunged into what turns out to be a rather confusing and portentous sequence of events, as her 'job' at the cabaret seems to get forgotten in favour of sexual innuendo: the prostitutes, the lesbians, the would-be rapist... The plot becomes muddled (not helped by what turns out to be an interpolated dream/nightmare sequence) and ends up with the girl running off to throw herself on the mercy of a man she has previously -- and soon again subsequently -- seemed to be afraid of. Considered dispassionately, much of this section seems to be a digression that neither develops the comedy nor furthers the plot mechanics (although it is probably the most 'Hitchcockian' part of the picture!)Having contorted the characters into the required situation to create the final comic set-up -- the showdown of mistaken intentions on board the returning liner -- the film concludes fairly happily with some genuine laughter through unforced farce. The acting is by and large good -- save for those moments when it is simply totally confusing! -- and the basic plot is a promising set-up for a typical light comedy of the period, complete with showy costumes for the leading lady and a hint of slapstick. The pacing is just a bit off; and, knowing what we now know, I do wonder if there is missing material -- intertitles, for instance! -- or even excess shots where alternate takes/ideas were *both* included in the compiled negative for a decision at some future point...

The film begins with a flighty and spoiled rich lady crashing her plane near a cruise ship. You soon learn that it was NOT an accident--she just missed the ship and thought nothing of destroying an expensive plane to make it to the ship where her fiancé is waiting. They are planning to elope but her father is furious--especially since it all seems like a fun adventure to the daughter instead of serious business. So, to teach her a lesson, the father tells her that he is broke and she'll have to support herself. Well, considering the type person she is, this seems like a great plan (too bad Paris Hilton's parents never saw this film) and the wedding plans soon fizzle.Next they show the formerly rich girl trying to behave like a normal lady--cooking and taking care of her now "poor" father. So, feeling desperate to help support herself and Dad, she applies for work on a cruise ship. Oddly, she really never seems to actually do that much working once on board. However, what does happen is that a wolf gets a hold of her and things look bad--leading to a cute surprise ending.All in all, a very entertaining film and something that might surprise some Hitchcock fans, as it's nothing like his later films. A decent silent light comedy that's worth a look because of its story and high watchability.