Rich and Strange (1931)

Alfred Hitchcock-directed early talkie about a middle-class married couple (Henry Kendall, Joan Barry) who inherit a fortune and travel the world, meeting other people and having affairs. Started off like a comedy then got serious. Should've went with comedy. Some nice visuals and Hitch plays around with different techniques, which is always interesting to watch in his early films. But the story is unpleasant and the switch from light to dark left me feeling unsatisfied. On the plus side, Joan Barry is lovely and pretty much walks away with the picture unchallenged. The rest of the cast, including Henry Kendall, is kind of ho-hum. Worth a look for Hitchcock completists but really no great shakes.

This film is known as "The Rich and Strange" (UK) and "East of Shanghai" (US). It's one of Hitchcock's romantic comedies that is often wrongly tagged as a thriller film and I would imagine this is because Hitchcock is famous for making thriller films. This film is NOT a thriller.This film is more like other earlier Hitchcock works: Young and Innocent (1937) or The Farmer's Wife (1928) due to the romantic comedy nature of the films. Do not expect this film to be anything like Vertigo (1958) or even Psycho (1960) because it is not."The Rich and Strange" is not a bad film it's pretty good but not what most of would think of when we think of Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock's real calling was for suspenseful thrillers and not romantic comedies but he really doesn't disappoint with films like this one.This film is a moral piece: A man and woman is poor, they inherit lots of money and go sailing around the world. While on a ship their relationship falls apart as they realize they were happier when they were poor instead of being filthy rich - and in the end they lose everything becoming poor and happy again. The end.6.5/10

An expectation cast by the later half of Hitchcock's oeuvre may not do justice to "Rich and Strange" (1931), but when seen in the context of Hitchcock's early sound films it really sticks out for the better. In fact, I would say it is the best of them. In addition to critical treatises on marriage, gender and sexuality, Hitchcock studies one of his favorite themes of a man who yearns for something different and thus practically invites chaos to his life which otherwise would be in perfect order. This perfect order of harmonious dimensions is portrayed in the opening dolly shot of the protagonist's dull office life. Then, however, we see that he doesn't quite fit this seeming order, revealing distress beneath, as he cannot open up his umbrella with the others. The story begins when he and his wife, bored with their mundane life, hear of an early inheritance which leads them to a trip round the world. Unlike in "The 39 Steps" (1935) or "Saboteur" (1942), here the abundance of settings doesn't equal exciting adventure, although quite a fast pace, but a fragmentary episode-like structure and a ground for the theme of alienation. These may be among the reasons why "Rich and Strange" was back in the day so poorly received, but, nonetheless, has later been commended by several critics (Truffaut, Spoto) as well as favored by the master himself. In the essence of the film's moral (which may be a word too puny for Hitchcock's level of mastery) is that the main couple yearn for excitement and adventure, but instead of enriching, life-enhancing experiences, go through severe disillusionment. This disillusionment, however, doesn't affect their life for better or worse. It remains the same. Donald Spoto has written that it is in these moments of disillusionment where lies the main point of the film: the acceptance for the extremes of life and death as they are. In comparison to "The Skin Game" (1931), which Hitchcock made just before this, "Rich and Strange" is much more original and cinematic. The same happened with "Murder!" (1930) which is far more superior than its theatrical predecessor "Juno and the Paycock" (1929). But what really makes "Rich and Strange" so special, and a fascinating part of Hitchcock's oeuvre, is its absurdity. This absurdity is not only gained from story nor humor but, above all, from their odd execution. The absurdity emerges from the film's unique, strange atmosphere. This atmosphere must be experienced to be understood and it is eternally guarded by the magical aura of the film given to it by early sound cinema.

I agree with many of the other reviewers that the value of this movie is that it gives a clue to the Hitchcock of his future movies. The camera-work, particular in the earlier part, is much above other films of that era. Some clues to the camera techniques that he used in his other 30's vintage movies, such as Sabotage, Thirty-Nine Steps are apparent here.I do disagree with those that there was no MacGuffin in this picture. Remember the scene at the theater in Paris where a bearded (obviously fake beard) man pinches her bottom. I was waiting for the man to reappear later in the film (he didn't). Also it was a little erotic diversion to a sexy woman in a dull marriage.