A juror in murder trial, decides to go through his own investigation, convinced that the accused (and sentenced) woman is actually innocent.

This is the premise of "Mary", Hitchcock's German version of "Murder", a film so rare it's said to have only one surviving copy in the German national archives and the only way to watch it in DVD is to have the French version of Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn". Well, talk about a good luck, I rented the DVD of "Shadow of a Doubt" and much to my surprise, there was a second one in the box set: "Jamaica Inn". One forgotten Hitch film is an offer you can't refuse, I wouldn't have called myself a fan if I wasn't a little curious to watch it. So I did and well, it was interesting. Once you get past the wooden or theatrical acting from some players, which is typical of many early 30's movie, and a rather excusable flaw (if flaw is the right word),you appreciate the film even more, especially in the way some point-of-view shots or very inspired bits of editing illustrate the then-blooming talent of Alfred Hitchcock.

There are two standout sequences though that makes the film all worth to watch, and redeem the lack of appeal of the rest: one taking place at the jury room and one at a circus. I refuse to believe that the jury room sequence didn't inspire, not a bit, the writing of "12 Angry Men", it's the closest to the claustrophobic and psychological vibes that made Reginald Rose' play and the movie adaptation such a thrilling spectacle, and it was two decades before. Now, the second is pure Hitchcock, and it's even funnier to say this, as he was 32 when he made it, but the movie's climax is foreseeing his craze for thrills culminating in the most peculiar and colorful places, here a circus and during a trapeze number. I won't spoil what happens after, except that you don't see it coming no matter how prepared you are to see it coming. I was bluffed and shocked, and I liked the way it was both dark and emotionally rewarding.

I supposed the original would have been more enjoyable, because the German performances, the subtitles, and the rather blurry quality of the black-and-white photography make some part difficult to follow, also the fact that many characters look exactly alike, with the same bourgeois demeanor, same slick hair and dark clothes that I wondered if it wast a deliberate attempt to confuse us, but for what reason? Maybe Hitch wanted to emphasize the fact that any of the protagonists could be the real killer or maybe it was an aesthetic choice, or maybe I'm reading too much and it was just a pure coincidence. Anyway, this isn't exactly where the film sins. While it was very economical and never wasted lines or scenes, there were a few scenes or lines too many even for its eighty minutes.

First, we didn't really need the last shot because as soon as the innocence is proved, the sight of the innocent woman leaving prison and being comforted doesn't add much to the story, we already know justice has been done. Another missed opportunity was with the motive of the murder, all through the film, the one question left unanswered was "what was the victim about to reveal about the man (likely, the murderer) so that she had to be killed?". We know there's a secret to reveal, it's a mystery that remains unsolved but whose necessity plot-wise is lost when it has served its purpose, which is to unmask the real killer. Once justice is done, of course, we want to know the secret, and one of the protagonists asks the question, but seriously, would have any answer been as satisfying as having good old Hitch making a smash cut before we know?

I know he wasn't "good old Hitch" then, but it would have been a brilliant hint of his wicked humor to leave the secret hidden and having kept it as a MacGuffin. So many film come very close to being modest masterpieces thanks to some clever endings, original in a cunning, if not cynical, way. Hitch had all the material to close "Mary" in a very Hitchcockian way, but I guess it took him a few conventional films to make his bones before making unconventional ones. Four year later, he'd make "39 Steps", which are like giant leaps from "Mary", still a good film to watch for all the fans of Hitchcock.

For all practical purposes, a remake, in German, of "Murder!" It is stark and frantic, but the plot is the same. The editing is flawed and so things do not move fluidly. Also, the actors seem more stiff and less interesting. It's as if Hitchcock felt he could give the German people a gift, but move on quickly. I agree that the tension is much less. The final scene is one of the most dramatic of any the master produced, but here it doesn't have quite the same impact. See it only if you wish to have a full view of early Hitchcock films. That was my motivation.

"Mary" is (even if the title does not sound like it) a German 78-minute film from 1931. The director, but not one of the writers according to IMDb, is the fairly young Alfred Hitchcock. "Young" is relative though in this context as he had been making films at this point already for about a decade. The language here is German and the cast includes a couple somewhat known German actors from back in the day, such as Abel and Tschechowa. This film has its 85th anniversary this year, so it was made 2 years before Nazis came into power in Germany. That's why nobody should be surprised it is a black-and-white film still. But it's not a silent film anymore. I personally did not really care for this crime-related courtroom drama or for any of the characters. It all felt a bit bland to me and I as an audience member did not feel involved whatsoever and with this I mean emotionally or just that I found it interesting enough to move to the edge of my seat. A fairly underwhelming early film by one of the greatest. But if it helped Hitchcock in improving towards what people consider his masterpieces then that's fine for me. I myself am glad this stayed clearly under 90 minutes and I don't recommend the watch. Thumbs down.