Number Seventeen (1932)

I love this movie so much

Sick Product of a Sick System

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

You can witness elements of what will become the director's style, but overall the pace is fairly plodding and the story pretty lame and confusing. One immediately notices the experimentation with the camera, from the hand held shot at the beginning when the actor John Stuart enters the "house for let", to the many candle lit scenes as the characters mount the stairs and explore the house, to the quick cuts used later in the chase to add suspense.Additionally, the comic elements used during moments of tension foreshadow the director's later works. One shot, which he used again in The 39 Steps (1935), occurs when the two men discover the body and their screams are masked by a passing train's whistle. The suspenseful, harrowing chase, though clearly done with miniatures, is also a tried and true characteristic later associated with Hitchcock, to say nothing of the use of trains in his films in general.The story begins with "Stuart" entering an abandoned house, full of cobwebs. He soon meets another man, a rather odd cockney-accented Igor type, who says his name is Ben, and the two of them stumble upon a corpse. Rather oddly, "Stuart" is able to "control" Ben, and there are some really slow moments where not enough tension is built before the next thing happens. Plus, oftentimes what happens next is not enough of a payoff for our wait. There are also some seemly disconnected cutaways, e.g. to doors slamming etc., which show us that the great director was still finding his way in this film.Shortly thereafter, a young woman (Nora) falls through the rotted ceiling and onto the two men. She provides a clue, a telegram from her father which mentions necklace stolen by Sheldrake from a detective named Barton. Soon there is a knock at the door which "Stuart" goes to answer. After inserting a card with Number Seventeen scrawled on it, a man and a woman are revealed behind the door. They want to see the "house for let". As "Stuart" is closing the door, a second man, not connected with the man and woman, also enters.When all of them mount the stairs, "Stuart" tries to slow them so they won't discover the corpse, but Ben informs him that the body has disappeared. This leads the two men and woman, who is identified by one of the men as a deaf-mute (and looks a little like Mary Astor), to take control. They tie up "Stuart" and Nora while Ben hides in another room. Ben is then "strangled" by Sheldrake, the "corpse", who'd been hiding in the room. With far too many cuts back and forth between the prone Ben and Sheldrake, who's not sure Ben is really "out", Sheldrake removes the diamonded necklace from the loo (the director's humor was in tact back then;-) but unbeknownst to him, Ben pilfers it from him before he exits.What follows is a really poorly done fight sequence which allows Sheldrake's gang (the two men & the woman) to leave after tying up "Stuart" and Nora. A chase ensues with perhaps the most suspense the film can manage, though it feels somewhat overlong. A crash, a rescue in water, and a couple of not altogether unexpected twists end the film.

Leave it up to me to enjoy a quirky film like this. It's not perfect but it is certainly entertaining. I like this film - a lot. I've seen this film a few years back, forgot about it and finally ran across it in a film pack - very glad they added this one, it's good to see it again.The film is mainly in a "spooky old house" setting with wailing winds, great shadows, strange characters, a murder(?), a stolen necklace, a great chase, humor splashed about and a story that is simple but good. This is not an Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece but it's a fun one.Try to watch this film without taking it seriously - remember it's entertainment and artful in it's way (the cinematography and directing.) 9/10

Before Alfred Hitchcock found his real touch he wasn't making the highest quality films around. He was making mediocre and problem filled films like Number 17, a crime thriller about a group of criminals who rendezvous at a safe house after stealing a very valuable necklace. However, a detective is on their trail, trying to bust them and reclaim the necklace.Now, to be honest, I had to use IMDb for most of that synopsis because it really is difficult to tell exactly what is going on in this film. This films is so disjointed, the plot is so convoluted, and the characters are so poorly constructed that it makes Number 17 difficult and unpleasant to follow. The editing is choppy and all over the place, jumping from one scene to the next without hardly any rhyme or reason. It's simply a mess. Also, I don't usually critique a movie on technical aspects like this, but the sound quality in Number 17 is absolutely dreadful, and it makes it really hard to understand what the characters are saying at times because of the hollow muffled quality of the dialogue.But there's a silver lining to all the disaster in this shoddy film. For one, I can't dock Hitchcock at all for making the film. Apparently, British International Pictures forced him to make this film as a punishment for the financial disaster of his previous film, East of Shanghai. Subsequently, Number 17 was the last film Hitchcock made with BIP, and he considers it one of his worst films, if not his absolute worst. So we have to cut Mr. Hitchcock a little bit of slack here.But the rest of that silver lining comes from a few of the decent moments we find amongst the muck of Number 17. When Hitchcock isn't making a film with a great plot or decent characters, he's still doing something right. Each of his early mediocre films seems to have something interesting in it in the way that Hitchcock directs. There's always some interesting nuance he's experimenting with, and that's what makes watching very early Hitchcock mildly interesting. In the case of Number 17 he is experimenting a lot with lighting and shadows. Some moments work and others don't, but the experimentation is very fascinating if you enjoy watching the evolution of Hitchcock's work.If you're a Hitchcock maniac then by all means, see Number 17 because watching Hitchcock develop as such a masterful director is very interesting. If you don't care much about the Hitchcockian evolution then there's really no reason you would want to watch this film. It's nothing special, and it's not all that great of a film. In fact, it's honestly not even good.

A group of criminals have committed a jewel robbery.They gather in an old house.In that house is also a detective, a man called Ben and a woman called Nora.Number Seventeen (1932) is an Alfred Hitchcock film.It's based on the play by Joseph Jefferson Farjeon.The cast includes Leon M. Lion, who plays Ben.Anne Grey plays Nora.John Stuart is Barton-The Detective.Donald Calthrop is Brant.Ann Casson plays Rose Ackroyd.I found this film on a VHS from the library a little while back.Hitchcock came up with much better than this later in his career.He went on to make some of the biggest classics in movie history.This early work is very mediocre.But the movie is quite funny from time to time.Some of it may be unintentional, though.And the train sequence works.Visually the movie looks good.Just watch those shadows play in the house.Hitchcock himself stated this film being a disaster.But Hitchcock at worst isn't all that bad.