Easy Virtue

Easy Virtue (1928) "Virtue is its own reward" they say - but "easy virtue" is society's reward for a slandered reputation.

Notable cast/crew: Isabel Jeans (as Larita Filton), Robin Irvine (as John Whittaker), Violet Farebrother (as John's Mother) and Ian Hunter (as The Plaintiff's Counsel) all appeared in Downhill.  Eliot Stannard writes the screenplay again.  

Running time: 80 minutes

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Plot: The first act shows the trial of Larita Filton and Claude Robson (now deceased) for infidelity against her husband.  Her testimony is shown via flashback indicating her husband was a drunk with a violent temper.  Her claim is that she did nothing and is the victim of his jealous whims.  Robson was an artist comissioned to paint her portrait, and her husband became suspicious of them having an affair behind his back.  When Robson tries to convince her to leave with him, her husband walks in and assumes the worst.  He is shot by Robson but survives.  Robson shoots himself, and it is stated at trial that he has left all of his possessions to Larita, fueling the jury's skepticism.  They return a verdict of guilty sealing her divorce.  Larita flees to the Riviera to escape the infamy of the trial.

Saints preserve us

She meets and falls in love with John Whittaker.  He proposes to her, knowing almost nothing about her not even who she is.  She accepts and returns with him to his home in England as Mrs John Whittaker.  There, she is introduced to John's family who greet her warmly with the exception of his mother, who had always anticipated John marrying a family friend, Sarah.  Sarah arrives for dinner that night, and John's mother begins to question Larita as to where they may have met before.  She remains suspicious after dinner, questioning John about what he knows about her and what she may be trying to conceal from the family.

Larita encounters her ex-husband's lawyer at a polo match, and, when he turns up at the Whittaker estate, she fears he will reveal who she is.  The family figures it out first after seeing her picture in the newspaper.  Larita was already miserable there as her lifestyle clashed with their country social class, and now they harangue her even more.  Her father-in-law is the only one who thinks her past should be none of the family's business.   Sarah also has sympathy for Larita and John and tries to reconcile them.  Larita decides to make an appearance at that night's party even though she is told not to by his mother.

She decides to let John divorce her because he loves his family more than her, and the strain between her and the family is too much to bear.  She tells Sarah that it should have been her who married John.  The closing scene reprises the first, this time on an uncontested divorce case.  Larita exits the court to a sea of photographers and exclaims, "Shoot!  There's nothing left to kill."

MacGuffin: None

Hitchcock cameo: Walking past a tennis court holding a walking stick (disputed by the British Film Institute)

Hitchcock themes:

• Love triangles
• False Identity
• Stairs
• Wrongfully accused protagonist

Verdict: This is an adaptation of Noel Coward's play of the same name.  It was rushed into filming to take advantage of the play's popularity.  It began filming before Downhill was completed resulting in both films having shoots in the Riviera at the same time.  Half of the cast were in both films.  There are a lot more title cards than Hitchcock normally used, and the result is this feels more like a stereotypical silent film than his other works.

Hitchcock does some visual tricks, as usual.  The opening scene has a shot through the judge's monocle which was done with an oversized monocle held in front of the camera with a mirror for a lens and the actor standing behind the camera.  The man in the foreground of the shot is a double standing in for the actor behind the camera to make it appear we're viewing the court room through the monocle.  Hitchcock opens another scene viewing through the strings of a tennis racket.  The dining room is cavernous and outfitted with floor to ceiling drapes depicting various apostles looming over the family supper without any explanation or reference given.  It's visually arresting, baffling, and becomes more of a distraction in setting an ominous mood than anything.

The film itself is one of Hitchcock's lesser works, and the remaining copies are not in good shape.  It has its moments, but it comes off feeling like something that had the potential to say things about class, morals, and prejudice, but instead feels like melodramatic boilerplate.  The theme of someone wrongly accused and how they react to it will be better developed in Hitchcock's later films.  It was rushed into production, and it shows in the underdeveloped characters and plot.  Ironically, the final quote which provides the most poignant moment of the film was something Hitchcock strongly disliked calling it "the worst title I've ever written."

Out of five bananas, I give it:

Next review: Champagne!