This story is sort of like the parable of the Protigal Son with LOTS of changes--mainly, the son is a total idiot and the father actually is the one who is the judgmental jerk. It begins with a couple of college chums. One is rich and nice (in other words, a total patsy) and the other is poor and went to school on a scholarship. When the poor one does something stupid, the rich friend takes responsibility (why, we must only assume because he's an imbecile). When he's then thrown out of school, his father disowns him. Here is where it's more like the Protigal Son, as the young moron spends his new inheritance on drunken living among rich low-lifes and he proceeds to throw his life away--though, once again, we are unsure why. After all, with this inheritance he should have a lovely life even after having been thrown out of school (30000 Pounds was a HUGE sum of money in 1927). In the end, the young guy is a total physical and mental wreck when he somehow manages to struggle home.

Even by the standards of the silent era, "Downhill" (also known as "When Boys Leave Home") is an incredibly old fashioned and overly moralistic sort of film--the sort you would never associate with Alfred Hitchcock. However, at this point in his career, there was no 'Hitchcock style' and he made a wide range of films--not just suspense and murder films. However, the story itself is so totally lacking that it really didn't give this fine director much with which to work. However, in his defense, at least he did an exceptional job when it came to the cinematography and the film had a wonderful artistry about it that sets it apart. In fact, it's so lovely that I still mildly recommend the film--even with the rather dumb plot.

As a huge Hitchcock fan, Downhill was an interesting film but while not among his weakest it is a long way from being among his best. The acting is not bad at all, in fact decent(likewise with the chemistry between them),Ivor Novello's performance is expressive and moving if not always subtle, Isabel Jeans is a sympathetic Julia and Annette Benson makes Mabel's scheming believable. Ian Hunter is also very naturalistic in his role. The production values and Hitchcock's direction are Downhill's best qualities, both are superb. The film is really beautifully shot, some of the best and most ahead-of-its-time photography of any of Hitchcock's silent films. The choice of locations are appropriate and well-utilised, particularly with the scenes set in the nightclub and theatre. The hand-held camera shots signifying Roddy's delirium, the slow pan shot during the dance in the Parisian hall scene and the long pulling-back shot with us thinking that Roddy is dressing for a fancy night, then us thinking that he is waiter and then we realise that he is on the stage stand out as being especially good technically. Hitchcock wasn't yet in his comfort zone, but his direction not only shows technical skill but also early in his career being able to show the psychological insight that he was often so good at. As well as enhancing the mood. From a narrative standpoint unfortunately Downhill falls far short in comparison, for all how strong his visuals and direction are Hitchcock apparently had little interest in the story and it comes through loud and clear. The story creaks that wooden floorboards in a deserted house, makes very little sense and does drag quite badly at times. The characters are not very interesting and often one-sided which, especially with the female characters, may leave a sour taste in the mouth. The script touches on the social hypocrisy and the separation of classes- morally mostly- but to me it does very little with those themes and while interesting for when and where Downhill was set it doesn't hold up well today. On the whole, a mixed view here, loved it technically, didn't care for it narratively. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Two young men, one wealthy, one impoverished, go to a prep school. They both get involved with a bakery girl. She claims to be compromised by the poorer kid which would eliminate him from staying in school and realizing a dream. So the rich kid takes the rap and ends up an outcast, getting into more and more trouble not of his own making. I don't know that the other guy deserved this but Ivor Novello's character pays an extraordinary price. He becomes an outcast to his father and family and friends. Of course, there is a twist because good triumphs. But I'm not so sure it really does because of all the villainy and victims that fill the screen. Still, it's early Hitchcock and few people really know about it.