ElMaruecan82
Imagine you're in a train, falling asleep and waking up to find out that your travelling companion has suddenly disappeared and none of the other passengers seems to recall his existence. Many times we're doubting our own certitudes, but what if we're sneakily lured into that doubt? How strong peer pressure can get to make us embrace a truth we hold for untrue? Hitchcock made many movies centering on conspiracies but they were all of political nature and we could identify both the villains and the implications of their lies. So do we in "The Lady Vanishes" but when even people who're obviously not part of the conspiracy have selfish reasons to deny the heroine's certitudes, you know you're dealing with cinematic treats only Chief Hitchcock can serve. Basically, he anticipates the plot-basis of "Gaslight" while transcending the classic "I swear it was here" cinematic trope.But "The Lady Vanishes" is also a pivotal moment in his career, it was its success, both critical (still considered one of his best) and commercial (at that time the most successful British film ever) that prompted Darryl O. Selznick to bring Hitchcock to the United States, firmly (and rightfully) believing that the director had a future in Hollywood. The rest is history, and the lighthearted but heavy-loaded train thriller was until the 70's Hitchcock' final British film.But did he know it?While it's very likely that he contemplated Hollywood conquest in 1938, he had barely conquered his countrymen. "Secret Agent" was forgettable, "Sabotage" was excellent but the story lived for the sake of its heart-pounding climax (that forged the director's reputation as a master of suspense) and "Young and Innocent" didn't have that level of sophisticated craftsmanship Hitchcock used to bring on-screen. These films were good, but inserted in a timeline starting with "39" and ending with "Vanishes", they could hardly be called high spots.But that makes the enthusiastic reception of the latter even more genuine and rewarding. Before quality, Hitchcock's prolificacy (one, sometimes two movies a year) was probably his best asset as he could never take a success for granted nor let a failure undermine his confidence. So, in 1938, he was finally given the right project, one with everything that could please the master starting with likable protagonists with motives of their own like in an Agatha Christie novel.
Indeed, all these characters have their establishing moments in a first act that can work as a school case of exposition (and comedy).The film starts in a hotel in the kind of typical unnamed country that could have inspired Wes Anderson for his "Grand Budapest Hotel". An avalanche has blocked the railroad and customers are welcomed to stay for the night. The gallery of tourists is rather colorful, there are two British men, Caldicott and Charters, obviously obsessed with a cricket game they shall not miss by any chance, and are forced to share the servant's room, for some reason, their sharing the same bed was so incongruous for a 30s film it was hilarious. There's a group of three young socialites in a last tour over Europe, before their friend Iris (Margaret Lockwood) goes to London and marries some pre-arranged husband in London, there's Gilbert (a well-cast Flynn-like Michael Redgrave), a handsome expert in musicology who "plays musical chairs with elephants" at night, an anxious married man with his mistress and the lovable Mae Whitty as Mrs. Froy. She plays a retiring nurse going home to London and apparently eager to listen to a sweet ballad delivered in a serenade. So many things happen and so many are played for laughs that the potential plot devices or McGuffins might get overlooked, but they exist; you can bet on that.I think one of the mark of the great directors is that they make movies you want to watch twice, Hitchcock is even greater because he makes movies you've got to watch twice, not because they're complicated but because the delight is enhanced by the second viewing. There's a moment where the train whistles so loud a name must be written in the window, that detail will play a pivotal moment later. But then you'll notice Hitchcock's wicked sense of humor when it comes to the notions of appearing and vanishing. Hitchcock toys with our emotions in a rather claustrophobic and nightmarish situation where everything's against someone, yet sometimes, it's so desperate you've got to laugh.And Hitchcock seems to be in his territory when it comes to trains, like running metaphors of a plot heading to a destination, with villains likely to derail it or stop it. It also means that no one can leave it, so when you think about it, even the title has the right verb, creating a mystery within the mystery. It's not your "typical" detached thriller, Hitchcock even adds more density to his trademarks. Iris is a likable protagonist because she's not driven by a selfish motive, it's not about proving her innocence but rescuing a helpless person, actually, even villains are not deprived of human feelings.Speaking of villains, there's something interesting in the plot construction. When the revelation comes, the third act turns into a heart-pounding battle between fellow British men, all grouped in the restaurant at the time of tea, and foreigners. As a product of their time, Hitchcock movies from the 30s dealt with espionage and counter-espionage with worldwide war as a threat, but never has a historical value been so blatant and prophetic when one of the characters decided to wave a white flag, the Munich context and Churchill's quote about "dishonor and war" couldn't have had been a better illustration. "The Lady Vanishes" isn't just a wonderfully constructed thriller with fun screwball undertones, it's also a marker of talent and of time, and the best possible way for Hitchcock to end HIS time in Britain... but certainly not in the movies.
John Brooks
Hitchcock directs this very originally and interestingly written motion picture adaptation of a book and all in all this is a very entertaining train ride, with bumps along the road both literally and figuratively, and an ability to keep the viewer constantly interested and genuinely intrigued as to what is actually going on. We're given a host of twists and turns and the development never ceases to be highly dynamic, while the acting is very good with notably the two main and the doctor characters, the dialog as always in Hitchcock films of very sound quality, and it seems just about the right length - such films turn dull after too many twists and lingering plot.The only concern one may have with this is that towards the last quarter of the film, although it's all innate to the storyline the final act resembles very little of what's been going on for the whole bulk of the film and this sort of venturing outside the atmosphere worked so hard to set initially, if one considers the name of the film, the mystery etc... it could feel a bit like this train has gone off track, despite the coherence in story, the atmosphere certainly borrows another path perhaps a bit too different.7.5/8ish.
Rainey Dawn
For me personally, this film is over rated. It's good but not superb. A persons taste in films is completely subjective - it's all a matter of personal preferences.I found this one cute - not a thrilling psychological thriller as I was lead on to believe the film to be - once everyone entered onto the train. It is a (comedy) thriller but not as great as I was looking forward to, I was hoping the film would become very serious once the gang entered the train. Now don't get me wrong the film is good for what it is: a comedy thriller.The film has manatee written all over it to me, IDK maybe it's the comedy that has me feeling that way because I prefer serious thrillers for the nighttime mainly.6.5/10
