Week 8: Young and Innocent (1937)

Young and Innocent follows the story of a young man who finds a body on the beach of a woman who had met before. He runs to get help, but two witnesses walking along the beach see him and believe he is fleeing the scene of the crime. When it is discovered that she left him money in her will, the police believe they have their murderer. He escapes from the courthouse before arraignment and enlists the help of the chief commissioner's daughter to assist him in proving his innocence.

This is one of Hitchcock's British films, and was renamed when released in America to The Girl Was Young. It is very loosely based on the novel A Shilling for Candles by Josephine Tey. This film, while enjoyable, definitely lacks some of the substance Hitchcock typically provides.

Some of the filmwork is very beautiful, particularly the shots of the beach toward the beginning, and shots of a crumbling mine later in the film. It was visually very appealing and well edited.

The acting is quite good. By far the best part of the film is the development of the relationship between the escapee, Robert Tisdale (Derrick De Marney) and the commissioner's daughter, Erica (Nova Pilbeam). Pilbeam is particularly impressive as the witty, insightful girl who at first doubts Robert's innocence, but ultimately comes to realize that he is telling the truth. She is quite conflicted about helping him because of her personal ties to the policemen involved, but knows that without her help he is doomed. They have an excellent onscreen chemistry, and Hitchcock allows plenty of time for us to see them fall in love. We don't always get the chance to see that process in a Hitchcock film because so much is typically going on that it has to happen in a matter of two or three scenes, but in this work we get that added benefit of realism in the love journey.

However, that is about the extent of any realism in the film. It contains two of his main go-to themes, that of a wrongly accused man, and that of police being completely incompetent. When Hitchcock was a small boy his parents had the police pretend to arrest him as some form of punishment. It left him pretty frightened of police and very bitter, as evidenced in many of his films. This one takes it to an extreme.

To Hitchcock's credit, I believe this was a deliberate choice on his part, in an attempt to make a very satirical film about the criminal justice system and police incompetence. We see the police as bumbling fools from the beginning, latching on to the smallest bit of evidence against Tisdale and not considering any other suspects. Tisdale's appointed lawyer is even worse, a fool who can barely put together a thought, much less a criminal defense case. But the fact that the police never even consider to look into the murdered woman's ex-husband, who she recently went to great efforts to divorce, and who she got into loud screaming matches with, takes that satire to an unbelievable level, and I think it weakens the film.

Furthermore, the movie has ridiculous plot manipulation as well as several plot holes. We never get a satisfactory explanation for why Tisdale is in the murdered woman's will. She knew him but they have no serious relationship or even friendship. There would simply be no reason for her to leave him a substantial amount of money.

Even worse is the fact that she was strangled with a belt off of a raincoat that belonged to Tisdale. It had been conveniently stolen the week before from his car outside of a bar and then the raincoat had been passed along to a bum who ultimately helped Tisdale identify the killer as the man who had given him the coat. The killer also left a book of matches from his place of work in the coat pocket so they knew exactly where to find him. I assume Hitch wanted us to think that the killer had stolen Tisdale's coat in order to frame him, but it seems very unlikely that he would be so meticulous in stalking Tisdale, pouncing at the first possible opportunity, stealing the coat, and using the belt as the murder weapon to set him up, but all the while being so careless that instead of disposing of the coat or returning it to Tisdale's car, he would just give it to a bum who frequents the bar and could easily identify him, not to mention forgetting to check the pockets for clues. It just doesn't make any sense. It's very convoluted and not up to the master's standards.

That being said, watching the journey of the characters figuring out how to locate the true killer is fairly entertaining. I had seen this film years before and could barely remember it, and now I am well aware of why I couldn't. 

My ultimate decision on this film is it's worth a watch if you happen to catch it on TV, but only if you are in the mood for some light comedy, and not a true work of art, great suspense, or a satisfying plot.