Watch The Pleasure Garden For Free

Touches You

Really Surprised!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

At the age of 25, Alfred Hitchcock, who had been an assistant director to Michael Balcon, was given the chance to direct his first film, which was of course silent. It is very good and showed at once that he had talent. Assistant director on the film was a girl named Alma Reville, who was to become Hitchcock's wife and lifelong partner in all of his film projects. The film is based on a popular novel by 'Oliver Sandys', which was the pen name of a woman whose real name was Marguerite Jarvis, and who in this same year appeared as an actress under the name of Marguerite Evans in the comedy film STAGESTRUCK, with Gloria Swanson. The title of this film is the name of a music hall in London, where two girls are in the chorus together, and share a room in Brixton. The melodrama concerns the adventures of their lives and respective fates. The film was shot at Babelsburg Studios in Germany and had an international cast. The American actress Virginia Valli plays Patsy, the good girl of the two. And Jill, the girl who goes to the bad, is played by another American actress, Carmelita Geraghty. The German actor Karl Falkenberg plays the unpleasant and sinister Prince Ivan, who leads Jill astray. Falkenberg acted in 100 films between 1916 and 1936, after which he disappears from history. Probably he was Jewish, was banned from the screen by the Nazis, and then sent to a death camp. Possibly the best performance in the film is by British actor Miles Mander, who outdid Falkenberg by appearing in 107 films, between 1920 and 1947, including WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939). In this film he plays a cad who married Patsy and then betrays her with a mistress and goes to pieces with drink and decadence. He delivers a very finely judged performance, and does not overact. Carmelita Geraghty is very convincing in her downward spiral into immorality, selfishness, and selling herself for fame and fortune. The film is not particularly creaky with age, and is well worth seeing.

Alfred Hitchcock's films are often analysis by film critics, film students and filmmakers alike. Memorable Films like 1940 'Rebecca', 1948 'Rope', 1959's 'North by Northwest', & 1963's 'The Birds' are some of his most study. Yet, the 1925's silent film, 'Pleasure Garden' is not one of his films, well-known. In my opinion, it equally worthy of seeing and dissecting, even if some parts of the film was a bit boring. Made way before the director became the master of suspense. 'Pleasure Garden' is the director full feature debut after filming short films for years. While, Hitchcock fashioned for himself a recognizable directorial style, over a career spanning more than half a century. His stylistic trademarks begun to take shape here. You see it, in the opening scene, where he use the camera to mimic a person's gaze, forcing viewers to engage in a form of voyeurism like 1954's 'Rear Window' or 1960's 'Psycho'. Lots of surprising, raciness sexual overtones in this film. It's rare to see that much 'skin', in this time period of filmmaking history. There is also a spiral staircase in the opening of this movie like 1958's 'Vertigo', use as a motif for impending danger or suspense. Still, if you hoping for something like a serious psychological thriller, then this film might not be for you. Most of the film is told through ditzy romantic & comedy. Don't get me wrong, the cheesy comedy parts were fine and I did like the dog, "Cuddles", but there were a few things that could had made this film, a lot better. First off, I think the film could had juxtaposing the humor against some of the heavy subject matter, a lot better. The horror part of the film, really comes out of nowhere with the film turning an odd slasher film. I think, the movie needed a better way of foreshadowing it. Another problem with this film is missing a strong 'MacGuffin' for the protagonist to pursue. The movie is almost directionless, and bit too melodrama, because of it. The first half of the film looks nothing like the second half, at all. It seems like two different movies, sloppy edited together with lots of pacing issues. Because of this, it become very jarring to watch at times. Based on a novel of the same name by Oliver Sandys AKA Marguerite Florence Barclay, the plot is supposed to tell the story of two chorus girls, Jill Cheyne (Carmelita Geraghty) & Patsy Brand (Virginia Valli) at the Pleasure Garden Theatre in London and their troubled relationships. While, at first, it seems, like Jill Cheyne will be the protagonist of this story, due to her strong desires to be a dancer; it became apparent, that Patsy is indeed the main focus of this film with her melodramatic with her husband, Levett (Miles Mander). This wouldn't be a problem, if Patsy wasn't so bland. She really wasn't that interesting. I think the movie could had solve it, if they kept with the chorus theme, even when the two main actresses can't dance worth crap. Why, because it would allow, the good hearted Patsy and the self-center gold digger, Jill to have some competition with each other. I kinda like the rivalry, between the uber rich and the middle class. It would make a better movie. It would be like something similar to 1924s 'White Shadow' movie theme. Instead, the second half also takes us, out of the interesting, yet sexy world of Chorus dancing, into the out of place, plains of the British Empire colonies. While, in truth, these movie sequence is indeed, shot in Italy; in story it's supposed to be, Africa. At least, what's I believe is supposed to be, Africa. In my opinion, it looks more like, Malaysia or Indonesia, based on how the location & people look. I really couldn't buy, it being Africa, at all. To make it worst, there were a numerous mishaps surrounding the production such as the film stock being confiscated by Italian customs officials & a whole load of expenses going missing. For a Hitchcock movie, I really surprised by the lack of any exotic & adventurous with this location. Because of that, it was somewhat dreary. Even the supporting actors, were a mixed bag for me. Miles Mander was alright for the villain, but I really didn't care for John Stuart as love interest, Hugh Fielding. I found his character to be, just as dull as Patsy. I couldn't care for their clumsy totally unmotivated Deus ex Machina love affair. It was just awkward to watch. No wonder why, not a lot of people watch this movie, when it came out. To add to the misery, there was no cameo from Alfred Hitchcock. So don't bother, looking for it. The film was not actually much liked by the distributors as well, who took exception to its European-influenced 'arty' touches and a violent shooting near the end. It was only released after the success of Hitchcock's next picture, 1927's 'The Lodger'. Since then it has existed in a bewildering number of hack versions often containing alternate or cut footage but recently most DVDs has fully restored the film to its original 90 mins from five different edits. Just make sure, you get the right DVD if you choose to watch this movie. Still, the print used for most of these DVDs, clearly seen better days. So, don't be surprised to see rather heavy contrast, and plenty of scratches and speckles. The music score composed and performed by Lee Erwin, was surprising, well done, but its mono, so it's not saying much. Overall: I have to say, this dinky period melodrama lacks the depth and engagement of the director's better films to come. Still, it's worth checking out for any Hitchcock fan, even if it's just for analyzing all of his work.

The Pleasure Garden is notable for being the first complete film of Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest and most influential directors in film, so it is one of great historical interest. It's not one of his best, there is somewhat of a primitive look, some of the pacing does get pedestrian in the middle and the scripting at times suffers from being overly talky. Hitchcock has definitely done worse though, and The Pleasure Garden is a decent film. Even for such an early effort, Hitchcock's direction does shine through with great use of camera angles and directorial flourishes. No signs of phoning in. The story is intelligently explored, the script serves the actors and Hitchcock competently(though of course there have been much better scripts since) and while the pacing is uneven the beginning and ending are solid enough. The acting give their all, maybe with some over-playing here and there, but there is signs of effort. All in all, a quite decent first complete film, though Hitchcock definitely went on to much better since. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Compared to the industries in Hollywood and Germany, precious few British films from the silent era have been preserved and deemed worthy of study. The Pleasure Garden would probably have been consigned to the dusty bin of obscurity, were it not for its being the debut of one Alfred Hitchcock.Hitchcock was of course destined for greatness, so this picture inevitably gets scrutinised for hints of said greatness, or at least traces of Hitchcockiness. A point-of-view shot of the legs of a chorus line in the opening scene is often referenced as an example of such, a bit of pure voyeurism that is at odds with the moralist plot line. A slightly more story-orientated point-of-view shot occurs when a pickpocket eyes up Virginia Valli's handbag. Hitchcock was clearly interested from the beginning by the idea of putting the audience in the place of a character, and the latter example helps to tell the story visually, but it is of little long-term value. Neither the thief nor the leg-viewer become established characters, so there is really no need for us to "become" them.The way these early scenes are shot may be aimed to cut down on the intertitles by conveying the story visually. You see, during his apprenticeship Hitchcock had done some art direction work on Der Letzte Mann, a picture best known for containing no intertitles whatsoever except one at the beginning and one near the end. While the resultant excess of technique is in fact more distracting than title cards, the idea obviously fired the young Hitch's imagination. To avoid having to "tell", he goes to somewhat forceful lengths to "show". Then again, it could just be because the 26-year-old director really liked to look at women's legs.But after those showy opening sequences, The Pleasure Garden gets bogged down in a series of "talking" scenes. By contrast the interaction here is shot rather flatly, and there are suddenly lots of intertitles. This middle section of the picture is incredibly slow and boring. The plot is muddied by a lack of well-defined, memorable characters and the fact that the two female leads look very similar is especially confusing. In the melodramatic climax there are some vague attempts at psychological manipulation, with a few close-ups of a menaced Valli, but it's too little too late.The Pleasure Garden is full of tricks, many of which can be seen as corresponding to the technique of the later Hitchcock – "God" shots, point-of-view shots, close-ups to focus us on a particular object. But these are all things any monkey could pick up after hanging around a few film sets, and the director does not yet know how to put them to best use. The Pleasure Garden may pique the interest of Hitchcock completists, but other than that it is simply dull.