Review: Champagne

A film about a spoiled heiress (Betty Balfour) her quarrelling boyfriend (Jean Bradin), her disapproving magnate father (Gordon Harker), and a mystery man (Ferdinand von Alten).

 

I’ve heard more than one film being cited as the film Alfred Hitchcock (whose best films to me include “Strangers on a Train”, “Vertigo”, and “The 39 Steps”) felt was his worst, but this 1928 silent film seems to get a mention more often than any other. Having seen the film, that actually really surprises me. I liked it. Of his 52 available non-propaganda films, I’ve got it in at #23 in between “Blackmail” and “The Pleasure Garden”. #23 may not seem so high, but it’s an indication of just how many good/great films he made, as well as how many films overall that he made. It’s pretty good.

 

Things pick up right away with a great early shot into a champagne glass with a dance hall girl seen through it. Vintage Hitchcock moment for sure as is a funny bit of swaying camera movement to suggest seasickness. He seems invested here, so it’s interesting that he didn’t have a high opinion of the final product. The acting is better than in a lot of silent films, with star Betty Balfour (said to be the ‘British Mary Pickford’) in particular shining. She’s immediately lovely and full of charm. The story is enjoyable too, basically a better version of Hitchcock’s “Rich & Strange” and quite funny throughout. Especially funny is an actor named Marcel Vibert in an uncredited but hilarious turn as the maître d’hôtel.

 

At the very least I think this comedy is one of Hitchcock’s best silent films, and better than some of his more well-known sound era films too. Forget anything you’ve heard or read previously, and just give it a go. I think it’s incredibly underrated, even by the director himself. Based on a novel by Walter C. Mycroft (who helped adapt “Murder!” for Hitchcock), the screenplay is by Eliot Stannard (“The Lodger”, “The Farmer’s Wife”, “The Manxman”) and Hitchcock himself.   

 

Rating: B-