The Lady Vanishes (1980)

On a wet, dreary Sunday I watched both versions of this film more or less back to back, fully expecting to prefer the earlier Hitchcock version (I'm a Hitch fan) yet I was pretty surprised to find it wasn't that straightforward.Yes- the earlier version is in many ways more economical in its story telling, rapidly showing the mittelEuropean setting plus avalanche and thus getting straight to the business of the problems at the hotel within 3 minutes (including opening titles) rather than the picturesque but drawn-out opening of the 1979 version. And the editing is often more stylish in its inter-cutting of images of train tracks, wheels and whistles into subtle plot points.But such things aside, for me the modern version has an improvement on the original because it uses real history. It's set one year after the original film (1938) and so uses WWII reasons for the plot. The original film was made and set in 1938 and uses preWWI reasons and a fictitious country, highlighting just how separated from real events that movie was. Obviously the writers weren't to know everything in Europe was about to go up in flames, but hindsight inevitably dates the quaint portrayal of incendiary events.I found Cybill Shepherd's character gratingly brattish, and nowhere near as charming as Carole Lombard that she was allegedly trying to emulate, but that was as nothing to how annoyingly entitled and arrogant most of the characters were in the 1938 version. Hitchcock may well have been satirising how awful the English are abroad, but he also filled his movie with patronising stereotypes of "funny foreigners" who were treated with varying degrees of disdain by all, even Miss Froy. Charters & Caldicott's treatment of the maid who had to give up her room to them was plain obnoxious.There was a good deal of believable warmth and chemistry between Lansbury and Shepherd that was lacking imo between Whitty & Lockwood. And for me, Arthur Lowe can get more dry comedy out of one line, or even one look, than several scenes with Basil Radford."Mrs Todhunter's" motivation for saying she saw Miss Froy is more slickly conveyed in the earlier version, but Herbert Lom's doctor is a more fully realised character in the later one so it came as a better twist for me when we find out what he's really up to.For me, Iris & Gilbert gradually bonding over lunch and in the luggage carriage was more endearing than Robert's leering appreciation of Amanda's bra-less figure in a slinky dress, regardless of how alluring she looked in it. And the reason for the nun to switch sides is better hinted at in the 1938 version (because she's English) whereas the 1979 version unnecessarily complicates things by making her married to the doctor who in turn is the aristocratic lady's nephew- all for no story-telling gain.Hitchcock also wrings far more tension out of the drugged drinks than happens in the remake, as well as more daft comedy out of the inept fight in the luggage car. However, I did enjoy Amanda & Robert's madcap reactions when they thought they'd been poisoned. Gould is naturally funny; Shepherd occasionally so.The shootout is much better acted out in the 1979 version, but changing the male lead's profession from musician to photographer meant that Miss Froy pulling him away from the life-or-death shooting match in order to teach him a vitally important piece of music -instead of teaching just Amanda- didn't make sense; better to have left him being a music specialist and thus having a good reason for pulling him away from a vital shootout. Nor does the modern version even attempt to explain why this tune is important anyway (daft though it is).Both films are the same length to within a minute, but the more efficient story-telling in the older version left enough time to include the story line of the officer who boards the train at the shootout, and he adds even greater tension in the final act. What also adds to the final 3 minutes of the original, is delaying the clinch between the two leads until then, rather than Shepherd & Gould making it clear that they're a couple far earlier.I loved the musical score of the remake- it really added to the lush feel, along with the gorgeous location shots- and ironically, it reminded me in places of the score to one of Hitchcock's other movies- Marnie.So in summary: 1979 photography/scenery >19381979 music >1938Angela Lansbury >May WhittyArthur Lowe >Basil Radford1979 characters far less obnoxious with foreigners than 19381979 political backdrop >1938But1938 editing & tight story-telling >1979Margaret Lockwood >Cybill Shepherd1938 Plotting & motivation >19791938 mystery & suspense >1979All in all, I think I *just* prefer the original, mostly because Margaret Lockwood is so winningly gorgeous in it, but there is plenty to recommend the newer version, and it was by no means a pointless remake.

The last of the original Hammer films, it's a rather bad film which does not live up to either the best of the studio's films from the late 1950s to the early 1970s or the original Alfred Hitchcock film. The film follows the same basic storyline as the 1938 version but the execution is lacking. I had mixed feelings about the fact that, in certain aspects, the film stuck very closely to the original, even using many of the same lines. On the one hand, I wish that they had done something different as, otherwise, it makes the idea of the remake rather pointless. On the other hand, the new material is fairly bad so perhaps I was spared from being even worse than it was.I like Elliot Gould but this isn't one of his better performances. He just natters on and on constantly. Cybill Shepherd is dreadful as Amanda Kelly, the "much married American heiress." She spends the entire film either speaking in a monotone, rushing her lines or screeching at the top of her lungs. They also have almost no chemistry. They're no Michael Redgrave or Margaret Lockwood. They're both thoroughly overshadowed and outacted by Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael as Charters and Caldicott, who were almost as good as Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford in the 1938 version, as well as by Herbert Lom as Dr. Hartz. Incidentally, I think that Lom - who played the title character in "The Phantom of the Opera" - is the only Hammer veteran to appear in their final film for 29 years. Angela Lansbury is good as Mrs Froy but, at 53, she was at least 15 years too young for the role.Alfred Hitchcock was still alive when the film was released. I doubt that he ever saw it, which is perhaps for the best.

I've seen Hitchcock's original and did not expect much for the remake. Boy was I surprised. This actually seemed better than the original. It's a must have. It will be in my DVD collection. The actors made this movie. Lansbury, Shepherd and Gould were superb. Who would have thought Gould could compete with a Redgrave; but, he actually pulled it off. I think this was Shepherd's best performance ever. Lansbury's recent performance in a children's movie was pretty good, but this, indeed, has to be her absolutely best performance ever. Cheers to all the actors and director. If you can get your hands on a copy of this movie, do so today. It is well worth the investment. I am particular about my movie collection, but this one made the cut.

I haven't seen the original but I watched this with 1 hour delay on two channels simultaneously, I was at home with a cold at the time and feeling very sorry for myself. Anyway, if you would just put the two leads aside for a moment (although Eliot Gould was SO cute in the movie and Cybil Shepperd did the visual pun of Marilyn Monroe on the air vent very well when she gets out of the train...) The thing I really liked about this film were the characters of Charters and Caldicott - they made me laugh hysterically - there they are drinking tea - understating this understating that - then suddenly.....they are really terrific minor characters. I would love a whole film on those two. Very affectionate look at English manners. ARTHUR LOWE MADE ME FORGET HOW ILL I FELT!